God's Debris

The author states that the thought experiment is to "figure out what is wrong with the old man's explanation of reality". I think it is that it ignores chaos. Probability alone would not result in God's re-assembly. It needs an avatar to guide it? Where's the probablity in that? And there can be only one? Were swords involved in picking the first avatar?Natural selection is consistant with chaos, it describes how greated complexity evolves from lesser without any intellegence to guide it.

God in knowing everything would know what is best, and what is right. He would then, indeed, have the feeling of love, and empathy, merely because he knows what it would be like for a being to exist. God would want to love, and create something that he could love. Because God knows everything, he therefore can experience an infinite number of types of emotions.God, in having a perfect morality knowing everything then, automatically assumes a righteous, empathetic, loving, and just nature. He also understands that living things would like to exist. So he creates them and loves and cares for them.
As the Bible says, God created us because he wanted to love us and for us to be in his presence for eternity.Why can't God have emotion? If God knows everything, He knows righteousness, which brings forth love, empathy, and caring. He knows every possibility of existance and may have preferred ours.
Therefore, God is an emotional being.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-19-2005 09:14 AM

Exsqueeze me? Avatar? Hello, jf by the way! I was a wee bit confused. The coffee has not yet kicked me awake.

Probability is fake. Everything that we are doing is being preordained by a million factors. For instance, if I toss a coin and it lands heads and then I toss the same coin in the exact same way in the exact same conditions, there is a zero percent chance that anything else wil happen. Therefore, there was a zero percent chance that anything else would have happened but what did happen the first time.It is a very handy way to look at the universe when omnipotence isn't an option, but it is not an actual view of the universe.

We're glad that you decided to join us.But this thread is about the book, God's Debris. Posts need to stick to that, and that alone. If you can tie your opinions in to a particular section or passage in the book, then it might be on topic.At the end of this message you'll find some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-25-2006 10:09 AM

---

I'm sorry. I forgot to tie my comment into the main thought. I recently read God's Debris and the idea that the world is made up of the remains of a god is a very old one. It is in almost every tribal culture out there. In the words of Terry Pratchett "Hey kids, what part of god do you think your town was made of?"In the book, Scott tries to add to the idea that everything is made of god by adding in that there is also probability due to god. What I was saying, using the same example that Scott uses and that Brad quoted back on the first page, is that probability is an illusion.I probably should have quoted him, but i'm a bit new at this whole discussion thing. Thankyou for the welcome.

I just wanted to post the book in pdf format so the disscussion can continue with more vigor.
http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf

Cynic,Thanks for posting the link but even more simply thanks for bringing this thread to my attention. I had somehow missed it. Herein Brad has abandoned, in a series of post no less, writing in Bradlish and has reverted to clear English.Aaaah!, post after post that I understand! Amazing, it's like coming home and removing new too tight shoes and wiggling your toes, the relief is positively a pleasure!lfen

Dude! Different Brad. The author of this thread is NOT Brad McFall.

Major Oooops! You are quite right. I knew I should have gone to bed by midnight, instead I gave into temptation and kept surfing the threads with a foggy brain. Thanks for the heads up.lfen

I think the main point of this book was that if there were a god that existed, everything and everyone would have to be part of god. If God were to exist, this would be a requirement, because god would have to know every possible circumstance, every possible outcome, from every single point of view. This makes every single person or thing of little significance, however when put together it makes something amazing. There are an infinite number of possibilities for what can happen, and if god were to exist it would have to know every single possibility because god is all knowing. It would have to know everything from every single view point including all animals, plants, and bugs. Making a infinite number of possibilities.

It does follow logically. Perhaps that's part of the problem in this case. An organisms reality is partly based upon their level intelligence, right? A cat just doesn't have the same zest for life or cannot fully appreciate certain things like humor or the love of music because they do not have the capacity to understand such things. Perhaps it is this way for humans in relation to God.The charge we hear often is that God cannot be omniscient and He can't be omnipotnet, at least not simultaneously. I believe that God is omnipotent in that He has control every aspect of life. That power also allows for Him to delegate that power elsewhere if He so desired. As well, I believe God to be omniscient because only physical beings are bound by a timeline. God says, "I AM."The question we hear, "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it." The question is designed in order to pit God against His omnipotence by trying to force someone to answer an argument that does not follow the logical premise. But this is what I meant that logically it does follow, but the question is too humanistic and assigns the same rules that humans must follow for God as well. But if cat does not have the intellectual capacity to understand what humor is, is it so far-fetched that humans would not and could not understand the totality of reason concerning God?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Greetings. I joined the forum because I googled this thread 2 years 2 late, or so.The truth about cats and dogs is that we don’t really know that cats and dogs don’t enjoy life every bit as much as we do. Not to be critical, but there is just no evidence that dogs would rather be listening to ipods. Cats, maybe.And there is also no reason to assume that a god would not reason the way we do, at least. To assume that it (god) would, would be to assume we aren’t worthy of very much, even as a species. It might also be to assume that there must be so many wonderful new things we will discover about the universe when we die, or when we become enlightened. But, I would belligerently insist that there is simply no worthwhile reason to do that either.To connect to this book though, I would say that probability has almost nothing to do with a coin toss. Of course, the “coin toss” is implied to represent a fairly random event. The coin toss itself involves a symphony of deliberate coordination, just to get that thing up in the air.Now, tossing cats is a whole other story. As we all know, cats always try to land on their feet (when conscious). I’m not suggesting that someone could get so good at tossing coins or cats, so as to cause them to land a certain way every time. But, on average, it would be infinitely possible to practice long enough to consistently affect the outcome. What that says about a god’s perspective on tossing cats, I’m not really sure. But, it doesn’t mean that god hasn’t tossed us for a good long time, either!The book was great for psychological reasons though, I think.Comments?

Welcome to EvC. Please take a moment to check out our Forum Guidelines and the links below in my signature. While humor is occasionally welcome, try and stay on a semi-serious nature with our topics and you will get along fine!

---

---

Thanks, AdminPhat. Sorry about that.Yeah, let me just say I really liked the book, as a story. The theorizing was like the backdrop of some really good points. The idea of probability sits well, by itself. His point of view on evolution is right on (pg. 67). I couldn’t have done better myself. And, though his logic and persuasion gets a little scabby at times, I was onboard with most of it.I would’ve explained the invention of evolution a bit differently, as well though. The easiest way for ME to explain it is to bring your focus to the way we all expect to find certain species. A good scientist doesn’t allow for that, tearing up the hillsides for scientific pleasure. An earnest original attempt to present mutation as a driving force in our universe, would include a disclaimer of some kind that finding evidence of a new species amongst intermingling mutations in the ground would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. There would be no point to it. I don’t believe that was ever done. It may not ever. Yet, we wait. And, would we be to believe that the best we can hope for in this life, is to find as many of these wonderful mutations as we can? Why?The writer accomplishes one of many things, in bringing the flotilla that is modern physics back down closer to earth, as well. By taking about a third-size chunk out of its main seal, he reminds those of us who believe in science that there are a bunch more of those theories where that one came from, including his. But, to have any more than one, would be to demand that so many others are either lying, or so far off base it should anger you. Because, it doesn’t matter if an explanation isn’t the best one, as long as it’s the truth. That alone, is a fact of life.And then, the idea of a god doesn’t sit well, because anything you see could be the product of an ill will. That’s right, imagineers, it’s tough to swallow . but then you’re fine. Here’s a riddle for you: If the darkness of being, itself, was posing as a god, would you be able to tell? Think now . It doesn’t matter. It’s just a belief theory.What puzzles me about the kind of sincerity it takes to right a book like God’s Debris, is that Adams sticks to the two “accepted” belief theories, as if it were like clockwork.Let’s take this one step at a time. You think of a way to explain things. If that doesn’t seem to fit, then you move on. Then you think of another explanation. If that doesn’t seem to fit either, then you move on again. Then you think of another explanation. And you keep going until and unless you find an answer that not only sounds logical, but SEEMS right.The next logical explanation for things, is the theory that something put us here and we shouldn’t know why. That’s an easy one, even if there’s more to the picture. That’s either a god that is powerless to help us now, or a god that has reasons for allowing us to suffer in the face of global corruption and sponsored genocide on our own. And even though I could not fathom the notion of a powerless god, it doesn’t take away from the main idea.And, THAT main idea is that whatever created us either has reasons for being unforthcoming to a fault, or for being weaker than each one of us. And my POINT is that there would be no reason to observe that kind of a god, regardless of its nature.Sorry, god.Et cetera .