Existence of God

[therapist]

I'll post a quick addendum;

Multiverses as the set of all possible universes exist
Each universe is different in the arrangement of space and time
In the list of all possible universes there exists a god
that god is omnipotent, omnipotence allows god to operate distinct from time and space
if an omnipotent god exists in any possible universe he exists in all possible universes
god exists

As the creator, would God be part of any universe? Doesn't he have to be the creator of all of it to be God at all? Or have I just invented that definition?

[jrkhnds]

^ depends on the church you're trying to justify.

[Pedro Sánchez]

DSFSNHNSFW will crack this one at about page 50, I'm sure of it. Let's keep pushing Lads.

[flint33]

and an infinite universe
doesn't necessarily contain everything possible

Why is that? What about the monkeys and typewriters?


And to the OP i'd say no. Infinite possibilities of the natural, yes. Supernatural, no.

For me it's a mathematical claim. If something is infinite, this doesn't mean it contains everything possible.
It all depends on how we conceive the universe (space, time, dimensions, etc.) and how we define infinity.
Also, probability and infinity (in dimensions) do not make a good couple imo.

[flint33]

and an infinite universe
doesn't necessarily contain everything possible

Why is that? What about the monkeys and typewriters?


And to the OP i'd say no. Infinite possibilities of the natural, yes. Supernatural, no.

For me it's a mathematical claim. If something (space, group, etc.) is infinite, this doesn't mean it contains everything possible.
It all depends on how we conceive the universe (space, time, dimensions, etc.) and how we define infinity.
Also, probability and infinity (in dimensions) do not make a good couple imo.

sorry for the double post, didn't find the delete button

[TheIntrospectionist]

These arguments don't change much and when any change does seem to occur it is usually the incorporation of an element of today's knowledge used in such a way to help attempts to prove a conclusion that person has already arrived at (working backwards from the conclusion) while retaining the same structure and faults of previous variations. The most annoying forms of argument I've come across are the ones asking "why" and "how do you explain x" until you inevitably reach a point where the proponent will claim victory when you don't have an answer where it is then asserted that 'god did it'. The problem with these arguments is that they seek to prove something through logical syllogism alone, in the absence of any confirming evidence.

Also, In a lot of these arguments god(s) can just be replaced with 'the universe' which is a lot more parsimonious than an omnipotent being that requires an even more challenging explanation than that which it was originally intended to explain. For example, in the uncaused cause argument, where god is brought in to terminate the infinite regress. Claiming that god(s) are immune to the regress is just special pleading. Oh, and while these arguments do tend to be indifferent to specific deities (Zeus, Poseidon etc... Even to the point that god(s) can be substituted with silly things like unicorns or alpaca overlords), it is worth noting that, if these arguments were able to establish something factual, or even verifiable, about the universe in which we live, they would only get you as far as the deist position (a god that, for example, set the constants and doesn't intervene etc.) as opposed to a theist idea of a scriptural-based big eye in the sky that watches your every thought and cares deeply about who you have sex with, what you eat and on what day etc. etc.

A near-impossible succession of coincidences gave birth to the universe, planet earth, life and mankind. Some people like to call it god, others like to call it chance. Matter of opinion IMO. (this is my view on the subject because it's simple enough for me and I can't be hassled to think on a question nobody's ever gonna be able to answer anyway.)

I see a lot I can agree with in this post. People are free to take our current knowledge of the universe and interpret it in any way they wish, whether it is to prove their deity(s) or whatever. I only take issue when facts/evidence are denied/distorted and when that person is intent on convincing me of their worldview then they better have some compelling evidence. I do find such discussions interesting as I am interested in the psychology of belief (what people believe, how these beliefs are formed and the consequences of beliefs) but I completely lose interest when such discussions turn in to some kind of game to establish intellectual superiority of one over the other. If anything, what someone believes tells me more about their socio-cultural background than their intelligence (Apologies for the shitload of edits but I keep adding stuff ..Not all of which is entirely relevant to your post lol).

Infinite possibilities of the natural, yes. Supernatural, no.

Very nice way of putting it!

[scspkr99]

Yeah exactly. They're clever in the way they're mindgames. Like the one you posted earlier, it flings unrelated concepts around that confuse the reader, followed by an absolute claim of God that completely throws the reader off while they're still trying to process the idea of a multiverse.

The point seems to be that, because you can't piece together logically what's being said, you don't understand the logic behind it and therefore you're wrong.

It's a trick often used by those really clever Youtube philosophers/debaters.

This is it, the attempt to presuppose whatever premise it is that is a determining factor just makes it a word game. I'm surprised how seriously these kinds of apologetic arguments are taken and the ontological argument has been discussed for about 1000 years though there are some pretty good refutations.

Ultimately the world doesn't change because of our ability to draw maps of it, it is what it is and we either draw a map that corresponds to how it is or how we think it is and we may not ever know how close we are. I'm one of the few round here that believes in God but I think God is epistemically inaccessible so rather than debating it I tend to park it. It does mean I can't call God to assert anything like morals though because if Gods inaccessible then so is it's morality and we kinda have to work it out for ourselves

[BonerJams04]

i hope gods real
just dying and havin it be over would be pretty shit imo

[Pedro Sánchez]

i hope gods real
just dying and havin it be over would be pretty shit imo

They play Dubstep in Purgatory.

[m8son666]

i hope gods real
just dying and havin it be over would be pretty shit imo

not really imagine ending up in heaven, it would be like being in church for eternity

i welcome the end

[ehbes]

i hope gods real
just dying and havin it be over would be pretty shit imo

not really imagine ending up in heaven, it would be like being in church for eternity

i welcome the end

What if heaven is like the ending of "This is the End" and everyone is having a huge party and smoking blunts with the most high Jesus Christ

[Pada]

If the universe if infinite, then God must exist. If there are infinite possibilities of things then one of those possibilities involves the existence of God.

It's not that simple, is it?

Just because something is infinite doesn't mean there are infinite possibilities.

0.111111... Is infinite, but does not include 0.2

[Jizz]

i think there is a God, but its not a person

[m8son666]

Just because something is infinite doesn't mean there are infinite possibilities.

yes it does, if the world is infinite then everything that can happen will happen

as an extention of that point, only things that can happen will happen so there won't be a god

[Pedro Sánchez]

God just spoke to me, he said you are all wrong.

[Genevieve]

Yeah exactly. They're clever in the way they're mindgames. Like the one you posted earlier, it flings unrelated concepts around that confuse the reader, followed by an absolute claim of God that completely throws the reader off while they're still trying to process the idea of a multiverse.

The point seems to be that, because you can't piece together logically what's being said, you don't understand the logic behind it and therefore you're wrong.

It's a trick often used by those really clever Youtube philosophers/debaters.

This is it, the attempt to presuppose whatever premise it is that is a determining factor just makes it a word game. I'm surprised how seriously these kinds of apologetic arguments are taken and the ontological argument has been discussed for about 1000 years though there are some pretty good refutations.

Ultimately the world doesn't change because of our ability to draw maps of it, it is what it is and we either draw a map that corresponds to how it is or how we think it is and we may not ever know how close we are. I'm one of the few round here that believes in God but I think God is epistemically inaccessible so rather than debating it I tend to park it. It does mean I can't call God to assert anything like morals though because if Gods inaccessible then so is it's morality and we kinda have to work it out for ourselves

I think I'm basically the mirror image of you in that while I don't believe in God, I believe rational or logical debate on it is entirely pointless since God per definition is supernatural. If it is supernatural it lies beyond our perception and if it lies beyond our perception, it only exists as concepts we can't comprehend (and may not even directly affect us). So this is why I'm apathetic to the whole issue, since it's a pragmatic issue of 'I don't believe it affects me, so I don't care. And I have no issues with people who do believe in it. Just when they try to pose their belief as a logical or a rational claim. And I don't mean that in a negative way. Logic and rationality are tools like any other, they have their purpose, but they're still flawed. And one of their flaws is that they're still deeply rooted in our perception and capabilities that are limited by nature.

I think my issue with trying to debate God with logic is just using the wrong tools for the job and the clusterfuck of miscommunication that follows from it.

[Dub_freak]

[Muncey]

Lol I think its a pretty clever way of getting back at people who argue they believe in logic, laws of physics ect ect, so therefore no God.

Infinity is a subject thats hard for most people to get their heads around, especially dumb Atheists who watch a couple Ricky Gervais speeches and spout they believe in science hence no God. Its pretty similar in a way, its almost impossible to prove or disprove its existence and both concepts in modern society are just taken as given (maybe not God nowadays but there was certainly a point in time where it was).

[m8son666]

you got a source saying its not infinite?

a real source

[Pedro Sánchez]

you got a source saying its not infinite?

a real source

God told him.