God probably exists ii

[Big Eye]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

If god exists then gods can exist. Why worship one when you can worship many

 

[Big Eye]

If god exists then gods can exist. Why worship one when you can worship many

This has nothing to do with particular Gods, it's about the idea that there is a conscious will behind the Universe, that's all...worship who you like.

 

[watsup]

No need to attempt to debunk your “theory” because it’s nonsense on the face of it.

 

[watsup]

This has nothing to do with particular Gods, it's about the idea that there is a conscious will behind the Universe, that's all...worship who you like.

Except that there’s no objective and reality-based evidence for a “conscious will”. The universe is evidence of the universe, nothing more. And you continue to use Occam’s Razor in a totally inappropriate manner.

 

[Big Eye]

No need to attempt to debunk your “theory” because it’s nonsense on the face of it.

Well , you need to explain why mind independence is required to make your statement worthy of any consideration.

We know thoughts exist, we do not know for sure that there is anything outside of the realm of thought...you have to explain why there needs to be. See how this works ? Only reply when you've had a think about it mate.

 

[Quag]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

Not sure what imagining universes has to do with anything but the last bit appears to be just the failed argument from design.

 

[Big Eye]

Except that there’s no objective and reality-based evidence for a “conscious will”. The universe is evidence of the universe, nothing more. And you continue to use Occam’s Razor in a totally inappropriate manner.

You know from personal experience that conscious will exists. You also know that conscious will is required were you to produce something finely balanced and predictable (like a watch). So from this it is reasonable to infer that if you wish to add an additional layer of predictable systems to the predictable system that constitutes the Universe then you have to will it. From this it is reasonable to infer that the Universe (which is a predictable system) is willed.

If we don't need mind independence in order to explain reality then Occam would advise us to drop it since there is no purpose to it (other than to deny God , which is political not scientific).

 

[zyzygy]

Well , you need to explain why mind independence is required to make your statement worthy of any consideration.

We know thoughts exist, we do not know for sure that there is anything outside of the realm of thought...you have to explain why there needs to be. See how this works ? Only reply when you've had a think about it mate.

What do you mean by the realm of thought? Individual thought? There is a whole universe which will still be there when my brain ceases to function.

 

[zyzygy]

You know from personal experience that conscious will exists. You also know that conscious will is required were you to produce something finely balanced and predictable (like a watch). So from this it is reasonable to infer that if you wish to add an additional layer of predictable systems to the predictable system that constitutes the Universe then you have to will it. From this it is reasonable to infer that the Universe (which is a predictable system) is willed.

If we don't need mind independence in order to explain reality then Occam would advise us to drop it since there is no purpose to it (other than to deny God , which is political not scientific).

I call it scientific, no evidence.

 

[Big Eye]

Not sure what imagining universes has to do with anything but the last bit appears to be just the failed argument from design.

It's about the nature of reality. If there is will behind the Universe or whether it is accidental has huge implications for human behaviour.

The argument from design is a good argument if you really understand it. If you think the Universe is ordered and predictable (which it seem to be) and you know that in order to add order and predictability to it (like make a watch) you need will , then it is reasonable to assume the Universe itself requires will.

 

[Big Eye]

What do you mean by the realm of thought? Individual thought? There is a whole universe which will still be there when my brain ceases to function.

The whole Universe exists as generated thought (like the Universe is a mind) . What makes it reality is the rules that are built into the "program". So if your thought stops you are correct in thinking everything else carries on.

 

[Big Eye]

I call it scientific, no evidence.

Are you saying that there is no evidence for conscious will?

 

[watsup]

Well , you need to explain why mind independence is required to make your statement worthy of any consideration.

We know thoughts exist, we do not know for sure that there is anything outside of the realm of thought...you have to explain why there needs to be. See how this works ? Only reply when you've had a think about it mate.

Dropping out. This is just nonsense double-talk and has no real meaning.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

1. You are misapplying Occam's razor, which doesn't actually rule out the less simple explanations.
2. A universe in which matter is a product of thought is not necessarily any simpler than a universe in which thought is a product of matter.
3. Taken to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, your argument would have the entirety of existence consisting of disembodied thought, which does not equate with anything being "created" and certainly not with the concept of a "God" in any sense that matters.

 

[Big Eye]

1. You are misapplying Occam's razor, which doesn't actually rule out the less simple explanations.
2. A universe in which matter is a product of thought is not necessarily any simpler than a universe in which thought is a product of matter.
3. Taken to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, your argument would have the entirety of existence consisting of disembodied thought, which does not equate with anything being "created" and certainly not with the concept of a "God" in any sense that matters.

1. Occam's razor indicates that we should go with the simplest explanation that covers all the required points, that's not to say that the simplest explanation is necessarily right ,just that it should be assumed to be so until shown otherwise.

2.Your second point misses by miles...there is no matter (in the mind independent sense ) in this theory...that stuff is replaced by laws.

3. This theory goes with the idea that our thoughts are within the greater mind's thoughts...like Chrome within Windows. There is nothing "disembodied" about it.

 

[Big Eye]

Dropping out. This is just nonsense double-talk and has no real meaning.

Cheers bud.

 

[zyzygy]

The whole Universe exists as generated thought (like the Universe is a mind) . What makes it reality is the rules that are built into the "program". So if your thought stops you are correct in thinking everything else carries on.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[zyzygy]

Are you saying that there is no evidence for conscious will?

No evidence for a conscious universe.

 

[zyzygy]

It's about the nature of reality. If there is will behind the Universe or whether it is accidental has huge implications for human behaviour.

The argument from design is a good argument if you really understand it. If you think the Universe is ordered and predictable (which it seem to be) and you know that in order to add order and predictability to it (like make a watch) you need will , then it is reasonable to assume the Universe itself requires will.

UNIVERSE CHAOTIC FROM VERY BEGINNING

Universe Chaotic From Very Beginning : Northwestern University News

 

[Visbek]

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

You clearly don't understand Occam's Razor.

His claim is that the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct. It's not a law, there is no necessity for the simpler explanation to be true.

For example, it's simpler for a photon to act like a particle or a wave. The reality is that photons exhibit properties of both particles and waves. The mind-boggling complexity of wave-particle duality doesn't falsify it.

I'd also say that the concept of a deity is horrendously complicated -- far, far more so than a universe without a deity where things exist simply because they exist. Odd how that didn't occur to you. Anyway....

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

I'm sorry, but your post is a nonsensical mess, and a terrible iteration of the "Intelligent Design" argument.

No, intelligence is not necessary to create the universe. The ability of humans to design things in no way, shape or form, establishes that "intelligence is required for things to be created."

On a side note: The universe also is NOT predictable, at its most fundamental level. Quantum mechanics is all about probability and randomness. The "predictability" is a function of the outcomes of billions of quantum events.

 

[NWO_Spook]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

Ahh! The argument for design from complexity. The Watchmaker analogy reinvented, which is of course, questionable, as it is another example of an argument from incredulity.

 

[grip]

The instinct and will to survive are preeminent and preexistent over thought. Complex thoughts, memory capacity, and self-awareness evolved from natural selection and the instincts to exist.

Without the 5 senses, nature does not come into conscious focus. Things would have no meaning without thought. This in itself does not necessarily suggest a supreme being, but the universe has created a situation where complex life forms are becoming consciously aware of themselves in relation to their environment and each other. This may indicate life has a purpose other than just to exist, perhaps to define itself.

For example; the universe thru humanity has indirectly reached a level of sophistication to design a technologically advanced civilization, overcoming nature's obstacles. The universe is basically all energy, with life as an extension and way for it to consciously express itself. In this case, God would not be merely a singular entity but also intricately interwoven into the fabric of all life.

 

[Big Eye]

No evidence for a conscious universe.

Nor an unconscious one...but at least we know thought exists...unlike unthought.

 

[Big Eye]

UNIVERSE CHAOTIC FROM VERY BEGINNING

Universe Chaotic From Very Beginning : Northwestern University News

From my point of view chaos is where no ideas are formed...it is the ground where order has the potential to form if will is applied...like a mess of cards turned into a tower of cards.