Reply
Fri 5 Dec, 2014 04:25 pm
Ok, some believe that God did it all, some believe that nature evolved itself from the primordial ooze. I have my opinion, but it is not part of this Riddle. Ok, so there is the most brilliant believer in evolution ever, and they begin doing experiments to prove that life could form spontaneously in a pond. After several years, they succeed and life grows from the experiment. Every God believing scientist tries to disprove the experiment, and they fail, and admit that life could form from natural ingredients by chance, but then they celebrate. Now the paradox, this experiment actually proves that life could well have been created by God, and that it most likely was. Thus the battle just rages on and on and on. Now this riddle is quite simple, but I believe that the implications are worth considering for our future.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Its only worth considering if you think "our future" is
1. definable.
and
2. determined by actions of either ourselves or some other entity.
@fresco,
True, the future can never be perfectly predicted, but human evolution will continue. However everyone's future is in part influenced by their own actions and those of others as well. However you have not answered the riddle, and this one is easy.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
What riddle? If "God" is omnipotent he can either cause the experiment to work, or cause the human to perform the experiment as his agent "in his own likeness". "God" is just an
ad hoc catch-all concept easily undermined by the infinite regress of "what caused God". It is a psychological attempt at closure of what is logically a potentially open set.
@fresco,
Interesting, but the actual answer is far more simple than that, and it will be proved one day, not by this means necessarily but by similar ones.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Prophets - we can do without !
@DNA Thumbs drive,
You have failed to discern the true nature of God, the one whose Hebrew name, Yahweh, or Jehovah, literally means, "He who causes to become". In so doing, you have obfuscated the fact that his name is a promise, a promise that his purpose cannot be defeated.
@neologist,
Ah...an ecumenical matter ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptd_h0dF7NE
But perhaps not !
@fresco,
Heh, heh.
But typical of the clergy
@neologist,
None of those Gods are implied in the answer to the riddle.......
@neologist,
No clergy or religion of any type is even implied in the answer.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Then the riddle is not relevant
@neologist,
The riddle is not relevant to what? That statement is illogical, all riddles are relevant, though some will be more stimulating than others.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Neo is correct. For example, Spinoza's "God"
was "Nature".
If you want to resort to
logic you need to specify the exact meaning of your terms, and the problem with "God" is that there is no agreement.
BTW . If you read up on Prigogine's work (dissipative structures far from equilibrium) you might understand why the spontaneous occurrence of "the life process" may be no big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
@fresco,
You are all wrong, as one of the things that separates God form other concepts, is that God is a timeless entity, thus God exist in the past, the present and will exist in the future, just as time itself, does this same thing. No one ever contemplates what the future God would be as the typical religious thinker, and the typical atheist thinkers minds are both stuck in the past. This riddle is not there, so forget what you think you know about what God was, this riddle, is.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
When someone uses the word "wrong" in matters of hypothetical entities it usually indicates they are indulging in word salad. On this forum we often get people with a need to communicate at the expense of the quality of their subject matter. Hopefully that does not apply here.
@fresco,
You are now in the riddle, and looking for the exit, this is good. So how can God be proved, by the image of humanity.
@DNA Thumbs drive,
It's never too late to obfuscate.. . . .
@neologist,
What would a riddle that was not obfuscating be? So yes, this riddle is obfuscating, to those who know not the solution.
Hmmmmm, how that be???
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace