Converted to Scientology
Ha, okay, that's a misleading title, but hear me out.
An atheist friend and I were talking about God and we thought we'd try to approach the topic as logically and rationally as possible, throwing out our pre-conceived notions of what God is, in order to see if we could come up with concept of God that could fulfill out criteria. This is what we came up with:
We made the assumption that whatever God is he must be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
After some thinking, we felt that the traditional personification of God was what makes defining God so difficult. Humans naturally try to personify God to help us understand, we need something corporeal so that we can relate to it, but we felt this was misguided. So instead of viewing God as some souped up immortal version of Dumbledore, we defined God simply as all of the physical laws of the universe. In essence, instead of viewing what some would view as the powers of God as a separate entity, we argue that that is God itself. When so defined, even my atheist friend seemed to find it hard to find fault with that concept.
If so defined, then we can agree that God created the universe (because the laws of physics determined the big bang, which lead to the earth, and evolution etc).
God is all knowing because he is all of the laws of the physical universe. If knowledge is the unveiling of what actually is and the laws that actually determine how the universe functions, then God has all knowledge because God IS all knowledge.
God is everywhere, because the laws of the universe exist everywhere and cannot possibly not exist in some time and place.
And God is all powerful as everything that happens in the universe, from a leaf falling, to the orbit of the planets is determined by the laws of the natural universe - God.
In essence, we suggest that God is science. Just my 2 cents. I'd love to hear from you, particularly if you don't believe in God.
What do you think?
I think you should watch Neil Degrasse Tyson's bit on the universe being god...
And this conclusion does what for you exactly?
Nothing, just interesting to think about. I'm mostly interested in seeing whether atheists buy into the argument or not really.
Being an atheist, my question would simply be... okay, so we've defined "god" as literally being the laws of nature... cool, so what? If for some reason we need to find something out there to point to and label as "god," then you're really just creating another religion. 99.999% of people, atheist or not, have a compulsive need to acknowledge a higher power. That higher power could be the laws of nature or whatever and people try to deify them, but really they're easily explained things that just are the way they are. You don't have to marvel at them any more than you marvel at the fact that after you take a dump the bathroom smells like shit. It just happens and you move on with your day. So I don't see the point, and there's no argument made, it's just "assuming a spade is a spade, do you agree with me that a spade is a spade?"
It's turtles all the way down...
I'm an agnostic and tend to lean heavily towards the, admittedly vague, idea that underlying information and concepts that give rise to everything is God. i.e.) the laws of nature and what not. In some sense, I guess I'm a pantheist / pandeist.
OP - if you're interested, you should read up on Digital Physics and John Wheeler's idea of "it from bit."
Anyway, thinking of this sort of shit is way more interesting than bronze age warrior gods who demand your first born.
If God is science, as you suggested in your last line, that means that we created him (as we created science), which means that humans are God's Gods.
Disclaimer: I'm short religion, long physics
Except we didn't and don't create science. The laws of the physics exist whether we unveil them or not, and our understanding of the physical laws of the universe is incomplete and always will be. Science, in a manner of speaking, is a quest to understand God. The physical world is simply an opportunity to marvel at God's creation. We can't see God directly as God does not have a body and is not a person per se, but we can sense him through his creation as there laws do not have a body and are not a person but simply exist and have always existed - much the same way God, even under the traditional narrative, has.
I disagree with the spade comment thing. My argument is simple, if one thinks of God not as some physical being or a person, but rather as the thing that guides and created everything that is - the physical laws of the universe - then that's God. I suppose what i'm trying to get you to do is to answer yes to this question: do you agree that the physical laws of the universe created everything in the universe, that nothing in the universe could exist without it, that the laws of the universe apply everywhere, and that everything in the universe is subject to its power ? If you say yes to all of that, that sounds an awful lot like God doesn't it ?
My contention is that we are predisposed to personifying God, and it's easy to reject Dumbledore in the sky, but if understood in the way I've explained it (which in my view makes a lot more sense) then it seems much more likely.
I think the creation and maintenance of the entire universe is something to marvel at and is not as worthless as shit.
I suppose the crux of my argument is that most atheists are really just diests because I think you'd say yes to the question I posed above. Just because religion is irrational / seems wrong, that doesn't mean that God is too.
1.) Science is a quest to understand the natural world. Not a quest to "understand god."
2.) Your entire argument presupposes that "God" is a thing. The universe may very well just "be," with no need for a creative element. Like it or not, that might be reality (as shitty and discomforting as one might find that.)
First of all you are confusing science and laws of physics. They are not the same. Science is the vehicle we created to learn more about the world. I was simply highlighting you incorrect word usage. We do create scientific theories, a set of which constitutes science. Some of the are right, some wrong, some accurate and some not - it's the nature of the scientific method. You are correct about the existence of the physical laws.
1) You are in no position to say that our understanding of the universe will always be incomplete. If you think about it for a second, proper science is what, 300 years old? Do you realize how tiny this period is? In the last 150 years we went from pissing ourselves when seeing electricity to talking about quantum entanglement and general relativity. Who knows what's next.
2) Science is a quest to understand God? No, it isn't. Science is a quest to understand physical reality. The fact that you are calling "physical reality" God does not mean that we are all happy to call it God. You have to use a different name for your theory. Calling "physics" "God" distorts the argument completely, I have no time to elaborate atm, but please keep it coming, arguing about science is fun.
Wait, I just realised he might be a troll.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Creation_of_the_Sun_…
Represent.
Hmm, interesting points brought up. But you didn't answer my question, how would you answer that above ?
A. Wouldn't you agree that the attributes I listed about the physical laws are accurate just with respect to the physical laws.
B. Wouldn't you agree that they are also generally understood to be the general attributes of God ?
C. If A is B, and you believe in A, what stops you from believing in B ?
But that's precisely it. I don't see god as a person or thing, but the system that runs the universe. He's above personification. What is the issue of seeing the physical laws, that, i believe, we both agree fulfill all the traditional attributes we assign to God, as God ? That's precisely what I am saying.
I hope you're not really Wharton 2014
Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of labeling the physical laws as God? What purpose does it serve to add that term to something which already has a term? What are you supposed to do with this re-branding?
lol
I'm an agnostic. God may or may not exist. But, organized religion is pretty much BS.
Sooo who created God then?
This is bullshit. Why are posts like this allowed to stay up? If I wanted to read some pseudo intellectual nonsense about a debate that someone had with someone else's atheist friend, I would look at facebook screenshots on reddit and violate myself while listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about stars and shit.
I was going to quote him and comment that TheKing pretty much made my point very well in response to what OP said, but after reading this I had to quote it and tell you that you're my fucking idol.
Why you gotta bring Neil into this?
I realized you didn't know what in the hell you were talking about when you said your friend was an atheist and followed up with "we wanted to see if we could come up with concept of God that could fulfill our criteria".
Either your logic is completely flawed or you dont have access to a dictionary.
... I don't follow. We were discussing the existence of God. We developed a criteria that our concept of God must fulfill in order to be God. The criteria we came up with was omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. He disagrees with my conclusions, but I don't how what I said threw you off.
So studying the different belief systems which center around invisible guys in the sky is intellectually more rewarding than studying how economies around the world function?
To each their own.
Economics will help you become fabulously wealthy on this earth but that's it, my knowledge brings me closer to THE LORD and his kingdom is eternal. Be saved while you still can.
but wait according to you THE LORD is just some wind and shit
This is dangerous thinking. I don't want to tell you to believe one thing or the other because frankly I don't care. But you'll presumably be living on this planet / in this reality for a solid 60+ more years, so I wouldn't focus my entire existence on getting "saved," you should probably find a way to make the best of your stay while you're here... maybe even leave something behind for the next guy so it's a little bit better of a place, or at least pay back the people that made this a somewhat satisfying existence for you... Don't spend your nights in the quiet prayer room thinking you're doing what you're supposed to do. No reasonable "god" would ask that of anyone. Not insulting your degree but there's gotta be an equilibrium, no?
Troll Power!
Bro, what really scares me: I don't think he's joking.
I'm agnostic.
The idea of hell/heaven and how God cares about human beings makes me LOL. However, the idea that God is Science sounds reasonable. But then, how would that affect us (since he doesn't punish/favor any of us)?
It was a joke mate. I thought the sarcasm would come through. It's impossible to study religion intellectually and remain religious. I do believe in God though, this theory is just me squaring my logic and that belief.
Well it doesn't have to affect you, deism. But, if you're a traditionalist and are grasping at straws, you could reaaaly stretch it and suggest that we are a product of the laws of the universe. Our logic is a product of the conditions the laws of the universe created (by spurring evolution etc) and so the morality our logic devises was created, indirectly, by the universe. As such, violation of our moral laws, is a violation against the system the laws of the universe put in place and thus God. So you have to be moral. But like I said, i know that's far fetched, but plausible and somewhat logical i'd like to think. While that gives us a good reason to follow our morality - as its inline with the laws of the universe, helps our society and species survive and is evolutionary advantageous - it does not provide any punishment for violating those laws, but that's irrelevant to me. It's a take it or leave it kinda thing.
Nerds don't smoke enough pot
The fuck did I just read?
I expected to come into this thread to read some good troll posts about Ron Hubbard and dianetics, and I get confronted with theological crap that isn't about scientology at all. Perhaps you're confusing scientology (a corporate scam) with Christian science or something.
Not even good troll posts, geez.
Molestiae et itaque error quasi tenetur. Non sint quos neque voluptate sunt saepe harum.
Repellat aut tenetur qui eos aperiam vel. Porro sint facilis maiores qui eum quae ea. Unde aut harum soluta in. Eos omnis optio ducimus voluptatum corporis.
Fugit ducimus reprehenderit quaerat tempora placeat possimus. Voluptatum quas dicta commodi harum. Rerum maiores quis laboriosam ab omnis. Veritatis voluptatem eos tempore autem temporibus id. Ut sed dignissimos accusantium placeat. Ea eveniet maxime perferendis. Culpa libero ut eum quasi.
Omnis ut sit nemo omnis. Possimus delectus provident dolor asperiores modi aut consequatur. Sapiente non iusto voluptas saepe officiis ex culpa. Enim eum nemo harum ea impedit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et corporis quia cupiditate dolorem expedita. Architecto consequatur nesciunt molestias totam.