Man Created God With The Computer

Using pure reason, no.

But love is pesky as it makes you do things that go against the voice of reason at times.

Thats not an answer.

She's hot. Big tits.

How about this one.

Eternal glory or Happiness?

The Doctor must be thinking to hard.

Sorry for being off topic but what do you say chumly?

If we assume that the big bang is cyclical/repetitive, then once entropy is reached there might need to be an outside triggering event to coalesce everything in the universe back into a single point and to have it "explode" again.

The impetus to do that could be as the story suggests, else where does the impetus come from to coalesce, being that the is no potential energy left? Gravity perhaps?

Something has to rewind the clock, although I suppose it could be some natural occurrence or cosmic rhythm beyond our ken.

I have more faith in man creating god then the reverse, because I have clear evidence of man's existence and man's increasing potential, but none for god's existence and god's potential. At some point, man, or whatever passes in the future for mankind, may possess powers that are sufficient to be considered god-like.

In fact, if there is a cyclical/repetitive nature to the universe, then the equivalent to whatever ultimate race existed in the prior iteration of the universe may have been responsible for the one we live in now.

I know that applying conventional linearity to my views creates contradictions and conflicts, but that might be a limitation of our perception and language, and not a discounting of my premises.

I am not saying I firmly believe any of the above speculations, but if I had to choose, I would choose them over the less realistic and less substantiated Christian god with all that supreme, unknowable, mysterious, voodoo........

Big tits are great, especially the ones way up firm and high, the ones that sit up and beg, the ones that press acutely against the soft, thin white silk of a blouse, struggling to be set free of the cruelly restrictive creme colored lacey imported French bra, nipples excited with hot young blood, nipples spiking out like pencil erasers, like tiny fingers reaching…………

Wow, Thanks for the response. I don't think however you can capture god with science.

I'll stay tuned.

I would say it would be impossible to capture faith with our science at it's present level, but as to what science will eventually become or be capable of that remains to be seen.

But what about a being so advanced that for all intents and purposes it has the power of the gods?

Could man, at it's present level, distinguish between it and a supposedly true god?

Interesting. If we, as sentient beings, can capture the creative power of 'god', what would result? What about free will? What could be accomplished?

As a bit of humor: those questions might be what Bush and friends would ask, if they were smart enough to get that far.

In truth however, one way I could answer that would be to say that it might mean the end of desire and intent, as with the power to do all, where is the struggle - challenge - purpose? Of course that is applying some of the nature of man as we understand it today.

Another way I might answer that would be through Asimov's story; a sort of caretaker of the universe, at least in terms of keeping the clock wound.

I will say it's very doubtful that we would behave in a benevolent interventionist fashion as many believe the Christian god must.

By the way I don't totally discount at least the concept of a creator of some sort, but certainly not the naïve, myopic, simplistic, interventionist, puerile creator popularly espoused, which in essence, to some fair degree, is god in our own image.

This god in our own image, would have to be a feeble god indeed to demonstrate anger or selectively listen to only some and only in prayer.

If you don't see that as an answer, you probably have a weak grasp of human nature in general.


Is there a more meaningless term in the human language than 'eternal glory'?
I highly doubt it!
It's like asking me if I prefer steak or cosmic cheezdoodles from alpha-centari

Where did you get your strawmanian concept of god?

Even the most arcane concept of a god ultimately is joined at the hip to the bearded old geezer most Christians seem to be praying to. That is because attempts to define god or gods intellectually are rooted in that concept.

That could possibly be because the bible states clearly 'god created man in his own image' , then in revelation describes him as a big robed white bearded man.
Oh ya I forgot..we are supposed to 'interpret' the parts that are ridiculous.
Oopsies.

Hi Neo,
Exactly what "strawmanian concept of god" are you referring to?
Be specific and use examples and define your terms. Then I'll be able to respond in kind.

Given the clear tone that my post was non-specific (I don't totally discount at least the concept of a creator of some sort) I cannot see how I have either postulated any definitive concept of god, or tied unrelated systems into an inchoate whole.

It's easy to criticize without giving valid substantiation, but also not very meaningful.

Would also then say that even the most "advanced" concept of god must follow as per "joined at the hip…….."?

Say for example the Asimov's "AC"?

I am not convinced "all concept of a god ultimately is joined at the...."

I am not familiar with Asimov's concept.

I started this thread, and borrowed the story for unofficial duplication at the beginning of this here thread, happy reading!

I doubt I would go as far as saying Asimov's short story means it is his concept of god, but in any case hope you like, and for the sake of argument, I'll at least tacitly accept it as a meritable premise.

A good bit of fanciful fiction. It doesn't really change my position, though.

You can do better than that!

In what way strong definitive way does Asimov's story impute that "attempts to define god or gods intellectually are rooted in that concept?"

Looks to me like Asimov is saying through man's initial impetus of technology, when the end of time is reached, the universe may be reborn via that self same impetus of technology, and done so in a fashion that is arguably undifferentiateable to what one might call god-like.

I don't see any strong definitive connection between that premise and the one you ascribe to "god ultimately is joined at the hip to the bearded old geezer most Christians seem to be praying to".

Are you suggesting that Asimov has no intellectual basis to the story? I would certainly refute that based on the dictionary definition of the word and the inherent need to define terms.

Intellectual:

Of or relating to the intellect.
Rational rather than emotional.
Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
An intellectual person.