Who Created God?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Poor energy. How did it ever get so twisted to death by the New Age crowd?

Oh, wait, I know. Cuz you can't see it.

~~ Paul

 

[RussDill]

So, if energy can't be destroyed (these are not my words by the way), is that to say it's always existed, even before the Big Bang?

Within the context of our existence, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Note that the words "create" and "destroy" invoke time, which is also part of our existence, thus, it does not make sense to speak of energy being created or destroyed outside of our existence.

 

[RussDill]

But why do we always speak about the conversion energy into matter and vice versa? Is it possible that there was pure energy before it manifested itself into matter?

There is no such thing as "impure" energy.

 

[RussDill]

The path of least resistence is determined by the structure which was in effect before it even began. Albeit I don't claim to know a whole lot about fractals. However, the one apsect stems (or grows) from the previous aspect doesn't it? In that nothing remains unattached, right?

In the case of fractals, yes, it is interrelated, however, the fractal itself depends on no outside energy.

 

[evildave]

Who Created God? I did. In my own image.

Well, somebody had to. It's not like the 'who created HIM then' and 'who created HER then' and 'who created THAT then' thing would ever finish.

So, next time anybody asks you, you can just blame me.

 

[Ratman_tf]

But why do we always speak about the conversion energy into matter and vice versa? Is it possible that there was pure energy before it manifested itself into matter?

Because matter and energy are interchangeable. In a sense, they are two manifestations of the same thing. The nature of that "thing" is where we get all those physicists running around blowing up atoms.

And define pure energy, please.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Then That would be Electro-magnetic energy.
Are you suggesting that god is electro-magnetic radiation?

In terms of the manifestation of intelligence I would say yes.

I'd hardly call most radio programs the manifestation of intelligence.

 

[Iacchus]

You're saying that electromagnietic radiation is intelligent?

At the very least it's a means to convey information which, is an integral part of intelligence. If a TV can pick up a signal out of thin air and convert that into a high definition picture which, is intelligible to the viewers at home (evidence of the intelligence behind the programmer), how much more would it require for a mind to pickup, generate -- or, whatever -- a signal and convert that into consciousness?

 

[Iacchus]

Within the context of our existence, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Note that the words "create" and "destroy" invoke time, which is also part of our existence, thus, it does not make sense to speak of energy being created or destroyed outside of our existence.

What about the notion of latent energy before the Big Bang? Meaning, to the extent that this is all there is, and energy hasn't been converted into matter yet, where do we find the physical aspect of space, by which the measurement of time becomes possible?

 

[Mercutio]

At the very least it's a means to convey information which, is an integral part of intelligence. If a TV can pick up a signal out of thin air and convert that into a high definition picture which, is intelligible to the viewers at home (evidence of the intelligence behind the programmer), how much more would it require for a mind to pickup, generate -- or, whatever -- a signal and convert that into consciousness?

LOL...it would require an energy source, and a sense organ by which to transduce that energy source into biochemical energy of nerve impulses, and processing centers in the brain to which these nerve impulses are sent.

Guess what? It already happens! With several sorts of energy! Electromagnetic energy...is transduced by the retinal cells, and we call it vision. Specific atmospheric pressure waves are transduced by the basilar membrane, and we call it hearing. Chemical energies are transduced by the olfactory and gustatory organs...smell and taste. And heat, pressure, and tissue damage are transduced by nerves in the skin and muscles...the touch senses.

If you are talking about any energy except these, and any senses but these, please tell me what form the energy takes (after all, we can measure by machine many more energies than we can detect with our bodies--if you can detect it, we can measure it with a machine), and what method and site of transduction turns that energy into a nerve signal (where is the sense organ for this un-named energy? Is there a big chunk of our bodies we were always wondering about, and had not figured out it was a sense organ yet?), and where in the brain it is processed (hurry, we are learning more each day about the brain...I don't think there is an area left for this...but hey, just tell us which area it is).

We actually do know something about how the brain and body work, Iacchus. We don't need to make stuff up.

 

[Upchurch]

At the very least it's a means to convey information which, is an integral part of intelligence.

Perhaps, I suppose that if God existed, S/He could use broadcasts just as easily as we humans do. I suppose that God could also ride on a train or eat popcorn, too.

But that still doesn't provide anything to support that God does exist.

 

[CWL]

Perhaps, I suppose that if God existed, S/He *snip*

Don't you mean S/He/It?

I mean, God could be an "It". Don't be so narrow minded, dude.

 

[Iacchus]

If you are talking about any energy except these, and any senses but these, please tell me what form the energy takes (after all, we can measure by machine many more energies than we can detect with our bodies--if you can detect it, we can measure it with a machine), and what method and site of transduction turns that energy into a nerve signal (where is the sense organ for this un-named energy? Is there a big chunk of our bodies we were always wondering about, and had not figured out it was a sense organ yet?), and where in the brain it is processed (hurry, we are learning more each day about the brain...I don't think there is an area left for this...but hey, just tell us which area it is).

Do you realize that the human mind is a tool itself and is far more sophisticated than anything Science has come up with so far? And, that it's capable of processing a tremendous amount of information regarding its own experience? Given that, do you think Science is fully capable of measuring out what a Religious Experience entails? Whereas to the extent that it could, perhaps it could then begin to ask some of these other pertinent questions? This is the basis from which I ask anyway. In other words, I don't need to be an astro-physicist or, a Sigmund Freud or, a Carl Jung or, anyone else to understand that God exists.

 

[Mercutio]

Do you realize that the human mind is a tool itself and is far more sophisticated than anything Science has come up with so far? And, that it's capable of processing a tremendous amount of information regarding its own experience?

Do you realize that introspection (the method you propose here) is an inherently flawed method by which to study experience? Do you realize that my statement is based on an understanding of the early decades of psychology, during which introspection was given a fair trial (which it failed)? Do you realize that there are much much better ways of examining human experience?

There are things we do remarkably well with just our bodies, certainly. But my example listed many things which machines do better (so, "sophistication" may not translate to "better at this task"). You suggested that electromagnetic energies might be projected to the mind. I pointed out that we are quite familiar with such processes, and can measure far more EMR with machines than with our sophisticated minds. Sorry, Iacchus, but our simple introspective perspective simply is inadequate to the task.

Given that,

But we are not given that.

do you think Science is fully capable of measuring out what a Religious Experience entails?

No. Not as long as people keep insisting there is an undefinable "something more". But science is our best bet at understanding as much as possible about it.

Whereas to the extent that it could, perhaps it could then begin to ask some of these other pertinent questions? This is the basis from which I ask anyway. In other words, I don't need to be an astro-physicist or, a Sigmund Freud or, a Carl Jung or, anyone else to understand that God exists.

Please, don't put Freud and Jung in the category of scientists. Their theories were beautiful and elaborate, but unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience.

Look, Iacchus, the point of my post was that we are pretty damned certain we are not receiving signals. Let it go. Back to the drawing board. No need to evade, just learn and move on to the next attempt.

 

[Upchurch]

Don't you mean S/He/It?

I mean, God could be an "It". Don't be so narrow minded, dude.

True. "It" is actually the most likely possibility, if God does indeed exist.

I can't say I'm comfortable with "S/He/It", though. Say it with a southern drawl and it's got a new meaning.

 

[CWL]

I can't say I'm comfortable with "S/He/It", though. Say it with a southern drawl and it's got a new meaning.

Really? That never occurred to me.

 

[Upchurch]

 

[Iacchus]

Look, Iacchus, the point of my post was that we are pretty damned certain we are not receiving signals. Let it go. Back to the drawing board. No need to evade, just learn and move on to the next attempt.

And exactly what kind of "signals" are we receiving in our dreams? Or, are these signals also "figments" of our imagination?

 

[Iacchus]

There are things we do remarkably well with just our bodies, certainly. But my example listed many things which machines do better (so, "sophistication" may not translate to "better at this task"). You suggested that electromagnetic energies might be projected to the mind. I pointed out that we are quite familiar with such processes, and can measure far more EMR with machines than with our sophisticated minds. Sorry, Iacchus, but our simple introspective perspective simply is inadequate to the task.

So, what exactly is Science capable of validating in terms of human experience? How does it validate what a piece of chocolate cake tastes like if, in fact it involves tasting it for yourself? Do you think Science truly has this capability of "chewing our meals" for us in that sense? And by all means, please tell me how much more there is to life that isn't like that? Why should it be any different than this with the acknowledgment of God then?

 

[Mercutio]

And exactly what kind of "signals" are we receiving in our dreams?

um...none.

Are you serious? You really think dreams are projected to you? Why on earth would you think that? What sort of creature would send visions of me running around the halls of my Junior High School with no pants? Sorry, Iacchus, but even the credible theories that disagree with one another (from serious sleep researchers) are all in agreement with...well, with Mercutio, when

"...I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as is the air,
And more inconstant than the wind, who woos
Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence,
Turning his side to the dew-dropping south."

Or, are these signals also "figments" of our imagination?

"These signals"? What signals? The whole idea is a figment of your imagination.