BenShade

I assume this is the article he is referring to, however his words had led me to believe that this was total employment not just the ones at top firms. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/07/major-german-companies-employing/

I have heard Stephan on more than one occasion refer to there only being about "50" migrants of the over 800,000 refugees in Germany who got a job and most of those are in the post office. I am paraphrasing but I think I got the gist of it. However I am unable to find any data to corroborate this assertion. Is there any, or is perhaps Stefan using "truthful hyperbole" to exaggerate a point? Sincerely, BenShade

I started this thread to discuss the merits of a very specfic argument but it feels like I should restart this thread as the conversation has deviated to a completely differant line of discussion. You statement is not an argument. I am loathe to even respond but perhaps you don't realize. If agree with my assumptions and fail to find a flaw in my argument then to reject the conclusion is irrational. The only reason to use logical reasoning is to come to conclusions that are unexpected. If it was only used to come to conclude that which is obviously true it would be useless. I came to this forum in great hopes of finding some intelligent people who could help me vette this argument and perhaps even poke a hole or two in it. Instead the thread has been hijacted by an irrational theist throwing up a straw man and another person with sound arguments rebutting him, and nearly no one interacting with my argument and those that do want to argue semantics or tell me my argument must be flawed by virtue of a conclusion they don't like. I implore anyone with the capacity to engage the origional argument.

1. I agree this is pantheism, which I would argue is the polar opposite of atheism (nothing is God vs everthing is God) 2. Having said that I believe that I do not find fault in the conclusion of the above argument I have made from what I readily admit is an assumption of an eternal universe. 3. I am not however convinced that my inability to count backwards to infinity dissallows its existance than my inability to see past the edge of the visible universe proves there is nothing more out there.

While this made me smile, I don't know what it adds to the conversation.

So I hate to move my goalposts but also want to hone my argument, so would it satisfy you if instead of saying omnicscient, omnipotent and omnipresent i would say infinitly knowledgable, infinitly powerful and eternally present?

Suppose we disregard the definitions of God postualted by most religions which are in theselves self contradictory to be mere straw men to the greater question of whether or not we have an intelligent creator. Some current physics papers suggest this universe may be a simulation, in which place might we not call the programmer our God? He would be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent as far as our program runs.

I should have said parts of one brain or body. In this I assume that only that which is physical exists and the macroorganism is God I suppose if you want to refute logic there is no point in arguing and if you think it has nothing to do with physics please give an example of something causing its own existence either real or hypothetical. First sentance is a pointless assertion without evidence. The second sentance is an opinion that since anything complex enough to be called God is pointless because we can't comprehend it. I find this to be as rediculous as saying we shouldn't study the universe becasue it is too big and complex to understand it in any appreciable way. Third sentance second point. I have clearly defined the word "God" to mean (an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent consciousness that sustains all things and to which all organizations of matter owe their existence.) This is very clearly not an icon or idea but a sentient being composed of matter and energy directly observable within our universe. Stefan does argue quite persuasively against the self contradictory "gods" of human religions generally. As far as you last attempt I fail to see how it matters whether I call it Chuck, Meagan, Spot or God. I have very clearly defined the being in question and offered what I believe to be a proof for it's existence provided the given premises. If you feel my definition should not be called I would be happy to rename him the flying spagetti monster so long as it still has the attributes I have above defined.

I undertood "unlimited knowledge" to be equal to infinite knowledge.

To speak of an intelligence arising at the midpoint of infinity is nonsensical. An infinite past dictates the existance will have come an infinite time ago. The fact that a greater infinity may exist does not negate the magnitude of the lesser infinity. ( Just because there are infinite points on a 2 dimensional plane does not dimish the fact that there are infinitley many points on a one dimensional line.) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omniscience noun 1. the quality or state of being omniscient. 2.infinite knowledge. omniscience requires infinite knowledge not complete knowledge, this stems from the principle that complete knowledge of an infinite set is non sensical. So having come into existence an infinite time ago begits infinite knowledge thereby sufficing for omniscience even if a higher level of omniscience is theoretically possible. Another definition would be to know all that is knowable which is still satisfied by the God I described. So by clarifying this position on omniscience it appears I don't need to appeal to the deduction of all prior events in order to confer omniscience therby maintaining free will and omnipotence by your definition.

In the words of Stefan “I am going to throw a wet one against the wall and see if it sticks. “ I would like to premise this by stating that my conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the universe is eternal both past and present. In short to defend this premise I assert that in order for the universe to have a beginning it was either created by something/someone else or it created itself. Since the first option would give us an infinite regress of causality, or else you could point out that the “creator” is by definition part of the universe which includes all things and then ask what created the totality of that. Furthermore, I believe the second choice of the universe creating itself is illogical and self-refuting. However, this is certainly a potential weakness if someone could split the horns and give a logical path for the Universe to have a beginning. Now supposing we have a temporally eternal universe, we can continue by defining God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent consciousness that sustains all things and to which all organizations of matter owe their existence. This appears to be a very tall order, indeed it is. However, suppose that we take the Bible literally when it says that God is light and in him there is no darkness. Then we take our knowledge that mass and energy in the universe is constant and interchangeable. could we then suppose that all matter in the universe is collectively organized in such a way as to all be constituent parts of one mind. Would not this mind be omnipresent with all parts of itself, omniscient in knowing all parts of itself, and omnipotent in having control over itself aka the whole universe? I fail to see how a conscious universe would fail to be God, but if you would have a good argument I yearn for a reply. Now the punchline, no matter how far-fetched you may find a conscious universe to be, if you believe the possibility is arbitrarily small, but non-zero, then given a temporally infinite universe it is guaranteed with probability 1 the universe has at one time reached such a configuration. Having achieved this configuration a sentient being of such magnitude would not be likely to kill itself and any being that would kill itself would eventually be replaced by one that didn’t. This eternal universal consciousness would have thus come into existence an eternal time ago and will exist eternally into the future. Now for the possibility of such a configuration. Not that long I heard of an Atheist quip that “I don’t believe in God yet.” Meaning that he did believe in the eventual creation of an artificial superintelligence. If you believe that human intelligence is not the unique product of a soul external to the universe, then there is no good reason that it would be impossible for us to eventually create one. Our existence has proven cognition to be possible, and our best theory of evolution postulates this process will continue to produce higher and higher beings. So given that we exist and evolution is true given a temporally infinite universe I believe I have just logically proven the existence of an infinitely evolved consciousness that I would call God.

At the very least it seems like abortion is a bad idea. (http://lab.rockefeller.edu/cohenje/PDFs/022LegalAbortionsSocialBiol1971.pdf) This research paper is a little older, but I can't imagine this could be done today. It finds a woman with an IQ over 136 is 39x more likely to recieve an abortion as someone with an IQ 78 or below. Perhaps the differance is just financial access to abortion as a choice, but either way it seems like it is a bad choice for humanity. This report also shows that IQ is positively correlated with fertility. So given no one aborted our average IQ should go up.

Hello, This is my first post and I must be honest that I didn't exhaustivley read every post on this topic so if I have repeated somone I apologize. As a believer in UPB I sincerely believe that it is universally preferable not to kill unborn humans. However as a biologist isn't it evolutionarily expediant to allow those with so little empathy as to be comfortable killing their unborn child to do so? Perhaps killing your own flesh and blood is not a moral action, but doesn't it seem to indicate an extreme lack of empathy present in the person commiting the action? So if an action could be used as a strong indicator of a persons immorality doesn't that indicate a moral component? Who protests abortion clinics but some of society's most moral and caring people? Furthermore who advocates for abortion but those who would be inconvenienced if they had to pay for their promiscuity with the consequences of carrying a life to term.