Free Counselling for Theists!

[Ned Kelly]

Was I talking to you, or Swami, Skunk?

[Sappho]

My argument was not about christianity or any of the Abrahamic god faiths. My argument was about god/s that were not of such scripture.......My original argument claims that for the sake of this discussion I believe in god/s that is/are not described in religious text. My subargument claims that in reality I am unsure about the existance or non existance of these god/s that are not described in religious text. Like Aia, I am presenting you with god/s without theism which, for the sake of argument, I believe in.

Give me a precise definition of the god(s) of which you are unsure about the existence.

I have given you as precise a definition as can ever be given. These gods are not found in religious texts. I do not know their nature. I do not know their purpose. I do not know if they have intervened in human business. But, for the sake of the argument I believe that they exist.

I'll vary that just a bit... obviously something in the nature of gods is their capacity to create. These gods I speak of then, or possibly only one of them, were/was responsible for the creation of the multiverse. But that is not to say that they created the multiverse as we understand it now, rather they gave to the void the physical principles upon which existence relies. These gods are geeks of mathematical proportions.

[Outlaw Yogi]

I have given you as precise a definition as can ever be given. These gods are not found in religious texts. I do not know their nature. I do not know their purpose. I do not know if they have intervened in human business. But, for the sake of the argument I believe that they exist.

Didn't comment because it delves into the realm of superstition, but I thought this may have been about what Hindu pandits and early Buddhists call 'Preta' = "hungry ghost" in sanskrit

I'll vary that just a bit... obviously something in the nature of gods is their capacity to create. These gods I speak of then, or possibly only one of them, were/was responsible for the creation of the multiverse. But that is not to say that they created the multiverse as we understand it now, rather they gave to the void the physical principles upon which existence relies. These gods are geeks of mathematical proportions.

This concept sounds like 'Vishwa' .. a theme where the universe itself is considered/regarded an intelligent entity. Differs from the Christo - ID theory/belief in that it includes/encompasses evolution, as opposed to a design geek for every organism.

[J.W. Frogen]

I believe in God simply because I have experienced it and have no other choice.

I can't prove it, it makes no sense, and yet I know it is true.

Sort of like marriage really.

No sense arguing about it.

[Sappho]

I have given you as precise a definition as can ever be given. These gods are not found in religious texts. I do not know their nature. I do not know their purpose. I do not know if they have intervened in human business. But, for the sake of the argument I believe that they exist.

Didn't comment because it delves into the realm of superstition, but I thought this may have been about what Hindu pandits and early Buddhists call 'Preta' = "hungry ghost" in sanskrit

No. This has nothing to do with Buddhism of Hinduism... both of which have religious texts ascribed to them. And there is absolutely nothing superstitious about my belief either.... I've made no ominous claims.

I'll vary that just a bit... obviously something in the nature of gods is their capacity to create. These gods I speak of then, or possibly only one of them, were/was responsible for the creation of the multiverse. But that is not to say that they created the multiverse as we understand it now, rather they gave to the void the physical principles upon which existence relies. These gods are geeks of mathematical proportions.

This concept sounds like 'Vishwa' .. a theme where the universe itself is considered/regarded an intelligent entity. Differs from the Christo - ID theory/belief in that it includes/encompasses evolution, as opposed to a design geek for every organism.

I have tried to get a definition of Vishwa, but every attempt just refers to Hindu philosophy and the 10 foundation beliefs. And as I've already said, this has nothing to do with things thus far described in religious texts. I haven't made a claim about intelligence either. Mathamatical ability of itself does not identify an intelligent entity necessarily. God/s could be savants for all we know and whilst we acknowledge savants to have extraordinary ability, we don't therefore say they are intelligent.

Another quality that can be inferred from a creation god or gods is that of being outside the constraints of cause and effect since It or they created cause and effect which we know as the physical principles of our multiverse. I cannot however, infer that these same gods are able to exist within the cause and effect created... they may or may not. An analogy: I can create an aquarium, but I cannot then exist within it. I can only watch it from a position outside the aquarium. I am not of the aquarium, I am its creator. (Note: an artificial devise does not allow me to exist within the aquarium. I still have no gills or other means to extract oxygen from that environment. At best, we can say that I can move through the aquarium with the aid of the artificial devise.)

That is an important distinction which is lost to all faiths, which assume without reason that gods can create and then exist within their creation.

[Ned Kelly]

I haven't made a claim about intelligence either.

Umm, yes you have!

[IQS.RLOW]

I haven't made a claim about intelligence either.

Umm, yes you have!

About your lack thereof?

[boxy]

Sappho, what makes you think that a "guiding intelligence" is more rational than the weak anthropic principle?

[boxy]

WAP

"The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

From wiki. Basically, it means, if the universe wasn't ripe to produce intelligent life, capable of observing it, no one would be around to observe it. This means that incompatable universes remain unobserved, and that any being (every being) capable of observing... observes an observer compatable universe.

[TomB]

Sappho, what makes you think that a "guiding intelligence" is more rational than the weak anthropic principle?

I know this is not what you meant but any "guiding intelligence" which got us to this particular point would have to be far from rational!