Thread: Complexity of God

Isn't it possible that us humans just think of God in our concept of existance, and God can perhaps be more complex than we could ever comprehend?

Evolution for instance, most relegious persons say that evolution is wrong because God had created us all. Think about this, mabye evolution was just a TOOL for God TO CREATE US with.

How can something that created existance exist itself? I believe God is way more complex than any human could possibly understand.

We are all complete morons. Our level of comprehension is nothing compared to what is required to understand the universe. If there is a god, which is highly highly unlikely, and 100% impossible to be anything like we have every described, it would be beyond all cognitive abilities that we possess or will ever possess.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

Isn't it possible that us humans just think of God in our concept of existance, and God can perhaps be more complex than we could ever comprehend?

Evolution for instance, most relegious persons say that evolution is wrong because God had created us all. Think about this, mabye evolution was just a TOOL for God TO CREATE US with.

How can something that created existance exist itself? I believe God is way more complex than any human could possibly understand.

an easier introduction to comprehension is that god is eternal and existence is a contingent potency of his.

Kind of like if you had an eternal fire, the potencies of fire (eg smoke, heat, light) would also be eternal. Saying that god cannot exist because he created existence seems to overide parameters of logic ... although I would agree that comprehending god in full is constitutionally impossible for us (which doesn't mean that the nature of god's existence cannot be indicated at all)

Yeah, but that complexicity can only exist if God exists.


Thats the atheist argument for you right there.

Through gradual understanding of the world, everything is ultimately doomed, if you will, to be understood. Many things before were considered incomprihensible but are well understood these days. Things can only move forwards, that includes our understanding/comprehension of the world. Unless a big meteor hits earth and destroys all life or our solar system gets hit by a gamma-ray burst :?

God will in my opinion always remain a god of the gaps. That's the only reason why he's "beyond" our comprehension.

What makes the christian idea of God 'the true God' or the God's of other of todays religions the true God as opposed to the Gods of yesteryear such as the Roman God's or the Greek God's or Ra or other Egyptian Gods?

Humans have always tried to explain the unknown through supernatural Gods when all we need to do is search for the meaning of existence through scientific study and, if there is a God, he will be revealed to us.

No. He will reveal Himself to us.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Through gradual understanding of the world, everything is ultimately doomed, if you will, to be understood. Many things before were considered incomprihensible but are well understood these days. Things can only move forwards, that includes our understanding/comprehension of the world. Unless a big meteor hits earth and destroys all life or our solar system gets hit by a gamma-ray burst :?

God will in my opinion always remain a god of the gaps. That's the only reason why he's "beyond" our comprehension.

actually empiricism has no scope to understand anything in full.
It will always remain a "science of the gaps" since it can only hope to examine a metonymic slice between the macro and the micro.
Empiricism can not even reveal the extent of a single cup of flour, what to speak of life, the universe, etc etc

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

No. He will reveal Himself to us.

There are different beloiefs when it comes to God. Some believe that He is all seeing and he guides our lives and such. Others believe He merely made us then let us be. My personal belief is that there are certain things within this universe that we can't comprehend and, through scientific queries and answers we'll discover more as time goes on. The religious fanatics who believe that their way is right will continue to change their beliefs to support the new found data while the scientific community continues to expand the knowledge we have of our surroundings. Will we find some sort of higher power? I don't know, it's possible. As stated before there are certain things in this universe that, at this time, we are incapable of comprehending.

My thought exactly. The only part I would like to change is the statement 'we can't comprehend' which I would say 'we have not been able to comprehend yet', to differentiate the 'not yet known' from 'unknowable'.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

Isn't it possible that us humans just think of God in our concept of existance, and God can perhaps be more complex than we could ever comprehend?

Theists contrive arguments for the existence of their gods. No indications are present in nature to suggest these gods exist. Nature itself does not appear to be driven by gods in any way, on the contrary, appears to be function despite any influence of a supernatural nature.

So, if there isn't anything in nature to suggest the existence of gods, and that nature doesn't need gods to explain itself, then we can simply ignore to comprehend the complexity of that which doesn't affect nature in the least.

Evolution for instance, most relegious persons say that evolution is wrong because God had created us all. Think about this, mabye evolution was just a TOOL for God TO CREATE US with.

Evolution doesn't require kick starts from god, evolution will function despite gods.

How can something that created existance exist itself? I believe God is way more complex than any human could possibly understand.

Then, there's no sense in attempting to do so, why bother?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Yeah, but that complexicity can only exist if God exists.

Thats the atheist argument for you right there.

The "atheist argument" is one from inquiry. The atheist questions the theists claims for gods existence. The theist has no answers, only claims.

So, demonstrate your god exists or go home. To claim that your god is too complex to understand is simply another contrived fairy tale to satisfy self-adulations of intellect.

Funk off you obnoxious wankstein. I didn't say He was complex or not. Nor do I wish to prove Him, my earlier post clearly states that beleif.

Love the avartar by the way :-D.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I didn't say He was complex or not. Nor do I wish to prove Him, my earlier post clearly states that beleif.

Then, tell your fucking cult to start paying taxes if you can't demonstrate your beliefs.

I do pay my taxes. They don't bother me not paying them, thats your problem to get them to do it. I leave them to their lives remember?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I do pay my taxes. They don't bother me not paying them, thats your problem to get them to do it. I leave them to their lives remember?

Yes, it doesn't bother you, it's your cult. Duh.

I'm sick and tired of my taxes paying for their land use while they pocket a fortune of tax free revenues and build their fucking grotesque churches everywhere like a blight on the land.

It is certainly interesting to see other thoughts and perspectives.

I do believe in God and pray every night, I am also a strong believer in sciences and absolutly love science. Mabye one day we will use science to discover the origions of everything, and perhaps God.

I am also rather confused in what to believe because in some cases things relegious persons explained about God don't seem to fit with science, evolution, the big bang, etc. But now I am starting to think that some religious teachings may be wrong and that science is discovering the ways in which God created life and how the universe works. On the other hand, mabye everything doesn't have to be logically correct. Mabye God does things in a way that which no human could logically think out.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

It is certainly interesting to see other thoughts and perspectives.

I do believe in God and pray every night, I am also a strong believer in sciences and absolutly love science. Mabye one day we will use science to discover the origions of everything, and perhaps God.

I am also rather confused in what to believe because in some cases things relegious persons explained about God don't seem to fit with science, evolution, the big bang, etc. But now I am starting to think that some religious teachings may be wrong and that science is discovering the ways in which God created life and how the universe works. On the other hand, mabye everything doesn't have to be logically correct. Mabye God does things in a way that which no human could logically think out.

The preists at church and the evangelists on TV I doubt know very much about physics and what is going on in the scientific world. They would rather preach what they consider God to be without knowing all the facts. If you are going to believe in God you should believe in your own version of God not someone elses.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I do pay my taxes. They don't bother me not paying them, thats your problem to get them to do it. I leave them to their lives remember?

Yes, it doesn't bother you, it's your cult. Duh.

I'm sick and tired of my taxes paying for their land use while they pocket a fortune of tax free revenues and build their fucking grotesque churches everywhere like a blight on the land.

Lifes not fair, get over Q. Life doesn't go your own way in life all the time. Got a problem with people not paying taxes and churches being everywhere? Then get into politics, become the most important person ever born to gain enough power to stop religion and tear down all churches, if you can't do that then shut the funk up.

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

actually empiricism has no scope to understand anything in full.
It will always remain a "science of the gaps" since it can only hope to examine a metonymic slice between the macro and the micro.
Empiricism can not even reveal the extent of a single cup of flour, what to speak of life, the universe, etc etc

Metonymic is a new word for me

Anyhow, unless you provide an example for your claim and elaborate why this becomes a "science of the gaps" because of it, I'm reluctant to take your claim for granted.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

actually empiricism has no scope to understand anything in full.
It will always remain a "science of the gaps" since it can only hope to examine a metonymic slice between the macro and the micro.
Empiricism can not even reveal the extent of a single cup of flour, what to speak of life, the universe, etc etc

Metonymic is a new word for me

Anyhow, unless you provide an example for your claim and elaborate why this becomes a "science of the gaps" because of it, I'm reluctant to take your claim for granted.

to say it the same thing in a different manner, empiricism is only capable of tacit (and not explicit) definitions

for instance if I point to a cup of flour you could then break that definition down into particles of flour, then you could break it down into compound particles, then break it down to molecules, etc etc (until one exhausts the available resources of microscopic investigation) and still result in an incomplete picture - hence the whole business of empirical definition has no scope for knowing ANYTHING in full

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

to say it the same thing in a different manner, empiricism is only capable of tacit (and not explicit) definitions

for instance if I point to a cup of flour you could then break that definition down into particles of flour, then you could break it down into compound particles, then break it down to molecules, etc etc (until one exhausts the available resources of microscopic investigation) and still result in an incomplete picture - hence the whole business of empirical definition has no scope for knowing ANYTHING in full

Ah, now I see what you mean. That's a good point, but surely the scope of empirical definitions are applied within a context, which in turn makes it satisfactory for that purpose.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I do pay my taxes. They don't bother me not paying them, thats your problem to get them to do it. I leave them to their lives remember?

Yes, it doesn't bother you, it's your cult. Duh.

I'm sick and tired of my taxes paying for their land use while they pocket a fortune of tax free revenues and build their fucking grotesque churches everywhere like a blight on the land.

Lifes not fair, get over Q. Life doesn't go your own way in life all the time. Got a problem with people not paying taxes and churches being everywhere? Then get into politics, become the most important person ever born to gain enough power to stop religion and tear down all churches, if you can't do that then shut the funk up.

Willmer

Are you saying that you too believe it is unfair for churches to have tax-exempt status?

They have whatever the governments of the world design fit. After all a panel of them decided on it, I will not contest their decision. I don't have an opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

Isn't it possible that us humans just think of God in our concept of existance, and God can perhaps be more complex than we could ever comprehend?

Evolution for instance, most relegious persons say that evolution is wrong because God had created us all. Think about this, mabye evolution was just a TOOL for God TO CREATE US with.

How can something that created existance exist itself? I believe God is way more complex than any human could possibly understand.

What you are saying is just the same thing my mum told me.
1. Sure God could be anything. He could be a three-headed donkey hippo for all we know. All the Gods and what surrounds them is complexity.
2. In the bible it does say that god made man out of dust and women out of the man's rib. That sounds like a typical nonsensical religious story to me but to many religious people, that is what they have been raised to believe as it is what was stated in the bible.
3. That is the question I asked and many others do. Truth is we don't know, the bible never explained it and it is just one of Christianities mysteries.

The only thing that set Christianity apart from any other religions is that fact that the deity supposedly loves us. I think that more research into the religions of others is required.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

to say it the same thing in a different manner, empiricism is only capable of tacit (and not explicit) definitions

for instance if I point to a cup of flour you could then break that definition down into particles of flour, then you could break it down into compound particles, then break it down to molecules, etc etc (until one exhausts the available resources of microscopic investigation) and still result in an incomplete picture - hence the whole business of empirical definition has no scope for knowing ANYTHING in full

Ah, now I see what you mean. That's a good point, but surely the scope of empirical definitions are applied within a context, which in turn makes it satisfactory for that purpose.

hence the working sphere (or the "satisfactory" element you refer to) of empiricism is relativity - relative to "us" (or the seer) - for instance an empirical measure of a cup of flour is just what is required to make a cake, but going further into issues of what it ultimately is simply results in further (albeit somewhat more complex) relative definitions.

So to get back to your original post

God will in my opinion always remain a god of the gaps. That's the only reason why he's "beyond" our comprehension.

you can also add "a cup of flour" next to "god"

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

hence the working sphere (or the "satisfactory" element you refer to) of empiricism is relativity - relative to "us" (or the seer) - for instance an empirical measure of a cup of flour is just what is required to make a cake, but going further into issues of what it ultimately is simply results in further (albeit somewhat more complex) relative definitions.

So to get back to your original post

God will in my opinion always remain a god of the gaps. That's the only reason why he's "beyond" our comprehension.

you can also add "a cup of flour" next to "god"

Well that simply isn't comparable IMO. Because whatever God is explained relative to is shown later on to not be the case, hence the term "God of the gaps". God is avoiding a definition, or rather choosing definitions which hides him from any real definition.