A "god" I Can Believe In

[Guest Davka]

OK, I'm convinced that there is no "God," in the sense of an anthropomorphic Spirit-being who answers prayer and wants us all to be good little boys and girls.

 

But.

 

There is almost certainly a First Cause, as demonstrated by Stephen Hawking.

 

This First Cause is almost certainly not a part of our universe.

 

Now, it's perfectly possible that the First Cause is merely something along the lines of a law of nature, in which case we're right back where we started: there is no God. Period.

 

However, the possibility exists that the First Cause is, in some sense, an entity, or self-aware being. If so, then this entity is so alien and so incomprehensible that communicating with it would be absurd. What's more, it is doubtful that such an entity would care about the fate of flesh-sacks on an insignificant blue dot in the cosmos, let alone be concerned with such minutiae as which flesh sack puts what appendage in which other flesh sack's orifice. But it is possible that the First Cause is, in fact, an entity of some sort, and that the Big Bang was intentional.

 

If this is the case, we may never know what the purpose of our universe is, and it really makes very little difference as to how we should live our lives. It is of interest only in an abstract sense, to demonstrate that although the available facts certainly do not support the thesis of a Sky Daddy "God," by no means do they rule out the idea of some sort of godlike creating entity which is responsible for the Big Bang and all that proceeded from it.

 

Take that, atheists!

[florduh]

But it is possible that the First Cause is, in fact, and entity of some sort, and that the Big Bang was intentional.

 

Of course nobody can absolutely prove that assertion wrong, but it seems a rather silly thought to me.

 

That an 'entity of some sort' would intentionally create a universe containing sentient life and then just ignore it makes no sense. That such an entity would interact with its creation is more plausible.

 

However, since there is no evidence we're just diddling the grey matter anyway.

[Guest Davka]

But it is possible that the First Cause is, in fact, an entity of some sort, and that the Big Bang was intentional.

 

Of course nobody can absolutely prove that assertion wrong, but it seems a rather silly thought to me.

 

That an 'entity of some sort' would intentionally create a universe containing sentient life and then just ignore it makes no sense. That such an entity would interact with its creation is more plausible.

You're assuming that sentient life was the point of the Big Bang. It may well be a minor byproduct, or even a tolerable annoyance. If I build a boat, I may provide a habitat for barnacles, but that was certainly not my intent. We barnacles tend to be somewhat anthropocentric.

 

I realize that the odds of such an entity existing are lower than those of finding a 16-year-old virgin in Vegas, but they do exist. That's why I hold to the agnostic position - as long as there is even the tiniest chance that some sort of creator entity might be responsible for this mess, it is foolish to state categorically that there is no God.

 

Saying "I don't believe in God" is, of course, another matter entirely.

[florduh]

That's why I hold to the agnostic position - as long as there is even the tiniest chance that some sort of creator entity might be responsible for this mess, it is foolish to state categorically that there is no God.

 

Saying "I don't believe in God" is, of course, another matter entirely.

 

A reasonable and popular position that leaves the door open just a crack.

 

If I followed that logic I would be forced to be "agnostic" about so many things . . . fairies, demons, unicorns, and on and on. But that's just me. I'll settle on certain probabilities as being virtual certainties as a practical matter. If a concept is illogical and has no evidence supporting it, then I consider it to be someone's fantasy and I needn't make room for it in my life.

 

To me it is illogical that such a proposed creative entity could accidentally or incidentally create living, thinking creatures. It would be too intelligent and powerful, and would have complete knowledge of its own creation. In your example, you didn't create the barnacles, they already existed just migrated from elsewhere so I don't see an analogy. To make it work you would have to assume one creative entity made the physical universe, but another one created life without the knowledge of the first entity. And that's just as probable as the existence of fairies.

[Guest Davka]

Well, I don't believe in fairies, either. But I'm unwilling to state categorically that they don't exist. I just don't live my life as if there are fairies, nor do I waste much time speculating about them.

 

But when I run into fairy-worshipers, I find it easier to say "sure, I suppose you could be right" than to tell them fairies are impossible and they are complete nutters. And then I quietly slip away...

[florduh]

I find it easier to say "sure, I suppose you could be right" than to tell them fairies are impossible and they are complete nutters.

 

That's a good response as long as they aren't introducing legislation promoting Fairyism, or trying to eradicate everyone who doesn't believe in fairies.

[Guest Davka]

Point taken.

[Franko47]

I've kicked around this concept from time to time, I must admit. I've always been fascinated by the nature of our existence and our environment.

 

 

Actually, I have ruled out the existence of faeries 100 percent. Sorry to be so narrow.

 

 

However, the reason for that is only because of the basis of that belief, not the problem that there could be strange and enchanting alien entities that sometimes interact with a human. But enough about my ex.

 

I once tried to reconstruct God as a thought experiment, except this time from the top down, instead of how humans do it in reverse (thus God always ending up being a projection of themselves and even that of their instinctive and barbarian nature: see OT)

 

The problem is with the fact that a Super Entity advanced enough to create the Universe including humans through an act of will, using methods beyond our understanding (or ability to understand) would likely not be interested in "mingling" with lower forms, like us. A God that powerful and transcendant would create deliberate beings (or evolve them) that would be incredibly powerful compared to us. After all, a dog is more interesting as a companion than a goldfish. We're just too mundane to have been the deliberate creation of a powerful and sophisticated Entity of this magnitude. From this, the only God-concept that would make sense is if humans are being evolved, or developed to become more powerful beings, over the next few thousand years using technology and so on. Add to that a few more million years of exponential development, where we are no longer really human, but kind of pseudo-gods in fact, now with the ability to even begin to be able to relate to the original creative super-entity.

 

Man, that's good grass.

[Guest Davka]

Actually, I have ruled out the existence of faeries 100 percent.

you faeriephobic bigot, you.

 

The problem is with the fact that a Super Entity advanced enough to create the Universe including humans through an act of will, using methods beyond our understanding (or ability to understand) would likely not be interested in "mingling" with lower forms, like us.

 

Yeah, it would be like having an ant for a pet. Amusing for all of maybe - ten seconds?

From this, the only God-concept that would make sense is if humans are being evolved, or developed to become more powerful beings, over the next few thousand years using technology and so on. Add to that a few more million years of exponential development, where we are no longer really human, but kind of pseudo-gods in fact, now with the ability to even begin to be able to relate to the original creative super-entity.

 

 

Here's an interesting conjecture I heard a while back: fast-forward a few billion years. Humans, along with all other sentient life in the Universe, have evolved to the point of quantum telepathy, instantaneous mind-to-mind communication with other beings anywhere in space/time. Now fast-forward another 10¹⁰⁰ years, as we approach the heat death of the universe. All available energy/matter is being harnessed to complete the final step in melding the collective consciousness of the Universe, with a single goal in mind. In cosmic unison, the self-aware Universal sentience which now permeates all matter folds space/time into a massive hyperdimensional Klein bottle and says:

 

"Let there be light!"

 

 

Man, that's good grass.

 

*pfffffffffffffft!!*

 

whoah. Got any munchies?

[Googledotman]

This topic is full of win. Maybe you should see my topic on Dualism.

[dagnarus]

A reasonable and popular position that leaves the door open just a crack.

 

If I followed that logic I would be forced to be "agnostic" about so many things . . . fairies, demons, unicorns, and on and on. But that's just me. I'll settle on certain probabilities as being virtual certainties as a practical matter. If a concept is illogical and has no evidence supporting it, then I consider it to be someone's fantasy and I needn't make room for it in my life.

 

To me it is illogical that such a proposed creative entity could accidentally or incidentally create living, thinking creatures. It would be too intelligent and powerful, and would have complete knowledge of its own creation. In your example, you didn't create the barnacles, they already existed just migrated from elsewhere so I don't see an analogy. To make it work you would have to assume one creative entity made the physical universe, but another one created life without the knowledge of the first entity. And that's just as probable as the existence of fairies.

 

I'm Probably late in asking this. But when was it established that an entity capable of creating the universe would have to have complete knowledge of it own creation. Just because YWHW/ALLAH/some other god I don't know is all-knowing and all-powerful why does the creator of the universe have to be?

[Evolution_beyond]

If I followed that logic I would be forced to be "agnostic" about so many things . . . fairies, demons, unicorns, and on and on.

 

The obvious response to this is that it could be reasonable to be agnostic about fairies and unicorns. How do you know that there aren't creatures like these on other planets somewhere? It's not so improbable really.

[florduh]

But when was it established that an entity capable of creating the universe would have to have complete knowledge of it own creation.

In my mind, an entity that creates universes would logically have to know what it's doing. Otherwise, the "creation" would be a result of natural and random forces, not intelligence or design.

 

How do you know that there aren't creatures like these on other planets somewhere? It's not so improbable really.

Tough crowd! According to Cannabis Psychology 101, anything is theoretically possible. Everything isn't probable, however. To me it seems useless to embrace ideas such as "Just because nobody has ever seen or captured a fairy doesn't mean they don't exist" or "We could just be actors in somebody else's dream - how would we know?" or "Dragons are real and they can fly, even though nobody has actually seen one yet."

 

There's so much to discover in the real, existing universe. I won't waste any more time contemplating imaginary beings and scenarios that spring from bored or troubled minds.

[Guest Davka]

But when was it established that an entity capable of creating the universe would have to have complete knowledge of it own creation.

In my mind, an entity that creates universes would logically have to know what it's doing. Otherwise, the "creation" would be a result of natural and random forces, not intelligence or design.

I beg to differ. OK, I don't really beg, I just differ.

 

Hypothetically (boy is that an unnecessary way to start this sentence!), any being could create something without knowing it intimately. For example, I can build a chair without knowing the pattern of the hidden woodgrain inside each piece. I don't even have to understand the atomic or subatomic structure of the wood, or in fact even know that such things exist. All I need is to know how to shape wood and fasten hunks of it together.

 

I can easily imagine an advanced being capable of shaping space/time into a universe without needing to know the details of every sub-atomic particle. I can even imagine them kick-starting life in that universe without knowing exactly how it will turn out, or what the creatures that emerge are thinking. This would be a god more of the lower-case "g" type than YHWH, but a god nonetheless.

 

 

 

How do you know that there aren't creatures like these on other planets somewhere? It's not so improbable really.

Tough crowd! According to Cannabis Psychology 101, anything is theoretically possible. Everything isn't probable, however. To me it seems useless to embrace ideas such as "Just because nobody has ever seen or captured a fairy doesn't mean they don't exist" or "We could just be actors in somebody else's dream - how would we know?" or "Dragons are real and they can fly, even though nobody has actually seen one yet."

 

All of which are ideas batted around by every thinking young person at some time or another. But then we outgrow them in favor of more practical pursuits, such as retirement before 65, or the ever-popular sitting on your butt drinking a cold one theory of the Meaning of Life.

[florduh]

My turn to beg.

 

I beg to differ. OK, I don't really beg, I just differ.

 

Hypothetically (boy is that an unnecessary way to start this sentence!), any being could create something without knowing it intimately. For example, I can build a chair without knowing the pattern of the hidden woodgrain inside each piece. I don't even have to understand the atomic or subatomic structure of the wood, or in fact even know that such things exist. All I need is to know how to shape wood and fasten hunks of it together.

 

I can easily imagine an advanced being capable of shaping space/time into a universe without needing to know the details of every sub-atomic particle. I can even imagine them kick-starting life in that universe without knowing exactly how it will turn out, or what the creatures that emerge are thinking. This would be a god more of the lower-case "g" type than YHWH, but a god nonetheless.

 

I was under the impression we were discussing a 'First Cause' creative entity. A 'demigod' moving around parts that were created by something else is a different topic to me. In the chair you built, had you been the real creative force that made the universe, you also made the wood are are well aware of its grain. So, to me, any being or entity (including us) could build from existing parts, but I think the question is about what/who made a working universe for us and the demigods to play with. If something created everything, it must be familiar with all the details, for the small details are what makes it work as a cohesive universe.

 

Wanna hit?

[Guest Davka]

I was under the impression we were discussing a 'First Cause' creative entity. A 'demigod' moving around parts that were created by something else is a different topic to me. In the chair you built, had you been the real creative force that made the universe, you also made the wood are are well aware of its grain. So, to me, any being or entity (including us) could build from existing parts, but I think the question is about what/who made a working universe for us and the demigods to play with. If something created everything, it must be familiar with all the details, for the small details are what makes it work as a cohesive universe.

 

What if the first cause entity simply gave the singularity a good kick and stood back to see what would happen?

 

I'm postulating a being that exists outside of the time/space matrix, but which did not create that matrix, because the matrix always existed in one form or another.

 

Wanna hit?

 

Where the hell is the :bong: smiley when I need it?

[florduh]

What if the first cause entity simply gave the singularity a good kick and stood back to see what would happen?

That's heavy, man.

 

Okay then, what if? Is that first cause what you want to call 'god' or is it the thing that's manipulating that which the first cause already created? Is there a need to have something to call god?

 

I see things heading toward a hierarchy of gods; a creator that made it but doesn't know any details, perhaps another one that's in charge of planetary orbits, one who creates life from the existing basic stuff, and maybe one that makes Jesus appear on toast.

 

I really need that hit.

[par4dcourse]

When I want to see gawd I just play Black Sabbath backwards. With proper preparations, of course.

[Guest Davka]

I see things heading toward a hierarchy of gods; a creator that made it but doesn't know any details, perhaps another one that's in charge of planetary orbits, one who creates life from the existing basic stuff, and maybe one that makes Jesus appear on toast.

 

Holy Shit! God is a Mega-Corporation!

[oddbird1963]

If there is any tension here, isn't it resolved by saying that, epistemologically, the only correct position about god's existence is agnosticism while in terms of faith , one can be an atheist?

 

I can't know that there is a god, but I can't know that there isn't a god.

 

But, unless I get more evidence of his existence, I am not going to commit to a theistic form of religion or lifestyle.

 

That leaves room for postulating any number of god scenarios, but still allows me to credibly maintain that I'm an atheist.

[hereticzero]

The first cause may also have been an act of another universal law. What happens when two universes collide? They spawn another one. I saw a documentary one time about multi-universes. The big bang that created our universe could have been the result of two universe briefly touching the other. The big bang is a random act. The processes that govern our universe would also govern those universes. Evolution beginning with a bang, creates a universe that in time may collide with another universe and spawn a third universe. God is still not a factor.

[Guest Davka]

The first cause may also have been an act of another universal law. What happens when two universes collide? They spawn another one. I saw a documentary one time about multi-universes. The big bang that created our universe could have been the result of two universe briefly touching the other. The big bang is a random act. The processes that govern our universe would also govern those universes. Evolution beginning with a bang, creates a universe that in time may collide with another universe and spawn a third universe. God is still not a factor.

 

God doesn't need to be a factor, but positing that the big bang was the result of two universes colliding simply raises the question "where did those universes come from?" It's not an answer to the first cause question, not really.

 

There is an obvious answer to "where did everything come from," which is that something was always there. What that something is, well, that's open to speculation. It might be the multiverse. It might be space/time/matter, in some form or other. Theists say it's god, but that's just another way of saying that it's turtles all the way down.

[Shyone]

First cause arguments are passe' and well refuted for virtually every "type" of god. Every book on Atheism from "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith to "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" by Martin and many many others have torn this to shreds.

 

I'm not really up to it tonight, but please accept this off-the-cuff explanation which leaves out bunches of things.

 

1. Occam's razor

It's really sharp

 

2. "It's turtles all the way down."

If the universe requires a creator because it's so complex, then the creator must be more comples. Who created the creator?

 

3. The argument is self-refuting.

"If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false."

 

4. God of the gaps

Just because we don't know the origin of the universe does not give us "cause" to say it was anything in particular, and particularly not a "supernatural" invisible, undetectable, immaterial thing, must less a being.

 

5. So what?

A god that goes poof and then vanishes leaving natural processes over billions of years to result in every variety of astronomic phenomenon and chemical process (including life)? What kind of "god" is that? It is absolutely unwarranted to think this poofer listens to prayers and cares about your sex life. It is indeed a limited "god" that does so little over such a long time so inefficiently.

 

6. There is no evidence

There are no known supernatural causes of anything anywhere anytime. Talking about a supernatural cause is talking about nonsense. If something goes "Bang" in the night, the last thing you should think about is a ghost.

[Franko47]

It's interesting to note that our universe exists because of imperfection. Not everything was consumed in the initial singularity explosion; there was "stuff" left over. As well, the cause of the big bang may have been an imperfection in the "field relationships" between two universes of matter/anti-matter proportions.

 

Therefore, I'm taking the day off tomorrow.

 

 

It's interesting to note that theists always like to think of their "God" as being "perfect". But this is a terrifying subject, this perfectionism. The only perfect state would be a dead one. As long as there is interaction, there will be imperfection and error. Only a state of perfect stasis can enable perfection.

 

I'm cancelling my dentist appointment, too.

 

 

It may well be that all things that exist and evolve do so because of imperfection. So screw this perfection business. And even trying to work toward it. I'd rather just have cash.

 

Feet up, good music, some bong, some lovin', and an ice cold beer.

 

There's a reason we find this state to be perfect, cuz that's the way God wanted it.

 

Ergo, Davka is God.

 

Wait, that can't be right....

[Jedah]

If a god existed, I have accepted the fact that the idea of "one god" with some ultimate absolute consciousness is absurd. It wouldn't explain anything in this universe. IMO monotheism was created in order to simplify religion and make it easier for the flock to comprehend.