If god created us do u know who created god?

[Bree Giffen]

---

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

---

 

That's the issue of course. This minister is assuming I believe in a god even though I am saying that I don't believe in it. By even conversing with that minister, or with any religious person about this "god" I am bolstering their belief that this "god" is more than just a figment of collective imagination. Let's say I ran into a person who believed the ficitional hobbit Bilbo Baggins really existed in history. Do I argue with this person in a serious manner? No. Let's say this person is in charge of teaching history in college or is a goverment leader. I would think they are unreliable in doing their job and would treat them accordingly. The OPs question to me is the same as them saying "Do you believe Bilbo is still alive with the elves?".

[Madelaine McMasters]

Aeth,

I  agree about the limitations of language in describing things. We often learn by analogy, and it's terribly important to pick the right ones when trying to describe something new. In the case of quantum mechanics, analogy is particularly perilous. When nature reveals something wholly unexpected, words can fail us.

In a sense, I'll agree with Qie's claim that science is limited by our imaginations. When I was little, my Dad would say things to me like "You can't outsmart bacteria." He'd then go on to explain that they outnumbered me by an astronomical factor, and that they performed experiments through genetic mutation far faster than I could. They can reproduce every six hours, it takes us about 20 years. Those numbers are stacked against us.

We do, however, have a marvelous intellect, and the ability to record our history and pass what we've learned ahead to the future generations, outside of our genetics. And we're able to communicate and cooperate with each other at a level far above that of other creatures. So, though some numbers are stacked against us, we've got some pretty signficant numbers of our own.

The rate of advancement of bacteria probably hasn't changed much over time. They experiment (mutate) at about the same rate as always. Their ability to "imagine" (mutate) hasn't changed. But our rate of advancement is increasing, even though our reproduction cycle is still 20 years long. It's increasing because our tools, both for collaboration and exploration, are improving. Any one of us is limited in our ability to imagine by any number of factors, natural and nurtural. But, our ability to share ideas can remove barriers to, or spur imaginaton. It is not hard for you to imagine Russell's teapot, but it is for some. By sharing ideas, we benefit from Metcalf's Law.

I share your sense of awe and wonder, and there was a time I'd have accepted a characterization of that as "spiritual", though certainly not religious. No more. I'm now happy to think of myself simply as... curious.

ETA: Hidden in my response is a purposeful comingling of imagination with mutation. Nature is often credited with being imaginative. Why is that? Well, if you try enough random experiments and keep only those which work (natural selection), you can end up with something that appears planned. We've plenty of evidence to show that no planning was involved, but it takes a bit of imagination to accept the evidence.

;-).

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

---

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

---

 

That's the issue of course. This minister is assuming I believe in a god even though I am saying that I don't believe in it. By even conversing with that minister, or with any religious person about this "god" I am bolstering their belief that this "god" is more than just a figment of collective imagination. Let's say I ran into a person who believed the ficitional hobbit Bilbo Baggins really existed in history. Do I argue with this person in a serious manner? No. Let's say this person is in charge of teaching history in college or is a goverment leader. I would think they are unreliable in doing their job and would treat them accordingly. The OPs question to me is the same as them saying "Do you believe Bilbo is still alive with the elves?".

---

Okay, your turn. Does the God of a pantheist such as Spinoza exist? If you don't know what a pantheist is or who Spinoza is you're bringing a knife/wooden spoon/Q-tip to a gunfight.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aeth,

I  agree about the limitations of language in describing things. We often learn by analogy, and it's terribly important to pick the right ones when trying to describe something new. In the case of quantum mechanics, analogy is particularly perilous. When nature reveals something wholly unexpected, words can fail us.

In a sense, I'll agree with Qie's claim that science is limited by our imaginations. When I was little, my Dad would say things to me like "You can't outsmart bacteria." He'd then go on to explain that they outnumbered me by an astronomical factor, and that they performed experiments through genetic mutation far faster than I could. They can reproduce every six hours, it takes us about 20 years. Those numbers are stacked against us.

We do, however, have a marvelous intellect, and the ability to record our history and pass what we've learned ahead to the future generations, outside of our genetics. And we're able to communicate and cooperate with each other at a level far above that of other creatures. So, though some numbers are stacked against us, we've got some pretty signficant numbers of our own.

The rate of advancement of bacteria probably hasn't changed much over time. They experiment (mutate) at about the same rate as always. Their ability to "imagine" (mutate) hasn't changed. 

But our rate of advancement is increasing, even though our reproduction cycle is still 20 years long. It's increasing because our tools, both for collaboration and exploration, are improving. Any one of us is limited in our ability to imagine by any number of factors, natural and nurtural. But, our ability to share ideas can remove barriers to, or spur imaginaton. 

It is not hard for you to imagine Russell's teapot, but it is for some. By sharing ideas, we benefit from

Metcalf's Law

.

I share your sense of awe and wonder, and there was a time I'd have accepted a characterization of that as "spiritual", though certainly not religious. No more. I'm now happy to think of myself simply as... curious.

ETA: Hidden in my response is a purposeful comingling of imagination with mutation. Nature is often credited with being imaginative. Why is that? Well, if you try enough random experiments and keep only those which work (natural selection), you can end up with something that appears planned. We've plenty of evidence to show that no planning was involved, but it takes a bit of imagination to accept the evidence.

;-).

---

No no no no no, Maddy. I cannot agree with that. No way. You are way off. Not even close.

 

I know I risk being burned at the stake for saying this, but the error is so large that I'm willing to chance it. The human reproduction cycle is way less than 20 years. You are probably mistaking it for the westernised desired human reproduction cycle

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

---

Now that minister came up with a *really* good reply. I like it a lot.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aeth,

I  agree about the limitations of language in describing things. We often learn by analogy, and it's terribly important to pick the right ones when trying to describe something new. In the case of quantum mechanics, analogy is particularly perilous. When nature reveals something wholly unexpected, words can fail us.

In a sense, I'll agree with Qie's claim that science is limited by our imaginations. When I was little, my Dad would say things to me like "You can't outsmart bacteria." He'd then go on to explain that they outnumbered me by an astronomical factor, and that they performed experiments through genetic mutation far faster than I could. They can reproduce every six hours, it takes us about 20 years. Those numbers are stacked against us.

We do, however, have a marvelous intellect, and the ability to record our history and pass what we've learned ahead to the future generations, outside of our genetics. And we're able to communicate and cooperate with each other at a level far above that of other creatures. So, though some numbers are stacked against us, we've got some pretty signficant numbers of our own.

The rate of advancement of bacteria probably hasn't changed much over time. They experiment (mutate) at about the same rate as always. Their ability to "imagine" (mutate) hasn't changed. 

But our rate of advancement is increasing, even though our reproduction cycle is still 20 years long. It's increasing because our tools, both for collaboration and exploration, are improving. Any one of us is limited in our ability to imagine by any number of factors, natural and nurtural. But, our ability to share ideas can remove barriers to, or spur imaginaton. 

It is not hard for you to imagine Russell's teapot, but it is for some. By sharing ideas, we benefit from

Metcalf's Law

.

I share your sense of awe and wonder, and there was a time I'd have accepted a characterization of that as "spiritual", though certainly not religious. No more. I'm now happy to think of myself simply as... curious.

ETA: Hidden in my response is a purposeful comingling of imagination with mutation. Nature is often credited with being imaginative. Why is that? Well, if you try enough random experiments and keep only those which work (natural selection), you can end up with something that appears planned. We've plenty of evidence to show that no planning was involved, but it takes a bit of imagination to accept the evidence.

;-).

---

No no no no no, Maddy. I cannot agree with that. No way. You are way off. Not even close.

 

I know I risk being burned at the stake for saying this, but the error is so large that I'm willing to chance it. The human reproduction cycle is way less than 20 years. You are probably mistaking it for the westernised desired human reproduction cycle

 

---

Yeah, I know it's less, and I've got (lots of!) relatives to prove it. Dad was 50 and Mom was 43 when I was born. I think you can blame them both for slowing the progress of humanity. And to make matters worse, after waiting so damned long, they had me!

And there was another error. I should have said "no planning was needed" rather than "no planning was involved". You can't prove a negative like "planning wasn't involved". By proving that chance is sufficient, you can prove that planning wasn't needed. There is a difference.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

---

Now that minister came up with a *really* good reply. I like it a lot.

---

I like that response too.

I used to take my telescope to the local Unitarian Universalist Church on evenings when they had little house concerts. I'd offer free views of whatever was up after the show. I had interesting chats with the minister, who was amused by the juxtaposition of my agnosticism with my way of talking about the Universe.

Mom is now a member of the congregation because they have killer pot-luck dinners and don't talk scary.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

---

Now that minister came up with a *really* good reply. I like it a lot.

---

I like that response too.

I used to take my telescope to the local Unitarian Universalist Church on evenings when they had little house concerts. I'd offer free views of whatever was up after the show. I had interesting chats with the minister, who was amused by the juxtaposition of my agnosticism with my way of talking about the Universe.

Mom is now a member of the congregation because they have killer pot-luck dinners and don't talk scary.

---

I laughed out load at that. Brilliant!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Aeth,

I  agree about the limitations of language in describing things. We often learn by analogy, and it's terribly important to pick the right ones when trying to describe something new. In the case of quantum mechanics, analogy is particularly perilous. When nature reveals something wholly unexpected, words can fail us.

In a sense, I'll agree with Qie's claim that science is limited by our imaginations. When I was little, my Dad would say things to me like "You can't outsmart bacteria." He'd then go on to explain that they outnumbered me by an astronomical factor, and that they performed experiments through genetic mutation far faster than I could. They can reproduce every six hours, it takes us about 20 years. Those numbers are stacked against us.

We do, however, have a marvelous intellect, and the ability to record our history and pass what we've learned ahead to the future generations, outside of our genetics. And we're able to communicate and cooperate with each other at a level far above that of other creatures. So, though some numbers are stacked against us, we've got some pretty signficant numbers of our own.

The rate of advancement of bacteria probably hasn't changed much over time. They experiment (mutate) at about the same rate as always. Their ability to "imagine" (mutate) hasn't changed. 

But our rate of advancement is increasing, even though our reproduction cycle is still 20 years long. It's increasing because our tools, both for collaboration and exploration, are improving. Any one of us is limited in our ability to imagine by any number of factors, natural and nurtural. But, our ability to share ideas can remove barriers to, or spur imaginaton. 

It is not hard for you to imagine Russell's teapot, but it is for some. By sharing ideas, we benefit from

Metcalf's Law

.

I share your sense of awe and wonder, and there was a time I'd have accepted a characterization of that as "spiritual", though certainly not religious. No more. I'm now happy to think of myself simply as... curious.

ETA: Hidden in my response is a purposeful comingling of imagination with mutation. Nature is often credited with being imaginative. Why is that? Well, if you try enough random experiments and keep only those which work (natural selection), you can end up with something that appears planned. We've plenty of evidence to show that no planning was involved, but it takes a bit of imagination to accept the evidence.

;-).

---

No no no no no, Maddy. I cannot agree with that. No way. You are way off. Not even close.

 

I know I risk being burned at the stake for saying this, but the error is so large that I'm willing to chance it. The human reproduction cycle is way less than 20 years. You are probably mistaking it for the westernised desired human reproduction cycle

 

---

Yeah, I know it's less, and I've got (lots of!) relatives to prove it. Dad was 50 and Mom was 43 when I was born. I think you can blame them both for slowing the progress of humanity. And to make matters worse, after waiting so damned long, they had me!

And there was another error. I should have said "no planning was needed" rather than "no planning was involved". You can't prove a negative like "planning wasn't involved". By proving that chance is sufficient, you can prove that planning wasn't needed. There is a difference.

---

So it's your mum and dad's fault. Ok. I'll accept that and withdraw the correction.

[Bree Giffen]

---

Okay, your turn. Does the God of a pantheist such as Spinoza exist? If you don't know what a pantheist is or who Spinoza is you're bringing a knife/wooden spoon/Q-tip to a gunfight.

---

Again, you are asking (in a philosophical manner) if Bilbo Baggins still lives to this day with the Elves. I reject your question. The question should be "Do you think we are all imagining something entirely out of thin air?" The answer is yes.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

---

Okay, your turn. Does the God of a pantheist such as Spinoza exist? If you don't know what a pantheist is or who Spinoza is you're bringing a knife/wooden spoon/Q-tip to a gunfight.

---

Again, you are asking (in a philosophical manner) if Bilbo Baggins still lives to this day with the Elves. I reject your question. The question should be "Do you think we are all imagining something entirely out of thin air?" The answer is yes.

---

Actually the pantheist point of view is that God is the entirety of existence, including the physical world, which would mean for you to be correct that the world you're in and you yourself would have to be imagined entirely out of thin air. The concept of God and name of God can of course be considered human created - all concepts can, including the idea of, say, Tuesday. The question is whether or not the concept describes something actual.

It sounds like that you're so certain in your belief in not-God that you define God as "something which doesn't exist." That's fine - but I could just as well define God as something that does exist, which means that for any discussion to occur we need to agree on a definition.

[Bree Giffen]

It seems that I have made my point and therefore any further postings from me is pointless. I wish you well.

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

And I have a pet theory that the unknown is at least the square of the known.

---

you made a comment on the other about lfsr and it made me start to think about random in the universe. Rather than put this on there I put on here bc it goes down the same path I think  (:

 

+

like is the universe truly random? or is it just to large for us to model at this time. so just appears random?

it ties in with are we limited by our imagination. or are we really only limited by the materials and tools available in our own time. For example: if Da Vinci had a fuel synthesiser and a welding torch. if the Egyptians had a bulldozer, etc

+

if we did have the materials and tools and modelled the universe then what would the starting seed be? Given that it cant be 0. 0+0=0. 0*0=0. 0<<0=0 etc

would it be 1? if it wasnt 1 then means that would be some other seed number. which implies that is/can be multi-universes. each with own starting seeds drawn from some larger set outside of the universes themselves

if was 1 (or whichever seed) then can know that this/our universe is an arrangement of seeming random events which are not random. only pseudorandom and therefore deterministic. If so then if know the seed and the starting algo (which can be very simple I think) then can know all the past and all the future

 

+

the cool thing about the universe algo is that, where life as we know it, is in parts self-modifying code (natural selection/mutation) which can be modelled also

bc mutation algo while can seem random is not. Notrandom in the sense it can be modelled and reproduced. Even if each mutation method has own self-modifying algo and own PRNG. the seed of which is fed by outcomes of other mutation algos. bc the seed for them is drawn from the state of the universe PRNG localised in spacetime to them, and also drawn in part from the outcomes of other mutation algos in turn. Which all resolve back to the universe starting seed

+

just need a really really big computer and fast to compute it. at least as big and fast as the universe is/was at any given time

one that maybe grows itself forever as time progresses (which seems unlikely bc this would be a magical property seems like to me)

or (which is more likely i think) the computer would be bound by the same physical laws as the universe it contains. Meaning is some actual space limit to the computer itself. Which means that the universe itself is finite. So maybe when the sum of the universe hits the upperbound limit then kaboom !!! game over. reset and ready player one (:

or maybe never reset after kaboom! and thats all. game over forever

+

is not enough to just/only have a seed at the start tho. Need a starting algo as well

i think that start algo is maybe:

universe = seed = 1;

while (universe += seed / (seed + universe));

 

 

so what happens with this algo? as universe grows larger it divide itself by the magnitude of itself. (is how cells work? life?) they multiply by division?

at some time the universe computer runs out of spacebits and eventual end up divide by zero. kaboom !!!

maybe (:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

And I have a pet theory that the unknown is at least the square of the known.

---

you made a comment on the other about lfsr and it made me start to think about random in the universe. Rather than put this on there I put on here bc it goes down the same path I think  (:

 

+

like is the universe truly random? or is it just to large for us to model at this time. so just appears random?

it ties in with are we limited by our imagination. or are we really only limited by the materials and tools available in our own time. For example: if Da Vinci had a fuel synthesiser and a welding torch. if the Egyptians had a bulldozer, etc

+

if we did have the materials and tools and modelled the universe then what would the starting seed be? Given that it cant be 0. 0+0=0. 0*0=0. 0<<0=0 etc

would it be 1? if it wasnt 1 then means that would be some other seed number. which implies that is/can be multi-universes. each with own starting seeds drawn from some larger set outside of the universes themselves

if was 1 (or whichever seed) then can know that this/our universe is an arrangement of seeming random events which are not random. only pseudorandom and therefore deterministic. If so then if know the seed and the starting algo (which can be very simple I think) then can know all the past and all the future

 

+

the cool thing about the universe algo is that, where life as we know it, is in parts self-modifying code (natural selection/mutation) which can be modelled also

bc mutation algo while can seem random is not. Notrandom in the sense it can be modelled and reproduced. Even if each mutation method has own self-modifying algo and own PRNG. the seed of which is fed by outcomes of other mutation algos. bc the seed for them is drawn from the state of the universe PRNG localised in spacetime to them, and also drawn in part from the outcomes of other mutation algos in turn. Which all resolve back to the universe starting seed

+

just need a really really big computer and fast to compute it. at least as big and fast as the universe is/was at any given time

one that maybe grows itself forever as time progresses (which seems unlikely bc this would be a magical property seems like to me)

or (which is more likely i think) the computer would be bound by the same physical laws as the universe it contains. Meaning is some actual space limit to the computer itself. Which means that the universe itself is finite. So maybe when the sum of the universe hits the upperbound limit then kaboom !!! game over. reset and ready player one (:

or maybe never reset after kaboom! and thats all. game over forever

+

is not enough to just/only have a seed at the start tho. Need a starting algo as well

i think that start algo is maybe:

universe = seed = 1;

while (universe += seed / (seed + universe));

 

 

so what happens with this algo? as universe grows larger it divide itself by the magnitude of itself. (is how cells work? life?) they multiply by division?

at some time the universe computer runs out of spacebits and eventual end up divide by zero. kaboom !!!

maybe (:

---

 

And your comment reminds me an old joke I've retooled to comingle a few semi-groundless memes and a personal fantasy...

A male philosophy student and a female engineering student volunteer for a university experiment. They find themselves placed across a room from a cute female bisexual French major lounging seductively on a bed. Each student has an instruction sheet in hand which reads...

"A bell will ring every ten minutes. At each ring, walk half the distance to the girl. The first to reach her gets her attentions."

Upon reading the instructions:

The philosopy major throws up his hands and storms out of the room, shouting "What kind of experiment is this? You expect me to do nothing but walk towards the girl, at exactly the same rate as my competitor, knowing I'll never reach her?"

The engineer winks at the French major and says "Pucker up, sweetie. I'll be close enough show you a good time in well under an hour. Until then, let's talk naughty."

 

In my college days, I routinely engaged in (as Dillon calls them) "forever conversations" about topics such as how it all started, where it's all going and what it all means. Since then I've taken a step back. Well no, I haven't taken a step back. I've simply fallen victim to my theory. The more I learn, the larger the unknown becomes. When I was 16, I suppose I thought I was in a position (college) to figure all these things out in the esteemed company of my friends. Now I realize I've got to depend on literally millions of others to reach even a rudimentary understanding of almost anything of interest to me.

Could a computer simulate it all? I was terribly impressed by Conway's Game of Life when I first coded it on Dad's Apple II. That was my first hands on experience with unexpected complexity arrising from simple rules, and it set my imagination on fire.

Is the universe truly random? This is akin to the free will question. From a practical perspective, we may not be able to tell the difference between a truly random universe and one that's deterministic if we are unable to completely analyze it. But, from a practical perspective, we needn't completely analyze a thing to make good use of it.

Until we get close enough, we can always talk naughty.

;-).

[bebejee]

An ex-atheists perspective http://www.everystudent.com/wires/prayers.html?gclid=CLu94Pinx7gCFcLHtAodSioAFA