Using this concept of matter in pursuit of an end state as an example of God, then God's ultimate plan is the heat death of the Universe, which seems to contradict the idea of God's omnibenevolence, and the reason for humanity's existence. But that's not the end of this confusion. This concept of God as the ideal means that God itself is an emergent phenomenon, meaning that God, by your own definitions, couldn't of existed before the creation of the universe, leaving this question not just unanswered, but unanswerable. It fails to answer the very question you brought up before getting to this point, which was how the universe came into being. I could argue that the definition of God is a sandwich, and atheists would be forced to agree with me because sandwiches exist, therefore god exists, but that fails to address the actual arguments against God made by most atheists.īut even then this definition of God as an ideal seems to break down. What is this ideal look like? Is it the pursuit of this ideal proof of God's existence? The fact that churches within Christianity alone can't agree on what God even is proves to me that the definition of God is not something to just be assumed as agreed upon. Conflating the idea of "Soul" with "Higher Purpose" can work in some instances, but the existence of a higher purpose doesn't mean the existence of a soul.Īnother conflation of language is that of "God" with the Ideal state of things. There is a lot of conflation of language here, that I don't think lends your argument much credibility. REMEMBER NONE OF THIS IS TRUE, FOOLISH LIES THAT MAY TRAP THE UNWARY!!!! No, it was the meaning that created the matter not the matter that created the meaning, to say the matter is more important is idiotic! Html is not physically real but without it you could not read this. Pi is not physically real but it very much is a real thing or you would not have circles. You might say it is not physicaly real so it is all make belive. The idea of an anthromorphic being would be the way an overiding ideal would probablly be represented in the basic human mind without artificial rendering of the universe and of course the nature of our "souls" would co-incide to an extent with the over-riding principles of the universe. Some might claim the world has changed since then so it is obselete, I would largely disagree on the grounds human nature and basic human interactions and the fundemental nature of the universe has remained constant. The trouble with emergent behaviour is that it is incredibly difficult to predict so anyone thinking they know better than billions of years of evoultion (the "soul") better have very strong evidence before they should be taken seriously. It seems the Abrahamic religions and a copule of others are the ones that resonate most strongly with peoples "souls", "souls" that are the product of eons of brain evoultion. The "soul" having a supposed evoultionary advantage should then ultimately also follow certain behaviours in the pursuit of a the aformentioned end, the "God". Then came humans who have the power to control their impulses and to describe the universe at least to an extent. Life emerged from it and by natrual selection were forced to behave in certain ways ultimately to the same end. This principle was largely followed unconsiously for eons until we have the universe as we know it. Is it suprising many people claim to see God in everything? This ideal could be seen as a sort of "God". The particles could be said to follow a certain set of laws following a certain ideal. Subatomic particles behaving in certain ways that lead to either them not destroying themselves or creating more subatomic particles and then going on to create more complex structures which in turn went on to create more complex structures etc. Peoples "souls" generally seek to follow the ways of "good", what is "good"?Īccording to some it is most likely a series of complex behaviours which give an evoulutionary advantage to tribes and individuals. This phenomona could could reasonably be described as having a "soul". People are almost never purely motivated by physical stimuli they always see themselves as having a higher purpose even if they are hardcore nihilist athiest "rationalist" types.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |