Moderator removed post
View all comments
I absolutely disagree with this idea.
God hasn't even been established as something that exists, so you have to deal with that first.
Re: "God hasn't even been established... deal with that first", let's start there. My presentation strategy seems likely to be (a) apparent Bible suggestion, followed by (b) apparent support from science, history, and reason.
Bible: To me so far, the Bible seems to describe the role of an infinitely-existent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, highest-level establisher and manager of every aspect of reality.
Support: To me so far:
Science seems to propose reduction of everything observed in reality to energy.
Science seems to propose that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Reason seems to leave one remaining possibility: infinite past existence.
If everything observed in reality reduces to energy, reason seems to suggest that energy is reality's fundamental building block.
If energy is reality's fundamental building block, reason seems to suggest that the "algorithm" for establishing every aspect of reality must be in either (a) energy or (b) an as-yet-unobserved wielder of energy, the latter seeming reasonably applicable to the apparent Biblical description of God.
Reason seems to suggest that the "algorithm"/potential for every aspect of reality constitutes every item of information within reality.
Containing every item of information within reality seems generally, if not universally, referred to as "omniscience", apparently rendering the source (a or b) to be most logically considered omniscient.
Science seems to suggest that observed aspects of reality cycle between construction and deconstruction with deconstruction seeming to fuel subsequent construction.
Reason seems to categorize construction as benevolent, and therefore, apparently reasonably categorizing even "design-approved" deconstruction as ultimately benevolent. "Design-unapproved" deconstruction seems generally and reasonably considered to constitute malevolence.
If every aspect of reality reduces to "the source (a or b)", reason seems reasonably considered to suggest that every action, and apparently therefore, every ability to act, every potential, within reality seems ultimately credited to said source, which seems generally referred to as omnipotence.
If every aspect of reality and its behavior and potential is ultimately credited to the source (a or b), reason seems to consider said source the highest-level establisher and manager of reality.
Anyone find a flaw in the above?
“Bible: To me so far, the Bible seems to describe the role of an infinitely-existent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, highest-level establisher and manager of every aspect of reality.”
“To me so far, The Harry Potter books seem to describe the role of wizards, practitioners of magical spells, hexes, and charms, and managers of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.”
Yeah, so everything after that is just nonsense.
Might you intend to suggest that the content in my comment subsequent to the excerpt that you quoted is nonsense?
Do you talk like that in real life?
Might you be seeming to suggest that u/BlondeReddit seems to have the apparent quality of seeming to talk exclusively in what seems to apparently be absolute gibberish?
I seem to welcome your apparent answer to what seems to be the above question.
It seems to me, that you are seemingly suggesting that any answer to the aforementioned inquiry might, possibly, maybe, perhaps be welcome. All of science ever done and all of the Vulcans 🖖🏻 seemingly agree that a forthcoming answer may be welcome.
Mightn’t you agree?