Higher Intelligence? Maybe. God? No.

Here's what I think about the possibility of a God.

I do think some higher intelligence played a role in our evolution, and maybe even in the evolution of the universe. But, this is a far cry from a true God.

I believe this intelligence may still be around today, but once again I don't believe we can speak to it through prayer or that it has another place waiting for us after we die. The entire heaven and hell deal still reminds me of Santa Claus, if you're good you get rewarded! In all seriousness though, one has to wonder why God suddenly showed up about 2000 years ago and not said a word since.

I believe the Bible is not a book written by eye witnesses of God and Jesus, but rather a story thought up long ago that was added to and became an international bestseller. If, however, it was actually an eyewitness account of the events it described, it is certainly not a solid basis to build an entire religion on. For all we know the miracles performed by Jesus could have been an extraterristrial dropping in for a visit.

Bottom line, there may be a Godlike being in the universe who has interefered with the natural evolution of things for purposes we can't/don't understand. However, I certainly don't believe that this being is waiting for us after death and that we can communicate with it on a daily basis.

I'd be interested to see what other people think about this view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, might I ask what you qualify as a "True God'...and how it differs from the "Higher Intelligence" you speak of? Then my response will be more suited to where you are comeing from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clarification

A "true God" would be an all knowing being with limitless powers. Basically, I think a true God would be what the churches believe in today, a being that can alter the universe itself with no effort at all who is not a part of this universe, but an "onlooker" of it from another place.

A higher intelligence would be something a little less unlimited in power and knowlege. One possibility of this would be a sufficiently advanced race of extraterrestrials, or maybe a life form that is actually part of the fabric of space itself, who knows.

This works on the same principle that if you were to travel back in time to, say, 100 BC and show them a lightbulb or heat something up in a microwave, most of them would think you are a God.

The difference is subtle, but also large.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ET is plausible; God is impossible.

Just look at this world, no life form is 100% energy efficient. Out of millions and millions of speices, not a single one is perfect on using energy. Did God forget how to make energy efficiently life? Or God flawed all life forms after Adam's mistake?

 

Why not? Because there is undoubtably much more life in this universe, if there wasn't there would be no need to have more stars than Earth's beaches have sand. If a higher intelligence did interfere with the universe's evolution in some way, I doubt they would still be paying much attention to our planet (which is one out of possibly trillions) and to our civilization (again, one out of many).

While I admit this does depend on your definition of a God, one can also argue that a human being can kick over an anthill and still not be a God. There is a difference between influencing evolution and creating it.

Of course I seem more comfortable with the idea of extraterrestrials, as I have said before there are literally trillions upon trillions of stars in our galactic cluster alone. Because of this I find it much easier to believe in other beings in the universe rather than one almighty God who created it all with a single thought.

For the last why not, refer to my answer to the first one.

It is also worth pointing out that creationists often ask the question "Where did the universe come from?" of scientists. We can also ask the same of God. If it is plausible for Him to have "existed forever" why is it not the same for the universe?

Sorry for the long post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm starting to see why this is such a big debate nowadays

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the universe has existed forever, what need have I of God? Scientists do not attempt to explain why the universe came into being, but how. And, if eventually we do fully understand how the universe started out and evolved, does that not mean we understand God's work fully? One step further: if we understand how He created the universe, could we not duplicate His methods and become gods ourselves?

Nevertheless, God is a theory. It has not been proven and, because of it's nature, probably never will be. At the same time it has not been disproven either.

I suppose the entire matter is about faith. As a scientist, you do not think on faith (at least I know I don't). A physicist does not say simply say "Something behaves the way it does because that's just the way it is", but rather tries to find out why it behaves this way.

Perhaps some day scientists and believers will finally agree on a compromise, something along the lines of there is a God (or a godlike being), but it does not take an active role in our everyday happenings. Or perhaps it does, but it is not responsible for creating us.

Either way, both of the current theories (or beliefs) are flawed in some ways. The universe could not have evolved without something to give it that first little nudge. On the other hand, there is not a single piece of undeniable evidence to prove God exists.

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
The universe could not have evolved without something to give it that first little nudge.*

The nudger would be God.

*On the other hand, there is not a single piece of undeniable evidence to prove God exists. *

The universe he nudged into existence would be one piece.

 

No, it's not. What you are suggesting would be the same as convicting someone of murder simply because one was commited. The fact that the universe is here does not prove God exists, in fact it does nothing of the sort. There could be many reasons why the universe came into being, just as there could be many suspects in a murder case.

 

Biological evolution is a blind, algorithmic process. Why do you think it requires an external agency?

I like that analogy a lot, mind if I use it?

Still, I would take it one step further. We have found someone dead, car wrapped around a light post or some such. Certainly, the brakes may be cut or someone gave the driver a little extra nudge from behind, but a priori there is no good reason to suppose that they were murdered at all. When I see the evidence that this is the case, THEN I will start looking for suspects.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Xelios….

If the universe has existed forever, what need have I of God?

a) The universe has not existed forever, like all forms of matter, it came into being and like all forms of matter, it will be destroyed.

B) God, the Supreme Person, created this and inumerable other universes, for the purpose of rebelious souls, to offer them a chance of going back home back to Godhead. So even if you think you have no need of God, you cannot exist without him. Just as the earth could not exist without the heat and light of the sun.


Scientists do not attempt to explain why the universe came into being, but how.

Unless they regard the gigantic brain that is behind this complete manifestation, then they are just wasting their time, like Dr. Frog.

And, if eventually we do fully understand how the universe started out and evolved, does that not mean we understand God's work fully?

The only time we will understand Gods work fully, is when we fully surrender to Him.

One step further: if we understand how He created the universe, could we not duplicate His methods and become gods ourselves?

You are envious of God, you want to become God. This is why you will never understand God.

Nevertheless, God is a theory. It has not been proven and, because of it's nature, probably never will be. At the same time it has not been disproven either.

Nothing of any worth has been proven.

I suppose the entire matter is about faith. As a scientist, you do not think on faith (at least I know I don't). A physicist does not say simply say "Something behaves the way it does because that's just the way it is", but rather tries to find out why it behaves this way.

That is correct. How does he find out? He consults an authority on the subject matter. Not wildly speculate.

Perhaps some day scientists and believers will finally agree on a compromise.

The day was and is already there/ here, but I am talking about proper scientists. Scientist with a truly open mind, not one that has pre-concieved ideas.
Scientists are born, they are not churned out of universities.

Either way, both of the current theories (or beliefs) are flawed in some ways. The universe could not have evolved without something to give it that first little nudge. On the other hand, there is not a single piece of undeniable evidence to prove God exists.

I urge you to think deeply about what you are saying.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

I'm sorry Jan, but personal attacks on me won't get you anywhere.

No, as a matter of fact I'm not envious of him because I don't think he exists. I am simply stating that it is possible to understand how the universe was created, and it is possible to duplicate this.

I agree, it does go throught cycles. What if these cycles (Big Bang to Big Crunch and back again) have been going on forever?

Is that a fact? Wow, I'm glad you're here to tell us that the years of research leading up to an understanding (albeit vague) of how the universe works and started out is just a bunch of nonsense. I guess the universe really isn't flying apart at the moment, and black holes really don't trap light inside.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not saying it requires it, I'm suggesting that one did influence it. We have altered countless animals' evolutions just be being here, what happens when we start playing around with their genetic structure?

 

''One step further: if we understand how He created the universe, could we not duplicate His methods and become gods ourselves?'' xelios

''You are envious of God, you want to become God. This is why you will never understand God.'' jan

Is the natural evolution of mankind not to become powerful through knowledge to the point where nothing is excluded from us?

And a slightly different note:

If God is the ultimate creator, then he must have created energy.
But the majority of this worlds technology is built on the principal that

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

And my T.V. and P.C. both seem to work.....

......curious!

 

briefly

Its an old logical path, but what the hell;

Imagine the most perfect thing in existance that you can.
For argument's sake, the patterning and individuality of a snowflake, say.
Lets argue that something this unique and perfect could not have occured by accident.
This inferrs the existance of God.
But logical proof is denied by faith.
The two are mutually exclusive, by definition.
We have logical proof and so there can be no faith.
Without faith, God is nothing, and disappears in a puff of logic.
(Doug Adams).

 

Esp…

But logical proof is denied by faith.

How can logical proof be denied by faith, I would say it is welcomed by faith. How can you deny something that affects you unless you are not of sober mind.
If I have faith in my lottery numbers coming up this week and then find out that they came up, the logical proof that I won would be my lottery card with the corresponding numbers on, which I believed in, I don’t think I will be denying that.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Jan

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that I don't like God... if I don't believe in Him how could I feel anything towards Him? Once again, I'm simply stating an alternative to religion. It seems to me that you are the one without an open mind. Have you really tried to understand the position of there not being a God? Because it sounds to me like you haven't.

I do see where you are coming from though. To you, you are right because you know deep inside that God exists. So, you know you are right because your faith (or spirit) tells you so.

You seem to understand my position as well, and as you can probably see these two positions don't mix well.

Although I am enjoying this discussion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Back to school now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But logical proof is denied by faith.

How can logical proof be denied by faith, I would say it is welcomed by faith. How can you deny something that affects you unless you are not of sober mind.
If I have faith in my lottery numbers coming up this week and then find out that they came up, the logical proof that I won would be my lottery card with the corresponding numbers on, which I believed in, I don’t think I will be denying that.


Jan,

Faith is the belief in an unsubstantiated entity. Once the entity is substantiated, the faith in it cannot exist.

Once your faith is proved, your lottery card is not valid.

 

Esp…

Faith is the belief in an unsubstantiated entity. Once the entity is substantiated, the faith in it cannot exist.

Not necessarily. It is more personal than that. I agree that if you say, buy an item over the internet, you have to have faith that the company you are dealing with are honest. That company in sense could be classed as an unsubstantiated entity insofar as you only have the word of a faceless entity. But we wouldn’t do that so easily if there weren’t any form of protection from an independent consumer watch, this merley strengthens our faith. And if everything went fine, and we received the item in the time specified, this would substantiate the faith and we would end up having more faith, in that company, backed up with a little more personal experience.

My interpretation of faith is; faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not see.

Someone once told me that, I don’t know whether it is a biblical passage or what, but it sounds right to me.

Love

Jan Ardena.