|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Becoming a God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Let's take a ride into the future and suppose humans survive as species to the year 4000th. We develop the capability to create big bangs out of nothing and set the conditions right so that life could arise and evolve somewhere within it. The tiny creatures reside and develop in the universe we've created for them, and they look up to the sky at night and they utter the magical words:
"Dear Lord, Thank you for this day.Hold my hand and give me courage to carry the cross You have chosen for me. Let me never complain. Let me smile and give strength to my family and friends" Have we become God? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
If someone to today from as little as 500 years ago. Certainly if you bring them from "biblical" times and show them our life and powers today and they would be awed:
We are gods! We raise the dead, we invoke lightening, we hold back the floods and create them. We fly. We speak and see across the earth. We travel to other worlds. We can, if we choose, shatter a mountain. We know more about our universe than the gods they used to worship back then. We are as powerful and more knowing than they were able to imagine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
We develop the capability to create big bangs out of nothing and set the conditions right so that life could arise and evolve somewhere within it. Nothing? What is your conception of "nothing?" Because what transpired from the LHC was certainly not something coming from absolute nothingness. A chicken and egg scenario still exists.
Have we become God? Man has always wanted to be God, to make the rules for the rest of life, whether they live or die. And then there are those with delusions of grandeur who think of themselves and human ingenuity as the pinnacle of greatness. One day it's all gonna come crashing in around them. And that is when humanity will remember how frail it really is. God is timeless. God will never die. And when I talk about God, it doesn't matter whether I'm referring to an actual deity or a concept used to describe the grandeur of life itself. God will never die as long as we live. God is still the greatest hope to those who put their trust in him, and the biggest enemy to those who deny it. Every time you write some scathing critique about God, you allow God to live. Atheists have carried God on their shoulders, and they didn't even mean to do it. So few have actually figured out that they give the concept of God a pulse. Invariably, man leans towards the Judeo-Christian conception of God. They don't mention the pantheon because they are not threatened by it. They mention "God" because he threatens them. “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: Nothing? What is your conception of "nothing?" Because what transpired from the LHC was certainly not something coming from absolute nothingness. There is no "something" and no "nothing", there is only so much as you in the mirror.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: A chicken and egg scenario still exists. The chicken and egg scenario can be broken in the quantum world. I don't think it can be broken in our classical world but that's because those are 2 very diifferent worlds. But then we have proof that a singularity can arise from the quantum world as well, it's all pretty fucked up, but evidence suggests that something(the way we define this word) can arise from nothing. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nothing? What is your conception of "nothing?" Because what transpired from the LHC was certainly not something coming from absolute nothingness. Well in the extra 2000 years that Aqobot invoked I would hope that mankind has progressed beyond the LHC!!!Even if we created all that Aqobot describes from "something" rather than "nothing" would this not suggest that we should at least entertain the possibility that our creator (if we have one) need not be a supernatural omnipotent entity. Would it not strongly suggest the possibility that any such creator is just a highly technologically advanced civilisation? A chicken and egg scenario still exists Yes somewhere down the line there has to be a first something. I am just suggesting the possibility, given Aqobots OP suggestion, that we need not necessarily be it. As for the first: Well if any of our quantum understanding is "true" at all then it suggests that a state of true nothingness in nature may well be unstable. Who knows?
Man has always wanted to be God, to make the rules for the rest of life, whether they live or die. And then there are those with delusions of grandeur who think of themselves and human ingenuity as the pinnacle of greatness. One day it's all gonna come crashing in around them. And that is when humanity will remember how frail it really is. I don't see things like the LHC as "playing God". If anything I see such human endevours as our best hope of overcoming our frail limitations to surviive against the overwhelming indifference of nature.As long as we are tied to this rock we call Earth we are susceptible as a species to extinction via any number of natural means. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but eventually. That is almost inevitable. I see the LHC and projects like it as potentially the first tentative steps along the road that may save us as a species from that otherwise inevitable fate.
Invariably, man leans towards the Judeo-Christian conception of God. They don't mention the pantheon because they are not threatened by it. They mention "God" because he threatens them I really don't feel threatened by God. I do however occasionally feel threatened by those who believe in him a little too zealously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The chicken and egg scenario can be broken in the quantum world. I don't think it can be broken in our classical world but that's because those are 2 very diifferent worlds. But then we have proof that a singularity can arise from the quantum world as well, it's all pretty fucked up, but evidence suggests that something(the way we define this word) can arise from nothing. The LHC was not working with nothing. It was working with existing particles that were manipulated by entities that also aren't nothing, by a machine that isn't nothing. Nothing comes from absolute nothingness. For somebody that prides himself as a pragmatist, I was sure that logic would win out. My point being that you can't successfully attempt to usurp simple logic with a sleight of hand. And you can't invoke this as evidence against a legitimate First Cause anymore than you could legitmately assume abiogenesis. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
The LHC was not working with nothing. It was working with existing particles that were manipulated by entities that also aren't nothing, by a machine that isn't nothing. Nothing comes from absolute nothingness. For somebody that prides himself as a pragmatist, I was sure that logic would win out. My point being that you can't successfully attempt to usurp simple logic with a sleight of hand. And you can't invoke this as evidence against a legitimate That same something exists as particles only when being measured/observed. You cannot wrap your head around it with simple logic. It takes a bit more than that but is comprehensible as long as you are aware what an observer really constitutes.
First Cause anymore than you could legitmately assume abiogenesis. First cause works in our macro world(in our perception and why is it so - no one knows, ask the creator). At deeper levels, stuff can arise from nothingness breaking the First Cause principle. Abiogenesis works in our peculiar state of mind, no at the quantum level. At the quantum level, there never was any abiogenesis. Some will say it's qounter-intuitive, I'll say it's fucked up, it all boils down to how your human mind will react to mind-challenging concepts. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
We develop the capability to create big bangs out of nothing and set the conditions right so that life could arise and evolve somewhere within it. "Out of nothing"-That will never happen. We can neither create or destroy matter. Only God can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
This is a philosophical question but would we reveal ourselves to the creatures we've created or would we let them live on their own, undisturbed by the idea that their lives could be completely pre-determined? Would they really need to see their God, and wouldn't that ruin their supposedly happy lives?
If we decide to not reveal ourselves, wouldn't we take certain steps as to lead them to believe their world came into existence completely by chance? This last post of mine is deep into the realm of fantasy land, I admit that, but i just wish to toy with the idea of being a God and see what the thoughts of a Creator could be like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
b00tleg Junior Member (Idle past 4520 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Let's take a ride into the future and suppose humans survive as species to the year 4000th. We develop the capability to create big bangs out of nothing and set the conditions right so that life could arise and evolve somewhere within it. The tiny creatures reside and develop in the universe we've created for them, and they look up to the sky at night and they utter the magical words:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." "Dear Lord, Thank you for this day.Hold my hand and give me courage to carry the cross You have chosen for me. Let me never complain. Let me smile and give strength to my family and friends" Have we become God? Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - ) Quote Details: Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology... - The Quotations Page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law) English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - ) Sadly, this is now: English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - 2008)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
WaveDancer Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 37 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
Hey Agobot
would we reveal ourselves to the creatures we've created or would we let them live on their own, undisturbed by the idea that their lives could be completely pre-determined? Would they really need to see their God, and wouldn't that ruin their supposedly happy lives? I think if we did create them we should reveal ourselves becasue speaking from the prospective of a creature whos god (if he exists) has not reveled himself I think proving that god does exist and going a step further by saying that he cares for the whole of the world and all its creation it would instill a sense of confort in many if not all of the people on earth. I would also think that it would bring everybody on earth closer together seeing that we now have a universal power over us. I cant think of anything negative coming from god revealing himself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024