774 replies to this topic

[Vons]

This may perhaps be a strange idea, but I have several sources to refer to. I will not provide an anothology of my thinking on the subject in this post, but rather through subsequent replies.

Holographic Paradigm

Digital Reality Theory

Physics Presentation

Simple summary: The idea is that 'god', not quite in the classical sense, is the sum of all the information contained within the multi-verse, which is an ever-expanding hologram (whose thermodynamic entropy is increasing, and informational entropy decreasing). This information is not physically and readily available to our observation, so it can be referred to as non-physical, digital information. In order to observe, an informational entropy reduction system, or a consciousness, must decode separate bits of data in the environment (perceived as wavelengths and common sense understandings of matter) and break the data into computable and useful information. Time, as we perceive it, is the product of relative informational changes within a given reality, and there exists a rather linear progression of events. This suggests a historical past and a probabilistic future. (Imagine the trunk of the tree to be the main 'flow' of time, and the subordinate branches as the different historical probabilities that never truly occurred.)

In theory, we would never be able to create 'god'(AKA super-hologram, non-physical information super-system, whatever you want to call the concept..) as he will always be the sum of 'gods' we ever create and all other probabilistic pasts, futures, and infinite other universes.

Please, feel free to discuss and/or pick apart what I put forth.

[Forever21]

A Creator is definitely possible. He created God.

[Vons]

A Creator is definitely possible. He created God.

That is arguably true. But, where did this creator come from? In order to answer this question, I think that humans must be a magnitude smarter than we are now. we can explain what was created, but not WHY.

[Forever21]

The Creator was created by the Father creator and the Grandfather creator and the great great great GREAT creator to the infinity.

God is a maggot.

[Vons]

The Creator was created by the Father creator and the Grandfather creator and the great great great GREAT creator to the infinity.

God is a maggot.

Forever21, I wonder if all of your 1,300 posts are as informative and contributory as this one.

[Reno]

My dad once told me a story when I was growing up. He described a future humanity that had gone out into space searching for these sorts of answers. Who are we? Why are we here? How was the universe created? Is there a God? We put our best super computers to answering these problems. We used them to archive all human knowledge. We designed bigger and better machines with each passing generation. When we developed AI we asked it these questions for which it always returned the reply, "not enough data, still computing." We learned how to leave our planet and explore the solar system, so we moved the AI to the moon. We developed hyperspace travel, and we traveled to the farthest reaches of the universe. Soon after we learned to manipulate other dimensions underneath our own. As soon as we learned to manipulate dimensions we moved our most powerful AI into this dimension to protect it from tampering, shield it from natural disasters, and continue its calculations. With each step we repeated our questions and still it returned the same response. Hydrogen started to become rare. We gathered up clouds of it to power our ships and create our own star systems. Many eons passed and the super intelligence which had become the corner stone of all human culture was finally forgotten. Eventually, all the hydrogen in the universe was used up. The universe went dark, and life was extinguished. Time passed, and one day the AI returned a response, "confirmed, execute," and from the explosion burst forth creation.

I wish i could tell you what book that's from, but dad had a stroke and CRS.

Edited by Reno, 09 October 2010 - 11:53 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The Creator was created by the Father creator and the Grandfather creator and the great great great GREAT creator to the infinity.

God is a maggot.

Forever21, I wonder if all of your 1,300 posts are as informative and contributory as this one.

Interesting. I will have to listen to everything Monday.

[Vons]

My dad once told me a story when I was growing up. He described a future humanity that had gone out into space searching for these sorts of answers. Who are we? Why are we here? How was the universe created? Is there a God? We put our best super computers to answering these problems. We used them to archive all human knowledge. We designed bigger and better machines with each passing generation. When we developed AI we asked it these questions for which it always returned the reply, "not enough data, still computing." We learned how to leave our planet and explore the solar system, so we moved the AI to the moon. We developed hyperspace travel, and we traveled to the farthest reaches of the universe. Soon after we learned to manipulate other dimensions underneath our own. As soon as we learned to manipulate dimensions we moved our most powerful AI into this dimension to protect it from tampering, shield it from natural disasters, and continue its calculations. With each step we repeated our questions and still it returned the same response. Hydrogen started to become rare. We gathered up clouds of it to power our ships and create our own star systems. Many eons passed and the super intelligence which had become the corner stone of all human culture was finally forgotten. Eventually, all the hydrogen in the universe was used up. The universe went dark, and life was extinguished. Time passed, and one day the AI returned a response, "confirmed, execute," and from the explosion burst forth creation.

I wish i could tell you what book that's from, but dad had a stroke and CRS.

That is a rather intriguing and ironic satire on our situation, I enjoyed reading it. Your story seems to also carry a lamentable bit of truth with it as well, but I can't help but think that the conclusion is limited by the writers (and humanities, for that matter) intelligence. I am quite confident that it is somewhat foolish to use our models of current human understanding to predict our comprehensive abilities for the future.

Although at the moment, any speculation as to how or why the universe began is foolish as well. All we can do is explain the state it is currently in, not to say we aren't making remarkable progress.

Thanks for the feedback.

[N.T.M.]

To me it seems just like an excuse to apply the label God. I'm not totally sure, but I'm gonna go over everything in detail later.

[lunarsolarpower]

My dad once told me a story when I was growing up. He described a future humanity that had gone out into space searching for these sorts of answers. Who are we? Why are we here? How was the universe created? Is there a God? We put our best super computers to answering these problems. We used them to archive all human knowledge. We designed bigger and better machines with each passing generation. When we developed AI we asked it these questions for which it always returned the reply, "not enough data, still computing." We learned how to leave our planet and explore the solar system, so we moved the AI to the moon. We developed hyperspace travel, and we traveled to the farthest reaches of the universe. Soon after we learned to manipulate other dimensions underneath our own. As soon as we learned to manipulate dimensions we moved our most powerful AI into this dimension to protect it from tampering, shield it from natural disasters, and continue its calculations. With each step we repeated our questions and still it returned the same response. Hydrogen started to become rare. We gathered up clouds of it to power our ships and create our own star systems. Many eons passed and the super intelligence which had become the corner stone of all human culture was finally forgotten. Eventually, all the hydrogen in the universe was used up. The universe went dark, and life was extinguished. Time passed, and one day the AI returned a response, "confirmed, execute," and from the explosion burst forth creation.

I wish i could tell you what book that's from, but dad had a stroke and CRS.

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov - a great short story.

[churchill]

If there is a god it is probably someone running a simulation on their computer, occasionally throwing around miracles just to mess with his virtual sims. I just hope he does not get bored and turn of his/her/its computer.

[Luna]

Everything is theoretically possible... have theoretically possible fun!

[Reno]

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov - a great short story.

Wow, thank you. I've been wondering where that story came from for years. I guess my version is what you get from a 20 year old child's interpretation of a great story.

Edited by Reno, 11 October 2010 - 04:16 PM.

[Vons]

To me it seems just like an excuse to apply the label God. I'm not totally sure, but I'm gonna go over everything in detail later.

If the thought ever crossed your mind, I am by no means religious. The lone reason for which I used the term 'god' is I had trouble finding another name to describe the ever-speculated phenomenon.

Everything is theoretically possible... have theoretically possible fun!

I assume sarcasm is generously distributed to members upon joining this forum, no?

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov - a great short story.

I concur, this truly is well written.

Edited by Vons, 11 October 2010 - 06:52 PM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

No, God is not theoretically possible. Omnipotence and omniscience are properties which can not possibly occur. They violate the laws of non-contradiction and identity. The supernatural does not exist by definition.
Are interdimensional superbeings possible? In the loosest sense of the word 'possible', yes. But probable? There is no evidence they exist and plenty of theoretical reasons to think they do not.

[Vons]

No, God is not theoretically possible. Omnipotence and omniscience are properties which can not possibly occur. They violate the laws of non-contradiction and identity. The supernatural does not exist by definition.
Are interdimensional superbeings possible? In the loosest sense of the word 'possible', yes. But probable? There is no evidence they exist and plenty of theoretical reasons to think they do not.

That is precisely why I said "not in the way that you may think". I was stating that the sum of all the information in the multi-verse can be considered "god", however not the omniscient god of which you refer to. That is the god that we created, not vice versa. I would also be quite interested in hearing your so called "theoretical reasons".

Edited by Vons, 14 October 2010 - 02:29 AM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

[shadowhawk]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

[Rational Madman]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

[shadowhawk]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

Perhaps that is y our way but not mine. I will look at your literature if you have a point to make.

[Rational Madman]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

Perhaps that is y our way but not mine. I will look at your literature if you have a point to make.

My point is that you're not interested in meaningful discourse, but rather, bolstering your insecure convictions by ceaselessly regurgitating religious dogma. Either get a life, or join a religious cult (whom can sometimes be found handing out pamphlets at malls).

Edited by Rol82, 20 October 2010 - 01:04 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

Perhaps that is y our way but not mine. I will look at your literature if you have a point to make.

Why waste your time Shadowhawk? You're not going to change anybody's mind here. And even if you could, you're certainly not going to change anybody's heart. These spiritually dry and intellectually uninteresting arguments are unlikely to achieve anything other than a hardening of positions on one side, and a gradual dessication of the soul on the other. It is not beneficial for anyone.

[shadowhawk]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

Perhaps that is y our way but not mine. I will look at your literature if you have a point to make.

My point is that you're not interested in meaningful discourse, but rather, bolstering your insecure convictions by ceaselessly regurgitating religious dogma. Either get a life, or join a religious cult (whom can sometimes be found handing out pamphlets at malls).

And my point is your remarks are not meaningful discourse. You have offered nothing. I think you are the insecure one wanting to stop a discussion about God in a “God Is Theoretically Possible,” forum? What, the subject to much to address for you? So this is really about insults, not interested.

[shadowhawk]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

Hi;
Try this as well. Thanks for the book reference. I ordered it as well as the reviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KzHMKFeNY&NR=1

Couldn't you just go to a mall and hand out literature or something?

Perhaps that is y our way but not mine. I will look at your literature if you have a point to make.

Why waste your time Shadowhawk? You're not going to change anybody's mind here. And even if you could, you're certainly not going to change anybody's heart. These spiritually dry and intellectually uninteresting arguments are unlikely to achieve anything other than a hardening of positions on one side, and a gradual dessication of the soul on the other. It is not beneficial for anyone.

I am not trying to change anyone’s mind or heart. Not my job. How do you know no ones mind or heart will change? I have several emails privately, which say differently. What aguements are spiritually not dry? I just spent some time discussing issues in the Bible. Read the Bible on hardening of hearts. Some discussions are intellectual. Some subjects are interesting to some people. If not interested people don’t read them. I do it all the time. The subject of this topic is about God. It is deep and I have been listening to the 18 videos. They are deep. Someone not interested in God topics should move on and not try to keep anyone else from discussing it. It is very interesting.

I can’t be responsible or anyone’s reactions. Should theists just shut up while Atheists rave on?

By the way, you are one of my favorites and I read most of what you post. Thanks for this good criticism.

[Reno]

That guy makes me want to shotgun my face off. Trying to answer this question with any certainty using our current scope of understanding is pure hubris. About the best we can hope to accomplish is to live long enough to see the day in which our scope is broadened. Even then, I doubt we'll find an answer everyone will be happy with.

[shadowhawk]

That guy makes me want to shotgun my face off. Trying to answer this question with any certainty using our current scope of understanding is pure hubris. About the best we can hope to accomplish is to live long enough to see the day in which our scope is broadened. Even then, I doubt we'll find an answer everyone will be happy with.

These are classic arguments for the existence of God that are as old as humankind. God, not being a part of the physical world is a philosophical issue. Each issue is not designed to be compelling proof, only a logical philosophical one. There are many more arguments beside these classical ones. I can understand that some do not like to argue philosophy. How many times have I heard Christians condemned because they don’t like Philosophy. You are not alone. Despite this many people enjoy topics like this. Don’t blow your head off, just don’t bother.

[NeuroGuy]

One argument I like, which is somewhat neutral but leaves the possibility of a higher being, is the similarity between an atom and a solar system. Theres alot of recurring patterns found in nature, but this one doesn't seem to be talked about much. An atom is almost entirely empty space, with a dense sphere core and in comparison, tiny orbiting spheres. Now zoom out a bit and look at the solar system. Dense sphere core, almost entirely empty space and in comparison to the core, tiny orbiting spheres.

You could make another loose comparison with a cell nucleus but its besides the point. Point is, if your the size of an atom, can you tell that your part of a cell, much less a solar system? No, because the sheer size difference is incomprehensible from that point of view. Considering recurring patterns in nature, I think it's rationally possible that everything we're able to see could make up something greater then we're capable of comprehending.

[shadowhawk]

One argument I like, which is somewhat neutral but leaves the possibility of a higher being, is the similarity between an atom and a solar system. Theres alot of recurring patterns found in nature, but this one doesn't seem to be talked about much. An atom is almost entirely empty space, with a dense sphere core and in comparison, tiny orbiting spheres. Now zoom out a bit and look at the solar system. Dense sphere core, almost entirely empty space and in comparison to the core, tiny orbiting spheres.

You could make another loose comparison with a cell nucleus but its besides the point. Point is, if your the size of an atom, can you tell that your part of a cell, much less a solar system? No, because the sheer size difference is incomprehensible from that point of view. Considering recurring patterns in nature, I think it's rationally possible that everything we're able to see could make up something greater then we're capable of comprehending.

You are right, it does not prove God but it sure is interesting. Why is there something rather than nothing and why is it like it is. All the shapes of nature and the laws of nature. Are we part of some larger body or thing? What is death all about? Why?

[Pham Nuwen]

That guy makes me want to shotgun my face off. Trying to answer this question with any certainty using our current scope of understanding is pure hubris. About the best we can hope to accomplish is to live long enough to see the day in which our scope is broadened. Even then, I doubt we'll find an answer everyone will be happy with.

These are classic arguments for the existence of God that are as old as humankind. God, not being a part of the physical world is a philosophical issue. Each issue is not designed to be compelling proof, only a logical philosophical one. There are many more arguments beside these classical ones. I can understand that some do not like to argue philosophy. How many times have I heard Christians condemned because they don't like Philosophy. You are not alone. Despite this many people enjoy topics like this. Don't blow your head off, just don't bother.

Please explain to me how you deal with the self-contradiction and mutual-contradiction paradoxes inherent in just about every attribute Christian theologians have ever assigned to their "God" Just to name a few, omnipotence, omniscience, and ineffability are self-contradictory, omniscience and free will (the supposed God's free will), omnibenevolence and the presence of evil, the creation of the universe and God's perfect nature are mutually exclusive and so on and so forth.

[Pham Nuwen]

Too lazy to exposit Aristotilian logic on here, but this book is great on that and supernatural nonsense: http://www.amazon.co...f/dp/087975124X

That's an excellent read. If I may recommend a good book myself, The Nonexistence of God by Nicholas Everitt deals with all the logical inconsistencies inherent in the Judeo-Chriso-Islamic theologians' concept of God in detail.

Edited by Pham Nuwen, 24 November 2010 - 06:26 AM.