Then the answer is we don’t know. We don’t know if God is. The question to the question “are there things science has not explained or even discovered yet” is yes, wouldn’t you say?
I think the concept is that a reality above beyond and outside of the one we are currently measuring exists. Purely speculation and theoretical. I don’t get why the question of God’s whereabouts is even relevant, or why our inability to answer scientifically tells us anything.
I agree. What do you think this means? I think “I don’t think there is anything else” or “if there is it isn’t relevant to our lives” are perfectly legitimate responses. I also think a tendency to believe there is something more is a legitimate response.
I like the SIms analogy. In fact, I read something interesting (not necessarily persuasive, but interesting) awhile ago in the NY Times.
This article suggests that, given a series of assumptions, there’s a nearly 100% mathematical certainty that we’re all simulations within a computer program. The assumptions are:
-At some point, humans develop a computer powerful enough to simulate their ancestors (i.e., us, or, rather, their actual ancestors, since we’re just simulations).
-They create these simulations for research or for pleasure.
-Many such simulations exist.
It’s a pretty interesting read. Not sure I’m convinced, but it’s interesting.
As such, it’s possible that our creator–some loser dude who still lives in his mom’s basement–exists outside of space (inasmuch as what we know as space is really just the workings of a microchip) and time (ditto).
What were they before we made those units up and named them?
The exact same things they are now. Why wouldn’t they be?
I disagree with this analogy. Isn’t it feasible that we could interface a microphone, webcam, or even just a keyboard to the Sims and communicate with them? If the program was sufficiently advanced enough (i.e. the AI of the sims), then it seems conceivable to me to belief they could hold intelligent conversation with someone “outside their known universe.”
Saying something exists outside time and space seems illogical and borderline retarded. Something that isn’t connected to time and space does by rational definition not exist. So I guess it’s a slightly more catchy way of saying “X has property Y without fulfilling any of the criterias for property Y”. Doesn’t make sense, but then again, when does religion? I find that nodding, smiling and politely moving on is the best course of action when confronted with these things.
See I find this kind of condescension passed of as logic to be just as worthy of of that kind of action.
The exact same things? What did we call them?
I plead guilty to being condecending towards religion and religious views. I make no excuses. You could add arrogance and intolerance to the list of my flaws as well and I would not protest. The simple fact is that I don’t respect religion or religious views. I find them childish and silly and I think the world would be a better place without them. Having said that I of course strongly support everyones right to believe whatever they like, but at the same time I will excercise my right to roll my eyes, make silly noises and generally express ridicule towards people who hold beliefs that I find stupid.
We didn’t call them anything, because we didn’t exist.
Of course. But the odd thing about a belief in God is that believers say that he is beyond our scope of knowledge yet claim to know him intimately.
They say he is outside of time and space yet they claim he can operate within time and space but leave no sign or evidence (except in their head). ???
The problem is, not only does your condescension add nothing useful to the discussion, it ignores the things people have already said in the discussion about what such a phrase might mean. You may disagree with the ideas put forth, but to dismiss them as stupid without explaining why only advances our knowledge insasmuch as we now know more about what kind of intellect you possess–which, no offense, isn’t particularly interesting knowledge.
(bolding mine)
I would disagree because there is not even any reason to wonder “if God is”. A more useful statement would be: “We don’t know what is”. If one chooses to define God as anything unknown then of course “God” exists. But if that is the case, one is only using God as a variable. One might as well say “X” instead of “God”.
As usual, the whole God debate comes down to one’s definition of God. I maintain that if one’s definition of God is “X” (the unknown) then God exists, but that is a silly and misleading use of the word God. Pretty much any other definition of God (save pantheism) is mere fantasizing.
Agreed, but I think that’s beyond the scope of this thread. The interesting question here, I think, is whether it’s coherent to speak of an entity existing beyond the space and the time we know of. I believe it is, for reasons given above.
I respectfully disagree. Firstly I think I explained why I find this particular statement about a magical entity existing without existing stupid, and secondly I don’t think there’s much point in developing the answer beyond that. Someone who holds irrational views to the deep extent of religiousness will most likely not change their view just because someone makes a good argument against it. So there’s no point in having a discussion with the intent of changing someones mind on the matter.
So my conclusion (which may very well be seriously flawed and/or stupid) is that the only points of discussing religion with someone who is religious are these:
To discourage other neutral or undecided observers from catching religion
Personal amusement
You explained that you found it stupid, but you did nothing to refute the ideas listed. You just called them stupid. And saying “existing without existing” just shows that you haven’t begun to comprehend some of the explanations offered. You could use some humility; it’d help you break past your own barriers and maybe learn something.
What is it about religious beliefs that offends you so much? How is “love thy neighbor” stupid?
Well that, friend is refreshingly honest at least.
The thing is this “Something that isn’t connected to time and space does by rational definition not exist.” isn’t necessarily religious. To each their own.
I guess there was no one around to prove how completely wrong I am. Lucky for me I guess.