Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NeoDeltaI · 09-17-2002, 01:10 PM

I've been tinkering around with this for a while now, and wish to share my idea with the members of this board to see what they think. Note that this is my first post, so if there's another post like it, please direct me. I've skimmed through the posts, but since my dial-up is atrociously slow, it's hard to catch up on every thread. With that being said:

When referring to God, I use the pronoun 'it', since I feel there's no arguable proof of the gender of said God (notwithstanding the lack of proof that any such God exists).

One reason brought up occasionally for there being no God* is that it doesn't let it's presence known. If God came to each person on the globe and showed him or her the 'truth', logically we wouldn't be debating his existence here. God doesn't destroy all viruses and bacteria that cause us harm, nor does it interfere with our wars or politics. No matter what religious scripture you present, as long as it's made in a printing press by man and not handed to us by God itself, we cannot truly know whether said God exists. Why then, if God exists, would it keep hidden from us, its creation? Here is one possible explanation I've thought of.

The reason God doesn't make itself and it's desires known is because that would change the course of our history. Think of scientists studying a group of animals. Let's say they want to find out how the animal behaves in its natural environment. In order for the environment to be natural, nothing outside the environment should interfere.

But if the animal knows the human scientist is there, this changes the animal's behavior, thus making any data obtained useless. Think also of deep-sea exploration. We need to see animals on the seafloor in order to study them, but by shinning light onto the sea floor (where little to no light reaches), we change the environment, therefore we possibly change the behavior of the animals living there.

Therefore, in short, we could be an experiment, God could be the scientist, and its silence is preserving the validity of the data collected. Any thoughts? I'm especially looking for criticism, since I've not been able to discover any errors in this thinking (since my mind suggested this to me).

Uni-Universe · 09-17-2002, 01:29 PM

If people had assigned a different set of characteristics perhaps we would see that "God" exists all around us.... not as an observer. "God" in christian terms is supposed to be above us. I take this to mean "God" is nothing like us and nothing we think it is. My definition of God takes on a pantheist view. I am not sure if you know what that is so I will briefly explain it. I believe God minus human characteristics is the Universe. I will refer to God as the Universe.

Body analogy: There are so many cells with DNA in your body. There are bacteria on your skin. let's say the body is like the Universe and everything inside it are like your body's cells etc. Let's say each cell is like each individual. The cell is a part of the body and the DNA will actually identify who you are as an individual. So in that sense, we are all a part of the Universe's energy system. The cell is as much a part of the make up of your body as each sentient being (as well as matter)make up the energy system of the Universe.

Can you tell I think the Christian definition of God is too simple? I thought God (the Universe) is supposed to be so complex that is it incomprehensible to the human mind.

Uni-Universe · 09-17-2002, 01:32 PM

Oh and....

God is silent because God doesn't have a human body. So if you don't have a human body you don't have a mouth or a hand to sign with or a foot to stomp. Perhaps the Universe communicates in a different way... We see the results of the universe.

Idea: If there was no universe (god) there would be nothing to look at and no one doing the looking! Just like if you didn't have a body, you wouldn't have any cells either!

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Uni-Universe ]

NeoDeltaI · 09-17-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Uni-Universe said:
God is silent because God doesn't have a human body. So if you don't have a human body you don't have a mouth or a hand to sign with or a foot to stomp. Perhaps the Universe communicates in a different way... We see the results of the universe.

Wow, I really like that idea. I've though of some things along those lines, but never really gave a lot of thought to that exact notion.

I also think that any idea of God that we can conceive, by word or though, cannot truly grasp it, since we would be within its creation.

I entertain that what created us is human-like simply from the apologists' view that we're made in its own image. In my opinion, it would be more likely to want to study its own origins that way, by studying a similar species (perhaps a cloned species?). I also believe that God could have made a mistake in its studies (accidentally revieling itself) , resulting in the many religions we have today (one incident, many exaggerations, many points of view). Ever witness how any story can get blown out of proportion after going through a few people? Of course, this is a simple explanation (there's more than one story in any religious text), but I think you get the idea.

Then, if you think about it, what created the God that created us? Perhaps both our ideas could easily coexist at the same time.

Blu · 09-17-2002, 02:41 PM

I share Uni's view.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

NeoDeltaI · 09-17-2002, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
I share Uni's view.

Do you support my hypothesis as well, or not? And if not, what's your reasoning? Just interested in any discussion this may bring.

Blu · 09-17-2002, 03:37 PM

Neo,

I think that if you take away all anthropomorphic aspects from God, you get the universe. I believe that you need to separate all human characteristics from your idea of God to get a couple steps closer to what God is.

I think the first step is to realize God doesn't have the same drives and impulses as human beings as well as no human physical characteristics. In other words, if a human does it then God does not.
Emotions, judgment, mistakes... as well as creating do not apply to the Universe. It is so much more complicated than anyone on Earth could ever fathom.

Relating God to a human being, is another way to feel closer to God. It is also much safer and simple to think of God as you would think of your father. It takes less brain power to think of God as being a huge human like figure looking down on you from the clouds, instead of the vast and complicated energy system it really is.

I don't think that God-Universe can make mistakes. I don't think God-Unvierse was created or had a "birth." Human beings have an individual beginning and human beings are created and then develope over time. It is a whole different thing with God-Universe.

And human beings will never know all the secrets of the Universe. In that sense it is also easier just to have a clear, simple definition ..box it up and label it, God.

sandlewood · 09-17-2002, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NeoDeltaI:
The reason God doesn't make itself and it's desires known is because that would change the course of our history.

I think this discussion calls for a definition of the god you�re talking about. Is it the Christian god? If so, then I don�t think he wanted to keep his presence a secret because he presumably inspired the bible. Yes, it was men who wrote it. But if the god described in the bible happens to be the correct description, then one would think that the god would�ve done something to prevent that bible from existing if he wanted to remain anonymous.

If you�re not talking about the Christian god, then is the god omniscient? If he is, then he would not need to run an experiment. He would already know the result.

If the god is trying not to taint an experiment by making sure that none of the subjects believe a god exists, then the experiment may be in trouble because there are lots of theists. There are lots of people who believe they know god exists and can see him more or less. So does that mean the experiment is spoiled? What if people believe in various gods in various religions, but no religion has it right. So the real description of god is still unknown. Does that mean that the experiment is still ok?

Ron Singh · 09-17-2002, 05:27 PM

If God were to prove his existence, then there would be no point in faith. Faith itself is the gift we have to truly adhere to God via our free will.

VirusInTheSystem · 09-17-2002, 05:38 PM

I had just a few questions. First about God being the universe. So are you saying that the universe was not caused by anything else, but simply exists eternally? Because that is the only definition I could think of that would make the universe "God". But I thought most recent scientific theories suggest that the universe had a definate beginning... or am I mistaken?

How could you prove that the universe does not have human characteristics? How could you prove that the universe as a whole is not somehow self-aware, intelligent, and perhaps even emotional? If something as relatively insignifacant as a human being could have these attributes, why couldn't the very system which *produced* both the human and his human attributes-- why couldn't this very system have similar qualities on a much larger scale than even ourselves?

I just ask you, logically, why it wouldn't make more sense that anything *within* the universe is only a tiny reflection of the universe in its *entireness*. Why would something *within* the universe be self-aware, but it is illogical to think that the universe as a *whole* is not so much *more* self-aware?

Think of it like this: we are part of the universe. Our bodies are composed of molecules and cells. Yet these molecules are somehow structured in such a way as to be aware of themselves as a personal entity, and aware of their surroundings in some primitive way.

First, I will use a mathematical "proof" of how we ourselves are self-aware.

A. Our eyeballs combined with our optical nerves and our brains are an intricate part of our bodies. They *are* our bodies (they belong to our body, of the same substance as our body, they have a specific function *for* our body).

So optical system=significant part of our bodies
or: a significant part of our bodies=optical system

B. Our optical system also *sees* much of our bodies.

Using substitution: a significant part of our bodies is something that sees much of our bodies

So a significant part of ourselves see ourselves. Therefore, we have visual self-awareness (although visual self-awareness is only a small part of self-awareness)

Now to use the same proof for the universe:

A. We are *part* of the universe. We are intricately tied into the universe, like our very arms and legs are a part of our own bodies. In a sense: we *are* the universe (we "belong" to the universe, possibly serving a certain function within it, we are the same substance as it: matter and energy).

So 1. We are a significant part of the universe. (

Or reversing it: a significant aspect of the universe consists of us (by which i mean animals and humans)

B. We observe the universe. We, although being a part of the universe ourselves, are capable of observing it from an objective point of view.
We are atoms seeing atoms, molecules hearing molecules, elements feeling elements. That is how we seem to be different from rocks and dirt.

so using substitution in the previous statement:

A significant aspect of the universe is *aware* of the universe.

Therefore: A significant aspect of the universe is aware of itself.

So we could consider the possibility that the universe has at least one similar quality to ourselves: some kind of self-awareness

So the univwerse might also have other "human" qualities

What if living organisms such as animals and humans are like the "eyeballs" and ears and fingertips of the universe? What if we are the complex structures by which the universe has self-perception? These mathematical equations certainly seem to suggest that we might be!

Any comments, questions, or brutal flame attacks are welc... oh wait. Ok, everything except the flaming is welcome

peace,
-justin

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: VirusInTheSystem ]

09-17-2002, 01:10 PM	#1
NeoDeltaI Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MA, USA Posts: 189	Why God's Silent I've been tinkering around with this for a while now, and wish to share my idea with the members of this board to see what they think. Note that this is my first post, so if there's another post like it, please direct me. I've skimmed through the posts, but since my dial-up is atrociously slow, it's hard to catch up on every thread. With that being said: When referring to God, I use the pronoun 'it', since I feel there's no arguable proof of the gender of said God (notwithstanding the lack of proof that any such God exists). One reason brought up occasionally for there being no God* is that it doesn't let it's presence known. If God came to each person on the globe and showed him or her the 'truth', logically we wouldn't be debating his existence here. God doesn't destroy all viruses and bacteria that cause us harm, nor does it interfere with our wars or politics. No matter what religious scripture you present, as long as it's made in a printing press by man and not handed to us by God itself, we cannot truly know whether said God exists. Why then, if God exists, would it keep hidden from us, its creation? Here is one possible explanation I've thought of. The reason God doesn't make itself and it's desires known is because that would change the course of our history. Think of scientists studying a group of animals. Let's say they want to find out how the animal behaves in its natural environment. In order for the environment to be natural, nothing outside the environment should interfere. But if the animal knows the human scientist is there, this changes the animal's behavior, thus making any data obtained useless. Think also of deep-sea exploration. We need to see animals on the seafloor in order to study them, but by shinning light onto the sea floor (where little to no light reaches), we change the environment, therefore we possibly change the behavior of the animals living there. Therefore, in short, we could be an experiment, God could be the scientist, and its silence is preserving the validity of the data collected. Any thoughts? I'm especially looking for criticism, since I've not been able to discover any errors in this thinking (since my mind suggested this to me).

09-17-2002, 01:32 PM	#3
Uni-Universe Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Earth/USA Posts: 28	Oh and.... God is silent because God doesn't have a human body. So if you don't have a human body you don't have a mouth or a hand to sign with or a foot to stomp. Perhaps the Universe communicates in a different way... We see the results of the universe. Idea: If there was no universe (god) there would be nothing to look at and no one doing the looking! Just like if you didn't have a body, you wouldn't have any cells either! [ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Uni-Universe ]</p>

09-17-2002, 02:41 PM	#5
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	I share Uni's view. [ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-17-2002, 05:38 PM	#10
VirusInTheSystem Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Maryville, TN; U.S.A Posts: 30	I had just a few questions. First about God being the universe. So are you saying that the universe was not caused by anything else, but simply exists eternally? Because that is the only definition I could think of that would make the universe "God". But I thought most recent scientific theories suggest that the universe had a definate beginning... or am I mistaken? How could you prove that the universe does not have human characteristics? How could you prove that the universe as a whole is not somehow self-aware, intelligent, and perhaps even emotional? If something as relatively insignifacant as a human being could have these attributes, why couldn't the very system which produced both the human and his human attributes-- why couldn't this very system have similar qualities on a much larger scale than even ourselves? I just ask you, logically, why it wouldn't make more sense that anything within the universe is only a tiny reflection of the universe in its entireness. Why would something within the universe be self-aware, but it is illogical to think that the universe as a whole is not so much more self-aware? Think of it like this: we are part of the universe. Our bodies are composed of molecules and cells. Yet these molecules are somehow structured in such a way as to be aware of themselves as a personal entity, and aware of their surroundings in some primitive way. First, I will use a mathematical "proof" of how we ourselves are self-aware. A. Our eyeballs combined with our optical nerves and our brains are an intricate part of our bodies. They are our bodies (they belong to our body, of the same substance as our body, they have a specific function for our body). So optical system=significant part of our bodies or: a significant part of our bodies=optical system B. Our optical system also sees much of our bodies. Using substitution: a significant part of our bodies is something that sees much of our bodies So a significant part of ourselves see ourselves. Therefore, we have visual self-awareness (although visual self-awareness is only a small part of self-awareness) Now to use the same proof for the universe: A. We are part of the universe. We are intricately tied into the universe, like our very arms and legs are a part of our own bodies. In a sense: we are the universe (we "belong" to the universe, possibly serving a certain function within it, we are the same substance as it: matter and energy). So 1. We are a significant part of the universe. ( Or reversing it: a significant aspect of the universe consists of us (by which i mean animals and humans) B. We observe the universe. We, although being a part of the universe ourselves, are capable of observing it from an objective point of view. We are atoms seeing atoms, molecules hearing molecules, elements feeling elements. That is how we seem to be different from rocks and dirt. so using substitution in the previous statement: A significant aspect of the universe is aware of the universe. Therefore: A significant aspect of the universe is aware of itself. So we could consider the possibility that the universe has at least one similar quality to ourselves: some kind of self-awareness So the univwerse might also have other "human" qualities What if living organisms such as animals and humans are like the "eyeballs" and ears and fingertips of the universe? What if we are the complex structures by which the universe has self-perception? These mathematical equations certainly seem to suggest that we might be! Any comments, questions, or brutal flame attacks are welc... oh wait. Ok, everything except the flaming is welcome peace, -justin [ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: VirusInTheSystem ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2002, 01:29 PM	#2
Uni-Universe Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Earth/USA Posts: 28	If people had assigned a different set of characteristics perhaps we would see that "God" exists all around us.... not as an observer. "God" in christian terms is supposed to be above us. I take this to mean "God" is nothing like us and nothing we think it is. My definition of God takes on a pantheist view. I am not sure if you know what that is so I will briefly explain it. I believe God minus human characteristics is the Universe. I will refer to God as the Universe. Body analogy: There are so many cells with DNA in your body. There are bacteria on your skin. let's say the body is like the Universe and everything inside it are like your body's cells etc. Let's say each cell is like each individual. The cell is a part of the body and the DNA will actually identify who you are as an individual. So in that sense, we are all a part of the Universe's energy system. The cell is as much a part of the make up of your body as each sentient being (as well as matter)make up the energy system of the Universe. Can you tell I think the Christian definition of God is too simple? I thought God (the Universe) is supposed to be so complex that is it incomprehensible to the human mind.

09-17-2002, 03:37 PM	#7
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	Neo, I think that if you take away all anthropomorphic aspects from God, you get the universe. I believe that you need to separate all human characteristics from your idea of God to get a couple steps closer to what God is. I think the first step is to realize God doesn't have the same drives and impulses as human beings as well as no human physical characteristics. In other words, if a human does it then God does not. Emotions, judgment, mistakes... as well as creating do not apply to the Universe. It is so much more complicated than anyone on Earth could ever fathom. Relating God to a human being, is another way to feel closer to God. It is also much safer and simple to think of God as you would think of your father. It takes less brain power to think of God as being a huge human like figure looking down on you from the clouds, instead of the vast and complicated energy system it really is. I don't think that God-Universe can make mistakes. I don't think God-Unvierse was created or had a "birth." Human beings have an individual beginning and human beings are created and then develope over time. It is a whole different thing with God-Universe. And human beings will never know all the secrets of the Universe. In that sense it is also easier just to have a clear, simple definition ..box it up and label it, God.

09-17-2002, 05:27 PM	#9
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	If God were to prove his existence, then there would be no point in faith. Faith itself is the gift we have to truly adhere to God via our free will.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.