There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2011, 09:15 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
Agreed. A creator is entirely possible. If there is any evidence to prove that a creator exists, I'm happy to become a Deist. But, its pretty impossible to prove that creator is infact the God of any of the religions around today
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 01:27 PM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
"If there is a 'god', then we do not see him. If we see him, then we do not know him. If we know him, then we do not acknowledge him. If we acknowledge him, then we do not care, because he is not the 'god' we are looking for."

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence towards some sort of creator, but until then, the quote above will remain in place. Even if there is evidence, what makes you think people will readily agree that it is true, or even possible? Yes, I understand that it will be dissected fully before people make their assumptions, but afterwards, will you still believe in this 'creator'? Even when it is staring right in front of you? Always something to think about.

Regards,


Indoril
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 01:33 PM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
Of Clockwork Origin
Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 08:00 PM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(16-05-2011 01:21 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  ... as we would recognize that we created the/a universe).

Yeah, that.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2011, 02:50 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
A few notes.
by the time we manage to simulate a universe, I think we might also have managed to postpone death infinitely, and maybe we will have become one giant brain-thingy, in stead of multiple different persons (it seems much more efficient to me). So the creator would be a monotheist, immortal being, if you were to ask me.
Besides that, it will be able to alter the code of the simulation, or read anything from it (maybe even simulate, or have a rough simulation of its future, and read data from that), making it omnipotent and omniscient. At least, in the mind of the simulated creatures, since for them, omni means the entire simulated world.
Omnipresence is.. well... not really anything... I mean, if you can influence anything and know everything, then it doesn't matter where you're at...
I'll get to omni-benevolent later.

How do you differentiate between such a universe and a random one? I think it would require us to step into their minds: Why the heck would you build a universe inside ours? (I, myself would try to build one outside of the universe, so it won't get destroyed in the heat death).
And if it has a purpose, then we should be able to see it, right? There would be some sort of guidance towards a goal, but our universe doesn't really seem to look like it. (Whatever it is, the creator would want to make it succeed. So whatever our purpose would be, the creator would want us to achieve it. Does that make it omni-benevolent? I think it would, at least more than being a cuddly-bear god would make it omni-benevolent, like most people hope their god is).
If you're going to build a universe, would you make it incredibly big, so that 99.99% of the calculations the computer makes are pointless? In stead, the universe would be geocentric, in the sense that we would only provide that which is necessary for the development of the simulated creatures.
You could of course say that you need a randomness factor in there, so that the creatures won't be made after something the creator modelled, but something genuinely new and unique. But for that there would be much easier methods than using 99.99% of an enormously powerful computer to generate a couple of random numbers, wouldn't you think?

The last thing I would like to ask is: would it make a difference? Is the unknowable different from the non-existent? Or to formulate it like Pascal's Wager: is there any merit we could get from assuming this to be true? (how would you know what to do?).

And the only thing I have just proven, I fear, is that I have thought way too much about this stuff...

P.S. I'm not hating on your idea, just writing down the problems I found when I postulated this idea.
Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2011, 09:29 PM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
A thread about unicorns or fairies can be just as valid as the claims of a creator. Since we all do not believe in fairies or have opinions about fairies. Why are we wasting time believing in creators or having opinions about creators? No evidence or reasons for thinking there might be one, then why think about it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2011, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2011 09:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(27-05-2011 02:50 AM)Thunderios Wrote:  by the time we manage to simulate a universe, ...

Think dude's point is that we already have. ... We are.

(27-05-2011 02:50 AM)Thunderios Wrote:  The last thing I would like to ask is: would it make a difference?

Locally, you make all the difference in the world, globally or universally, not so much. ... I like it this way. Seems as it should be. Feels right.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2011, 10:02 PM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(27-05-2011 02:50 AM)Thunderios Wrote:  A few notes.
by the time we manage to simulate a universe, I think we might also have managed to postpone death infinitely, and maybe we will have become one giant brain-thingy, in stead of multiple different persons (it seems much more efficient to me). So the creator would be a monotheist, immortal being, if you were to ask me.
Besides that, it will be able to alter the code of the simulation, or read anything from it (maybe even simulate, or have a rough simulation of its future, and read data from that), making it omnipotent and omniscient. At least, in the mind of the simulated creatures, since for them, omni means the entire simulated world.
Omnipresence is.. well... not really anything... I mean, if you can influence anything and know everything, then it doesn't matter where you're at...
I'll get to omni-benevolent later.
Haha!!!... You're a funny guy... Love this...

(27-05-2011 02:50 AM)Thunderios Wrote:  How do you differentiate between such a universe and a random one? I think it would require us to step into their minds: Why the heck would you build a universe inside ours? (I, myself would try to build one outside of the universe, so it won't get destroyed in the heat death).

And if it has a purpose, then we should be able to see it, right? There would be some sort of guidance towards a goal, but our universe doesn't really seem to look like it. (Whatever it is, the creator would want to make it succeed. So whatever our purpose would be, the creator would want us to achieve it. Does that make it omni-benevolent? I think it would, at least more than being a cuddly-bear god would make it omni-benevolent, like most people hope their god is).

If you're going to build a universe, would you make it incredibly big, so that 99.99% of the calculations the computer makes are pointless? In stead, the universe would be geocentric, in the sense that we would only provide that which is necessary for the development of the simulated creatures.
You could of course say that you need a randomness factor in there, so that the creatures won't be made after something the creator modelled, but something genuinely new and unique. But for that there would be much easier methods than using 99.99% of an enormously powerful computer to generate a couple of random numbers, wouldn't you think?
I always assumed (yes assumed) that may be once a universe is built "in" our universe, it will create its own dimension and separate from ours. But I decided to use the supercomputer analogy to just think of it as a simulation, but eventually accept is as an actual universe.... I don't think this really matters. The idea is the same.

I'm just placing the idea of a creator, as just another mere mortal. If you're a physicist and the theory of everything is solved, and the technology is so advanced that there is a possibility that one could create a singularity to produce a big bang without destroying our universe, wouldn't you want to try it out and observe? If we have reached a level of knowledge and understanding of the universe to that point, I'm sure mankind would want to try that out for a further understanding, as along as safety can be guaranteed... Well at least I would.

Similarly if the same could only be achieved on a super computer, I would do so as well. Mankind are creatures of imagination and creativity, aren't we?

(27-05-2011 02:50 AM)Thunderios Wrote:  The last thing I would like to ask is: would it make a difference? Is the unknowable different from the non-existent? Or to formulate it like Pascal's Wager: is there any merit we could get from assuming this to be true? (how would you know what to do?).

And the only thing I have just proven, I fear, is that I have thought way too much about this stuff...

P.S. I'm not hating on your idea, just writing down the problems I found when I postulated this idea.
Haha... I don't take offense at all... No, I wouldn't assume that this is true. That is the last thing we should do. It's just a thought. Just pointing out that although one could refute the idea of a god existing, one could do so without refuting the idea of a creator.

In a way... Versus God, I am atheist; versus a creator, I am agnostic. Smile

(27-05-2011 09:29 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  A thread about unicorns or fairies can be just as valid as the claims of a creator. Since we all do not believe in fairies or have opinions about fairies. Why are we wasting time believing in creators or having opinions about creators? No evidence or reasons for thinking there might be one, then why think about it?
Because this is The Thinking Atheist Forum.
We are atheist, and we think, and we write down our thoughts here.
And since this is a discussion which involves Theism as well as Deism (no need to mention Atheism), I place this under the Atheism and Theism section.

And I would think that "No evidence or reasons for thinking there might be one, then why think about it?" is not a very good policy. No evidence could mean that we just never found it. But I would in a way agree if you say "If there is completely nothing to suggest an idea, why think about it?. There is no evidence that 11 dimensions do exist, so why think about it?... But physicist are thinking about it, because there is something to mathematically suggest that there are.
Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2011, 05:21 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2011 05:26 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(27-05-2011 10:02 PM)SubmissionToScience Wrote:  . There is no evidence that 11 dimensions do exist, so why think about it?... But physicist are thinking about it, because there is something to mathematically suggest that there are.

There is nothing mathematical that suggests a creator. I will be the first to admit defeat if you post otherwise. But it is more or less the mindset of thinking about something that absolutely nothing suggest is possible or true that is dangerous and a waste of time. One could argue that type of thinking got us here in the first place.

Also I do see no point in a thread where everyone is suggesting that this is the conclusion lets all think about why this is true and what facts can support it. Science is more so why something can't work rather than why it can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2011, 08:50 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(28-05-2011 05:21 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  There is nothing mathematical that suggests a creator. I will be the first to admit defeat if you post otherwise. But it is more or less the mindset of thinking about something that absolutely nothing suggest is possible or true that is dangerous and a waste of time. One could argue that type of thinking got us here in the first place.

Also I do see no point in a thread where everyone is suggesting that this is the conclusion lets all think about why this is true and what facts can support it. Science is more so why something can't work rather than why it can.
First off, I'm not trying to make a movement or a revolution for atheist to believe in a creator. I am merely trying to share an interesting thought which I have, which I honestly think it is.

Secondly, sorry to say, I can't truly appreciate your comments, and you can't blame me for this as you it seems you are simply speaking down to me unnecessarily and inappropriately, which I think is due to you not understanding the purpose of my write-up. You don't need to tell me that you too can't truly appreciate my posts as it is obvious that you don't from your first comment by making it comparable to fairies and unicorn and that I'm wasting my time on this, which obviously I completely disagree with.

I do feel some form of appreciation towards my write-up from all the others who commented above even though they express their disagreement or have a different view from mine (not that I am begging for that). So perhaps you too are wasting your time in responding to a post which you find to be a waste of time.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: