Not a God, a creator.

[qayak]

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

Unless they were supernatural (a god), a creator would have to create our universe inside their own. Because everything inside a universe affects everything else within that universe, everything in their universe would affect ours. But we cannot see outside our universe, so we would see the effects inside our own but we would not see what was causing them.

So, let's say they make our universe and put it in space in theirs. Then one day a comet passing through their space, comes close to our mini-universe. Everything we see in our universe would shift off toward the side the comet was on. So we would see everything shift but we wouldn't see the comet (it is outside our universe).

Wouldn't that be a strange phenomenon? Wouldn't we notice that? It seems to me that it would be a direct indication that there were things outside our universe and they were on a much larger scale.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Unless they were supernatural (a god), a creator would have to create our universe inside their own. Because everything inside a universe affects everything else within that universe, everything in their universe would affect ours. But we cannot see outside our universe, so we would see the effects inside our own but we would not see what was causing them.

So, let's say they make our universe and put it in space in theirs. Then one day a comet passing through their space, comes close to our mini-universe. Everything we see in our universe would shift off toward the side the comet was on. So we would see everything shift but we wouldn't see the comet (it is outside our universe).

Wouldn't that be a strange phenomenon? Wouldn't we notice that? It seems to me that it would be a direct indication that there were things outside our universe and they were on a much larger scale.

From what I read on other threads, some would take that as a sign of God, writing its name with stars. "Nothing could have done that, it must be God." Now, it would be just a sign of another (larger) universe. Okay, you seem to have a handle on that stuff, what would that type of movement do to us here? I mean, the sudden movement of clusters and clusters of galaxies? Would their be a "ripple" or something?

 

[qayak]

From what I read on other threads, some would take that as a sign of God, writing its name with stars. "Nothing could have done that, it must be God." Now, it would be just a sign of another (larger) universe.

Many people would say it was god but a few would try and figure out what would cause it based on know information. Understanding what our universe is and what could affect it in that manner is very important. We have the ability to understand some of this now, whereas before people did not.

Okay, you seem to have a handle on that stuff, what would that type of movement do to us here? I mean, the sudden movement of clusters and clusters of galaxies? Would their be a "ripple" or something?

I assume that it would be catastrophic to have a billion, billion stars and their accompanying planets, all plastered against one small area on the edge of the universe.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

Exactly. Purposely lying, or willfully believing the lies. If believing took no effort at all we would not have so many people upset by skepticism about faith.

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 understand many people like that idea, but that is the only reason for people to believe it. There is no evidence, or else this would not even be discussed here.

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.

Is it a creator God or just a creator? If it's not a god we'll likely find evidence eventually.

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.

I don't understand how it is not moot, except from a social/psychological perspective. Can you explain?

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

Indeed. There are more reasons than that however.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Exactly. Purposely lying, or willfully believing the lies. If believing took no effort at all we would not have so many people upset by skepticism about faith.

Some people have a problem explaining away the "felt connection" they feel. I think it comes from the fact that everything is connected. Humans can put (or try to put) those feelings into words.
Somebody in another thread talked about how people need explanations, even incomplete ones.
I think that in ancient times people were more willing to accept anything, and some religions were strong enough to keep flawed ideas going.

I understand many people like that idea, but that is the only reason for people to believe it. There is no evidence, or else this would not even be discussed here.

Order is my reason. Though I am fine with that order being produced by four forces accidently. I just can't rule out it not being an accident.

Is it a creator God or just a creator? If it's not a god we'll likely find evidence eventually.

I vote creator. The image of an all-powerful, all-knowing, forever living, meddling, jealous, lesson teaching God, is a human invention and the source of a lot of trouble.

I don't understand how it is not moot, except from a social/psychological perspective. Can you explain?

God working throughout creation evenly should make it moot. Afterall, no one talks about the air we all breathe favoring someone over another, yet men sees its Gods/God showing favor, more powerful, etc.

Indeed. There are more reasons than that however.

Like what?

 

[wollery]

God working throughout creation evenly should make it moot. Afterall, no one talks about the air we all breathe favoring someone over another, yet men sees its Gods/God showing favor, more powerful, etc.

And you have it favouring humans over cows.

 

[qayak]

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.

You must have some idea of the attributes this creator would have. If not, what do you base you leanings on? People have assigned an identity to the "standard" creator and that is "god."

If you are saying it is not the standard god with all his standard godly qualities what do you propose in his stead?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And you have it favouring humans over cows.

I don't really. I know that everything plays a part, but only one form of life (as yet) has reached the level of humans on the evolutionary scale. They are another level of the process. Something like life leaving the water, becoming warmbloodied, or taking to the air. They became conscious of the process, giving it another range of possibilities.

 

[D'rok]

I don't really. I know that everything plays a part, but only one form of life (as yet) has reached the level of humans on the evolutionary scale. They are another level of the process. Something like life leaving the water, becoming warmbloodied, or taking to the air. They became conscious of the process, giving it another range of possibilities.

Please define "evolutionary scale" along with what constitutes "levels" on this scale.

 

[Faithkills]

Some people have a problem explaining away the "felt connection" they feel. I think it comes from the fact that everything is connected. Humans can put (or try to put) those feelings into words.

People have feelings. About all sorts of things. I've had women tell me they could just feel that I was really in love with them I just couldn't admit it or they could feel that I was thinking about them or that they could feel that we had a connection. Those were not valid either;P

Psychics have feelings all the time and tell us about them.

People have feelings they want to feel. That doesn't mean there is any objective reality associated with them. It just means they want to feel something.

Somebody in another thread talked about how people need explanations, even incomplete ones.
I think that in ancient times people were more willing to accept anything, and some religions were strong enough to keep flawed ideas going.

Order is my reason. Though I am fine with that order being produced by four forces accidently. I just can't rule out it not being an accident.

I am guessing that you are more drawn to intention than lack of accident. If a hammer falls, it is not accident. It is doing what is required by natural processes. If life evolves it is similarly behaving according to natural processes. This requires neither intention nor god. The hammer does not intend to fall, it merely falls. Life does not intend to evolve it merely evolves.

In this context I will stipulate we are not here by accident. It is likely that life is inevitable given the right circumstances. That doesn't mean god, or light, or the universe made it so. With intention or without.

I vote creator. The image of an all-powerful, all-knowing, forever living, meddling, jealous, lesson teaching God, is a human invention and the source of a lot of trouble.

But then an explicable creator is not nearly as fun. There could be one, absolutely agreed, but then what created it? And then what created that? It is as easy to imagine a null creator as an infinitely recursive one. But it is more parsimonious to imagine a null creator.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Please define "evolutionary scale" along with what constitutes "levels" on this scale.

Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.

 

[D'rok]

Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms. This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such. This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You must have some idea of the attributes this creator would have.

I'm not burying that mini-universe thing where the scientist/creator lives pretty much like we do, only in the clouds, meddling when he sees fit.
And I have already said what I think the creators attributes are: negative, positive, attraction and repulsion.

If not, what do you base you leanings on?

I see (and science confirms) a patterned process.

People have assigned an identity to the "standard" creator and that is "god."

They blended two different words. The creator of something is not necessarilly a God, which seems to mean an "all powerful" being. Something that comes with all types of flaws. The women need not be a saint, to give birth to a pope.

If you are saying it is not the standard god with all his standard godly qualities what do you propose in his stead?

A patterned process, with humans "trying" to explain how they feel, see, and theorized it.

 

[wollery]

Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.

No, he's asking you to define your terms.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms.

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.

This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such.

More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.

Clinging? I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution. Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was had to happen though, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, he's asking you to define your terms.

That gives me a lot of unnecessary paper work. He knows my view. Tell me why it is wrong-in reference to what is being said here.

 

[sackett]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

They don't call him Tricky for nothing: Notice how he just happens to leave out any mention of the Trinity: Olive, Tomato, and Holy Basil.

Vile heretic!

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

They don't call him Tricky for nothing: Notice how he just happens to leave out any mention of the Trinity: Olive, Tomato, and Holy Basil.

Vile heretic!

Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.

 

[D'rok]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

Nope. There is no necessity for evolution to increase complexity. If a decrease in complexity is naturally selected as advantageous, that too is evolution.

Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

You sound like you've read too much Kurzweil. The technological activities and "creations" of humans are not part of the evolutionary process. You are making an unsupportable rhetorical and philosophical leap.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.

See above.

More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

See both above.

Clinging? I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution. Humans can't be the purpose of the process.
That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years.

Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.

"Something" developing consciousness was had to happen though, it just "happened" to be them.

Nope. Completely without merit. Just because something happened does not mean that it had to happen. There is nothing about evolution that mandates consciousness. Consciousness is not the "purpose of the process" any more than humans are. This is the source of your delusion.

And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks.

Would you prefer egregious error?

 

[Hokulele]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

This is completely wrong. Research the evolution of parasitic worms for the classic example of how evolution can lead to less complex forms.