God Is Impossible?

[NotBlinded]

Call it the universe if you like. But, can you deny there is intelligence in the universe?

Define your understanding of "intelligence."

Okay...I think!

 

There are different levels of intelligence. I see intelligence in a rock, in a speck of dust, the middle would be in a flower and a tree. At the other end, I see intelligence in animals. There is intelligence in molecules. That is a good thing because if not, we would not be able to transfer food into energy.

 

Here is something that I ran across showing how rocks (minerals) may have played an important role in the formation of life on this planet:

 

Air, water and rock were the only raw materials available on the early earth. The first living entities must have been fabricated from these primitive resources. New experiments suggest that minerals - the basic components of the rocks - could have played starring roles in that dramatic feat.

No one knows how life arose on the desolate young earth, but one thing is certain: life's origin was a chemical event. Once the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, asteroid impacts periodically shattered and sterilized the planet's surface for another half a billion years. And yet, within a few hundred million years of that hellish age, microscopic life appeared in abundance. Sometime in the interim, the first living entity must have been crafted from air, water and rock.

Of those three raw materials, the atmosphere and oceans have long enjoyed the starring roles in origins-of-life scenarios. But rocks, and the minerals of which they are made, have been called on only as bit players or simply as props. Scientists are now realizing that such limited casting is a mistake. Indeed, a recent flurry of fascinating experiments is revealing that minerals play a crucial part in the basic chemical reactions from which life must have arisen.

The first act of life's origin story must have introduced collections of carbon-based molecules that could make copies of themselves. Achieving even this nascent step in evolution entailed a sequence of chemical transformations, each of which added a level of structure and complexity to a group of organic molecules. The most abundant carbon-based compounds available on the ancient earth were gases with only one atom of carbon per molecule, namely, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane. But the essential building blocks of living organisms-energy-rich sugars, membrane-forming lipids and complex amino acids-may include more than a dozen carbon atoms per molecule. Many of these molecules, in turn, must bond together to form chain like polymers and other molecular arrays in order to accomplish life's chemical tasks. Linking small molecules into these complex, extended structures must have beenespecially difficult in the harsh conditions of the early earth, where intense ultraviolet radiation tended to break down clusters of molecules as quickly as they could form.

Carbon-based molecules needed protection and assistance to enact this drama. It turns out that minerals could have served at least five significant functions, from passive props to active players, in life-inducing chemical reactions. Tiny compartments in mineral structures can shelter Simple molecules, while mineral surfaces can provide the scaffolding on which those molecules assemble and grow. Beyond these sheltering and supportive functions, crystal faces of certain minerals can actively select particular molecules resembling those that were destined to become biologically important. The metallic ions in other minerals can jump-start meaningful reactions like those that must have converted simple molecules into self-replicating entities. Most surprising, perhaps, are the recent indications that elements of dissolved minerals can be incorporated into biological molecules. In other words, minerals may not have merely helped biological molecules come together, they might have become part of life itself.

From here. LIFE'S ROCKY START by Robert M. Hazen

 

In my earlier post in this thread I stated that I like to see minerals as a rudimentary form of consciousness because to say that consciousness is a complicated form of minerals takes a leap of faith to believe. It is like saying that we are conscious because we came from unconscious things. They way I see it is like different levels of intelligence/consciousness where the whole is greater than the parts.

[Skankboy]

Call it the universe if you like. But, can you deny there is intelligence in the universe?

 

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's what I was doing. I can see where you are coming from, but I have never seen anything that would lead me to assign such an attribute to the natural world. For instance, I don't see the "intelligence" of the rocks as you put it. Though I admit that may be due to a difference in our definitions...

 

It just seems to me that you are adding complexity to a system that doesn't require it...

[NotBlinded]

Call it the universe if you like. But, can you deny there is intelligence in the universe?

 

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's what I was doing. I can see where you are coming from, but I have never seen anything that would lead me to assign such an attribute to the natural world. For instance, I don't see the "intelligence" of the rocks as you put it. Though I admit that may be due to a difference in our definitions...

 

It just seems to me that you are adding complexity to a system that doesn't require it...

I understand that.

[kal-el]

After a through reading of the bible, I came to the conclusion that the God of the bible is impossible. Here's my proof: Throughout the bible, this fellow is sketched as having emotions, throwing collasal temper tantrums if we refuse to adulate him. Lst time I checked, emotions were incompatible with omnipotence, not to mention omniscience. Since emotions are basically a reaction to an unexpected action, and being omniscient, he would already know what's gonna happen.

[Eponymic]

Ding!

 

Yup. Kinda hard to be all-knowing and then be bitchy when things go exactly as you knew they would.

 

Or punish people for things going as expected.

[NorthenSun]

If we simply say "a higher power", then that degenerates into meaninglessness.

If we simply say "the creator of the universe" then we are again guilty of a meaningless statement.

Can you elaborate why these are meaningless statements?

They are arbitrary and vague. Saying those things contain as much meaning as saying "flying purple monkeys created the universe.

Asimov,

 

I don't think you can use the general statement that 'something is too vague' as a logical claim that this makes the statement false.

 

One could use this argument on anything, i.e., the Theory of Evolution does not have all the details, its too vague, and therefore is false; or your God is Impossible argument, its too vague, it must be false.

 

Another problem is: for whom is the argument vague? Not wasting money is a vague concept to children and politicians, but this does not mean that rational adults cannot understand the principles of sound money management.

[Asimov]

Asimov,

 

I don't think you can use the general statement that 'something is too vague' as a logical claim that this makes the statement false.

 

One could use this argument on anything, i.e., the Theory of Evolution does not have all the details, its too vague, and therefore is false; or your God is Impossible argument, its too vague, it must be false.

 

Another problem is: for whom is the argument vague? Not wasting money is a vague concept to children and politicians, but this does not mean that rational adults cannot understand the principles of sound money management.

 

If I someone tells me "a higher power created the universe", then I'm gonna ask them what they mean by higher power. If they say "I don't know, a higher power", then that statement is a meaningless one. It carries absolutely no weight, answers absolutely no questions, and reveals absolutely no truths. That is how it is meaningless.

[NorthenSun]

I would guess by higher power they mean something with more knowledge, ability, and intelligence than that possessed by humans. Is this meaningless?

 

Just a thought: A possible inference from the concept of an intelligent creator is that as man increases in intelligence he becomes more like the creator. More god like, if you will. To be like god is to be smart, very smart.

[Lycorth]

That's how I like my gods - meaningless. Harmless, unable to actually do the horrific shit many religions depict their gods as being able to do, and therefore without problem or complication.

 

I believe that at least one creator-type being began the universe, at least in the most basic, fundamental sense. That's it. Nothing that requires worship or identification, nothing that magically is everywhere at once or knows what every sentient being is thinking right now, nothing that is making a record of everything I do and somehow ignores the rest of the immense universe - none of the crapola that human religions have invented. Just a being or beings who did only one definitive act, and that's "create the universe", no matter how that was actually done or whatever the reason it was done for or even if said being or beings even exist anymore. No need to fathom the "will of the Lard", no need to waste endless hours trying to figure out how this being or beings want to have their asses kissed, nothing more than getting on with life after reducing "God" down to this simple and far more logical concept.

 

To me at least, that sort of a "god" is far from impossible. Even if that is impossible too, then it's all good. It all pans out in the end, since the gods of every human religion there is are indeed quite impossible. No proof, no verification, not even a reasonable inference to back up a single one of them. Some are ok gods, others are sick and demented, and all are harmless in the fact that they don't exist. Harmless, and utterly impossible.

 

Hakuna matata.

[Asimov]

I would guess by higher power they mean something with more knowledge, ability, and intelligence than that possessed by humans. Is this meaningless?

 

Well then that's a starting point of defining.

 

I wasn't really pointing to specific Gods, NorthernSun, I was more focusing on the generalized ideas of Creator and Higher Powers that are posited by the spiritual people who don't like the yucky word "God".

 

The only way to disprove any God is to first define it.

[NorthenSun]

Asimov,

 

I am just saying that the inability to fully define a concept does not prove it is impossible.

 

Well, what exactly is a god?

Blah, Blah, Blah

Therefore, god is an impossibility.

 

Well, what exactly is a photon?

Blah, Blah, Blah

Therefore, a photon is an impossibility.

 

I can't follow your logic for a god is impossible argument, yet. More please.

[Asimov]

Asimov,

 

I am just saying that the inability to fully define a concept does not prove it is impossible.

 

No, it's not an inability to define a concept, it's the inability to define, observe, sense experience, provide evidence for or demonstrate in any way that God exists that render it impossible.

[NorthenSun]

Wolfheart,

I like your post.

 

 

 

Some are ok gods, others are sick and demented, and all are harmless in the fact that they don't exist. Harmless, and utterly impossible.

 

The one idea I question is that you appear to be equating 'don't exist' with 'are impossible to exist'.

These are quite different concepts. While I do not believe there are any good, bad, or ugly gods watching over us, I cannot say that it would be impossible for there to be some gods, because I might just be unaware of them. In the same manner I do not believe there are any unicorns on earth, but I can not say it would be impossible for unicorns to exist.

[NorthenSun]

It's not an inability to define a concept, it's the inability to define, observe, sense experience, provide evidence for or demonstrate in any way that God exists that render it impossible.

 

I agree that lack of observations, sensory experience, repeatable demonstrations, or other evidence provides excellent support for the proposition that God does not exist. But none of this says that God is impossible to exist. Although unlikely, I could find some evidence tomorrow which would change my mind.

[Asimov]

It's not an inability to define a concept, it's the inability to define, observe, sense experience, provide evidence for or demonstrate in any way that God exists that render it impossible.

 

I agree that lack of observations, sensory experience, repeatable demonstrations, or other evidence provides excellent support for the proposition that God does not exist. But none of this says that God is impossible to exist. Although unlikely, I could find some evidence tomorrow which would change my mind.

 

That's part of uncertainty, I could find some evidence tomorrow which might make me change my stance that God is impossible...that doesn't mean I shouldn't say that now.

[NorthenSun]

That's part of uncertainty, I could find some evidence tomorrow which might make me change my stance that God is impossible...that doesn't mean I shouldn't say that now.

 

I think your stance is really 'god does not exist' , and not 'god is impossible to exist'.

 

I believe that unicorns do not exist. My definition of a unicorn is a horse like creature with a narrow straight horn sticking out of its head. I don’t think they exist because we don’t have any physical evidence, and people have looked throughout most of the world and not found any. But I do not believe that a unicorn is impossible to exist. Horses exist and narwhales exist, so I can clearly visualize what a horse with a horn would look like. If someone found a unicorn in some newly explored land, I would be surprised, but I don’t think I could assert that it would be impossible. There is a difference between ‘does not exist’ and ‘is impossible to exist’.

 

If you want to make the general proposition that ‘god is impossible’, you need to define what the term god means. Then we can discuss whether or not its existence is possible.