Rendering god down to the lowest common denominator..............

[Times Roman]

........the atheism thread is about played. And I wanted to bring up a point Angel was trying to make. Defining god. Her point was that there may be a god that was not involved in the creation of the universe. Naturally, I took the opposing view by saying that a god that didn't/doesn't create, is not much of a god; being subordinated to the universe itself. Although that thought is true enough, I was prematurely dismissive. The universe may have natural origins, and there could still be a god.

So, without further ado, let's get started.

If there is a god that did not create the universe, how shall we define her?

Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

[Times Roman]

I'll get the ball rolling just to put this thing on the right track.

A god that did not create the universe could be in one of two possible states:

1) Not of this universe. This type of god would not be bound by anything in this universe and may not even be aware of our universe. Since independent of our universe and not bound by it, including space/time/dimensionality, then the closest we will ever get to a god of this type is in our imagination. Therefore, for analytic purposes, should be dismissed as irrelevant to ourselves and our universe.

2) Of this universe. Since this god did NOT create this universe, and is bound by it, then this type of god would have a finite beginning; sometime after the birth of our universe. And since a finite beginning, then two possible scenerios:
A] This being sprang forth out of nothing as a "god in process". From nothing to god with no transition process.
B] This being evolved into a god from a non metaphysical beginning.

[RaginCajun]

god = aliens. all cultures have some god/spirit/story. all about the damn same, either one god or many gods, same thing. bible is good way to develop morals.

[Juced_porkchop]

........the atheism thread is about played. And I wanted to bring up a point Angel was trying to make. Defining god. Her point was that there may be a god that was not involved in the creation of the universe. Naturally, I took the opposing view by saying that a god that didn't/doesn't create, is not much of a god; being subordinated to the universe itself. Although that thought is true enough, I was prematurely dismissive. The universe may have natural origins, and there could still be a god.

So, without further ado, let's get started.

If there is a god that did not create the universe, how shall we define her?

Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

yes... people mis label "god" its a life force, energy force in all of use, in all living things, a single consciousness we are all a part of. to think "god" is some single unconnected entity is a very primitive view point IMO...
I have 0% fear of a triditional "god" I am a good person because that is what is right, not out of fear of god ro hell for my actions, but livign how I feel I should live. people being good out of fear... well are not really good people, they use a crutch to do so IMO.

[Juced_porkchop]

I'll get the ball rolling just to put this thing on the right track.

A god that did not create the universe could be in one of two possible states:

1) Not of this universe. This type of god would not be bound by anything in this universe and may not even be aware of our universe. Since independent of our universe and not bound by it, including space/time/dimensionality, then the closest we will ever get to a god of this type is in our imagination. Therefore, for analytic purposes, should be dismissed as irrelevant to ourselves and our universe.

2) Of this universe. Since this god did NOT create this universe, and is bound by it, then this type of god would have a finite beginning; sometime after the birth of our universe. And since a finite beginning, then two possible scenerios:
A] This being sprang forth out of nothing as a "god in process". From nothing to god with no transition process.
B] This being evolved into a god from a non metaphysical beginning.

3) we are "god"....... consciousness in growth, single consciousness our brains are more like satelite dishes too, with our own prosseses sure, but at the root of it I feel we are all with the potential to be god like beings because we are one in the same life force... making new life, in lab or through nature... we are steps away from entering a new era od spirutual understanding and development that has been suppressed through generations of greed and control... IMO ; )

[Juced_porkchop]

god = aliens. all cultures have some god/spirit/story. all about the damn same, either one god or many gods, same thing. bible is good way to develop morals.

didnt need bible for my morals. Aliens?!?? again... god... same crap as uss, just more advanced and on anothe rplace. liek how we make new life form that dont exist in nature we make in a lab, does not mean "gods" energy has no rol in what we make in a lab, like how me had a role in us, or he had a role in aliens that made us if that was the case... aliens or not, the energy is there and there is alot of dementions to this life.

ha ok toomuch time in this thread : )

[Khazima]

To me, god is just a higher power, an unknown source i can put my trust in. There's no idol or specific thing i put my belief in but i just have belief and practice acceptance and it works well for me.

If i'm struggling, i put my stress and anxiety in the hands of a higher power and i feel as though i'm not baring it alone anymore.

[zempey]

It is all speculation, I always say I will find out when I die. There is no way to prove or disprove if there is a god, or what god is, god is something different to everyone.

[Times Roman]

3) we are "god"....... consciousness in growth, single consciousness our brains are more like satelite dishes too, with our own prosseses sure, but at the root of it I feel we are all with the potential to be god like beings because we are one in the same life force... making new life, in lab or through nature... we are steps away from entering a new era od spirutual understanding and development that has been suppressed through generations of greed and control... IMO ; )

ok, great. all good stuff. and I'm not arguing with you.

however, this is how you feel. so let's slice and dice for a moment, shall we?

you say, "we are god". this is called a statement. now I'd like you to support your statement. if we are god, then how does this occur? do you also mean that we (collectively) are the essence of god, similar to how ants form to develop a hive mentality?

or do you mean that each and every one of us is "god like"? and if so, then how does being "god like" relate to being an actual god?

you continue by referencing a life force. run with that. what is the essence of this life force? is it something that is verifiable? is it independent of our bodies, or another aspect of it? does it possess physical energy, or metaphysical energy? why do you conclude there is a life force? is it any different than a spiritual soul? can we change our life force based on our actions as they accumulate over our life time?

so this thread, this task, is to define a god that did not create this universe. how does that relate to your statement?

I think you have some good ideas, but need to clarify them just a bit. Because to me, it's not entirely clear how some of your analogies are supported through critical observation and analysis.

[Times Roman]

It is all speculation, I always say I will find out when I die. There is no way to prove or disprove if there is a god, or what god is, god is something different to everyone.

of course this is all speculation. Some, including my best mate, ends it there and says why think about it if all we can do is speculate. Others, like Stephen Hawking, finds it absolutely intriguing to think about these things.

It's the difference between theoretical physics and contemporary physics. In contemporary physics, you go out and test the physical world around you. Theoritical physics is different. All the testing is done in your mind.

And that is what we are doing mate, exploring the universe all around us by using our minds.

[zempey]

But there is nothing to base the testing on, If you don't have anything as a base, besides some man made translated for their own benefit, stories, then how can you actually test any theories? I too am intrigued at the possibilities the universe has to offer regarding "God", but at the end of the day, there really is nothing but "what if's" to come of it.

[Times Roman]

But there is nothing to base the testing on, If you don't have anything as a base, besides some man made translated for their own benefit, stories, then how can you actually test any theories? I too am intrigued at the possibilities the universe has to offer regarding "God", but at the end of the day, there really is nothing but "what if's" to come of it.

it's called deductive reasoning.

you start by eliminating certain obvious possibilities.

So we start by saying what god is not.

God is not a kibble in my dogs food bowl.

So if god did NOT create the universe, what can you make of it?

This type of testing is called LOGIC, and you can deduce quite a bit by using logic.

Now throw a PHD on there, and you've got theoretical physics.

In fact, my young padawan warrier, much in this realm, just as Einstein did, is deduced first, then tested later.

The main reason people don't think about god this way is two:

1) they either refuse to think of god logically, and/or
2) the subject matter overwhelms them due to it's enormity

So, this is a great area to apply deductive reasoning.

Go ahead, give it a try............

[zempey]

OK, but when do you stop deducing? There is nothing to base testing theories on, we don't know how the universe started, so how can we say it was "god". One could say it is a divine power, one could say it was an alien life form, one could say that it just happened. Much like the "big bang theory" it is really just speculation since there is no real way to prove it at this time. What is "logic", it is just a term made up by man, much like what some believe god is. I get what you are saying about theoretical physics, but the title itself describes that it is just theories, no real concrete way to prove or test them against "what is god" We could throw out all kinds of ideas and scenarios, it doesn't take a Phd to do that, the theories just get more complex. What seemed logical thousands of years ago, might not seem so today.

[Times Roman]

OK, but when do you stop deducing? There is nothing to base testing theories on, we don't know how the universe started, so how can we say it was "god". One could say it is a divine power, one could say it was an alien life form, one could say that it just happened. Much like the "big bang theory" it is really just speculation since there is no real way to prove it at this time. What is "logic", it is just a term made up by man, much like what some believe god is. I get what you are saying about theoretical physics, but the title itself describes that it is just theories, no real concrete way to prove or test them against "what is god" We could throw out all kinds of ideas and scenarios, it doesn't take a Phd to do that, the theories just get more complex. What seemed logical thousands of years ago, might not seem so today.

deductive reasoning is a process, NOT a destination. There is no stopping. It's like saying....

....when do you stop thinking?

[Metalject]

If you consider the God of Abraham, which represents the god the vast majority of religious believers believe in - Christians, Jews and Muslims all subscribe to the God of Abraham. He exist outside of the universe, he is above it and beyond it. He is not bound by this universe no more than any creator is bound by anything he creates.

A good way to look at it would be you build a model city, that model city represents the universe you created. Picture one of those model train platforms that have a large city at the center of it, that's the universe. You built it yet you are outside of it. While you are outside of it, you can control aspects of what goes on inside it.

So on this basis a god that exist outside of this universe could have created this universe if a universe is simply a small part of a larger existence in eternal space.

[Times Roman]

If you consider the God of Abraham, which represents the god the vast majority of religious believers believe in - Christians, Jews and Muslims all subscribe to the God of Abraham. He exist outside of the universe, he is above it and beyond it. He is not bound by this universe no more than any creator is bound by anything he creates.

A good way to look at it would be you build a model city, that model city represents the universe you created. Picture one of those model train platforms that have a large city at the center of it, that's the universe. You built it yet you are outside of it. While you are outside of it, you can control aspects of what goes on inside it.

So on this basis a god that exist outside of this universe could have created this universe if a universe is simply a small part of a larger existence in eternal space.

point noted.

however, THIS thread is discussing the concept of a god that did NOT create this universe, and how to think about such an entity

[Metalject]

point noted.

however, THIS thread is discussing the concept of a god that did NOT create this universe, and how to think about such an entity

I understand. I kind of took your original stance that a god that did not create the universe would not be much of a god. If such a god did exist, what would its purpose be? Just existing? If purpose could be defined, maybe then it could be defined. Of course I realize that's asking an impossible question - how would it be possible to define anything that not only doesn't exist in this universe but also has no role to play in it and takes no action in it? That's an impossible task, IMO.

[Kozmo]

Your brain. Lowest common denominator

[Times Roman]

I understand. I kind of took your original stance that a god that did not create the universe would not be much of a god. If such a god did exist, what would its purpose be? Just existing? If purpose could be defined, maybe then it could be defined. Of course I realize that's asking an impossible question - how would it be possible to define anything that not only doesn't exist in this universe but also has no role to play in it and takes no action in it? That's an impossible task, IMO.

Maybe the better question would be is it possible for a physical species to evolve into a metaphysical being?

what attributes would such a metaphysical entity have?

[Obs]

Bumping it anyway so deal with it.

God at the lowest is "0".
Draw out any mathematical formula for the creation of the universe and it will have to start at "0".

0+0 didn't create the big bang theory. It didn't create our "evolved" ability to percieve ourselves as intelligent beings when by all standards of the universe we are just ants, insignificant as anything.
At some time there was nothing (0)
Now... Think hard on this:
"Nothing" can not exist in and of itself. Nothing is something and there cannot be nothing wothout something.
God is "0" in lowest common denominator form.
At least one thing came from nothing to set an act in motion that caused chain reaction... God is what we percieve as nothing but is in fact everything.
Alpha and Omega,
The beggining and the end.
You won't see God again until you see nothing again...
Make sense?
Smoke a joint, reread.

Funny shit is people today think they are the first group intelligent enough to question the existence of God.
They always get stuck at that same spot... "0+0=???"
"The space dust... Aw fuck" "there was an electrical storm... Shit that had to have come from somewhere too!"

We were created which is to be made from nothing.

[cousinmuscles]

"Nothing" can not exist in and of itself. Nothing is something and there cannot be nothing wothout something.

Oops! Obs you just rewinded philosophical reasoning back a couple centuries. The belief that any thing, thought, idea exists only because it is perceivably real with our senses is ancient philosophy, think ancient Greek. During the Renaissance some very big brains managed to beat the old system and we had that something exists as long as the logical constructions it is defined within are salient, congruent, are not contradictory etc. From Descartes we got cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am. This is an extreme oversimplification. The consequence of not abiding to this advancement in our theory of knowledge would have hindered pretty much every technology we have today. Think being stuck with analog computers or something.

"Nothing" does indeed exist, as per definition.

[Obs]

Oops! Obs you just rewinded philosophical reasoning back a couple centuries. The belief that any thing, thought, idea exists only because it is perceivably real with our senses is ancient philosophy, think ancient Greek. During the Renaissance some very big brains managed to beat the old system and we had that something exists as long as the logical constructions it is defined within are salient, congruent, are not contradictory etc. From Descartes we got cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am. This is an extreme oversimplification. The consequence of not abiding to this advancement in our theory of knowledge would have hindered pretty much every technology we have today. Think being stuck with analog computers or something.

"Nothing" does indeed exist, as per definition.

The definition is flawed.
"This statement is a lie."
Think about that sentence and how it applies to the principle of "nothing".
You totally missed my point.
Read Chris Langan's cognetive theory of the model universe (CTMU)

[cousinmuscles]

The definition is flawed.
"This statement is a lie."
Think about that sentence and how it applies to the principle of "nothing".
You totally missed my point.
Read Chris Langan's cognetive theory of the model universe (CTMU)

Lol chris langan. I think many people will keep missing your point.

[Obs]

https://medium.com/@variantofone/exp...e-163a89fc5841
Here is a link to an idiots guide to the CTMU.
Its impossible for someone like me to read the full article from Chris, but it will better explain how the smartest man on the planet spent his life trying to map out the existence of God.

[Obs]

Lol chris langan. I think many people will keep missing your point.

"Lol chris langan" lol! Rns is way smarter than that guy! Lol! Silly me.

[cousinmuscles]

"Lol chris langan" lol! Rns is way smarter than that guy! Lol! Silly me.

Alright keep it cool I literally thought you were kidding

[marcus300]

Let us remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

Richard Dawkins,

[Obs]

Pantheism... That term in the way you described it, try to tie it into the ctmu. It won't fit.
You gotta chceck out part one of the summary link I gave. The guy who wrote it is not giving an old idea. It is a completely different explanation of the universe and the rules/forces that are it. Atheists sit on a beach on a 72° avg temperature terrarium flying through space and they watch the condensation from the ice in their drink form and roll down to become part of another of many cycles, that are the universe. They watch this and say, "pure chance".

No.

The universe itself is aware of itself and it is a self contained, self sustaining, set of rules if it were not it would collapse upon itself.

A mortal would call it "God".

Nothing is nothing.
Something is everything.
Everything is God.

No arguments I respect all opinions.

Marcus you forgot humanist's which is what most atheists are. They believe they are important above all because they exist. Humans are just more dumbass animals that can't even remember where they come from.

Science won't ever get around to figuring out creation any more than a church.

New testament is a code to keep me from going out and hurting people etc. It is a control.
There is a natural process in every humans mind (even humanists) some call it "good and evil" others call it "good and bad".
There is good there is bad and the universe sees it knows it and balances it if it did not we all all literally be
Quantum foam. There are rules that are self contained by and of themselves. That is "God".

[tarmyg]

At some time there was nothing (0)

Zero and nothing is not the same thing.

[Obs]

Zero and nothing is not the same thing.

So please define nothing because such a thing does not exist. The fact therof proves a higher power. Always something never nothing.

[tarmyg]

So please define nothing because such a thing does not exist. The fact therof proves a higher power. Always something never nothing.

Asking me to answer something that people have been trying to define for at least 2,500 years is quite bizarre. You are also making a statement which leads me to believe that your question/statement is not genuine even though someone might answer it very logically. In other words, you seem to have a pre-conceived notion of what is what!

[Obs]

Asking me to answer something that people have been trying to define for at least 2,500 years is quite bizarre. You are also making a statement which leads me to believe that your question/statement is not genuine even though someone might answer it very logically. In other words, you seem to have a pre-conceived notion of what is what!

Of course that was my first post in Roman times's thread.

One might say you have a preconcieved notion to argue with anything I say. You seem to follow me around doing so. You surely notice, I don't return the favor.

[tarmyg]

Of course that was my first post in Roman times's thread.

One might say you have a preconcieved notion to argue with anything I say. You seem to follow me around doing so. You surely notice, I don't return the favor.

I take it your understanding of what I said is minimal. And you are right, I do tend to follow you around, especially when you are cycling, as the entertainment value is high. I'm out though as you stopped responding to what I said and, as predicted, did your normal thing.

[marcus300]

So please define nothing because such a thing does not exist. The fact therof proves a higher power. Always something never nothing.

Of course common sense doesn't allow us to get something from nothing and that's why its such an interesting topic Obs to the likes of us. Something rather amazing must of happened to give origin to the universe and that's why this question has been asked for thousands of years. Theoretical Physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has studied it for many years and actually wrote a book on his theory its called A Universe From Nothing, in shortened terms when you have matter and antimatter and you put them together they cancel each other out and give rise to nothing what Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krauss theory says is if you start with nothing the process can go into reverse and can produce matter and antimatter and that's what a lot of Physicist are working on, believe what you like but these guys are the experts on the subjects and I am sure there are even some experts out there who doubt his claims, yet again this is why its so interesting. Its mind boggling to the likes of us and we can all have an opinion on it once you are shown the theory and fully understand it but to go this deep with the likes of us would be like a dog chasing its tail.

Now science has proven many thing like with Darwin's natural selection evolution regarding life on this planet which filled many gaps and made a mockery of many fairy tale books around the world, but to say when science hasn't fully explained something but is massively on the way to doing so you cant just fill gaps with "it must be a higher power" into the equation when this doesn't show any evidence. Its like when people thought the world was flat ( some still do) or believing in Adam and Eve, Moses and the Ark, lightening from the sky's and the virgin birth I don't think we can just slot higher power into gaps without any evidence when science has proven and filled many gaps.

I do know one thing this debate can go on and on forever and no matter what evidence or science facts are put in front of some people they still wont accept evidence and facts and still follow what they believe in, which is fine. People get passionate about the subject because deep down they know things don't just add up right and toss away certain facts, which again is fine it doesn't bother me what people believe in each to their own. But to start debating "nothing" on a bodybuilding site is just going to cause a divide between people who believe in evidence based facts vs unicorns and such.

Its like if you was born to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim child and would believe in the prophet Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse, just like children being born to Catholic parents or Christian parents believing in many stories. In this day and age with all the evidence what's come forward over the years we have to take the blind folds off and look around us but if something gives them a meaning and pleasure that's wonderful but it still doesn't make it a fact. Again this debate is going on around the world every single day with both sides battling away but if we do look at the statistics things are taking a huge swing in certain counties and making people think twice and question certain things but this just doesn't occur it can take years to happen if at all.

Please take the time to listen to Professor Richard Dawkins Evolutionary Biologist and Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss debate and discuss " Something From Nothing"

[cousinmuscles]

Marcus, I am full of optimism too. I believe the whole left vs right divide we have right now is because we have the time and resources to care and think about these things, and all our preconceptions are coming to the surface. When this happens very few just admit they're wrong and a battle ensues. When the dust settles we will have yet an advancement in our quality of life.

[Hazard]

Richard Dawkins is the man. Might have a chance to meet him in the next couple months.

Over the next 100 years religion and the idea of god will continue to fade and give way to science and technology. It's been steadily happening since the whole story and idea came about.

Haz

[marcus300]

Richard Dawkins is the man. Might have a chance to meet him in the next couple months.

Over the next 100 years religion and the idea of god will continue to fade and give way to science and technology. It's been steadily happening since the whole story and idea came about.

Haz

He certainly is an amazing character and agree 100%, please let me know if you do meet him

[Hazard]

He certainly is an amazing character and agree 100%, please let me know if you do meet him

Will do. I'd love to have a conversation with him but due to my job I may not be able to. I'll be with him for about 30 minutes tho so a handshake and a hello is def in order lol

[marcus300]

Will do. I'd love to have a conversation with him but due to my job I may not be able to. I'll be with him for about 30 minutes tho so a handshake and a hello is def in order lol

He was the man he signed and sealed it for me Haz, he destroys everything put in front of him with evidence and facts. Just half way through one of his books

[Obs]

I take it your understanding of what I said is minimal. And you are right, I do tend to follow you around, especially when you are cycling, as the entertainment value is high. I'm out though as you stopped responding to what I said and, as predicted, did your normal thing.

I didn't mean it rude. I still love ya. You don't gotta agree with me at all for me to like ya.