Thought Experiment Regarding God

reply to post by ImaFungi

That was beautiful. Especially this part...

Oh you think the word "God" means mythical sky man, thats your own personal interpretation and understanding you know that right? You know that debunking the bible or quran does not debunk the existence of a God, if one created the universe?

I think I like the way you think.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

That was beautiful. Especially this part...

Oh you think the word "God" means mythical sky man, thats your own personal interpretation and understanding you know that right? You know that debunking the bible or quran does not debunk the existence of a God, if one created the universe?

I think I like the way you think.

Im not attempting to debunk anything here really (as it is not currently possible to do so). I thought this thread was about ideas? Sure, mythical sky man is my interpretation, and I am not alone in making that interpretation.

Is the universe the result of intelligent design? Well, I suppose if one was to invent a super being that is capable of such feats, you could, in theory, say that superbeing is capable of anything, including creating the universe and everything in it. However, I believe it to be one hell of an assumption.

Garbage in, garbage out. A long standing computer based maxim which essentially means if your basic premise if false, all assumptions based on that premise will also be false. Erroneous data. I understand this thread is not about whether or not there is a God, but there would need to be at least some basic agreement as to whether they existed or not in order to draw any conclusions. Otherwise all you are doung is making it up as you go along, and you will never come to any real conclusions.

You'll never get the to the truth when all you have to go on is speculation and heresy. You may as well be asking if a giant fish COULD have created the universe. The tone of this thread in general would suggest the answer is yes. Unless you can show that God isn't a giant fish. Or that it is impossible for a giant fish to have created the universe. I doubt anyone could disprove that a giant fish created the universe. Basically the whole premise is an absurdity. God, fish, God Fish.

Although, I suppose in an infinite universe, anything is possible. That's about as close to an answer you're likely to get.

The way i have always tried to view the universe and beyond comes back to the Socratic paradox, "I know that I know nothing" In my opinion any attempt to understand the world around is is only understanding our relative environment. This is a very tiny portion of "everything". Every question we answer ("we" meaning human kind) leads to more questions, and every breakthrough leads to more roadblocks and opportunities to expand our knowledge.

There is no one simple truth to the universe, we are living on an electron rotating around a nucleus that makes up a single atom. This atom is part of a larger molecule that is a part of an even larger structure that then leads to an even larger structure ad infinitum.

I believe this also works in the reverse direction. At the core of every atom humans examine lies a universe with its own rules and physics.

this continues on in both directions, with the only major difference being relative perspective. While we are looking at an atom through a very powerful microscope, so could another life form be looking at our universe/galaxy/solar system through their own very powerful microscope.

I believe it is our duty as life forms to make every attempt to understand our environment. Everything from the universe that surrounds us, to the protons and electrons that we are made of. In the grand scheme of things we are trying to dig out a mountain using a toothpick, but every tiny bit of progress is knowledge we did not have before.

Back on topic, to the op, Yes, i do think it is possible to have realities that are fundamentally different from our own, but i believe that would be the exception, not the rule. From our current understanding of the dynamics of matter, our current reality appears to be the norm.

But as i stated at the beginning of the post "I know that I know nothing" so i am open to any possibility.

DC

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

That was beautiful. Especially this part...

Oh you think the word "God" means mythical sky man, thats your own personal interpretation and understanding you know that right? You know that debunking the bible or quran does not debunk the existence of a God, if one created the universe?

I think I like the way you think.

Im not attempting to debunk anything here really (as it is not currently possible to do so). I thought this thread was about ideas? Sure, mythical sky man is my interpretation, and I am not alone in making that interpretation.

Is the universe the result of intelligent design? Well, I suppose if one was to invent a super being that is capable of such feats, you could, in theory, say that superbeing is capable of anything, including creating the universe and everything in it. However, I believe it to be one hell of an assumption.

Garbage in, garbage out. A long standing computer based maxim which essentially means if your basic premise if false, all assumptions based on that premise will also be false. Erroneous data. I understand this thread is not about whether or not there is a God, but there would need to be at least some basic agreement as to whether they existed or not in order to draw any conclusions. Otherwise all you are doung is making it up as you go along, and you will never come to any real conclusions.

You'll never get the to the truth when all you have to go on is speculation and heresy. You may as well be asking if a giant fish COULD have created the universe. The tone of this thread in general would suggest the answer is yes. Unless you can show that God isn't a giant fish. Or that it is impossible for a giant fish to have created the universe. I doubt anyone could disprove that a giant fish created the universe. Basically the whole premise is an absurdity. God, fish, God Fish.

Although, I suppose in an infinite universe, anything is possible. That's about as close to an answer you're likely to get.

edit on 2-3-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)

I guess you missed my reply to you, oh well.

So you think its impossible for an intelligent being to have created this universe? Meaning that you think it most certainly, just exists.

If you think there is a possibility an intelligent being created this universe then we are not arguing.

If you think there is no possibility an intelligent being created this universe, id like to hear why you think so, and id like to hear what you think the universe is and what its deal could be? Do you think this is the only universe?

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
The way i have always tried to view the universe and beyond comes back to the Socratic paradox, "I know that I know nothing" In my opinion any attempt to understand the world around is is only understanding our relative environment. This is a very tiny portion of "everything". Every question we answer ("we" meaning human kind) leads to more questions, and every breakthrough leads to more roadblocks and opportunities to expand our knowledge.

There is no one simple truth to the universe, we are living on an electron rotating around a nucleus that makes up a single atom. This atom is part of a larger molecule that is a part of an even larger structure that then leads to an even larger structure ad infinitum.

I believe this also works in the reverse direction. At the core of every atom humans examine lies a universe with its own rules and physics.

this continues on in both directions, with the only major difference being relative perspective. While we are looking at an atom through a very powerful microscope, so could another life form be looking at our universe/galaxy/solar system through their own very powerful microscope.

I believe it is our duty as life forms to make every attempt to understand our environment. Everything from the universe that surrounds us, to the protons and electrons that we are made of. In the grand scheme of things we are trying to dig out a mountain using a toothpick, but every tiny bit of progress is knowledge we did not have before.

Back on topic, to the op, Yes, i do think it is possible to have realities that are fundamentally different from our own, but i believe that would be the exception, not the rule. From our current understanding of the dynamics of matter, our current reality appears to be the norm.

But as i stated at the beginning of the post "I know that I know nothing" so i am open to any possibility.

DC

edit on 3/2/2013 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I assume that this universe is a singular related system, based on the observation of regularity,laws, and similarity between constituents (atoms, subatomic particles)...

This universe is a system composed of these interrelated parts which are thought to have come into existence together at a specific instant. I am thinking about if it is physically possible for an intelligent being to have created this universal system, and using things we know about this reality and system, what could be some possible ways this God would have created this universe. I am wondering if God existed in a more fundamental reality beyond this contained universe, what the nature in regards to energy/matter and space could this universe be; would our energy/matter have to have been drawn from his realm in some way, like we take crude oil and refine it to burn in engines to make novel mechanisms, or use electrons to power things that do things that would other wize never happen... could god have used materials from his realm, to create a system contained and completely different from his realm... I know it is an annoying topic and idea, but im basically trying to scientifically and technologically speculate about God, because if there is a God that created this universe, it most likely was restricted by laws and quantity like all systems that can potentially exist... its why the universe has a speed of light limit, its why the universe has any laws, its why magic doesnt exist.. because every thing that exists is demanded to follow laws,. Unless, can we fathom a reality in which causality doesnt exist, unless we can fathom a reality with no history of logical time (causal time), I dont think it is possible, but I dont know, because of the scale and massive quantity of stuff in this universe, there are many nooks and crannies for novelty to exist, life on earth for instance, there are 130 different kinds of atoms or so, given time and energy look at all the different ways these atoms can combine with one another, to form all the compounds and molecules and simple biology and beyond, to every animal and plant thats ever lived, and all the experiences its contained, to mankind and what they are capable of...

reply to post by threewisemonkeys

Garbage in, garbage out. A long standing computer based maxim which essentially means if your basic premise if false, all assumptions based on that premise will also be false.

I was a digital tech for a number of years and understand GIGO quite well.

A circuit board outputs garbage because IT garbled the input. The input (me typing on the keyboard) was not garbled . The computer read it garbled. Understand the difference?

Like tracking an animal in the woods, one must read trail sign to find the source of the track. I follow that trail and it leads me to the source. I know that deer makes a certain kind of track and I follow that.

Life leaves its track all around us. It isn't hard to extrapolate from the evidence that life came from somewhere else.

Follow the sign. I track an animal to its nest and find an egg. I track a flower to its seed... I track a human to the womb. The womb to an egg, to DNA, to...

whoops. Thats where the trail ends every time. Guess what? This source is not trackable any further. It is not from here.

Everything beyond that is made up by as many religious, scientific and philosophical experts as there are genres for them. Keep it simple. Don't make stuff up. Say... I don't know where it (life) is from or who made it.

Edit to add: Its okay to admit we don't know. Cause we don't. Not really anyway. It does not make one less than to state that. Although religious people will tell you they know and scientists will tell you that they know too. And set out to prove it too. I listen and think they are just repeating what they have heard from someone else. If they repeat it often enough they will believe it more. If they write books about it and give long speeches from the pulpit or podium, then they think are making it more "truthful".

I just hear a lot of blah blah that boils down to either "slime molds" or "mysterious sky man".

I ain't buying either anymore. I am done with both.

I think the reason that anyone has trouble relating to God is because we all try to imagine to much about what God is or what God isn't. Look at a caterpillar and at least you have some idea what it would be like to be one. But to imagine something you have never seen or heard or touched or tasted or whatever, gives way to imagination that guides anyone to a realm of make believe. We are living proof that life goes on even after death because we only see what we want to see. We can't actually see death because death is a meaning to one of life's many ways of dealing with our existence in this dimension but says nothing about what lies ahead. Just as life was before any of us was born into this world, we knew not of this origin that is up until the day we were born into existence here. Now ask me what to expect after we all die and leave our bodies behind? That is too me a gift, of not knowing. Like waking up on Christmas morning. Not to say I know whats coming but I know where I've been because I'm here now but someday I won't and then....

I know. That made about as much sense as opening up a bag of chips and finding out that there's cracker jacks inside.

When I see other animals like Frogs, Birds, etc, I can feel how peaceful they are.
They don't have to think of the creation.
They are (Almost) totally free from any prison (if some people don't catch them for lab experiment or zoo)

We are the only animals, who worry so much about the creation

What I believe is:
This world will always exists between infinite number of big bangs and big crunches.
It will always be. No creator.
Another billion years after the next creation, some of us and new souls will probably be here again writing this kind of post and continue the discussions

Originally posted by Tomylong
I know. That made about as much sense as opening up a bag of chips and finding out that there's cracker jacks inside.

Nope, made perfect sense

Originally posted by dodol
When I see other animals like Frogs, Birds, etc, I can feel how peaceful they are.
They don't have to think of the creation.
They are (Almost) totally free from any prison (if some people don't catch them for lab experiment or zoo)

We are the only animals, who worry so much about the creation

What I believe is:
This world will always exists between infinite number of big bangs and big crunches.
It will always be. No creator.
Another billion years after the next creation, some of us and new souls will probably be here again writing this kind of post and continue the discussions

edit on 3-3-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

Interesting. The reason we worry about creation is because thats how we can transcend our animal nature. Sure we can spend millions of generations rolling in the mud and being animals, and thats what the animals do and thats what the monkeys did, but when we discovered there is opportunity to know, and use that knowledge to create,change,innovate, progress, and these actions were rewarded with better living conditions and more freedom for expression, more leisure most likely as well, there was no looking back.

It would be nice if that was true, then there would be no meaning or purpose, nothing would matter, no consequence, no need to learn or grow,...that would also kind of be sad then wouldnt it? Would you rather live a life, acquire skills and knowledge and then forever die, and be reborn as a baby to start over (or an animal)? Wouldnt it be cooler if there was more too it, more to learn and know and do? or maybe you wouldnt mind being reborn a baby if it was on other planets with life each time, just to get a feel for all the potential variety.

It would be nice if that was true, then there would be no meaning or purpose, nothing would matter, no consequence, no need to learn or grow,...that would also kind of be sad then wouldnt it? Would you rather live a life, acquire skills and knowledge and then forever die, and be reborn as a baby to start over (or an animal)? Wouldnt it be cooler if there was more too it, more to learn and know and do? or maybe you wouldnt mind being reborn a baby if it was on other planets with life each time, just to get a feel for all the potential variety.

Sad? You shouldn't be sad about it, my friend

We always learn in every life and the first thing to learn in this human body is basic language, names.
(In the new creation, maybe we would not call ourselves human any more... maybe different name for us, different shape/body, who knows maybe we would be talking dragons)
And soon we need to learn maths, physics, religions, etc, depend on the environment we grow up with.
But the ultimate learning program, is the most basic: self-realization, which most people don't pay attention to it (including myself)
After that the only wise thing left to learn, IMHO, is: to learn to make the world we live in better and better. Liberate more people.

After self-realization is completed, everyone always says that Birth and Death becomes illusion. That probably means we no longer identified ourselves with the baby and the death people our souls are 'attached to'
Maybe it becomes like watching movies or playing Virtual Sims

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


(just for fun, to think about) If it was proven to you tomorrow 100% without a doubt God exists and created the universe, would that have any affect on you? Would that change the way you view yourself,others,reality? What do you think of yourself and reality now?

One way of looking at it is that emotions fundamentally are objective.

Saying for example that God is Love, being literal. Suggesting that there is some aspect to reality where what we treat as objective, their is subjective. In Classical Physics everything is very ordered while in Quantum Physics everything appears to be Random, a difference being us. and our feelings

Quarks and Leptons and Neutrino's by what is a common definition, do not have feelings. But each of us is made entirely of Quarks and Leptons and Neutrino's, that because of conditions inherent in this Universe for life.

Emotions are really important to survival and one should not ignore the potential for life in this Universe as a factor.

Caring about survival is a feeling.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
One way of looking at it is that emotions fundamentally are objective.

Saying for example that God is Love, being literal. Suggesting that there is some aspect to reality where what we treat as objective, their is subjective. In Classical Physics everything is very ordered while in Quantum Physics everything appears to be Random, a difference being us. and our feelings

Quarks and Leptons and Neutrino's by what is a common definition, do not have feelings. But each of us is made entirely of Quarks and Leptons and Neutrino's, that because of conditions inherent in this Universe for life.

Emotions are really important to survival and one should not ignore the potential for life in this Universe as a factor.

Caring about survival is a feeling.

Any thoughts?

Interesting. Do you think there are animals which do not emote to the levels we do, or some at all really? An alligator for instance, or a mosquito, it seems like they are just machines, where as taking time and energy to produce emotions would be anti beneficial to their (alligator for example) existence of being biggest,baddest, dominating territory, eating and sleeping when and where it wants.

Also is their a distinction between very real feelings like pain, which are caused directly by external actions usually coming in contact with you, like getting your arm ripped off, or falling into a fire pit. And the difference between the feeling of falling in love, or getting dumped by a girl and so you feel pain. Feelings like happiness, is this real? is this valuable , is it objective, is it an illusion? Can a man be born and go his whole life without being happy, yet still enjoy his life and find meanings and purpose, and live (or is that happiness?), does happiness have to be smiling and laughing and giddy? Can someone who laughs often and smiles and is giddy be miserable throughout their life? Do animals enjoy their existence, are they content, do they deal with existence and do they live successfully...is this happiness?

reply to post by ImaFungi


When you are feeling happy certain process's are occuring in the brain. They are mechanism, of what you experience as happiness. For me these processes are also non-random events occuring in a quantum random environment (at least as far as we understand it). Chemicals in the brain change position and while that movement is a very short distance but nonetheless, these changes are measurable.

If we can measure them and with respect to quanta there is no real reason to consider that the effect could also be measurable. EPR Paradox and Bells Theorem place no real restriction upon the effect a change in position, will effect all other particles created at the same time. In a random environment the effect is random.

But in a random environment where non-random fluctuations occur.?? I feel that fundamentally this manner is relevant to serious investigation.

There are other issues like Virtual Strange Quarks the blink in and out of reality as we understand it and are integral of the structure of the proton. Electron spin has the potential to provide information about the past in the present.

In relation to animals. insects and even certain studies related to plants. the mechanics of happiness do occur.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

When you are feeling happy certain process's are occuring in the brain. They are mechanism, of what you experience as happiness. For me these processes are also non-random events occuring in a quantum random environment (at least as far as we understand it). Chemicals in the brain change position and while that movement is a very short distance but nonetheless, these changes are measurable.

If we can measure them and with respect to quanta there is no real reason to consider that the effect could also be measurable. EPR Paradox and Bells Theorem place no real restriction upon the effect a change in position, will effect all other particles created at the same time. In a random environment the effect is random.

But in a random environment where non-random fluctuations occur.?? I feel that fundamentally this manner is relevant to serious investigation.

There are other issues like Virtual Strange Quarks the blink in and out of reality as we understand it and are integral of the structure of the proton. Electron spin has the potential to provide information about the past in the present.

In relation to animals. insects and even certain studies related to plants. the mechanics of happiness do occur.

Any thoughts?

Cool. Do you think emotions are necessary to exist? Can one enjoy existence without emotions, or is enjoyment an emotion? Can you imagine a robot seeing purpose and meaning in certain things, having desiree to accomplish tasks or explore areas of potential, all without having a mechanism for emotion? Is Spock emotionless? It would be hard enough defining emotion in general. It could be closely related to thought, it could be closely related to existing as an entity which can experience pain and die, thus instilling natural senses or instincts such as fear, and the need to survive at all costs.. but these arent really emotions. Its a tough area to think about; depends on a lot of things.

Also in general nature doesnt really care about emotions. The antelope being happy or jealous is of no consequence when it is being chased by a lion. At the same time, in smaller areas of focusable nature, we can see that emotion does play a role, like between members of a species, a lot of what is possible in human civilization is because of emotions. Also emotions probably play a role for all animals when it comes to finding a dealing with a mate, and looking after, caring for and raising a child.

reply to post by ImaFungi


What is happening in an Alligators brain when he or she is feeding? Does a housefly respond to what in general houseflies eat, the same way a human that eats meat, responds to a Lobster and New York Strip Dinner?

Do houseflies have endorphins?

Consider the issue of transfer...

I have a feeling ,so what are the effects in relation to the mechanics of this feeling at the quantum level?

The problem of how mind and matter are related to each other has many facets

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

What is happening in an Alligators brain when he or she is feeding? Does a housefly respond to what in general houseflies eat, the same way a human that eats meat, responds to a Lobster and New York Strip Dinner?

Do houseflies have endorphins?

Consider the issue of transfer...

I have a feeling so what are the effect in relation to the mechanics of this feeling at the quantum level?

Well now that gets real complex, because im not sure if consciousness is emerging from the quantom level, or the atomic level. Im not sure how memories are stored, chemicals?molecules? digital information? electromagnetically? because information thats known in the mind and a persons personality they have created by the second since they were born has alot to do with emotions.

Ok lets make an example... Eating an apple makes you happy. you are sitting in a field, relaxing. you see an apple tree. your memories of the taste of an apple and smell and how much you like come ripple through your mind, and you start heading towards the tree. You get there and grab an apple and take a bite, the chemicals of the apple touch your tastebuds which send signals to your tongue before you even swallow and you recognize this taste and regardless of that, are tuned to enjoy this taste, so because this is good and not bad, the act of biting this apple, allows your brain to reward itself with certain chemicals that say "good job, you are eating something good and tasty, keep up the good work, you deserve these good feelings right now"...
Of course happiness is much more complex then that. Now if happiness is just a chemical, if we could talk about 'rugs' then we can ask if we were chemically made happy at all moments of our life, would the feeling of happy =happy still? Also we can discuss chemicals,memories, feelings, consciousness, and how those things relate to the dream state.

Please watch this video