Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do it yourself, make your own god!

  1. Mar 12, 2004 #1
    As the name suggests, this thread is for those who wish to make up their very own god.

    Examining the way this has been done for many thousands of years, I have determined that there are a few rules, but nobody seems to know what they are, so have at it in any way you see fit!

    I will, of course start this whole thing off.

    My God.
    Is big and furry, kind of like scully from monsters inc. He spends alot of time bowling, but occasionally takes time to pay a vist to earth and perform some good deeds, such as every good thing that happens on earth. He doesn't care much for rap but thinks rock music is the greatest and most important achievment of his children, in fact, he plans to take Audioslave to school for the next show and tell.

    He never gets angry, but is often sad. He hopes his little critters will not end up blowing themselfs up. He tries to guide them to enlightenment and peace but has less time now with so much homework piling up. He does not know everything, but, compared to us he does.

    He dislikes being told what to do, or what he is. He always feels sad about all the pain and confusion his creations undergo, but he understands the necessity of it for their growth. He als... wow what is that.. ... ... he is.. talking to me.. ... ..

    I'm sorry, I can't tell you anything more about my god. Apparentely, I have told you far too much already, so must end this communication immeadiately else I will face a "divine nuggy," I don't know what that is, but, I really don't want to find out.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is a religion called 'The five percenters' which claims that black folks are deities, and the rest of humanity mere mortals.

    {I was going to post this in that long racism thread, but I decided not to do anything more than just read that one.}
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
  4. Mar 12, 2004 #3
    This is create your own god, not religion.
  5. Mar 12, 2004 #4
    Oh I see, it sees black people AS gods. Interesting idea, could be promising with proper marketing techniques.
  6. Mar 12, 2004 #5
    God is my remote control. no wait, it's a reptilian space alien. no wait, it's roses. or perhaps my cat is God? actually, i am God.

    From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

    if you're god too then you're god and if not then not.
  7. Mar 12, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "black people AS gods" - Deeviant

    Precisely. If anyone here watches Trinity Broadcasting television, there is a preacher who likes to say that people of his faith are (or can become) gods. I suppose he would claim that he himself has trod that path. I feel a little guilty when I find myself noticing the grammatical errors in his speech, since after all I as a mortal have no business pointing out flaws in a god, do I?
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
  8. Mar 12, 2004 #7
    I will talk to my god and find out if there is any truth to this guy's ramblings
  9. Mar 12, 2004 #8
    all you have to do is ask yourself because you're god.
  10. Mar 13, 2004 #9
    Another day, another God.

    Today my god is a angry Zuez-like incarnate of vengence. One who stikes down evil with divine precision. He hates ignorance and stupidity and wonders sometimes if it is time to end his science experiment. He is also late for class so we must end this channeling session.
  11. Mar 13, 2004 #10
    yes, go to class to continue your "programming." have a blast! :P

    let me ask you a question: if there are no external spirits, is it really possible to channel anything other than your self?
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2004
  12. Mar 13, 2004 #11
    let me ask you another question. when you sit in your classes, do you accept what they teach you? if they tell you the results of an experiment, do you do that experiment for yourself to independently verify it or do you accept it? is that like a faith? is it faith that is well placed or blind faith? if you trust your teachers, why? is it because of the school's reputation? letters after their names? why does that mean you should place your faith in them?

    i ask myself these questions about my subject, which is math. to be honest with myself, i accept most of it on a kind of blind faith, though i think it is fairly well placed faith. i don't learn how to prove every theorem i learn. i learn how to play the game and get along with other mathematicians. i know what they want to hear, for the most part, and what the language and rules are. so, yeah, i have faith that math is correct.

    now repeat all those questions and apply it to your local priest with a doctor in divinity. get the same answers? why not? and should you? if so, why, and if not, why not?

    i have more trust in math than anything. more faith in math than anything. if i don't know how to "prove" a theorem, i don't have true knowledge/understanding of that theorem. anyways, i have far less trust in science and my local priest. frankly, i think most scientists and priests are suspect. it's not that i automatically disbelieve them, but for some reason i don't trust what they say on a total blind faith.

    if one has not "observed" God, then one has not gained true knowledge about God's existence or nature. those that have blind faith, the rank and file of religious proselytizers, preachers, and zealots, i have much contempt for. they at least have their faith in the right direction, though. kind of like how i think your faith in science is probably in the right direction. again, i have a distrust for my local michio kaku and my local roy masters. i don't automatically reject what they say, but i am weary. just weary.

    i'm not really intending you to reply to this but ponder those questions if you haven't already and i don't need to see the answers. just ask. ok?
  13. Mar 13, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Phoenix,I am curious if you see mathematics more as something that human beings discover, or as a free invention of humans. If we ever meet an intelligent race from some other part of the galaxy, would you expect their mathematics to have a great deal in common with ours, other than the obvious differences to be expected in notation?
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  14. Mar 13, 2004 #13
    well honestly i have no idea what's up with aliens or even if there are aliens. i've never seen one. but if i daydream about it...

    math on earth is more or less the same as it is elsewhere. others are either "more advanced" than us or "less advanced" than us, obviously. i don't believe math has an end at which point one can say "i know all about math." thus, there is no alien out there, at least any with finite intelligence, that knows everything about math. we are moving into a new phase with the new internet and electronic global distribution of research. math can really start taking off, theoretically. i bet there's aliens out there who've gotten to a global exchange long ago. i bet there's type 3 aliens who have intergalactic exchange of math and they have a "one inch equation" and they can prove fermat's last theorem in kindergarden. the questions that they find difficult are not even within our scope of understanding. not the answers, the questions. the depth is immense. maybe they've got questions that even in the most efficient notation they know it's still a quadrillion bits long with an answer that is a google bits long. we have a ways to go yet.

    i believe that at some point, there will be a finite number of different math structures. all "new" structures will be proven to be equivalent to an existing structure. i think we may have the majority of those different structures now but our depth of knowledge in each one is limited. pose even a simple question and you've got a 300 year wait for the answer. dynamics. if i ask for the fractional dimension of the julia set for a polynomial of degree 100 that has no radical solutions, that would take a while to figure out. that's the tip of the iceburg.

    so i think there are finitely many (maybe a google, who knows) different kinds of math structures. even so, the depth one can go in some of them is infinite. each question raises ten questions, ad infinitum.

    i believe that math is discovered, not created. i only have an inductive plausibility argument for this. take the number 0. did it "exist" before anyone thought about it and wrote it down or was the number zero created? actually, i have no idea how to prove my assertion but i believe that zero has always existed and always will exist, regardless of whether or not any human observes it. that's how i feel about the tree in the forest making a sound. do i know if it makes a sound if i didn't hear it myself? if you can answer that question with absolute certainty, then you will have certainty over your question. there are no wrong answers; there are answers that fit observation and data and observations that contradict observation and data. granted, most people would say the contradictory evidence is suggestive of a wrong answer, but can't it be because our "tools" of "observation" aren't honed enough yet? again, just plausibilty argument here.
  15. Mar 13, 2004 #14
    Then you see the entire point of this thread. If god is not observable, he is not quantifiable and nobody can claim to any knowledge of a god. Once they start guessing what a god would be like, want, declare law or whatever they lose all credibility and are basically just flat out wrong. Once you get to this point, why bother stating the fact that there might be a god when there are an infinite amount of other things that may or may not be.
  16. Mar 13, 2004 #15
    of course i see the point of the thread. people create their own gods all the time; i'm not arguing that. it's just that no human created God which is, by definiton, God. the God. a self-referential definiton? yes. a definition that is useful to you? probably not.

    It is quantifiable in a sense. it is infinite. it is the largest infinity, if it were quantifiable. it is also more.

    how do you know i'm flat out wrong? you will never meet my criteria for proof; you can't change what i've "Seen." and i will probably never meet your criteria for proof. that's fine. we'll agree to disagree and i got no qualms with that.

    yes, there may or may not be a santa claus or a tooth fairy but i'm getting rather tired of that "recorded" answer. who knows if there is a santa claus in some parallel universe; i'm pretty sure i've never seen one with flying raindeer in this universe except on tv. i dont' know for sure and i don't care about santa. you say that zealots create a god to explain the "unexplanable" which happens when there is good ol occam's razor to tell you what to think: if there is a simpler explanation, it must be correct. well, to you the explaination that seems simple that humans need to create a god to satisfy some psychological lacking does fit the data and it is the simplest explaination. but that doesn't prove to me that humans did, in fact, literally create God. you'd have to prove, in ALL POSSIBLE cases, that occam's razor is absolutely perfect and correct; and i doubt you can do that. those are my criteria for proof. can you meet my criteria and shatter what i know?
  17. Mar 14, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks for the interesting comments, Phoenix. I believe your viewpoint makes you what they call a "Platonist" when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics.

    Here is what the Wikipedia site has to say:

  18. Mar 14, 2004 #17
    Thats the thing, you talk of god as if you know one personally, which I thought we just came to the conclusion that that was impossible.

    You can not quantify god, you can only quantify your idea of a god, which is different altogether. I do not and have never held the position that a god can not exist but if somebody claims to know something about a god you can be sure that they are wrong, that is unless they happen to be able to prove you wrong.

    You can not say that god is infinite or finite, mean or nice, or anything. What you can be say of is that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence of a god existing.

    The Lock Ness monster could exist, but do you really think she does? Can I even call it a she with no observation evidence? Don't you see a pattern of human behavior in which we reinforce our beliefs with pure fiction because we hate being wrong or because we drew individual and societal strength from our beliefs, wether they are wrong or right? This type of behavior is why science was invented, we needed a way to separate our opinions from our fact.
  19. Mar 14, 2004 #18
    look. i totally agree with you on that point. but when is there conclusive proof of anything anywhere in any theory?
  20. Mar 14, 2004 #19

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who is "we"?

    How does your point that not being able to quantify God prove God cannot be known? If you are correct, all it means is that God can't be quantified, it doesn't mean God cannot be known in some other way besides that which requires quantification.

    All you are saying is that there is no way to create an external proof of God. That is, I cannot prove to you or others there is a God. I agree. But so what? Personally I don't give a flying fish if you or anyone else knows what I know or not, I only care about what I know.

    You are trying to impose your standard for knowing--the empirical standard--on knowing God. If you were half as informed as you seem to think you are, you'd know the real experts on God have always said it is known within a human being, not through external means. The subjective world exists for every living being, and just because you can't get at all of my experiences with your little quantification tests doesn't necessarily invalidate those experiences. I know I love my wife. Can you see that love, can you quantify it? No? Well, according to you that love therefore doesn't exist.

    To me you are lecturing about proof when you don't understand the standard yourself. Assuming the empirical standard is the proof you are talking about, to state the problem properly you'd say, "God cannot be proven to others." Accordingly, you'd stop saying God cannot be known since you cannot possibly prove that empirically.

    All that applies to you too. Join the religion of science and think you know the TRUTH, get support from the many other Scientism believers here at PF and throughout society, and then preach to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system.

    Science is great for understanding the physical world, but I have not been impressed with what it offers me about the best part of my inner self. I don't have the slightest problem respecting both science and my inner skills. For me they never, not even once, have been in conflict.
  21. Mar 14, 2004 #20
    the differnece being that he believes in love because he, i hope, has observed love and, i hope, felt it.

    good example, too, because God has a lot to do with love.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook