Dear readers here, I am not a poker player and do not engage in any games of chance whatsoever -- though I think I have invented a new game of chance.*

I was looking for a forum that is oriented toward philosophy and science, in the hope that I will be able to exchange ideas about God civilly and of course rationally with people;** but it seems that what I call if correctly the internet intellectuals, they are not favorably interested in such talks namely on God even philosophically (notice the reactions now), if not outrightly hostile to the subject and even to God, the concept and the entity.

So I found this forum but then it turned out to be intended for poker players, for I was drawn by google search and landed on a forum that was (my search words were "best philosophy plus science forums) the first hit and exactly the following:

I found out only when I was into registering, that "Science, Math, Philosophy" is not the whole forum of the website, but only one of its very many boards.

Anyway, I decided to register just the same, and see whether I could discuss God and things connected with God, and not get insulted all the time if not continually the butt of flippant remarks.

So, dear folks here, let me see what is your reaction, in particular the atheists here if any at all.**

*This game of chance is not really original with me, and you will know its origin if you have been travelling worldwide.

The players should be perhaps as many as 10 or more but not too many, each one puts 100 say dollars for the common winning stake, so that comes to 1000 dollars.

The wares required are 6 dice, and say a soup bowl for each player to drop the 6 dice into the soup bowl to see what numbers turn up.

Each one by turn drops the prescribed 6 dice into the soup bowl, if the landing dice show the following numbers of course in any order: 1 2 3 4 5 6, he takes 100 dollars from the common stake.

When all 1000 dollars are gone, they can start another round.

No, I don't play that game, I just invented or thought about if from an exercise by some ethnic folks in the world in celebrating one of their folk feast days.

**Please, do think that I am here to convert you to God, can you just engage in philosophy and science and even perhaps math to exchange ideas about God and things connected with God; this is one way atheists avail themselves to get rid of me in forums I have been to, namely that I am into proselytizing.

Let us see whether I get eventually banned here for yes trying to convert folks here to accept God... but please believe me I am not into any intention whatsoever to convert anyone to any Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., even though I personally am into what we might call the vetting of the concept and existence of God.

Well, folks, here there are all kinds of people in the internet with all kinds of pursuits, mine is the critical examination of the concept and existence of God.

And good-bye then if I should get ejected right way with this first post here. And yes, atheists also call me troll or religious crackpot Hahahaha...

Think this kind of post is called Rant.

Edit: maybe Verbosity gets closer.

Thanks for your contribution.



Anyway, let us all sit back and enjoy our exchange of ideas or thoughts, and see what the persons of power here say about my sojourn here.


Come one, come all, let us talk God on the basis of science, math, philosophy, with good cheer and camaraderie, and have a happy and long life in this internet world where anyone is a neighbor to anyone else.

Why dont you start with your own ideas first about how God can enter a Scientific or Philosophical discussion from a purely logical point of view where it becomes necessary that it exists because it serves a purpose, has certain properties etc. What are these properties for example? Is God part of nature, nature itself in totality (ie all the universe is God), or is God some very powerful civilization that has properties/powers that ancients described in their myths and stories and art?

You cant start a thread and not offer some initial argument or points about it that invite science to the discussion! Science so far by the way have had no reason to introduce the concept of God or some external agent of intelligence in the description of the universe it has delivered but i am sure would invite the possibilities as evidenced by many threads here on eg world as simulation, free will, extraterrestrial life, evolution of life, multiverse theories, etc if some hints emerged that something defined as God was acting somehow or leaving evidence of its existence and properties.

Science simply has had no reason to introduce the concept so far (it never postulated its lack of existence either), leaving it to theologians and historians of various religions to study and ancient civilizations to introduce it, that all do so dogmatically. Science can debate God's self consistency as introduced by others when properties are assigned to it of course and doesnt eliminate the possibility it will recreate it as a conclusion as evidence accumulates but so far it hasnt turned out that way and theologians/religious scholars and believers have conveniently avoided offering testable evidence. The fact is Science is the best potential friend of the concept of God as intuitively introduced by believers including whatever necessary adjustments (in the sense that it will not try to hide it if it finds it to exist and promote in fact knowledge of its existence/structure if proven so). It will never introduce it dogmatically though as its not self evident (eg like Geometry), yet it will gladly accept it as a conclusion if it accumulates proper evidence of its existence or function. What evidence would that be for example in your opinion?

Do you think any of the major religions have a concept of God that actually makes any sense (and is not just created by Man in an effort to introduce ethics and common behavior and a plan/guide/leader/author/creator for a more civil society until more was known in an era of limited knowledge and mostly intuitive/superficial understanding of nature)?

So then OP, what's your question or opinion you want to discuss?

Thanks for your reply, and I look forward to more exchange with you.

You have brought up a lot of materials.

I will just take up your very first question:


You see I have this idea that man can get to the existence of God from the concept of God, which concept has already been formulated by the thinkers of mankind from since millennia way back.

Here is that concept:

God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Is that all right with you for a first matter of our exchange?

And we will talk on the basis of philosophical thinking and writing?

We have a forum that is perfect for what you want to discuss. There are many very good posters there. It is the Religion, God, Theology (RGT) Forum. This thread will be moved to that forum because you can discuss anything and everything God and atheist/theist related. Which is what I think you want to do.

Pretty sure God would win the soup bowl dice game 100% of the time unless he was especially benelovent in which case he would lose 100% of the time on purpose. Believers would win x% of the time unless they prayed to God for a win which would increase their chances of winning by a factor of y=>1. Atheists would be skeptical that the game were real and wouldn't play. Poker players would run to the game but only after getting after getting their caps, sunglasses, and ear buds. Then they would make sidebets, prop bets, claim that the soup bowl was biased, and yell out "one time" a lot. What's their winning prercentage? God knows.

That soup bowl dice game sucks.

Thanks a lot for the transfer to the correct board!

I did not notice that there is such a board, owing to my concern with posting in a board where there are folks keen on science, math, and philosophy.

Anyway we can still talk God on science, math, and philosophy here, as the orientation of the talk.

Allow me to invite everyone to join in the exchange between masque de Z and myself, though I am still waiting for de Z to answer to my post, see Post #7, above.

I would have preferred if this stayed in SMP in order to prove that science (or people versed in sciences frequenting there) can handle the issue without any prejudice (well not always lol) since it was initially intended for this angle (science/philosophy).


Do all things need a creator? Human intelligence for example is emergent. "Nature" "creates" it with interactions. A cell appears to be intelligent even due to complex chemistry. Its intelligence (more of the" if then else" form) is emergent due to the complex nature of its chemical interactions and details. You start with a cell and it evolves over time to a full human baby that starts interacting with the world and it starts over time to exhibit what we call higher intelligence over the years. In fact its character (of the intelligence) is very sensitive to our own civilization's state (ie if the baby was born 50k years ago it would never have developed advanced math skills for example or modern language or even sense of modern religion etc). Its entirely emergent, nobody in particular created it (the intelligence) (yes the parents or their biological macroscopic systems that define what you call someone a human created the first cell etc but not the ultimate intelligence directly). The entire (well within causal range) universe with interactions in reality did. I mean the particular initial conception even is the direct product of all kinds of causal influences that extend away from the 2 parents even. (like what exact sperm cell gets there first etc, complex chaotic effect).

Not everything needs a creator as you see. What if the universe is "self created" because of natural law and natural law is what it is because there is no consistency in being anything else. Ie there is no choice, it has to be this and only this as a future theory may show. By that i mean that perhaps the nature of physical law is not fixed by some creator of that law (like some programmer in a simulation) but by logic and self consistency itself. It is certainly a possibility. Or if it is all a megaverse our universe is created within another system due to processes that do not have to involve a creator for our own universe other than natural law itself. Sure enough a creator may have enabled the megaverse but according to QM its beyond "his" control after a point due to natural randomness in the process of interactions. So the creator ends up being the nature itself through its self interactions.

Also who creates the creator? If the creator doesnt need a creator then why cant the universe be the creator of itself through self consistency of the natural law! So far all we see is a universe by the way.

Ps: I am not an atheist by the way. I am a student of nature, a physicist wherever this takes me.

P1: [__________]
P2: [__________]
C: God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

For expedient's sake, can you fill in the blanks?

Well, I have already invited you to work on the concept of God, which concept is already formulated from way back millennia ago by thinkers of mankind.


You prefer to talk without that concept, but you must have a concept of God which concept you can compare to your concept of the universe, and arrive at the conclusion that no God needed, the universe is all there is, always been, always will be.

Then I will invite you to examine together the validity of your concept of God and your concept of the universe, with the concept of God which concept has been already formulated by the thinkers of mankind since millennia back.

Lets just say that i see the concept of God as man made (a result of human brain) and that man and all life is the result of nature, the gift of time and natural law. So Nature (who creates after billions of years complex enough systems like human brains) is the one who "creates" the concept of God as humans recognized it intuitively. Nature creates life, life creates higher more intelligent life, mammals, primates, eventually humans and then in time humans create among other things concepts of religion as they get to develop societies and try to "explain" the world and offer it meaning. Its all an artifact of human brains as some research has shown potentially, ie the human brain for many people appears to naturally need to believe in something stronger to offer meaning and something powerful and beautiful who also created everything seen because there were no other simpler answers yet - back then - and enjoys even today also to have a sense of guidance in a tough world - because arriving rationally at this guidance instead of dogmatically is a lot harder and laborious even if ultimately more rewarding too (but impossible in ancient times due to limited means/knowledge/technology to acquire knowledge, more objective rational methodology etc). Essentially Religion/Mythology is a form of pre-science. It tries to explain the world out there and find it a purpose. Its failures at some level lead to the birth of science in time as the questions demand better answers than the ones simplistically and dogmatically supplied.

For a primitive society Religion, tradition, some ritualistic culture is essential to get started it seems. Primitive is not necessarily bad/wrong, it may prove correct in its core eventually even, but not because it arrived at the truth in some symbolic sense (if thats what it is) the proper way, only the simplest less laborious way. It just doesnt look like it right now though given how much science has explained that required a religious dogmatically enforced storyline in the past and not so much anymore (ie essentially from creating Earth and all life in short time we have moved now to creating the Big Bang 13.8 bil years ago etc).

It is not bad to have a good ethical God for example if you have nothing else to begin with as a primitive society that is forming and tries to create more elaborate civilization, requiring some unity, some conformity, some coherence in ideas and basically things a common faith provides. After all notice how religions have evolved over thousands of years to their present state or the state they became more fixed near their present form say 1.5k-2k-3k-5k years ago etc. What about before that? What about 50k years ago? What was the human concept of God then? Maybe the violent strong nature itself? Why do most older civilizations have visions/versions of Gods that battle it out like humans or one God that is dominant over others etc. Why does it feel like over time the concept itself is refined and gets more elegant, more beautiful, more elaborate, more balanced and fair and ethical without human flaws like pure anger or jealousy or vengeance or selfishness (like in some older mythologies where Gods appear to have human personality characteristics, only enhanced in power and range). My point is religion in its current form is rather culturally refined, reflecting in fact the improvement of human civilizations, as if it evolved together with human civilizations, maybe even in parallel or because of it or while assisting, guiding it even, fully interacting with it in general.

In my opinion the concept of God is man made end potentially even useful in producing some initial crude explanation of the world until more appropriate methods (the scientific method) developed to handle these questions properly. Until then it provided a sense of unity, ethical guidance (based on intuitive form of ethics that rose from game theory essentially, ie a peaceful society lasts longer than a completely chaotic one so stop killing each other and respect each other, develop respected principles, introduce rules, concepts of good and evil etc ie construct ethics and all this is initially facilitated by having some higher form of power that defines ethics itself, what is good, what is evil, what is virtuous etc. And yet the author, the architect of it all, including religions, is the human brain in its gradual rise, in its quest for wisdom needing some early external guidance in an era of less coordinated systematic cultural education, requiring an example of spectacularly inspiring properties summarizing the amassed wisdom of ancient philosophies. Until finally science and the rational methodology can take over and offer a more productive approach to the truth than a dogmatically (based on some refined ancient experience) enforced one.

That is very good, you bringing up a syllogism.

However, the systematic way of going about an issue is to first examine the concepts involved; in the present instance, we are concerned with the concept of God, and then the existence of God.

So, for the sake of a systematic procedure, let us first work on the concept of God.

I have presented the concept of God formulated by the thinkers of mankind since from millennia back, namely:

God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Do you have any idea of a concept of God that is different from the one above? please present it, so that we can compare your concept with the one above, to determine which God the concept of that is, we are going to deal with.

"operator of the universe". What does this mean? Is a human brain part of that universe? Is it operated? How about the universe is the operator of the universe and creator of its own complexity?

I'm okay with the concept of God you've provided.

Scientists prefer to call God "The Big Bang" but yea, I agree with that definition too.

I think the biggest thing for an atheist to consider(I used to consider myself agnostic/atheist btw) is.....


Is life anything more than an experience? We like to focus on all the material stuff, money, objects, fame, social status, personal achievements, etc(these things keep us distracted from asking ourselves this constantly)... Which of those will we take with us when we die? All we take with us is our experience of this life. If there is nothing else when we die, no further experience or continued experience then ultimately is our life worth anything? What is this experience we call life worth if it all gets tossed in the garbage for us when we die?

It seems to me a true atheist would commit suicide because life takes effort, it takes a lot of effort at that and there is a lot of suffering involved along the way, emotional and physical. Why is any of it worth it to a true atheist to have an ultimately meaningless experience?

Why? From where did you acquire this concept and why is it worthy of examination?

I don't think you can start with god and work backwards if you want the concept to be taken seriously, it might be better to establish how and why you arrived at that point to start with?

Btw, welcome to the forum, I think you're going to like it here.

This has been covered at length, but there is a difference between ultimately meaningless and meaningless. I do not have the desire for what I do now to matter in 1,000 years, and I don't see how it makes what I am doing now irrelevant in this space.

I think you would probably get more players if you convinced them not playing would get them mauled by a mountain lion. They'd probably perceive it as more meaningful as well.

I never said it made it irrelevant, I'm simply asking how a true atheist would define their own relevance in life? What is it about life that makes it relevant and worth living? I'm not talking about leaving 1000 year legacy behind, I'm asking why life has significant enough meaning to desire to live every day if death leads to an ultimate non-existence. If you truly believe that deep down why continue life, what is it driving you?

I am here with a life, I can either enjoy it, to the best of my ability and subject to certain constraints, or I can waste it worrying about what it all means.