Not a God, a creator.

[Tricky]

We are who we are, surrounded by whatever it is. Emotions are the only way to understand that part of us.

No it isn't. In fact, emotions get in the way of understanding by making us believe what we like rather than what has evidence.

We are going to have to do the best we can, but we must do.

I'm not exactly sure what this "must do" thing is. It would be nice, maybe even helpful to know what lies outside of our solar system, but if we don't, we'll still muddle through.

Mental/emotional energy is what is driving the interactions of life. They break down into well recoginzed "frequencies and polarities" that we have given names like love/hate, negative/positive, etc.

No they don't. Things are much more complex than just polarities. But I think this has been discussed in your eponymous thread.

They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do.

Being of the same species, people will have similar tendencies in the way they react to things, but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.

Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do. Once the energy conveying their situation reaches us, we access our file on that, and hopefully, we have a good one. That, and act on it right.

Energy? Are you speaking of actual energy or are you making a metaphor? You need to be careful about trying to disguise philosophy under scientific sheep skins. There are too many people here who are talented at BS detection. As for "acting on it right", that's a moral decision, and I'm not sure you and I would agree on what "right" means.

 

[Hokulele]

They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do.

You have never been married, have you.

 

[qayak]

Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.

Interesting idea. Of course, the universe the creator was from would have to have the same laws as ours. The creator would not be able to violate the laws of his universe just to create ours unless he was a god (supernatural). That would mean that the life he creates would pretty much have to be the same as the life in his universe as well. If you can't violate the laws, you can't create anything much different than what you already have.

So, this would have to be a mini universe that is the same in all respects except size. Not much chance of that. How would you get something the size of an atom to act the same as something the size of jupiter?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No it isn't. In fact, emotions get in the way of understanding by making us believe what we like rather than what has evidence.

It could do that, but the scientific method was invented to help with that. Yet, it cannot be applied to everything. Emotions cannot be mathematically plotted, but are still a part of the equation.

I'm not exactly sure what this "must do" thing is. It would be nice, maybe even helpful to know what lies outside of our solar system, but if we don't, we'll still muddle through.

Deal with all of the equation. And emotions are part of our solar system.

No they don't. Things are much more complex than just polarities. But I think this has been discussed in your eponymous thread.

I know that there is a lot of things involved in being angry, but the overall affect is that you are.

Being of the same species, people will have similar tendencies in the way they react to things, but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.

Of course we can't read minds, but body language like "angrily showing teeth" can be read across species.

Energy? Are you speaking of actual energy or are you making a metaphor? You need to be careful about trying to disguise philosophy under scientific sheep skins. There are too many people here who are talented at BS detection. As for "acting on it right", that's a moral decision, and I'm not sure you and I would agree on what "right" means.

Sight is our primary means of dealing with our world, and it works through reflected energy.

 

[Beerina]

Interesting idea. Of course, the universe the creator was from would have to have the same laws as ours. The creator would not be able to violate the laws of his universe just to create ours

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.

 

[D'rok]

And emotions are part of our solar system.

Wronger than wrong.

 

[joobz]

Of course we can't read minds, but body language like "angrily showing teeth" can be read across species.

And here is where you go demonstrably wrong. Body language, like spoken langauge, is also easily missunderstood and there are even differences within species that make cross species differences error prone.
For instnace, your showing of teeth example has multiple times had peaceful meanings in some species.

Peaceful meaning for the silent bared-teeth displays of mandrills

and what about species that don't have teeth?

again, As Tricky pointed out,

...but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.

 

[Lonewulf]

Emotions are part of our brain.

The same way that digital processing is part of my computer.

 

[Faithkills]

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

If we can know something about our creators then it is merely part of the universe, the universe is just bigger than we thought. Like lightning before it, cosmic genesis then does not require a god. Not magical. Our creators are then just post doc computer geeks in the next bubble up doing their theses in synthetic reality. Explainable. Knowable. If we can know them then they are bounded by our logic, and thus inferior to it.

If we can't know anything about the creators then we cannot logically ascribe any properties to them, including their existence or lack thereof. They are thus entirely logically moot and in reality moot.

This is the problem with the 'unknowable God' thing. People want a magical god but if we can know him he's not magical. If we cannot know him he's not relevant. (and most likely not existent, but I will not assert that which I do not know for certain)

 

[qayak]

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.

I agree with what you say but disagree that it applies. LCL stated that this was a mini-universe, not a simulation.

That means that anything inside that universe is governed by its laws. In order to change the natural laws in one's universe one must be supernatural. This creator is supposedly NOT a god so they must operate inside the rules. If there was no limitation on the speed of light, how could he put a limitation on it when creating our mini-universe inside his own universe? How would he isolate our universe from his so that the things we see as being outside our universe, but still inside his, do not affect the things inside ours?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And here is where you go demonstrably wrong. Body language, like spoken langauge, is also easily missunderstood and there are even differences within species that make cross species differences error prone.
For instnace, your showing of teeth example has multiple times had peaceful meanings in some species.

Peaceful meaning for the silent bared-teeth displays of mandrills

Of course the same type of body language can have different meanings, but the players involved can read it. A smile can bare the teeth, but the rest of the face helps convey the intent. A nervous smile and looking away conveys uneasy, a slanted one can convey jest, you know how it goes.

and what about species that don't have teeth?

Then they would be unable to communicate in that way. I know that you are not saying that because some life forms don't have teeth, that those that do don't communicate with them.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Emotions are part of our brain.

The same way that digital processing is part of my computer.

Okay. But they are an essential part of the lifeform. Life acted on what it felt, before humans (tried) put reason to it. And the programing of life, allows us to pretty much read from the same page.

 

[qayak]

Of course the same type of body language can have different meanings, but the players involved can read it. A smile can bare the teeth, but the rest of the face helps convey the intent. A nervous smile and looking away conveys uneasy, a slanted one can convey jest, you know how it goes.

What about species with the ability to lie?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If we can know something about our creators then it is merely part of the universe, the universe is just bigger than we thought. Like lightning before it, cosmic genesis then does not require a god. Not magical. Our creators are then just post doc computer geeks in the next bubble up doing their theses in synthetic reality. Explainable. Knowable. If we can know them then they are bounded by our logic, and thus inferior to it.

Science can look magical, but its not. That magical stuff came about because early man did not understand, and did the best he could. That is when he was not purposely lying.

If we can't know anything about the creators then we cannot logically ascribe any properties to them, including their existence or lack thereof. They are thus entirely logically moot and in reality moot.

I don't know about that. I see a patterned process that may, or may not, have had a creator. I lean towards a creator, but can assign no identity to it. I just can't see that just because a creator made the universe, that it can live 14 billion years to see life develop. Or, considering the slow pace of the method of creation, why a creator would speed up to grant people's wishes. So yeah, in reality moot, yet it is everything but that. I think that that has to do with what people feel, like "God wants us to love each other." Only, that feeling could come from being part of a progressive patterned process.

This is the problem with the 'unknowable God' thing. People want a magical god but if we can know him he's not magical. If we cannot know him he's not relevant. (and most likely not existent, but I will not assert that which I do not know for certain)

I know all the religions can't be right, so it is likely none of them are.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.

I thought without the constants being as they are, that the universe would not be able to create life?

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.

Wow, so I guess people are already working on that. Maybe the next jump in computer technology could give us enough computing power. I once heard that a Japanese scientist was trying to create a mini "big bang."

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What about species with the ability to lie?

That just makes them harder to read.

 

[wollery]

I thought without the constants being as they are, that the universe would not be able to create life?

It would not be able to create life as we know it. That's not the same thing at all.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I agree with what you say but disagree that it applies. LCL stated that this was a mini-universe, not a simulation.

They could stimulate it first. I came in with them having already had a mini-universe up and running.

That means that anything inside that universe is governed by its laws. In order to change the natural laws in one's universe one must be supernatural. This creator is supposedly NOT a god so they must operate inside the rules. If there was no limitation on the speed of light, how could he put a limitation on it when creating our mini-universe inside his own universe?

We have to use what we know about our own universe because it has already proven to be able to create life.

How would he isolate our universe from his so that the things we see as being outside our universe, but still inside his, do not affect the things inside ours?

I don't understand this. What do we see that is outside our universe?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It would not be able to create life as we know it. That's not the same thing at all.

Do you mean something like silicon instead of carbon being basic to life?

 

[wollery]

Do you mean something like silicon instead of carbon being basic to life?

No, I mean all the atoms having different properties, there being no such thing as Carbon or Silicon, even assuming that there are atoms at all. I mean the Universe having totally different properties.