Necessity of God (Non-supernatural entities though)

[Sorry!]

I hold as part of my beliefs that god necessarily exist. Here is why:

The term god as I use it carries 1 function. 'The G-Function' I guess we could call it.

This G-function is namely bringing about the existence of the universe. Since to me the universe exist (may or may not be subjective but this is irrelevant I think) does it not follow that whatever had completed the G-function is god?

So is god not a necessary part of the universe?

I however am not inferring any supernatural entities exist, just that the G-function has been fulfilled.

The way I look at it this implies that god could be a cosmic muffin that fulfilled the G-function.

Is my line of thinking mistaken?
Am I using incorrect terms?
What is this belief called... if anything?
Is it falsifiable?

 

[JoeDawg]

Is my line of thinking mistaken?

Its what they call circular reasoning.
God exists, because the universe exists, and god created the universe.

Most philosophers, logicians, etc... have a serious problem with circular reasoning, but religions tend to use it all the time.

The problem with your reasoning here is the assumption the universe needed creating. If the universe needed creating, why doesn't your 'god muffin' also need creating?

Then you have infinite regress, which most people don't like much.

 

[Sorry!]

Its what they call circular reasoning.
God exists, because the universe exists, and god created the universe.

Most philosophers, logicians, etc... have a serious problem with circular reasoning, but religions tend to use it all the time.

The problem with your reasoning here is the assumption the universe needed creating. If the universe needed creating, why doesn't your 'god muffin' also need creating?

Then you have infinite regress, which most people don't like much.

Well I never used the term 'created'. Just that it brought the existence of the universe about. For instance it could be in my mind that the universe exist so my mind completed the G-function and can be called god
What caused my mind to exist is irrelevant I think because god as I view it isn't the beginning of everything. Just what brought our universe into existence...As well I was kind of hoping you would respond to this Joe :p :D Thanks.

 

[WaveJumper]

If the universe needed creating, why doesn't your 'god muffin' also need creating?

Then you have infinite regress, which most people don't like much.

I like it and i think it's pretty elegant despite the obvious inability of the human mind to grasp infinity. If we survive as species, we might one day create a big bang of sorts. Or even multiple big bangs.

 

[Sorry!]

I think it might also be necessary to point out that in this case god is not a noun it is just a functioning group.

Like for instance what makes a person. Well a person needs a body and a mind. To me the mind is not a noun it is a list of functions a person can do like think talk etc. If we die our body remains materially here but we are no longer a person because we no longer have a mind or are no longer doing the functions necessary to be a person.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem seems to me to be that you are not describing this god/g-function as anything but "that which brought about the universe". You are simply giving a name to an unknown. X-function would work just aswell. The term "god" though has certain meanings attached which may seem to infer more attributes than you are defining it with.

Would you propose any other reason for using the term other than perhaps the loose creator deity connection?

 

[Sorry!]

No I guess you could use other terms to define the said functions. Regardless the term for god I am using is more philosophical than religious... I just don't know what other name to give the function of bringing to existence our universe other than god?

 

[JoeDawg]

Well I never used the term 'created'. Just that it brought the existence of the universe about.

Why does the universe need to be 'brought into existence'? I'd say the universe defines existence. The universe is just another word for 'everything'.

As well I was kind of hoping you would respond to this Joe :p :D Thanks.

I aim to please.

 

[Sorry!]

Well Joe everything does exist.. To me at least. This is necessarily true and somehow I recognize this existence. Something must have brought it into existence or else this would not be possible right?

 

[JoeDawg]

Well Joe everything does exist.. To me at least. This is necessarily true and somehow I recognize this existence. Something must have brought it into existence or else this would not be possible right?

I see no reason to believe that 'non-existence' is anything but a poorly defined concept based on abstract negation. Things exist, and change into other things. But I've never seen a thing stop existing, nor have I ever seen a thing before it existed.

So no, I see no reason to believe that anything would need to be 'brought into existence'. In fact if that's the way of things, you end up with infinite regress, which just amplifies your problems.

 

[Sorry!]

I don't find my self in any sort of regress problem because I'm not setting WHAT brought the universe about I tink that's what your missing from my explanation. How can the reason everything exist... Which we don't know about... Need something to cause its existence? It seems rediculous and redundant to claim that.

 

[Helios]

The universe could serve as proof of the non-existence of god. Consider that a perfect being, god, would be motionless as to not disturb his own perfection. Intensional motion or effort is an attempt to substitute a less satisfactory state with a more satisfactory state. A perfect being would be completely satisfied not to do anything. But the universe exist, so the perfect being, god is ruled out.

 

[Sorry!]

Helios I'm just wondering if you even read the original post or any subsequent posts on the matter? Even the title states this is not about some perfect supernatural entity..

 

[Moridin]

I hold as part of my beliefs that god necessarily exist. Here is why:

The term god as I use it carries 1 function. 'The G-Function' I guess we could call it.

This G-function is namely bringing about the existence of the universe. Since to me the universe exist (may or may not be subjective but this is irrelevant I think) does it not follow that whatever had completed the G-function is god?

So is god not a necessary part of the universe?

I however am not inferring any supernatural entities exist, just that the G-function has been fulfilled.

The way I look at it this implies that god could be a cosmic muffin that fulfilled the G-function.

Is my line of thinking mistaken?
Am I using incorrect terms?
What is this belief called... if anything?
Is it falsifiable?

This text assumes that (i) the G-function is definable (ii) that the G-function can exist outside of existence ("the universe), (iii) that the universe began to exist (rather than existing for a finite amount of time, yet have no beginning) or is not necessary in of itself, all of which are invalid assumptions.

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't find my self in any sort of regress problem because I'm not setting WHAT brought the universe about I tink that's what your missing from my explanation. How can the reason everything exist... Which we don't know about... Need something to cause its existence? It seems rediculous and redundant to claim that.

Its ridiculous to claim the universe, which we don't really know what it is, needs an explanation. The universe IS existence. Its your WHAT that is redundant.

 

[Sorry!]

Its ridiculous to claim the universe, which we don't really know what it is, needs an explanation. The universe IS existence. Its your WHAT that is redundant.

So you don't think that when I wake up in the morning and and see my roof everyday it doesn't require any sort of explaining of what caused any of it? It just is?

 

[DaveC426913]

Its ridiculous to claim the universe, which we don't really know what it is, needs an explanation. The universe IS existence. Its your WHAT that is redundant.

The fact that it has some sort of beginning (as witnessed by the Big Bang) means that there is something there that needs explaining. Not necessarily its entire existence, but at least in the sense of 'where did it originate'?

 

[Sorry!]

This text assumes that (i) the G-function is definable (ii) that the G-function can exist outside of existence ("the universe), (iii) that the universe began to exist (rather than existing for a finite amount of time, yet have no beginning) or is not necessary in of itself, all of which are invalid assumptions.

The g-function is defined as I wrote in my first post.

The g-function necessarily exists outside the existence of OUR universe. (which means we can not know it or anything but the concept is necessary)
Something that exists for an finite amount of time has a beginning. This doesn't mean nothing existed prior or anything of the sort.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well I never used the term 'created'. Just that it brought the existence of the universe about. For instance it could be in my mind that the universe exist so my mind completed the G-function and can be called god

This is semantics. You are simply generating a word to describe an existing event.

 

[Sorry!]

The fact that it has some sort of beginning (as witnessed by the Big Bang) means that there is something there that needs explaining. Not necessarily its entire existence, but at least in the sense of 'where did it originate'?

This is what I am getting at. Just because we can not have empirical knowledge of the concept ... in fact we can not have any knowledge of it further than the abstract concept. I don't find this concept to be faulty though..

This is semantics. You are simply generating a word to describe an existing event.

This is true but whenever I read philosophy they tend to use a slightly modified version of the definition for the word god. In my dictionary of philosophy it defines god as the same definition I've given above. It is however possible that I create my own term to describe this but I didn't feel people would relate to it... or they would even just say that it IS god on their own anyways...

 

[DaveC426913]

This is true but whenever I read philosophy they tend to use a slightly modified version of the definition for the word god. In my dictionary of philosophy it defines god as the same definition I've given above. It is however possible that I create my own term to describe this but I didn't feel people would relate to it... or they would even just say that it IS god on their own anyways...

Well, that's the thing. The word God comes loaded with a lot of pre-existing concepts (chief among them: a supernatural entity). If it is your intention to roll your g-function in with these pre-existing concepts then no problem, as long as you accept that other people will have their own very strong opinions on how these things dovetail together. (By using an accepted word, you will be sending a message that this is deliberate on your part.)

But if your intent is define the creation of the universe independent of the supernatural entity overtones, then you are doing a disservice by repurposing (or "overloading" in program-speak ) an existing word.

 

[JoeDawg]

So you don't think that when I wake up in the morning and and see my roof everyday it doesn't require any sort of explaining of what caused any of it? It just is?

We have examples of causation with regards to roofs. We do not with regards to universes.

 

[Sorry!]

The universe is just another word for 'everything'.

We have examples of causation with regards to roofs. We do not with regards to universes.

So if roofs are things and the universe as you said is just another term for everything(which implies all things in existence) then by your logic everything does need explanation of existence. So we can switch this now the universe needs an explanation of existence...

 

[JoeDawg]

So if roofs are things and the universe as you said is just another term for everything(which implies all things in existence) then by your logic everything does need explanation of existence. So we can switch this now the universe needs an explanation of existence...

No. We observe 'causation' with regards to roofs.
That doesn't mean roofs *need* a cause. It just means we observe that they do and feel confident we can predict from that observation, via induction.

We do not have an observation of the universe as a whole, 'universe' is an abstract idea, one that includes everything. So a cause of the universe simply makes no sense. Any cause, would by definition, be part of the universe.

This is the problem with working with abstract ideas, because they are ill-defined, they can lead to confusion.

 

[Sorry!]

Yeah I think we are mostly discussing here what the different terms mean to us. By your idea the universe includes everything including those things which are ideas etc. (at least that's what I'm getting).

To me the universe is just that which exist and we can gain knowledge of and test this knowledge by scientific method.

It still makes sense to me to say that these things are brough into existence for us to test and gain knowledge. If not then there would be nothing, and nothing is impossible to have.

here are things I have read that may complete the g-function:
-most cosmological models (whether quantum mechanics or not)
-supernatural entities (might not believe them but they MAY have completed MY g-function)
-my cosmic muffin in first post :D
-my own mind brings about the existence of everything (wrote a paper on this called pure perception)
-a computer...
-maybe something elses mind and it had a really quick thought about us and this is his thought... seems to go on forever for us because we are living in our time not it's time. (woah just made this up... weird)
-maybe another intelligent creature created our universe in a lab. (like the simulation on the computer only this is REAL existence... assuming that the first creature isn't itself a simulation.)

there are so many more. I don't think anyone is more true than any others because I don't think it will ever be conclusive. This doesn't negate the fact that there MUST have been something that brought about the existence of what I call the universe.

 

[deadcat]

Is my line of thinking mistaken?

Yes, but it can always change. This is similar to how ancient societies though, which lead to believes such as Greek/Roman mythology, the line of thinking needs to be adapted in the sense that just because we don't have an explanation, doesn't mean we need to make one up, we need to dig deeper into the subject, in the direction of the answer. Until then, it's ok to say we don't know something. Like "Sorry!" said with scientific method would be the way to gain knowledge into this.

 

[deadcat]

The fact that it has some sort of beginning

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

 

[Sorry!]

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

Well I'm not positing a beginning to everything that exists just our universe which is all we know that exists. Even though most scientific models of the expansion of our universe go beyond the Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang did not cause our universe to come into existence how it is now.

 

[JoeDawg]

The fact that it has some sort of beginning (as witnessed by the Big Bang) means that there is something there that needs explaining. Not necessarily its entire existence, but at least in the sense of 'where did it originate'?

But as you say, that's not really an existence issue. The big bang, theoretically, is not really an explosion in the normal sense of things moving through space/time, all the laws of physics break down the closer you get to the big bang. So yes, we can describe it as 'a beginning', but space/time as we understand it, ceases to have much meaning in relation to the 'big bang'. So any comparison is at best a weak analogy.

Causation as we understand it, on a day to day level, works great, but the big bang is a whole nother kettle of fish. Even if its convenient to think of it as a bang, its nothing like our everyday experience of explosions.

 

[deadcat]

Well I'm not positing a beginning to everything that exists just our universe which is all we know that exists. Even though most scientific models of the expansion of our universe go beyond the Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang did not cause our universe to come into existence how it is now.

Yes, I agree with you. It's a possibility and the most likely one, but as with a math equation, without all the information the equation cannot be solved, or will be incorrect. I'm not saying this is incorrect (big bang) but it's the best theory available with the information at hand, which I'm sure will evolve as information is made available, as all ideas & theories do until they are complete, or seem to be complete.

 

[WaveJumper]

But as you say, that's not really an existence issue. The big bang, theoretically, is not really an explosion in the normal sense of things moving through space/time, all the laws of physics break down the closer you get to the big bang. So yes, we can describe it as 'a beginning', but space/time as we understand it, ceases to have much meaning in relation to the 'big bang'. So any comparison is at best a weak analogy.

Causation as we understand it, on a day to day level, works great, but the big bang is a whole nother kettle of fish. Even if its convenient to think of it as a bang, its nothing like our everyday experience of explosions.

How does this refute the requirement for causation? And how does this "theory" explain the extreme odds of having a universe like ours develop by chance(whatever that means), with all the constants just right for the formation of matter, stars, planets and life. Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for life to emerge:

"Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision."

So does this extraordinary precision not require an explanation?I am much more in favour of atheism than any and all religions but i hate how hastily atheism sticks its head in the sand if some finding contradicts its tenets.

 

[JoeDawg]

How does this refute the requirement for causation?

I'm not refuting anything, I'm saying that relying on our understanding of causation to be accurate, in situation as alien as the big bang (and I don't mean the inflation afterward, I mean the big bang itself) makes no real sense, even if its a convenient analogy.

Its like saying a light is a wave... no its a particle... no its a wave. It isn't really either. Its something different, that we can describe very vaguely as having wave and particle like behaviors. Our everyday life causation, is no standard at all... except with regards to our everyday life.

 

[Tibarn]

Even if the g-function implies "God" exists, it says nothing about God. Taking something known to exist, defining it as God, then using that as evidence for the existence of God is rather dishonest. I may as well redefine "extraterrestrial" as "cosmic ray"; I'll be perfectly justified in thus saying that extraterrestrials come to Earth, but this new statement has absolutely nothing in common with the usual implications of this statement. It's a semantic trick, nothing more.

 

[Sorry!]

Even if the g-function implies "God" exists, it says nothing about God. Taking something known to exist, defining it as God, then using that as evidence for the existence of God is rather dishonest. I may as well redefine "extraterrestrial" as "cosmic ray"; I'll be perfectly justified in thus saying that extraterrestrials come to Earth, but this new statement has absolutely nothing in common with the usual implications of this statement. It's a semantic trick, nothing more.

Well I decided to use this word because it is correlated to what I have set up as the definition. It is not intended to prove the 'existence of God' (God in your case has a capital g making me assume you are using it as a noun. Which I covered in an earlier post) Nor am I intending to be dishonest to anyone.

If it helps at all I'm a atheist (related to religious terms). So I am NOT posting this to attempt to prove any sort of supernatural entity exist. I leave open the possibility of such an entity in my definition but it is not one I believe will be correct... not that I will ever know for sure anyways.

As well, it may not say anything about what I define, as in give characteristics to?, god but does that really matter?

Your word game of defining extraterrestials as cosmic rays is dishonest to yourself and I think an insult to my intelligence.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't "need" a beginning, everyone just insist on it. For all we know the "big bang" theory may just represent an insignificant fraction of the universe. Just because infinity is too hard for most people to comprehend doesn't mean it's impossible, for example a number can be divided infinitely with decimals. How do you know space itself isn't an insignificant fraction relevant to a larger existence of which it may be within? The real "fact" is we don't know if there was a beginning, this is just popular consensus/ a theory, not a "fact".

No. The phyics and math show that there was a beginning to this universe. The BB is pretty solid.

Though that still doesn't mean it was the beginning of everything...

 

[Sorry!]

No. The phyics and math show that there was a beginning to this universe. The BB is pretty solid.

Though that still doesn't mean it was the beginning of everything...

This was my conclusion as well. Although I will never say one theory is absolutely correct, because I feel we will just never know what is the correctness of this god. Only that it is a necessary concept to have.

 

[WaveJumper]

What kind of a little, mean, insignificant god would create such a wicked, terror-ridden universe? Matrix-style or not, if one day we reach a capacity to initiate a Big Bang and manage to set the values of the physical constants with extreme precision(1:1 million trillions) for the subsequent development of stars, planets and life, I can't imagine us humans imposing so much cruelty over our hypothetical creations.

 

[Sorry!]

What kind of a little, mean, insignificant god would create such a wicked, terror-ridden universe? Matrix-style or not, if one day we reach a capacity to initiate a Big Bang with all the physical constants just right for the subsequent development of stars, planets and life, I can't imagine us humans imposing so much cruelty over our hypothetical creations.

what makes you think that it would be humans that cause the existence of universes? In your theory here maybe new universes have already been created naturally from our universe. If humans could make a universe though, say in a glass box so we could see inside. Why do you assume we could even have a means to govern them? Why would we want to anyways?

 

[WaveJumper]

what makes you think that it would be humans that cause the existence of universes?

Where did i say or imply that "humans cause the existence of universes"??

In your theory here maybe new universes have already been created naturally from our universe.

Huh??

If humans could make a universe though, say in a glass box so we could see inside. Why do you assume we could even have a means to govern them? Why would we want to anyways?

IMO it's not much different to having children. I'd love to create a world with 99.99% less terror and suffering.

 

[Tibarn]

Your word game of defining extraterrestials as cosmic rays is dishonest to yourself and I think an insult to my intelligence.

I didn't mean any insults. My chief complaint is the use of the word god to describe "that which completes the g-function", and the completion of the g-function as the universe coming into existence. The word "god" is well-established and has many connotations in the common usage, including implications of intelligence and the possession of a will.

The way you use god, I can't find the difference between saying "God exists" and "The universe had a beginning". It reminds me of Thomas Aquinas' argument that the universe must have had a first cause, which he called God. The difference being that Aquinas went on to "derive" the other characteristics of God from this definition.

As I said before, redefining god to be the the creator (using the term loosely) of the universe says nothing about god, and I don't think "god" is an apt name for it. I think that calling something god requires showing that it satisfies some of the characteristics commonly associated with god.

 

[Sorry!]

Where did i say or imply that "humans cause the existence of universes"??



Huh??




IMO it's not much different to having children. I'd love to create a world with 99.99% less terror and suffering.

You said that humans would create a big bang. Since dave was speaking of how the big bang brought about our universe humans creating another big bang would supposededly bring about another universe. You go on to talk about how you would love to create a world etc... yet you say that you never said that humans cause the existence of another universe? So they will just make another earth? I don't understand what your trying to imply here at all then.

Aside from that you can pretend that if you personally created a universe that you would have powers in it but what I'm talking about in this thread has hardly anything to do with humans playing god. The only way I would see this as possible is if we make a universe in a computer run simulation, which we can't do right now or possibly ever. This has little to no effect on what I'm talking about in this thread either.

Even IF some outside intelligence decided to create our universe you can't go around assuming that they would think and act on compassion the same way you would. Clearly this isn't even true among our OWN intelligence species so why assume that another intelligence life outside our own existence would? (if I created life I would not try to influence them rather let them live and see what happens.)

 

[Sorry!]

I didn't mean any insults. My chief complaint is the use of the word god to describe "that which completes the g-function", and the completion of the g-function as the universe coming into existence. The word "god" is well-established and has many connotations in the common usage, including implications of intelligence and the possession of a will.

The way you use god, I can't find the difference between saying "God exists" and "The universe had a beginning". It reminds me of Thomas Aquinas' argument that the universe must have had a first cause, which he called God. The difference being that Aquinas went on to "derive" the other characteristics of God from this definition.

As I said before, redefining god to be the the creator (using the term loosely) of the universe says nothing about god, and I don't think "god" is an apt name for it. I think that calling something god requires showing that it satisfies some of the characteristics commonly associated with god.

God: a term variously conceived but used to apply to that which is considered to be a (or the) fundamental source of one's existence and/or values.

The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy

I think my use of the term god in a philosophy forum falls within this category so I see no need to use other words or attempt to prove any qualities of whatever god is.
Sure Aquinas did that, so did Anselm, but I find that they assumed that after the initial conditions were met that the universe would not live on it's own and continue to evolve separate from that which brought it into existence. Not to say that it would not effect the universe today but it's effects would be limited and it would not 'intelligently' control the direction of this evolution aside from how the initial conditions were set.

 

[WaveJumper]

You said that humans would create a big bang. Since dave was speaking of how the big bang brought about our universe humans creating another big bang would supposededly bring about another universe. You go on to talk about how you would love to create a world etc... yet you say that you never said that humans cause the existence of another universe?

You misunderstand. I never said humans caused the existence of any universe. Never. That would be the same as saying a pekingese caused the existence of the universe. I specifically said that humans MIGHT one day create a Big Bang. Might one day create a Big Bang is obviously NOT the same as humans created, which is past tense. It would be extremely speculative of me to try to "guess" what other intelligent "beings" that might have created our universe, would look like, let alone call them humans. HAHA ( I don't consider the taliban humans, let alone some very hypothetical beings from some our medium, like a universe, a brane, etc).

Aside from that you can pretend that if you personally created a universe that you would have powers in it but what I'm talking about in this thread has hardly anything to do with humans playing god.

What humans? The ones i speculated that in a few thousand years MIGHT create a Big Bang? Where did I even once said or implied that humans created(past tense!) the universe?

The only way I would see this as possible is if we make a universe in a computer run simulation, which we can't do right now or possibly ever.

If you don't "see" it now it hardly means that it will be impossible in a few millenia.

This has little to no effect on what I'm talking about in this thread either.

How is this irrelevant when in your OP you stated:

This G-function is namely bringing about the existence of the universe. Since to me the universe exist (may or may not be subjective but this is irrelevant I think) does it not follow that whatever had completed the G-function is god?

Weren't you speculating about the cause of the universe? If not, what was it you wanted to discuss?

Even IF some outside intelligence decided to create our universe you can't go around assuming that they would think and act on compassion the same way you would.

Well, i don't assume anything, a cruel god can do anything it wants, but it will still be perceived as little, mean and insignificant by the parents of the starving children or those born with malformations or incurable diseases. And by folks like me.

Clearly this isn't even true among our OWN intelligence species so why assume that another intelligence life outside our own existence would? (if I created life I would not try to influence them rather let them live and see what happens.)

About 70 000 years ago the population of Homo Sapiens in Africa was reduced to around 2000 due to disappearance of fresh water reserves. A lot of them died out, painfully(these were your ancestors). I don't think you are fit for god. Or at least not worthy of bearing the title God with all of its connotations.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm not going to bother breaking down your post at all the way you have done to mine.

1) Please point out where I used the word 'creat*ED*' in reference to humans and your post that you don't agree with...

Here I will do it for you:

pretend that if you personally created a universe that you would have powers in it

In your theory here maybe new universes have already been created naturally from our universe.

Neither of these imply that humans have created a universe already. The first one created is an adjective of universe IN THE HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE (pretend IF you COULD)
The second merely is me suggesting that it is possible that new universes have already been created naturally from our universe(not humans... this is just a plausible alternative to what you were saying... I'm pointing out that other universes can exist without any intelligent beings being involved.) As in our universe has sprouted a new universe; in a multiverse.

2) Odd that your speaking as if you are knowledgeable on grammar of past/present/future tenses when you in the same sentence say 'where did I even once said.' Just an observation.

3) I never said once that it would be impossible. If you've been following this thread I have never once said anything was impossible.

4) It is irrelevant to this thread because I am merely positing that the concept of god is a necessary one. I am not and had no intentions of ever bringing it further to characterize this god.

5) And you speak of God (capital g) and the connotations that the word brings so I'll just reference you to post #42

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't imagine us humans imposing so much cruelty over our hypothetical creations.

You haven't visited a chicken farm recently, have you?

Cruelty is relative. It is a concept that humans only have trouble applying to creatures that they can relate to.

 

[WaveJumper]

You haven't visited a chicken farm recently, have you?

Cruelty is relative. It is a concept that humans only have trouble applying to creatures that they can relate to.

Yup, we are just an advanced breed of monkeys. Thanks for reminding me, i sometimes forget this little fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yup, we are just an advanced breed of monkeys. Thanks for reminding me, i sometimes forget this little fact.

I'm not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic. Either way, I'm still not sure what your point is. Do you disagree with what I said? Do you not think humans could/would/do treat inferior creatures abysmally?

 

[Cyrus]

No offense, but this thread reeks of stale ideas that have been beaten to death a million times here already...

PS: For those using the word 'theory', please look up how to use it in a dictionary. It's damn annoying that people around here don't use the word properly by now.

Somehow started out questioning God, then went into Bing Bang theory, then went into creating our own universes. Whats odd ball thing will be the next topic of divergence?

 

[JoeDawg]

Somehow started out questioning God, then went into Bing Bang theory, then went into creating our own universes. Whats odd ball thing will be the next topic of divergence?

Oh, you must be new here... Welcome to the Internets.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yup, we are just an advanced breed of monkeys. Thanks for reminding me, i sometimes forget this little fact.

I'm not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic. Either way, I'm still not sure what your point is. Do you disagree with what I said? Do you not think humans could/would/do treat inferior creatures abysmally?

I agreed with your statement that "Cruelty is relative. It is a concept that humans only have trouble applying to creatures that they can relate to". My example would show that monkeys(or most other animals) would not kill their own kind and killing animals for food is animallistic. Otherwise everyone knows we are not descended from apes but share a common ancestor.

BTW, the whole quote comes from Stephen Hawking, it reads:

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”