Simplified argument for a God's existence

[Sinfidel]

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

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?

Last time I looked, I wasn't the ONLY human being!

Mt. Everest is unique, (the tallest mountain) - is it not a "one-off" as there is no other mountain,

Uh, Geography books, travel videos, and travellers speak of lots of mountains. There are reputedly even mountain ranges! Is it all "fake news"? So should we expect all mountains/beings to be exact clones of each other? How about Volcanoes?

perhaps in the universe? that is exactly like it?

Speaking of Universes, this talk of multiverses, does that mean there isn't just ONE universe?

Also - if you mean organized things don't simply, randomly come about

No, I meant that, as far as we know, that's exactly how they do "come about". Do you have evidence otherwise?

but the god or God like beings I'm talking about are not proposed to pop up randomly, but by a vector of evolution

Uh, You speak of "God like beings", which is PLURAL, which would confirm nature doesn't create MONO gods.

the hypothesis is raised that evolution over an infinite period of time predicts a mighty powerful being.

The Dinosaurs were mighty powerful beings - what happened?

[Davin]

Sinfidel wrote

The Dinosaurs were mighty powerful beings - what happened?

Probably religion.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'd go for something nearer to home ....

Fart

[Sinfidel]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I'd go for something nearer to home ....

[Sinfidel]

Davin wrote

Probably religion.

Amazing isn't it, the depths of deception the theologues will go to in order to try and implant the god guilt in another victim.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Last time I looked, I wasn't the ONLY human being!

An evolved God like being is not - by your apparent logic - a one off anyway, It can be seen as an intelligent life form (i.e. one amongst many). It just happens to represent the cream of the crop.

Sinfidel wrote

The Dinosaurs were mighty powerful beings - what happened?

In evolution many species evolve and of course some will become extinct - just because on species became instinct that doesn't negate plausibility that another fitter species may have survived perpetually to achieve God like status.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Uh, You speak of "God like beings", which is PLURAL, which would confirm nature doesn't create MONO gods.

A maximally evolved entity, which has reached a threshold of universal indestructability could be a single individual, or a co-operative group.

I may use the singular (God) or plural (Gods) - it doesn't change the nature of the argument.

I suppose you want me to rule out a mono god (i.e. Allah, Yaweh etc.). But remember that Christian God is not even mono (i.e. it comprises a trinity).
It seems to me a co-operative group like the trinity may debate-ably have more survive-ability than a mono being, as long as the members of the group are perfected harmonized and would never back stab one another.

I guess that is where the argument more so supports Christianity vs. Islam or Judaisim.

[Andrew66]

Davin you seem hung up on the term evolution.

The term evolution is not necessarily restricted to evolution by natural selection.

Here is a dictionary quote

"Evolution"
- the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form: e.g. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

I use natural selection type evolution in my argument because we know that this process exists in nature, so it can be applied with some level of certainty as a mechanism which is known to lead to higher and higher lifeforms. However, the argument should not be limited to evolution by reproduction.

Take for example an athlete (you didn't like my Borg example). An athlete competes, looses, learns, - trains with new techniques - then goes on to win next time. This is evolution of a form (ie. evolution of an athlete) is it not?

Or a warrior, Why couldn't this type of mechanism plausibly work for a warrior type entity to become a better warrior to the point nothing could defeat it?

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Davin you seem hung up on the term evolution.

The term evolution is not necessarily restricted to evolution by natural selection.

Here is a dictionary quote

"Evolution"
- the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form: e.g. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

I use natural selection type evolution in my argument because we know that this process exists in nature, so it can be applied with some level of certainty as a mechanism which is known to lead to higher and higher lifeforms. However, the argument should not be limited to evolution by reproduction.

If you want to use "evolution" in a colloquial sense that doesn't have anything to do with rational science at all, then I'm happy to just dismiss the idea as irrational and unsupported. The usage of "evolution" as described in the definition you cited, is for analogy to describe a known process, not as a proposition. So if you're willing to describe the process you're trying to analogize with your usage of "evolution," then we can get somewhere, otherwise, I'm happy to dismiss your point as irrational and unsupported.

Andrew66 wrote

Take for example an athlete (you didn't like my Borg example). An athlete competes, looses, learns, - trains with new techniques - then goes on to win next time. This is evolution of a form (ie. evolution of an athlete) is it not?

I don't think so. It's a process of learning, training, and testing.

Andrew66 wrote

Or a warrior, Why couldn't this type of mechanism plausibly work for a warrior type entity to become a better warrior to the point nothing could defeat it?

Training and experience have never even gotten close to producing an unbeatable warrior or athlete. So I don't think it's plausible. Though, a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to mind.

Skip to 2 minutes in.

Supreme Warrior

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

I suppose you want me to rule out a mono god (i.e. Allah, Yaweh etc.). But remember that Christian God is not even mono (i.e. it comprises a trinity).
It seems to me a co-operative group like the trinity may debate-ably have more survive-ability than a mono being, as long as the members of the group are perfected harmonized and would never back stab one another.

Given the choice, a fatal chibbing is infinitely less traumatic an end to what the harmonic duo, (read raper & victim), dished out to the most vulnerable of their pantheon. FFS, could they not show some co-operation & make it quick? ret.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Here is a dictionary quote

"Evolution"
- the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form: e.g. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

Through the mutation of the existing dialect.

Take for example an athlete (you didn't like my Borg example). An athlete competes, looses, learns, - trains with new techniques - then goes on to win next time. This is evolution of a form (ie. evolution of an athlete) is it not?

Not the same thing.

Or a warrior, Why couldn't this type of mechanism plausibly work for a warrior type entity to become a better warrior to the point nothing could defeat it?

How do you think that's coming along for you Andrew? When you learn to spell lose I might give you a grade.

[Andrew66]

Either a supreme, incredibly powerful and undefeatable entity exists or not.
Evolution over a very long, if not infinitely long time within a very big, perhaps infinitely big domain, predicts some mighty powerful and perhaps an ultimately powerful entity being in existence today.
To us such entity or entities would be Gods by many familiar definitions. - unless you think us humans are the be all and end all.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Either a supreme, incredibly powerful and undefeatable entity exists or not.

Either I have the winning lottery ticket or I do not. Apparently it's a 50/50 chance.

Andrew66 wrote

Evolution over a very long, if not infinitely long time within a very big, perhaps infinitely big domain, predicts some mighty powerful and perhaps an ultimately powerful entity being in existence today.

No, it doesn't. Even over an infinite amount of time with in an infinite amount of universes, there can never be a square circle. It's probably not even possible for such a being to exist.

Andrew66 wrote

To us such entity or entities would be Gods by many familiar definitions. - unless you think us humans are the be all and end all.

Is this your attempt at a ridiculously silly faulty dilemma? Either we think that there is a super powerful entity or we think that humans are the most powerful beings in existence? No room for anything else? For say that there are beings that are a bit more powerful than humans?

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Evolution ............ predicts ............

You are either exceedingly dumb and pay no attention to what people say, or you are a deliberately obtuse trolling fuckhead. Where should I place my wager?

[AtomJack]

Is he destined for his own thread?