Scientific proof that God exists?

[vokain]

Ohh, can I hear? 

[1715504710]

1715504710

[1715504710]

1715504710

[1715504710]

1715504710

[Decksperiment]

Sure, but would get busted turnin on my system here it's 1:30am, the scum would love nothing better than to tear this place apart.. just to take the decks for 3 months.. I never post my music online due to copyright and the fact that no matter where I post them, I'd probably lose said right's to my own material.. I can however set up an ftp or sumat so ya can get a blast

Edit: Incidently, for those searching google for me, my email is evidence that I own the copyright to the name deckperiment, as does dj magazine, eternity magazine, and a few radio stations, etc etc, but online, I can only be found on certain so called 'pirate' radio site's.. make no mistake, anyone else using this name in music will get sued for copyright if I ever make it as a dj..

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists.  However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence.  Same thing goes for the space teapot.  Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look.  Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example.  This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition."   God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge.  Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience.  As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).
 
You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound.  The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always.  Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful).  Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.  

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all.  Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

[(oYo)]

Decksperiment, This place is for serious discussion of "Scientific proof that God exists". Please stay on topic and make your own thread to pander your music (career), you hypocrite.

I'm very sceptical of anyone who think's it's cool to talk about God, but wont acknowledge him, in the form of 'G-d', yet you use the full word 'Devil'.. why dont you's who do this say the word GOD?

Why are you so afraid of 'O'?

This is more than a valid question, for there are many religious 'sect's', or 'cult's' who are nothing more than religion's. To be a member of a religion, you must believe in god or his/her opposing factor. What are you afraid of, creating the 'graven image'? Answer - YES. This 'graven image' is not the letter O, the number 0, but the LOOP, where life repeat's itself in all it's guise's, this would be the EVIDENCE of god full stop. But no-one will accept this. It's like, not quite a donut shape, or a toroid, but akin to these shape's, it's more like a loop where we discover everything in existance... blah, blah, blah.

Correction - The "o" in 'god' resembles a Holy Meatball which is of the great and almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Source:

In August 2005, in response to a challenge from a reader, Boing Boing announced a $250,000 prize—later raised to $1,000,000—of "Intelligently Designed currency" payable to any individual who could produce empirical evidence proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was modeled as a parody of a similar challenge issued by young-earth creationist Kent Hovind.

BTW, both of these prizes are equally impossible to claim in case anyone was wondering. The first one being obvious I would think, but second one has become (by design) impossible to claim, since...

Hovind has gone, in the course of presenting his offer, from promising money to anyone who can present any scientific evidence for evolution; to demanding scientific evidence of a strawman version of evolution covering numerous branches of science; to demanding not merely evidence, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God didn't do everything; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God couldn't do anything and, ultimately, to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. At the very least, Hovind's claim that he will pay $250,000 for "any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution" can be said to be deeply deceptive.

[(oYo)]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists.  However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence.  Same thing goes for the space teapot.  Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look.  Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example.  This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition."   God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge.  Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience.  As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).
 
You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound.  The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always.  Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful).  Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.  

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all.  Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists.  However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence.  Same thing goes for the space teapot.  Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look.  Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example.  This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition."   God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge.  Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience.  As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).
 
You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound.  The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always.  Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful).  Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.  

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all.  Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

Disappointing, for I'm sure you'll continue to use your invalid cliches far into the future.

[Decksperiment]

it's shit like this that spoils the internet, it's kinda like searchin google for a fix.. not one result has the answer, cause whilst OP's ask, there's always numpty attention seeker's who are so distracting that the topic is probably closed for going off topic.. when I say this is a pile of shit, it really is, I mean, arguing points is one thing, but that fuckin idiot wi his fantastical lunacy takes mair than the fuckin cake.. am surprised he does'nt realise we see him and think.. fuck, we'll come back in another week when his dribbble runs out.. nope, still gotta come back and fuck up some damn interesting stuff.. with nothing more than a lunatic's perspective of well, was gonna say life, but he's clearly dead.. (brain)

[My Name Was Taken]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

[bl4kjaguar]

Why are you guys arguing this?  It is the word of God - it cannot be questioned or used out of context!!

It's called the Holy Bible because it is full of holes; it is your responsibility to fill those holes and get at the actual truth being referenced.

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

[maku]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

How can you be so sure what is GOD? Have you met him/it/she? It is impossible to tell.

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

How can you be so sure what is GOD? Have you met him/it/she? It is impossible to tell.

You could call God the limit of theorization, i.e. a theory that explains the Universe at the highest possible level of generality.

[devthedev]

Before I start on my rant, I know a lot of us don't see eye to eye on this stuff, but.. I enjoy hearing the perspective and certainly respect everyone's choice to believe in anything they want... it's what makes us human.

With that said, in the thread I've seen many people saying that a person who believes in God doesn't need evidence, they just need faith, I think that's a bit belittling... In reality, the same can be said for someone who believes in evolution... that may evoke a chuckle, but hear me out... the fact is (and please, prove me wrong if you know something different), science has yet to provide one concrete piece of evidence of a true evolution of one species evolving into another totally different species, which is what true evolution is. Adaptation over time (not to be confused with evolution), yes, loads of evidence for that (Darwin's observations of the finches beaks changing over time to adapt to changes in the environment being the one example often brought up).. but at the end of the day, the finches were still finches, they were still birds, still the same species. That was not the evolution of species jumping from one kind to another, that's adaptation and science can verify that through observation. What it cannot provide, however, is cold, hard evidence of one species transforming from one to another, which is where evolutionists say is where man came from. So with no proof of that ever happening to support that view, then it also requires... faith.

But yeah, from my perspective, I actually see just as many gigantic leaps and bounds for a person believing in evolution, because there's simply no concrete evidence of it ever occurring.. no logical answer to how there was nothing and nothing exploded and created all the complex elements needed to create life and the entire universe... many more examples, but... it's a gigantic stretch for the imagination. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the biggest, most well-known proponents of evolution can't provide any scientific answers, so he's going by faith in what he believes, and that's good enough for him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ

[(oYo)]

You could call God the limit of theorization, i.e. a theory that explains the Universe at the highest possible level of generality.

Exactly! This is the point! If god can appear as a man in the sky, or a burning bush, or (forgive the pun) god knows what, then god can also appear as a teapot, FSM, as well as every hair on your head, all at the same time. God theoretically assumes every possible form, however seemingly impossible they may seem, meaning god can assume every imaginal form and infinitely more unimaginable forms, all at the same time beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment, omnipotently.

<edit> Taken from, "A creed indeed."

FSM is ageless, timeless and all-encompassing...
FSM has created all there is for our entertainment and sustenance, and has given unto us the mental capacity to adapt the mythologies of This Universe to aid and comfort us here, until that day we are able to join together at the foot of the Beer Volcano and enumerate our specifications at the Stripper Factory so that happiness and contentedness and good cheer be present for all, forever and forever.

R'Amen.

[the joint]

You could call God the limit of theorization, i.e. a theory that explains the Universe at the highest possible level of generality.

Exactly! This is the point! If god can appear as a man in the sky, or a burning bush, or (forgive the pun) god knows what, then god can also appear as a teapot, FSM, as well as every hair on your head, all at the same time. God theoretically assumes every possible form, however seemingly impossible they may seem, meaning god can assume every imaginal form and infinitely more unimaginable forms, all at the same time beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment, omnipotently.

<edit> Taken from, "A creed indeed."

FSM is ageless, timeless and all-encompassing...
FSM has created all there is for our entertainment and sustenance, and has given unto us the mental capacity to adapt the mythologies of This Universe to aid and comfort us here, until that day we are able to join together at the foot of the Beer Volcano and enumerate our specifications at the Stripper Factory so that happiness and contentedness and good cheer be present for all, forever and forever.

R'Amen.

It's the "beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment" part that I'm having trouble with here.  I would agree that in a literal sense, this omnipotent ability is beyond comprehension.  But in a conceptual sense, it isn't.

Something interesting I've learned about logic is that it is hologrammatic in structure, e.g. in the same way that spatial dimensions are holographic in structure.  For example, the third dimension is the infinite sum of possible combinations of the second dimension, the fourth dimension is the infinite sum of all possible combinations  of the third dimension, etc.  Similarly, logic can be conceptualized as operating similarly on higher- and lower-order dimensional planes.  For example, a higher-order logic can be used to explore a lower-order logic function because it yields a vantage point from which one can comprehensively view everything going on in the lower-order level.  Conceptually, God, if it exists, operates at the highest possible, prime level of logic.  We need a way to occupy the same vantage point to talk about God rationally, and this is possible.

Imagine if I draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, which would be the representation of a 4th-dimensional structure on a 2nd-dimension piece of paper interpreted by 3rd-dimensional beings, us.  By taking a higher-order dimension (i.e. the 4th dimension) and literally thrusting it down into the 2nd-dimension (i.e. the piece of paper), we can gain insight into the 4th-dimension even though we are only 3rd-dimensional beings who have no direct ability to perceive the 4th-dimension from the appropriate vantage point.  Accordingly, we had to 'pretend' that we were 5th-dimensional beings analyzing the 4th-dimension in the same way that we as 3rd-dimensional beings analyze the 2nd-dimension.  

If we can do this with logic, i.e. by 'pretending' that we already occupy a higher vantage point by thrusting higher-order levels of logic below us in the same way that we thrust the 4th-dimensional tesseract onto a 2nd-dimensional plane on paper, then we have it made -- we then have a method to rationalize about God.

[(oYo)]

In the same way there is no possible way for an ant to conceptualize our galaxy, we do not have ability to know the mind and ability of an omnipotent being. This is basically agnosticism in a nutshell.

Religions claim to know the mind and ability of (their) god(s).

[the joint]

In the same way there is no possible way for an ant to conceptualize our galaxy, we do not have ability to know the mind and ability of an omnipotent being. This is basically agnosticism in a nutshell.

Lower-order levels of logic are essentially the exact same as higher-order ones, just infinitely smaller. It's my opinion that this is what is meant in the Bible when it says man was made in God's image.  I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god, except at an infinitely-smaller level.  Logic is a closed system, and inasmuch as we use logic as the only basis to rationalize about the Universe, it is possible to construct a perfectly self-contained logical theory of the Universe which would essentially equate to a God-level theory of reality.  The only criteria is that it must be self-contained and consistent throughout, and must be capable of explaining not only everything the Universe contains, but also itself.  Therefore, its structure must be self-reinforcing and circular such that any attempt to deny it only reaffirms its existence.  

An example of such a self-reinforcing and circular argument is the argument for absolute truth, for any attempt to deny absolute truth, e.g. "There is no absolute truth" automatically invokes the unspoken assertion, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Of, if someone said, "There is more than one truth," or, "Truth is relative," it is the same as saying "It is the absolute truth there is more than one truth," or, "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

[bl4kjaguar]

NO IDOLS, NO FALSE IMAGES

This means that there is NOTHING in material manifestation for you to worship as your GOD. You are the temple. And so with this truth in mind you might ask yourself, WHERE do YOU take God in your life journey?

This includes placing the attainment and hoarding of "worldly" treasures (e.g. strippers, beer) above the attainment of your spiritual wisdom and perfection.

[(oYo)]

In the same way there is no possible way for an ant to conceptualize our galaxy, we do not have ability to know the mind and ability of an omnipotent being. This is basically agnosticism in a nutshell.

Lower-order levels of logic are essentially the exact same as higher-order ones, just infinitely smaller. It's my opinion that this is what is meant in the Bible when it says man was made in God's image.  I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god, except at an infinitely-smaller level.  Logic is a closed system, and inasmuch as we use logic as the only basis to rationalize about the Universe, it is possible to construct a perfectly self-contained logical theory of the Universe which would essentially equate to a God-level theory of reality.  The only criteria is that it must be self-contained and consistent throughout, and must be capable of explaining not only everything the Universe contains, but also itself.  Therefore, its structure must be self-reinforcing and circular such that any attempt to deny it only reaffirms its existence.  

An example of such a self-reinforcing and circular argument is the argument for absolute truth, for any attempt to deny absolute truth, e.g. "There is no absolute truth" automatically invokes the unspoken assertion, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Of, if someone said, "There is more than one truth," or, "Truth is relative," it is the same as saying "It is the absolute truth there is more than one truth," or, "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

I believe you were referring to -

The first step in forming the Seed of Life (or The Flower of Life) is to begin with a circle (as in a 2D model) or a sphere (as in a 3D model).[2]
According to some, the first step in building the Seed of Life was the creation of the octahedron by a divine "creator" (or "God"). The next step was for the creator to spin the shape on its axis. In this way, a sphere is formed (see diagram). The creator's consciousness is said to exist within the sphere and the only thing that physically exists is the membrane of the sphere itself. This "first step" is to be identified with the "first day", the latter being in reference to the six days of creation.[2])

The belief being, that god would need to explore his surroundings. As in, god chose to "forget" at the moment of the Big Bang.
However, there is no exploring, as there is no beginning or end. No not knowing, then knowing or vice versa. I believe this god character is all (always) knowing, if it truly exists.

From an agnostic point of view, god is infinitely unimaginable. Therefore, you cannot make assumptions of god, like "I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god." There's infinite levels in the "God-level theory of reality". Ones that you literally can't even imagine.

Using the multi-verse theory as an example. An infinite number of universes having an infinite amount of possibilities. You won't ever come close to imagining the unimaginable, even if you started right now and thought about it for the rest of time. (ie. The laws of physics and time don't exist.) Universes where anything you can imagine does not exist, replaced by the unimaginable. 'Words can't describe' kinds of unimaginable things, whereby you would de facto be in the wrong if you even tried using words to describe it.

All there really is to say is... Have a nice day.  

[bl4kjaguar]

All there really is to say is... Have a nice day.  

So what you're saying is:
 No need to bring up God's messengers? Or his Laws?

No need to bring up Herbert Spencer's ideas, which are far more expansive than the ideas that you have mentioned here?

Here is a choice passage that results from these ideas:
"The beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted"
and another:
"the most abstract conception, to which Science is slowly approaching, is one that merges into the inconceivable or unthinkable, by the dropping of all concrete elements of thought."

That should be said, and much more...