Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Ananta Shesha]

[quote Hakurei] When has anyone who has proposed "Goddidit" ever gone further than "God wanted it to be that way and God had the power to put it that way"? I honestly can't think of one.[/quote]

I've composed a comprehensively predictive metaversal model based on "Goddidit".
I go on to explain step-by-step exactly how. You'll find the beginnings of it in some recent threads.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I've composed a comprehensively predictive metaversal model based on "Goddidit".
I go on to explain step-by-step exactly how. You'll find the beginnings of it in some recent threads.

I searched through your posting history, and I have not found any such post.

[Ananta Shesha]

I searched through your posting history, and I have not found any such post.

Quote from: Shiranu on Today at 04:20:15 AM
If I read through the fancy words correctly, you are simply saying that the repetition of certain patterns at multiple scales is a possible sign of a shared designer? But isn't it simply more logical and rational to view that as an effect of set rules rather than being a cosmic signature motif of one artist?

Even if you want to look at it in a purely aesthetic sense, isn't the act of art creating art infinitely more romantic than an artist doing it? It seems to take away the beauty of the universe to say it was designed, rather than it designed. Therefore it is neither logically or emotionally the best position to take. You add unnecessary steps and diminish the beauty at the same time, rather than see the beauty in what simply is.

------

The patterns are not intentionally designed, just like the child of a mother is not directly intelligently intently designed. The child is unfolded from the nature and pattern inherent inside the parent.

If God is like light, then each universe is like a rainbow and our type of atoms (made from the lightest of three possible quark densities) are in the yellow band.

If God is like infinite solid wood, each universe is like a cello with further internal resonant chambers.

God as infinite solid matter has specific spacial relationships with its own substance. It's relativities.  It is all around itself equally in all directions, at the center of itself everywhere, and as a field in equilibrium throughout.

These relativities quantize into a sphere and point relationship with a field of probability strung in between them. It cannot break symmetry any other way. If the universal resonant chamber is a sphere with a central point in a field between, this directly patterns for the organization of atoms.

The atom is a micro standing wave form of the macro universal container.... which would be referred to as the image of God.

Beauty I see is that it was a reproductive act, God expressed itself. This isn't creation, this is procreation…and here we are! The universe is a gestating God in GOD.  And so are we.

To recap: the pattern or signature of God I see is a geometric set of equal/opposite reactions that occur within an infinite substance to make stabilized voided space. It could not occur any other way and no deliberate "intelligent" design is needed.

It's panentheistic but it's also purely geometric.

The sphere point field relationship is the first tier order of pattern. There are three more tiers.

[Ananta Shesha]

In re-addressing the infinite substance of God, it is infinitely spacial and it is one in quantity. The inverse expression of this is an infinite number of finite ones.

So at the first instance of self-expression an infinite number of equal sized spheres are created as a perfectly flat plane.  The vibrational expression continues creating more planes of cavitates spheres in one direction.  Creating a maximum density sphere pack of equal sized spheres.

The expansive spatial constant on each sphere of this metaversal stack is 74.05% according to the Kepler Conjecture.  We would interpret this inside our universe as dark energy.

I find this quantum deterministic meta-versal model far more plausible than the Many Worlds theory of random universe production, or special pleading creationism.

There is much much more.

[Ananta Shesha]

No matter where you divide an extant infinity by a plain you will always be dividing it in perfect half.

If you were to anthropomorphize this you might say creation came out of God's naval.

As each sphere is like a summation of the qualities of God you might call them summits, you might call them mountains or you might even called them breasts.  So this stage might be called the god of the mountains or the god of the breasts. Look up El Shaddai.

[Ananta Shesha]

 To be even more quippy, a universe is God flipped inside out....naturally. ;)

[Ananta Shesha]

Nobody has ever seen a number, except in their own psychological projection.  They are figments of Pythagoras' delusion.

Good "one", I "see your point"........ah crap! Lmao

[Hakurei Reimu]

@Ananta Shesha
In my experience, "Goddidit" is usually used to imply some kind of intent on the part of God. There is usually an implication that God purposefully arranged for the universe to be created and provided the impetus for its cause. If it were not for some kind of will on God's part for the universe to come into being, then there would be no universe. This is not what you are describing in your posts. You're describing "Naturedidit" without the explanation, and replacing "Nature" with "God."

[Drew_2017]

They'll have better luck when they treat infinity as a quality rather than quantity.

I think of it as a concept not an actual reality.

[Baruch]

@Ananta Shesha
In my experience, "Goddidit" is usually used to imply some kind of intent on the part of God. There is usually an implication that God purposefully arranged for the universe to be created and provided the impetus for its cause. If it were not for some kind of will on God's part for the universe to come into being, then there would be no universe. This is not what you are describing in your posts. You're describing "Naturedidit" without the explanation, and replacing "Nature" with "God."

Pantheists usually do.  And I am a pantheist too.  Materialists have a hard time explaining the "will" of a cloud of randomly moving atoms.  Materialists deny anthropomorphism ... but inconsistently don't include a denial of their own humanity.

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu,

.Even using the terms "caused" and "created" in discussion of the universe as an entire object is not kosher, because both of these words imply some sort of time applying outside the universe, and the only time we know of is part and parcel with the universe.

At the moment the preponderance of evidence is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 14 billion years ago. There have been various theories (very theoretical in nature) that attempt to avoid the beginning of the universe or the proposal of a singularity but they are far from being proven or even agreed upon. Unless such theories are proven (a daunting task) we are stuck with a universe that didn't always exist to have begun to exist. Suggesting it didn't have a cause seems to be special pleading since in nature most things have a cause...why should the universe be the exception? In the case I made for theism I don't use a cosmological argument, I merely cite the fact the universe exists.

The same thing cannot be said of the universe. To anyone who looks closely in on how the universe works, it doesn't look like anyone purposefully designed anything. What it looks like is a bunch of symmetries piled into it, and the laws of the universe are simply how these symmetries play out.

I guess design must be in the eye of the beholder. I'm looking out at my office on a nice day where I don't need a coat. The temperature is just about right for a human. Day will turn to night right on time and night will turn today. The moon sun earth system is very precise. Not a 100% precise its running down also but humans have developed a system due to a handy law to have a good grasp on where the sun, moon and earth will all be in relationship to each other. I know the counter argument is that I'm looking at this through the wrong end of the binoculars. That life and humans adapted to the prevailing situation, not the other way around. But until or unless we actually find other life that adapted to prevailing conditions you are projecting your preconceived notions. In order for our system of life to exist we need a star like the sun to provide heat and a myriad of other conditions. However, with the sun also comes blasting solar winds that would be the kiss of death for us were it not for how incredibly fortunate we are that earth comes with its own magnetic field that deflects those harmful rays. However the solar wind is beneficial because it deflects cosmic rays from outer space from destroying life on earth. The biggest break is the existence of the magnetic field around the earth that allows our existence. I know the response is well if it wasn't so then we wouldn't be here. The problem is there are dozens of 'if it wasn't so' we wouldn't be here. How many times does someone have to beat you at a game of cards before it dawns on you there is a reason they are winning so much. If the universe was rigged to support life then its not a surprise that life occurred. In contrast why would unguided life mindless naturalistic forces cause the conditions to allow sentient life to exist? The only response can be we got goddamned lucky. How is that different from then a miracle happened? To me the existence of sentient life, the number of exacting conditions at the universal level, the existence of laws of physics to accommodate life are the proverbial fly in the ointment. All by unguided forces that didn't intend their own existence and certainly not ours. I'd have a lot easier time believing in naturalism if we didn't exist. Because of the laws of physics we can make excellent predictions on a macro scale. At the same time, there is slack in the laws of nature that allow for random events to occur such as by and large the creation of planets. This mixed bag of laws of nature and chaos form a type of yin and yang in the universe. If we could program a simulated universe we could see what effect it would have if we allowed more chaos or if we caused more exacting laws. I suspect its in a tight balance. 

I appreciate your lengthy thoughtful reply and strong defense of what you believe.  I'll respond to the rest of it soon.   

[popsthebuilder]

and you have such evidence that said creative force "cares"? How interesting, or are you simply suggesting that because things exist that something must therefore have "cared" about its being "created" otherwise it would not have allowed it? Or is this simply an "no-daddy" issue that finds resolution by imagining the unknown cares about you?

Well....Let's see....Do you care about the things you do? How bout your work? Do you give a shit about that? What of your mother? She helped to form you. Does/ did she care about you?
Have you ever accomplished anything? Did you care about whatever it was in order to accomplish it?

Get your head out of your ass please.

Thanks.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Well....Let's see....Do you care about the things you do? How bout your work? Do you give a shit about that? What of your mother? She helped to form you. Does/ did she care about you?
Have you ever accomplished anything? Did you care about whatever it was in order to accomplish it?

Get your head out of your ass please.

Thanks.

peace

Some of us may have daddy or mommy issues.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Some of us may have daddy or mommy issues.

[popsthebuilder]

Why; based on the shortness of my response, would you posit that I may have an issue with my mother or father?



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Cavebear]

"weak" atheism exists primarily because of the reluctance of atheists (including myself) to put forward the positive claim that no gods exist because they're immediately dogpiled by theists demanding that they substantiate their claim.  And yes, the irony of theists of all people playing the skeptic is downright hilarious.

Rest assured that "weak" atheists are every bit as dismissive of theistic ravings as any other sane person.
"the theistic method"  LOL!

The proof of a deity is on the supporters of the idea.  You are either an atheist or you are a theist.