Simplified argument for a God's existence

[Andrew66]

if you read the way I expressed the "either this or that" - it is expressed as a true dichotomy -

Example Either Santa Klaus exists, or Santa Klaus does not exist - this is a true dichotomy. Either 1 or 2 is true.

[Andrew66]

The process of natural selection can be extrapolated to other modes of evolution beyond reproduction and mutations.
For example - the Borg in Star Treck, they "adapt" and improve when faced with challenges - they don't need to evolve by reproduction.
So a single being, or group - if they have the ability to change and adapt (not withstanding by reproduction) - could on their own change and adapt - and over a very long if not infinite period of time, until they are impervious to destruction. Of course they could also evolve by reproduction (standard Darwinism) - but I'm just saying that may not be necessary.

That a perfected killing machine could also adapt to kill a perfected defensive machine.

This depends on whether there is a threshold level that either a defensive or offensive (or both combined) machine would be unstoppable. I have argued that this is plausible if the Universe is a closed system with finite members.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

The process of natural selection can be extrapolated to other modes of evolution beyond reproduction and mutations.
For example - the Borg in Star Treck, they "adapt" and improve when faced with challenges - they don't need to evolve by reproduction.

That is not evolution. Also, it is fictional.

Andrew66 wrote

So a single being, or group - if they have the ability to change and adapt (not withstanding by reproduction) - could on their own change and adapt - and over a very long if not infinite period of time, until they are impervious to destruction.

No evolution.

Andrew66 wrote

Of course they could also evolve by reproduction (standard Darwinism) - but I'm just saying that may not be necessary.

It is necessary if you're going to call it evolution. Sure, if you were being colloquial with your language, I could let that slip, but then, why would you use such a misrepresentation in your argument?

Andrew66 wrote

That a perfected killing machine could also adapt to kill a perfected defensive machine.

So many "coulds" that have no evidential backing. It could be that it isn't even possible to get 10% of the way there.

Andrew66 wrote

This depends on whether there is a threshold level that either a defensive or offensive (or both combined) machine would be unstoppable. I have argued that this is plausible if the Universe is a closed system with finite members.

It's great that you have argued a thing (no matter how unconvincing the argument is), but it doesn't help your argument to say that you argued something.

I accept that you conceded to all the points I made that you ignored. Which means that your argument doesn't work.

[Andrew66]

Another way at looking at my argument is by what Stephen Hawking has described as the "law of modesty".

“Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it on the grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

This argument works to support my argument also.

It would be remarkable to believe that we humans are the greatest, most powerful, most durable evolved (or otherwise) species in the entire universe / multiverse. An alternative explanation is that there are likely more powerful, more durable beings (aka Gods) out there. This can be believed in based on the grounds of modesty.

[Andrew66]

Worded a little differently

Based on the "grounds of modesty" (a scientifically endorsed principle), there are likely other, more intelligent and powerful intelligent entities in the universe/multiverse than just our human species.

Given the universe / multiverse is dynamic (always changing state) and is a very big and old place (and quite possibly infinitely old and / or infinitely big with an infinite amount of stuff), by natural selection and evolution type processes running in multiple spaces and over very long times - it is predictive that extremely powerful, intelligent and enduring being or species (aka gods)- if not a maximally powerful and intelligent being or species (aka God), plausibly exist.

I'm not trying for a proof - just showing reasoned plausibility.

[Davin]

That doesn't work to support your argument. If your argument were that there is a chance that there are beings that are stronger, better, faster, smarter... etc. than us, then I would agree that it is plausible. Just as beings that are weaker is plausible. But the point is, that I don't think that if other beings exist that they would line up equally with us.

But that's not your argument. You want to take what is plausible, and then extrapolate out from that to ridiculous extremes. Like, I agree that there are people out there with more money than me, but I can't agree that just because some people have more money than me, that there is a person out there who has all the money.

And I think it's important to note that the "grounds of modesty" is not actually scientific, it is meant to help remove bias. It's not meant to create an equal problem the other way. Yes, make sure that we don't think that we're the best, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing to be biased into thinking that there are beings that are supremely better than us.

Ridiculous. You're essentially saying, "don't think you're so great without evidence, instead, think that there are beings that are perfect out there somewhere even though we also don't have evidence for that either."

[Andrew66]

That doesn't work to support your argument.

Davin wrote

If your argument were that there is a chance that there are beings that are stronger, better, faster, smarter... etc. than us, then I would agree that it is plausible.

Just as beings that are weaker is plausible. But the point is, that I don't think that if other beings exist that they would line up equally with us.

Davin wrote

But that's not your argument. You want to take what is plausible, and then extrapolate out from that to ridiculous extremes. Like, I agree that there are people out there with more money than me, but I can't agree that just because some people have more money than me, that there is a person out there who has all the money.

And I think it's important to note that the "grounds of modesty" is not actually scientific, it is meant to help remove bias. It's not meant to create an equal problem the other way. Yes, make sure that we don't think that we're the best, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing to be biased into thinking that there are beings that are supremely better than us.

Ridiculous. You're essentially saying, "don't think you're so great without evidence, instead, think that there are beings that are perfect out there somewhere even though we also don't have evidence for that either."

[Andrew66]

Oops, sorry I'm famous for not doing the quote thing right..

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

If your argument were that there is a chance that there are beings that are stronger, better, faster, smarter... etc. than us, then I would agree that it is plausible.

Yes that is part 1 to my argument. Any intelligent being who is stronger, better, faster, smarter (or from a natural selection aspect I like to say "more durable") - could be seen as a "god" from our perspective. Example, "Q" from Star Trek.

Davin wrote

But that's not your argument. You want to take what is plausible, and then extrapolate out from that to ridiculous extremes. Like, I agree that there are people out there with more money than me, but I can't agree that just because some people have more money than me, that there is a person out there who has all the money.

The extrapolation I try to make - is where I go from "god" (superior being, but not "maximally" superior), to a "God" (which would comprise a being who would be maximally superior).

I only aim to seek plausibility to this hypothesis, that a maximally superior being may, and could very well exist.

I argue that one plausible mechanism in the development of such a maximally superior being may be through a process equal to (or at least similar to) evolution by natural selection - whereby the length of time for such evolution to take place is extremely (if not infinitely) long, and likely occurring over a vary large (if not infinitely) large domain.

It is possible that there may be a threshold whereby a being becomes so strong, that it becomes invincible. - which is a quality that theologians would attribute to a God.

Of course this is just a theory, and may not be true - I'm just trying to show that there is a reasoned possibility.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Yes that is part 1 to my argument. Any intelligent being who is stronger, better, faster, smarter (or from a natural selection aspect I like to say "more durable") - could be seen as a "god" from our perspective.

Is your argument, that if a person is stronger than you, then you consider them a god?

How much can you bench? I just want to know how godlike you should consider me.

Andrew66 wrote

Example, "Q" from Star Trek.

There are a lot of shades you skip from humans to the "Q". I do not concede that a being like the "Q" can even exist. Again, look to my squared circle analogy.

Andrew66 wrote

The extrapolation I try to make[...]

Hey, I'm fine with accepting that are probably beings that are a bit superior to us. What I'm not following, is where you go from superior in some ways or a bit overall, all the way to "MAXIMUM EVERYTHING!!!!"

Let's say that we're about average, so we rank 100 species from 0 - 100 and we're at about 47. So 53 species are superior to us. Even the 100th best species, I would not consider a god.

But even if I accept that, that still doesn't lead all the way to there being a race of beings that are gods. Or that I accept that it is even possible.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Yes that is part 1 to my argument. Any intelligent being who is stronger, better, faster, smarter (or from a natural selection aspect I like to say "more durable") - could be seen as a "god" from our perspective. Example, "Q" from Star Trek.

By that musing, we could well be the, as yet, unrevealed `gods` of some equally deluded planet. No-one is arguing otherwise.

The extrapolation I try to make - is where I go from "god" (superior being, but not "maximally" superior), to a "God" (which would comprise a being who would be maximally superior).

You could never tell the difference. Driving a car is superpowers to a 3 year old.

I only aim to seek plausibility to this hypothesis, that a maximally superior being may, and could very well exist.

Even if it did, you could never know its status beyond what it claimed. So if so, so what?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

It is possible that there may be a threshold whereby a being becomes so strong, that it becomes invincible. - which is a quality that theologians would attribute to a God.

Of course this is just a theory, and may not be true - I'm just trying to show that there is a reasoned possibility.

As already pointed out, Nature doesn't do one-offs. Your attempt to rationize evolution of a super-being having the attributes Bibilically attributed to "God" is laughable.
We've had many of those, Putin, Trump being current prime examples. Remember the Shah of Iran crowning himself "King of Kings"? Even Prince Philip attended. Rather than God, the proper name for these creatures is PSYCHOPATHS.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Is your argument, that if a person is stronger than you, then you consider them a god?

How much can you bench? I just want to know how godlike you should consider me.

Actually, your Image on this site makes you look like a sort of God - it is a cool warrior like image - perhaps Mars?.

Davin you raise many excellent points.

We need to define a threshold were a "superiority" of a being should be equal to a god (low g). I would say, a "god" meets the criteria where a very smart contemporary human would be in "awe" of such a beings awesomeness - in terms of power, intelligence and durability. In the old days such a human would interpret such a being as a god - as being able to do things well beyond the explanation of science at that point of time in human history. So example of "god" like qualities would be able to for example "heal" the sick (beyond any rationale medical explanation), multiply matter (e.g. replicate loaves of bread), change matter (water into wine), levitate (walking on water), bring a dead person back from the dead etc. These are just examples but I suppose you may get the point.

Could such a god exist ? I take your point Davin, maybe in this vast multiverse over infinite time regardless of evolution and learning and advances in science there could simply never be such a being - (square peg to circle and all that), but such a limitation - while possible, would have to compete with at least an equal possibility that such a being may acquire such powers. My hunch is that that above examples (eg. replicating bread, changing water into wine, walking on water) may be attainable with advances in science and learning - at least the author's of Star trek believe so (eg. the "replicator", antigravity boots, puting one's brain into little electronic boxes etc.).

But the big question - could a maximally powerful god exist, to the point of indestructability as no other god of gods could defeat, kill or over throw - thereby becoming God.

Well lets use your example, lets say there are 100 species in existence and we rank 47th. There will be a no. 1, most durable (most intelligent, powerful etc). of this group so by one criteria we may label such species or individual God or if they work co-operative Gods.

Whether the supreme above identified entity is truly maximally powerful and maximally intelligent, and indestructible for ever more, remains of course conjecture but - given such a species has had an incredibly long time to evolve it remains a distinct possibility.

Remember I am only arguing plausibility by a reasoned mechanism.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

As already pointed out, Nature doesn't do one-offs. (

Hi Sinfidel

Could you please explain what you mean by "one-offs".

It seems to me that nature is full of one -offs, if that you mean unique objects, entities, intelligent beings. Example you are unique therefore a "one-off" no?
Mt. Everest is unique, (the tallest mountain) - is it not a "one-off" as there is no other mountain, perhaps in the universe? that is exactly like it?

Also - if you mean organized things don't simply, randomly come about (is that what you mean as not doing "one -off"?), - perhaps that may be true if the mechanism for production is random, but the god or God like beings I'm talking about are not proposed to pop up randomly, but by a vector of evolution - and the hypothesis is raised that evolution over an infinite period of time predicts a mighty powerful being.

Sorry, don't get your one-off - what you mean.???

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Actually, your Image on this site makes you look like a sort of God - it is a cool warrior like image - perhaps Mars?.

Davin you raise many excellent points.

We need to define a threshold were a "superiority" of a being should be equal to a god (low g). I would say, a "god" meets the criteria where a very smart contemporary human would be in "awe" of such a beings awesomeness - in terms of power, intelligence and durability.[...]

I find this criteria to be insufficient. I saw a video of a motorcycle that cut off a car, so the car cut off the motorcycle, then the motorcycle kicked the car, then the car tried to drive into the motorcycle, missed and hit the center divide, then bounced off and spun, then hit a truck causing it tor roll, then continued on and t-boned another vehicle. I was in awe of the stupidity and lack of self control. I wouldn't call them gods though. One of my little brothers used to never wear any shoes and I was in awe of his ability to walk over almost anything without any problems. Still not a god.

Andrew66 wrote

[...]such a limitation - while possible, would have to compete with at least an equal possibility that such a being may acquire such powers.[...]

Woah, hold on right there. How do you come to the conclusion that it's an equal possibility?

Andrew66 wrote

There will be a no. 1, most durable (most intelligent, powerful etc). of this group so by one criteria we may label such species or individual God or if they work co-operative Gods.

Well, let's roll some numbers here. Let's say that humans are a durability level 5.2. Then the other 100 species rank between 2 and 10. While maximum durability is 10^Gogol. Now if out of the hundred, the best species is a 10, does that mean that that species can walk on the surface of the sun? Fuck no.

Andrew66 wrote

Remember I am only arguing plausibility by a reasoned mechanism.

And you have failed in your arguments.