I feel like the fact that we are not fully aware of all the things that exist in this universe, makes it impossible for us to be positive that something which we'd consider a God does not exist. (whatever a God may be to each of us).
That's an interesting point friend but I must respectfully disagree.
I suppose you can call this a difference of perspective but the problem I have with this line of thought is that it ignores how we progress and gain knowledge.
The basic premise of that argument is that since we do not know everything we cannot know anything.
Sadly that line of thought runs completely contrary to the long and slow process of discovery. We take in everything and through a gradual process of elimination we determine what isn't possible leaving us with the truth. We had eliminated the supernatural long ago through our discovery of, and refinement in, our understanding of physics. Sadly a God falls firmly within the supernatural. The common question "what came before" is moot as we do not know. The common retort "how do you know what came before" is also moot as it does not matter as it would have no influence on the outcome. This missing data does not mean that the answer is supernatural in nature. The creation of the universe and life must fall within the laws of physics not the supernatural.
The lack of an answer does not make the impossible truth.
All that being said I'd prefer it if your point of view was correct in all honesty I'd be rather happy if it was.
Thank you very much for your input. I believe this is an excellent point of view, and one I'd be happy to say I'm not at all against; God might very well not exist, and science might in the end turn out to give humanity a purpose well within the reach of our universe / space, which means we do not need to believe in anything else beyond our reach.
I entirely support the idea that God should not, under any circumstances, fall into the "supernatural" category. God is not some sort of being who is almighty, all-knowing, and entirely perfect. If such a creature as a "God", far beyond our current understanding does exist, it is probably limited too, in my belief, as it would be illogical for it to be able to break the laws of science at will.
But I'm just saying that maybe... look. Here's an imagination exercise, a hypothesis - somewhere out there, there is something that can travel at extreme speeds, it doesn't even have to be intelligent, just move through space like a worm, landing on planets and pooping living cells with unique DNA that inseminate worlds. What if our God is a space worm? It may sound stupid, but it is plausible. I've learned not to dismiss any possibility, as that gives us the option of sparking ideas that may actually make sense in the terms of our level of scientific knowledge.
Sorry for the delay in replying it took me longer to figure out how than I care to admit.
It's nice to have a civil discussion on the topic.
You sir or Madame are great and well informed.
You make your points, you don't rely on insults or childish mockery to any degree and you took the time to read and digest what I said rather than assuming it was a personal attack. This is completely refreshing so thank you for that.
You've raised several excellent points and I do like how you singled out the word "God" in quotations.
One point I believe you've made struck me as something I hadn't considered. Please correct me if I am wrong is that the term God could merely be a linguistic sign post for a concept we have yet to develop due to limits of our understanding.
This struck me as interesting because it would mean both our ideas are valid. Not for political correctness, lack of data or other such nonsense but because of the need to conceptualize something in order for the human brain to process it let alone to understand it. In essence taking the "divine" out of the realm of the supernatural and place it firmly in the realm of the concrete in order to understand the abstract.
I may be off in left field here but I'd like your input on this train of thought.
Thank you for your elaborate response; it is my pleasure to try and reach a conclusion regarding this as I am absolutely not against atheism.
I don't really believe in afterlife; and I strongly reject the rules and principles of any religion; I doubt this "God" of ours made any effort to get in contact with us. We might not even realize it if he were.
Him trying to reach us feels like how we would be waving to our in-game character in front of a computer screen.
I grew up in an extremely religious environment; when I found atheism I thought it made much more sense. But while reading various books (I'm mostly into science fiction literature) there was this general idea that nothing is impossible; neither is the idea of a creature above us, to be honest. No matter how flawed and limited in power it may be, there is a good chance that the complexity of the universe did not spawn by itself, and there may be something beyond this. Something that won't / doesn't even have the power to punish us for the deeds we do while alive. (my conception, which I'm willing to admit is extremely subjective)
I keep getting this general feeling that our universe is a simulation; like we're super advanced characters in a mmorpg and there are these "Gods" watching us like we are watching a computer screen.
There was an article posted some time ago about how men feel instinctively more attracted to women when they're on their period. And as I commented there, it astounds me how our brains do A LOT more work than we give them credit for, without us even realizing it. We are able to contemplate our existence, such as how we are having this conversation now, but a lot of our mind is guided by raw data processed by our brain without our active knowledge. We are not as amazing as we think we are, in this regard.
Here's a related statement.
as Nick Bostrom claims in his 2003 article, ‘Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?’ in Philosophical Quarterly, No. 211, if it becomes possible for us to build such a simulation, then we will probably do so at some time in the future, assuming that human desires and sensibilities remain much the same as they are now. He then reasons that any species which evolves within such a simulation will probably build their own simulated universe. We know that it is possible for them to do so, because they themselves exist inside a simulated universe… and it is possible to continue this nesting of universes indefinitely, each simulated universe eventually spawning intelligent species which build their own simulations. Given the near infinite number of child universes, it is more likely that we exist in one of the billions of simulations, all creating their own simulations, rather than in the single great-grandparent universe.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
I feel like the fact that we are not fully aware of all the things that exist in this universe, makes it impossible for us to be positive that something which we'd consider a God does not exist. (whatever a God may be to each of us).
That's an interesting point friend but I must respectfully disagree.
I suppose you can call this a difference of perspective but the problem I have with this line of thought is that it ignores how we progress and gain knowledge.
The basic premise of that argument is that since we do not know everything we cannot know anything.
Sadly that line of thought runs completely contrary to the long and slow process of discovery. We take in everything and through a gradual process of elimination we determine what isn't possible leaving us with the truth. We had eliminated the supernatural long ago through our discovery of, and refinement in, our understanding of physics. Sadly a God falls firmly within the supernatural. The common question "what came before" is moot as we do not know. The common retort "how do you know what came before" is also moot as it does not matter as it would have no influence on the outcome. This missing data does not mean that the answer is supernatural in nature. The creation of the universe and life must fall within the laws of physics not the supernatural.
The lack of an answer does not make the impossible truth.
All that being said I'd prefer it if your point of view was correct in all honesty I'd be rather happy if it was.
Thank you very much for your input. I believe this is an excellent point of view, and one I'd be happy to say I'm not at all against; God might very well not exist, and science might in the end turn out to give humanity a purpose well within the reach of our universe / space, which means we do not need to believe in anything else beyond our reach.
I entirely support the idea that God should not, under any circumstances, fall into the "supernatural" category. God is not some sort of being who is almighty, all-knowing, and entirely perfect. If such a creature as a "God", far beyond our current understanding does exist, it is probably limited too, in my belief, as it would be illogical for it to be able to break the laws of science at will.
But I'm just saying that maybe... look. Here's an imagination exercise, a hypothesis - somewhere out there, there is something that can travel at extreme speeds, it doesn't even have to be intelligent, just move through space like a worm, landing on planets and pooping living cells with unique DNA that inseminate worlds. What if our God is a space worm? It may sound stupid, but it is plausible. I've learned not to dismiss any possibility, as that gives us the option of sparking ideas that may actually make sense in the terms of our level of scientific knowledge.
Sorry for the delay in replying it took me longer to figure out how than I care to admit.
It's nice to have a civil discussion on the topic.
You sir or Madame are great and well informed.
You make your points, you don't rely on insults or childish mockery to any degree and you took the time to read and digest what I said rather than assuming it was a personal attack. This is completely refreshing so thank you for that.
You've raised several excellent points and I do like how you singled out the word "God" in quotations.
One point I believe you've made struck me as something I hadn't considered. Please correct me if I am wrong is that the term God could merely be a linguistic sign post for a concept we have yet to develop due to limits of our understanding.
This struck me as interesting because it would mean both our ideas are valid. Not for political correctness, lack of data or other such nonsense but because of the need to conceptualize something in order for the human brain to process it let alone to understand it. In essence taking the "divine" out of the realm of the supernatural and place it firmly in the realm of the concrete in order to understand the abstract.
I may be off in left field here but I'd like your input on this train of thought.
Thank you for your elaborate response; it is my pleasure to try and reach a conclusion regarding this as I am absolutely not against atheism.
I don't really believe in afterlife; and I strongly reject the rules and principles of any religion; I doubt this "God" of ours made any effort to get in contact with us. We might not even realize it if he were.
Him trying to reach us feels like how we would be waving to our in-game character in front of a computer screen.
I grew up in an extremely religious environment; when I found atheism I thought it made much more sense. But while reading various books (I'm mostly into science fiction literature) there was this general idea that nothing is impossible; neither is the idea of a creature above us, to be honest. No matter how flawed and limited in power it may be, there is a good chance that the complexity of the universe did not spawn by itself, and there may be something beyond this. Something that won't / doesn't even have the power to punish us for the deeds we do while alive. (my conception, which I'm willing to admit is extremely subjective)
I keep getting this general feeling that our universe is a simulation; like we're super advanced characters in a mmorpg and there are these "Gods" watching us like we are watching a computer screen.
There was an article posted some time ago about how men feel instinctively more attracted to women when they're on their period. And as I commented there, it astounds me how our brains do A LOT more work than we give them credit for, without us even realizing it. We are able to contemplate our existence, such as how we are having this conversation now, but a lot of our mind is guided by raw data processed by our brain without our active knowledge. We are not as amazing as we think we are, in this regard.
Here's a related statement.
Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?