/sci/ - Science & Math

>then what kind of god would you find would be the most rational to you?

None of them; gods are silly.

I dunno; I think the Christian god is more probable than, say, Quetzacoatl. Eastern religions (as you mention) are also fairly believable.

The pantheist god exists. Period. So does the Fabadist god, who is by definition my toothbrush.

to one extent I feel polytheism would be more believable than monotheism, as it would explain allot more turmoil in the world, kind of like the Greeks, but less barbaric. but I think I agree with OP. pantheism makes allot of sense compared to most others, or something along the lines of what Einstein believed

A deist god is the most likely.

/thread

>>2915702

Prolly.

>>2915701

So you're saying that it's more believable to have good and evil gods. Ok, fair enough.

I'm so glad magic/k is real.
:D

>>2915702

Seems more plausible than an interventionalist god.

Capricious.

>I also think the Mormon religion is pretty cool

>mfw when every mormon Ive ever met was shallow, coercive, and deceitful, and my ex-mormon cousin who lives in Utah faces conflict with every he knows for leaving the church

>I also think the Mormon religion is pretty cool.

>Mon visage when the only Mormon I knew turned out to be a pedophile

That said, most likely a Deist God.

>mormon religion is cool

please die

>>2915905
>>2915916
>>2915922

Wow,

I just want to point out that we are not samefag.

OP's question is kind of ridiculous

"If God existed, what god is most likely to exist?"

Is equivalent to asking

"If you had a really fast car, faster than all the others, how fast would it go?"

>>2915922

(Sheldon Cooper style)


...... There there.

One that exists in a higher dimension. Even just a fourth dimensional being would fit the bill of "all knowing" considering that it would see all of our third dimensional cross-sections of existence as a singularity. I also think that the simulation hypothesis could hold some merit.

>>2915930

Ridiculous example.

>>2915943

Why?

Q) If something which is undefined, is defined, how will it be defined?

A) That depends entirely on how you define it, which could be anything.

Nevermind, let me answer OPs question.

A large stack of pancakes. That is the most probable God, assuming God exists. Im not lying, thats my honest opinion.

>>2915953

Read my question again.

_ If _ god existed

then

what is _ your _ , _ personal _ opinion on the most rational god?

And now when reading further I can see you directly answered my question. Allrighty then.

>>2915953
If I die, then suddenly regain my sentience billions of years later after the demise of the universe to find that this whole time, I had been a superstring vibrating in a inter-dimensionally large stack of pancakes, I will be cosmically pissed off.

>>2915992

I meant like, there is an omnipotent but unconscious creature, that is superior and presides over the whole universe. There is no heaven or hell for this God is indifferent to human needs.

This God is pancakes.

>>2915733
the greek gods were not really seen as good or evil, they were more like everyday people when it comes to personality. they were bias and imperfect, they had their flaws, they liked some people, and didn't like others, its not about good and evil. I would actually consider monotheistic religeon to be more about good vs evil. where polytheistic religeon explained reality better in terms of social actions

Well any god with set good vs evil Ideals and the will/means to intervene is almost completely out. Just looking at humans and the wide variety of ethics that we hold so dear that are often contradictory it would be very hard to say a god was on a side of any one, if they where a all powerful god that liked to meddle.

Second I would say most Polly theist Ideas of god don't really edge with me. Any god that is not all powerful and/or all knowing is not worth being called a god. So as much as I like the idea of thor being a god instead I think he fits more of a bill of a supernatural being, but not quit a god.

So he should be an all knowing/all powerful being that does not take sides in any thing. Though that does not really say much a forth dimensional being could easily fall into this bill, which I would not completely discredit as not real.

saged for OP being a retarded hippie with no logic.

>>2916017
This God of yours sounds a lot like the universe itself.


...except the pancakes part...

>>2916056

Whats wrong with the pancakes part?

>>2916043
a fourth dimensional being must be all powerful/all knowing.... ummmm How?

id actually agree deist makes most sense, god created universe, then abandoned it because he doesn't care and has nothing to do with our universe

Reincarnation would be most likely afterlife.
it's the one with the most support anyways

>>2916043
And that fourth dimensional being is also limited to being all powerful in our dimension. He could have "God" in a higher dimension. And the tenth dimension is only the limit of human imagination, so shit could get insanely complicated.

>>2916062

I don't think they have to be. I just think that if a being is in a higher dimension than us they are a lot more likely to be able to glance at our universe and just see it, much the way you would just look at a panting on the wall. Its not that they have to be or that they are even likely to be. Its just that if they are in a position to look in on us from above(or the N equivalent) they are more likely to fit the bill of what I said a god was.

>>2916062
Fourth dimensional beings would see our three dimensional world as a singularity. Much the same as we would see all points in a 2 dimensional world. That is to say if you can even pass through the dimensions. If you can't, then the idea of a knowing god is completely out of the question.

Most likely would be a creature in a higher dimension that has no clue that it accidentally the entire 3rd dimensional plane. Much like a two dimensional creature traveling across the surface of a sphere, we have no clue what movements we are making in other dimensions. We could all be creating different universe by accident as we speak.

God is the universe and everything beyond it. It is not sentient. It is infinity.

I like the idea of Spinoza's God: basically that God is the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe. Subscribers to this belief include Einstein and Sagan.

>>2916122

So does Meteor Cocku and most other pop scientists, for that matter.

>>2916108

I'm assuming in this defition there is no such thing as true sentience.

Otherwise, universe contains sentient beings.

God is universe.

Ergo....

>it would have to be the pantheist (buddha, tao, zen)

Man buddhism doesn't have shit to do with that. Just saiyan.

Mahayana Buddhism (which Zen is, also, is Buddhism + tons of weird shit) has the concept of a Buddha being omniscient but this is still a step away from the concept of a pantheistic God.

Taoism doesn't really apply either I don't think, but the Tao is still some kind of "absolute" thingie in a way, so that's less wrong I guess.

Polytheistic deistic gods.

I'd go with the typical Christian God.
If I were a god, I would troll the fuck out of my subjects

>>2916140
I think thats why bhuddism has been reffered to as an atheistic religeon, as they dont actually worship a god per se (or some groups dont)

Probably god being the computer simulation of this universe. Even if god existed, I don't see a "human" god being possible.

>>2916177

Well, none of them do.

The earliest stratum of Buddhist doctrine (that which is thought to be connected to an actual guy who lived in India way back when) denies any kind of supreme God or Absolute.

Mahayana Buddhism sprung from that by people with a messiah complex who wanted to become saviors of the universe, and in doing so over time bulked up what the concept of a Buddha is. That is, from a guy who understands the end of suffering, to that + transcendental omniscient etc. Though even that is still no absolute god, just a theoretical being which is powerful, but not godly. Vajrayana (tibetan buddhism) is the latest strand of Mahayana and it adds even -more- conceptual baggage to that.

I know none of you guys care but so many people seem to have a weird idea about Buddhism that I feel the need to 'splain. It has nothing to do with God Buddha or some absolute monad or "oneness" or whatever shit. Though some weirdos in Tibet come close on some counts.

>>2916186
Then who designed the computer simulation.

As soon as we design a simulation of the universe with sentient beings within it, it almost must be true that we are living in another simulation.

>>2915667
>rational god
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean which kind of god is the most plausible? The kind that doesn't interfere with humans.

I'm actually a Buddhist myself, OP.

:) Obviously, you will be able to tell my thoughts on the subject matter.

>>2916122
Spinoza's god isn't just physical laws, it is a conscious being.

I dont know why some of you science people equate the universe with God. It seems arbitrary to me.

So what if the universe is everything? How does that make it special?

>>2917461
>nihilist who can't see the beauty of the universe or science because he can't get a girlfriend detected

>I also think the Mormon religion is pretty cool.

laughinggirls.jpg

I agree that it would have to be pan-theist.
A Judeo-Christian God (which in my opinion is impossible: google Epicurus) would be horrible.

>>2919800

>google Epicurus

Hate that argument.

The existence of evil does not inherently deny the concept of god's omnibenevolence. It is an unknowable entity with a plan for creation, evil would be a deliberate blemish that, too, has its place in the universe.

Yes, this also means God cares for the wicked.

>>2919815
But surely an omnipotent God could wipe out evil, or stop it from happening.
And I know I'm just recycling the Epicurus argument but I'm interested in knowing your response.

>>2919815

Hate it because its true?

You're being intellectually dishonest if you dont see that Epicurus statement is valid, moreover, for all the power god has he has yet to prevent the "evils" being done.

Its also impossible to be omniscient/omnipotent.... only children believe this.

>>2919836
He will. just not on your timetable, or on epifagcurious' timetable

>>2919878
which is why the Kingdom of God is made up of ones like these (children)

enjoy being the smartest guy in Hell

The other thing I detest about the christian god is that supposedly he can sentence me to eternal damnation for petty sins, even thought-crime. Sounds like tyranny to me.
Also, as he is all-knowing, he knows my every thought and therefore knows I will never believe in him. He knew this when I was born.
So therefore he programmed me and my life for so that I would to go to eternal torture...

i would find a god who did my bidding the most agreeable,
But if we look to nature and assume it to be a creation of the mind of a god.... hes is violent, unforgiving, places force and ability above all morality....
this is why if you look at the world as it is, having no creator is much more comforting. the guy who opted for evolution as his prima facia system being real, well thats just scary, how the fuck do deal with some one who's only concern is results.
any way have to run, look steven harpers having an election...

a dead god

>>2919923

Lrn2theology. God doesn't cause evil in the world. You did because you couldn't behave yourselves. There's such a thing as personal responsibility here.

>>2919972
What about earthquake etc.?
Humans didn't cause them, if you believe in a god then he must have caused them/failed to prevent them.

Whoa this topic still exists?

>>2919943

People misunderstand what the phrase "God is dead" means. On the surface it looks like some blunt and empty anti-theistic statement. But it really demands context.

I didnt read thus spoke zarathura, but I know where the phrase came from.

There was a man who came riding into a village late at night bringing alarming news to everyone. The whole village was woken up and came to him to see what he came to announce. He told everyone that "God is dead." When hearing the news, no one had any reaction and couldnt understand what he was saying. He realized how they felt and said "I have come too early" and he left.

The idea Neitzsche was trying to say was that all Gods come and go through out culture, and no one ever believes they have a shelf life. People get conquered, or convinced and the whole institution of society swings its mind from "That was a dumb petty idea, now this is truly the divine and eternal reality"

Saying "God is dead" was announcing that the christian God had been toppled, which is believed to be impossible, but none the less inevitable. When people didnt respond, the speaker knew that he had come too early and that the people he was speaking too still had no capacity to imagine how God could die.

Saying "God is dead" isnt saying "Deer, Im an atheist and yer ideas r dumb"

Saying "God is dead" is a statement about how superficial God really is.

>>2919984

No, but we could not go to Heaven due to misbehaving, so we must instead live in an imperfect world where disasters like that occur.

Sounds like you'd describing more Panentheism (which Spinoza described and Einstein followed) than Pantheism.

>>2919836

You assume there that evil is not desirable.

With a pantheistic view point, god is reliving himself through pain in order to know himself fully again. We are all part of god, and we all want to experience who we truly are once more because it's the most joyous thing there is, and so we choose to forget everything about god (so we can know him once more).

This is done with the ego - we think we are some entity called "me" and that we are identified with our bodies. Once we have experienced all there is to experience, we become enlightened - like Buddha, and Jesus.

>>2915681
I agree, but Quetzalcoatl did exist. He wasn't a god, though; he was simply an extraterrestrial who was mistaken for one.

>>2920007

In fact, when the Spanish arrived in Mexico, they didn't deny the existence of the Aztec gods; rather they thought they were demons sent to corrupt the people and cause them to commit human sacrifices.

In my opinion, the most likely god would not be a supernatural one, but one that got its powers by developing technology so advanced that we would consider the capabilities godlike. For instance, living forever and being able to move whole galaxies would be things I would expect a deity to be able to do. If technology is actually developed to allow a being / alien species to actually do things like this, they can come as close to a deity as possible (without the contradictions in the powers most deities are supposed to have).

>>2920021
The Spanish were right, but they had no way of knowing what extraterrestrials were, so they had to give them the name of something familiar: demons.

Just like the Old Testament. In it, you have many sightings of people coming down from the sky with lightning and thunder and all sorts of things. They didn't know what they possibly could be so they gave them the name of something that was familiar to them: God/Angels. Makes sense because why would the Almighty Uncreated Creator of the Universe need a vehicle to travel around in with displays of glorious fire and thunder?

>>2919924 this is why a God is a scary answer. ie >>2919984
if you accept an intelligent designer of this place, you have to seriously question his morality!
Even Trees take sunlight and nourishment from plants under them, even their own offspring!
All living things must impose on other things for existence.
we consume,
the nature of nature is not nurturing
if god then not benevolent
if benevolent, then not this earth.
the maker of this system cared little for individual lives, only (arguably) the continuation of life.
to answer OP's question, no religion has fully reconciled the notion of a creators compassion with nature. TAO (from what ive read) is closest, but it says basically.. do science

>>2920006

The amount of home grown buddhist masters on 4chan is hilarious.

Yes, I do believe I exist. I do believe in "me." I dont get how that is some violation of nature.

>>2920006
I was just arguing against the christian god, I find pan-theism an interesting idea, although still speculation there is no evidence for.
>>2919995
There is zero evidence for god(s) or an afterlife.
It is again just speculation, and extremely harmful speculation at that, just look at all the disgusting things religion is to blame for.

>>2920055

>There is zero evidence for god(s) or an afterlife.

A lot of people will tell you otherwise.

>It is again just speculation, and extremely harmful speculation at that, just look at all the disgusting things religion is to blame for.

Well, some religions anyway. It wasn't Irish nuns who flew planes in the WTC, you know.

>>2920072
Well give me some hard evidence and I'll be bloody impressed. I mean evidence, not opinions.
Also the Irish catholic church is responsible for mass child rape, so there.

>>2920072

>A lot of people will tell you otherwise.

Those people are morans

>Well, some religions anyway. It wasn't Irish nuns who flew planes in the WTC, you know.

But it was Catholic priests who were raping little boys for decades. Alongside the crusades, the inquisitions, their roles in the Rwandan genocides, their inaction in the Second World War (not only refusing to condemn Hitler, but also praying for him), spreading the lie that condoms spread AIDS, the list is endless

>>2915696
>fabadist

please explain what this means, i cant find anything on it :s

>>2920115

>Those people are morons

Well see when you've already taken it on blind faith that they're wrong, you're as much of an irrational fanatic as the fundies.

>But it was Catholic priests who were raping little boys for decades. Alongside the crusades, the inquisitions, their roles in the Rwandan genocides, their inaction in the Second World War (not only refusing to condemn Hitler, but also praying for him), spreading the lie that condoms spread AIDS, the list is endless

Obvious copypasta from richarrddawkins.net is obvious. Come back when you have some original arguments. If you regurgitate stale atheist talking points, then you cease to be taken seriously.

myself

>>2920072

This might be a little informative as to why Religion is terrible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

>>2915667
>Mormon religion is pretty cool.


lolwat. imo it makes no more sense than scientology.

>>2920148

>This might be a little informative as to why Islam is terrible.

Agreed 101%

>>2915702
very simple. this.

>>2920072
>. It wasn't Irish nuns who flew planes in the WTC,
Irish nuns propagate the dogma and misinformation about condoms and AIDs and against contraception thus keeping vast swathes of people in a poverty trap around the world and causing millions to die of infection

>>2920115
And what exactly did YOU do to stop Hitler, Mr. High And Mighty?

Swing your hammer to crack the sky
Lift your cape so that you might fly
Back to Odin and gods on high
And leave this mortal world

Thor the mighty, Thor the brave
Crush the infidels in your way
By your hammer let none be saved
Live to die on that final day
Gods, monsters and men
We'll die together in the end
Odin

>>2920049

There is nothing wrong with the notion of "me", it is the most holiest of all. Without "me", you can't ever know god. Because it is through "me" that you recognize him once more.

>>2920170

I wasn't around back then.

>>2919923
you should totally trick Him and start worshipping Him and go to His house and be joyful forever

that would totally show Him

>>2920178

Okay.

>>2920168

See >>2920136. You post stale copypastas from atheist websites and you instantly lose all credibility.

>>2920184
That's a sorry fucking excuse.

>>2920021
proof the Spanish weren't always useless

Not at all. You can criticize them for the Inquisition, but they did put an end to human sacrifice in Mexico.

>>2920205

Given that you likely weren't around back then either...

>>2920223
like i care about a few thousand murders during the inquisition

when socialists/communists have killed hundreds of millions....

>Well see when you've already taken it on blind faith that they're wrong, you're as much of an irrational fanatic as the fundies.

There is no proof for the existence of god, so until there is, he doesn't exist

>Obvious copypasta from richarrddawkins.net is obvious. Come back when you have some original arguments. If you regurgitate stale atheist talking points, then you cease to be taken seriously.

Not copypasta actually, I am just aware of the catholic churches heinous crimes. You obviously can't think of an real comeback to these claims so you retort to the ad homs

>>2920223
Seriously. They killed a few hundred religious reformers but saved how many thousands of savages from having their still-beating heart ripped out of their chest? On the balance, I give them an A+.

>>2920223
um, that's a good thing?

>>2920170

I wasn't alive

>>2920239
are you alive now? a thousand babies are being slaughtered every day in the US

are you alive now? what are you doing about that atrocity?

>>2920242
I'll tell you what he's doing. He's sitting in his room masturbating. That's what he's doing.

>>2920235

Trivia time: The Inquisition was imported into Mexico early on, but they exempted Indians from it on the grounds that, as recent converts to Christianity, they could not be fully held responsible for their actions.

There were also various figures in the Church who protested the wanton murder and enslavement of Indians in the Spanish colonies.

>>2920242
promoting reason and secular values

>>2920249

>I'll tell you what I'm doing. I'm sitting in my room masturbating to CP. That's what I'm doing.

Yes, but tell me something I didn't already know.

>>2915667
>In my opinion, it would have to be the pantheist (buddha, tao, zen)
>pantheist (buddha, tao, zen)
>(buddha, tao, zen)
>(buddha, zen)
Fuck, you don't know shit now do you? First of, there is no God in Buddhism. Sure, 'Om' is a Buddhist mantra, and the Buddhist universe is filled with mystical beings, but no - there is no God in the Buddhist universe.

Secondly, Zen is a branch of Buddhism, so what you wrote is quite redundant.

7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the second School, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers: 'I was brought to the infirmary...they held me over the bed, they were animals....They penetrated me, I was bleeding'. Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two Brothers in the toilets off the dormitory:

One Brother kept watch while the other abused me ...(sexually)... then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again.

I would have to go into his ...(Br X's)... room every time he wanted. You'd get a hiding if you didn't, and he'd make me do it ...(masturbate)... to him. One night I didn't ...(masturbate him)... and there was another Brother there who held me down and they hit me with a hurley and they burst my fingers ...displayed scar....

>>2920242

Shit, I'm not the one who supports abortion. It's usually the leftist, socialist atheists who are into that.

>>2920258

I agree. Im not a buddhist, but niggers dont know shit about buddhism.

7.232 Witnesses reported being particularly fearful at night as they listened to residents screaming in cloakrooms, dormitories or in a staff member's bedroom while they were being abused. Witnesses were conscious that co-residents whom they described as orphans had a particularly difficult time:

The orphan children, they had it bad. I knew ...(who they were)... by the size of them, I'd ask them and they'd say they come from ...named institution.... They were there from an early age. You'd hear the screams from the room where Br ...X... would be abusing them.

There was one night, I wasn't long there and I seen one of the Brothers on the bed with one of the young boys ... and I heard the young lad screaming crying and Br ...X... said to me "if you don't mind your own business you'll get the same". ... I heard kids screaming and you know they are getting abused and that's a nightmare in anybody's mind. You are going to try and break out. ... So there was no way I was going to let that happen to me.... I remember one boy and he was bleeding from the back passage and I made up my mind, there was no way it ...(anal rape)... was going to happen to me. ... That used to play on my mind.

>>2920252

Translation: I have no morals of my own, so I just follow those of the religions I don't believe in.

>>2920273

Religion isn't responsible for morals, we have observed morals in chimps and bonobos

>>2920288

If you mean organized religion, then probably not.

You created this universe. But so did I...we all did, collectively. The only reason it exists is because we agree that it does. We are all immortal spiritual beings. A spirit is not a thing, a spirit is the creator of things. You are not your body. Your body is part of the physical universe, but you, as a being are not. You are timeless, limitless, but we've all degraded as beings over time.

It went something like this:
1) We all created our own universes to have a game.
2) In order to have a game, you have to not know something about the game (like if you were playing chess, if you knew what the other person was going to do and won every time, it would be no fun). So you made yourself forget that you created it.
3) Eventually, all the universes merged so we could all have a 'common meeting ground'. So this universe is the average of all the personal universes.
4) We created bodies as kind of like 'chess pieces' in the game.
5) Eventually we degraded and forgot more and more about the game and became trapped in it.
6) Now, not only do we not know we created bodies, we think we ARE bodies.

We were gods until we forgot that we were. You still have your own universe though. We call it 'imagination' or 'the mind'. Those pictures in your head are real. They have weight, and mass and location in time and space...in your own universe. If you close your eyes and think of a house...get a real good solid picture of a house...and make it purple, you've created that in your own universe by creating energy. You used to be able to do that with planets, not just little pictures. When a person dies, he is about 21 grams lighter (this is a fact). People don't know why this is but it's because your mind has weight and when you leave the body at death, you take the mind with you.

>>2920273
tu quoque

>>2920296

>mfw when this turned into a "can you believe the bullshit I believe" thread

>>2920294
faith is not the source of our morals
all religions are based on faith, organized or not

>>2920312

>faith is not the source of our morals

No, but people will tell you God is.

>all religions are based on faith

That include atheism? Because if you're not an agnostic, your beliefs are based on faith.

Mormon here ....................................................... what?

Ok, yeah, we're sort of pantheists who believe God was once a man who learned so much he became God and had a father/God of his own who taught him. That makes some sense scientifically I guess because it's not 'lol God spawned from nothing' or 'lol God existed before anything' (basically the same thing) which is what most Christians believe.

It also neatly takes care of theodicy, or, why does evil exist if God is good and all powerful because 'evil' existed before God and there's laws that even God must follow. Creating a world without evil is one of them, he simply can't do it.

Does this limit the power of God? ........... well ..... yes. Admittedly so. Is he a being still worthy of being worshiped? Yes. Even though he can't rid the world of evil? Sure. He still knows a hell of a lot more than we do and has told us that by not worshiping him we're all screwed so it benefits us to do so.

We also have what I think is the most sensible explanation for the creation of the world in relation to science. There are 2 creation accounts, the spiritual and physical creation, think of it as creating blueprints for a building before handing those blueprints to a contractor to put the materials together. The 6 days creation is those blueprints. The physical creation is missing from all creation accounts, even the ones the Mormons have from the Pearl of Great Price
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Great_Price_%28Mormonism%29

Is all of this true? Well I certainly think so. It makes no sense to me that God could be a liar and trolling us all. I see no logic to assume that so I think everything he's said so far about his origins and ours is true.

>>2920296
This makes sense to me.
This is an example of deism?

>>2920334
>people will tell you God is.
parsimony
>people