Is God a good bowler?

[Blayz]

Curiosity is a rational trait, and I would presume God to be rational (as any intelligent being with complete or substantially complete information would be)

"You presume"

And since God would have preceded time (which is a function of the Universe)

Time is only a function of the Universe as it is today, and we know that time is a function of gravity. if we move backwards towards the big bang mass would lave been packed into a smaller volume and thus "time" would have been slower. At or before the big bang time is a meaningless concept. The universe itself would have existed outside of time and as such has no requirement for a creator.

I'm rambling a bit because this aspect of physics/philosophy is not my strong point, but you might be interested in this paper, which gives philosophical proof for an uncaused universe

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

As to the human purpose served, what human purpose is served by knowing how black holes work? We can't make them or harness their energy for anything.... but we strive to know what's out there.... if a God exists, it is something that's "out there"; and if it's a rational being, as is the pandeistic conception of God, then we should eventually be able to discern either its actual existence, or at least the probability of it.

Again, you are ascribing to this God human qualities. Personally, I think it is possible that our sense of curiosity and need to know arises from the knowledge of our own mortality. We seek to understand black holes for the same reason people risk life and limb to climb tall mountains.

 

[PacificPandeist]

"You presume"

I am as entitled to this presumption as you are to presume that mathematical models of the Universe can be validly projected -- we live in a Universe that appears to be organized rationally rather than randomly; if this Universe has a creator, this creator must be at least some part rational....

 

[GettinInTune]

I am as entitled to this presumption as you are to presume that mathematical models of the Universe can be validly projected -- we live in a Universe that appears to be organized rationally rather than randomly; if this Universe has a creator, this creator must be at least some part rational....

My difficulty is seeing how an apparent rational organized universe necessitates a God.

 

[Phred]

You're assuming that because the strike was made someone must have rolled the ball.

 

[Blayz]

I am as entitled to this presumption as you are to presume that mathematical models of the Universe can be validly projected -- we live in a Universe that appears to be organized rationally rather than randomly; if this Universe has a creator, this creator must be at least some part rational....

Have you read "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathon Hoag" ?

A full plot summary can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unpleasant_Profession_of_Jonathan_Hoag

I think I prefer the Xian God

 

[PacificPandeist]

It may not necessitate a God, but it necessitates an explanation -- and a God ("God" being shorthand for an intelligent entity which sets forth a design) is an explanation....

But why is it that my analogies designed to challenge creationists always draw atheists?

 

[PacificPandeist]

Have you read "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathon Hoag" ?

A full plot summary can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unpleasant_Profession_of_Jonathan_Hoag

I think I prefer the Xian God

Of course, Heinlein dabbled in Pandeism as well (not as a believer, but as a theorist).... Thou Art God, eh?

 

[Phred]

It may not necessitate a God, but it necessitates an explanation -- and a God ("God" being shorthand for an intelligent entity which sets forth a design) is an explanation....

But why is it that my analogies designed to challenge creationists always draw atheists?

We like to chat.

It's a very good analogy by the way.

 

[GettinInTune]

It may not necessitate a God, but it necessitates an explanation -- and a God ("God" being shorthand for an intelligent entity which sets forth a design) is an explanation....

Why can't the explanation be "I don't know yet, but lets find out?"

But why is it that my analogies designed to challenge creationists always draw atheists?

That is a good question. Looking back on this thread not even a theist jumped into the debate. My nascent opinion is that we have to talk to creationists in a language that they can understand.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Why can't the explanation be "I don't know yet, but lets find out?"

That is a good question. Looking back on this thread not even a theist jumped into the debate. May nascent opinion is that we have to talk to creationists in a language that they can understand.

I posit a hypothesis.... that we don't know doesn't mean we can't hypothesize....

And I guess maybe the theists don't dig bowling?

 

[Blayz]

I posit a hypothesis.... that we don't know doesn't mean we can't hypothesize....

Excellent. What is your hypothesis, exactly, and please lay out some experiment or test that could falsify it or provide supporting evidence, which is of course part of the definition of hypothesis.

 

[PacificPandeist]

If, at the end of the Universe, it does not return to being God, I will have been proven wrong.

 

[Blayz]

If, at the end of the Universe, it does not return to being God, I will have been proven wrong.

Very interesting, could you elaborate further on why the Universe has to have an end?

 

[PacificPandeist]

Very interesting, could you elaborate further on why the Universe has to have an end?

As a practical matter, most of our cosmologies suggest the Universe will have an "end" either in heat death, a big freeze, or a big crunch.... what goes up....

 

[Blayz]

As a practical matter, most of our cosmologies suggest the Universe will have an "end" either in heat death, a big freeze, or a big crunch.... what goes up....

So your curious god who set up creation as some kind of knowledge learning exercise built a time limit into the experiment even though he had no idea how long the experiment would take.

Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

 

[PacificPandeist]

So your curious god who set up creation as some kind of knowledge learning exercise built a time limit into the experiment even though he had no idea how long the experiment would take.

Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

"No idea how long the experiment would take" is fallacious logic -- if the Universe is designed, and is serving the purpose of that design, then clearly it was designed to last for billions of years (unless you ask Young Earth Creationists who think God is a deceiver or allows us to be deceived).... any rational scientist conducting an experiment will allocate a sufficient amount of time to optimize the success of the experiment, and in fact the Universe has taken 13.5 billion years to produce us, simply by following a few rules in existence from its outset.... and who knows how long it will take for us to reach the next stages in our evolution?

There's billions of years more unfolding before us, but a likely end in a few billion more after that.... if the Universe is designed to permit complexity, I'd say the design pegged that outcome right on the mark!!

 

[Blayz]

any rational scientist conducting an experiment will allocate a sufficient amount of time to optimize the success of the experiment

Well, more correctly, any rational scientist conducting an experiment will only conduct experiments that he has the time and resources to perform. There are plenty of open-ended experiments we would like to perform, those for which time is an unknown, but which we do not have the resources for.

and who knows how long it will take for us to reach the next stages in our evolution?

Not me, and as I understand your view point, not your God either...which is basically my point.

If the Universe is designed to permit complexity, I'd say the design pegged that outcome right on the mark!!

"if"? don't you mean "since"? isn't that your fundamental premise?

Really? is that because you cannot conceive of anything more complex than what now exists?

I say again you are acribing far too many human qualities to this uncaring god.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Well, more correctly, any rational scientist conducting an experiment will only conduct experiments that he has the time and resources to perform. There are plenty of open-ended experiments we would like to perform, those for which time is an unknown, but which we do not have the resources for.




Not me, and as I understand your view point, not your God either...which is basically my point.



"if"? don't you mean "since"? isn't that your fundamental premise?

Really? is that because you cannot conceive of anything more complex than what now exists?

I say again you are acribing far too many human qualities to this uncaring god.

Apparently this God understood how long our evolution would take well enough to design a Universe that would last more than long enough for us to be having this conversation!! And more complexity is certain to arise, now that we have evolved to the point where we are able to create our own forms of complexity -- which was likely part of the plan!!

And this God may be uncaring in the sense of having a preference as to human behavior -- remember the point of the experiment, to complete an incomplete knowledge by experiencing limitation.... we are certainly doing enough of that.... but if that's the point of our existence I'd venture that the creator "cares" about the success of the effort!!

 

[TheOutsider]

I like your analogy, but if it is true then God is not omniscient. The Creationists aren't going to like that.

 

[Blayz]

Apparently this God understood how long our evolution would take well enough to design a Universe that would last more than long enough for us to be having this conversation!! And more complexity is certain to arise, now that we have evolved to the point where we are able to create our own forms of complexity -- which was likely part of the plan!!

And this God may be uncaring in the sense of having a preference as to human behavior -- remember the point of the experiment, to complete an incomplete knowledge by experiencing limitation.... we are certainly doing enough of that.... but if that's the point of our existence I'd venture that the creator "cares" about the success of the effort!!

Are yo basically saying the Universe is someone's ant farm, and we are the ants in it?

I had an ant farm once.

Thanks for the rep, btw. I look all credible now