The Instigator
Ryi-guy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RMTheSupreme
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can a non-personal god that is governed by a deterministic reality exist? if so how?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 111981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Ryi-guy

Con

(because this site makes you pick a position we can say that pro=A and con=B, honestly the best result for me is that someone can show that one piece or all of A is irrational or that there is a more logical and rational way of explaining what I am describing.)

So a little background info. My spiritual view is Pantheist. Not to be confused with those Pantheist that believe earthly nature=god or that Pantheist=all gods and/or religions. I believe those who hold those beliefs misunderstand Pantheism. When I say Pantheism I mean god=universe.

My question came up because in the journey from being raised protestant to becoming agnostic to Pantheist I have come to determine two possible scenarios that answer the god question in a rational and logical way. The two remaining rational conclusions to the god question is

A) a god does exist of which I have concluded these things about this god figure 1) god is impersonal 2) god is consistent across time in regards to god's function as the totality of the universe 3) god would be a cause of all things much as how spinoza describes in his book "ethics" (before he goes into a ethical discussion) 4) god's function is ultimately the perpetuation of the existing universe (a kind of survival if you will) and is defined as a collective computation of the processes that exist within the universe or in other words is the totality of all the universe's information. 5) like all things the behavior of this god would be deterministic so this theory on the universe it'self is still a deterministic one.

B) The most likely truth of the god question is that there is no god of any kind (Atheistic conclusion to the god question).
RMTheSupreme

Pro

It exists because the deterministic algorithm had it to be so.

How? It is in the determined set of events that must unfold.
Debate Round No. 1
Ryi-guy

Con

So an argument for the substitution of a god kind of force is that of a deterministic algorithm.

My question to this is why are there such deterministic algorithms in a universe? Also this refers to my comment I just made but why is there such a stable algorithm such that it can work as a mechanism for the universe? If a universe can be described as some arbitrary space, what gives this space rules that of which everything that exist in this space must abide by independent of whatever universal theory you think is a correct theory for describing the workings of the universe?

Also would such an algorithm already allude to a mechanism that exist independently of materialistic things and physical forces? Basically I accept the fact that my own framework runs into the problem of circular logic (I.E a god exist to solve a problem which in turn justifies a gods existence) but doesn't a atheistic theory of the mechanisms behind the stabilzation of the universe (I.E the universe must work within these theories because it solves a problem which in turn justifies the mechanisms that those theory try to describe) ?
RMTheSupreme

Pro

You have provided zero counterarguments to the idea that God is simply the most powerful and significant person in the determined reality.
Debate Round No. 2
Ryi-guy

Con

and you have also only made a claim with no way of backing up those claims to nor have you used any rationality in purposing flaws in the system that I presented in A, you can't contribute to a debate saying no your wrong then (insert claim) without providing why you think that claim is rationally superior to the original claim.

Anyway This is the "crossroads" that I am trying to figure out because as it stands my claim I guess has changed to that both the pantheist form of a non-personal god with a specific function creates the universe and the atheist form of some algorithm creates the universe both of them fall back on circular logic (I.E how universe is created--god creates it-- justified because something had to create the universe) and (I.E how univerre is created-- mathematical algorithm--justifed because something had to create the universe)

Also my system for this pantheistic god is not a simple semantic substitiute for algorithm because there is still the possibility that although this thing is the universe we don't know if out of some emergent property of being the universe if there is some consciousness there or some sense of being in existence. Someone could allude to saying that some emergent property couldn't be possible because unlike the brain the bits of information in the universe is "too far away" fhrom each other however the flaw in that is that distance is monstly perceptual (I.E China is very very far away from me however to a enormous giant it could be several steps for him also we don't know what spacial limitations exist with emergent properties when it come to producing a sentient being)

Perhaps next time I can structure a proper debate, maybe for my purposes start with the claim that this circular logic problem is unavoidable no matter which view you use. Maybe someone might know a different avenue or some kind of distinction between the two concepts that'll push my thoughts on the matter further.
RMTheSupreme

Pro

My boP is to prove it can happen not that it is happening. I never said it had to be Christian, Omnipotent God. :)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Redbluegreen 3 years ago
Redbluegreen
Pro. I find your argument really intriguing as i have contemplated a simmilar issue in my philosophical framework. However i would just have one point of contention in your argument. You claim that the universe is possibly a deterministic algorithm (correct me if im wrong) but this has yet to be proven. Are you familiar with quantum physics? Specifically the copenhagen interpretation?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Well gods are only our own dreams...
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Well gods are only our own dreams...
Posted by Ryi-guy 3 years ago
Ryi-guy
Also in my round 3 argument I wrote it in the middle of a very boring geography class and so I forgot to complete the sentence. To clarify I mean't to question whether any atheistic theories behind a mechanism of the universe could be superior to a panthesitic one described in the argument? This question is based on the fact that both theories must neccesiarily use some form of circular logic thus such an argument could not be used against a pantheistic view of a mechanism behind a universe (like the existance of a god) given that they both must have some form of circular logic at their foundation.

If it helps the reason I've been questioning pantheistic view as described in my original argument vs an atheistic view is because the only main distinction between either views is the foundation of the views both of which are only different in their details. After the foundation of the arguments both the pantheistic view I have described vs the athesitic view are identical in that you use science and material things and forces to describe the post-foundational mechanisms of the universe. So an important question rises from this specifically can a sigificant difference, independent of semantics, be described that really separates the atheistic theory vs the pantheistic theory?

Basically could someone show that an underlying algorthm behind the mechanisms of the universe be functionally different from a god that is deterministic in nature (this god adheres to it's specific function) or perhaps there is an algorthm that is chaotic in nature but still gives rise to a stable universal mechanism? The question behind the existance of a god figure must suppose that this god figure is not chaotic in it's nature because then there would be no way of identifying this god figure as a distinct and identifiable figure.
Posted by Ryi-guy 3 years ago
Ryi-guy
Well the kind of argument I am looking for is one that describes this god concept independent of a mind. I am assuming that you would be supporting stance B (the atheist view).

Is there any number in stance A that you can show is logically flawed? please feel free to ask questions I'll answer as many as I can because again I would like to stress that I am not proposing this "god framework" as a way of affirming what I already believe but rather I believe that to get closer to the truth of any matter we must be able to see if our views and beliefs still stand after being bombarded by logical and rational thought. Through bombardments from others and from my own critizisms of my previous views on the god question has lead me to a cross point between that either a deterministic&impersonal god view is correct or that there is no god is correct and so my question is to see which one of the two stands up better against logical and rational thinking better.

A little background info might help. The problem I see with Atheism is the question of "why is the universe not simply choatic?" with no always existing stablizing force how can such things as laws of nature even exist as they do? In other ways what is behind the mechanisms of the universe and why can't they arbitarily change? In a Atheistic view there would be no such stabilizing force that is permanent to a universe thus doesn't this fact ractionally mean that the universe in this atheistic view must be chaotic with no stabilization?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Well gods are only our own dreams. So can your god do so, it would not surprice anybody.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.