Religion
Related: About this forumWhat if God's existence were proven without doubt? Good or bad?
I'm an agnostic and I've encountered two basic excuses, why the demand to proof God's existence is wrong: 1. His existence cannot be proven by logic, because this approach neglects believe. 2. His existence cannot be proven by means of this universe as he transcends it.
I recently stumbled on an interesting thesis: That we only worship God, because he's removed from us. We would stop worshiping God as soon as his existence is proven, as soon as he's no longer mysterious.
Assume there were a repeatable scientific experiment that would prove the existence of God (or at least leads to his existence as the most sensible explanation).
Would religion still work?
"And the same God who revealed himself through the HAZ9-experiment in a density-fluctuation spoke to Moses..."
Would people be willing to believe that this is their God, even though he matches their respective teaching's description only in a general sense?
What would be the difference between praying to him and asking a really powerful human for a favor?
"I'm sorry, he's in a meeting. You can't talk to God right now. Don't call us, we'll call you."
Would people treat him like a celebrity?
Would they try to analyze his personality?
Would they try to win his endorsement for their candidate/cause/product?
Would people be less willing to claim that he had endorsed them when he in fact had not?
Would be people try to co-opt him, to possess him, to force themselves onto him, to make themselves part of his world by collecting memorabilia?
"I'm his biggest fan! I got a tattoo with his name! And I bought the Limited-Edition God-pillows! Nobody but me really understands him!"
Would people fear this uncontrollable force?
Would people get jealous towards God, because he's powerful and they are not?
Would people try to take advantage of God?
Would people try to kill God?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...if we were to entertain the idea that it could happen, then the fact that it could happen would be good. Accurate knowledge about the state of the universe you live in is always good. Period. Regardless of whether anyone thinks that knowledge itself is something they're happy about or not.
I don't like the fact that gravity will kill me if I jump off a cliff... but it's good for me to know it.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Scientists are pragmatists: If an explanation works, they keep it. As soon as it fails, they kick it out. What those explanations are is irrelevant to them.
But what if "I have found my God!" becomes "I have found your God!" ?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Based on the sum of human history, odds are that unless this test we are speaking of turned up a version of "God" that happened to match the one they already wanted to believe in, odds are they wouldn't and would just keep making the same claims about their deity or choice regardless. As usual.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you hold that an omnipotent being, that wishes to be known to us, would fail to make itself known to us? That it would be beyond an omnipotent being's power, to make itself known to us?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)In order to consider the question of an omnipotent magical being you have to allow for the existence of things like unlimited magical powers in the universe. And as soon as you've done that any talk of "proof" is shot to hell.
Ok, so something happens and it ispresented to you as some all powerful deity doing something spectacular... like, oh, levitating a mountain for you while spelling it's name in the sky with stars.
Wow!!! Proof God exists!!!! Right?
Tell me how you prove that was God, and not a trickster wizard casting a spell on your to make you think it happened. You know, since we're saying magic exists now. As just one among an infinite number of equally likely possibilities which are impossible to assess as soon as you allow the existence of limitless magic powers to be considered at all.
See the problem?
(And please don't quibble over the definition of "magic". Anything calling itself a universe creating deity would by definition need to be possessed of powers that transcended all the physical laws of said universe. That's functionally magic whether someone wants to call it that or not)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which is a valid line of logic, I suppose, but when your premise is that we can't know anything for sure, then this is ALL academic.
Also, if I accept the magic premise, that does not imply that non-omnipotent beings can employ said magic. But you raised a good point.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Which is a valid line of logic, I suppose, but when your premise is that we can't know anything for sure, then this is ALL academic. "
...of limitless magic powers in the first place is irrational. Once you've done that you've basically thrown reason out the window and declared it's time for make believe, since anyone can just make up any magical explanation they want and they'll all be equally valid and immune to testing or verification. (Which also goes for arbitrarily declaring that only God can use these magic powers... there's no possible way to back that up or prove it either)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think it follows that such a being be irrational to us.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)God is a giant walking, talking phallice.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)There will never be proof of god so why discuss what if about something with no if?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)
unblock
(52,243 posts)stating that god will never be proven to exist is not a prediction about the future so much as a statement about the definitions involved.
put another way, if some being were to be proven to exist, be omnipotent, and perhaps be proven to have created the universe, some would say that in that moment of proof he would cease to be a god and merely be a remarkably powerful being.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That seems like another way of ascribing a limitation to a purportedly omnipotent being.
I don't understand how one could assume or assert ANY limitation on an omnipotent being. Literally nothing is beyond an actually omnipotent being.
unblock
(52,243 posts)god is stuck with this omnipotence thing, he just can't get rid of it, no matter what he does? seems like you're ascribing a limitation on god's omnipotence.
in any event, i'm not ascribing a limitation on the being. i'm just discussing the words we use to describe things. i'm not saying that were god proven that he would cease to be, or have any limitations, i'm just saying there are those who would say we would have to use a different word to describe him because his existence is no longer unprovable.
another question. could god prove that he *doesn't* exist? surely if he has no limitations to his omnipotence, he can do that, right?
so if i have it on the ultimate authority that god could, if he chose to, come down and prove to all of us that he doesn't exist, why wouldn't i be an atheist? 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I assume god can get rid of it, yet retain it. I assume god can duplicate itself, live on as the duplicate and destroy the original. I assume it can strip itself of it's own powers. You bet. All of that.
After all, god is the special pleading entity that transcends this universe, right? The exception.
I do assume that an omnipotent being could prove it doesn't exist while existing, you bet. That act/desire by said being would translate into a non-existent god for our perception, yes. And you would be perfectly right in being an atheist in that case. For us, said god wouldn't exist if god existed, was omnipotent, and desired to arrange things that way.
unblock
(52,243 posts)if god is a walking contradiction, he's 2+2=5 as well as 2+2=4, he's both true and false, he both exists and doesn't, he's can create an object so heavy he can't lift it, yet he can also lift it, ....
well, that's not a being. that's just an answer that ignores the question, like a child who answers "yes" to any question you ever care to ask him.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are similar non-logical conundrums we've already discovered the mechanics to in quantum theory.
If I thought there was a god, I think I would be required to assume it not obey our preconceptions by it's very nature. I would answer the 'can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it' with 'yes, and then lift it anyway.'.
unblock
(52,243 posts)it's meaningless to say he both cannot lift it and can lift it anyway.
to say that god can create a system where exactly one of two paths is true, yet also both and neither or them are also true, is not to say we don't understand god. it says you don't understand the question, or don't understand logic, or don't understand the meaning of words, or simply are refusing to be genuinely responsive.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I view it as literally allowing such logically-impossible contradictions to simultaneously be true.
The fact that I cannot conceive of such a situation logically doesn't even indicate to me that omnipotence is impossible, unfortunately. I don't rate it likely, because I don't rate the existence of such all-powerful exceptions to the universe as being likely either.
But I have to allow the possibility, however remote it may seem.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to say impossible things will never happen. That's the definition of an impossible thing.
There will also never be a square circle, making that statement requires no fortune telling powers either.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)People like to say Jesus did this. Others though just insist that his ordinary quality suggests he was not entirely God. Just 1/3 of the Trinity at best. Or not God at all. But a different guy: "Jesus." Or nobody at all; just fiction.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...how a single word you just wrote relates to the topic at hand. That being if someone could ever PROVE said omnipotent being existed. Not whether it would be boring.
Before you suggest it's arrival would constitute such proof, see post 30.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)"I recently stumbled on an interesting thesis: That we only worship God, because he's removed from us. We would stop worshiping God as soon as his existence is proven, as soon as he's no longer mysterious." Proven, on earth ... and thus ordinary; in the sense of being explicable and mundane, etc. Some say the partially powerless Jesus is an example of this.
But would God's arrival in fuller powers, not constitute such a proof? It is possible that over the short run, a false god with great powers might deceive many. However? The Bible suggested that would only be short term. While the arrival of a greater being/God with greater powers; who by his greater powers would make his own greater deity evident.
By in effect, greater powers.
So? The whole discussion of a nundane/unimpressive God on earth is useless speculation.
Then too, a real god on earth would still be inexplicably complex to mere mortals; and therefore, still mysterious.
In sum: if God was not mysterious, then he would have to be in some ways relatively ordinary. But if ordinary, then he would not be God.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...see post 30. That's three - zero.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=127474
No, no demonstration of any level of power could possibly constitute proof of God's existence. As explained clearly in the link. Unless you would like to explain how, once you have decided that "something just used magical powers" is an acceptable explanation for any observation, you then proceed to prove that that something was an all powerful deity and not a diabolical wizard casting an illusion spell on you or something. Go ahead, have fun trying.
Once you go down the road of declaring that the supernatural is a valid explanation of anything you have thrown any hope of being able to prove *anything* out the window, because all the rules of evidence upon which proof is based require the natural physical laws of the universe not to be able to be violated at will. Embracing the supernatural is discarding reason and evidence... and thus any concept of "proof".
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Response from believer: "But, magic! Therefore your test is invalid! God can defy your feeble human test conditions at will!!!!"
There is no proving or disproving when you throw all reason and rationality out the window, and that happens the second you permit the supernatural into the discussion.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)But it might be that the historical biblical God is not quite so all-powerful. Often he changes his mind, many say for example. Scholars suggest he is quite testy, because he is based on all-too-human kings.
So suppose that the ancient God is not therefore quite entirely omnipotent, with limitless magical powers, as all that. And consider that he claims not to "deceive" us, and has other limited defined qualifies and so forth. Then could THAT god therefore be proven wrong?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The defining characteristic of SUPERnatural being that it defies the basic natural physical laws of the universe. If you throw those away by assuming the supernatural to be a valid hypothesis then you destroy any ability to evaluate evidence since evaluations require those laws to be in effect.
It is the abandonment of reason and rationality in favor of make believe..
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Another classic argument is:
There seems to be something an "all-powerful" god can't do: can an all-powerful god make a rock so heavy, that he can't lift it? If not - then he is not all-powerful.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It's just playing with words to say "can God do something he can't do" or "Can God be more powerful than himself"?
The wording of the question is rigged so that there can't be an answer that doesn't involve imposing an apparent limitation on God's abilities... but that's just word games not a real argument.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Can God create a square circle? Can an all-powerful being, make something so heavy he can't lift it? That's basically a logical contradiction.
If you assert that he CAN, then you've utterly abandoned Reason. While parts of the Bible itself seem to endorse reason: "come let us reason together," etc..
This widely-accepted critique therefore actually seems to compliment your notion. The notion that fans of an all-powerful God have to abandon reason, would be directly related to your idea; that accepting a totally supernatural God, who can do anything, even irrational things, abandons all intelligent thought. It's just that we are being more specific here: it abandons Reason itself.
By the way, here another very common criticism of the all-powerful god: God is said to be all powerful. And he is said to be "good." And God is said to have created all things. But if God created all things, then God created the Devil, and evil too. So now we have what is famously called "The Problem of Evil." That is: why would an all-good and all-powerful being, have created evil?
These criticisms of an all-powerful God still seem pretty good. Though so far to be sure to be sure, I like your related criticism better. Is it entirely yours; or can you cite a source for it?
As is, your idea looks publishable to me.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But the point is that has nothing to do with a question of power. That's a matter of the definition of the words being used in the question. Logically contradictory things can't happen. Asking if God can do something logically contradictory is the same as asking if God can do something that can't be done. Well no, otherwise it isn't something that can't be done. That has nothing to do with any kind of power requirement necessary to do it though.
So it isn't relevant to whether the entity in question is "all powerful". It's just wordplay. There are far better arguments against God than playing with sentence structure to force a specific answer. (The problem of evil certainly being one of them... yes, they can't claim God is responsible for the existence of the entire universe and wields absolute authority over it then say he only takes the blame for the good parts...)
"If you assert that he CAN, then you've utterly abandoned Reason."
Unfortunately I have, on many occasions, been explicitly told by Christian apologists that God is beyond the laws of logic and thus immune to any claim of logical contradiction. The abandonment of reason comes easily to people who view ignoring or rejecting evidence as a virtuous sign of the strength of their faith. Which of course is a primary reason Christianity (and other religions) instruct their adherents that "faith is a virtue". It's a defense mechanism against reason.
As for 'my idea'... it's just a re-statement of the general principles underpinning the Scientific method, mainly the requirement for methodological naturalism as that is necessary to fulfill the falsifiability criteria for any hypotheses subjected to testing. Nobody can run an experiment based on the assumption that their results may be getting undetectably magically tampered with by Loki the Trickster God because he thinks it's a really funny joke to make humans think there's a Higgs Boson or something after all. If we were going to accept that as a legitimate potential explanation for anything science might as well just pack it in and go home now.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Yes, many believers simply give up on Reason, on the question of the existence of God. But there is a severe penalty here for many Christians. When simple believers give up on reason and intelligence too much of course, they experience subtle bad effects in the rest of their lives. In my opinion that's one reason statistics tell us many fervent Christians are poor: they can't put 2 + 2 together. And because their Reason has been crippled to a degree, often they do badly in real life. Because they partially abandoned reason and logic, with their religion, they can't figure out how to do things. They are dysfunctional in a largely rational, ordered universe.
Some argue next, that an all-powerful God doesn't need or follow or promote logic. But many parts of the Bible seem to follow some kind of order; God even supports "reason." And then finally, many say that God created the universe, the Bible, and nature; but nature also seems to follow at least some regular rules. The natural world especially is not entirely as chaotic as it would be, if it was a reflection of a totally illogical being, who too- regularly overruled normal structure.
So here there is one more final argument against an all-powerful god, who can even overrule Logic and Reason. Is that an omnipotent god could overrule all rules of nature and so forth; but ... how often does he actually do that, if ever?
I get up in the morning and my cereal bowl and cereal are almost always in the same place I left them yesterday; I step out on my front steps, which are still fairly reliably there. I shoot a few games of pool; and the balls behave much as physics asserts they will.
So the final argument I offer here against an all-powerful God, is that even if we did have an all-powerful god who can overrule all natural and logical rules ... still the evidence we see around us, that even if we have such a god, still he does not actually overrule the rules, all that often. So that learning the rules of nature and reason, still serve us well. Better than belief in miracles.
Even in the Bible, If we have any God at all, we seem to have one that creates order; rules. Rules from the Ten Commandments - which are rather consistently said to be good, and eternal, some say - to the laws of Gravity, say. Therefore finally? Whatever it was that made the universe, powerful as it was, "decided" or ended up, limiting his powers, and creating much "order"; or in other words, many regular rules. Therefore? Those of us who want to get along with that being, or the universe sometimes accredited to him, would be well advised to learning the many regular repeatable rules that we see all around us most days.
The universe mostly behaves with laws; it seems; scientific, natural, and rational. And those who do not learn those laws, those raised on belief in Magic and Miracle, those who expect and see only chaos and ex-nihilo creations, are seriously out of tune with the universe we see around us. They will have a hard time getting along in the universe; learning how to make things well; a hard time fully prospering.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are a few that suppose a being that is unknowable, and that it may not have interest in making itself knowable to us.
But the vast bulk of religions, particularly those practiced in the US, hold that god is quite capable of it, which only leaves two possibilities; god is uninterested in proving his existence, or god actively desires not to prove his existence.
I don't see where you base this limitation you just applied to an omnipotent being.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Does your god or your characterization/understanding of your god, allow for a limitation that would prevent he/she/it from making itself known to us?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Since there is no way I can prove or disprove god I can't make a factual statement about something I can't know about. And I have no god that I created in my head.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)Whatever humans concieve of diety or non diety it is probably more complicated than that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I am often admonished that god is, as you say, transcendent. Alpha, omega, beginning, end, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.
Here's the problem. Claiming that that being is incapable of making itself known to us, is actually placing a limitation on that god. So too is saying that we are incapable of understanding such a god. To be correct, it would rely upon that god DESIRING us to not be able to understand or know such a being. Because being omnipotent, by definition, it MUST be within that god's power to make itself known to us.
It's basically the 'can god make a rock so big and heavy that even he cannot lift it' rhetorical meme, with a different face.
As to the rest of your questions, complex. If it could be proven to me that such a being does indeed exist, that would mark the starting line, not the finish, in my analysis and decisions based upon that information. It would be a long road of examining that being's morality, claims, precepts, etc, against my morals. Depending on which god, with what precepts/laws/etc we're talking about here, the outcome could easily be friend, or foe. I can hypothesize gods that I might seek to befriend, and, gods that as you say, I might try to kill.
tblue37
(65,392 posts)like _Spock's World_, for example, the premise is that the Vulcans are, from the beginning of their evolution as sentient beings, always aware of their god. IOW, their god is always there in their background awareness. I think that is a cool, interesting concept for a god.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)First off, it should be noted that it's simply impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of god.
Secondly, knowing he exists doesn't necessarily mean worshipping him. I'm a Luciferian Satanist. My faith tells me that god exists but that he's a sadistic tyrant who must be opposed.
Third, people already do all of this. If god could be somehow proven and communicated with, he would become effectively the ultimate celebrity. People would try to get his endorsement, buy his products, gain his favour, etc. In fact, they already do all of this.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please cite your basis for that claim. I'm genuinely curious about it.
"First off, it should be noted that it's simply impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of god."
Surely a being that can create the universe, and life, and us, can by virtue of his unlimited power, reasonably be capable of making itself known to us?
I agree with the rest of what you said.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Yes, a being of such great power could make himself known to us relatively easily. But that relies on his action, not ours. We can neither prove nor disprove his existence because our knowledge of the multiverse is always going to be incomplete. The best we can do by ourselves is to assign probabilities for his existence or not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We can prove it, but only if said being wishes us to be able to. If an omnipotent being does not wish to be perceived by us, then by definition, yes, we can never prove it, because we would be incapable of overcoming that omnipotent being's desires.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)He is often pictured walking around and talking to people like Adam and Eve, and so forth.
And he constantly tells us he wants us to know about him, and love him.
So?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm a Luciferian Satanist, my faith is founded on teh idea that god is a malevolent prick unworthy of worship. Looking at it that way, it makes perfect sense that god would command people to worship him and then refuse to provide evidence for his existence.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think that what evidence we have available certainly disproves the idea that god is good, even if it can't disprove his existence.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)this discovery would result in an anthropomorphized god, and that may be far, far from the truth.
For me personally, I don't think it would make any difference at all. I would continue to live my life pretty much like I live it now, I imagine.
And with all discoveries, they are rarely definitive and remain open to change.
So people would probably continue to hold on to their individual beliefs or lack of beliefs.
FWIW, though, I don't think what you propose will ever happen.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...since most contradict one another about the nature of god and what she/he said, wants, etc. Even assuming that one of them gets it right, all the others will have gotten it wrong. There's powerful irony in that: proof of god's existence and knowledge of his/her nature would necessarily undermine most of the world's religious doctrines.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)god is a much more complex and multifactorial thing that actually includes the multiple concepts that individuals and groups hold.
tblue37
(65,392 posts)(a pseudonym, BTW), the Shadows Inquiries series, posits that gods exist, but that people become rather overwhelmed when they learn that not only do their gods actually exist, but so do all of the other religions' gods.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)According to the theologians he is omni everything, like omnipresent, omnipotent etc. etc. I think there were about ten omnis listed not to mention the rest of his natures and powers like being immortal and so on.
In my opinion if such a being exists, we would never be able to perceive him/her, because we are too limited in brain and senses to comprehend such a being.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If it can't, then it isn't omnipotent.
Now, it may DESIRE not to. That would be consistent. But if it desired to, nothing could stop it.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)According to my religion teachers in parochial school, we would die if we saw God while in our material forms. This is why we must strive to lead sin free lives so we can be admitted to heaven and then look upon the face of God. Only then will "see" Him/Her.
Also, that is part of the Jesus myth. God had to become a human in order to walk among the humans and teach them about their real purpose in life since He/She would have been too terrifying to us as Himself/Herself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It seems to me a defiance of the claim that god is omnipotent, OR it directly implies that god does not wish to be perceived.
If he wanted us to perceive him/her/it, and it is omnipotent, it could not fail to make itself directly viewable/knowable to us. It could change its nature to suit our limitations. It could change our limitations to suit its nature. Or some combination of the two. Or it could suspend insanity/terror/death for us for as long as we needed to view him. Lots of options, if you're an omnipotent being. I'm just scratching the surface.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)When I was in college we had a small lake on campus and for Zoology class we collect jars of pond scum and put droplets on a slide and looked at the slide under the microscope. It always occurred to me that those microscopic single celled creatures and maybe a few of the multiple celled ones knew nothing of our existence. Their habitat had been the lake and they knew nothing beyond it or the existence of anything else but that watery home. I think somehow our perception of our universe is limited to what we know and can perceive, but there could be a whole other extended habitat or creation for lack of a better word out there of which our universe is just a small part of it. We just can't know it just yet because we haven't discovered the instruments or tools to find it right now.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think we are very, very small.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It's why Alanis Morissette can't talk.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Iggo
(47,558 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm writing a book about this, but the time has come for me to get some feedback from people other than my friends and family. I figure May Day, and this excellent thread, is as good a time and place as any to throw this out to the DU community.
Ready? It's very simple:
"This universe, this entire universe, everything that is and ever was and ever will be... This universe is a single cell in a larger organism in a larger universe."
The Yang to the Yin statement reads like this:
"Every cell in my body, every cell in your body and every cell in every body in this universe is a universe."
There are two footnotes that go along with this, which may help explain the mechanics of how this system might work:
Quantum Physics
DNA
Simplifying this into one single statement:
"This universe is a cell in a larger organism, and every cell is a universe, because DNA and Quantum Physics."
Therefore... "God the Creator" is that larger organism, in which this universe is a single cell. Also therefore, each of us is "God the Creator" to the life forms that may be living in the universes that exist in each of our cells.
With that in mind, it WILL be possible, though not with our current technology, to prove the existence of "God." All we need are bigger telescopes. And more powerful microscopes.
Think about it for a while, the implications will blow your mind.
Of course, the question becomes... Who or what created this whole system, and what is its purpose?
My book will not even attempt to answer those questions...
Cheers!
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"The Cusanus Game" by Wolfgang Jeschke
In this novel there's time-travel, leading to alternate time-lines, leading to parallel universes. One of the scientists theorizes that the universes form a vast network, connected by timelines. Depending on which reality becomes true or not, universes are born or shed from the network. And they hypothesize that there's some institution operating at the end of time, determining whether a particular time-travel and its consequences for the multiverse are allowed.
And your theory reminds me of "The Neverending Story": The fantasy within one universe creates new universes with fantasy in it, they in turn create further universes, ad infinitum.
I see several problems with your theory:
* A cell is just a vessel for DNA: home, workshop, hospital and clothing, all-in-one. The DNA defines a program that the industrial parts of the cell follow. A cell transports matter between its industrial parts and modifies them. But there is no hint, that our universe were of purpose. (Where is the coordinated matter-transport? Where are workers/machines?) It expands spatially and it creates entropy within its content. And entropy is the opposite of information.
* Matter is atomic. "Atomic" as derived from greek "atomos" "unsplittable". We already have found the smallest particles that exist in our universe (leptons and quarks) and we have mathematical proof that they cannot possibly contain a substructure. (Basically: Particle-collision-experiments reveal the shape of a particle, respectively of its potential, in the form of the so-called structure-factor. The structure-factor is the Fourier-transform of the potential. And for leptons and quarks the potential is a delta-function: Infinitely narrow and infinitely high.)
* Locality doesn't exist on a quantum-level, but it exists on a cosmological level. An electron is not an object existing in a particular place. But the vast galactic supercluster-network of our universe does have a defined shape.
* If a cell is part of a larger organism, then the cell is supposed to communicate with other cells. We have no hints that our universe exports or imports matter/energy and/or information with other universes. We have theoretical models what it would look like for telescopes if our universe would partially overlap with another universe: At the location of the overlap, a ring would form out of nowhere. But such an object has not been witnessed yet.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)From the reviews on Amazon, it sounds like that book is pretty bad. Oh well.
Thanks for the bullet points!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"That larger organism" - which you are calling "god" needs a creator, so you've answered nothing, you've just put yourself in the middle of "turtles all the way down", so there are "turtles all the way up" too.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)That was my friend Andrew's first response when we discussed this. Turtles all the way down. And the next day, he sent me this video (the relevant moment is toward the end):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mv2b_animal-house-smoke-some-pot_fun
And yes, this does not address whatever it was that "created" the whole system. Another friend, who studies with a Golden Dawn school of occultism, claims to know what created he whole shebang, but it sounded like gobletty-gook to me.
Here's the way I see it - The Big Bang = Whatever cell we are living in being born. When this cell dies = "the stars fall from the sky" and this universe ends. The cell next door = another, similar universe. Whatever that larger organism is = a "multiverse." Just like I am a "multiverse."
When you put this system on "like a pair of glasses" and look at the world through them, you come to realize that every religious system got something right, and the big picture wrong. But they all got something right, and that's a great starting point.
And plenty more...
rug
(82,333 posts)We'd simply be to the right of an equal sign.
phil89
(1,043 posts)How do you reach that conclusion? I think Satan knew there was a god and he has free will...or so I'm told. And many people in the bible had "proof" of god and didn't they have free will?
rug
(82,333 posts)I was referring to humans and human knowledge.
Every person of faith mentioned in the Bible had doubt. Every one, despite what they said they saw.
If you want to discuss angels and demons, be my guest.
phil89
(1,043 posts)What is this based on?
rug
(82,333 posts)The proof would have to be so overwhelming that there can be no doubt.
In essence, the god would give the human no choice but to believe.
phil89
(1,043 posts)as in free will to make choices.
goldent
(1,582 posts)I'm not talking about a personified God like the Christian God, but a God entity.
Take the big bang, which was discussed recently. That was a radical idea and many scientists had a hard time with it, but now it is pretty much accepted. It is a similar story with evolution.
What if someone was able to show, more or less, that their had to be intelligence behind one of these? Sort of like dark matter, where someone did a lot of calculations and said "this just doesn't add up - there is something out there that must exist but we don't know what" It sounds odd, but many modern physics theories sound odd (11 dimensions, etc).
To me, this would be the most interesting case, because it would prove there is something out there, but we wouldn't know what it was. We wouldn't understand the relationship to that "God" and our religious Gods. I'm not sure what we would even call it.
Would it change the world? Would people marvel at it for a while, and then go back to life as usual?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Like many mythological creatures and gods, He is also vulnerable to iron, as mentioned in the Bible.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)These are the types of things people forget are in the Bible.
ON EDIT: At least, that's the implication derived from the Bible.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Judges 1:19[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
The Lord(YHWH) a war god, was on the side of Judah, using his power to assist the battle, but couldn't attack nor help Judah's men defeat the chariots filled with iron. Not sure of the amount, but I will say that, particularly when the Iron Age really got started, a lot of cultures attributed magical properties to this new metal that can cut through bronze like a hot knife through butter. It was so strong to even take on the gods. It appears the Israelites, or at least some sects within them, also believed this practice. This story may derive from the time when they were still polytheistic, not sure on the dates there.
ON EDIT: Some translations say they were "filled with iron" others that the chariots themselves were made of iron.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Its the reason the Hittites were able to conquer Egypt at one time after all.
Of course, the story could be the Israelites explanation for losing a battle, iron outfitted chariots would be kinda like their version of tanks at the time, and so probably caused a lot of damage. Since, at the time, they were polytheists or possibly henotheistic, their strengths is mirrored with that of their tribe's god(s). So a defeat in battle is also a defeat for that god, etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)with an outstanding young guide.
There was a lot of warring going on between and within different civilizations.
Interestingly, we know that they knew about the wheel, because it was found on children's toys.
But it was found nowhere else. There is no evidence that they used it for work, travel or combat.
Weird, huh?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)they were aware of the wheel, but would have only had limited usefulness for it, they had no oxen, no cattle, no horses, only llamas and they were of, shall we say, limited utility.
I guess they could have used rickshaw type of vehicles, that are human powered, but that wouldn't necessarily be very labor saving.
ON EDIT: And you are right, at the time Egypt was conquered, they were not aware of the wheel, that invention alone gave the Hittites(in the form of chariots), the edge to conquer one of the mightiest empires of the time period.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)would seem to be an effective use.
Just think about rolling suitcases.
My guide said there might have been some religious reasons for it and that the wheel may have had a symbolic meaning that would limit it's use.
Most of the structures are composed of squared off elements, but there are areas for sacrifices that are round.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)However, the Inca were very good at building paved roads, but for foot traffic, that may have been part of it, the roads, or terrain, may not have been suitable for wheeled vehicles.
There are a lot of competing theories, the truth is probably some combination of them.
ON EDIT: I should point out that it wasn't just the Inca or Aztecs that didn't utilize the wheel for transportation, but practically all American civilizations at the time before Columbus.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Both empires used chariots just different types. You probably mean Hyksos instead, they did conquer Egypt and are thought to have introduced chariots to the Egyptians.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)memory.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...i.e. bronze age vs iron age warriors. Odd that "god" was apparently constrained by the shortcomings of bronze age weaponry. Of course, one COULD read this as evidence that the religious imaginings of people are constrained by the context of their earthly experiences, but that smacks of secular humanism, so let's just say that god's soft edged weapons are turned by iron shields.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)some poetically calling it "cold iron" and it can repel or harm ghosts, fairies, witches, etc.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)So all of the above.
If it turns out it is the YHWH type then I will have to do my utmost to bring it to justice and failing that to try and kill it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Off to The Hague with him.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are a few of you in the thread, so it shouldn't be that hard.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)but what do I know.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)but gotta try. That's the thing.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Can prove it to me ...
No parlor tricks ...
No seances in the dark ...
No book written by men ...
Only his empirical, concrete, easy as hell to see presence will do ...
If he wants to be 'Our Father', then he needs to get down here and show himself ...
Otherwise, he is not existent ...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
I hope you take this good naturedly, as that is how it was meant.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Not interested ...
I'd rather enjoy my life than worry about you guys ..
cbayer
(146,218 posts)both sides of the "aisle".
tblue37
(65,392 posts)acting up, so he came down here to straighten us out.
****It's a joke, BTW--I am not a believer. I just find the play on words amusing.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)existence were proven.
A Scientific experiment that could measure out an ounce of God, would remove forever any need to have faith in a deity. If we could say, God signed her authorship of the universe in the Microwave background radiation there would be no need of faith.
The Catholic Church, all Protestant churches, and all other churches require that God be accepted by faith. Islam absolutely requires Shahada, or Faith. Hinduism requires faith.
So the first thing that absolute and irrefutable proof of God would do is to rip out the very foundation of all major world religions, excepting perhaps Buddhism, which has as doctrine that no one accept anything unconditionally, and is not considered a faith.
As to your questions:
Would religion still work? Not as it has in the past. Leaders of religion would be scientists who performed experiments to define Gods will as written in universal law.
"
Would people be willing to believe that this is their God." Christianity teaches a personal God. God is quite personal in Islam. In Judaism, God is impersonal, distant, does not touch the current universe, and can be understood only through the study of Torah. (And all the Jews I know are perfectly happy without a personal god mucking around in our lives.) Whether God would be a personal experience would depend on the science priests that that proved God's existence, and work to measured and define God's will. There is a PHD thesis in the question.
What would be the difference between praying to him and asking a really powerful human for a favor? That depends on the nature of the proven God. A being capable of creating the entire universe probably would have as much to say to a human being as we have to say to a virus. Proving God's existence would not rid the world of pseudoscientific bullshit, so whole business will grow up sell ways of talking to the Proven God.
Would people treat him like a celebrity? Celebrity is a pretty cheap coin, so the answer to that is yes.
Would they try to analyze his personality? Absolutely. People try to analyze everything from dead prophets to their Gold fish. Proving God exist would not remove God from the insult of being analyzed.
Would they try to win his endorsement for their candidate/cause/product? Yes, they would.
Would people be less willing to claim that he had endorsed them when he in fact had not? Politicians would use statistics to lie about God's endorsement. You can prove anything with a poorly devised study and statistics.
Would people fear this uncontrollable force? Yes, because that is our nature.
Would people get jealous towards God, because he's powerful and they are not? Yes, because that is our nature.
Would people try to take advantage of God? They do that now with alarming regularity, so that won't change.
Would people try to kill God? Tiberius killed the Great God Pan, or at least announced his death. Deicide will be attempted, though how you kill something that created the universe is another question all together. Hubris is part of human nature.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Let's say a large humanoid figure appears in orbit lashing down energy bolts, untouchable by our weapons and apparently able to read minds - is that a God or just a member of a technologically advanced species? How is this scenario particularly different from the film Independence Day?
Ok, so let's go with something a bit more nuanced. A vast portal opens to a different world; in it are simulacra, mental and perhaps physical, of every human we can be aware of who has died. In charge of this is an architect who cares for and supports these spirits whilst in turn the spirits have nothing but praise for the Deity. Again is this God in his heaven or a technological marvel like the Matrix?
Right ...
What about a deity who writes their name into the physical and mathematical constants of the universe. How does such a deity relate in any way to the deities proposed by religions?
tblue37
(65,392 posts)People have worshipped all sorts of non-transcendent gods and powers all through human history, and still do in many places today. In fact, even the followers of the monotheistic religions often practice a kind of polytheism based on the notion of "divine" powers that belong to and operate directly on the material world in response to the believer's actions to influence or propitiate them.
People who practice the sort of everyday magic that we call superstition actually demonstrate more commitment to the unmysterious supernatural powers they believe in than they do to the God they claim to believe in. Folk religious practices did not go away when Christianity colonized other cultures. They just went underground and were no longer called religion by the authorities or by the people who engaged in them. In harsh regimes, such practices were condemned and punished as magic, witchcraft, or heresy. These days most are ignored, while some end up becoming the sort of belief we now call "woo."
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)God himself is thought to hover above us in heaven, invisibly; an all powerful creator rather separate from his creation.
On the other hand? This rather transcendent god was said to have appeared visibly to Adam and Eve and so forth. And was said to return to the material "world" and "flesh," in Jesus. In this mode particularly, the Christian god seems to operate under slightly different, more limited rules than a fully omnipotent or spiritual or transcendent being.
Thus arguments for an absolutely or consistently transcendental god, might not quite entirely apply to our Christian deity.
tblue37
(65,392 posts)Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)
But while I certainly agree with your point, my comment was intended to refute the OP's suggestion that worship rests on the mysteriousness of the supernatural power being worshipped. Actually, even as a quasi-material deity, the Judaeo-Christian God* does maintain a notable degree of mystery, since He and His nature are supposedly ineffable, far beyond the capacity of merely mortal minds to even begin to comprehend. Christianity is a mystery religion, after all, but even those who have been initiated into the mystery believe that there is a core of incomprehensibility in the essence of their God.
Of course, some modern believers, those who consider God a close personal friend and confidant, have actually transformed Him into a different kind of god, one without much mystery left at all (if any!).
_______________________________________
*NOTE: Although I am not a believer myself, current conventions for Standard Written English mandate that the term "God" be capitalized when it refers to the Christian deity, and also that pronouns referring to "Him" be capped.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The argument there is this: that even the God of most Christians, and certainly the universe attributed to God, is full of much order. And rules, that mostly adhere in the universe we see around us, most of the time.
Many of these rules are currently known. And it is useful to know them. Knowing them helps us make things work. But ignoring them too much, and saying it is all a "mystery," slows down the process of seeing the order, the rules around us. And slows down the process of learning how life works. It makes us more ignorant that we need to be.
Ironically in fact, worshiping "mystery" deifies ignorance. The less one understands, or tries to understand, the more "mysterious" the life is. But this means that embracing "mystery," encourages dysfunctional ignorance.
