A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 436
#391
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
 I haven't seen any reason to believe it's conscious or alive however.

Lol all except that it just produces things that are conscious and alive. How did an inanimate universe produce intelligence from a lifeless unconscious state? you haven't seen any reason though life and consciousness is all around you, suddenly it's here and you just can't find a good reason. Okay then what can anyone say? you just don't see it even though it's there....
If seemingly lifeless, unaware forces of nature begin to act as an intelligent operation and produces things like a producer and you just act as if nothing is going on why even bother to come here? why did you instigate a conversation with me if you're going to roll over and play dead? if you're going to assume that it is all an unknown and that any facts or information regarding a Creator is simply confirmation bias then why interact at all? if you have no reason to believe or consider anything at all I find it ironic you would come to a religious forum.

what traits from our universe would apply outside our universe (again not a great term, but there doesn't seem to be a good one in this context), or what would be possible or even probable or inevitable in such a place/circumstance. We don't even have an example of nothing from which to build any idea of what can or cannot be applied to nothing. With such a large lack of information how can we hope to reliably draw any conclusions?

Transcend, transcendence is the word that applies here. This is where you would begin to ask questions to someone like me, this is how you would learn stuff and that things CAN be known. You could take such information and incorporate it into your own data base whether or not you accept it. 

For now however it seems we've got no reason to conclude anything other than it's an unknown.

Sure, if you're a person who discounts sources that correlate with Theism, and no surprise you would. It's not an unknown rather has been known and been shown for ages. Spirituality including all the insights and knowledge wrapped up therein have been around almost as long as humans began perceiving. You can claim it's an unknown or that it can't be known but in all honesty it's not the case. Assuming God exists (just for the sake of this point) the information has been presented. It's only your own reluctance that makes it an unknown, is that intellectually honest? just because you don't particularly trust spiritual claims and insights does that make your case legit if God exists? or does that just make you a skeptic? at what point would you be willing to say "ya know....maybe it's not a unknown, what reason do I really have to assume the origins of the universe are unknown? have I paid attention and considered all propositions? how could I claim it's unknown when I don't know myself? is it unknown to everybody?".

even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything

Actually had you educated yourself on what evidence entails and how it is defined when I posted it for you then you wouldn't have made this mistake. Perhaps go back and read it, and see if you're able to catch it this time. I'm honestly getting sick of those who would probably be the first to claim they go with evidence and not know what evidence is and how it is defined. After you read how evidence is defined go look up the word "testimony". Guess what word will be used to define what a testimony is? if you wanted to be intellectually honest you would be willing to include and incorporate all truths the way they are defined whether or not you find it legit. 

#392
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I don't believe there was a premise presented in your previous post to me, there was an argument of sorts

At this point should I presume you're being an ass?
Premise-
previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.

but as I said above, it's all built around intentionality

Are there not results that produce things that effect another thing? we've gone over some of the things that qualify as intention already. 

can you show that the universe is the product of a plan?

What else would you refer to it as?

 If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything

But if they don't know how to act how does anything get accomplished? why does anything exist at all? how does anything make sense?

they simply act and in doing so this universe formed.

Ahhh, they simply act and do things and wah-lah! but they are dead and inanimate lol.

Why must there be intentionality in any of that?

Look in the mirror and ask yourself that with a straight face. It's not that it must, it is that there is. 

#393
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
2a(1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result the process of growth
(2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function such life processes as breathing.

Nowhere in this definition would there be the need to insert an intelligence.

We've been over this, it's not my position or argument that the definition of processes require intelligence. The definition simply states what it means, not why it occurs. My argument has been based on correlation not the meaning of the word process. However, the definitions I used in this thread show what I meant by a process and how I'm using the term. On the other hand, the definitions above do not negate my argument that there could be an intelligent Source since my position is that intelligence is using those processes to bring about results. And again, inanimate forces don't have minds or intelligence to bring about particular results. How could they?

#394
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
Well, wouldn't you need to figure out more traits that are 'more' accurate to what it truly is in order to be able to establish ways of finding it out?

Great point!! I think people should entertain ideas about God, look for concepts that work, insights that provide insights about other things to get closer to considering the idea if the idea exists. That's actually one reason I do what I do, so that people have more things to consider. I think people would be more inclined to believe or consider a transcendent platform if they had more accurate knowledge, or something that makes sense to even consider it. The more accuracy in the concepts the closer we get to figuring it out collectively.

#395
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Type religion debate forum or religion forum debate and DDO is third or fourth

So the other forums at the top, the crazies got banned and moved on to DDO

I know, I came from DDO as a member there for 10 years. I still visit DDO here and there.

#396
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
same but its a ghost town
#397
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah I wish it could be revived but Harikrish has gotta go. 
#398
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
hes there for the long run, he wants to create a hindu hari utopia with all of his Indian friends
#399
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hes there for the long run

LOL! now that I believe, if there's one thing I could say Hari is, would be consistent.

he wants to create a hindu hari utopia with all of his Indian friends

He doesn't have friends, that's obvious. With the amount of time and useless posts there's no way he has a life. 
#400
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
HE could have his IT friends in Canada,right LOL
#401
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hahaha you have been paying attention. 
#402
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Maybe if we got together a posse and rushed the forum we could drown him out if we completely ignored em. But I don't know anybody desperate enough lol and it would take a lot of effort. We would need a bunch of the old gang. 
#403
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
hes unstoppable, hes made it his life mission LOL

Ill try
#404
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hes unstoppable

It does appear that way. Ethang would be the only person I'm aware of comparable. Not even he can shut him down. 

hes made it his life mission

He's a loser too. 

Ill try

I would never go alone lol, he'll drain you until there's nothing left to try. 
#405
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ethang stopped him there but Im the reason hes perm banned here
#406
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think the best way would be to have a bunch of folks start participating and starting new topics and completely ignore him. That way there's activity going on in the midst of all his bullcrap. We would have to be real persistent though, but I think if he was ignored eventually it would get to his ego. He would be forced to act somewhat normal, at that point we got him. 
#407
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
oh yeah, like hes not part of the site, cant beat hari at his own game but play a different game and he will lose

Ive started LOL
#408
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
like hes not part of the site

Lol exactly, his ego couldn't handle it. I think he would break. 

Ive started LOL

Lol, good luck. I'll check in and see what's going on. 
#409
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
he hasnt replied
#410
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@EtrnlVw

Top KEK
#411
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw


YOUR QUOTE: "God is a universal Reality with variations of interpretations of that Reality within the world. While the Reality of God and truth are constant the interpretations of that Reality vary among people. In other words it doesn't matter, those interpretations aren't relevant to the truth or this discussion. God exists independent of them. The processes of the universe signifying a Creator exists is not relevant to "which" God I'm referring to, or which God religions express. What matters, or the subject at hand is whether or not there is a Creator involved in creating the universe."

 There are only 3 main God concepts that still exist today from the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages, which are Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah. These aforementioned Gods ALL CONTRADICT EACH OTHER IN THEIR WRITINGS, but yet their foundation all stem from Abraham.  Therefore, your dissertation above falls flat on its face, get it?  

Furthermore, then you are not a Christian subsequent to your quote above.  

Looks like I am taking a 7 day "rest" from this forum, lol.
#412
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Maybe if we got together a posse and rushed the forum we could drown him if we completely ignored em. But I don't know anybody desperate enough lol and it would take a lot of effort. We would need a bunch of the old gang. 


Is that a veiled call to others to gang up on one single member of the  DebateArt community that you can't handle on your own?  It won't be the first time you have tried this deceptive tactic, will it?

You tried this devious practice on me once, didn't you. . But it only resulted in getting those you had duped into becoming your accomplices in your "posse" to be banned instead of you.  You and others tried to "drown me  " too didn't you? by bombarding  my threads with absolute nonsense to hide your own embarrassments . You got your "posse" to do all of your dirty work of "drowning" out another member at a cost to them being banned,  and yet, you weren't banned were you?  .    I even remember telling you to "keep putting the bullets in for those you had duped,  and they will surely fire them, - on your behalf -  and get themselves banned in the process".

This is what you are now, once again, attempting to do to  the Brother simply for having a different opinion to you and showing you for what you are and embarrassing you in the process.   The Brother has simply shown how bible ignorant you are and has embarrassed you in the process.   So true to form, here you are,  once again inciting  others to join you in a "posse" in  the process of  attempting to "drown "  out one mans voice.   
 


That post #402 should certainly be flagged for the veiled incitement to others, by you to harass and  bait  and "drown" out a fellow member of the DebatArt community.


#413
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Outplayz
Well, wouldn't you need to figure out more traits that are 'more' accurate to what it truly is in order to be able to establish ways of finding it out?

That depends, if you need information for the current claim then that's necessary. I don't believe you should try and solve the entire thing in one go though. The first question is does the universe require an intelligent origin to exist as it does. So far I've been shown nothing that suggests it does. In case you're unaware, the discussion my discussion with EtrnlVw began with the presentation of two premises by EtrnlVw 1. The universe is developed by processes and 2. All processes are associated with a mind/consciousness. Using this as an example, there's no need to know what this consciousness is only that all processes can be shown to be associated with one.

For instance, maybe it doesn't create but more so manifest things. Like a chess game on a god level scale. It knows if it manifests x humans in x time it will lead to y humans today. Therefore, it's not creation but manifesting intelligence into this reality to steer it. That would be tested way differently than lets say a simulation type god that created everything on a disk.

What do you mean my manifest?

Another thing about "necessary" ... i don't know how you define that. I guess it's not "necessary" to have a creator... could things just be happening? I guess it could, but it also could be the other way around.

It's context-dependent based on the discussion. If you're talking to someone about a specific god then, of course, it's necessary to address traits of that god, if you're discussing the presence of an intelligence that created the universe then specific traits may not be necessary.

It's just if it is something, the implications of understanding what that something is may be important. For instance if Christians are right, it's important to repent. Therefore, with what we have... i think yes it's necessary to try to figure the abstracts out.

I believe that first, you should determine if there is something there, no point in deciding what you want on your pizza if the restaurant only sells steaks.

I didn't know what pantheism was when i thought of this platform, but i think something on those lines is kinda what im getting at, but i think it's more complicated. I think the entire platform is a "mind" ... but that's not even the right word.

What exactly do you mean when you say platform?


I think it's just a platform with many minds. Just like this reality. Just imagine Stan Lee being the lead mind, however, not the one mind but one of the minds in his own mind living multiple realities. Oh man, that sounded like a headache lol. Maybe, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation... the start being the absolute simulation that is every other simulation at once. Idk, many ways to look at the platform. As to evidence of suspecting it... i guess we can get to that.

I've discussed similar concepts before, I'll admit I'm interested in seeing where this goes though.

So i would call this level one type evidence... we can do this, so why can't it be happening or have happened in other ways not known to us?
An interesting perspective, but frankly why assume that it has been done to us? What possible benefit do we gain from that assumption in terms of determining truth?

Logically, if our minds exist, in an infinite platform, then each implication of our mind... intelligence, imagination, creation, etc... logically / probabilistic, has to exist. Let's say there once was a race of beings that created machines that they merged with, created a simulation, and are now living in infinite simulations in a cloud. That cloud is a god platform. Just simply being able to imagine this, and also seeing that there shouldn't be a reason why we can't do this one day, isn't it probable it has already happened? This is a simulation type argument, but it seems reasonable to suspect.

Before you begin moving into speaking of what's probable, can you show the variables involved? Without knowing the variables I fail to see how we can establish probability.

I agree with you and have looked at it kinda the same... but it's the contents of other beliefs that need to be proven to me before i start thinking about the head guy... so i'm kinda coming at it in the reverse. Which is cool. You look at this similar but from a different angle which i can def. respect.

Generally, I tend to believe in starting with the base claim and working out. In theism that would usually be the claim of a creator god.

I will never be the one to say anything abstract i say is more than speculation... my personal hope is to come up with a platform that is as iron clad as i can get it as speculation. That's always been my goal anyways. I feel like for some reason my mind is hardwired to understand this abstract subject without knowing others... everything i say i've thought of on my own without much guidance. It's just a natural talent i have i guess... spiritual intelligence some others say, so i'll pride myself on certain things but never that i'm right bc i understand how i can be completely wrong if it turns out to be different or nothing.

Yet if you've got only speculation then why hold it as a belief (strong suspicion as you put it) rather than simply accepting it as a possibility and considering other lines of thought, other possibilities. Have you considered that you consider this argument the most probable because you haven't considered other ideas with enough of an open-mind or depth?

Well, we do define what we see... but i understand what you're saying. All i'm saying is... if we are existence, existence as defined it exists.

I think that depends on what you mean by define. I certainly see nothing to suggest that we set the parameters of  that which we observe and if you mean that we give meaning to what we observe then sure, I don't see any reason to disagree with that.

We exist, but why would you think we're existence? what's your reasoning there?

So we can draw implications from it. An interesting implication to me is an infinite regress paradox and how a 'mind' added to the infinity would make the paradox moot. Would it still exist without us? Sure, but that is an interesting question within itself... does anything exist if nothing can define its existence?

The time paradox is only an issue if two criteria are met, firstly time must be linear (it appears that way to us, but that's hardly evidence of anything, there was a time the earth appeared stationary and flat to us), meaning time is moving forward (I've heard people make an argument that time may not be what moves, but we are moving through time, not an area I claim to be particularly versed in though). Secondly, we'd also need to be able to establish that time is a factor in whatever is outside this universe.


I don't see how that is any different than having nothing. Which is kinda the same thing i do with infinity and finite... infinity just makes more sense, a mind added to this infinity makes more sense... but that doesn't mean finite isn't the answer.

My point is that once we begin to try and conceive beyond this universe we're blind, we're left with no means of observing or verifying anything about such a state and so we cannot establish variables, which means we can't speak of likelihood or probabilities with any degree of confidence.


If you mean how can i prove it... i can't right? I don't know in what form it may exist outside of this... all i know is that it exists as we see it. That's enough. I've just added it to the equation now. We can use our imaginations from there to figure out platforms with or without it.

Yet none of these imaginings holds any real weight, we're considering things we've no reference for, we're trying to understand a game without knowing what the pieces, board or rules are.

Without out it... well, what would exist right? We can imagine nothing as something without time, but can we? If it use to be nothing, then something... then even nothing spent time being nothing. I'm just using what i know of time to think of this... which we can do.

It's possible that truly imagining either timelessness or nothing is beyond us, certainly, we have no frame of reference as to how such things would look, this is why trying to use our imaginings to come to claims of probability seems an unreliable way to establish much about anything that relates to whatever may be other than this universe.


#414
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Outplayz

Here's one thing i don't agree with people that dissent from my view... that i can't anthropomorphize or use what i know exists in "this reality." Why not? Bc these are things i know exist. They are just tools. Bc if they exist here, then they would exist in something else... in another form? A little more of or less of?

Yet therein lies the problem. You can use what you like in making your ideas, but there's no reason to think that there's any validity to them. You can't in any way establish that time, space or any other property of this universe exists elsewhere. You can't even establish the probability of such a proposition.

I don't know, but those are things i can think about. Comic book authors have really fine-tuned the implications of time... so, crap... there can be many implications, and why should i not be able to judge these implications in a probable way?

You can think about anything of course. Yet when you start to speak of 'probable' you need to be able to establish variables and likelihoods, something you can't do when you don't know what factors apply or how strongly.

What would a universe without time be like? Is this just a dodge from my initial paradox answer or is it a real possibility to confront my speculation?
A very good question. It's not a dodge, I never dodge a question or point, yet the fact is that I don't know what a universe without time would be like however that I can't imagine it, that I can't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible or even that it's not probable. If you can suggest a way we can observe and verify any details about anything outside this universe then you'd have a means to start logically and accurate considering the probabilities of different models, but until then, we're stuck with being able to work in this universe for such things.

Not being rude at all, just want to go with this thought experiment. I think something without time isn't anything... but, even nothing would be nothing moving forward... as we know, there very well could be no such thing as absolute nothing bc there is def. something right now... therefore, i don't think there is any reality without time.

Yet what is there in this universe that would necessarily, or even likely apply elsewhere, nothing we observe in this universe can logically be used to give us accurate information beyond this universe. Until we can observe and verify the traits beyond this universe speculation about it seems to be a fun thought exercise, but not much of a way to determine anything beyond speculation.

A "mind" navigating this infinite time just makes more sense then nothing being involved with the something... bc then we run into the paradox. Not saying my paradox answer is iron clad or anything, but these are many little evidences that lean me towards the possibility... so i'm listing them.

What makes sense to us may have nothing at all to do with what can be or is indeed what is. Our inability to understand something doesn't in any way affect the likelihood of its existence.

I understand how you are looking at it, but i'm not trying to draw a conclusion... i just want to know which is more likely. See, i think the platform with mind idea is more likely, therefore, i've now started to define what that means for me.

I'm still not seeing any way you determine likelihood. If you simply mean what you feel is most likely or what would be more likely in a set of conditions you've no way of being sure even apply.

I don't really care about the intricacies of the platform, more so who i am to it. I just need to know if it's probable, and i think it is.That's what you are talking to me more about, is it probable. From observation and thinking, i think we can give it a tiny leap towards probable although we don't have a proven platform (other than this reality - which is important here) to compare it with.

Yet we have no way of knowing that it's comparable to our universe at all in any way shape or form, we don't know that anything that applies here would apply elsewhere, we have no way of knowing that any conclusion we draw is more probable than any other due to lack of information.

I've explained my experiences in detail here and on other sites many times. I'm at a point where i don't really care to detail them anymore bc they are deep and i would have to write a lot. Let's just take one... asking something that is not there to move something, and it happens without a doubt. Whether it was a trick or something weird... the thing moved on demand, and while tested and provoked to do it multiple times.

When you say tested what do you mean? What was the criteria of this testing?

And btw, all of my experiences were sober... and if not, nothing in my system that would cause a hallucination, but i don't know. The mind is weird in how it works. The moving experience was with another however, so i can say it happened unless it was a duel hallucination... which is just a cop out at this point. Anyways, something moving something doesn't mean god, it just means something happened. The details of the experience are what's interesting to me.

If it's repeatable then subject it to further testing, confirm what is happening and study further. If there's something there then you'll be able to verify and expand on what you know.



But to this experience point, i agree with you... many many people are frauds. They want attention, have some kind of mental instability, want greed/money... sex, etc. Humans lie a lot. But i'm not lying, and quite frankly, i wish i was.
It's not about lying, or even mental instability (At leat not always) it's that we as a species are very well equipped for experiencing and understanding some things, within this range common sense is useful, good and generally reliable, when we get beyond this range however evidence suggests we're not so good, both our senses and our reasoning tend to become less reliable when working on the macro and the micro for example.

So, throughout the years, i probably ask more people about experiences bc i don't want to think i'm the only one... that would lead me to some kind of Solipsism belief which implications are terrifying imo. So, i've asked and heard many weird things. My point is... are they all lying? Are they all mistaken? Maybe, but i think the sheer number of experiences would count as evidence bc only "1" needs to have actually happened. I think the odds of one being true as it stands, even if i ignore my multiple experiences, points towards "spirituality."

Well that would depend on the experiences in question and what you're trying to establish with their testimony. Generally I'll accept anything as evidence if it's facts or information that support a claim, so this means two criteria need to be met, we need to be able to establish that it's a fact (or contains facts information being a body of facts about someone or something) and it needs to support the claim, many people get fuzzy on both those points, often assuming that we should just accept testimony as fact until it's shown to be untrue and often conflating points (I knew someone who believed that if ghosts could be shown to exist that would prove that a god exists... Never got a clear explanation as to why).

I personally strongly suspect it bc i have evidence... actually, through my eyes... it's hard evidence. It's proof at an individual level. I've done a lot of mental gymnastics to even ignore it on my own level and say it's weak evidence... but even at that point, things happened. But i understand why others can have a different position... i don't think you should strongly suspect it or suspect it at all. Remember, all i care about is "do i have an iron clad speculation." That's all i care about. I know i'm not at the iron clad level, but i like to think i'm on a reasonable level. The thing about my platform is ... i shouldn't be able to convince others. If i could convince Richard Dawkins of a god, he wouldn't be who he is anymore. All i care about is having a conversation with him where he says, "that's reasonable, but you're wrong." That's a W in my eyes.

Honestly, I can't speak to any of this without further information on your own experiences, which isn't me prying, simply me saying I can't really offer any meaningful insight into something in which I have little to no information (kind of the point of a large part of the rest of my last two posts I think).

#415
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol all except that it just produces things that are conscious and alive. How did an inanimate universe produce intelligence from a lifeless unconscious state?
That's easy, the same way a universe created by an intelligence would. The processes don't need to change at all in either model, the same processes would get the same results, the only difference is if those processes began due to an intelligence with a plan or not. Can you show any evidence that they must have had a plan to function as they do?

you haven't seen any reason though life and consciousness is all around you, suddenly it's here and you just can't find a good reason. Okay then what can anyone say? you just don't see it even though it's there....
No, it's not suddenly there, but it formed, why does that demonstrate an intelligence? Why must intelligence be the product of a plan rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes?

If seemingly lifeless, unaware forces of nature begin to act as an intelligent operation and produces things like a producer and you just act as if nothing is going on why even bother to come here? why did you instigate a conversation with me if you're going to roll over and play dead?
The highlighted section is supposition, can you substantiate that natural processes ever acted as an intelligent operation rather than simply continuing through their unintelligent motions to an end that resulted in intelligence without any intelligence initiating or influencing affairs? As for your question, it's because I find the topics worthy of consideration. This is what consideration is, to question to test and to consider. That your arguments aren't sound is no fault of mine, if you would directly address the logical errors that I present rather than simply ignore them or deny them, then we might actually make progress, I'd be happy to begin at the beginning in good faith if you agree to a discussion where you begin at the beginning and establish why you believe it's absurd to consider the possibility that unintelligent processes could produce anything we observe in this universe, but you need to have the intellectual honesty to directly address the fallacies presented to you, something you don't seem to be willing to do.

if you're going to assume that it is all an unknown and that any facts or information regarding a Creator is simply confirmation bias then why interact at all? if you have no reason to believe or consider anything at all I find it ironic you would come to a religious forum.
It's not an assumption, it's based on the fact that no one I've spoken to on the matter of a creator has been able to provide any facts information that can logical show we can know a creator exists. I present a flaw in reasoning or question assumptions every time I address you, that you don't address those flaws and do nothing to suggest we can know what you're claiming to know is no fault of mine.

Transcend, transcendence is the word that applies here. This is where you would begin to ask questions to someone like me, this is how you would learn stuff and that things CAN be known. You could take such information and incorporate it into your own data base whether or not you accept it. 
But first I would need to accept your premises:

P1: The universe is developed by processes
P2: All processes are associated with an intelligence/mind

Correct? If so then I can't do that until you show that all processes are associated with a mind. You point to correlation, yet this correlation hasn't stood up to scrutiny. The only correlation between Human initiated processes and natural processes that I can see is that they're both subsets of processes, this does nothing to support your claim though, the problem is in looking at subset A (human initiated processes) and then arguing that subset B (natural processes) must contain some trait we see in subset A (in this case being initiated by an intelligence) yet this isn't necessarily so. Please explain in detail in a logical form what correlation shows natural processes must be initiated by an intelligence.


Sure, if you're a person who discounts sources that correlate with Theism, and no surprise you would. It's not an unknown rather has been known and been shown for ages. Spirituality including all the insights and knowledge wrapped up therein have been around almost as long as humans began perceiving. You can claim it's an unknown or that it can't be known but in all honesty it's not the case.
No, I discount correlation that doesn't lead where it claims to. You have yet to present any correlation between natural processes and human initiated processes that suggest that because intelligence can initiate some processes it must initiate all processes, I've asked several times how you establish this and you haven't answered me.

Assuming God exists (just for the sake of this point) the information has been presented.
No. If we assume god exists, there still hasn't been any information presented that shows this to be fact. Everything you've presented has either been assumption or logically unsound as I've addressed every time you've presented it. Address the logical errors and show that you've facts to back up your assertions and then there would have been information presented that allows us to know god exists, otherwise we have no way of knowing god exists, even if it does.

It's only your own reluctance that makes it an unknown, is that intellectually honest? Just because you don't particularly trust spiritual claims and insights does that make your case legit if God exists?
It's not my reluctance, it's the lack of facts. Information is a body of facts, evidence is facts and information. Facts are that which can be known to be true. Nothing you present can be shown to be logically sound and not an assumption. My claim is legit because of that lack of facts (and as such information) that is why my position is legit and the only intellectually honest position I can take.

or does that just make you a skeptic? at what point would you be willing to say "ya know....maybe it's not a unknown, what reason do I really have to assume the origins of the universe are unknown? have I paid attention and considered all propositions? how could I claim it's unknown when I don't know myself? is it unknown to everybody?"
At the point that people can show they know with logically sound argument and facts to support their position and claims.

Actually had you educated yourself on what evidence entails and how it is defined when I posted it for you then you wouldn't have made this mistake. Perhaps go back and read it, and see if you're able to catch it this time. I'm honestly getting sick of those who would probably be the first to claim they go with evidence and not know what evidence is and how it is defined. After you read how evidence is defined go look up the word "testimony". Guess what word will be used to define what a testimony is? if you wanted to be intellectually honest you would be willing to include and incorporate all truths the way they are defined whether or not you find it legit. 
Evidence must be based on facts. If you'd not cherry picked the middle of a sentence you might have noticed that what I actually said was:

Unfortunately considering how many times people have had strongly held convictions and beliefs that have proven to be wrong, even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything, especially when the experience you allude to isn't shared.

Now the parts you cut out are important. My point is that evidence is facts and information (itself a body of facts). For testimony to be evidence it must be reasonably likely that the testimony is built on fact. The fact that people are often wrong and giving testimony that isn't based on facts (intentionally or not), since it's not stuff that they know simply that they believe, means that testimony must be taken on a case by case basis to see if the testimony's claims are factual. Otherwise I could go to a murder trial and testify that I saw the suspect murder someone despite having not been anywhere near the scene.
#416
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
At this point should I presume you're being an ass?
Premise-
previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
No, just being accurate. You haven't presented something that's a statement or proposition that can be used to infer something else for a while. You've been too busy trying ad hominem arguments and lamenting the fact that I'm considering the premises that you made at the very start of our exchange. If they are the premises you mean then I'll accept them as long as you can show that they're logically sound and accurate. P2 is particularly tricky, since you still seem to be stuck at only being able to show that processes can be initiated by an intelligence, not that all processes were or must me. Nor have you in any way shown how we can logically conclude that they must be associated with an intelligence. You have pointed to things in the world and made arguments from incredulity about them, but nothing that shows this intelligence is anything more than an assumption of yours because you don't consider the possibility of an unintelligent origin viable. You want more than that then you'll need to provide evidence and logically sound argument for why this a creator must exist. That you don't do that isn't my fault, nor do I particularly want you to fail, I'd be quite happy to accept your position, if it were sound.
#417
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are there not results that produce things that effect another thing? we've gone over some of the things that qualify as intention already.
This is immaterial unless you can show those results could only occur with an intelligence. You have said many things qualify as intention, yet you have never shown that this is anything more than your opinion. Point to one thing that results from natural processes that is demonstrably the product of a plan. I don't mean that you are assuming to be the product of a plan, or that you think makes more sense as a product of a plan, but that is demonstrably, verifiable as the product of a plan, rather than the result of unintelligent processes.


What else would you refer to it as
Notice again you don't answer the question. Can you show that the universe is the product of a plan or can't you? How do you verify your claim? You claim to know, then demonstrate how you can know.

But if they don't know how to act how does anything get accomplished? why does anything exist at all? how does anything make sense?
Why would they need to know how to act? They'd simply be in motion and that motion would lead to interaction which would lead to the universe as we see it. As for why does anything exist at all, clarify the question please? Do you mean how did it come to exist, or for what purpose does it exist? If the former then I don't know, for the latter can you show that the universe must have a purpose? Lastly, how does anything make sense? That's easy, a lot of damn hard work on the part of a lot of people, the universe makes sense because we've looked at the world around us and learned how it functions, how the forces interact with each other, I'd also argue that a lot of it still doesn't make sense, just look at quantum mechanics.


Ahhh, they simply act and do things and wah-lah! but they are dead and inanimate lol.

Not dead, dead means no longer alive, that which never lived cannot be dead. Nor does anyone seem to be claiming that they're inert or motionless. But enough trying to shift the burden of proof. Can you show any logically sound reason supported by evidence that unintelligent processes couldn't have resulted in the universe we observe? If you can't provide a logically sound answer, that's not a problem, but at least have decency to admit that so we can move on.


Look in the mirror and ask yourself that with a straight face. It's not that it must, it is that there is.
Again, you have cherry picked well, lets give the that statement context shall we. I asked:

If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything, they simply act and in doing so this universe formed. Why must there be intentionality in any of that?

You cherry picked the last sentence. So, let me be clear on my question. Why must there be intentionality behind the natural processes that act upon the universe? Why does the existence of life and humans and intelligence show there must have been a mind behind it all aiming for that goal? If you can't actually answer that question with something better than to assume the alternative is absurd, then you have nothing but an argument from incredulity. If all you can do is ask me to explain how it can be otherwise then you have nothing but an argument from ignorance and an effort to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming something about the origins of the universe, you are the one who claims to have knowledge. Well, I'm asking you if you can make good on those claims, so far you've not been able to do that.
#418
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
A very good question. It's not a dodge, I never dodge a question or point, yet the fact is that I don't know what a universe without time would be like however that I can't imagine it, that I can't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible or even that it's not probable.
This is great. I'm understanding how you are looking at it. I obviously can't really push any ideas into this that can't just be "dodged" ... i put that in quotes bc i know you're not dodging. Your position is reasonable. We can't know what a universe without time would be like bc we don't know it exists, or if it does... we don't have a way to access it to "know know." However, i think this is where our minds differ a little. I think it's easy imagining such a universe, and i think it is probable i'm right, off what we know. Something without time, is nothing right?.. If we just take it as what we know. I think there is significance in this for our imaginations and conscious, is kinda a literal superpower. We can imagine this, so why make it harder and more complicated than it needs to be (which only comes down to changing definitions of what time is)? We can do many things imagining implications of time (calling each by different names even), one being imagining what it would be without (timeless, empty, or whatever you'd call it). It's just changing definitions just like a comic book writer may call a time hero ... changer. Everything he/she does is change... but that's still manipulating what we know as "time." Therefore, i don't think it's insignificant that we can make these speculations. When it comes to "knowing" ... sure i agree with your angle, i've never seen it personally nor know if it exists... but, why throw out what i can imagine? I can make calculated speculations. I mean, all this could go either way if we keep changing definitions and calling time something else than what we see right in front of us. This does sound like the "look at the world it has to be designed" argument... but i think it's stronger bc we experience time and also know our imaginations are inventive and can imagine proofs. 

Until we can observe and verify the traits beyond this universe speculation about it seems to be a fun thought exercise, but not much of a way to determine anything beyond speculation.
But like in anything, can't we say some speculation is better than the other? For instance, isn't it better if i get speculate about a simulation theory with you, rather than Christianity? Can't we both measure each speculation and think one is better or at least at this point seems more reasonable? 

What makes sense to us may have nothing at all to do with what can be or is indeed what is.
Lol i really agree with you here... the only thing is i don't think about this angle much bc i've already accepted i can be wrong. I think it just comes down to my overall belief... i think we are something magical. Even if there is nothing beyond this, our imaginations alone are magical imo. Therefore, i don't think our ability to imagine these things is insignificant. I think it's highly significant in the grand scheme of things. Although, we are still infants... so ya, everything could be wrong... or maybe, there are small pieces we have caught onto... just like anything else, it's slowly getting there.

I'm still not seeing any way you determine likelihood.
 Just imagining different platforms. Like any fictional writer would do for creating a reality. Then there is my experiences that kinda threw me in this direction, but i think you'll discuss that later so i'll discuss it when you bring it up... i'm going one quote at a time.

Yet we have no way of knowing that it's comparable to our universe at all in any way shape or form, we don't know that anything that applies here would apply elsewhere, we have no way of knowing that any conclusion we draw is more probable than any other due to lack of information.
This is interesting to me just bc of my ultimate speculation. I didn't want to bring it up so you don't judge me, but i think everything we have imagined exists in some form. It's extreme, but where i'm at. Therefore, i think there are absolute different universes to ours. My point isn't "knowing" ... which is a reoccurring sentiment i've seen. Knowing there is a reality where people can fly with wings... i don't 'know' it. But can i see a world where people can fly? Sure, why not... they'd just need wings. Is it possible? Sure why not?... of course my ultimate speculation gets crazy, but ultimately i'm not trying to know... maybe things are exactly how they are bc 'knowing' would be a detriment to this experience.  

When you say tested what do you mean? What was the criteria of this testing?
It was in my moment, so i didn't have any instruments or stuff like that. Quick recap since i don't want to go through all of it. Kid said his house is haunted, i doubted him, i told him if it is than it should be able to manipulate my necklace, and it did. But before i asked him to tell it to manipulate the necklace... i sat down, observed the natural spin while holding it. Said go. It spun uncontrollably right. I still didn't believe so i told it to say stop the necklace from spinning. It stopped on command, i still wanted more proof so i said now tell it to spin left, it spun uncontrollably left. The only way it could have spun as hard as it did i would have had to do it... and i'm 90% positive i didn't move. 10%... maybe i somehow lost my mind and did... i don't know but i'm sure i didn't move. My test was stabilizing myself, observation of what's natural... then the directional commands... which all gave me the finger. I wanted to disprove him. In hindsight, i should have hung it on a lamp or something or recorded it... it just didn't happen that way. Which is interesting about these experiences... they just happen. Why? Idk know exactly but i have a theory if your interested in digressing into my "beliefs." 

If it's repeatable then subject it to further testing, confirm what is happening and study further. If there's something there then you'll be able to verify and expand on what you know.
The kid thought it's a demon trying to kill him, he died a week later, i can't get back into his house, i've tried it many other times and it didn't work. I don't know how to test it in a repeatable way. I don't think these things work like that. Repeatable is something for understanding "simple" things in what we can see in our reality. I don't think that method is appropriate for something like this experience. But nonetheless, i experienced it. 

 when we get beyond this range however evidence suggests we're not so good, both our senses and our reasoning tend to become less reliable when working on the macro and the micro for example.
I agree with you. But i know myself, and i know on the reliability of these memories. The reason i say i wish i didn't have them is bc it's significantly changed my life... almost in a traumatic way bc you can't stop thinking about it on top of everyone telling me, it's a delusion, made up memory, etc. etc. Therefore, i kinda empathize with people that talk about crazy things that shouldn't happen... which btw, most i debunk or think they are drawing conclusions they shouldn't like it must be the "christian / muslim / whatever god." My whole point is towards what the "something" that happened is... i think it's clear there is something here. 

(I knew someone who believed that if ghosts could be shown to exist that would prove that a god exists... Never got a clear explanation as to why).
Yep, like i said... i'm with you here. It just means something unexplained happened... can't draw an actual conclusion. But we can use them as an added tool. I'm actually a paralegal so i know the whole evidence and testimony thing. People are pretty wild. However, with very strong experiences, although they can exaggerate it, there are truths if the person actually experienced what they said they did. The problem with these types of experiences is the cause is often times "invisible" so you can't trace it. Like, how can i prove my mentioned experience other than testimony, and corroboration with one other that was there (which is why i usually only focus on this experience bc that is the only thing that makes it "stronger")?

Honestly, I can't speak to any of this without further information on your own experiences.
I went over it cliff note style, the only things i'm leaving out is how i was feeling, our conversations that lead to it, the environment, and some other connections, but the experience happened how i explained. I've looked at it critically and the only thing i can come up with is that i spun it unconsciously, it was a trick, or some invisible natural phenomena that just happened to go down exactly then. All of which, except for the last, i was aware of not to do... even watch the kids hands to make sure it's not a trick somehow. I was fully aware, yet it still happened... that's why it's one that has stuck with me as really unexplained.  


#419
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
***i saw these threads backwards so sorry if that's how i'm answering. I'll try to make it work. 

The first question is does the universe require an intelligent origin to exist as it does.
Isn't this a bad place to start? What if you can both show it requires and it also doesn't require? For instance, my simple infinite paradox answer shows it requires. But i agree with you, we can change definitions of time and show it doesn't require. You see what i mean? I struggle with this too, bc anything i can say spiritually, can also be explained by natural means. For example, if it was a simulation... i can say evolution is bc we wanted to create every age of our experience... or, i can just say evolution is a natural process. Idk, this is just interesting to me and i think i may agree with you... bc i don't really think about the require angle bc we would be going into territories that are out there... in this specific subject, bc we would have to. So you can always stop me and say, you're going abstract so i don't have to listen anymore.. it's not required. 

What do you mean my manifest?
Um, in the sense i brought it up... man, i really don't know bc it can happen in many ways. For instance, an arts creator manifests a character by imagining that character. Or, we can all have already manifested in that art way, are incorporeal, and manifest our character willingly into a reality. By manifest i guess i simply mean life being an incorporeal "something" that can manifest itself into realities. Then, more complicated, maybe life is in pieces, i am one character (piece), and can manifest. Sounds like to me i just mean an incorporeal life force, for the most part, becoming corporeal. 

I believe that first, you should determine if there is something there, no point in deciding what you want on your pizza if the restaurant only sells steaks.
The problem is determining if there is something there isn't easy. 

What exactly do you mean when you say platform?
Platform as to just what the absolute truth may be. Like heaven / hell / this reality would be the whole platform. Reincarnation of only this reality is a platform. Only our reality existing is a platform. When i look at it this way, it's just clearer to me the platform is probably a lot more complicated than these short single sentences allows and likely a morph just bc we can add infinity to the mix.   

An interesting perspective, but frankly why assume that it has been done to us? What possible benefit do we gain from that assumption in terms of determining truth?
This is very subjective. I find benefits if the possibility is there, but you may not. It may actually be a detriment to your experience. Ultimately, at least i've found out, it only matters to those it matters to, which is interesting to me bc i've experienced something to reinforce my suspicions. I brought up a theory i had in the above answers so i guess i'll get to that. Let's say it's possible for us to enter a video game as a simulation. Say this game is a zombie shooter game. If i download into the game and know i'm in the game, wouldn't that change my experience? If you were in the game and didn't know... you would be freaking out at every turn. I know that sounds negative, but you would truly be having a zombie experience. We can both choose how to enter the game, but what if i wanted to know i'm in the game, but you didn't? Well, i would have hints and you would be able to disprove my hints... so we both have the experience we wanted. I highly suspect i'm in a game, and you don't. The experience changes with each of these little shifts. The interesting part is, if you say to me, well you didn't have your experience... but why would i (most of the time) pick a game i know exactly i'm fake in? My experience would be a boring mindless shooter at that point... it works better, or i think i would pick more often, to have hints rather than certainty. Ultimately, maybe that's just what this game allows. Maybe there are other games (realities) where i would know exactly what's going on... But this then gets into a higher platform, if the incorporeal self is immortal, then i think it would highly prefer a duality between mortality and immortality, forgetting and remembering... and many degrees thereof. 

before you begin moving into speaking of what's probable, can you show the variables involved?
What do you mean by variables... or, maybe making it easier on me, from what i've said so far... what kind of variables are you looking for? 

Generally, I tend to believe in starting with the base claim and working out. In theism that would usually be the claim of a creator god.
 I respect that, but to me... when i hear "god" that is pretty extreme. I'd rather start out with the claims to how they got to their god so i can see if it's reasonable. Bc the definition of their god can be on to something, but all the fluff in-between can just be human fallibility... which i've concluded with organized religion btw, fluff.

Yet if you've got only speculation then why hold it as a belief (strong suspicion as you put it) rather than simply accepting it as a possibility and considering other lines of thought, other possibilities. Have you considered that you consider this argument the most probable because you haven't considered other ideas with enough of an open-mind or depth?
Very good question. I use to be blinded by what i thought i knew. Like i said, all of this i'm talking about... as early as i can remembering being able to think, i've suspected. I remember a memory when i was on the school buss for the first time, kids were bullying a kid in the back of the buss, and i was enraged that i couldn't use the "powers i knew" i had to stop it. Kinda think of superman or something being manifested into a reality where he lost his powers... that's how i remembering feeling looking at my hands. Very weird memory but of course just a memory. But of course all of this gives me a big head and some confirmation bias. I have however, in recent years, just laid off. I got to where i wanted with my belief, so now i'm listening to many others. Philosophers, scientists, etc. My thoughts have changed many times since, i'm actually confused now. I've found there are a few platforms that fit my belief... simulation theory, pantheism, infinite consciousness, Boltzmann brains... I'm actually having a ball having my mind blown now by others. I'm also listening to others that can debunk these... i'm just not convinced they're right. Like the many worlds hypothesis is basically one of the above platforms but limited to only what we know... so it could be, but i see it as limited. That's how i feel about the dissenter, just the same i feel about the ones that correlate with my belief... there's just something missing.

We exist, but why would you think we're existence? what's your reasoning there?
Oh i don't. I guess i just explained that poorly. I just think we exist and that is important. We are pieces of "existence" ... whatever the entire picture is. We can use what we know and even imagine bc we are part of existence. 

The time paradox is only an issue if two criteria are met,
I agree with you, and admit i'm making a leap. I'm saying the leap is reasonable however. We do define time the way you explained. But, the way i look at it... even nothingness, nothing moving or being there, would be something moving in time if there was something after. We know there is something at least. And now i'm at the level where i don't think there was ever absolute nothing. That is a leap, but how i look at time and space and whatever is going on in it. The thing is, all of it would be in a linear sense... so just following down this rabbit hole... an intelligence just fits quite nicely when you look at it as a platform of infinite time, space, and whatever is going on in it.

Yet none of these imaginings holds any real weight, we're considering things we've no reference for, we're trying to understand a game without knowing what the pieces, board or rules are.
This is pretty crazy. I've always said this to spiritual people. My exact quote is "you a puzzle piece with a picture in front of you that you are trying to make... however, your friends (humanity) has thrown all their pictures into the mix... and, you're still trying to make one picture." You're just saying it in a "scientific" way.

So again, all we can do right now is come up with something reasonable. Like looking for the puzzle pieces that are of similar shades hoping it will one day find that one picture. Science is doing the same thing, they just have it easier bc they are looking at physical pieces.. and even they are having a hard time. Spiritual people have the invisible pieces. 

I think i understand what you mean by variables now... i think the variables here are anecdotal accounts and our minds. Both of which i find have weight to them. Accounts would at least point towards "something." And our minds are wild man, we can imagine that it wouldn't make sense if there was no time. If that's right or wrong, us being able to imagine that is important imho. 

#420
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
 I respect that, but to me... when i hear "god" that is pretty extreme. I'd rather start out with the claims to how they got to their god so i can see if it's reasonable. Bc the definition of their god can be on to something, but all the fluff in-between can just be human fallibility... which i've concluded with organized religion btw, fluff.

Here's something to consider, not that you haven't though. God's, multiverses, reincarnation, heavens and hells ect ect can all work and fit into the universal infinite platform it doesn't have to be one or the other, God vs the platform theory problem. Since I think we could agree if we agree on anything that the platform or Source is an infinite intelligence or awareness/conscious state of being It wants to be as many things as It can dream of or imagine and that would also include being "God", and being God over lesser beings or beings that are less aware we could say. The God prototypes are just beings of much more awareness and abilities, they possess advanced qualities and powerful less restricted embodiments and while they do in fact exist they too come out of the platform.
All individuals, all Gods, demi-gods, souls, creatures ect ect originate from this omnipresent infinite platform, they all fit into the multiverse design. And believe it or not some souls aren't ready to learn about the Platform so they may be more inclined to believe or wish to collaborate with a God figure, and since God's do exist they are glad to incorporate these souls into their knowledge and abundance, that's their desire. This is really cool though, because this is the dynamics of creation  most people would never think about. When dealing with an eternal creative Platform of expression and imagination there's infinite possibilities and potential.

Other souls may have existed much longer, or had these types of experiences already and they just are more mundane about these types of scenarios and begin to be curious about their true nature. That's what I think is interesting about you, I'm still fascinated by these higher Beings but you think they are boring lol, that's an indication to me that you've had a lot of experiences on your journey. I do think if you saw one or were to have an experience with one you would be captivated, and these God are real good at captivating the soul and they are very glad to show you many things. So just think about it, when a soul encounters a God or demi-God they become captivated by that Being and this is where religions come into play. The funny part is that people always assume only one religion can be correct, that is actually not the case because like I said there are countless societies that exist outside or transcendent of the physical domain, and the Gods are there to fit the roles of ones who control and rule over those domains. But outside of all domains is the singular Platform out of which all other beings originate. These Beings or Gods can even fit the roles of Creators, creating worlds for their captivated souls.

Remember about people, it's the nature of the soul to want to commune with others and dwell in communities or collectively, they're not ready to withstand the reality that they came from a Platform that exists entirely alone. And it's the beauty of creation why different cultures, styles, traditions and a host of many other variables exist, and "God" is basically the overarching factor that brings it all together, that unifies those aspects. So it's not like what most people think, where there is just one God and everyone else is mistaken. It is true that these Gods dwell in different areas and parts of creation, so that when a person has an experience with one or ends up in one of their heavens it appears that's the only God and only heaven that exists. That's the point though, without that illusion there would most likely be no patriotism or creed that binds them to that experience.

But just as there are countless cultures and traditions, there are countless societies that exist outside of Earth. That's why you see as an example, the Native Americans put so much emphasis on their ancestors and culture because they know and have experienced that these ancestors and cultures exist outside the material domain. Same with Christians, Hindus, Buddhists ect ect...it's not like only one of those groups have a paradise outside the physical experience and every other culture is doomed, the Platform is not that stupid lol. The Platform is far more diverse and imaginative than anyone could conceive of.

The reincarnation idea or theory is very simplistic, it' s just a label for the fact that souls get recycled in certain parts of creation. This is how these variations of cultures keep themselves alive and powerful, it is the reincarnation, the cycle of souls being regurgitated back within their cultures and groups. It is because the soul desires to do so, there may be something that captivates them about a particular society or area of creation and so they keep reincarnating to keep it alive.
The heaven and hell scenario, despite there being many of them fit into the laws of creation aspect, as well as the desire of the individual souls. There are rewards and there are consequences and even though they exist none of them are actually eternal that is a misconception. It seems like they are, but anything other than the eternal platform is temporal, even if we are talking about eons of time the only thing that is infinite and eternal is awareness, the original Platform. This is also true about the very nature of you, me and everyone else, we will always be alive and conscious despite having embodiments that end. But these places like heavens and jails only exist in parts of creation, it's not the only things that exist. Heavens are actually planets, and hell is just another name for jail or prison. 

So don't let religion and variations of religious theology confuse you there's a place for all of it believe it or not, understand that when you say anything we could imagine exists in one form or another that is true in a literal sense and then some. So feel good about the direction you're going in and let your freedom to explore go in any direction. This isn't some fiction thing we are talking about, the coolest part about all of this is that it actually is an objective reality, meaning this isn't about our feelings or opinions it actually exists.
Most people would read this and assume I'm batshit crazy lol, personally I don't care I'm well aware of how sound my mind is, but I know you're like me and probably have an attention span of a bug, so I know you most likely don't like to read someone else's posts for very long but I hope you read all of this one because I think you'll be very interested. I know it's long winded, but some of these topics are very dynamic and it takes a lot of explaining, believe me I keep it as short as I possibly can!