The Agnostic Evolution Of Deity Thread

[evildave]

These ideas are 'nothing new'. I'll just present them, and we can have fun shooting them up.

It could be possible that a 'deity' of some sort made life. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, such an entity could not have been 'created', except by a previously existing entity. So, either we have an endless chain of entity-making-entity, or we could assume that at some point, from some system prior to this, such an entity must have evolved.

Evolution is a satisfactory model (to me) as an explanation for how seemingly 'simple' systems self-organize into more 'complex' systems.

Self-assembly is in fact a fabrication technique used for decades in chemistry, and more recently in electronic and photonic fabrication research.

A google search of "self assembly" will yield many interesting articles about it.

Given a system where 'bignum' potential chemical reactions of all kinds may occur in 'bignum' places, the chances are quite good that some self-assembling chemical reactions will take place, and of those reactions, occasionally some will 'carry on'. We will call these that 'carry on' an 'experiment'.

One of the primary tenets of evolution is that you have a lot of parallel experiments running all the time. Many fail, a few carry on. Over time, errors occur which cause new kinds of experiments. Most of these errors are fatal. Some are not, and may even 'win' over other experiments. Thus the experimental model improves.

By this reasoning, in the environment where a deity 'evolves', many other deities of various descriptions must have also evolved. It is vanishingly unlikely that a single instance of experiment within an evolutionary system would produce anything but failure. It is more likely that a LOT of experiments produced many classes of entity which could have become 'deity'. Given enough experiment, and enough time, why not?

Of course, this comes right back around to begging the question and violating parsimony. Would such a system be more likely to produce perfect, immortal deities, or something 'merely' mortal? If it's more likely to produce mortal beings, wouldn't it do to assume the evolutionary system was at work here, all along, without envisioning an externally evolved 'deity' at work?

Consider that once something becomes immortal, it could not evolve any more, else it would be very, very mortal. It might produce either immortal progeny that do not evolve, or mortal progeny that might evolve, but the immortal would not.

The question becomes: Has such an almighty, perfect or immortal being ever existed, will it ever exist, could it ever exist, and if it has existed, does exist, or may exist, might it produce mortal offspring to attempt further evolution, or assume that it's 'perfect' and leave well enough alone, or resort to design to attempt further, better generations?

Would a being wise enough to produce evolving mortal progeny to produce something better or equal to its self worry over what such beings thought of it, or feel threatened by their actions?

Perhaps assuming it 'created' more life as a diversion (as opposed to tinkering with life that it found already operating, which is also a reasonable possibility), would such a being worry over what such beings thought of it, or feel threatened by the actions of that life?

 

[Yahweh]

Consider that once something becomes immortal, it could not evolve any more, else it would be very, very mortal. It might produce either immortal progeny that do not evolve, or mortal progeny that might evolve, but the immortal would not.

You dont need to die to evolve, just produce offspring that are slightly more "evolved" than you.

 

[evildave]

But they aren't "you" anymore, are they?

And how could you know if it was better?

If it supplanted you?

How could it supplant you, if you're 'immortal'?

 

[Correa Neto]

My two cents-

A defendant of the idea may appeal for a number of alternate paths. It could be argued, for example, that the deity self-assembled after the universe (or even after the Big bang- note that we are following lines of reasoning that hardly have any reasoning) was formed and slowly, by countless iteractions that generated an evolutionary proceess acquired counsicence, or that it is still acquiring, evolving with us (anthropocentrism anyone?) as some sort of collective counscience or the collective incounscience. Some sort of Gaia hipothesis for the universe.

The deity would be a consequence of life, and not its cause (could I get some cash selling books about this idea?). We could spend days creating imaginary realtionships between (supposed) god (or gods) and universes, many of them following sets of (relatively) logical rules, but none of them real.

edited to add
As for a deity generating more evolved offsprings, well, its not that different from the several doctrines that postulate that from an initial unreachable and single, undivided deity, "emanated" new manifestations (or new gods). In some cases they cohexist, in others the destroy their progenitors and in some they somehow serve as "links" between the "higher" deity and the lower creatures, that would be us.
end edit

The problem with (I think all, but I may be wrong) hipothesis about the nature or origin of God (or gods, or goddes, or godesses) is that they are utterly locked in to problems either related to logic or/and lack of evidence.

I think the above notions have the same type of flaws that, for example the Holy Trinity concept has. After thinking about one of them, one starts finding a serious problem. Then he/she has to create a tortous and complex workaround path, that is, most likely, an even more problematic and frail construct.

And sure, you can't argue with a catholic (at least with one that follows catholicism "by the book)"about the Holy Trinity- its a dogma. Actually turning these constructs in to dogmas is the only way to make them stand against critical thinking.

Sorry for the OT digression.

 

[evildave]

This topic isn't here to seriously defend any particular belief, it's here to dissect them.

I mean, we could make hay with the Rael stuff about 'aliens' being mistaken for 'gods' as well. That's been done to death, too.

The problems with a well defined deity is, as you state, evidence and contradiction. No evidence, lots of rationalizing whoopdy-doo and ipse dixit.

It's one of the reasons so many god believers believe in terribly abstract gods. Nothing stands up to reasonable analysis, and it always boils down to "Someone said so".

It's like the 'universe is all in god's imagination' junk; if this universe is being imagined, what's the imagining entity exist in? Another endless chain of imagined universes being dreamed about?

Can there be any basis besides blind, idiotic faith to believe in any gods at all?

Certainly as an exercise in polishing off gods, making up seemingly 'reasonable' deity development hypotheses should be useful for dissecting deity beliefs.

In short, given an infinite number of instantiations of different kinds of universes for a "god" to develop in, yes, it's perhaps possible for an order of infinity of "gods" of the desirable properties to self assemble and evolve.

But it's a LOT more likely for something a lot more mundane, like US to evolve in a vastly greater order of infinity* of these universes.

So, it just seems a lot more likely that life would have evolved before/without gods. Perhaps I over-simplify?


* Do a google search on "order of infinity" to get more details about this concept, but it's basically subdividing infinite quantities as if they are portions of finite ones.

 

[evildave]

Anyway, what is the likelihood that evolution could attain anything like 'perfection'?

How would evolution even define perfection?

Certainly 'perfection' is very subjective.

A 'perfect' god who would hold people's beliefs and opinions against them, even punishing them for not believing in it doesn't seem all that perfect to me, for instance.

Evolution tends to produce things that survive long enough to seed another generation. A large variety of different things. If it only produced one thing, that one thing would be a dead end, as far as evolution is concerned. The slightest little boo-boo, and the one thing is gone: extinction. Evolution is all about the boo-boos happening to a smaller subset of the living population of experiments capable of producing more experiments than the population of experiments. The bigger the population, the more kinds of experiments can safely happen.

What will evolution deliver for 'perfection'? Most evolution tends to specialize toward dead ends. The progeny of the thing that ended up with the longer reach to get the previously unobtainable food have an advantage. Eventually, the progeny can over-specialize to only be able to reach that kind of food, and if their population is unchecked by predators or complex mating rituals, or that food has a problem one year, they can exhaust that supply and crash the population.

One of the properties that tends to be 'perfect' for evolution is the capacity for a certain amount of progeny to differ from the parents. The process can't predict what will be advantageous or crippling or inconsequential. It selects variation randomly and lets the survivors "win", while the runners up "lose". More often than not the changes don't make any real difference, like whether that cat's tail is banded bronze/black or banded black/bronze.

Certainly a 'perfection' that was immutable would not stay so perfect for very long. It seems when evolution discovers something 'perfect', it usually makes a 'perfect' jellyfish or shark or cockroach that remains fairly stable in its ecological niche through ages.

 

[Correa Neto]

Why some (some? better type most) people feel the need to belive in god? This surely would generate an interesting thread. The need for religion or belief in a god is created by a series of cultural constraints. And in many cases I agree, it sheer idiocy. I also agree that studing the beliefs and, as you stated, making up "seemingly 'reasonable' deity" is a quite usefull exercise. Two things become clear quite fast-

(1) Anyone with a reasonably well-developed imagination can create a concept (or doctrine) of god. If the person has a bit of comprehension of logic, a complex and quite logical doctrine can be created. It will still be however, locked in one or more of the usual dead ends.
(2) What is a deity? For some ancient people, their emperor or king was a god. This is a completely different concept than, for example, the creation gods. I tend to think that many people, even today, would be happy with a concept that "a god is a powerfull entity that can do things I can't and don't have a clue of how these things can be done- it must be supernatural". Its common in sci-fi stories to show technologically advanced beings as gods or god-like, and such concept is readilly adopted by UFO cults, for example. Another example, some people will follow and worship their leaders or heros on an almost (almost?) religious way. I would tend to cast the definition of a god as an entity that has supernatural powers, a being that can ignore, is not restricted by or at least can tweak the physical laws. A being that could, for example, travel faster than light on a universe where nothing can travel faster than light, where regardless of how advanced in physics you are, there are no ways of going FTL. Note that even this concept has limitations, if one uses the concepts of universes within universes or multiverses- you can't go FTL in that particular universe, but out "god" took a shortcut using another universe. Would this still qualify it as a god?

Now, here comes an interesting sideline- we are talking about deities that evolve, become better with time. Ancient traditions show what we could call as gods devolving from a primal source. Thats a completely different concept. And avoids many problems and dead ends. But it has others.

Let's suppose that we (or some other sentient species) can evolve "forever". Then, when could these hipothetical creatures, generated by the run-of-the-mill evolution laws, submitted to the laws of physics just like us, be called gods? I tend to think they should never be. Advanced and powerfull, sure. Supernatural gods? No. As long as the entity is limited by the same set of equations that rules us, the entity is not a god.

Note that this is quite like your concept of "given an infinite number of instantiations of different kinds of universes for a "god" to develop in, yes, it's perhaps possible for an order of infinity of "gods" of the desirable properties to self assemble and evolve." I am just casting doubts if they could be deemed gods.

Another good topic- evolution, perfection and steady state. At least the three major religions speak about an immutable god and living an afterlife through the eternity without change. We know that the very universe changes with time. Some would say that this is so because its "material" and therefore flawed... What will bring the discussion to another dead end...

Perfection seems to me a quite anthropocentric concept. Just as evolution tending to advance towards increasing complexity and having a final goal of creating sentient creatures. Evolution "creates" batches of creatures that are adapted to a number of niches. Cockroaches, sharks, jellyfishes, crocodiles, ants, turtles among other species (not to mention the unsung microbes) are survivors because they are adaptable to a vast variety of habitats. Jellyfishes are around for 2 billion years and are not exactly the most complex creatures around. Cyanobacteria are around here for 3.5 billion years. We are around for a very short time. So far, we are very adaptable, and our complexity seems to be working to make us more adaptable and able to survive. But will we be able to beat the jellyfishes and the cyanobacteria? Maybe we'll turn out to be just another looser in the competition. If a big meteor hits our planet now, I bet jellyfishes and cyanobacteria will survive. I'm not sure about our species.

So, that's just to say that I'm not sure if the definition of "perfection" or outcome in evolutionary terms would be a complex entity. And also, I'm not sure if the formation and evolution of complex creatures as our "gods" would actually happen in a significative number or be common among our test universes. I think the most likely and common products would most likely be simple and adaptable lifeforms. But why not complex adaptable god-like beings? Well, maybe it will. But the brain is a complex and energy-consuming organ. If to survive a species has to live with less food, and if it does not need to be that smart, evolution will get rid of that big brain, just like it got rid of the feet in snakes. OK, maybe keeping the big brain is the key to survival. It may well be. But, so far the winners we know are no-brainers. I may be wrong, and actually I hope I am, but if I had to choose which one is more likely to evolve and survive in the long run, some highly evolved god-like being or the cyanobacteria, I would put my money on the bacteria...

 

[evildave]

It's interesting to note how well flies and rats and other "pests" have done by tagging along with humans. These are generally tiny-brained critters that get a free ride by being "everywhere", or leaving their eggs in your luggage.

Pets also have their tickets stamped.

Even if humans were to go to live in space, or on other planetary bodies, as soon as leaving Earth bacame a fairly 'mundane' practice, the pets, pests and many of the parasites will join us in space, too.

Evolution doesn't have a 'goal', but it has developed some priorities.

1. Reproduce
2. Spread as far as possible
3. Adapt
4. Repeat

I don't think 'violation' of known physical laws would make anything a 'god'. Until the beginning of the 20th century, powered, heavier-than-air flight 'violated' the laws of physics. All this "violating" really involves is knowing a little more than the other guy about how the universe works. People thought space flight was an impossibility. Now it's just really expensive.

If someone didn't know anything about magnets, you could violate all kinds of laws of physics by demonstrating magnetic tricks. Grab one of those 'levitating' desktop toys and take it back 100 years, and it would be a marvel. Take a pair of walky talkies back before radio was discovered, and nobody would be able to explain how they work.

I won't automatically hand a deity name tag ("Hi! My name is Quetzcoatl!") off to someone that can do tricks that I can't explain, simply because there is a lot I can't explain that is perfectly natural. For all I know, there are ways to 'violate' Einsteinian physics, and it will be named after some guy who codifies it next year, or 20 years from now, or 200 years from now. Maybe a cool form of acceleration from deforming atoms that 'tricks' them into thinking they're moving real fast in some direction, but requires very little energy. Maybe a keen way to link two points in space and form a portal. Who knows?

 

[Correa Neto]

Notice that I wrote "supernatural powers, a being that can ignore, is not restricted by or at least can tweak the physical laws". Its not the same as using physical principles that are (still) unknown. A god, in my personal opinion, should be able to to that. Otherwise, if the entity uses unknown natural principles, it would qualify as a very advanced creature in terms of technology, but not as a god.

Could an entity that has supernatural powers evolve from a given universe, following principles governed by physical laws? I would say no, but it can be questioned. That's the first dead end that the idea.

However, given our current knoweledge and cultural background, I would say that if possible, a god-like entity (a true one) is most likely to appear after the universe, as a consequence of it, and not the universe as a consequence of such an entity.
" Evolution doesn't have a 'goal', but it has developed some priorities.

1. Reproduce
2. Spread as far as possible
3. Adapt
4. Repeat"

Sure. I should have used "outcome" or a similar term. The outcome of evolution is determined by the priorities you listed. The humble e . coli among others, are spreading with us, piggybacked on our bodies. And using very little energy of its own. If we spread through the stars, similar organisms will colonize other places. If after some time we go extinct, we will have been just carriers for the bugs.

So, the question regarding if the final outcome of evolution is a complex being or a simple versatile being is crucial for this concept of evolved god. And another dead end, since as far as we know, it may be or not. Or maybe both the complex and the simple are just different solutions of the "evolution equation". Anyway, its another dead end, discussions will go on and on forever.

So far, I think another outcome is that a deity is an unlikely thing to exist.

Note that someone who belives in god (but is not a fundamentalist- these most likely would run away from the debate) or even a run-of-the-mill woo, following these lines of reasoning would reach some conclusions that, I feel, are quite predictable.

Anyway, I would like to hear from people who belive in some concept of god and supernatural or paranormal phenomena. Even tough in some cases we already know wht they will say.

 

[evildave]

You can't tell what is 'advanced' and what is 'supernatural' from a position of ignorance, though. Anything that can be labeled 'supernatural' could simply be natural, but previously unknown.

Let's say there's a particular really useful element that doesn't naturally exist on Earth, or anywhere in the solar system. When bombarded by alpha particles, it does one amazingly cool, never-before seen thing, and when manipulated in other ways, it does equally stunning cool stuff. This element is not 'natural', obviously, because we don't have access to it. It has never existed HERE before.

Even artificially created consciousness would be 'supernatural', because at the moment we don't quite understand all the ins and outs of it.

In every case, we simply don't know the trick, but it is only sleight of hand if passed off as 'supernatural'. There's just more to the universe than meets the casual eye.

...

Believers, I won't "predict" what you'll say. Honest. I'm just curious.

1. How does a god come into being? "Always existed" doesn't count as an answer to anything, just to let you know.

2. Is it more likely for a 'perfect' being with superpowers to come into being, or less 'perfect' beings?

3. Can there even be a definition for 'perfect'?

Can there even be an 'infinite'? (Without infinite, there really is no 'immortal', except in a 'less corruptible/destructible than you are' relative sort of way.)


The problem here is, I can understand 'bignum', which is a value with literally astronimical properties. I can understand the concept of being mightier than anything in the universe, like a puppy in a room with a ball is mightier than the ball, but I can not understand 'infinite' properties. It would take an infinite amount of time to verify anything was 'infinite', and I don't have that sort of patience.