FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Could Our Universe Produce a Real God?





shailesh123
I realize that a giant computer could be the last remnant of intelligence our universe has to offer but something like that would certainly rule out the living entity, would it not?
And also want to know about given theory

"You can create a god from nothing in theory, as long as you create an anti-god at the same time. If the two ever get together, the resulting explosion will leave nothing once more. "
Ankhanu
What are you proposing a god to be?
mazito
i remember an episode of Start Treck in TV where Kirk and the Enterprise found a civilization that have a good, "VOY" or some, and kirk at the end of the day discoverd that part of that god actualy is the one of the voyager ship.

perhaps is something about
shailesh123
I don't know of any theories or models of how a universe can create a god. So I believe it is more likely that the universe was created by God instread of the reverse.
_AVG_
I do not understand what this post is about. Please provide a definition of "god" and then we can answer your question whether the universe can create one or not.

For example. the omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator definition of god cannot be created in our universe (or in any universe for that matter?) Rolling Eyes
Ankhanu
shailesh123 wrote:
I don't know of any theories or models of how a universe can create a god. So I believe it is more likely that the universe was created by God instread of the reverse.

I'm not sure how not expecting one leads into expecting the other... they're pretty separate concepts. It's not like state A (Universe created gods) and state B (god created universe) are binary; there's at least a possible state C (no gods) and potentially even state D (gods and universe, neither creating the other). If you don't accept state A, why immediately assume State B??
Bikerman
How can a universe create God(s)?
Easy. Create intelligent life that seeks to explain its own origin. Gods are an almost certain outcome.
ocalhoun
On a more on-topic note, I doubt that anything within a universe could know everything about the universe.

For one thing, it would therefore have to know everything about itself... including the part that knows about itself, and it would have to know about that part as well, and would have to know about the part that knows about that part... and so on, regressing infinitely.

Since I don't think it's possible to have total self-awareness, it therefore isn't possible for something contained in the universe to know everything about the universe.


(But if our entire universe were, say, a huge computer simulation being run by something outside of it, then it would be possible for something outside of the universe to know everything about it.)
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
On a more on-topic note, I doubt that anything within a universe could know everything about the universe.

For one thing, it would therefore have to know everything about itself... including the part that knows about itself, and it would have to know about that part as well, and would have to know about the part that knows about that part... and so on, regressing infinitely.

Since I don't think it's possible to have total self-awareness, it therefore isn't possible for something contained in the universe to know everything about the universe.


(But if our entire universe were, say, a huge computer simulation being run by something outside of it, then it would be possible for something outside of the universe to know everything about it.)

This is why I ask what is meant by a god. See you're using the omniscient concept of a god in your definition/reasoning, but, the vast majority of gods through culture/history have not possessed omniscience, and have had myriad limitations. With this in mind, would a universe be able to produce a god that's not omniscient?
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:

This is why I ask what is meant by a god. See you're using the omniscient concept of a god in your definition/reasoning, but, the vast majority of gods through culture/history have not possessed omniscience, and have had myriad limitations. With this in mind, would a universe be able to produce a god that's not omniscient?

Okay, first define the minimum requirements to be a 'god', and then I'll tell you if our universe could produce one.
mgeek
The question is rather strange. God is not a product of the universe; no philosophy would assume that.
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:

This is why I ask what is meant by a god. See you're using the omniscient concept of a god in your definition/reasoning, but, the vast majority of gods through culture/history have not possessed omniscience, and have had myriad limitations. With this in mind, would a universe be able to produce a god that's not omniscient?

Okay, first define the minimum requirements to be a 'god', and then I'll tell you if our universe could produce one.

That's my question to the OP; they haven't responded Razz
Ankhanu
softonaseo15 wrote:
God is under every one. but only we have to find him which i we are not done.

So what's the evidence for your first claim, given that your second claim denies it?
andro_king
How can an universe create God ? Its just matter of human-mind !! Confused Confused
Ankhanu
andro_king wrote:
How can an universe create God ? Its just matter of human-mind !! Confused Confused

Then I suppose it's done so many times over; as the human mind (a property of the universe) has created many, many gods!
SonLight
There was a planetarium show called "The Springtime of the Universe" which had an interesting take on this, although I don't really feel it solved any of the underlying philosophical questions. Humankind developed advanced computers which handled their technology and answered people's questions. People kept asking about the end of the universe, and every generation of the computers always answered, "There is not yet sufficient time to answer that question".

Eventually the Universe became old and the last stars died out. The computer was now in some sort of hyperspace which was unaffected, and since life could no longer be supported it somehow absorbed the essence of humankind. In the long darkness which followed, the computer finally had time to compute the answer. There was now no one to give the answer to. Oh, well, "the answer by demonstration will suffice".

The final line was "Let there be light". Delivered with a sufficiently big bang, of course.
kelseymh
Please read the short story "The Last Question," by Isaac Asimov. I'm sure the planetarium you visited properly credited the source in their advertising, though perhaps not very prominently.

SonLight wrote:
There was a planetarium show called "The Springtime of the Universe" which had an interesting take on this, although I don't really feel it solved any of the underlying philosophical questions. Humankind developed advanced computers which handled their technology and answered people's questions. People kept asking about the end of the universe, and every generation of the computers always answered, "There is not yet sufficient time to answer that question".

Eventually the Universe became old and the last stars died out. The computer was now in some sort of hyperspace which was unaffected, and since life could no longer be supported it somehow absorbed the essence of humankind. In the long darkness which followed, the computer finally had time to compute the answer. There was now no one to give the answer to. Oh, well, "the answer by demonstration will suffice".

The final line was "Let there be light". Delivered with a sufficiently big bang, of course.
SonLight
Thanks for posting the source of the story. I remember it now that you mention it, although I have never read the story. I love Asimov's writing. In the show the names are based upon the Univac series. The first one was Univac, which I assume refers to the original Univac I which was probably relatively new when the story was written. After morphing the name a few times, the final one was called "Univeral AC" -- which converts back to the original meaning for the Univac brand name, "Universal Automatic Computer", ca. 1950.
killer2022
depends on your definition of, "god"
kndge9584
yes, universe produce a real god When people thank God for their accomplishments, what they don't realize is that it's not a God outside of them that did the work, it's the god that they found within themself. Everyone has it
Ankhanu
kndge9584 wrote:
yes, universe produce a real god When people thank God for their accomplishments, what they don't realize is that it's not a God outside of them that did the work, it's the god that they found within themself. Everyone has it

That seems... paradoxical.
Dennise
This is a silly thread without - as has been already stated - an acceptable and agreed definition of God.

Since an agreed definition is likely impossible, then the OP's question is moot.
Ankhanu
And since the OP was a fly by night poster, making two posts to advertise the link in their signature, and is never coming back... the topic can never be resolved Razz
iocane
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/30181/20161017/number-galaxies-universe-10-times-more-previously-thought.htm

Take a estimated number of observable galaxies of 2 trillion and add in billions of years of evolution. Now out of that any super advance being that evolves and then proceeds to create a new universe that it has control over has claim of God level ability over the new universe.
Haiku2016
I find it odd that science can postulate the creation of our universe out of nothing but cannot conclude that God exists.
Ankhanu
Haiku2016 wrote:
I find it odd that science can postulate the creation of our universe out of nothing but cannot conclude that God exists.

Not to be flippant, but I'm going to be flippant; that's because (based on your writing) you do not understand science, the scientific method, nor its strengths or limitations.
restonpiston
Haiku2016 wrote:
I find it odd that science can postulate the creation of our universe out of nothing but cannot conclude that God exists.

Right now, science works creating an hypothesis from things we can observe, imagine or just think about, but to prove an hypothesis you must either prove it in the real world or in exact sciences, prove it mathematically so it can not be proven false
Haiku2016
There are lots of eminent scientists who are religious. And I don't believe that they are, one and all, suddenly irrational when it comes to their faith. I don't think either that believing in God requires us to discard the rationality that underpins our faith in science and just blindly subscribe to some totally illogical nonsense.

Being a scientist myself, I think that those scientists who believe in God (or something like it) do so because we see a rationality (or order) in the universe that pervades everything we see and do. The ancients, like the Greeks and Hindus, believe that humans live according to three transcendentals - truth, goodness and beauty.

For the ancients, these three transcendentals are not subjective qualities, variable with the individual and subject to our personal biases. They are laws of nature, equivalent to one another. This is quite unlike our current situation. We subscribe to science as the source of truth, but not in the instances of goodness and beauty.

Goodness, for the ancients, is embedded in human nature, and some forms of practices or acts, like bestiality, are not only wrong but unnatural. In our times, the objective nature of goodness is somewhat enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights. To a lesser extent, international law is possible because we can agree on some terms that is fair to all parties. If you think about it, moral behaviour or goodness is only meaningful in a transaction between two or more people. To that extent, a common standard of morality is shared at least between those people. It breaks down when one of the parties refuses to accept the standard or some part of the standard. This does not necessarily mean that the standard is somewhat flawed because often, the reason for refusing is to gain some advantage. A full exposition will take a longer time than we have here but the main point I'm making here is that for us, those who are both religious and scientists, morality is not subjective but objective, as hard and as real as science. Those who commit sin or crimes are to be punished not because of what we believe but because they have violated an objective standard. The horror of the Holocaust, for example, or the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII, are wrong because, at some level, we agree that goodness is not subjective.

By the same token, beauty is also classically regarded as an objective feature. Beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder but attributes of something perfect - the perfect fruit, the perfect flower, the perfect person. To be beautiful is to be flawless, and the notion of flaw is closely linked to the notion of goodness. We still subscribe to this in some way, in the sense that something perfect is often regarded as something beautiful - the perfectly executed goal, the perfectly flawless object, and so on. Again, inasmuch as some of us make things for other people, be it food, fashion, essay, websites, as long as it is to be consumed by another, we engage in this endeavour - to make it as perfectly as we can, and for it to be appreciated as an object of beauty. Mathematics, for example, strive towards beautiful solutions and beautiful equations - where beauty is largely defined in terms of elegance and perfection.

The thing is this: if we believe that there is such order in this world, that crosses over into morality and beauty, that our lives can be lived, and can best be lived, by subscribing to and pursuing this order - not just in our work, but in our relationships with one another, and in the ordering of our environment - then it does seem that the universe operate in a manner that is closely aligned with us in very many ways. And it does seem that the more we are aligned to the universe in this manner, the more there is harmony and happiness in our lives. And, for those of us who are religious, there is an excitement that comes from pursuing life in this way: to seek order rather than disorder, to work towards good as a universal concept and not just for ourselves, and to see beauty around us, not just in our eyes but in appreciation of what is perfect.

I think this to be a worthwhile pursuit. And I think it is no accident that I know of no religious scientist who would impose his religion on anyone. This is not because a scientific belief in God is irrational, but that argument is not a good means to foster these values. It is better that we be kind to one another and make this world a more beautiful place, in whatever way we can. If goodness and beauty are subjective, then this last suggestion cannot be meaningful.
loveandormoney
shailesh123 wrote:
I realize that a giant computer could be the last remnant of intelligence our universe has to offer but something like that would certainly rule out the living entity, would it not?
And also want to know about given theory

"You can create a god from nothing in theory, as long as you create an anti-god at the same time. If the two ever get together, the resulting explosion will leave nothing once more. "


You talk about imagination. How about reality?
Ankhanu
Haiku2016 wrote:
There are lots of eminent scientists who are religious. And I don't believe that they are, one and all, suddenly irrational when it comes to their faith. I don't think either that believing in God requires us to discard the rationality that underpins our faith in science and just blindly subscribe to some totally illogical nonsense.

That there are religious scientists is quite immaterial to the question as to whether or not the topic of god(s) has any scientific merit. Humans are complex organisms, with complex behaviours, and inconsistent applications of skepticism and credulity. We don't always apply our faculties to all topics equally, especially those with strong social/cultural connotations, like religion. It's in much the same vein as doctors who smoke, or are drug addicts.

Haiku2016 wrote:
Being a scientist myself, I think that those scientists who believe in God (or something like it) do so because we see a rationality (or order) in the universe that pervades everything we see and do.

So, in a nutshell, it relies upon the fallacy of ignorance? There's something, an order, about the universe, I can't explain, therefore: god(s).

The remainder of your commentary really just boils down to that.
Given that this is a science forum, and not a philosophy forum, I really should remind that if one is going to make points, please ensure that they are at least somewhat bolstered by empirical evidence. Logic games might suffice in philosophy, but they don't tend to pass muster here.
While I agree that it's important that we live in kindness and all, that's not really the topic at hand Wink

Honestly, without an answer to my initial question in this thread, very little meaningful discussion can be had on the topic... and we're likely to never get an answer to that question (especially from the thread creator).
Related topics
science vs. religion
Do we have Free Will or is there only Determinism?
A debate of religion, science, and more
Is God a man?
IS OUR DESTINY PLANNED BY GOD??
Ways to make hell good?
Gravity , RS models & extra dimentions
The God argument: Is there a God?
How did the universe come to be, if there is no God?
[Official] God - NO LONGER A STICKY
Death of the Author (God)
Climate change and politics
God, the Universe, and Everything...
God exists - and here's the proof
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.