Simplified argument for a God's existence

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I'll take it. I'm glad that your OK with a statement which by its wording is self evident.

I suppose it's too much to ask you actually read what I wrote. It's not that it's self evident, it's that even it's essentially saying nothing.

Andrew66 wrote

True we don't know!.

Great! Glad that we agree on this.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote:

4) Over an infinite period of time, eventually, an entity will have evolved to a threshold point whereby it became indestructible.
5) It is likely that such an indestructible being is extremely (if not maximally) powerful and intelligent.
6) Such indestructible being meets conditions coincident with what humans have declared as God.

You obviously haven't done your research.

Scientists have discovered a jellyfish which can live forever.

Turritopsis dohrnii is now officially known as the only immortal creature.

Unfortunately,

1) There is more than one of these - a lot more.

2) They seem to fall a bit short on the intelligence and power requirements, although one supposes they COULD be controlling the Universe by as yet unknown methods. Anything is possible, right?

I still prefer Russel's Intelligent Teapot idea.

[Andrew66]

Hi Sinfidel
Thank you for your research - and a practical example, well done!
The things is, my definition of immortal is more than just it could (i.e. if left alone and provided optimal environment etc.) live forever.
My superhero would have evolved to be durable, indestructible, no foe could hurt it or overthrow it.
Now I imagine that if a dictator threw a nuke on your cited jelly fish - it would probably die - right?
Ha Ha, I recall an old Star Trek episode where there were these little jelly fish looking creatures which were virtually indestructible, until Spock realized they were light sensitive.
Thank you Sinfidel for your insights

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Sinfidel

Ha Ha, I recall an old Star Trek episode where there were these little jelly fish looking creatures which were virtually indestructible, until Spock realized they were light sensitive.

God's followers are like that. When anyone shines a light on their religion, exposing the blemishes, they get nasty, and the critics get tortured, burned to death, ostracised, imprisoned, decapitated. Sort of contrary to attributes the Godly like to claim for themselves, isn't it!

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Sinfidel
Thank you for your research - and a practical example, well done!

Thank you Sinfidel for your insights

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Sinfidel
The things is, my definition of immortal is more than just it could (i.e. if left alone and provided optimal environment etc.) live forever.

Ah yes. We have noted the propensity of Theologues to redefine words as convenient to their "argument"! Like the Oligarchy re-interpreting Law to favour themselves.

Seems rather arrogant to claim such authority - when were you appointed official definer of words, superseding the dictionary?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Sinfidel
My superhero would have evolved to be durable, indestructible, no foe could hurt it or overthrow it.
5) It is likely that such an indestructible being is extremely (if not maximally) powerful and intelligent.
6) Such indestructible being meets conditions coincident with what humans have declared as God.

Given the attributes attributed to your superhero, i.e. perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, etc., why are there so many cults, denominations, sects, all claiming to be the one and only correct path to your superhero? With all that power and invincibility, surely he/she/it would intervene to ensure that no misinformation would be spread by false worshippers?
You might want to invoke critical thinking before claiming "he gave us free will."

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote
The notion of existence of an intelligent entity being immortal is only supported by the reasoned hypothesis provided at the outset of this post[...]

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. - Wikipedia.

Your "Hypothesis" is fallacious because it is circular reasoning. You claim the POSSIBILITY of the evolution of a God, and that your "Hypothesis" provides rational evidence in support of itself!
Just like the Holy books are claimed as evidence for God!
The "Phenomenon" which your "Hypothesis" purports to explain, has zero evidence for it, and is thus imaginary. Do tell us how you propose to TEST it!

Theologues are well versed in the use of fallacy, having found the masses quite gullible.

What is it about believers that, when infected with the religion meme, compels them to proselytize in an attempt to infect others? Is there some sense of a victory when they succeed? It is claimed they want to "save" the person, but in life, they are mainly concerned with their own welfare.

[Davin]

Sinfidel wrote

You obviously haven't done your research.





Unfortunately,

1) There is more than one of these - a lot more.

2) They seem to fall a bit short on the intelligence and power requirements, although one supposes they COULD be controlling the Universe by as yet unknown methods. Anything is possible, right?

I still prefer Russel's Intelligent Teapot idea.

Aw man. I was counting on Andrew66's ignorance and unwillingness to do any research. There are a bunch of examples, like the water bears toughness. Unfortunately for Andrew66 though, none of the examples work in favor of the argument "illogical hypothesis."

[Kinich Ahau]

Now that Sinny has mentioned it I remember the jellyfish being in the news a while back. However immortality was but one example of the many supernatural abilities that he has projected onto his comic book superhero.

Andy's god may not have a big white beard but he probably wears a cape and tight little satin shorts.

[Smellyoldgit]

Ever since Andrew got here, he's been trying oh so hard to ram his square Jesus peg into the round butt-hole of reality. The closest he's ever got is the recent anal fisting from Davin.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Your "Hypothesis" is fallacious because it is circular reasoning. You claim the POSSIBILITY of the evolution of a God, and that your "Hypothesis" provides rational evidence in support of itself!
Just like the Holy books are claimed as evidence for God!
The "Phenomenon" which your "Hypothesis" purports to explain, has zero evidence for it, and is thus imaginary. Do tell us how you propose to TEST it!

I'm not sure its circular. I do invoke the principle of evolution, if you believe in that (natural selection etc) to provide an evidence based mechanism to support how a God like creature could evolve. Hypothesis are not meant to by their own statement prove the quandary - they are supposed to direct research. However I agree I don't know how I would test the hypothesis (so by your definition maybe it should be called a hypothesis). Maybe by some computer generated mathematical modelling showing evolution over an infinite scale (time and domain)?

[Andrew66]

Announcement!
Taking into account all's suggestions I'm rewording the ?argument, ?hypothesis - whatever you want to call it - on a new thread. Stay tuned.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

I'm not sure its circular. I do invoke the principle of evolution, if you believe in that (natural selection etc) to provide an evidence based mechanism to support how a God like creature could evolve. Hypothesis are not meant to by their own statement prove the quandary - they are supposed to direct research. However I agree I don't know how I would test the hypothesis (so by your definition maybe it should be called a hypothesis). Maybe by some computer generated mathematical modelling showing evolution over an infinite scale (time and domain)?

An hypothesis (literally meaning subordinate to a theory/thesis) is a statement that is accompanied by a null-hypothesis which is essentially a statement of the opposite being true.
A scientific hypothesis is only any good if it is falsifiable (can be proven to be true or false). This was the demarcation point according to Karl Popper that renders something scientific (falsifiable) or unsceintific (unfalsifiable).

The above attempt by Andrew appears to take a proven scientific theory with mountains of evidence and clumsily bolt it on to the unfalsifiable (unscientific) notion of his "god."

[hertz vanrental]

The Judge wrote

An hypothesis (literally meaning subordinate to a theory/thesis) is a statement that is accompanied by a null-hypothesis which is essentially a statement of the opposite being true.
A scientific hypothesis is only any good if it is falsifiable (can be proven to be true or false). This was the demarcation point according to Karl Popper that renders something scientific (falsifiable) or unsceintific (unfalsifiable).

The above attempt by Andrew appears to take a proven scientific theory with mountains of evidence and clumsily bolt it on to the unfalsifiable (unscientific) notion of his "god."

Isn't that called 'Truth by association' and is a typical ploy which many fall for and which is much used by christards?

X is true.

Y may or not be true.

If Y is mentioned in a passage containing X, then by associating Y with X, there is the intent of making Y true.

Another epic fail, android.

It would be nice, android, if you could get just one thing right, but, I don't think we will ever see this.

Oh, and stop the weird shit.