coincidences

Your questions assume that there is a god, but do not demontrate it. Your questions assume that said god is a creator, but do not demonstrate it. Your questions assume that there is such a place as heaven, but do not demonstrate it.



It is not clear what you mean here.

I’m not sure I would use the words “dumb thought experiment”, Mike, but I would feel comfortable calling it a “not especially conceived” thought experiment.

I would even feel comfortable suggesting it is not a “thought experiment” at all.

What is it you are unsuccessfully trying to do here?

Both posts at 6:26!

Now that is a coincidence!

No, Frank . . . god meant for that to happen . . . really . . . she told me so . . .

so if humans dont create then there is no creator nor god, which is a fact, humans do not create, all they can do is wether through lies force by abusing the energy of constant objects to use it for smthg else pretentions of inventing while destroying it for which led to universe destructions at the end of healthy grounds energies or when they cant b through objects destructions at the maximum all they can do is to b real which prove that there is no creations and existence is a fact real existing

Set. I love your signature line. It reminds me of Cervantes' statement that--at the time of the destruction of the Spanish Armada Invencible (?)--when he lost the use of his left hand it was for the glory of the right hand. Did I get that right?

Is it a coincidence that Clark Kent keeps his other identity secret?

Is it a coincidence that Clark Kent looks, behaves, and has interests like a human being, with even his alias of Superman not departing much from that, apart from the Herculean powers?

"Look, up in the sky! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman!" Rescuing somebody from death.

Is it so hard to believe that humans Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman, to experience for themselves at the eve of WWII what it's like for two Jews to turn the concept of a "beyond moral codes" Ubermensch upon its head?

There's nothing dumb about trying to save one's cultural traditions. Just set aside any tyrannical tendencies from the past and try to figure-out a way to keep it from interfering with a methodological investigation of the empirical world that tries to explain the latter in terms of its own components and governing principles. See Kant for an example or an earlier effort at trying to salvage freedom, God, and immortality.

Hehe, I do like all of your replies, and you all have good points. I just made the post to get people thinking about something I had a discussion about with a couple of friends. It was in hindsight for religious folk who beleive that a single, all powerful, all knowing God exists; that rules over it's creation outside of it's creation as most claim. Personally, I don't believe such a God exists, due to the fact that such a God wouldn't need to create anything to justify it's own all knowingness and perfection. But it doesn't mean that a single NOT all knowing God doesn't exist, who does need creation and beings such as humans to become all knowing.

How logical is the notion that God was all knowing before anything existed to make it all knowing? It's like saying people emerge from the womb already knowing what they haven't experienced yet. Which means learning and experiencing isn't necessary to live and survive. Let's take a half naked Indian from a secluded Amazonian tribe who has no comprehension of the modern world, bring him to New York City, and see if he could live there, let alone find a job. It'd be ridiculous to believe our Indian could fit in right away, yet with some time and experience, it could happen.

So, just maybe, God is real, can create a stable environment and put's itself into the environment as life, to experience and learn what creation and life is, to achieve omniscience. All living creatures, from humans to bacteria, perceive and store information from their environment and experiences, to justify their own being. Why would God be different? Then it would explain the coincidences that I posted, as well as everything that is experienced. The consequence of being omniscience, is that every aspect of omniscience needs to be experienced, otherwise a being can't know all knowingness.