At what point...

[ProHypster]

Pray tell how by force of will and intention that in this container (in which there is nothing), we bring something into being.

 

I'll explain it to you immediately after you explain how God got there.

 

Because the truth is, whatever explanation works for God will work for the universe.

 

(Except for the fact that current mathematical theory - which I will admit is wayyy beyond me, and I'm not going to drag a theoretical physicist in here to explain it to laypeople - suggests that thanks to how incredibly WEIRD the universe gets on the quantum scale, it may just be possible for the universe to have created itself. Wiki m-theory if you have to.)

As I said before, God exists, the only question should be what god is and whether there is a point in our life. And since there is so many fake messages from "gods" left on earth I believe that either god is intelligent and omniscent but diverted us from the truth with all these messages on purpose or that god is not intelligent and omniscent but rather a law/rule/force that drives our universe to be.

[Doom Shepherd]

I'll explain it to you immediately after you explain how God got there.

 

Because the truth is, whatever explanation works for God will work for the universe.

 

(Except for the fact that current mathematical theory - which I will admit is wayyy beyond me, and I'm not going to drag a theoretical physicist in here to explain it to laypeople - suggests that thanks to how incredibly WEIRD the universe gets on the quantum scale, it may just be possible for the universe to have created itself. Wiki m-theory if you have to.)

Well, God is in all things, so God creating the universe could easily appear to an outside viewer as the universe creating itself...

 

Or vice-versa.

[Doom Shepherd]

I believe that either god is intelligent and omniscent but diverted us from the truth with all these messages on purpose

The word for that would be "evil."

 

or that god is not intelligent and omniscent but rather a law/rule/force that drives our universe to be.

The descriptive phrase for that would be "not a god at all."

 

 

Though I believe someone once found a compromise position. Check out this quote from "Babylon 5" about the religious beliefs of the Minbari...

 

"We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way that we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the universe trying to understand itself."

 

Or later in the series, what G'Kar says:

 

"If I take a lamp, and shine it towards the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume that the light on the wall is God. But the light is not the goal of the search. It is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the sense of revalation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing.

 

"What we perceive as God, is mearly the by-product of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, put and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume we are the centre of the universe - God looks astonishingly like we do. Or we turn to look at our shadow - and assume that all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose. Which is to use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all it's beauty and in all its flaws, and in so doing better understand the world around us".

[ProHypster]

Well as I said, I call both god as I refer to god as the drive/cause of our universe in which case it can be various things.

 

I do this because there is no "word" like "god" in science to the cause and drive of our world, also because most people understand me this way.

 

I stated this before, that very many disagreements come because of the misunderstanding of the word "God", it's really the biggest mistake in the english language. The three official defintions of "God" contradict each other in certain ways.

 

But I use this word, as I said, because there is only one such word for the thing (drive, reason, and cause behind life) unless you can provide me an alternative scientific word. We don't know what it is scientifically hence maybe the loose definition.

 

EDIT: Also as I understand the third position is in our head so it doesn't count.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Blue]

Where God came from, how he came into being, why and what he is are all the questions which inevitably lead those who don't believe in him to sneer at the simple fact that we don't and can't know, as if that single bit of information is reason enough to damn the entire system of belief.

[ProHypster]

Where God came from, how he came into being, why and what he is are all the questions which inevitably lead those who don't believe in him to sneer at the simple fact that we don't and can't know, as if that single bit of information is reason enough to damn the entire system of belief.

 

And that is the first theory.....

[Blue]

Well there's the other theory that he always was, is, and always will be.

But that's not the point of this discussion, now is it?

[ProHypster]

But we can't discuss this subject unless we understand what god is and since that will bring a debate of atheists vs theists here I am out of here, it was a nice start while it lasted hehe....

[Blue]

Well let's re-rail it, shall we?

Currently we're at level 1 on the Kardashev scale of Civilization technological advancement whereby we're only using a small percentage of a small planet's total energy, putting us at about 0.7.

The power of a God would obviously be able to exploit power at equal to or greater than 3 (that is, able to put to work all or more than the energy in a single galaxy that is about the same size of the Milky Way).

As it stands, for our species, a travel time of more than four years in space travelling at high speed, or waiting several thousand years for it to be closer, it still presents a fantastic logistical problem traveling to our closest neighboring star (Alpha or Proxima Centari). A God would have very easy time being able to bridge such distances as galaxies (hundreds of thousands, even millions of lightyears apart).

[Flyingamerboy]

i think by the year 3000 maybe?

[Dr. Derpy Hooves Ph.D]

i think by the year 3000 maybe?

[Flyingamerboy]

what the hell.....

[Axeldeath]

Last post was more than a month ago FGB, you necroposted on a dead thread.

[Flyingamerboy]

????

[Axeldeath]

How to put it simpler... hmm...

 

You make post long time after last person post.

This is known as "necroposting".

Necroposting is annoying.

 

Don't understand something, Google it.

[Flyingamerboy]

how is it annoying!?

i still think by the year 3000 maybe

[Blue]

By 3000 AD what? We reach 1 on the Kardashev scale? We exceed 3?

[J.C.]

How to put it simpler... hmm...

You make post long time after last person post.

This is known as "necroposting".

Necroposting is annoying.

Don't understand something, Google it.

 

Well, if he has a real interest in this and others follow suit, I have no problem with it.

 

Perhaps this thread is better suited in the serious topic discussion zone?

[Flyingamerboy]

i think your right this should be in the serious topic discussion zone.