I'm going to try and prove that god is a simpleton — TheMadFool
I must clarify that the simplicity I'm going to discuss is god's intelligence. — TheMadFool
Also, it took Him millions of years to figure it out... He can't be that bright.if god exists and he's the one behind all creation in general, evolution in particular, and if his preferred method is trial and error, it must be that god is not a genius who understands the ins and outs of creation and life but is actually a simpleton as herein defined. — TheMadFool
Also, it took Him millions of years to figure it out... He can't be that bright. — Olivier5
Read aboveI simply don't have the time or skills to be a god — Mayor of Simpleton
nothing is about as simple as it gets. — Hippyhead
I'm quite skeptical of discussing God's intelligence — Hippyhead
First, that presumes that God is a "thing" which would thus have properties, a phenomena divided from other phenomena. — Hippyhead
Next, our understanding of intelligence is derived from an extremely small sample of reality, life on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies. — Hippyhead
So, if I understand your argument, the idea is that if God created the universe, then he is simple because the method he chose for the unfolding of life forms (not the universe in general) is trial and error and this is simple. But then don't we fairly complicated creatures also use simple heuristics in all sorts of creating? And to create a universe that allows for unbelievably complex diversity (at least on earth) in forms, is no mean feat at least from our perspective. It is almost as if God should have had a more complicated set of processes, but since trial and error manages to be unbelievable creative when passed through DNA and selection, that it ends up being really quite effective. Is the universe simple because simple formulas like E=MC2 are in the background? I don't know. Elegance and simplicity can often go hand in hand. Simplicity couples with stochastic processes can create all sorts of wonders - though of course this is a subjective evaluation, but wonders to me. — Coben
According to some theists it is the pièce de résistance of god's creation, mainly the Abrahamists, others not so much. But why does the magnificance of what we look at - the vast array of life on the planet - become less if a simple set of heuristics (and some rather incredibly complicated molecules) are what led to it. IOW one could argue that only a genius could find a simple process that would lead to such diversity. Whereas some lesser deity would have to have many more processes and complicated interventions and so on.You made a good point. What of the so-called laws of nature? Don't they evidence a prodigious intellect? Yet, taking into account the fact that life is the pièce de résistance of god's creation, it's reliance on a method (trial and error) that's so simple that even animals and toddlers use it doesn't jibe with a conception of god as a supreme genius capable of creating universes. — TheMadFool
I wonder though, if nothing is simple, why do people have difficulty discussing it? — TheMadFool
Indeed, once we begin to look beyond our planet and our solar system, we must think twice before we bring our earth-centric perspective to bear on matters that are galactic in nature. — TheMadFool
I only ask that you embrace the inherent anthroporphism, be human, be an earthling, be who you are instead of trying to view the issue from a galactic perspective, a perspective of which you haven't the slightest idea. — TheMadFool
Ergo, isn't it likely that life elsewhere in the universe will evolve in a manner similar to that on earth? — TheMadFool
As mortals, we cannot understand the God force. If anything, seeing it as a source, is one way of seeing the divine. I find Fritjof Capra's book God and the New Physics very helpful.
As far as the 'simpleton' part, the problem may really be about how we expect God to behave, especially if we perceive God as wholly God. What about the shadow side of God? This matter is dealt with in depth in Jung's book Answer to Job. — Jack Cummins
IOW one could argue that only a genius could find a simpleprocess that would lead to such diversity — Coben
And trial and error led to the creation of minds that use more than trial and error — Coben
if such a being exists, — TheMadFool
If, If, if, if, if, if if, if-if-if-if. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground. Given if, I can prove anything about anything, and quickly. Can we please, at least most of the time, try to reason from something stronger than an "if"? It has its place, but too often out of it, and nor does it require much in the way of reason - barely any. It's a substitute for thought and an excuse for not thinking, a lever of the fond for elevating the merely foolish to whatever level of insanity is being sought. Let us everyone do better! — tim wood
If if not
Everything I got
But that is not
Ergo, I if a lot — TheMadFool
A smile and nod from e. e. cummings. You wouldn't care to punctuate, would you? — tim wood
Maybe unconsciously, but complexity also works I think. I mean a simple trial and error program - which I don't think is so simple since it depends on very complicated molecules - leads to complexity. Yes, I can stand behind that statement, not sure why I switched to diversity. It is both complex and diverse and the lifeforms in themselves can be incredibly complex.It's something that hasn't escaped my notice but be mindful that you used the word "simple" and substituted "diversity" for the word most often used viz. "complexity" when people describe the universe. Are you trying to avoid a contradiction here? — TheMadFool
I didn't say that. Our minds can't create universes, at least, not yet. Unless we are somehow, not consciously.So, you agree then that there are better ways to create universes. — TheMadFool
This is a different argument or a different facet of a larger argument. So we have the simplicity argument, which I responded to and I don't think it holds. Now we are looks at the flaw design argument....I guess it depends on whether the complexity evident in the universe is part of god's plan. If it is then he truly is a being of incommensurable intelligence but if it isn't then so much for god's intelligence. A clue to decide which of these possibilities is true can be found in the many design flaws our bodies have. — TheMadFool
If God set the whole thing rolling then he set both nature and nurture in motion.By the way, a trial and error method as a survival process for life only makes sense if the environment that imposes selection pressure is not something that god has control over. God, perforce, has to make life adapt to changing milieu that can come in the form of slow climate change or sudden asteroid impacts — TheMadFool
Either god is playing a macabre game with us, something the faithful will vehemently deny, or there are certain variables in creation that are out of his divine hands. If one runs with the latter possibility, we have a being that hasn't quite figured the nuts and bolts of creating universes capable of harboring life. — TheMadFool
The idea of nothing seems germane to my thesis; after all, trial and error as a method seems closer to an absence of a creator than a presence of one. — TheMadFool
What if God is not a thing? — Hippyhead
The question doesn't make sense. — TheMadFool
God has to be something, right? — TheMadFool
The alternative to something is nothing and if god is nothing, it's just a fancy way of saying god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
As Coben pointed out for our benefit God, if he exists — TheMadFool
I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. — Abraham Maslow
If everything is a nail, might as well have a hammer — TheMadFool
Offer me a third option then. — TheMadFool
I believe the modern scientific understanding of space is not that it's nothing - it has properties and, according to relativity, it warps around extremely massive objects like stars and black holes. — TheMadFool
Space. The vast majority of reality. Does not neatly fit in to either the "exists" or "not exists" category.
Explained this now about 100 times in a number of threads across the forum. — Hippyhead
Sorry, I don't follow. I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of existence for as long as I can remember with nothing to show for it. — TheMadFool
That you mentioned about how god could be nothing is pertinent to the problem I'm grappling with because god, majority opinion says, is immaterial and the sticking point here is that existence is defined in material terms. — TheMadFool
In other words, existence = material for all intents and purposes. This is a serious setback for someone who wants to claim that god is both immaterial and that god exists for it's a contradictio in terminis. The same difficulty arises when we say god is nothing. — TheMadFool
Existence = made of atoms. — Hippyhead
"Existence" is a human concept which is useful in our everyday lives at human scale — Hippyhead
Even though the pencil overwhelmingly consists of non-existence — Hippyhead
Space illustrates that a phenomena can be real without meeting our definition of existence. — Hippyhead
God we are reinforcing our built-in bias towards thinking of God as a thing — Hippyhead
A pencil doesn't have atoms? — TheMadFool
Space doesn't have atoms. — TheMadFool
In short, you believe god doesn't exist but god is real. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.