The God of the Universe ...

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1257275#p1257275)

The God of the Universe, if in fact there is one, must be pragmatic, in every single last detail or, this is what the Universe leads us to conclude. Perhaps this is why it's such a mystery, and we can't see Him, because His works are so practical and, "stand alone?" And yet, aren't these the very same attributes we would apply to the "Good Programmer?"

[Mojo]

Perhaps this is why it's such a mystery, and we can't see Him, because His works are so practical and, "stand alone?" Or perhaps we can't see Him because He doesn't exist.

[Iacchus]

Hey, did you know that Stephen Hawking was a Pantheist? (http://www.pantheism.net/)

Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

Larry King Live, December 25, 1999

[Upchurch]

Hey, did you know that Stephen Hawking was a Pantheist? (http://www.pantheism.net/)What of it? It doesn't mean he believes in God as you seem to use the term.

[Iacchus]

What of it? It doesn't mean he believes in God as you seem to use the term.What, regarding the original post or, what I have said elsewhere? Indeed, I think Stephen Hawking would have to agree with me, that the God of the Universe -- i.e., if there is one -- would have to be very pragmatic.

[Upchurch]

What, regarding the original post or, what I have said elsewhere? Indeed, I think Stephen Hawking would have to agree with me, that the God of the Universe -- i.e., if there is one -- would have to be very pragmatic."Being pragmatic" is an anthropomorphic term. I very much doubt that Stephen Hawking would view the laws of the universe as anthropomorphic.

[Hardenbergh]

This is an interesting article, Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God by Dr. Fritz Schaefer III, Professor of Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia. It also notes that Stephen Hawking's wife, Jane, is a Christian.

The most important event of his life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party. One month later, he was diagnosed with a terrible disease, ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He was given two years to live at that time. That was 32 years ago. I have had three friends die of this disease. It's a horrible disease. They lasted two, three, and five years, respectively. By anyone's estimation, Stephen Hawking is a medical miracle.

At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. Let me quote from his biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point:

There is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning-point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.
They married in July of 1965. Hawking himself has said that "what really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde. This gave me something to live for."

Jane Hawking is an interesting person in her own right. I think she decided early on to get into an academic discipline as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval Portuguese Literature!

Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;" namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. "I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/hawking/schaefer.html

An article, Stephen Hawking and the Mind of God by Antony Flew:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/hawking.html

[HeyLeroy]

What, regarding the original post or, what I have said elsewhere? Indeed, I think Stephen Hawking would have to agree with me, that the God of the Universe -- i.e., if there is one -- would have to be very pragmatic.

Did you even read the site to which you linked?


Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural beings, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of reverence than the beauty of nature or the power of the universe?

This was RIGHT THERE on the first page!!!!

[HeyLeroy]

Oh, man, I can't believe I let myself get sucked in!

[kmortis]

Oh, man, I can't believe I let myself get sucked in!

I was just gonna call you on that. How does it feel, eh? Look at it this way, you're in good company.

[HeyLeroy]

I was just gonna call you on that. How does it feel, eh? Look at it this way, you're in good company.


I can just imagine who the "some people" in your sig are!

[Iacchus]

"Being pragmatic" is an anthropomorphic term. I very much doubt that Stephen Hawking would view the laws of the universe as anthropomorphic.And by pragmatic, don't we essentially mean what is logical and practical? Maybe I've chosen the wrong use of words here? Anyway, I'm essentially in agreement with Hawking regarding the notion of God being the embodiment of the laws of the Universe ... if, in fact that's what he meant.

[Iamme]

Or perhaps we can't see Him because He doesn't exist.

Or perhaps I don't see you because YOU don't exist. :)

[Tricky]

Or perhaps I don't see you because YOU don't exist. :)
Oh, there's lots of evidence for Mojo. He posts regularly and responds to questions and comments in a meaningful way. He can describe events that have happened and even his current situation. He has a reasonably consistant personality and morality. He can tell a joke.

These characteristics are not attributable to any concept of God that I have ever seen. (except for perhaps Loki, who loves jokes, but then he's just A god not The God.)

By the way, Iamme, it is unlikely that JFK is the originator of your sig quote. It seems to be widely attributed on the web.

[Robin]

And yet, aren't these the very same attributes we would apply to the "Good Programmer?"
Let me see -

1. blames everything on the user
2. Insists that all problems will be set right in the next release (which never seems to eventuate).

Yep, those are the attributes of a programmer alright.

Attributes of a good programmer? Well perhaps not.

[Tricky]

Let me see -

1. blames everything on the user
2. Insists that all problems will be set right in the next release (which never seems to eventuate).

Yep, those are the attributes of a programmer alright.

Attributes of a good programmer? Well perhaps not.
LOL! :thumbsup:
How about
3. Writes in a code that no-one but himself understands.
4. His only relationship with the opposite sex is "virtual"
5. Wants his programs to be used, but apparently doesn't care how they are used.

[Iacchus]

Let me see -

1. blames everything on the user
2. Insists that all problems will be set right in the next release (which never seems to eventuate).

Yep, those are the attributes of a programmer alright.

Attributes of a good programmer? Well perhaps not.So, what would you cite as the difference between a good programmer and a bad programmer? Are you suggesting the two are one and the same? Or, maybe you actually have a point there, I don't know? :confused:

[kmortis]

So, what would you cite as the difference between a good programmer and a bad programmer? Are you suggesting the two are one and the same? Or, maybe you actually have a point there, I don't know? :confused:

I dunno, it seems that the point is quite clear. A "good" programmer wouldn't do those things; a bad one would.

[Iacchus]

I dunno, it seems that the point is quite clear. A "good" programmer wouldn't do those things; a bad one would.You can't have your cake and eat it, at least in this world. Which, may be the point. Why would He design something temporal, and subject to decay?

[Robin]

You can't have your cake and eat it, at least in this world. Which, may be the point.
Sounds like something a bad programmer might say.

[kmortis]

You can't have your cake and eat it, at least in this world. Which, may be the point. Why would He design something temporal, and subject to decay?

But if you wre going to TRY, I'd reccommend this cake (http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article.php?id=87).

[3point14]

I'm not sure what the OP is trying to say, so forgive me if I have this wrong.


If god exists, he must be pragmatic because the universe is subject to natural, logical laws.

Therefore god exists.

Is that the argument? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[alfaniner]

Which Universe?

[Iacchus]

I'm not sure what the OP is trying to say, so forgive me if I have this wrong.

If god exists, he must be pragmatic because the universe is subject to natural, logical laws.

Therefore god exists ...

Is that the argument? Please correct me if I'm wrong.Actually it probably be more like this ...

God exists ...

If god exists, he must be pragmatic because the universe is subject to natural, logical laws.

Therefore god exists.In other words, I'm saying what would God be like, contingent upon the Universe as we know it? So if He does exist, maybe it would be easier to ascertain. I'm trying to argue from the position that He already does exist.

[3point14]

2 points.

1 - that argument is self evidently circular.

2- the god depicted in christianity, and a great deal of other holy literature simply does not reconcile in any way with the natural laws as we understand them. By his (her, it's?) very nature he exists outside of natural laws.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I think it's a futile argument.

Then again, I'm not very clever, so....

[Iacchus]

2 points.

1 - that argument is self evidently circular.

2- the god depicted in christianity, and a great deal of other holy literature simply does not reconcile in any way with the natural laws as we understand them. By his (her, it's?) very nature he exists outside of natural laws.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I think it's a futile argument.

Then again, I'm not very clever, so....Times change, people change ... but, does God change? Well, He does in the way people look at Him. But, that's only evidence that people change.

[kmortis]

Times change, people change ... but, does God change? Well, He does in the way people look at Him. But, that's only evidence that people change.

Circle
by Harry Chapin

All my life's a circle;
Sunrise and sundown;
Moon rolls thru the nighttime;
Till the daybreak comes around.

All my life's a circle;
But I can't tell you why;
Season's spinning round again;
The years keep rollin' by.

It seems like I've been here before;
I can't remember when;
But I have this funny feeling;
That we'll all be together again.

No straight lines make up my life;
And all my roads have bends;
There's no clear-cut beginnings;
And so far no dead-ends.

Chorus:
I found you a thousand times;
I guess you done the same;
But then we lose each other;
It's like a children's game;

As I find you here again;
A thought runs through my mind;
Our love is like a circle;
Let's go 'round one more time.

Chorus

[Iacchus]

So, is there anything about existence which is not circular? ... Or, contained within the whole of existence itself? So, you can dichotomize all like ...

[Cosmo]

God exists ...

If god exists, he must be pragmatic because the universe is subject to natural, logical laws.

Therefore god exists.

http://www.mathleague.com/help/geometry/IMG00087.gif

[Iacchus]

So, you can dichotomize all like ...... you're still going to wind up back in the same place. ;)

[3point14]

Times change, people change ... but, does God change? Well, He does in the way people look at Him. But, that's only evidence that people change.

Okay, me being thick again, but to my tiny mind, this means absolutely nothing. I mean, really nonsensical and in no way a reply to my post. Could you expand at all on the above?

[kmortis]

... you're still going to wind up back in the same place. ;)

Cat's in the Cradle
by Sandy & Harry Chapin

My child arrived just the other day,
He came to the world in the usual way.
But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.
He learned to walk while I was away.
And he was talking 'fore I knew it, and as he grew,
He'd say, "I'm gonna be like you, dad.
You know I'm gonna be like you."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

My son turned ten just the other day.
He said, "Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play.
Can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,
I got a lot to do." He said, "That's ok."
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmmed,
Said, "I'm gonna be like him, yeah.
You know I'm gonna be like him."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

Well, he came from college just the other day,
So much like a man I just had to say,
"Son, I'm proud of you. Can you sit for a while?"
He shook his head, and he said with a smile,
"What I'd really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.
See you later. Can I have them please?"

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."

I've long since retired and my son's moved away.
I called him up just the other day.
I said, "I'd like to see you if you don't mind."
He said, "I'd love to, dad, if I could find the time.
You see, my new job's a hassle, and the kid's got the flu,
But it's sure nice talking to you, dad.
It's been sure nice talking to you."
And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,
He'd grown up just like me.
My boy was just like me.

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."

[Iacchus]

Okay, me being thick again, but to my tiny mind, this means absolutely nothing. I mean, really nonsensical and in no way a reply to my post. Could you expand at all on the above?And just because our perception changes, does that mean God changes, necessarily? Why should it ... unless of course it were all in our minds?

[kmortis]

And just because our perception changes, does that mean God changes, necessarily? Why should it ... unless of course it were all in our minds?

Are you asking if I/we think that a change in perception = cahnge in God? And if so, that that change is in our minds?

Question 1: No, since the existance of God(s) is an unknown quantity, it is impossible to determine if the former has any effect on the later.

Question 2: Well, by default, the change would have to be in our mind. If our perception changes, that can only be due to a change, either willfull or not, in our mind.

[Iacchus]

Well, yes, basically these are the two options we have to work with. Neither of which, in my opinion, are invalid. Meaning, it would be wrong to stress the one option (default) without any consideration for the other. Anyway, if the rules which govern existence have always existed, then it only makes sense that its Creator work in accord with these rules as well. In which case the Universe as it stands, should be indicative of the Creator, not the other way around.

[kmortis]

Well, yes, basically these are the two options we have to work with. Neither of which, in my opinion, are invalid. However, I think it would be wrong to stress the one option (default) without seriously examining the possibility of the other.


{deep breath}

I assume that the options you refer to are God(s) exists/God(s) do(es)n't exist?

I don't think anyone here would have a problem investigaitng any evidence you might have concerning God's existance...with two caveats:
1) You haven't produces any evidence contrary to REPEATED requests to do so. You have, however, managed to obfuscate, confuze, derail and otherwise avoid all attempts to get this information.
2) Those of us who HAVE taken the time to research the concept of the existance of a deity (in whatever form) have found that field bereft of evidence. Plenty of hyposethesises, anecdotes, stories, fairey tales, myths, legends and out right lies, but no evidence. Nothing that conclusively points to a God, Goddess, creator or the plurals of those words.

So to say that the "God(s) exist" position hasn't been explored is false. It has been. To death.

[Iacchus]

If God exists, then He has to be consistent and pragmatic, regardless of any representation of Him in the past.

[kmortis]

If God exists, then He has to be consistent and pragmatic, regardless of how he may have been representated of Him in the past.

No. Exsitance and pragmatism are not necessarily interconnected. Nor is consistancy. THere have been plenty of cultures that have defined their gods to be caprecious, fallable, and otherwise human-like. The idea of a "perfect" god is a fairly modern invention, something in the last 2000 years or so. ;)

[Iacchus]

No. Exsitance and pragmatism are not necessarily interconnected. Nor is consistancy. THere have been plenty of cultures that have defined their gods to be caprecious, fallable, and otherwise human-like. The idea of a "perfect" god is a fairly modern invention, something in the last 2000 years or so. ;)And by pragmatism, I mean everything exists from the standpoint of being "workable." Which, in effect is what "natural selection" means to me. That things do evolve -- much in the way religion has evolved actually -- because they are workable.

[kmortis]

And by pragmatism, I mean everything exists from the standpoint of being "workable." Which, in effect is what "natural selection" means to me. That things do evolve -- much in the way religion has evolved actually -- because they are workable.

Ok...but natural selection doen't REQUIRE a deity to run it. There may or may not be one watching the process, we don't know. Do you see how this is the case?

[Iacchus]

Ok...but natural selection doen't REQUIRE a deity to run it. There may or may not be one watching the process, we don't know. Do you see how this is the case?No, this is merely the default position you are stating here. Whereas to the degree that you stress it, you're saying God does not exist which, in fact you do not know. To me, it sounds like you've become entrenched in your views, and don't really want to know.

[.13.]

If God exists, then He has to be consistent and pragmatic, regardless of any representation of Him in the past.

Has to? I thought the deities worked more or less in mysterious ways. Or is that only when it suits your arguments?

[Iacchus]

Has to? I thought the deities worked more or less in mysterious ways. Or is that only when it suits your arguments?Of course it looks like all I would be doing here is reiterating what I said in the original post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47044).

[.13.]

Of course it looks like all I would be doing here is reiterating what I said in the original post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47044).

Which brings us back to my point. If your deity is so mysterious, how can you then assign attributes to it with great certainty?

Edit:
Or even with any certainty at all?

[Iacchus]

Which brings us back to my point. If your deity is so mysterious, how can you then assign attributes to it with great certainty?

Edit:
Or even with any certainty at all?Simply because we exist, and the rules that govern our existence are consistent. Of this much I am quite sure.

[.13.]

Simply because we exist, and the rules that govern our existence are consistent. Of this much I am quite sure.

You are not answering my question though. Physical world that we live by has nothing to do with your deity. You are just assigning properties to what is supposed to be mysterious and able to exist outside our natural laws. Once again: How can you do that with any kind of certainty?

[kmortis]

No, this is merely the default position you are stating here. Whereas to the degree that you stress it, you're saying God does not exist which, in fact you do not know. To me, it sounds like you've become entrenched in your views, and don't really want to know.

No. A deity is not REQUIRED. Kind of like the appendix? You don't need it. Really.

Arguments can be made to weather or not a deity exists, but one is simply not required to operate natural selection.

I've been on the "God is necesary side" too. I am quite capable of changing my mind once EVIDENCE is provided. This same evidence that we've been requesting from you for weeks now. This same evidence that you've been refusing to provide for weeks now. So, your attack about being entrenched is a tad telling.

[Iacchus]

You are not answering my question though. Physical world that we live by has nothing to do with your deity. You are just assigning properties to what is supposed to be mysterious and able to exist outside our natural laws. Once again: How can you do that with any kind of certainty?And if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

[uruk]

And if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound? And if there's nobody around to hear it means that nobody knocked the tree down. It fell by itself.

[kmortis]

And if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

And he dodges again....

[Belz...]

These characteristics are not attributable to any concept of God that I have ever seen. (except for perhaps Loki, who loves jokes, but then he's just A god not The God.)

You see ? This is exactly the sort of discrimination that monotheists do. Please be more respectful of the old gods. Loki is a very sensitive (and, might I say, crazy) deity.

[Belz...]

You can't have your cake and eat it, at least in this world. Which, may be the point. Why would He design something temporal, and subject to decay?

Because you ARE temporal, and subject to decay, and know nothing else ? Humm... maybe God's not so divine after all, eh ?

[Belz...]

So, is there anything about existence which is not circular? ... Or, contained within the whole of existence itself? So, you can dichotomize all like ...

That's not the point. You argument is circular. You assume your conclusion as a premise! You can "prove" anything, that way.

[Mojo]

If God exists, then He has to be consistent and pragmatic Have I got this right? What you're saying here is that because the universe appears to work without apparent intervention from "God," He must be pragmatic and consistent?

i.e. You're trying to get around the absence of any evidence for God's existence by claiming that God exists, but He doesn't actually do anything?

[Iacchus]

And if there's nobody around to hear it means that nobody knocked the tree down. It fell by itself.Sure it would make a sound, otherwise it would go against the laws of physics.

[Iacchus]

Have I got this right? What you're saying here is that because the universe appears to work without apparent intervention from "God," He must be pragmatic and consistent?Yes. Otherwise without some standard of consistency, how do we go about defining anything? It would be impossible.

e. You're trying to get around the absence of any evidence for God's existence by claiming that God exists, but He doesn't actually do anything?Again, if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

[kmortis]

Yes. Otherwise without some standard of consistency, how do we go about defining anything? It would be impossible.

Again, if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

:blink: :blink: :blink:

So...because we have no evidence of a god, there must be a god, cause else how would everything run so smoothly? Is THAT your argument?

Can we shut down the forum again and see if it makes any sense when we get back?

[Belz...]

No, this is merely the default position you are stating here. Whereas to the degree that you stress it, you're saying God does not exist which, in fact you do not know. To me, it sounds like you've become entrenched in your views, and don't really want to know.

Funny that you would say this, Iacchus.

[Belz...]

And if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

It would displace air. If by sound you mean, the interpretation of that air movement, then no.

How does that relate to anything, here ?

[Belz...]

Yes. Otherwise without some standard of consistency, how do we go about defining anything? It would be impossible.

So... if there were evidence for God, that would show that god exists... and if there isn't any... then it shows that god exists ?

Again, if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

Yes it would. How does tha relate to GOD ?

[uruk]

Yes. Otherwise without some standard of consistency, how do we go about defining anything? It would be impossible.

Now you know why your arguments make no sense.

[Iacchus]

Now you know why your arguments make no sense.Am merely asking, who or "what" sets the standards? If you have no reply, then I can only assume you believe the whole Universe came about randomly or, by chance.

[Iacchus]

Yes it would. How does tha relate to GOD ?If God was responsible for creating the Universe, and we didn't know it, does that change anything?

[Belz...]

If God was responsible for creating the Universe, and we didn't know it, does that change anything?

Nothing, and you'd be right. However, if the universe exists and there are no processes for which God would be required, and no evidence of God exists, then aren't we justified in assuming that God doesn't exist until further evidence is presented ?

[Iacchus]

Nothing, and you'd be right. However, if the universe exists and there are no processes for which God would be required, and no evidence of God exists, then aren't we justified in assuming that God doesn't exist until further evidence is presented ?Yes, it would be wrong to presuppose that God exists ... unless you had some means by which to ascertain this was so. That does not necessarily make it wrong to look at it in the hypothetical sense, however.

[Belz...]

Yes, it would be wrong to presuppose that God exists ... unless you had some means by which to ascertain this was so.

Be my guest. Please provide.

[Iacchus]

Be my guest. Please provide.I doubt that I can tell you anything that you don't already know. That isn't to say it's unanswerable, however.

[Belz...]

I doubt that I can tell you anything that you don't already know.

Oh, no. I insist.

[Iacchus]

Oh, no. I insist.Well, in case you haven't already noticed ...

[Belz...]

Well, in case you haven't already noticed ...

Listen, man. You agreed that, without evidence, you cannot assume that God exists. I'm waiting for that evidence. Personnal feelings and experience is not evidence. We need something that we can objectively agree on.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What, regarding the original post or, what I have said elsewhere? Indeed, I think Stephen Hawking would have to agree with me, that the God of the Universe -- i.e., if there is one -- would have to be very pragmatic.

Oh, no. By any means.