This is a rather philosophical question.
Suppose we travel the galaxy and meet a species like the Q from Star Trek. They are seemingly omni powerful and have bascially all the characteristics we would give a god. But the question is, are they gods?
Or more generally speaking: How do we differentiate a very powerful beeing from god? I mean however we meet might or not be a god described in earth´s mythology. How would one be able to identify them?
Wouldn't meeting the real god make him disappear in a puff of logic, seeing as meeting him would prove his existence?
What makes you suppose God can't prove his existence?
One thing I find surprising is people that disbelieve the existence of God accept that the universe is nearly infinite and evolution adds greater and greater complexity to species. If that's so given another 20,000,000,000 years can't we assume that the species that supercede man will eventually become as Gods themselves? We can also assume the existence of other dimensions, can we not also assume that God himself came from another plane of existence where the creation of such a being is possible who then created our universe?
I don't believe in God, I know he exists. I've seen too many miracles in my life to doubt his existence. I do find it fascinating how such a being exists though and often wonder how.
Guess we all find out the hows when we die eh?
First define a god. The meaning of the word varies a lot from religion to religion. The Christian god is all-powerful and logically inconsistent. The Greek gods are just very powerful beings who like to run around and cause mischief. A Shinto god just likes to hang around some grove somewhere and get an offering every now and then, and maybe grant a favor, if he can bothered.
>If that's so given another 20,000,000,000 years can't we assume that the species that supercede man will eventually become as Gods themselves?
The problem with that is that it would require divine powers to be physically possible. While I can definitely see humanity becoming "gods" in the sense of being able to create a living cell out of chemicals, dumping it on a uninhabited planet and roughly predicting how life on said planet will evolve, things like omnipresence and omnipotence are rather tricky things to obtain, physically.
>We can also assume the existence of other dimensions, can we not also assume that God himself came from another plane of existence where the creation of such a being is possible who then created our universe?
I fail to see the relation. Dimensions aren't other planes of existence, so why would being able to assume that there are more than four dimension also means being able to assume that some super-powerful alien from another plane of existence (whatever that means) created our universe?
Sorry, I didn't mean it like that, I was using dimensions not in the physics sense but the science fiction sense. We know for instance that the universe is expanding but expanding into what? Also the idea of multi universes is a common belief of many.
> We know for instance that the universe is expanding but expanding into what?
Meaningless statement. If it was expanding INTO anything, that something would already be the universe. You are just misapplying your intuitive sense of cartesian space, which certainly doesn't apply here.
>>6 Assuming this universe has the shape of a sphere (Big Bang theory and all that...), the universe is just a stretching balloon. The surface of the balloon IS the universe.
At some point of time, it'll go back to its starting point.
I thought we were looking at this in a science fiction sort of way. If the original poster were interested in real science he wouldn't have asked the question. I'm simply putting out ideas, I'm not looking for validity.
Doesn't matter what kind of way we're looking at it, the question is meaningless without a definition of what a "god" is.
But I believe in zooty. I'm kinda curious myself where he came from. I find it a fascinating psychological puzzle.
Well, in a pagan view, as far as I understand it, Q would be a god. They're just being that are more powerful than we are. They were born and they'll die. Some have actually been disfigured or are prophecied to be (There's a norse god that either has or will have his hand bit off by a dog).
When you come to Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions of One True God, you'd have to be able to show "god" can do absolutely anything.
But Q is actually pretty close to what I understand of Loki.
Hey "anonymous scientist", take it easy on 3. He's just trying to take an interest, so don't disparage him for his minimal lack of knowledge. He is obviously not a graduate and is obviously here because it interests him.
3, you did bring up a few interesting tidbits about the whole space-time thing. The point at at which the "singularity event" (the big bang) occured is to some the center of the universe. In light of that fact, questions are often revisited by some astronomers and physicists about the bounds of the universe. Where does it end, and what is contained in an area with no particulate matter? In order for there to be a singularity event, there must be areas outside of that event containing no matter (not even any subatomic particles!). But what does that look like? How does it behave physically?
Frankly, it is all far above me.
For Yevon:
Excuse my egregious ignorance, but what is "Loki"?
I find a god-like being hard to imagine. Being a biologist, my imagination is somewhat restricted to the results of transcription. I can hardly see how any of them would add up to a nice neat pile of "God".
Loki is a Norse Diety. a shapeshifting trickster.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/mythology/myths/text/loki.htm
Loki is the son of giants and foster brother of Óðin. He is a trickster, a shape-changer, and the master of lies and deceit. He is the father of three monsters: the wolf Fenrir, who will swallow Óðin at Ragnarök; the monster Jörmangandr, who will drown Þór in venom at Ragnarök; and the monster Hel who presides over the hall of the dead in Niflheim, and whose hospitality includes offering visitors drinking horns full of urine.
Loki plays a central role in many of the stories of the Æsir. And, he is unique among the gods in having a character which changes through the stories. At first, he was a prankster, not to be trusted, but helpful on many occasions, such as in the story of rebuilding the walls of Ásgarð. With his lies, and his habit of revealing secrets, Loki constantly stirred the gods against each other, such as in the story of Freyja's necklace. Later, he became spiteful and malevolent, such as when he cut Sif's hair. The gods' merriment over the agonies of his punishment probably turned Loki's maliciousness into a vindictive desire to destroy them.
Ultimately, Loki caused the death of Baldr, wisest of the gods. As punishment, Loki now lies in a cave, bound to a rock by the entrails of his sons. A snake fastened to a stalactite above him drips venom into his face. Loki's faithful wife Sigyn catches the venom in a bowl, protecting Loki from harm. When the bowl fills, she carries it away and empties it into a rock basin in the cave. During those moments, Loki is left unguarded, and the snake's venom splashes in his face. In torment, he shudders and writhes. This is the cause of earthquakes. Loki will remain bound in the cave until Ragnarök, when he will lead the monsters and the giants into battle against the gods.
What do you think we'd look like -- to an ant?
Big ugly things that can crush them for good reasons or no reasons at all. We can do all sorts of things that they can't understand. We can pretty much do ANYTHING so far as an ant is concerned, and considering the difference in lifespan, we're immortal compared to an ant that lives a single year (I think ants only live for a year).
All of that, from an ant's point of view makes humans into pagan-type gods. Strictly speaking still mortal, falible, and still physical beings, just so much beyond the competition that we'd be worshipped.
So if we encountered a being that was technologically and evolutionarily 1 billion years ahead of us, for all intents and purposes, they'd be gods. Perhaps more in the Aesir or Olympian sense than the YHWH/Jesus/Allah sense, but gods none the less.
Superhuman =! God
>>18
not true. any god would have to be superhuman.
i think you meant to use "!=" instead.
I don't mean God in the sense of our modern concept of God. I've said before I mean in the more pagan sense. In Greek or Celtic myths, gods are different than humans mainly in being longer lived and being more powerful.
They weren't necessarily creators of the universe and all that. Even in Hindu philosophy, the gods don't create the universe, they're in essense mid-wives. other gods are born later. One Norse god gets maimed. One god fights or kills another in many myths. So our superman, Jedi, and X-men are probably closer to the pagan view of "the gods" than our monotheistic view.
I HOPE there's something more evolved than Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens scares me at the moment. There's new movie out -- documentary unfortunately -- in which christian fundementalists literally pray over a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush. They'll also die for Jesus, apparently.
Then we have jihadis on the warpath. I don't understand exactly how people who are otherwise fairly normal come up with the idea of killing for god.
If humans are intelligent life, I'd hate to see the life that's riding the short bus. They must really be messed up.
Well, god(or God, whatever your religion) can be described as many ways, like the ant example.
No one will know for sure what god is. I like the idea in the text of Isaac Asimov - The Last Question, as God being a extremely advanced giant machine that sacrifices itself to the recreation of the Universe, using the same words as the Byble. Even with all the problems going on adaptating the idea, it's kinda cool thinking that way, even to a Catholic like me. I don't care if it's just especulation, but we sure need a God to be somewhere somehow, is He just a machine that recreates the universe by his own power, or a God that creates the Big Bang and creates everything, or even a God that creates nothing, just watch and aid us in our needs. Fact: humanity needs beliefs to live.
well even atheists have beliefs. Try as you might, you'll end up with some sort of worship. We have a lot of celebrity worship in America. I'm not sure it rises to the level of Gods, but it seems that humans need heros at least.
god is the beginning and the end
space and time
everything is designed by this
He don't exist
He Is another fake fairy tale folklore no different from ghosts, werewolves, zombies, vampires none are real and all the religious literare Its fake and political, church, social community and family groups are all just trying to make you follow their lead my whole points try to make I'm an atheist and not a christain, I'm a single straight male who refuses a relationship with anyone, I'm a man with no children not a role model and not anyone's friend you don't like It too bad this Is just who I am.
There's no way to study God scientifically. You can't take God to laboratory or a doctor's office, you can't watch God using any measuring tool or another scientific method. Applying scientific methods to current definition of God leads to a paradox which some people (incorrectly) interpret as proof that God does not exist. The only thing that can be (and is) studied scientifically is a "God meme". Which, on the other hand, is very real thing with quite good and scientifically proven reasons to exist.
Applying scientific methods on God is as pointless as applying theologic methods in science. These things just don't match, but they can live beside each other pretty well.
>>Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
>>28
Man, I pretty much lost my mind trying to think of a scientific proof for God should a claimaint to this title show up on earth some day. There's pretty much no way. Our understanding of cosmology at this point even makes the impressive parlor act of creating another universe seem within reason for a suitably advanced ... thing. With that, it seems as though there's no act or test that's 100% convincing.
>>30
Godel's 'proof' is just a translation of the ontological argument into formal logic.
It does nothing to shore up the questionable assertion that "necessary existence is a positive property."