I dont ask them to show up! It's you who's crying wolf about that. — EugeneW

It's you!
No it's not me it's you!
No it's not me it's you!.....until we both pass out from the beer! :rofl:

There is no logical fallacy in Carroll's argument. Not all arguments follow symbolism

If they are not eternal and not infinite then they are just like us. So then what is the difference? We are effectively ‘gods’ in the sense you seem to have outlined. — I like sushi

There is a great/big difference. Gods have the power of creation. Dumb physical laws are too stupid to create themselves. Hawking asked what breaths life into the equations. It where the gods.

There is no logical fallacy in Carroll's argument. Not all arguments follow symbolism — Gregory

The logical fallacy is that his observation that there is no evil implying there would be a god because we obey that god is an unreality. It's a false assumption.

How can there be more than one God?

Carroll is using teleological arguments against themselves, not saying that teleological arguments are logical. An illogical argument follows its own logic

It's you!
No it's not me it's you!
No it's not me it's you!.....until we both pass out from the beer! :rofl: — universeness

But you pass out last! :lol:

Coincidentally, I see a science propaganda doc on tv. On SCIdiscoveryscience (and telling my wife not to take it too seriously!). About the technological singularity, computers creating life like gods... Aliens on Gliese colonyzing everything by a quantum computer...

How can there be more than one God? — Gregory

There are as many gods as there were, are, and will be creatures in our universe. Why can't that be?

Carroll is using teleological arguments against themselves, not saying that teleological arguments are logical. An illogical argument follows its own logic — Gregory

Not sure I follow. Can you rephrase again his teleological argument?

That's like you taking credit for a house I built.
Evolution and natural selection produced what you cite above not god. — universeness

Yes, evolution took place. And natural selection took place. But they didn't create the stuff necessary for evolution and the creatures evolving.

On TV; "chapter 113: a creation program" Seriously! About artificial reality and simulation, imaginary loops...
"We have reached the point technology allows us with virtual characters. If we learn more and more we can fool...blah blah. The machine is able to control our minds, if they want to..."

The teleological argument looks for signs of God in nature. Carroll looks for things that one would expect but doesn't find and so concludes one cannot expect signs from nature

My own argument against God is that we are images of God but are forced to suffer while God is not forced to suffer. This is not symmetrical because one would expect God to have the power to get us to heaven effortlessly like he is in heaven

The teleological argument looks for signs of God in nature. Carroll looks for things that one would expect but doesn't find and so concludes one cannot expect signs from nature — Gregory

What about nature itself? Seems pretty solid evidence.

My own argument against God is that we are images of God but are forced to suffer while God is not forced to suffer. This is not symmetrical because one would expect God to have the power to get us to heaven effortlessly like he is in heaven — Gregory

This argument presumes we are forced to suffer. What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did?

What evidence for some "person" out there from matter? None. What evidence we don't have to struggle? None. Your position is high fangled and impractical

Does a baby who suffers cause it's own suffering or is it forced into a theodicy God never endured?

What evidence for some "person" out there from matter? — Gregory

They exist outside of spacetime and the matter in it.

Does a baby who suffers cause it's own suffering or is it forced into a theodicy God never endured? — Gregory

The gods endured suffering too. Why not?

Your unconventional polytheism is not satisfying

I have a horrible feeling we’ve talked before if you are going to lead into some long ramble about ‘creation’? If so hope you have managed to express it better (go ahead).

Either way, prove me wrong and explain what you know of the supernatural. I don’t see anything to suggest there is anything other than what is nor can I personally see a way justify dualism - ie. Supernatural (beyond nature) because I frame everything in the universe as ‘natural’ and don’t side with ‘supernatural’ as a replacement for ‘we don’t know therefore god’. That just makes no sense to me.

I don’t really ‘believe’ things I know them to some degree based on experience. So when I talk to people and they say ‘god’ I understand as I know the term (as symbolic of something human) because I cannot claim to know of some being in possession of ‘supernatural’ powers. I have no issue with someone proposing an alien race superior in intellect and knowledge to the human race. It is just speculation though based loosely on some knowledge of the universe.

Take this: Hakim Uluseyi proposes the construction of a space Ark. To preserve us and get away from annihilation (we probably have self-induced by the application of science in the first place!).

I mean, uploading our minds into a quantum computer, meeting alien intelligences, the last step in evolution, the awakening of the cosmos after 13 billion years at last... Get real!

Your unconventional polytheism is not satisfying — Gregory

It is to me. On top of science, which cant give meaning, it gives meaning. We are not just collections of particles obeying the new God of Dawkinskian evolution.

have a horrible feeling we’ve talked before — I like sushi

Believe it or not, I just had a deja vu while writing to Gregory!

Why can't a dream be evidence for creation? In the short story I write Ill tell more about it. Im not English though, so it takes a bit to complete it. A translation machine doesnt work!

Either way, prove me wrong and explain what you know of the supernatural. I don’t see anything to suggest there is anything other than what is nor can I personally see a way justify dualism - ie. Supernatural (beyond nature) because I frame everything in the universe as ‘natural’ and don’t side with ‘supernatural’ as a replacement for ‘we don’t know therefore god’. That just makes no sense to me. — I like sushi

In a dream, during thinking on this forum, and by my cosmological model, it became clear. Add the fact that there never had been more talk about gods on this forum, and my psychosis is complete!

Polytheism sounds cartoony to me. Nonduality is better I say. It says spirituality is totally one

About the technological singularity, computers creating life like gods. — EugeneW

The technological singularity is a concern but I think it's unlikely to be any time soon. By Moore's law, on average, computer processing power doubles every two years. The evidence of the rate of improvement in processing power since computing took off in the late 70's demonstrates Moore's law to be pretty accurate. Serial processing is being replaced by parallel processing using many processors on one core. One of the fastest today is the IBM Sequoia in America with a Speed of 17.1 petaFLOPS using
a core of 1,572,864 processors.
As Quantum computers advance, this already incredible speed will be easily surpassed.
So computer speed and storage capacity can easily equal and in fact way surpass the capacity of the human brain but it is not yet as compact and it does not have the operating system capacity or app capacity of the human brain. AI is still not very impressive. We are also very far away from creating a machine with the movement capacity of the human body.
But if we reach a technological point where we create Robots or cyborgs that can fully program and build other machines then the singularity could happen but I think we are clever enough to build in fail safe's to prevent 'Westworld' or 'The terminator' type predictions. I could of course, be dead wrong.

So computer speed and storage capacity can easily equal and in fact way surpass the capacity of the human brain — universeness

The brain has virtual infinite memory capacity. Try to implement that on a computer. The only thing computers excell in is speed.

What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did? — EugeneW

Sci-fi shows play with this concept all the time but from the point of sentient lifeforms who existed in our galaxy millions of years before humans. In Babylon 5 they are called the first ones. The Vorlons, The Shadows etc. To us, they would seem like gods, but they are not. Why are these god-like descriptions less likely than the descriptions you have been posting here to describe your version of god(s). Could I replace every mention you have made of god(s) on this thread with 'The Vorlons,' would it change your claims much? Apart from your 'but mine are real and yours are fantasy,' claim. The same claim that the Christians have about the Muslim god or hindu god(s) and vice versa.

The brain has virtual infinite memory capacity — EugeneW

No it doesn't, its memory capacity is as far away from the infinite as the number 1 is.
A single supercomputer could theoretically employ every hardiisk and/or solid-state memory unit available on the planet, all stacked together, and we can make more and more devices to increase its memory capacity. A single human brain's memory capacity is well defeated.

No it doesn't, its memory capacity is as far away from the infinite as the number 1 is. — universeness

By virtual infinite, I mean 10exp(10exp20). More or less. A bit more even, as I rounded off downwards.

Another simple example would be that the storage capacity of the internet is measured at 10^ 24 bytes, or 1 million exabytes. The memory capacity of a single human brain is estimated to be around 2.5 million petabytes.
I exabyte = 1024 petabytes
You can buy a 1 terrabyte SD unit for around £60 from the shops!
1024 of them would be a petabyte of memory capacity and 2.5 million of them would match the above estimated memory capacity of the human brain. This could be achieved NOW for a single supercomputer, if such memory capacity for a single computer was required.

at 10^ 24 bytes — universeness

Read good the number I wrote.