Necessity of God (Non-supernatural entities though)

[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.”

 

[Cyrus]

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

I think I logged into the wrong internet.

 

[Cyrus]

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.”

Monkeys and apes do kill their own kind. Maybe it was a gorilla. It was one of those guys. He did something against the clan of monkeys, and they all went, pardon the pun, ape **** and beat the monkey to death. Boy they were screaming up a storm too!

Also, male lions eat baby cubs that aren't theirs. Your example is just flat out wrong.

 

[WaveJumper]

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?

What do you mean by God? If you have a clear understanding and definition of what it is, we'd stay within it most of the time. As it currently stands, people have a trillion widely differing visions of what God might be. And we aren't even sure the purported creature exist at all, so "sideline theories" are guaranteed to arise from the obscurity of the concept of God. Given the broad scope of the concept implied, i'd stay we've stayed pretty much on topic so far .

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean by God? If you have a clear understanding and definition of what it is, we'd stay within it most of the time. As it currently stands, people have a trillion widely differing visions of what God might be. And we aren't sure the purported creature exist at all, so "sideline theories" are guaranteed to arise from the obscurity of the concept of God. Given the broad scope of the concept implied, i'd stay we've stayed pretty much on topic so far .

A trillion, that's a lot of gods. There is one god and his name is Cyrus peace be upon him amen shalom.

But seriously, nah. This thread adds nothing new. Just sift through the, yes I said it, trillion, other threads created with the same, tired, played out arguments in them.

Probably 99.99% of this thread is junk.

 

[WaveJumper]

Also, male lions eat baby cubs that aren't theirs. Your example is just flat out wrong.

Humans also eat other humans. Sorry, you lose...

 

[drizzle]

A trillion, that's a lot of gods. There is one god and his name is Cyrus peace be upon him amen shalom.

But seriously, nah. This thread adds nothing new. Just sift through the, yes I said it, trillion, other threads created with the same, tired, played out arguments in them.

Probably 99.99% of this thread is junk.

what new thing you suggest to be discussed here, or you wana god come to your door and introduce hisself to you!





forgive me

 

[JoeDawg]

Probably 99.99% of this thread is junk.

And we thank you for your contribution to the 99.99%

 

[drizzle]

And we thank you for your contribution to the 99.99%

 

[Cyrus]

And we thank you for your contribution to the 99.99%

I'm god, my contributions only make that number go down. See, it's already down to 95% from this post alone.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Cyrus, if you are God, then how come I can do this?

<clink clink>