Let's Say You Convince Us That God Exists....

Post by **Belindi** » November 5th, 2019, 1:48 pm

Felix wrote: ↑November 5th, 2019, 12:03 pm
Belindi: The god may be either panentheistic or theistic. If panentheistic the god is unwitting and unintentioned: if theistic the god is witting and intentioned.
I would question whether you can call a system "unintentional" that is constructed to operate in a particular way - I'm thinking of the anthropic principle of cosmology.

We cannot know whether or not we have struck objective gold, or if we are biased towards we winning survivors. A metaphysical theory says more about its supporters than its tenets. My definitions of panentheism and theism show how Newme's theory is a theism, so I submit my explanation as a useful way to frame the status of final cause.

Post by **Sy Borg** » November 5th, 2019, 11:22 pm

Felix wrote: ↑November 5th, 2019, 12:03 pm
Belindi: The god may be either panentheistic or theistic. If panentheistic the god is unwitting and unintentioned: if theistic the god is witting and intentioned.
I would question whether you can call a system "unintentional" that is constructed to operate in a particular way - I'm thinking of the anthropic principle of cosmology.

Better still, let's consider that humans are very far from the optimal, or even final, product of evolution. That is, our nature only suggests the possible directions that life, or post-life, evolves to be.

If life like (or unlike) ourself evolves in a number of places in the universe then, logically, the universe is be becoming more aware than it was before. It has pockets of concentrated awareness. As do cities and, arguably, bodies. That would make God more of a potential of the universe than a current reality, or we could say that the universe or God is currently undeveloped.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » November 6th, 2019, 3:01 am

Belindi: We cannot know whether or not we have struck objective gold, or if we are biased towards we winning survivors.

No bias: "anthropic" can just mean intelligent life, not necessarily human, as Greta suggested.

Post by **Belindi** » November 6th, 2019, 6:28 am

Felix wrote: ↑November 6th, 2019, 3:01 am
Belindi: We cannot know whether or not we have struck objective gold, or if we are biased towards we winning survivors.
No bias: "anthropic" can just mean intelligent life, not necessarily human, as Greta suggested.

Yes and it so happens humans are the ones that are conscious of being conscious, as far as we know.I don't think the universe is conscious of being conscious.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » November 6th, 2019, 5:09 pm

Belindi: Yes and it so happens humans are the ones that are conscious of being conscious, as far as we know.I don't think the universe is conscious of being conscious.

There is good evidence that other forms of intelligent life on earth are too, e.g., dolphins, octopi, and perhaps chimpanzee and elephants. It's difficult to verify.

Repoman05 · Post by **Repoman05** » November 11th, 2019, 7:41 am

You could even say the fact you can't prove one way or the other that God exists and only a God could be able to keep it that way. But I've done an experiment. It had some sort of result. This type of experiment really only ethical if it's repeatable. It would however cause a lot of panic and hysteria. But being that it's pretty well for told and promised by major religions and pretty much on everyone's mind(if not agenda) I think it'd be good measure another test against the baseline first test.

The day the sun shines pink -

The logical conundrum to defeat God and prove its existence against its will. He/she/it/wE (there's no reason to think a God would be trapped by your anthropomorphics (probably a cellphone someone dropped in a bottomless gravity well anyway that had to make a time bubble so it could reach it's control tower. (No one said cellphones were logical...(they're honestly just a tool to kill you from electronic magnetic radiation poisoning)))).

If there is gift of free will not to have to believe there's a god then you must have full control of your own subjective world, the world as you choose to perceive it. If that's true and there is free will, then you should be able to turn the sky pink as you see it.

Lay on your back and look up at the blue sky on a sunny day. Imagine in your mind that it looks slightly like the nearest shade of pink, a slightly hot purple-ish pink. Enforce your belief that you do in fact see the sky as pink, after all, it's unethical to enforce others to chose your subjectivity when it's against your beliefs.

You should already begin to see the sky as pink at this time. It's honestly not hard. Anyone can do it. I've done it many times. You can't keep it pink in your mind for very long as I tend to choose to believe there's a reality my senses are dependent on. But I don't always believe myself. I doubt pretty much everything.

Anyway, one time I'm pretty sure the sun really did shine pink. Maybe for a full 10 seconds. And honestly it really might have. The sun might be a little closer to death than previously predicted. At least, that's what you'll figure if you get it to turn pink. Kinda scary so it has to be done delicately or it's terrorising everyone for no reason except that theists predict that sort of thing...

Depending on your results, you just proved.... Umm... something I guess. At the very least you can test the level you have in your capacity to believe there isn't a God

Hf gl, promise not to panic and cry. Share your results. Not spell checking it.