Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mello_

Why call him a God?

701 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
5 hours ago, danydandan said:

How exactly would you argue this?

My understanding it s that WCF figures time is eternal and every situation must play out again.

Not afterlife in the sense we are talking. Posibily even sillier.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Or not, since for all we know it's still the original creator who willed this to be :D

All we know does not support the idea of a creator. Nature illustrates a natural universe. The possibility of God actually existing is the same as it is for the tooth fairy existing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I believe in God, creator and intelligent designer of the universe.  I don't believe in organized religion or much of what any of them pedal.  I lean towards reincarnation and life being lessons to learn.  I don't believe in hell.

But all those beliefs were born from organised religions. Many dismiss the absurdities of the Bible for a personal reimagining without considering that the source of that new idea is just plagiarism. It's a step backwards IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

You don’t not open something because you are afraid that it is unprovable. Questions lead to speculation, speculation leads to Hypothesis, hypothesis leads to theory, theory leads to predictions that can be tested.  There are logical consequences to everything. Ultimately we should be able to test for many of the logical consequences of the theories that are closer to truth.     

Tentative hypotheses are far from being theories and require a modicum of peer support to reach that level. They're curious concepts and make for spirited discussion, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I believe in God, creator and intelligent designer of the universe.  I don't believe in organized religion or much of what any of them pedal.  I lean towards reincarnation and life being lessons to learn.  I don't believe in hell.

Then you and I are in almost complete agreement. Who would have thunk it?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
27 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

How would it affect everyday life? If there was reason to think that the simulation philosophy was a real possibility, how would it change anything?

The simulation might have a technical failure and erase us all. A very serious matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

We do know the power required for such a simulation would be beyond imagination. 

How is it not just replacing God with a technological God? 

How would it affect everyday life? If there was reason to think that the simulation philosophy was a real possibility, how would it change anything?

Actually, Psyche, if there is a Creator, admittedly the biggest "if" of all, that Creator may well operate within the known and yet to be known parameters of science. It's potential creation is a perfectly natural Universe where it would have no need to evade or supersede the natural laws it created. It just knows a hell of a lot more about it's creation and natural law than we do. Just a thought. The Universe, as a whole, is still yet beyond our comprehension, but we're working on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The simulation might have a technical failure and erase us all. A very serious matter.

We are all erased eventually, in the flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Actually, Psyche, if there is a Creator, admittedly the biggest "if" of all, that Creator may well operate within the known and yet to be known parameters of science. It's potential creation is a perfectly natural Universe where it would have no need to evade or supersede the natural laws it created. It just knows a hell of a lot more about it's creation and natural law than we do. Just a thought. The Universe, as a whole, is still yet beyond our comprehension, but we're working on it.

That's exactly what the simulation proponents posit too though.

I think if there was a god and it did operate withing the bounds of science, that there would even more likely be at least a hint of its existence, but as science marches on, only nature itself is standing up. Our creator ideas continue to shrink proportionally.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
25 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Tentative hypotheses are far from being theories and require a modicum of peer support to reach that level. They're curious concepts and make for spirited discussion, nothing more.

Hmmmm I didn’t say anything about “Tentative” If we are still on the same subject, I pointed out very clear logical consequences of simulation theory. There may be more. Being dismissive because it violates some fundamental bias isn’t science. In fact, it restricts the spirit of science. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Hmmmm I didn’t say anything about “Tentative” If we are still on the same subject, I pointed out very clear logical consequences of simulation theory. There may be more. Being dismissive because it violates some fundamental bias isn’t science. In fact, it restricts the spirit of science. ;) 

Simulation ideas are not science based, they are philosophy based.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry, not following the bolded. Could you explain further please.

Just as it says. I believe that if the computational power to run simulated worlds existed we would run millions. If that were the case the likelihood of being in the non simulated reality is slim. I choose to entertain that is the case. It’s the same logic I use when discussing aliens interacting with our planet. The numbers are against it. 

I cant say that we are living in a simulated reality I just think it’s fun too consider.  It’s not worth arguing about unless someone makes the unreasonable statement that it is absolutely not the case. It’s not unreasonable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's exactly what the simulation proponents posit too though.

I think if there was a god and it did operate withing the bounds of science, that there would even more likely be at least a hint of its existence, but as science marches on, only nature itself is standing up. Our creator ideas continue to shrink proportionally.

There is actually. Have you been reading the thread? Also. There needs to be a clear distinction between the words “science” and “nature.” Things don’t and never have operated within the bounds of science. People aspire to it, but it is so important not to confuse “science” with “nature”. Science is a human created process to determine truth in nature. It’s a dam good one, but by no means does nature conform to science. It’s the other way around actually. As a science lover myself , I am disappointed in the misuse of the term because it breeds a sort of fundamentallism that is counter to the process it was founded upon. 

Science is both limited and unlimited. It’s limited by the information we can prove, and unlimited in the imagination of things we can try to prove. The latter is how things are actually discovered. A focus on the former is point less. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Simulation ideas are not science based, they are philosophy based.

Incorrect. Simulation theory is originally based on probability, and as mentioned there is evidence in physics. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
29 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's exactly what the simulation proponents posit too though.

I think if there was a god and it did operate withing the bounds of science, that there would even more likely be at least a hint of its existence, but as science marches on, only nature itself is standing up. Our creator ideas continue to shrink proportionally.

Perhaps, unless we, ourselves are that evidence. Rise up a few hundred meters and look down and squint real hard and you can just make us out, tiny things, scurrying about, looking nothing more than like ants. Rise up a few kilometers and you can no longer see us, at all. We are tiny things in the grand scheme of things. Rise up a few hundred kilometers and look down at an immense world of blue oceans, fleecy white clouds and cool green hills. Earth, a garden world with a fortunately placed moon that churns the core and keeps our magnetosphere active, shielding life from deadly radiation and the atmosphere from erosion by the solar wind. Break orbit and look back from the region of the moon and see our world smaller and hanging magnificently, floating in the ocean of night.  Now, let us journey through deep space and take orbit around Mars, see it's desolate yet fascinating landscapes rotating below us in orbit. Look through a porthole opposite the planet and the sun in the direction of Earth and if you're lucky, you'll see Sagan's pale blue dot, itself so tiny in the grand pantheon of solar objects. Yet, on that world, floating in a sea of darkness, a lifeform unlike any that existed before has evolved. It's an unprecedented species that--unlike any other lifeform that ever existed, can engineer itself off planet and look back at it's home from the other side of the sky. It has already left footprints on another celestial body and the tracks of it's probes on others. It has evolved intelligence far in excess of any mere need for survival. Perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place. Perhaps the answers lie within the human species, not without. 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Just as it says. I believe that if the computational power to run simulated worlds existed we would run millions. If that were the case the likelihood of being in the non simulated reality is slim. I choose to entertain that is the case. It’s the same logic I use when discussing aliens interacting with our planet. The numbers are against it. 

I cant say that we are living in a simulated reality I just think it’s fun too consider.  It’s not worth arguing about unless someone makes the unreasonable statement that it is absolutely not the case. It’s not unreasonable.

The computational power to run a simulation of this magnitude and complexity would comprise far more than currently exists in all the universe.

As such, that probability is exceedingly slim.

I'm not sure why it's fun. As had been mentioned many times it's just a computer god idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
24 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Hmmmm I didn’t say anything about “Tentative” If we are still on the same subject, I pointed out very clear logical consequences of simulation theory. There may be more. Being dismissive because it violates some fundamental bias isn’t science. In fact, it restricts the spirit of science. ;) 

Not if "the spirit of science" is denial of science. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

There is actually. Have you been reading the thread? 

No there's not. I have participated in this thread and I'm not seeing any evidence of simulations or Gods. Where is it?

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Also. There needs to be a clear distinction between the words “science” and “nature.”

They are symbiotic.

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Things don’t and never have operated within the bounds of science. People aspire to it, but it is so important not to confuse “science” with “nature”. Science is a human created process to determine truth in nature. It’s a dam good one, but by no means does nature conform to science. It’s the other way around actually. As a science lover myself , I am disappointed in the misuse of the term because it breeds a sort of fundamentallism that is counter to the process it was founded upon.

Science is observation of nature. Human or not.

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Science is both limited and unlimited. It’s limited by the information we can prove, and unlimited in the imagination of things we can try to prove. The latter is how things are actually discovered. A focus on the former is point less. 

Imagination, theory and hypotheses can be, but not necessarily are springboards. Not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
23 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Incorrect. Simulation theory is originally based on probability, and as mentioned there is evidence in physics. 

Simulation theory was first proposed academically in 2003 by philosopher Nick Bostrom. Musings have existed for a long time, but a philosopher proposed the current model being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps, unless we, ourselves are that evidence. Rise up a few hundred meters and look down squint real hard and you can just make us out, tiny things, scurrying about, looking nothing more than like ants. Rise up a few kilometers and you can no longer see us, at all. We are tiny things in the grand scheme of things Rise up a few hundred kilometers and look down an immense world of blue oceans, fleecy white clouds and cool green hills. Earth, a garden world with a fortunately placed moon that churns the core and keeps our magnetosphere active, shielding life from deadly radiation and the atmosphere from erosion by the solar wind. Break orbit and look back from the region of the moon and see our world smaller and hanging magnificently, floating in the ocean of night.  Now, let us journey through deep space and take orbit around Mars, see it's desolate yet fascinating landscapes rotating below us in orbit. Look through a porthole opposite the planet and the sun in the direction of Earth and if you're lucky, you'll see Sagan's pale blue dot, itself so tiny in the grand pantheon of solar objects. Yet, on that world, floating in a sea of darkness, a lifeform unlike any that existed before has evolved. It's an unprecedented species that--unlike any other lifeform that ever existed, can engineer itself off planet and look back at it's home from the other side of the sky. It has already left footprints on another celestial body and the tracks of it's probes on others. It has evolved intelligence far in excess of any mere need for survival. Perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place. Perhaps the answers lie within the human species, not without. 

But then we soon right in and see that the eye is not a perfect creation. Our broken backs carry the process of evolution as do examples such as the laryngeal nerve in the neck of a giraffe. Long processes of development become obvious and we can see that life is trial and error, not the creation of a divine being 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But then we soon right in and see that the eye is not a perfect creation. Our broken backs carry the process of evolution as do examples such as the laryngeal nerve in the neck of a giraffe. Long processes of development become obvious and we can see that life is trial and error, not the creation of a divine being 

No, not human intelligence. It's the conundrum of human evolution. On the evolutionary scale, it developed in a brief spurt. less than three million years ago, a blink of the cosmic eye, nothing vaguely like it existed. No, man is an anomalous species and truly quite a piece of work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
58 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, not human intelligence. It's the conundrum of human evolution. On the evolutionary scale, it developed in a brief spurt. less than three million years ago, a blink of the cosmic eye, nothing vaguely like it existed. No, man is an anomalous species and truly quite a piece of work. 

But if it's wasn't us here today, it would be Neanderthal Man, if not Neanderthal Man, then it would have been Denisovians, if not then, another of the many hominid species. I don't think we are unique, I think we are a natural progression that was always going to happen no matter what or who.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But if it's wasn't us here today, it would be Neanderthal Man, if not Neanderthal Man, then it would have been Denisovians, if not then, another of the many hominid species. I don't think we are unique, I think we are a natural progression that was always going to happen no matter what or who.

No Psyche, we are pretty unique and until hominids evolved, nothing came close to what, eventually, became us. Our intelligence is an evolutionary anomaly. There's no reason for it to have evolved. Our simian kin get along just fine, without it as do all other animals. We are unique and even from a secular point-of-view, a fluke of nature. There was no manifest destiny for us to come into existence. It was either happy chance, or something more. We'll probably never agree, but that's just fine.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
32 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No Psyche, we are pretty unique and until hominids evolved, nothing came close to what, eventually, became us. Our intelligence is an evolutionary anomaly. There's no reason for it to have evolved. Our simian kin get along just fine, without it as do all other animals. We are unique and even from a secular point-of-view, a fluke of nature. There was no manifest destiny for us to come into existence. It was either happy chance, or something more. We'll probably never agree, but that's just fine.

Isn’t that fluke basically our brains grew, specifically the prefrontal cortex due to high amounts of protein? 
 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
36 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No Psyche, we are pretty unique and until hominids evolved, nothing came close to what, eventually, became us. Our intelligence is an evolutionary anomaly. There's no reason for it to have evolved. Our simian kin get along just fine, without it as do all other animals. We are unique and even from a secular point-of-view, a fluke of nature. There was no manifest destiny for us to come into existence. It was either happy chance, or something more. We'll probably never agree, but that's just fine.

Sure, we don't agree and that's fine. With so many species fighting to get to where we are, I just don't think we are special at all. Just the one that won this particular race. Other hominids were taking the same path we did with superstition, hunter gatherer traits and social skills like art. I really don't see why one of them would not be in our place had history been a little different. I don't see us as unique at all, just one of many.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.