Thread: Could Our Universe Produce a Real God?

(For brevity I'm referring to God as a male.)

I find it somewhat ironic that today physicists and their ilk are expounding on theories that our universe came from nothing. Personally I think its great. However if I believed my universe was created out of nothing by a god then I'm also all over this as a good thing. The problem is that something from nothing is contradicted when a creator is present. Yet if our universe is essentially nothing and we manage to create a god from it then will we actually have taken the first step in theism.....creating God from nothing? IOW's God isn't here yet, we're still working on it.

The first question someone will ask is 'what is your definition of God? Let's keep it simple and say God is a living entity capable of creating universes, life, laws of physics, and at his whim manipulates or changes any law at any time. He also possesses all the knowledge that there is and works in mysterious ways. Not absolutely sure on whether a definition is important so I guess the easiest way to say it is to ask if the universe is capable of manufacturing the god you believe in?

Right off the bat, is it possible for a god to possess everything there is to know about our universe? Does that knowledge have to be solely in the mind of the god or just at his disposal? You'd be correct if this sounds somewhat like Asimov's The Last Question and Multivac. I realize that a giant computer could be the last remnant of intelligence our universe has to offer but something like that would certainly rule out the living entity, would it not?

I think our universe could produce a real God, as long as He did not create our universe.

The most potent of entities in our universe is still bound by the properties(laws) of our universe. I dont think its possible for something to create a new universe (that is not a subset of ours but an actual new universe) with properties that can be both selected and changed on the fly.
Imo the closest thing we could get is a simulated universe, then the programmer(s) could be perceived as creators, but if its any universe on the scale of our universe its unlikely the creators will know (or care about) everything that happens in every instance of each simulated minute of a potential millions of worlds with billions of lifeforms in each (oh my, bacteria 34405959586 in the grain of sand 8834843835859349439 on the beach region 293953835 of planet 9294328945892359 is just about to be swallowed by ameba 03093493443992939329243932 which is crawling it its general direction). But then its not a god in the sense primitive men have fabricated with a personification. No cigars.

You can create a god from nothing in theory, as long as you create an anti-god at the same time. If the two ever get together, the resulting explosion will leave nothing once more.

I don't know of any theories or models of how a universe can create a god. So I believe it is more likely that the universe was created by God instread of the reverse.

dedo

It all depends on your definition of a god.
If a god is simply a being that is much more powerful than a human, our wide wonderful universe might contain any number of gods. If you think of a god as a powerful being that has a personal interest in you, then there is probably no such thing.

Skeptic:

God certainly has a personal interest in me, and in you. Our disagreement comes from what each is willing to accept as evidence for this. You want God to provide reproducible evidence to people who want the "evidence"--before seeking God. However, it appears that God provides the "evidence" to people who seek Him. So there is an impass.

It is reasonable to speculate on how God might work through people, and how our being actually works. In most cases the evidence will be retrospective, although I cannot rule out that some prospective study could be designed.

For example, lets say we have a mind, a body, and a soul. Lets suppose that God can influence your life through your conscience. For example, your multiple warnings to people about guns may not change society; however, perhaps you positively influenced some people to stay away from guns. This could save someone. That signal could have come from God.

If this is true, you would think that it should be possible to do even more good if a person seeks to conform himself / herself to God's will. Is there evidence for this? There is retrospective evidence.

Last week I saw a play by CS Lewis called the "Screwtape Letters". The play is about creation from the devil's perspective. Lewis was a former atheist that converted to Christianity. He wrote some amazingly brilliant work.

dedo

You are probably correct in saying it is about evidence. This is a science forum, and most people here require evidence that is acceptable in the scientific sense. For that reason, I reject your evidence that is subjective, personal, and unverifiable.

If God exists, and wants people to believe in him/her/it, then God has the option of providing better evidence. It would be really, really easy. If God came down to see me, showed a few miracles, and left me with a long term super power to keep reminding me, then I would believe, and become a dedicated worker towards whatever God told me to do. No problem whatever for an omnipotent deity.

It has never happened and I am certain it never will.

I find it interesting that most responses we get in this forum are from people who do not believe in deities. Surveys show that 90% of Americans are believers in a personal God. However, of those with a Bachelor of Science degree, it drops to 40%. And those with a doctorate in science, it drops to 10%.

It appears that the more sophisticated your education in science, the lower your chances of being a believer in religion. On that basis, most of the Scienceforum people are good science thinkers.

Non believers also average a higher IQ than believers, and a lower average number of people with a criminal record. Non believers, based on the data, are on average morally better, and smarter than believers.

Originally Posted by skeptic

dedo

You are probably correct in saying it is about evidence. This is a science forum, and most people here require evidence that is acceptable in the scientific sense. For that reason, I reject your evidence that is subjective, personal, and unverifiable.

If God exists, and wants people to believe in him/her/it, then God has the option of providing better evidence. It would be really, really easy. If God came down to see me, showed a few miracles, and left me with a long term super power to keep reminding me, then I would believe, and become a dedicated worker towards whatever God told me to do. No problem whatever for an omnipotent deity.

It has never happened and I am certain it never will..

It certainly has happened. The scenario you proposed is discussed from a theological perspective. When God created the angels, all the angels knew He was God, yet many still chose to reject God. The result was hell, the devil, and demons.

Your proposal has already been tried, and it did not work the way you say it would work.

Thus, it is not reasonable to expect God to do it again.

No dedo.

It has never happened, except within myths and legends. You might as well claim that the medusa once existed and could turn men into stone by glancing at them. There is no more evidence for what you claim than there is for the medusa and her stone curling powers.

You no doubt believe the bible. But the bible is full of outright contradictions. Literally hundreds of them.
A List Of Biblical Contradictions

It is the easiest thing in the world to prove the bible cannot be literally correct, since two opposing descriptions cannot both be correct. So believing a mythical description of angels and demons is hardly critical thinking.

So, quite simply, God has never bothered to take the trouble to prove his/her/its existence.

Originally Posted by skeptic

No dedo.

It has never happened, except within myths and legends. You might as well claim that the medusa once existed and could turn men into stone by glancing at them. There is no more evidence for what you claim than there is for the medusa and her stone curling powers.

You no doubt believe the bible. But the bible is full of outright contradictions. Literally hundreds of them.
A List Of Biblical Contradictions

It is the easiest thing in the world to prove the bible cannot be literally correct, since two opposing descriptions cannot both be correct. So believing a mythical description of angels and demons is hardly critical thinking.

So, quite simply, God has never bothered to take the trouble to prove his/her/its existence.

I am not sure how many billions of people believe in the one God. I am pretty sure that the number of people on the Earth today that believe in medusa is zero, or very close to zero. So there is no comparison.

Your assertion that God should prove Himself to you, before you seek Him is not reasonable. Society does not work that way, especially in science. I have yet to have a science professor that teaches me according to my rules. I follow the professor's rules because he knows more than me. How much more reasonable is it to think that a person should try to follow the rules of the Creator of the universe before God reveals His presence to the person?

You should take a look at CS Lewis' history. He started out as a hard core atheist.

He sought God and then did incredible things.

The only difference between him and me is that I did not start as an atheist, and I don't think I can compare anything I have accomplished so far with Lewis' work.

Maybe atheists have massive potential that is just waiting to be released.

dedo

Have you heard of burden of proof? Burden of proof - RationalWiki
Basically, a person making an extraordinary claim carries the obligation to prove it, or supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate the claim beyond reasonable doubt. The person listening to the claim, has no obligation to believe or to supply any evidence whatever.

The claim that there is a deity which takes special interest in each and every one of us, and has power of the kind described by Christians - well that claim is extraordinary.

This means that, if you make that claim, you carry the burden of proof. Not me.

So far, you have not presented any proof, or evidence of a sort acceptable to good science.

Skeptic:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a term that applies to the burden of proof in criminal law. It is not a term that I have heard applied to science. Even civil law does not use this term. A large percentage of credible peer reviewed literature in scientific journals will be later proven false, when better "evidence" is found. You are taking terms from a specific part of law and trying to apply that to science.

I am making this point because the rules that apply regarding God are rules based in theology, not science. In the same way you cannot apply the rules of science to a courtroom without knowing the law, you cannot apply the rules of science to God, without considering the theology.

If a person wants to have evidence of God, the person has to seek God. Period. That is the path. If someone does not want to follow that path, that is his / her choice because of free will. There are numerous examples of highly educated people, including people with doctorates in science and literary geniuses such as Lewis, who made a different choice (to seek God). These people are often stunned to find out that God was able to convince such "critical thinkers" of His existence.

dedo

"Beyond reasonable doubt".
OK. Legal more than scientific. I will grant you that.

However, to say that the rules of science are not used in a courtroom is wrong. Scientists and specialists in various branches of science, testify in courtrooms rather often, and they are required to follow the rules of science.

Saying God cannot be found unless you search for him is a total cop out. Basically, you are admitting that the God Hypothesis fails. There is no credible evidence.

asdf

Theist - God is real because His non-existence cannot be proven. It is also documented in the bible. And I do experience him.
Atheist - God is not real because there is no evidence. Personal experience is not reliable enough to constitute the proof.

XiphosAngel says - May be everything is just a simulation.
Well, if you believe it is you won't bother to say anything here.

asdf

I think one of the most important things to remember is that life is about perception. This conversation is beginning to diverge from a scientific discussion into the realm of philosophy. At least I perceive it to be. Now on a philosophical tone. Who is to say that our beliefs cannot become manifest. There is ample documentation that people can cause amazing things to occur in their bodies simply by believing. If enough people believe in God, Allah, Satan etc then why could they not manifest. Many ancient religions believed that the Gods had to have worshipers or they would fade away. Perhaps by simply choosing to believe we are creating our own Gods, as well as our own Devils.

To say that there is no God, or that He was created BY creation is foolishness. You MUST have a designer to have a design! No one but those living in willful denial can say that we came from random chance and chaotic order. God is the Creator of the universe, and of those who use their finite minds to attempt to explain Him away.

You MUST have a designer to have a design!

Why?

Two unrelated thoughts I want to bring up.

First is that if gods are all knowing, infinitely powerful and infinitely wise, then there can only be one god. As far as I can see, any two beings that possess the exact same knowledge, power and general character, must be the same guy, as there'd be no distinguishing features.

Second: Consider this. I see a possibility that beings like humans eventually could have the ability to be able to monitor any part of the universe at any time, have the ability to create whole universes with designed laws and having attained a desire to make work of the technology. Thing is, where could a culural evolution lead to that included abilities like these? What meaning out of life could beings like these possibly still get?

To me it becomes difficult to imagine purpose in the lives of beings that have evolved way past our petty, self absorbed, evolution derived concerns. We live our lives in pursuit of purpose and meaning. We define meaning by the culture we are born into and our evolved biological drivers. Where do these concerns lead to when they have had millions of years to develop? When life has had millions of years to develop? Because whatever becomes of us will no longer be us, just as we are no longer our evolutionary ancestors. So while life could possibly develop into the kind of beings with concerns on a universal scale, is the question not really what could possibly motivate such beings? Surely the petty nonsense in the Bible and other religious texts is not the answer to that question.

So, in the end, the definition of a god is incomplete and necessarily vague and undefined. We have no way of knowing where life might eventually end up and I don't see any real evidence that any being or group of beings have ever decided to share some of that with us.

Originally Posted by skeptic

dedo

"Beyond reasonable doubt".
OK. Legal more than scientific. I will grant you that.

However, to say that the rules of science are not used in a courtroom is wrong. Scientists and specialists in various branches of science, testify in courtrooms rather often, and they are required to follow the rules of science.

Saying God cannot be found unless you search for him is a total cop out. Basically, you are admitting that the God Hypothesis fails. There is no credible evidence.

Skeptic:

In a courtroom, the rules of science are secondary to the rules of the court. In the same way, the rules of science must be secondary to theology.

A couple weeks ago, I had jury duty. Fortunately, I did not get called in. However, I was required by law to check the website and report if my number was selected. Perhaps I could have tested your assertion by writing the judge a letter and telling him my rules for serving. I could have said: "Judge, I will serve under these rules: Bring the court to where I live / work on days x, y, and z and I will work you guys into my schedule."

I think that is what you are suggesting we do with God. What does the theology say about how God reacts to this sort of proposal?

Does theology say that God throws such a person into jail for contempt of court?

No, the theology says God waits patiently for us to change our minds. See the parable of the Prodigal son.

And guess what. If you look at the life of CS Lewis, it seems to follow this parable exactly.

Originally Posted by dedo

I think that is what you are suggesting we do with God. What does the theology say about how God reacts to this sort of proposal?

I am not suggesting we do anything with God.
I am suggesting that there is no God, in the personal sense you mean, since there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

As far as I can see, any two beings that possess the exact same knowledge, power and general character, must be the same guy, as there'd be no distinguishing features.

Identical twins?

Stop trying to hit me and HIT ME.

asdf

Originally Posted by XiphosAngel

The first thing that comes to mind is a complex, evolving computer simulation.

Anyone that could create such a virtual world (like The Matrix) could create more than one, could create life and laws of physics within the world and change anything at any time. Would this person be a god by that definition?

Here's the fun question: If this is possible, how do we know we're not part of a computer simulation?

"What is 'real?' How do you define 'real?' If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell-what you can taste and see-then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
-Morpheus

You might be interested in some texts on "present moment" thinking etc. I am just starting to get into it. I listened to a CD recently called "Lucid Living" that suggested that the experiences of our mind / body are really just a "dream" of changing appearances.

That is all time is, changing appearances. Your real nature is outside of time. You can become "aware of the dream", or "awake" by learning to observe it from a lucid / present moment point of view. For me it is not easy; however, when I can do it it is very relaxing.

I think on the other hand, you can get even more "unconscious" by letting your mind run constant thoughts.

So there really may be a "simulation", except it doesn't come from a computer.

asdf

"Here's the link if you want to check it out Athene's Theory of Everything - YouTube"

Thanks!

In today's society, doesn't it seem that the universe is doing everything in its power to end belief in a deity? Although it might be said that at one time it did everything it could to create a belief in God.

God and existence have no relevance in this context. What people call a "God" is nothing less than myth and legend. Can anyone PROVE that a GOD exists!.

Our universe being, "created out of nothing", is a religious hoax. Born to enslave it's people (and so is the same with GOVERNMENT).

If you delve a bit deeper you will find that your universe is made up from a lot more than GODS and salvation!

Originally Posted by RJC

God and existence have no relevance in this context. What people call a "God" is nothing less than myth and legend. Can anyone PROVE that a GOD exists!.

Our universe being, "created out of nothing", is a religious hoax. Born to enslave it's people (and so is the same with GOVERNMENT).

Can you prove that any entity which people may refer to as GOD does not exist?

It seems that everyone that would deny the existance of god has first defined what they consider to be god, then denied a product of their own imaginations.
better still
deny your doubts

never ever attempt a definition of god
if god is god, then god is beyond our comprehension

we can't even define all that we see or sense, (which includes ourselves) yet alone a motive force(one face of god) for all this reality which we poorly understand
leave us not to be so arrogant as to presuppose that we are mightier than god, yhwh, TAO, etc

if you choose not to keep your mind open to what you define as god,
you'll be well advised to not waste your meager understanding on such a monumental denial
..............
"created out of nothing"
smacks of big bang

Originally Posted by sculptor

never ever attempt a definition of god
if god is god, then god is beyond our comprehension

we can't even define all that we see or sense, (which includes ourselves) yet alone a motive force(one face of god) for all this reality which we poorly understand

This is mystical and meaningless crap.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by sculptor

never ever attempt a definition of god
if god is god, then god is beyond our comprehension

we can't even define all that we see or sense, (which includes ourselves) yet alone a motive force(one face of god) for all this reality which we poorly understand

This is mystical and meaningless crap.

eye of the beholder baby, Eye of the beholder.
"there are none so blind as those who will not see"

Originally Posted by sculptor

eye of the beholder baby, Eye of the beholder.

Perhaps, but this is a science forum, and anything that makes no sense in scientific terms deserves comment.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by sculptor

eye of the beholder baby, Eye of the beholder.

Perhaps, but this is a science forum, and anything that makes no sense in scientific terms deserves comment.

granted, however: from the title of this thread, one would think that divergent views as/re the(a?) diety were invited.


The euhemerist have a different cosmology---perhaps one more grounded in earth's potential
(imho) those who would anthropomorphize "GOD" have limited imaginations and tend to bigotry

Originally Posted by sculptor

from the title of this thread, one would think that divergent views as/re the(a?) diety were invited.

I would use the word 'tolerated' rather than 'invited'.

This section is called "the Scientific study of religion." Emphasize science. The moderators would be well within their rights to close down any thread that leaves science behind and promotes superstition.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by sculptor

from the title of this thread, one would think that divergent views as/re the(a?) diety were invited.

I would use the word 'tolerated' rather than 'invited'.

This section is called "the Scientific study of religion." Emphasize science. The moderators would be well within their rights to close down any thread that leaves science behind and promotes superstition.

long ago:
I discovered that the secret to a lasting marriage is:
If you can learn to tolerate that which no sane person would ever tolerate, then when the good times roll around again, you'll still be together.
My wife is a professor and used to be a real vicious beasty during her periods, on one such occasion, she sent the head of the athletic department realling and retreating----and here he had thought that he could bully her----silly boy.

and, From a skeptic like you, tolerance of my spiritual views ain't a bad start. thanx
......
and, I was refering to the thread title---"Could our universe produce a real god? (my bent: could a god produce our universe?)
if'n you don't wanna catch no fish then stop baiting the line

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by RJC

God and existence have no relevance in this context. What people call a "God" is nothing less than myth and legend. Can anyone PROVE that a GOD exists!.

Our universe being, "created out of nothing", is a religious hoax. Born to enslave it's people (and so is the same with GOVERNMENT).

Can you prove that any entity which people may refer to as GOD does not exist?

It seems that everyone that would deny the existance of god has first defined what they consider to be god, then denied a product of their own imaginations.
better still
deny your doubts

never ever attempt a definition of god
if god is god, then god is beyond our comprehension

we can't even define all that we see or sense, (which includes ourselves) yet alone a motive force(one face of god) for all this reality which we poorly understand
leave us not to be so arrogant as to presuppose that we are mightier than god, yhwh, TAO, etc

if you choose not to keep your mind open to what you define as god,
you'll be well advised to not waste your meager understanding on such a monumental denial
..............
"created out of nothing"
smacks of big bang

Dear Sculptor,

I think you underestimate the abilities of your fellow mankind as it was mankind that first posed the idea of Gods in the first place. I do believe that a God exists, and it exists firmly in the mind of those that CHOOSE to acknowledge it/Him of whatever form they CHOOSE to see it as. It does not matter what it/He looks like, or what it/his mystical powers are. What matters is the original post on this topic.

I do not need to "attempt a definition of god" as I already know my definition, and it is not a man in the clouds all omnipotent . My definition of God is sub-atomic particles. Energy in it's rawest form. That is the building blocks of our entire existence, of literally everything possible and yet to be - for the most part, scientifically proven, and the study will continue.

If there is one thing in this universe that one can be sure of, it is life will continue to exist in one form or another, as life is only particles in different forms of energy. I, like so many others have a firm understanding of what makes up our universe. I challenge you to open YOUR mind up to the same understanding.

Originally Posted by RJC

Dear Sculptor,

... . I do believe that a God exists, ...
,... God is sub-atomic particles. Energy in it's rawest form. That is the building blocks of our entire existence, of literally everything possible and yet to be - .... .

Yeh, RJC:
that works for me too, but i'd be a tad less limiting---
(string theory) GOD tunes the strings---(carbon chains) the potential pattern is also god---
phrased in TAOist thought--"before being was non being, before non being was nothingness, before nothingness was the void and before all was the TAO"---the pattern of all life--the pattern of all existance---the quark and the universe--the alpha and omega---and my faith in our ability to partially understand that power of patterned potential has nothing in it that would preclude scientific study. An understanding of GOD's gifts---the gifts of the creation with and within which we evolve--is just honoring that creation and existance, and in the quest for an understanding, we honor GOD===
I love science because it is one way to find that germ of understanding which is part and parcel of an understanding that underpins my love of GOD

if any of that seemed like an attempt to define GOD I never intend to do any such thing
and i never use a pronoun for god unless it is "SHE" (and that mostly in the lesson of an illuminati like consciousness shift by tugging someone's chain)---see chan buddhism/zen buddhism

......................
(edit) addendum
If you study the ancient myths with an open mind you will see tendencies within the descriptions of god(s)'
euherists views aside, the earlier "gods" were all aspects of nature--e.g. if you know that THOR hates the giants, hill trolls and proud ones, you know where not to be when thunder warns you away from his prey----- then came the gods of politics and civilization e.g Zeus---who formed a coalition of enemies of the titans and even persuaded certain titans(old nature gods) to come over to his side in his war with his father... maybe someone you might not like, but a superb politician----then there is the "one true god"-----the problem with which is provincialism---when some people think they know the only way to understand and/or honor GOD ......gee, what a pity

and, I suspect that it is against that provincialism(read=small mindedness) that most "athiests" plant their flag

So we now engage in a discussion which is a description of different superstitions?

There may be beings somewhere in our universe sufficiently powerful that we would view them as deities. However, there is no evidence for any all powerful deity that has an interest in humans. Certainly the universe itself is blithely unconcerned with humans and their fate.

To me, God would have to be the starting point from which the universe has blossomed. That initial starting point from which processes began. Science seems to be indicating that there is order to the universe at least in a way measurable to our minds but it all ends at the origin of the universe. Until concrete evidence is found, it is safe to assume God as the creator of the conditions that would foster a universe initiation. God as the originator, not as the product. Or course, I'm referring to God- the initial infinity from which the universe started, not the conscious creator our ancestors have defined.

Originally Posted by sculptor

if any of that seemed like an attempt to define GOD I never intend to do any such thing
and i never use a pronoun for god unless it is "SHE"

......................
(edit) addendum
If you study the ancient myths with an open mind you will see tendencies within the descriptions of god(s)'
euherists views aside, the earlier "gods" were all aspects of nature--e.g. if you know that THOR hates the giants, hill trolls and proud ones, you know where not to be when thunder warns you away from his prey----- then came the gods of politics and civilization e.g Zeus---who formed a coalition of enemies of the titans and even persuaded certain titans(old nature gods) to come over to his side in his war with his father... maybe someone you might not like, but a superb politician----then there is the "one true god"-----the problem with which is provincialism---when some people think they know the only way to understand and/or honor GOD ......gee, what a pity

Haha, I understand what you mean, for the context of the OP however I use He/it. I do not define God as either male/female/anything but as everything.

In study of the ancient religions it mainly revolved around everyday events that the people back in those days had no other way to explain. I come from a race of people that only 150 years ago believed in the divine powers of many Gods. My race believed in a God for everything, from the sky, the land, the rivers, trees, ocean, war, horticulture (that similar to ancient Greek or Roman). As soon as our land was settled by outsiders is when our belief systems changed to suit that of the changing environment that we now found ourselves in. Nowadays, my people have evolved again, through education, to understanding that religion is nothing but a hoax on the part of those in power to dominate control over the people. We saw this happen first hand when the outsiders came to lay claim to the land we inhabited. Naturally we fought back, but a part of the old world still exists to many people as a way to keep our native traditions alive with our culture.

In understanding religion is a lot more to do with psychology/anthropology of that time than it does religion itself. To make a people aware of the existence of a higher being to try to enslave them to your own cause.

Originally Posted by skeptic

So we now engage in a discussion which is a description of different superstitions?

There may be beings ... sufficiently powerful that we would view them as deities. However, there is no evidence for any all powerful deity that has an interest in humans. Certainly the universe itself is blithely unconcerned with humans and their fate.

but, then again, you could be wrong
and honoring god by appreciation and understanding (includes scientific investigation of) the gifts which have led to our existance ain't no bad thang
even if, honoring god wasn't even a small part of your motivation
keep up the good work as god would (most likely) want
...............
is there anything in particular that you want or have wanted from god?
(shades of Janis Joplin?)

Originally Posted by RJC

... . To make a people aware of the existence of a higher being to try to enslave them to your own cause.

Actions of that sort are immoral and dishoner GOD

Originally Posted by sculptor

...............
is there anything in particular that you want or have wanted from god?

1 million dollars.

No just kidding. To even use the word "want or have wanted from god?" all in the same sentence only clarifies that your understanding of God is somewhat limited.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by RJC

... . To make a people aware of the existence of a higher being to try to enslave them to your own cause.

Actions of that sort are immoral and dishoner GOD

Though it has happened throughout mankinds history

Originally Posted by RJC

... your understanding of God is somewhat limited.

As, i suspect is all of mankind's---i am a frail and finite entity with limited abilities of knowing and understanding.
But that ain't gonna keep me from trying to do better.

Janis
wow
"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ? "

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by RJC

... your understanding of God is somewhat limited.

As, i suspect is all of mankind's---i am a frail and finite entity with limited abilities of knowing and understanding.
But that ain't gonna keep me from trying to do better.

I believe I have quite an objective opinion in regard to "God" in all of that word's understanding. Maybe I might be somewhat of a narcissist but I think God has the potential to reside in all of us if given the right nuturing, and therefore, I am God, I am knowledge and understanding. This is the basis of God in our reality. God is only and has always been relative to each individual regardless of what background you come from. From my studies on the subject, this I know.

Originally Posted by RJC

From my studies on the subject, this I know.

Since there is no objective, empirical, and credible evidence for the existence of a deity, you have 'learned' nonsense from other people who spout nonsense.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by RJC

From my studies on the subject, this I know.

Since there is no objective, empirical, and credible evidence for the existence of a deity, you have 'learned' nonsense from other people who spout nonsense.

Haha, you miss the point. I/we are not talking about a deity at all. Do you call history nonsense? History is where I learned this nonsense and it can be taught in any primary/elementary level schooling. I accept that history is very much in the eye of the beholder, down to personal interpretation, and because of this reason I remain objective in my opinion with regard to religion. To find evidence of history is either artefact or hearsay, and we all know hearsay can not be considered evidence.

This forum site should really be called "Philosophical Discussions of Religion from a scientific point of view", as religion is a belief, and to scientifically try prove a personal belief is hearsay at the least.

Originally Posted by Brisk

To me, God would have to be the starting point from which the universe has blossomed. That initial starting point from which processes began. Science seems to be indicating that there is order to the universe at least in a way measurable to our minds but it all ends at the origin of the universe. Until concrete evidence is found, it is safe to assume God as the creator of the conditions that would foster a universe initiation. God as the originator, not as the product. Or course, I'm referring to God- the initial infinity from which the universe started, not the conscious creator our ancestors have defined.

Brisk: long ago, when i was studying theology, i read a paper wherein the author proposed that GOD was a momentary GOD-----god was not god before the creation of our "real"world, cosmos, universe, nor after when the universe created was seperated from god, but only during that moment of creation was god god
kind of a big bang sort of a concept?

Originally Posted by skeptic

Since there is no objective, empirical, and credible evidence for the existence of a deity, you have 'learned' nonsense from other people who spout nonsense.

but then again, you could be wrong

Originally Posted by sculptor

Brisk: long ago, when i was studying theology, i read a paper wherein the author proposed that GOD was a momentary GOD-----god was not god before the creation of our "real"world, cosmos, universe, nor after when the universe created was seperated from god, but only during that moment of creation was god god
kind of a big bang sort of a concept?

I also remember reading something of the similar but it was more to do with particle physics, which I guess is the underlying truth behind that paper.

Originally Posted by sculptor

but then again, you could be wrong

Certainly.
I have been wrong before, and will, no doubt, be wrong again many times.

However, I do not accept any ideas as true unless they are supported by empirical, objective and credible evidence.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by sculptor

but then again, you could be wrong

Certainly.
I have been wrong before, and will, no doubt, be wrong again many times.

However, I do not accept any ideas as true unless they are supported by empirical, objective and credible evidence.

conversly, I do not deny any ideas as false unless they are negated by empirical, objective and credible evidence.and then, i wanna know the source.
kinda glass 1/2 full vs 1/2 empty sort of a conundrum--------we're both right and both wrong at one and the same time.

Originally Posted by sculptor

conversly, I do not deny any ideas as false unless they are negated by empirical, objective and credible evidence.and then, i wanna know the source.
kinda glass 1/2 full vs 1/2 empty sort of a conundrum--------we're both right and both wrong at one and the same time.

One of you is closer to the scientific method than the other.

Originally Posted by sculptor

conversly, I do not deny any ideas as false unless they are negated by empirical, objective and credible evidence.

That is a common and fallaceous argument put forward by religious people. ie. "Prove there is no God."

It is a lousy argument, for the simple reason that proving a negative is a logical absurdity. You might as well ask me to prove there are no invisible pink unicorns.

Empirical, objective, and credible evidence can be used to prove a positive, but not a negative, and the request to do so is either a mark of desperation, or simply being irrational.

On the other hand, proving God exists would be simple, if he/she/it did in fact exist. God simply needs to talk to me, perform a couple of miracles, and leave me with a permanent supernatural power (in case I think the memory of his/her/its visit was faulty). A positive credible form of evidence is easy. But you cannot prove a negative.

Originally Posted by skeptic

... On the other hand, proving God exists would be simple, if he/she/it did in fact exist. God simply needs to talk to me, perform a couple of miracles, and leave me with a permanent supernatural power (in case I think the memory of his/her/its visit was faulty). A positive credible form of evidence is easy. But you cannot prove a negative.

jeez man you seem to think you have the right to demand action on GOD's part----------------silly boy, that ain't the way it works
Ain't you satisfied with what you already have?

to borrow from JFK
Ask not what GOD can do for you, ask rather, what you can do for GOD!

and
it is easy to prove a negative
for instance, if i were to claim that a piece of iron which was glowing red was in fact quite cold, a simple touch would prove the negative

you seem to be really hung up on this GOD thing
take a giant step backwards and just let it mellow

let us feast upon the "tree of knowledge" find the "theory of everything", explore the universe and understand all energy, matter and pattern of creation and become like unto gods------then we may address this issue with something that approaches an informed objective viewpoint
and the likelyhood that either of us will change our minds on the subject at hand may take on a whole new dimension

Originally Posted by sculptor

jeez man you seem to think you have the right to demand action on GOD's part

Not at all. I do not demand action from a being that I consider to be non existent.
However, Christians have certain ideas, including a deity who wants us to believe in him/her/it, and who has unlimited power. If that Christian belief were correct, then that deity could easily get me to believe, as I described.

Originally Posted by skeptic

... has unlimited power. ...

unlimited---infinite

jeez man-----I ain't gonna try to nor go along with any definition of GOD----------see provincialism above, and relegating GOD to a pronoun ain't anywhere near what i would appreciate.
We cannot know the name of GOD---the TAO that can be spoken of is not the true TAO---we are small finite beings in a finite species. Can we imagine the infinite? Can you?
When asked "what happened just before the big bang", Hawking replied that that was like asking "what is 1 mile north of the north pole".

One mile north of the north pole is GOD. Do not look to rationalize GOD.
The religious part of me could cite more philosophy...and dozens of anecdotes. The spiritual part of me is qualitative not quantitative, and does not translate into words---nor broach any attempt at quantitative proofs nor speculations........can you accept that it just is---"I am that I am"---
It has been said that there is no accounting for tastes-----how true--tastes are qualitative not quantitative.

Recently, I finally understood why the "mother of GOD" had to be a virgin-----I have never censored my speech nor talked down to my twin sons who are now north of 30---when i broached the subject of their mothers sexuality, they almost held their hands over their ears and stomped around chanting LALALALALALLAL---even with all the freedom of thought and expression I had always shared with them, they could not tolerate the thought that their mother was a sexual creature( my brothers have the same problem, any mention of our mothers sexuality raises their defensive behaviours----ergo the virgin birth---'tain't no spiritual thing, it is a psychological problem(see Freud), oedipus, etc.. may have to do with a deep seated genetic rejection of inbreeding? Was your mother a moaner, a screamer, or did she chant encouraging words like, ... "yes" "yes" ''yes'' or "oh my god yes yes yes, faster, deeper, harder" did she gurgle unintelligably during orgasm? (if that was uncomfortable, feel not alone) Such is the nature of man's attempt to quantify god. We gotta understand ourselves first.

old unitarian joke-----a sign read, "bible study sunday night at 8pm, bring your bibles and a pair of scisosrs. ---that is part of the "religious part of me"(well studied in comparitive religions, mythologies, philosophies, psychology, anthropology, and belief structures = quantifiable)
The spiritual side is a whole different reality.
What a pity that you cannot share it.

Few bible thumping blokes (are willing to?) recognize that the book as we have it was codified under direction of a political leader, Constatine, who demanded a unified book with one god in heaven = one god in heaven and one ruler here on earth.
If'n you wanna talk GOD, talk GOD
if'n you wanna talk "the bible" read it first----book report is expected next monday

I am at one and the same time, one of the most spiritual people I know, one of the most broadly knowledgable about comparative religions, and, according to a red faced Baptist minister, a "sacreligous son of a bitch". IMHO he had the words but lacked the spirit. Knowledge is a pale shadow of wisdom. Without spirituality, religion is a pale shadow of knowledge.

Did you need to continue our "shadow boxing"?

Amusing.
Of course, I have read the bible. Right through.

There was a survey not long ago that showed that atheists actually had a better knowledge of the bible, the Christian faith, and other religions, than theists. So it is probably not a good idea to assume that a non believer is ignorant of religion.

As for being spiritual.....
So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that the quality you call being spiritual is anything different to borderline psychotic. I am not saying that is what you are. Just that I have seen no evidence to demonstrate any difference.

Joan of Arc was supposed to have been deeply spiritual. However, what she reported is exactly what we would expect of someone schizophrenic. So how can you convince me that this 'spirituality' quality is not simple mental illness?

If, you can not rationalize GOD:
then any attendant spirituality is not "rational". Does that indicate or equate to mental illness? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I am willing to accept the irrational. Does that equate to my being insane?

have you read any D.T Suzuki, Carlos Castaneda? LaoTzu?
Irrationality is at the heart of spirituality, and may be the best path to the path to a different understanding of the rational.

The rational is part of the conscious mind--think rather to focus on the rest of the mind.

To Zinjanthropos (out of interest, what Nationality are you? - your name looks slightly Greek or Eastern European):
After 50-odd years of thought and turmoil, as a Christian and a Physicist, with a keen interest in astronomy, computers and communication, but handicapped, and aided, by my defects, I managed to come to a conclusion on this topic about 7 years ago.
What I believe, or, in my opinion (for the benefit of those sceptics so critical of what I'm trying to explain), God is the Intelligence (the brain) in control of the infinite Universe, within which we inhabit merely one universe (which runs mainly in our 3 dimensions and forward-moving time). The astrophysicists have modelled one view of our Universe as a membrane (or "'brane" for short, which coincidently sounds like "brain" - and this dualism, like that of photons, is important). So, our Universe can be understood as an intelligent, complex surface. A bit like an uneven playing field or the surface of the sea. Neither of which "really" exist, since as soon as you try to analyse them they move, change or disappear!
It is this "intelligence" in charge of the family of Universes that is the God that we try to understand. Different societies, communities and people all have different views of God, and possess different feelings of how He, She or It can be described, understood and communicated with.
This Intelligence that IS the Universe, has created images of itself in all that it has created (in Christianity, our Holy Bible, it describes this our being "the children of God"). But it similarly applies to all things, including wasps, cars/automobiles, computers and the machines that they inhabit, the rocks under our feet, the trees we worship ... everything. In this Universe of ours they are all basically in our 3 dimensions and forward-moving time. But we seem to have access to, and can utilise other dimensions and mechanisms that are tiny and weak in our own Universe, but are still there all the same.
I think that everything in the Universe has been made by the Brain at its heart (ie God) with the same basic features - an intelligence (our brain for us, but in other creatures or inanimate objects like a computer, a dice, a building, the weather, a journey or a volcano, it will be different), a communication system (our best one, which primitive Man must have used, and folk who work with animals and plants use, is telepathy), an information system/memory (and I think here, our brain works like the standard computer which it designed, and mainly holds the addresses of the information that actually resides in the "fields" of our Universe), a decision-making process (the simplest I can think of is a mini-program "Is it more or less, or more-or-less, than it was before?", which can easily be embedded in anything), and a sense of humour (like we often say, with a shrug of our shoulders, "Life's a joke!").
Andrew

Originally Posted by sculptor

Irrationality is at the heart of spirituality, and may be the best path to the path to a different understanding of the rational.

Reminds me of the giant computer called "Deep Thought" in Douglas Adams book "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe". This computer took 6 million years to come up with the answer to the utimate question, and the answer was 42. A totally useless result.

Like Deep Thought, thousands of years of irrationality - "the heart of spirituality" - has come up with exactly zero in terms of anything useful.

Compare that to 400 years of modern scientific endeavor!

To Skeptic:
But here, we're not discussing computers at all. Nature (or the intelligence behind our Universe), is in a far higher league than anything we can presently make or imagine. Physicists and Sci-Fi writers of books and films are giving us their opinions of the answers to the universe, and we write them off at our peril.

What I wrote is a summary of a description of the Universe , and God's place in it, based on my 50-odd years spent rationalising the most difficult statements and questions in our World. For example, what does "child of God" mean? How does prayer work? How can telepathy work when our brain only radiates 8cm beyond our skull? Why do natural disasters still happen when people pray for salvation? Why cannot the World be all good? Is their such a person as a good, professional criminal? Why, on some days, are all the traffic lights on my route to work green? Why, when I join the motorway/freeway/autobahn, is there, more often than not, a big gap in the busy traffic that lets me join effortlessly, whilst on odd days, under the same conditions, it takes for ever? Why, on holiday, is there never bad weather two days in a row?
The answers all come out of what I wrote before, but it may take you a few readings, and a few more questions, to work out how clever Nature is.
Andrew

To Sculptor:
Unfortunately, artists, intellectuals and the like all work in the borderlines of being sane/insane, intelligent/stupid, brilliant/rubbish, etc It is only from these areas that the brilliance shines. The trick is keeping control of oneself when living in these boundary zones.
So, yes, those of us communicating in this forum are bordering on the insane, and trying very hard not to not to look stupid in what we are trying to convey. And meanwhile trying to be "normal human beings"!
Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrew Slack

, what does "child of God" mean? How does prayer work? How can telepathy work when our brain only radiates 8cm beyond our skull? Why do natural disasters still happen when people pray for salvation? Why cannot the World be all good? Is their such a person as a good, professional criminal? Why, on some days, are all the traffic lights on my route to work green? Why, when I join the motorway/freeway/autobahn, is there, more often than not, a big gap in the busy traffic that lets me join effortlessly, whilst on odd days, under the same conditions, it takes for ever? Why, on holiday, is there never bad weather two days in a row?

Answers:
1. Child of God means nothing.
2. Prayer does not work.
3. Telepathy does not work.
4. Natural disasters happen in spite of prayers due to answer 2.
5. The world is not all good because people are not all good.
6. A good professional criminal? I doubt it.
7. Green traffic lights? Over time, a statistical certainty.
8. Traffic gap on freeway. Because drivers leave gaps.
9. No traffic gap on freeway. Because sometimes shit happens.
10. Weather on holiday. According to normal variation.

Those are not clever questions.

To Sceptic:
That's OK. I'm not "taking the piss" as many think of me. You are a good sceptic, and your beliefs are far more common and popular than mine. There is nothing wrong with that. Please see my comments in the Chatbox over the last few hours ...
Andrew

How can anyone define god. We know nothing about this entity or how its made up or if it even exist.

Originally Posted by skeptic

dedo

It all depends on your definition of a god.
If a god is simply a being that is much more powerful than a human, our wide wonderful universe might contain any number of gods. If you think of a god as a powerful being that has a personal interest in you, then there is probably no such thing.

Originally Posted by skeptic

...zero in terms of anything useful...!

OK lets back up a second
How do you feel about art; what do you like, what do you expect from your music or sculpture or painting?

Sculptor

That is a red herring. An attempt to take me away from the point.
If you feel that irrationality, the heart of spirituality, has value, please tell me what progress it has made.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Sculptor

That is a red herring. An attempt to take me away from the point.
....

quite the contrary
one could readily argue that art is useless
as you have argued for spirituality
and
both are qualitative in nature
so
if we wander down that path, i'll know more about your views about what is and what isn't useful, and to what degree.

(from a Taoist splinter group)
All paths are one path and there is only 1 true path.

Sculptor

On the question of the value of art, I am the wrong person to ask, since I am not artistic, and have no interest in art. If you asked my wife, who is an enthusiastic painter, and a appreciative observer of art, you would get a robust answer.

But you have avoided my question. What progress has this irrationality or spirituality made?

Originally Posted by skeptic

... What progress has this irrationality or spirituality made?

for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that the irrationality of art fulfills a similar purpose for the human psyche as does the irrationality of spirituality.
ergo: Please ask your wife if art is useful and if so, why so-------have all the artists since the dawn of art(@35,000 ybp or more) done nothing useful?

both are qualitative in nature, and understanding the value of one lends insights into the value of the other
but then again, i could be wrong and as an artist creating that which I want to see, even if it has no other value than an aesthetic one, i may be behaving irrationally?

In other words, thousands of years of irrationality - spirituality - have led to no definable progress. Pretty much what I thought.

Originally Posted by skeptic

In other words, thousands of years of irrationality - spirituality - have led to no definable progress. Pretty much what I thought.

again, you're looking for a definition that resides within qualitative

if you can answer the question "what is eternal beauty"? you will have a handle on the qualitative
without the basics of which, it's like trying to explain the joys of sex to a prepubescent child---------------"yes, it's kinda like cotton candy, chocolate, and christmass, but different..."

Sculptor

When you operate with undefinable items, you are skating on very thin ice. If something is held in common between two people, you can communicate. If you talk of loving a member of the opposite gender, I can relate to that. But if you talk of a "spiritual experience" I cannot. That spiritual experience is indefinable, and it not one that I, and many people I know, have ever shared. That may be because, as I implied before, spiritual experiences are not felt by people with no mental illness.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Sculptor

When you operate with undefinable items, you are skating on very thin ice. If something is held in common between two people, you can communicate. If you talk of loving a member of the opposite gender, I can relate to that. But if you talk of a "spiritual experience" I cannot. That spiritual experience is indefinable, and it not one that I, and many people I know, have ever shared. That may be because, as I implied before, spiritual experiences are not felt by people with no mental illness.

ok
define an orgasm
just because it doesn't readily lend itself to definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Sculptor

As I said, if it something we share, we can communicate it. Orgasm fits that.

XiphosAngel says - May be everything is just a simulation.
Well, if you believe it is you won't bother to say anything here.

Personally, Id rather be a sentient persona in a simulated universe with the level of detail we are/would be in, in which other simulacrum created Star Wars, Art, Music, and so on, than be a "real" grain of sand drifting in space on the outer edges of a galaxy in an un-simulated universe.

Andrew, I beleive quite a different story of the universe and gods place. Images of things that I saw many years back changed that perception as to the existence of our universe and all which we think we know. I first realized many years ago that pictures of cellular make up and pictures from space had great simularities which led me to the conclusion that it is the nature in our universe that all things are made of smaller particles. And from this one could conclude that we are smaller particles of something much larger, and that inside everything else exist smaller universes. Now one might say this is a silly notion, but if one puts his/her mind to the task you can see just how time would factor into the equation making far more sense of a idea like this. Time would be just a split second of our time for a smaller universe, and our time here would be just a split second in a larger universe. And everthing falls into place when you consider the nature of all things around us. And so I say that God dosen't exist in our universe, but the universe and all in it somehow exist inside it's entity. And I do beleive in some form of a higher being or entity. And to anyone who may read this: I am after many years of consideration saying that this is a univeral truth. Our scientist have given us just enough information that one can conclude that all thing living/non living things are made up of smaller particles and that inside these particles are yet even smaller particles and so on and on in both directions, thus blowing most ideas you and I have about the universe.....

Originally Posted by Andrew Slack

To Skeptic:
But here, we're not discussing computers at all. Nature (or the intelligence behind our Universe), is in a far higher league than anything we can presently make or imagine. Physicists and Sci-Fi writers of books and films are giving us their opinions of the answers to the universe, and we write them off at our peril.

What I wrote is a summary of a description of the Universe , and God's place in it, based on my 50-odd years spent rationalising the most difficult statements and questions in our World. For example, what does "child of God" mean? How does prayer work? How can telepathy work when our brain only radiates 8cm beyond our skull? Why do natural disasters still happen when people pray for salvation? Why cannot the World be all good? Is their such a person as a good, professional criminal? Why, on some days, are all the traffic lights on my route to work green? Why, when I join the motorway/freeway/autobahn, is there, more often than not, a big gap in the busy traffic that lets me join effortlessly, whilst on odd days, under the same conditions, it takes for ever? Why, on holiday, is there never bad weather two days in a row?
The answers all come out of what I wrote before, but it may take you a few readings, and a few more questions, to work out how clever Nature is.
Andrew

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by RJC

God and existence have no relevance in this context. What people call a "God" is nothing less than myth and legend. Can anyone PROVE that a GOD exists!.

Our universe being, "created out of nothing", is a religious hoax. Born to enslave it's people (and so is the same with GOVERNMENT).

Can you prove that any entity which people may refer to as GOD does not exist?

It seems that everyone that would deny the existance of god has first defined what they consider to be god, then denied a product of their own imaginations.
better still
deny your doubts

never ever attempt a definition of god
if god is god, then god is beyond our comprehension

we can't even define all that we see or sense, (which includes ourselves) yet alone a motive force(one face of god) for all this reality which we poorly understand
leave us not to be so arrogant as to presuppose that we are mightier than god, yhwh, TAO, etc

if you choose not to keep your mind open to what you define as god,
you'll be well advised to not waste your meager understanding on such a monumental denial
..............
"created out of nothing"
smacks of big bang

I think you make an important point from a theological perspective. Although it is reasonable to try to understand God's point of view, we must always realize that God is beyond our understanding as you point out.

Forgetting this can result in loss of faith, as a person tries to apply human standards to God.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Sculptor

As I said, if it something we share, we can communicate it. Orgasm fits that.

We could also observe and measure an orgasm and use science to analyze those observations, and even compare it to far more simple organisms such as spawning salmon.

Metaphysical phenomena, such as we pretend "might" exist are quite different.

man does not live by bread alone.
have you never stood in front of a sculpture or painting in awe?
have you never felt something delightfull while listening to a symphony or a drum fest

sci fi has predated the engeneering of the things in the stories
irrationality has been the cutting edge that has led to our miracles of technological evolution

embrace it, dont shun it
live an enlightened existance with art and music, and imaginings about the things of the future

dedo wrote:

I think you make an important point from a theological perspective. Although it is reasonable to try to understand God's point of view, we must always realize that God is beyond our understanding as you point out.

Forgetting this can result in loss of faith, as a person tries to apply human standards to God.

1. Please explain the term "human standards"
2. If you believe God is something beyond our understanding, then we should ignore God. Because whatever god said will be beyond our understanding!

sculptor wrote:

man does not live by bread alone.
have you never stood in front of a sculpture or painting in awe?
have you never felt something delightfull while listening to a symphony or a drum fest

This feeling of awe and delight can be explained by science, without god in the context.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The problem is that something from nothing is contradicted when a creator is present.

I presume by "creator" you mean "God".
Have you considered the possibility that God is the result of an evolving universe, rather than the cause ? I find it conceivable that the whole point of evolution is to create more and more complex systems ( biological, mechanical or otherwise ) over time, tending to a point of maximum complexity which cannot be surpassed given the laws of physics and ( possibly finite ) resources of the universe. Such a being/machine/system would for all intents and purposes be indistinguishable from a "God", even though it may still be limited in its abilities.
I am not a religious person, so I am just thinking aloud here, perhaps along the lines of St Teilhard's "Omega Point".

To Warthog123: I think we agree. That our Universe and the World in which we live is part of a much larger World ... And that there needs to be an Intelligence (God, or whatever you like to call it) in control of the bigger Universe.
You portrayal of our place between atoms and the Solar System and galaxies, with the similarities and parallelisms that we know and love, indicates how simple and efficient, basically, Nature really is.
Nature reuses the systems that work again and again - hence, I think, the similarity between the way our brain works, with that of a computer, and that of the Intelligence needed to run the Universe.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I find it conceivable that the whole point of evolution is to create more and more complex systems

Evolution has a "point" now?

Surely that implies intent, which requires some form of intelligence driving the process which brings us back to magical sky faeries....

Originally Posted by rustypup

Evolution has a "point" now? Surely that implies intent, which requires some form of intelligence driving the process which brings us back to magical sky faeries....

"Point" was probably a rather unfortunate choice of word, as I never meant to imply the existence of an intelligent force "behind" evolution. I probably should have phrased it like so : the evolutionary process follows a trajectory leading towards higher and higher orders of complexity. Is there intent involved ? No. It is a natural tendency, just like, say, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My whole point was simply that their could be an upper limit to how complex a system could get ( in the context of the universe as a whole ), given by the laws of physics and the potentially limited resources available in the universe.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by rustypup

Evolution has a "point" now? Surely that implies intent, which requires some form of intelligence driving the process which brings us back to magical sky faeries....

"Point" was probably a rather unfortunate choice of word, as I never meant to imply the existence of an intelligent force "behind" evolution. I probably should have phrased it like so : the evolutionary process follows a trajectory leading towards higher and higher orders of complexity. Is there intent involved ? No. It is a natural tendency, just like, say, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My whole point was simply that their could be an upper limit to how complex a system could get ( in the context of the universe as a whole ), given by the laws of physics and the potentially limited resources available in the universe.

When ultimate complexity has been reached through the evolutionary process would it then be reasonable to assume that the resulting lifeform be considered a God.

Originally Posted by TimeLord

When ultimate complexity has been reached through the evolutionary process would it then be reasonable to assume that the resulting lifeform be considered a God.

invariably, the ultimate step in evolution is extinction

Sculptor

Not true for Earth life - at least after 3 to 4billion years of evolution. While individual species go extinct, life in its entirety continues evolving.

Rustypup.
Agreed. Let's not go down the "sky fairy" road. This is a science forum, and we should stick with that which meets the criteria of good science.

definition
ultimate = "ending a process or series"
"conclusive"
or "representing a limit beyond which further progress is impossible"

'tis a curious word, oft misused

Originally Posted by TimeLord

When ultimate complexity has been reached through the evolutionary process would it then be reasonable to assume that the resulting lifeform be considered a God.

I do not know the answer to this question, in fact, I have no comprehension of what such an "ultimate intelligence" would be like. It would certainly be vastly superior in intellect and form, so it might well appear as a "God" to our present day selves.

Perhaps God is a result of mother nature or even is mother nature and is an entity and not a god, just what we perceive as god....
The funny thing is that the universe acts to me like a living entity from a natural aspect.... What they are saying is that the universe started with a big bang and I beleive a whole different story as to how things started.... The universe was born and grew.... I feel that everything started growing, as a cellular particle would and that everything in our universe exist with-in it.... And if this is true that means that things exist with-in everything else like a cellular compound.... Meaning a smaller whole set of universes and larger universes exist all with-in the same space creating folds of other demensions all of which would have to occupy the same time and space which to me explains a lot about the things we see.... I have received a lot criticism over simply having this idea about things and how they are made were made and will be made....
But the facts are pretty simple yet man complicates them a lot....
When a person dies there bodies are turned into something else as their bodies decompose such as minerals and the waters from the body are refined and turned back into a usable source once again and the same is true about everything else in the universe.... Black holes are a porthole to another place where the matter that is pulled in is recycled and reformed into a new and usable source somewhere else.... Its all a great and mighty symphony which is all played out in perfect harmony.... And I truely beleive what i'm writing here for you to see because it fits every aspect of the existence of everything.... The force we call mother nature doesn't just exist here on earth, it exist everywhere in the universe and through out all of time and space and is a given constant and will outlast anything which your imagination can conceive....
Heres an explanation that a scientist can't even deny.... Inertia is natures motion and the chemical compositions are the different types of things needed to create as mother nature does and has so many times over and though man can do same he can only do so on a small scale and mother nature has created the entire universe from mans point of vision but has created much more than one can even imagine.... And the results of that are so infinite and it all fuels everything everwhere.............

I will be editing this article from time if interested....

Warthog.

That is a romantic idea. But this is science, not romance. When evidence exists to support an idea, then it is realistic to post the idea here. If no evidence exists, then you cannot expect the idea to receive much credence here.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by TimeLord

When ultimate complexity has been reached through the evolutionary process would it then be reasonable to assume that the resulting lifeform be considered a God.

invariably, the ultimate step in evolution is extinction

Yes just as sure as you were born you are going to die just as everything everywhere will.... Oh i'm sorry this is a science forum and there is no evidence to support this idea....

Originally Posted by warthog213

Yes just as sure as you were born you are going to die just as everything everywhere will.... Oh i'm sorry this is a science forum and there is no evidence to support this idea....

There is strong evidence for it. I have no idea what you're going on about. The evidence that all of us will die is exceptionally strong.