Since I've become a weak agnostic I've been making a point of trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically...about how it could actually be. So far I haven't run into anyone else trying to do the same thing, and would like to. I'm putting together a list of things I feel should be basic aspects to keep in mind if a person is going to attempt to do so, and would enjoy any contributions both useful and useless (because the useless are often amusing in their absurdity :-), but more the useful if anyone can come up with some. Here's the list as it stands thus far:
1. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 1.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
QUOTE
1. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
Creator of what?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2009, 12:19 PM)
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
At what point do beings become technologically advances enough to become gods?
At what point do beings become technologically advances enough to become gods?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 5 2009, 08:54 PM)
Creator of what?
Yes, of whatever. Surely you're not stumped on something so basic...just think it through...
Yes, of whatever. Surely you're not stumped on something so basic...just think it through...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2009, 12:37 AM)
Yes, of whatever. Surely you're not stumped on something so basic...just think it through...
You first.
"God" generally includes creation of everything including the technology that your aliens would use.
and your number 2 contradicts your number one. God would have had to have created the Aliens. Otherwise he's not God.
All you are doing is watering down a defintion to where it fits.
You first.
"God" generally includes creation of everything including the technology that your aliens would use.
and your number 2 contradicts your number one. God would have had to have created the Aliens. Otherwise he's not God.
All you are doing is watering down a defintion to where it fits.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 5 2009, 11:59 PM)
At what point do beings become technologically advances enough to become gods?
That's something each person must decide. To me if a being or beings have influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to, then that is the minimum requirement to me for them to be considered gods. Other people might say one planet is not enough, but they must have influence on at least 7, or 50, or an arm of a galaxy. Other people might be more extreme and say they can only be a god if they have influence on life in an entire galaxy, or maybe a cluster of galaxies. I've heard there are those who believe a being or beings would have to have influence over all life in the entire universe, even if every bit of it is contained on this one planet! That of course would be an extreme position, and could be considered an unrealistic pov, but such a being should qualify as a god even so.
That's something each person must decide. To me if a being or beings have influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to, then that is the minimum requirement to me for them to be considered gods. Other people might say one planet is not enough, but they must have influence on at least 7, or 50, or an arm of a galaxy. Other people might be more extreme and say they can only be a god if they have influence on life in an entire galaxy, or maybe a cluster of galaxies. I've heard there are those who believe a being or beings would have to have influence over all life in the entire universe, even if every bit of it is contained on this one planet! That of course would be an extreme position, and could be considered an unrealistic pov, but such a being should qualify as a god even so.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 6 2009, 12:45 AM)
You first.
"God" generally includes creation of everything including the technology that your aliens would use.
There may be a God who created the entire universe, but that doesn't necessarily mean he cares about this planet or even knows about it if there is one.
"God" generally includes creation of everything including the technology that your aliens would use.
There may be a God who created the entire universe, but that doesn't necessarily mean he cares about this planet or even knows about it if there is one.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
and your number 2 contradicts your number one. God would have had to have created the Aliens. Otherwise he's not God.
No, not necessarily, but even if he did they still don't contradict each other. In reality--which is what we're trying to play with here remember--they don't even have anything significant to do with each other.
No, not necessarily, but even if he did they still don't contradict each other. In reality--which is what we're trying to play with here remember--they don't even have anything significant to do with each other.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
All you are doing is watering down a defintion to where it fits.
I'm trying to think about it realistically, so if it somehow fits something that seems realistic then the goal is being accomplished and things are as they should be. This is supposed to be easy and make sense, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with what we've been taught to believe. Keep in mind that those are basics 11 and 12 on our list, because they really are important aspects to keep in mind. Failure in those areas would necessarily result in failure of the whole attempt, meaning complete failure.
I'm trying to think about it realistically, so if it somehow fits something that seems realistic then the goal is being accomplished and things are as they should be. This is supposed to be easy and make sense, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with what we've been taught to believe. Keep in mind that those are basics 11 and 12 on our list, because they really are important aspects to keep in mind. Failure in those areas would necessarily result in failure of the whole attempt, meaning complete failure.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2009, 01:11 AM)
I'm trying to think about it realistically,
As I said you are watering down the defintition to fit.
At one time monogamous meant one mate for life.
Then someone asked if people are naturally monogamous.
The anwer is no if you the old definition.
so the definition was watered down to fit people.
But people do not fit the old defintion of monogamous, so the word now means nothing.
You are doing the same by "thinking reasonably" about God.
the question is "does God exist?"
And you are not answering yes or no, you are changing the question, like Captain Kirk avoiding the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
As I said you are watering down the defintition to fit.
At one time monogamous meant one mate for life.
Then someone asked if people are naturally monogamous.
The anwer is no if you the old definition.
so the definition was watered down to fit people.
But people do not fit the old defintion of monogamous, so the word now means nothing.
You are doing the same by "thinking reasonably" about God.
the question is "does God exist?"
And you are not answering yes or no, you are changing the question, like Captain Kirk avoiding the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
This all reminds me too much of watching Prometheus and Bob with my kids when they were small.
prometheus and Bob treehouse
prometheus and Bob treehouse
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2009, 07:37 PM)
Yes, of whatever. Surely you're not stumped on something so basic...just think it through...
You brought the idea up, surely you've thought it through and can verbalize it.
If we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then why bother?
EDIT: This isn't gonna be one of those "aliens have been here before and that's the root of many ancient myths" threads, is it?
You brought the idea up, surely you've thought it through and can verbalize it.
If we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then why bother?
EDIT: This isn't gonna be one of those "aliens have been here before and that's the root of many ancient myths" threads, is it?
I've always liked stephen hawking's opinion on a god being. Something along the lines of:
The laws of how the universe will develop with time, could have been decreed by god, but it appears he has since left the universe to evolve according to them, and does not intervene.
Could there be a god that intervenes in everyday human life as many religious would believe? Perhaps. When an anomaly happens (or is uncovered) that not even the smartest human of that time period can comprehend, we place it upon God's doing. We humans give too much credit to this God, while there may be things he should be credited for, i cannot bring myself to credit him for everything that i do not understand (ie: why is my math homework so hard! God must be punishing me).
I think religion is more of faith, and morality than actual miracles or events. But there is no proof that a God-being does not intervene in everyday life (although none to support that he does, other than the faith of people).
Even if God does not exist, religion has instilled a certain moral goodness in many people. There are certain religions which are quite backwards and violent in nature, but christianity for example has "do to others as you would have done to yourself". There are goods and bads for every religion i guess. You do not have to believe in a god to be a decent natured person, but religion does give some people a little motivation.
The laws of how the universe will develop with time, could have been decreed by god, but it appears he has since left the universe to evolve according to them, and does not intervene.
Could there be a god that intervenes in everyday human life as many religious would believe? Perhaps. When an anomaly happens (or is uncovered) that not even the smartest human of that time period can comprehend, we place it upon God's doing. We humans give too much credit to this God, while there may be things he should be credited for, i cannot bring myself to credit him for everything that i do not understand (ie: why is my math homework so hard! God must be punishing me).
I think religion is more of faith, and morality than actual miracles or events. But there is no proof that a God-being does not intervene in everyday life (although none to support that he does, other than the faith of people).
Even if God does not exist, religion has instilled a certain moral goodness in many people. There are certain religions which are quite backwards and violent in nature, but christianity for example has "do to others as you would have done to yourself". There are goods and bads for every religion i guess. You do not have to believe in a god to be a decent natured person, but religion does give some people a little motivation.
Would these Aliens answer any of our prayers?
All this stuff sounds like what people like Michio Kaku and Richard Dawkins talk about. 'Type 1,2 & 3 Civilisations.'
On this scale we are approximately a 'Type 0.6' Civilisation.
If we were to meet a 'Type 3' or even a high 'Type 2' they might seem 'godlike' to us, but they would not be god's, they would have been evolved by a gradual process similar Natural Selection. Even if one of these races tells us that they were created by some other civilisation, that parent race or an ultimate ancestor would have evolved from simple to complex.
They are no more god's to us as we are god's to ants.
On this scale we are approximately a 'Type 0.6' Civilisation.
If we were to meet a 'Type 3' or even a high 'Type 2' they might seem 'godlike' to us, but they would not be god's, they would have been evolved by a gradual process similar Natural Selection. Even if one of these races tells us that they were created by some other civilisation, that parent race or an ultimate ancestor would have evolved from simple to complex.
They are no more god's to us as we are god's to ants.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 6 2009, 01:21 AM)
As I said you are watering down the defintition to fit.
At one time monogamous meant one mate for life.
Then someone asked if people are naturally monogamous.
The anwer is no if you the old definition.
so the definition was watered down to fit people.
But people do not fit the old defintion of monogamous, so the word now means nothing.
You are doing the same by "thinking reasonably" about God.
the question is "does God exist?"
And you are not answering yes or no, you are changing the question, like Captain Kirk avoiding the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
If God exists, then thinking about it realistically I believe all the things on the list would apply. If you think one or some do not, then just say what they are and why. If thinking about it realistically changes your interpretation of what God would be like, then that just means you haven't had a realistic interpretation up until now which is really not at all unlikely.
At one time monogamous meant one mate for life.
Then someone asked if people are naturally monogamous.
The anwer is no if you the old definition.
so the definition was watered down to fit people.
But people do not fit the old defintion of monogamous, so the word now means nothing.
You are doing the same by "thinking reasonably" about God.
the question is "does God exist?"
And you are not answering yes or no, you are changing the question, like Captain Kirk avoiding the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
If God exists, then thinking about it realistically I believe all the things on the list would apply. If you think one or some do not, then just say what they are and why. If thinking about it realistically changes your interpretation of what God would be like, then that just means you haven't had a realistic interpretation up until now which is really not at all unlikely.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 6 2009, 02:20 AM)
You brought the idea up, surely you've thought it through and can verbalize it.
If we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then why bother?
EDIT: This isn't gonna be one of those "aliens have been here before and that's the root of many ancient myths" threads, is it?
It can be whatever we make of it. If God would have to be an alien, as I am convinced he would have to be, then it all ties together.
If we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then why bother?
EDIT: This isn't gonna be one of those "aliens have been here before and that's the root of many ancient myths" threads, is it?
It can be whatever we make of it. If God would have to be an alien, as I am convinced he would have to be, then it all ties together.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 6 2009, 08:38 AM)
Would these Aliens answer any of our prayers?
Maybe some of them, and remember: sometimes the answer is no.
Maybe some of them, and remember: sometimes the answer is no.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 6 2009, 10:46 AM)
All this stuff sounds like what people like Michio Kaku and Richard Dawkins talk about. 'Type 1,2 & 3 Civilisations.'
On this scale we are approximately a 'Type 0.6' Civilisation.
If we were to meet a 'Type 3' or even a high 'Type 2' they might seem 'godlike' to us, but they would not be god's,
If they were gods they would be gods, even if they have nothing to do with life on Earth.
On this scale we are approximately a 'Type 0.6' Civilisation.
If we were to meet a 'Type 3' or even a high 'Type 2' they might seem 'godlike' to us, but they would not be god's,
If they were gods they would be gods, even if they have nothing to do with life on Earth.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
they would have been evolved by a gradual process similar Natural Selection.
We certainly have more reason to believe gods would develop that way than any other. What other realistic way(s) do you like to think they could possibly come about?
We certainly have more reason to believe gods would develop that way than any other. What other realistic way(s) do you like to think they could possibly come about?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
Even if one of these races tells us that they were created by some other civilisation, that parent race or an ultimate ancestor would have evolved from simple to complex.
That seems like the most realistic possible way for gods to develop to me.
That seems like the most realistic possible way for gods to develop to me.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
They are no more god's to us as we are god's to ants.
That's one possibility, and it depends on what a person's interpretation of a god would be. If they are gods, then they are. So far I have more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, even if there are none associated with this planet.
That's one possibility, and it depends on what a person's interpretation of a god would be. If they are gods, then they are. So far I have more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, even if there are none associated with this planet.
If the charateristics of these aliens is open and the definition of god is open, then there is no foundation to discuss anything.
nopEda's definition of god is sufficiently flexible to apply to anything, and thus worthless as a definition.
QUOTE
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur Clarke
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2009, 04:00 PM)
If they were gods they would be gods, even if they have nothing to do with life on Earth.
That's one possibility, and it depends on what a person's interpretation of a god would be. If they are gods, then they are. So far I have more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, even if there are none associated with this planet.
Why don't you simply make up a new word instead of destroying the meaning of an existing word?
I'm serious in my question.
You are not talking about what people have meant by the word "God", so why do you use it?
That's one possibility, and it depends on what a person's interpretation of a god would be. If they are gods, then they are. So far I have more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, even if there are none associated with this planet.
Why don't you simply make up a new word instead of destroying the meaning of an existing word?
I'm serious in my question.
You are not talking about what people have meant by the word "God", so why do you use it?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 6 2009, 04:44 PM)
Why don't you simply make up a new word instead of destroying the meaning of an existing word?
What exactly is that meaning, and why should I try to accept it without quetsion? How could I choose a meaning to try to cling to? Who's? The Christian meaning? Some Hindu meanings? Muslim meanings? Your meaning? My neighbor's?
Yes, ones interpretation. However if your parameters are set too broad, you could say people are gods too. Why not the Earth, Moon and Stars?. Water? Atoms?
What is your marker of failure? When are things not gods?
When they don't appear to have any intelligence at all, and no ability to perform deliberate acts, they are not gods imo.
What exactly is that meaning, and why should I try to accept it without quetsion? How could I choose a meaning to try to cling to? Who's? The Christian meaning? Some Hindu meanings? Muslim meanings? Your meaning? My neighbor's?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I'm serious in my question.
You are not talking about what people have meant by the word "God", so why do you use it?
The things on the list are things I feel would apply to God if he exists, and are things that I have learned apply to different people's beliefs. So far even though there has been nothing but objection to this approach, no one has given me reason to change my feelings on anything on the list. In order to think about it realistically I have to continue doing so even when it disagrees with the apparently less than realistic beliefs of other people. That's even on the list, in fact.
You are not talking about what people have meant by the word "God", so why do you use it?
The things on the list are things I feel would apply to God if he exists, and are things that I have learned apply to different people's beliefs. So far even though there has been nothing but objection to this approach, no one has given me reason to change my feelings on anything on the list. In order to think about it realistically I have to continue doing so even when it disagrees with the apparently less than realistic beliefs of other people. That's even on the list, in fact.
You can call the color "red" a head of lettuce for all I care. But don't be surprised when no one else knows what you're talking about.
nopEda,
You started a thread named:
Trying To Think Realistically About...
the possibility of God's existence
Yet you do not claim the existence of God possible. Only the possibility of technologically superior extraterrestrials.
You started a thread named:
Trying To Think Realistically About...
the possibility of God's existence
Yet you do not claim the existence of God possible. Only the possibility of technologically superior extraterrestrials.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2009, 11:35 PM)
What exactly is that meaning, and why should I try to accept it without quetsion? How could I choose a meaning to try to cling to? Who's? The Christian meaning? Some Hindu meanings? Muslim meanings? Your meaning? My neighbor's?
There is a certain commonality to all those.
That you have completely abandonded.
Did you understand my point about people being "monogamous"?
I said that I thought Deadbeat was more Atheist than I am, even though he claimed to be Catholic. And I think you are also more Athiest than I am.
Do you consider yourself a Theist?
There is a certain commonality to all those.
That you have completely abandonded.
Did you understand my point about people being "monogamous"?
I said that I thought Deadbeat was more Atheist than I am, even though he claimed to be Catholic. And I think you are also more Athiest than I am.
Do you consider yourself a Theist?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If they were gods they would be gods, even if they have nothing to do with life on Earth.
They would be whatever they would be. From our perspective, we can call them whatever we want. What they might consider themselves to be is unknown.
Yes, ones interpretation. However if your parameters are set too broad, you could say people are gods too. Why not the Earth, Moon and Stars?. Water? Atoms?
What is your marker of failure? When are things not gods?
They would be whatever they would be. From our perspective, we can call them whatever we want. What they might consider themselves to be is unknown.
QUOTE
That's one possibility, and it depends on what a person's interpretation of a god would be. If they are gods, then they are. So far I have more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, even if there are none associated with this planet.
Yes, ones interpretation. However if your parameters are set too broad, you could say people are gods too. Why not the Earth, Moon and Stars?. Water? Atoms?
What is your marker of failure? When are things not gods?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 5 2009, 11:59 PM)
At what point do beings become technologically advances enough to become gods?
To me it would be when they start having deliberate influence on the development of planets they're not native to. How much is what's in question.
To me it would be when they start having deliberate influence on the development of planets they're not native to. How much is what's in question.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 6 2009, 04:25 PM)
If the charateristics of these aliens is open and the definition of god is open, then there is no foundation to discuss anything.
There's more to consider than saying there are none at all, that's for sure. It also seems like there's a lot more than just saying there could only be one, including whether or not there is one particular God who did put the results of the big bang into motion, and is responsible for the development of gods who resulted from it...(or them?)
There's more to consider than saying there are none at all, that's for sure. It also seems like there's a lot more than just saying there could only be one, including whether or not there is one particular God who did put the results of the big bang into motion, and is responsible for the development of gods who resulted from it...(or them?)
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 7 2009, 02:35 AM)
Yes, ones interpretation. However if your parameters are set too broad, you could say people are gods too. Why not the Earth, Moon and Stars?. Water? Atoms?
What is your marker of failure? When are things not gods?
When they don't appear to have any intelligence at all, and no ability to perform deliberate acts, they are not gods imo.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 6 2009, 11:51 PM)
nopEda,
You started a thread named:
Trying To Think Realistically About...
the possibility of God's existence
Yet you do not claim the existence of God possible. Only the possibility of technologically superior extraterrestrials.
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien. If you think that's not a realistic way of thinking about it, then explain how you think it could possibly be any different...like how he could really be a technologically inferior native of this planet. Please explain how you think that could be:
You started a thread named:
Trying To Think Realistically About...
the possibility of God's existence
Yet you do not claim the existence of God possible. Only the possibility of technologically superior extraterrestrials.
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien. If you think that's not a realistic way of thinking about it, then explain how you think it could possibly be any different...like how he could really be a technologically inferior native of this planet. Please explain how you think that could be:
QUOTE (buttershug+May 7 2009, 02:08 AM)
There is a certain commonality to all those.
That you have completely abandonded.
That's why I'm the only person I've encountered so far who's trying to think about it realstically I guess.
Did you understand my point about people being "monogamous"?
No, so go ahead and explain it.
I said that I thought Deadbeat was more Atheist than I am, even though he claimed to be Catholic. And I think you are also more Athiest than I am.
And how atheist do you think you are? 
That you have completely abandonded.
That's why I'm the only person I've encountered so far who's trying to think about it realstically I guess.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Did you understand my point about people being "monogamous"?
No, so go ahead and explain it.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I said that I thought Deadbeat was more Atheist than I am, even though he claimed to be Catholic. And I think you are also more Athiest than I am.
And how atheist do you think you are? QUOTE (buttershug+)
Do you consider yourself a Theist?
Probably not, but what definition do you want to use?
Probably not, but what definition do you want to use?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 6 2009, 04:40 PM)
nopEda's definition of god is sufficiently flexible to apply to anything, and thus worthless as a definition.
In contrast to that incorrect and therefore unrealistic interpretation, accepting the idea that nothing that happens is truly supernatural gives a person a more realistic interpretation than trying to cling to the idea that some things might be somehow, and then trying to figure out how they could be, or whatever you're trying to do with it. This is covered in the list of basics:
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
and so far it still stands as clearly true, without anyone presenting any argument against the observation. It seems that you wish you had one, but apparently you don't.
QUOTE
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur Clarke
In contrast to that incorrect and therefore unrealistic interpretation, accepting the idea that nothing that happens is truly supernatural gives a person a more realistic interpretation than trying to cling to the idea that some things might be somehow, and then trying to figure out how they could be, or whatever you're trying to do with it. This is covered in the list of basics:
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
and so far it still stands as clearly true, without anyone presenting any argument against the observation. It seems that you wish you had one, but apparently you don't.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 03:18 PM)
When they don't appear to have any intelligence at all, and no ability to perform deliberate acts, they are not gods imo.
So is an ant a god?
So is an ant a god?
nopEda's idiosyncratic definition of 'God' is so broad as to be useless.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 10:24 AM)
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien. If you think that's not a realistic way of thinking about it, then explain how you think it could possibly be any different...like how he could really be a technologically inferior native of this planet. Please explain how you think that could be:
Would not a being that could use conscienceness and will to manipulate the elements be far superior to any technologically advanced aliens?
Would not a being that could use conscienceness and will to manipulate the elements be far superior to any technologically advanced aliens?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien.
Thinking realistically can be done without changing the definition of words.
A thread titled "Could technologically advanced aliens be mistaken for gods?" would have been intellectually honest, instead you use the terms god and advanced aliens interchangeably.
You say "god may exist" when you actually mean "intelligent aliens may exist", and you refuse to acknowledge the difference.
Thinking realistically can be done without changing the definition of words.
A thread titled "Could technologically advanced aliens be mistaken for gods?" would have been intellectually honest, instead you use the terms god and advanced aliens interchangeably.
You say "god may exist" when you actually mean "intelligent aliens may exist", and you refuse to acknowledge the difference.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 10 2009, 04:20 PM)
So is an ant a god?
Just because I don't consider things that are incapable of performing deliberate acts
to be gods doesn't mean I think everything that can is a god. That should be obvious, so why would you want anyone to think you're not mentally capable of figuring it out for yourself to the point that you would even ask the question? How do you think any of it could relate to trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically?
Just because I don't consider things that are incapable of performing deliberate acts
to be gods doesn't mean I think everything that can is a god. That should be obvious, so why would you want anyone to think you're not mentally capable of figuring it out for yourself to the point that you would even ask the question? How do you think any of it could relate to trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 10 2009, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (nopeda+)
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien. If you think that's not a realistic way of thinking about it, then explain how you think it could possibly be any different...like how he could really be a technologically inferior native of this planet. Please explain how you think that could be:
Would not a being that could use conscienceness and will to manipulate the elements be far superior to any technologically advanced aliens?
Maybe, but I disbelieve God would be like that. To me he would have to be technologically advanced, and that's all there is to it. If you can imagine how a being could do whatever it is you're trying to say he may be able to do then try explaining how you think so, and when you can't I'll still disbelieve that he could, unless he used technology to set things up so he could manipulate them with his mind of course.
Would not a being that could use conscienceness and will to manipulate the elements be far superior to any technologically advanced aliens?
Maybe, but I disbelieve God would be like that. To me he would have to be technologically advanced, and that's all there is to it. If you can imagine how a being could do whatever it is you're trying to say he may be able to do then try explaining how you think so, and when you can't I'll still disbelieve that he could, unless he used technology to set things up so he could manipulate them with his mind of course.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 10 2009, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm pointing out that I consider it a basic aspect of the situation that if God does exist he would necessarily have to be a very much technologically advanced alien.
Thinking realistically can be done without changing the definition of words.
Everything on my list is appropriate.
Thinking realistically can be done without changing the definition of words.
Everything on my list is appropriate.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
A thread titled "Could technologically advanced aliens be mistaken for gods?" would have been intellectually honest, instead you use the terms god and advanced aliens interchangeably.
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
You say "god may exist" when you actually mean "intelligent aliens may exist", and you refuse to acknowledge the difference.
I'm referring to aliens advanced to the point that they could be considered gods.
I'm referring to aliens advanced to the point that they could be considered gods.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 03:18 PM)
I'm referring to aliens advanced to the point that they could be considered gods.
By who's standards? Yours?
By who's standards? Yours?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
God as generally accepted is the creator and ruler of the universe. HE is considered to be omnipotent and the judge of what is right and wrong. There is no realistic logical explanation for god. Advanced aliens is another matter. We can discuss their similarity with god, but only if you agree not to use the term interchangeably.
God as generally accepted is the creator and ruler of the universe. HE is considered to be omnipotent and the judge of what is right and wrong. There is no realistic logical explanation for god. Advanced aliens is another matter. We can discuss their similarity with god, but only if you agree not to use the term interchangeably.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
Would not a being that could use conscienceness and will to manipulate the elements be far superior to any technologically advanced aliens?
Maybe, but I disbelieve God would be like that. To me he would have to be technologically advanced, and that's all there is to it. If you can imagine how a being could do whatever it is you're trying to say he may be able to do then try explaining how you think so, and when you can't I'll still disbelieve that he could, unless he used technology to set things up so he could manipulate them with his mind of course.
I was giving an example of what could be considered by some a minimum requirement of a god.
Setting requirements based on technical ability is not realistic. There is always the possibility of there being someone more technologically advanced therefore it would be unrealistic for them to consider themselves or for others to consider them God.
I'm referring to aliens advanced to the point that they could be considered gods.
Then you are not considering Gods.
You are considering aliens that could be considered Gods.
Aliens that can be considered Gods are not Gods.
when the nonsense of "people hole covers" started I said that we should come up with a new name for adult males. That way the word "man" could come to mean adult human, not adult male.
You are trying to change the word God into something else.
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
God could be non-existent.
And there could be aliens who were mistaken for a Supreme Being, and creators of everything. But that would not make them the Supreme Being.
Maybe, but I disbelieve God would be like that. To me he would have to be technologically advanced, and that's all there is to it. If you can imagine how a being could do whatever it is you're trying to say he may be able to do then try explaining how you think so, and when you can't I'll still disbelieve that he could, unless he used technology to set things up so he could manipulate them with his mind of course.
I was giving an example of what could be considered by some a minimum requirement of a god.
Setting requirements based on technical ability is not realistic. There is always the possibility of there being someone more technologically advanced therefore it would be unrealistic for them to consider themselves or for others to consider them God.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 08:18 PM)
I'm referring to aliens advanced to the point that they could be considered gods.
Then you are not considering Gods.
You are considering aliens that could be considered Gods.
Aliens that can be considered Gods are not Gods.
when the nonsense of "people hole covers" started I said that we should come up with a new name for adult males. That way the word "man" could come to mean adult human, not adult male.
You are trying to change the word God into something else.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 07:56 PM)
Just because I don't consider things that are incapable of performing deliberate acts
to be gods doesn't mean I think everything that can is a god. That should be obvious, so why would you want anyone to think you're not mentally capable of figuring it out for yourself to the point that you would even ask the question? How do you think any of it could relate to trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically?
If you say that deliberate intent is the requirement of a god, that's fine. I'm asking you what is not a god. Where do you draw the line?
The most common definition I hear refers to 'An All Mighty this, All Powerful that, All knowing other. I then often hear, (often in retreat of explaining how a particular god influences the world), that god exists outside of space and time. This appears reasonable until you consider how could it possibly influence our physical universe if it does not even exist within it? Plus, how then can it also maintain it's 'All' powerfulness and the various other 'All' attributes if there's this trifling inconvenience of an entire Universe that it does not inhabit?
So in other words, if the criteria for a god is omnipotence, imho, the only realistic idea of god would have to be of a pantheistic nature, as in: God exists everywhere and is everything, always. If that is the case, then drawing from the data of the best informer we humans have developed, science, most of our 'god' is incapable of acting with any deliberation. Humans and other living things via a specific, long winded process of evolution by natural selection have developed the capabilities of deliberate action. So are we the many minds of god?. But why is this a god? We already have more rational explanations and names for things. We have the universe, nature, human mind, animal mind. These are more accurate labels for the things they describe. There is no evidence or good reason other than personal subjectivities why we must add on this other heavy label of god. If we cannot distinguish nature from god, then Occam's Razor logically pushes us firmly towards nature, because we only know natural things exist. So the more realistically I think about it the less likely such a being exists or logically can exist. It's kinda all or nothing for me.
Is that realistic enough for you?
to be gods doesn't mean I think everything that can is a god. That should be obvious, so why would you want anyone to think you're not mentally capable of figuring it out for yourself to the point that you would even ask the question? How do you think any of it could relate to trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically?
If you say that deliberate intent is the requirement of a god, that's fine. I'm asking you what is not a god. Where do you draw the line?
The most common definition I hear refers to 'An All Mighty this, All Powerful that, All knowing other. I then often hear, (often in retreat of explaining how a particular god influences the world), that god exists outside of space and time. This appears reasonable until you consider how could it possibly influence our physical universe if it does not even exist within it? Plus, how then can it also maintain it's 'All' powerfulness and the various other 'All' attributes if there's this trifling inconvenience of an entire Universe that it does not inhabit?
So in other words, if the criteria for a god is omnipotence, imho, the only realistic idea of god would have to be of a pantheistic nature, as in: God exists everywhere and is everything, always. If that is the case, then drawing from the data of the best informer we humans have developed, science, most of our 'god' is incapable of acting with any deliberation. Humans and other living things via a specific, long winded process of evolution by natural selection have developed the capabilities of deliberate action. So are we the many minds of god?. But why is this a god? We already have more rational explanations and names for things. We have the universe, nature, human mind, animal mind. These are more accurate labels for the things they describe. There is no evidence or good reason other than personal subjectivities why we must add on this other heavy label of god. If we cannot distinguish nature from god, then Occam's Razor logically pushes us firmly towards nature, because we only know natural things exist. So the more realistically I think about it the less likely such a being exists or logically can exist. It's kinda all or nothing for me.
Is that realistic enough for you?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 03:18 PM)
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
How about a holdback from a time when the superstitions of humans caused them to create reasons for the forces that controlled the elements they relied on to survive?
How about a holdback from a time when the superstitions of humans caused them to create reasons for the forces that controlled the elements they relied on to survive?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 10 2009, 08:18 PM)
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
God could be non-existent.
And there could be aliens who were mistaken for a Supreme Being, and creators of everything. But that would not make them the Supreme Being.
Edit
Edit
Edit
Edit
Edit
Let's think realistically about unicorns.
They could be horses without horns or they could be narwhals.
But wait, then they wouldn't be unicorns, would they?
They could be horses without horns or they could be narwhals.
But wait, then they wouldn't be unicorns, would they?
True, people could mistake aliens for gods. But that doesn't make the aliens gods, that just makes the people wrong.
By definition, could there be more than one god? How could two distinct gods both be omnipotent?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 10 2009, 08:27 PM)
By who's standards? Yours?
Whoever's. Since you don't appear to like mine, then you do it. Explain what you think would be the minimum requirement for a being to be considered a god. Maybe I could accept yours better than you could accept mine, and possibly we could move on beyond the point of saying we can't get anywhere with this.
Whoever's. Since you don't appear to like mine, then you do it. Explain what you think would be the minimum requirement for a being to be considered a god. Maybe I could accept yours better than you could accept mine, and possibly we could move on beyond the point of saying we can't get anywhere with this.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 10 2009, 08:35 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If you can explain how you think God could be anything other than an alien then just present your idea so everyone can share it. What other option(s) do you think you have in mind?
God as generally accepted is the creator and ruler of the universe.
That means he would necessarily have to be an alien. It's not my fault, but it's the way that it is. If he created the universe then I take if for granted that he is extremely technologically advanced, and if that seems strange to you then you may find it retardedly strange that I also feel he must be one of the most technologically advanced beings in the universe. So I guess what seems clearly realistic and obvious to me seems like a retardedly idiotic interpetation to you, so we certainly can't both be right.
God as generally accepted is the creator and ruler of the universe.
That means he would necessarily have to be an alien. It's not my fault, but it's the way that it is. If he created the universe then I take if for granted that he is extremely technologically advanced, and if that seems strange to you then you may find it retardedly strange that I also feel he must be one of the most technologically advanced beings in the universe. So I guess what seems clearly realistic and obvious to me seems like a retardedly idiotic interpetation to you, so we certainly can't both be right.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
HE is considered to be omnipotent
I consider that term to make itself impossible so I don't believe anything is literally omnipotent, though I don't doubt God would be as close as it's possible to get.
I consider that term to make itself impossible so I don't believe anything is literally omnipotent, though I don't doubt God would be as close as it's possible to get.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
and the judge of what is right and wrong. There is no realistic logical explanation for god.
Some seem more realistic to us as individuals, I suppose. To me it seems certain and therefore very realistic to take it for granted that God would have to be a techonologically supreme alien. Since you don't want to believe that I guess you would have to feel that the only alternative is the most realistic way to think, meaning to you it must seem more realistic to think God would be a technologically inferior native of Earth, who somehow managed to create the universe billions of years before creating the planet of his own origin. I wish you could also explain exactly how you think that could have come about, but doubt you can even make an attempt.
Some seem more realistic to us as individuals, I suppose. To me it seems certain and therefore very realistic to take it for granted that God would have to be a techonologically supreme alien. Since you don't want to believe that I guess you would have to feel that the only alternative is the most realistic way to think, meaning to you it must seem more realistic to think God would be a technologically inferior native of Earth, who somehow managed to create the universe billions of years before creating the planet of his own origin. I wish you could also explain exactly how you think that could have come about, but doubt you can even make an attempt.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Advanced aliens is another matter. We can discuss their similarity with god, but only if you agree not to use the term interchangeably.
I will refer to the God associated with this planet and our possible afterlife is there is such a being with a capital "G", and other gods with lower case. That way you can tell which I'm referring to. In case the god who created the uninverse--if there is one--is not the God most associated with this planet ect, then how do you want to distinguish between them?
I will refer to the God associated with this planet and our possible afterlife is there is such a being with a capital "G", and other gods with lower case. That way you can tell which I'm referring to. In case the god who created the uninverse--if there is one--is not the God most associated with this planet ect, then how do you want to distinguish between them?
Here's an interesting idea. Maybe we are just a product of totally natural processes. I mean, if "gods" could have appeared by natural processes, why not us?
What are you basing your idea that there is a "god" on?
What are you basing your idea that there is a "god" on?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 10 2009, 09:18 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Maybe, but I disbelieve God would be like that. To me he would have to be technologically advanced, and that's all there is to it. If you can imagine how a being could do whatever it is you're trying to say he may be able to do then try explaining how you think so, and when you can't I'll still disbelieve that he could, unless he used technology to set things up so he could manipulate them with his mind of course.
I was giving an example of what could be considered by some a minimum requirement of a god.
Setting requirements based on technical ability is not realistic. There is always the possibility of there being someone more technologically advanced therefore it would be unrealistic for them to consider themselves or for others to consider them God.
The idea of a God who is not extremely technologically advanced is about as unrealistic an idea as you could come up with to me. The fact that you can't even attempt to explain how he could be anything else does nothing to challenge my confidence in that, but it does help to maintain it. I sure wish you could attempt to back up the concept you're trying to support. We'll probably find that you can't, but please try.
I was giving an example of what could be considered by some a minimum requirement of a god.
Setting requirements based on technical ability is not realistic. There is always the possibility of there being someone more technologically advanced therefore it would be unrealistic for them to consider themselves or for others to consider them God.
The idea of a God who is not extremely technologically advanced is about as unrealistic an idea as you could come up with to me. The fact that you can't even attempt to explain how he could be anything else does nothing to challenge my confidence in that, but it does help to maintain it. I sure wish you could attempt to back up the concept you're trying to support. We'll probably find that you can't, but please try.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 11 2009, 07:36 PM)
By definition, could there be more than one god?
That would depend on the definition.
That would depend on the definition.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
How could two distinct gods both be omnipotent?
I believe the concept of omnipotence makes itself impossible, but that doesn't mean no beings could be having influence on the development of life throughout the universe, and it doesn't even mean that no being(s) could be responsible for the big bang.
I believe the concept of omnipotence makes itself impossible, but that doesn't mean no beings could be having influence on the development of life throughout the universe, and it doesn't even mean that no being(s) could be responsible for the big bang.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 12 2009, 01:08 PM)
Here's an interesting idea. Maybe we are just a product of totally natural processes. I mean, if "gods" could have appeared by natural processes, why not us?
We could have, imo. Then again....
I consider that term to make itself impossible so I don't believe anything is literally omnipotent, though I don't doubt God would be as close as it's possible to get.
Then why not admit you don't believe in God, instead of trying to change the word to mean something you believe in?
We could have, imo. Then again....
QUOTE (gmilam+)
What are you basing your idea that there is a "god" on?
I'm basing my idea that there may be a God on a number of things. One of them is the fact that since in the only star system we are familiar with there is intelligent life to our level, and there are billions of star systems, chances are best that beings have developed in some of them to the point that they could be considered gods, imo. So the bigger question is not whether or not they exist, but whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet. There could be a God who created the universe but doesn't even know or care that we exist. Or he could have an interest and could have influence on things that happen here. It's more the way things happen and the timing of things than the things that happen themselves, that usually makes me feel there could be more to life than what is most obvious.
I'm basing my idea that there may be a God on a number of things. One of them is the fact that since in the only star system we are familiar with there is intelligent life to our level, and there are billions of star systems, chances are best that beings have developed in some of them to the point that they could be considered gods, imo. So the bigger question is not whether or not they exist, but whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet. There could be a God who created the universe but doesn't even know or care that we exist. Or he could have an interest and could have influence on things that happen here. It's more the way things happen and the timing of things than the things that happen themselves, that usually makes me feel there could be more to life than what is most obvious.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 12 2009, 01:04 PM)
I consider that term to make itself impossible so I don't believe anything is literally omnipotent, though I don't doubt God would be as close as it's possible to get.
Then why not admit you don't believe in God, instead of trying to change the word to mean something you believe in?
Yeah, I read Chariots of the Gods when I was a kid. Really sparked my imagination. Over time I saw that there wasn't really any evidence to support it.
Since discovering any form of extraterrestrial life, let alone intelligent life, would be one of the biggest landmarks in human history, I'm a little particular as to what I'd consider evidence.
Any incidents in particular you have in mind that are best explained by an extraterrestrial cause?
Since discovering any form of extraterrestrial life, let alone intelligent life, would be one of the biggest landmarks in human history, I'm a little particular as to what I'd consider evidence.
Any incidents in particular you have in mind that are best explained by an extraterrestrial cause?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
That means he would necessarily have to be an alien.
Then the argument for existence of such an alien would suffer from the same logical inconsistencies as the argument for god.
1)Lack of evidence
2)If god created universe, who created god?
3) The "God did it" argument
...etc.
Then the argument for existence of such an alien would suffer from the same logical inconsistencies as the argument for god.
1)Lack of evidence
2)If god created universe, who created god?
3) The "God did it" argument
...etc.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I don't believe anything is literally omnipotent,
Then you don't believe in god. You are weak agnostic only because you haven't nailed down the definition of god.
When you can't find a Unicorn, you don't change its definition to "a horse with a tumor on its head" because that is the only realistic way possible. Do you?....OR are you weak agnostic about Unicorns too? How about tooth fairies?
Then you don't believe in god. You are weak agnostic only because you haven't nailed down the definition of god.
When you can't find a Unicorn, you don't change its definition to "a horse with a tumor on its head" because that is the only realistic way possible. Do you?....OR are you weak agnostic about Unicorns too? How about tooth fairies?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Since you don't want to believe that I guess you would have to feel that the only alternative is the most realistic way to think, meaning to you it must seem more realistic to think God would be a technologically inferior native of Earth, who somehow managed to create the universe billions of years before creating the planet of his own origin. I wish you could also explain exactly how you think that could have come about, but doubt you can even make an attempt.
I am not ashamed to say "I don't know" and I won't accept "God did it" as an answer either because anything you don't understand can be explained by simply saying "Goddidit" or in your case "Advanced aliens did it".
I am not ashamed to say "I don't know" and I won't accept "God did it" as an answer either because anything you don't understand can be explained by simply saying "Goddidit" or in your case "Advanced aliens did it".
nopEda has defined god as a technologically advanced alien.
It's a definition which nobody but himself uses.
So this discussion is empty of all meaning, since nopEda is not speaking the same language as anyone else.
It's a definition which nobody but himself uses.
So this discussion is empty of all meaning, since nopEda is not speaking the same language as anyone else.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 12 2009, 08:15 AM)
The idea of a God who is not extremely technologically advanced is about as unrealistic an idea as you could come up with to me. The fact that you can't even attempt to explain how he could be anything else does nothing to challenge my confidence in that, but it does help to maintain it. I sure wish you could attempt to back up the concept you're trying to support. We'll probably find that you can't, but please try.
If a belief in God is alien to you then... Whatever!
If a belief in God is alien to you then... Whatever!
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 10 2009, 11:12 PM)
If you say that deliberate intent is the requirement of a god,
One of them.
One of them.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
that's fine.I'm asking you what is not a god. Where do you draw the line?
To me it would be to have influence on the development of life on a planet or planets the beings are not native to. Maybe there could also be gods of planets they are native to, but I don't see how and feel it's far less likely if it's possible at all.
To me it would be to have influence on the development of life on a planet or planets the beings are not native to. Maybe there could also be gods of planets they are native to, but I don't see how and feel it's far less likely if it's possible at all.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
The most common definition I hear refers to 'An All Mighty this, All Powerful that, All knowing other. I then often hear, (often in retreat of explaining how a particular god influences the world), that god exists outside of space and time. This appears reasonable until you consider how could it possibly influence our physical universe if it does not even exist within it? Plus, how then can it also maintain it's 'All' powerfulness and the various other 'All' attributes if there's this trifling inconvenience of an entire Universe that it does not inhabit?
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
So in other words, if the criteria for a god is omnipotence, imho, the only realistic idea of god would have to be of a pantheistic nature, as in: God exists everywhere and is everything, always. If that is the case, then drawing from the data of the best informer we humans have developed, science, most of our 'god' is incapable of acting with any deliberation.
Human science is nowhere near the level it would take for beings to be able to use it for trying to figure out whether or not God exists, or any gods exist anywhere, other than to show us that since humans have done as much as they have then there are more than likely gods associated with various areas of the universe.
Human science is nowhere near the level it would take for beings to be able to use it for trying to figure out whether or not God exists, or any gods exist anywhere, other than to show us that since humans have done as much as they have then there are more than likely gods associated with various areas of the universe.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
Humans and other living things via a specific, long winded process of evolution by natural selection have developed the capabilities of deliberate action. So are we the many minds of god?. But why is this a god? We already have more rational explanations and names for things. We have the universe, nature, human mind, animal mind. These are more accurate labels for the things they describe. There is no evidence or good reason other than personal subjectivities why we must add on this other heavy label of god. If we cannot distinguish nature from god, then Occam's Razor logically pushes us firmly towards nature, because we only know natural things exist.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
So the more realistically I think about it the less likely such a being exists or logically can exist. It's kinda all or nothing for me.
Is that realistic enough for you?
It seems to me that there could be a God of the entire universe. It also seems to me that if there is one, or one associated with this planet and whatever else, that he probably can be in touch with as much as he wants to be, and can learn what he wants to learn. That of course works against the claim that he is omniscient, and is covered in basics list 5.
Is that realistic enough for you?
It seems to me that there could be a God of the entire universe. It also seems to me that if there is one, or one associated with this planet and whatever else, that he probably can be in touch with as much as he wants to be, and can learn what he wants to learn. That of course works against the claim that he is omniscient, and is covered in basics list 5.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 13 2009, 12:27 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The idea of a God who is not extremely technologically advanced is about as unrealistic an idea as you could come up with to me. The fact that you can't even attempt to explain how he could be anything else does nothing to challenge my confidence in that, but it does help to maintain it. I sure wish you could attempt to back up the concept you're trying to support. We'll probably find that you can't, but please try.
Then you don't believe in god. You are weak agnostic only because you haven't nailed down the definition of god.
If God exists he would have to be an alien imo. Certainly nothing anyone has said yet has caused me to believe he could be a native of Earth.
If a belief in God is alien to you then... Whatever!
Unless someone can explain how he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet, I must continue to believe he would have to be a technologically advanced alien. If you can think of how God could be a native of Earth then don't keep it to yourself, but share your fun ¦¬)
Unless someone can explain how he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet, I must continue to believe he would have to be a technologically advanced alien. If you can think of how God could be a native of Earth then don't keep it to yourself, but share your fun ¦¬)
QUOTE (gmilam+May 11 2009, 12:32 PM)
True, people could mistake aliens for gods. But that doesn't make the aliens gods, that just makes the people wrong.
To me people who think any gods could be natives of this planet must be wrong, but if you think they could be somehow then try explaining how you think that could possibly be.
To me people who think any gods could be natives of this planet must be wrong, but if you think they could be somehow then try explaining how you think that could possibly be.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 12 2009, 02:04 PM)
Then why not admit you don't believe in God, instead of trying to change the word to mean something you believe in?
I'm trying to think realistically about how he could exist.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
I'm trying to think realistically about how he could exist.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:58 AM)
To me people who think any gods could be natives of this planet must be wrong, but if you think they could be somehow then try explaining how you think that could possibly be.
Your reading comprehension skills suck. Try again.
Your reading comprehension skills suck. Try again.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 12 2009, 04:08 PM)
Then you don't believe in god. You are weak agnostic only because you haven't nailed down the definition of god.
If God exists he would have to be an alien imo. Certainly nothing anyone has said yet has caused me to believe he could be a native of Earth.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
When you can't find a Unicorn, you don't change its definition to "a horse with a tumor on its head" because that is the only realistic way possible. Do you?....OR are you weak agnostic about Unicorns too? How about tooth fairies?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Since you don't want to believe that I guess you would have to feel that the only alternative is the most realistic way to think, meaning to you it must seem more realistic to think God would be a technologically inferior native of Earth, who somehow managed to create the universe billions of years before creating the planet of his own origin. I wish you could also explain exactly how you think that could have come about, but doubt you can even make an attempt.
I am not ashamed to say "I don't know" and I won't accept "God did it" as an answer either because anything you don't understand can be explained by simply saying "Goddidit" or in your case "Advanced aliens did it".
How do you think God could possibly be a native of Earth?
I am not ashamed to say "I don't know" and I won't accept "God did it" as an answer either because anything you don't understand can be explained by simply saying "Goddidit" or in your case "Advanced aliens did it".
How do you think God could possibly be a native of Earth?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 13 2009, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
To me people who think any gods could be natives of this planet must be wrong, but if you think they could be somehow then try explaining how you think that could possibly be.
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
Try again.
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 12:24 PM)
Your reading comprehension skills suck.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE (gmilam+)
Try again.
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
Never said that "god" was or even could be of this planet...
What I said was that people of this planet could easily mistake aliens for gods. But that doesn't make the aliens gods, that just makes the people wrong. (doh!)
You have established a dichotomy based upon a definition of God which ONLY YOU have.
You are explaining what you believe a god is, I am asking what a god is not. When does it cease to be an alien civilisation let's say, that has seeded life on earth?
We humans could probably start life on another planet, would that make us god's?
You are explaining what you believe a god is, I am asking what a god is not. When does it cease to be an alien civilisation let's say, that has seeded life on earth?
We humans could probably start life on another planet, would that make us god's?
One of them.
Add as many attributes as you like, I want to know when something fails to be a god by your own odd definition.
These are the attributes often assigned by believers, not me. You failed to explain what a god is not and so I decided to use the common definition.
These are the attributes often assigned by believers, not me. You failed to explain what a god is not and so I decided to use the common definition.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
But as I told you the more realistic I think about it the more unlikely any god's exist. If we cannot agree on what a god is and is not then attempting to think realistically about something that is undefined is futile.
Human science is nowhere near the level it would take for beings to be able to use it for trying to figure out whether or not God exists, or any gods exist anywhere, other than to show us that since humans have done as much as they have then there are more than likely gods associated with various areas of the universe.
But if we cannot distinguish between what appears to be repeatable , testable natural phenomena and the actions of a hidden 'god' then what is the point of speculating their existence. They are undetected and may as well not exist. This does not mean they do not exist, it means we can't tell the difference.
Well then you will no doubt leave with the same conclusion you arrived with. You have not thought realistically about it, otherwise you would acknowledge that all you are describing is a potential higher or at least older alien intelligence and calling it god.
You reject the ideas of theists but use their words.
Try again.
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
Never said that "god" was or even could be of this planet...
What I said was that people of this planet could easily mistake aliens for gods. But that doesn't make the aliens gods, that just makes the people wrong. (doh!)
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 05:02 PM)
I'm trying to think realistically about how he could exist.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
So you are saying that if God exists then he is not God?
God is not an alien therefore you have shown that God can not exist.
2. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
So you are saying that if God exists then he is not God?
God is not an alien therefore you have shown that God can not exist.
QUOTE
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
You have established a dichotomy based upon a definition of God which ONLY YOU have.
Edit.
I concur.
Edit.
Edit.
QUOTE
To me it would be to have influence on the development of life on a planet or planets the beings are not native to. Maybe there could also be gods of planets they are native to, but I don't see how and feel it's far less likely if it's possible at all
You are explaining what you believe a god is, I am asking what a god is not. When does it cease to be an alien civilisation let's say, that has seeded life on earth?
We humans could probably start life on another planet, would that make us god's?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me it would be to have influence on the development of life on a planet or planets the beings are not native to. Maybe there could also be gods of planets they are native to, but I don't see how and feel it's far less likely if it's possible at all |
You are explaining what you believe a god is, I am asking what a god is not. When does it cease to be an alien civilisation let's say, that has seeded life on earth?
We humans could probably start life on another planet, would that make us god's?
One of them.
Add as many attributes as you like, I want to know when something fails to be a god by your own odd definition.
QUOTE
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
These are the attributes often assigned by believers, not me. You failed to explain what a god is not and so I decided to use the common definition.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists. |
These are the attributes often assigned by believers, not me. You failed to explain what a god is not and so I decided to use the common definition.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
But as I told you the more realistic I think about it the more unlikely any god's exist. If we cannot agree on what a god is and is not then attempting to think realistically about something that is undefined is futile.
QUOTE
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
would be natural for them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them. |
Human science is nowhere near the level it would take for beings to be able to use it for trying to figure out whether or not God exists, or any gods exist anywhere, other than to show us that since humans have done as much as they have then there are more than likely gods associated with various areas of the universe.
But if we cannot distinguish between what appears to be repeatable , testable natural phenomena and the actions of a hidden 'god' then what is the point of speculating their existence. They are undetected and may as well not exist. This does not mean they do not exist, it means we can't tell the difference.
QUOTE
It seems to me that there could be a God of the entire universe. It also seems to me that if there is one, or one associated with this planet and whatever else, that he probably can be in touch with as much as he wants to be, and can learn what he wants to learn. That of course works against the claim that he is omniscient, and is covered in basics list 5.
Well then you will no doubt leave with the same conclusion you arrived with. You have not thought realistically about it, otherwise you would acknowledge that all you are describing is a potential higher or at least older alien intelligence and calling it god.
You reject the ideas of theists but use their words.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 13 2009, 05:28 PM)
Try again.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
Never said that "god" was or even could be of this planet...
He would be either an alien or a native of this planet. If he exists what other options are you thinking there might be, do you have any idea?
you will no doubt leave with the same conclusion you arrived with. You have not thought realistically about it, otherwise you would acknowledge that all you are describing is a potential higher or at least older alien intelligence and calling it god.
You reject the ideas of theists but use their words.
I'm pointing out that God would of course have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
Never said that "god" was or even could be of this planet...
He would be either an alien or a native of this planet. If he exists what other options are you thinking there might be, do you have any idea?
QUOTE (gmilam+)
What I said was that people of this planet could easily mistake aliens for gods. But that doesn't make the aliens gods, that just makes the people wrong. (doh!)
Not when the aliens are gods.
Not when the aliens are gods.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 14 2009, 12:55 PM)
you will no doubt leave with the same conclusion you arrived with. You have not thought realistically about it, otherwise you would acknowledge that all you are describing is a potential higher or at least older alien intelligence and calling it god.
You reject the ideas of theists but use their words.
I'm pointing out that God would of course have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
QUOTE
I'm pointing out that {I define} God would of course to have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 13 2009, 06:10 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Since you disbelieve that God would have to be a technologically advanced alien of this planet, try sharing with us exactly how you believe he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet.
You have established a dichotomy based upon a definition of God which ONLY YOU have.
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
Even more amusing than that
is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 07:45 PM)
You have established a dichotomy based upon a definition of God which ONLY YOU have.[/QUOTE]
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
Well maybe if you started talking about God.
You havn't so far.
You keep using the word but refuse to even acknowledge you are not talking about God.
Please either start talking about God or use a different word.
Maybe FauxGod.
Even more amusing than that
is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be. Well maybe if you started talking about God.
You havn't so far.
You keep using the word but refuse to even acknowledge you are not talking about God.
Please either start talking about God or use a different word.
Maybe FauxGod.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 02:45 PM)
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
I believe a number of people have pointed out that the usual conception of God is that of a supernatural being which does not rely on any technology at all.
As to a number of people wishing they could disagree with you, let me point out that everybody posting here has disagreed with you. There is NOBODY here who agrees with your premise.
You however, are so firmly entrenched in your own beliefs that you haven't even been able to acknowledge that NOBODY accepts your definitions.
Discussion with you has rapidly degenerated into meaningless non-communication.
is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be. I believe a number of people have pointed out that the usual conception of God is that of a supernatural being which does not rely on any technology at all.
As to a number of people wishing they could disagree with you, let me point out that everybody posting here has disagreed with you. There is NOBODY here who agrees with your premise.
You however, are so firmly entrenched in your own beliefs that you haven't even been able to acknowledge that NOBODY accepts your definitions.
Discussion with you has rapidly degenerated into meaningless non-communication.
Whoa whoa whoa, the most insane subforum with the most insane idiots on the block!
QUOTE (nonSense+)
I'm pointing out that God would of course have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
It seems to me someone's been watching a little too much Stargate. Good on you, son!
By the way, while you're busy pretending that you're Daniel Jackson, I'd suggest taking a minute to read this. You will find it enlightening, I promise.
By the way, while you're busy pretending that you're Daniel Jackson, I'd suggest taking a minute to read this. You will find it enlightening, I promise.
QUOTE (idiOt+)
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
Are you seriously thick enough to make this claim?
I only ask because this forum is notorious for being a home to windup merchants.
I suspect you are one of them.
I only ask because this forum is notorious for being a home to windup merchants.
I suspect you are one of them.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 01:37 PM)
I'm pointing out that God would of course have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
..and that this "god" of yours would be male.....as you pointed out from your first post. And too, you speak of multiple "gods"... as also indicated in your first post:
quote: nopEda -- "3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them"
make up your mind.... Do you wish to imagine/create 1(one) "god"? Or do you feel you need many "gods"?
All your references to a "god" or "gods" depict it/they as male. Is this your creative preference?
..and that this "god" of yours would be male.....as you pointed out from your first post. And too, you speak of multiple "gods"... as also indicated in your first post:
quote: nopEda -- "3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them"
make up your mind.... Do you wish to imagine/create 1(one) "god"? Or do you feel you need many "gods"?
All your references to a "god" or "gods" depict it/they as male. Is this your creative preference?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2009, 11:53 AM)
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
If a belief in God is alien to you then... Whatever!
Unless someone can explain how he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet, I must continue to believe he would have to be a technologically advanced alien.
Do you have any evidence these aliens exist.
Unless someone can explain how he could possibly be a technologically inferior native of this planet, I must continue to believe he would have to be a technologically advanced alien.
Do you have any evidence these aliens exist.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 14 2009, 07:37 PM)
I'm pointing out that God would of course have to be an advanced alien and of course older than the human race.
Ok, let's think as realistically as we can. Do you think God is subject to evolution?
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
Ok, let's think as realistically as we can. Do you think God is subject to evolution?
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
nopEda,
Do you think it is possible these aliens you describe do not exist?
Do you think it is possible these aliens you describe do not exist?
HaHA! I have already seen the great thing!!! 
What? An alien?
possibly a weather balloon
QUOTE (buttershug+May 14 2009, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
Well maybe if you started talking about God.
You havn't so far.
You keep using the word but refuse to even acknowledge you are not talking about God.
Please either start talking about God or use a different word.
Maybe FauxGod.
It's not my fault you can't think realisitically about the idea. You can't imagine how God could be an advanced alien, or anything else at all. You can't think about it realistically.
is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be. Well maybe if you started talking about God.
You havn't so far.
You keep using the word but refuse to even acknowledge you are not talking about God.
Please either start talking about God or use a different word.
Maybe FauxGod.
It's not my fault you can't think realisitically about the idea. You can't imagine how God could be an advanced alien, or anything else at all. You can't think about it realistically.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 14 2009, 08:00 PM)
I believe a number of people have pointed out that the usual conception of God is that of a supernatural being which does not rely on any technology at all.
It seems to be, even though you can't get much--if any--more unrealistic than that.
It seems to be, even though you can't get much--if any--more unrealistic than that.
QUOTE (AlexG+)
As to a number of people wishing they could disagree with you, let me point out that everybody posting here has disagreed with you. There is NOBODY here who agrees with your premise.
QUOTE (AlexG+)
You however, are so firmly entrenched in your own beliefs that you haven't even been able to acknowledge that NOBODY accepts your definitions.
I can and do accept it and find it hilarious that even though everyone disagrees, no one has been able to suggest how he could be anything other than what I pointed out.
I can and do accept it and find it hilarious that even though everyone disagrees, no one has been able to suggest how he could be anything other than what I pointed out.
QUOTE (AlexG+)
Discussion with you has rapidly degenerated into meaningless non-communication.
That's because what I'm doing is pointing out an obvious and I believe significant aspect of the situation, which for personal reasons which probably vary from person to person everyone else is opposed to taking into consideration. The reason people are opposed to considering it is because it causes cognitive dissonance, but the reasons it causes dissonance could vary greatly from one person to the next. Whatever the reasons though, the dissonance causes people to want to avoid thinking about something so all we end up with is a thread full of people saying "no, no, no", and of course as long as it's like that it can't go anywhere else. So it's not my fault, and in fact I'm the only participant whose fault it is not. I can't correct something that's other people's fault but not my own.
That's because what I'm doing is pointing out an obvious and I believe significant aspect of the situation, which for personal reasons which probably vary from person to person everyone else is opposed to taking into consideration. The reason people are opposed to considering it is because it causes cognitive dissonance, but the reasons it causes dissonance could vary greatly from one person to the next. Whatever the reasons though, the dissonance causes people to want to avoid thinking about something so all we end up with is a thread full of people saying "no, no, no", and of course as long as it's like that it can't go anywhere else. So it's not my fault, and in fact I'm the only participant whose fault it is not. I can't correct something that's other people's fault but not my own.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 14 2009, 08:28 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Even more amusing than that is the fact that though a number of people apparently wish very badly they could disagree with me for some unexplained reason(s), not a one of them has been able to suggest anything else God could possibly be.
Are you seriously thick enough to make this claim?
I challenge you to try presenting evidence that it's incorrect. TRY!:
Are you seriously thick enough to make this claim?
I challenge you to try presenting evidence that it's incorrect. TRY!:
QUOTE (Bloy+May 14 2009, 08:41 PM)
..and that this "god" of yours would be male.....as you pointed out from your first post. And too, you speak of multiple "gods"... as also indicated in your first post:
quote: nopEda -- "3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them"
make up your mind.... Do you wish to imagine/create 1(one) "god"? Or do you feel you need many "gods"?
I imagine there are a number of beings we could consider to be Gods, even though I feel there's one that's significantly associated with this planet because that seems to be what the majority of canonical texts tell us.
quote: nopEda -- "3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them"
make up your mind.... Do you wish to imagine/create 1(one) "god"? Or do you feel you need many "gods"?
I imagine there are a number of beings we could consider to be Gods, even though I feel there's one that's significantly associated with this planet because that seems to be what the majority of canonical texts tell us.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
All your references to a "god" or "gods" depict it/they as male. Is this your creative preference?
I'm glad you brought that up, because it does need to be on the list. I want to make a couple of other revisions too, but that can be number 14, I think:
14. If God exists, it's almost certain that "he" would not be restricted to any particular body, form, or gender.
I'm glad you brought that up, because it does need to be on the list. I want to make a couple of other revisions too, but that can be number 14, I think:
14. If God exists, it's almost certain that "he" would not be restricted to any particular body, form, or gender.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 02:27 AM)
Ok, let's think as realistically as we can.
Yes!
Yes!
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
Do you think God is subject to evolution?
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
God, or at least the type beings he is a member of, may have originated through an evolutionary process or may have been developed by something else. There's nothing to even base a guess on, other than to conclude that at some point life must have developed from lifelessness somewhere along the way. If God created the universe or even just this planet, he would have to be an alien to us.
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
God, or at least the type beings he is a member of, may have originated through an evolutionary process or may have been developed by something else. There's nothing to even base a guess on, other than to conclude that at some point life must have developed from lifelessness somewhere along the way. If God created the universe or even just this planet, he would have to be an alien to us.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 15 2009, 03:08 AM)
nopEda,
Do you think it is possible these aliens you describe do not exist?
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
Do you think it is possible these aliens you describe do not exist?
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 04:40 PM)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
And it's unlikely that you will get anyone else to call them Gods.
And it's unlikely that you will get anyone else to call them Gods.
QUOTE (schMuck+May 17 2009, 04:16 PM)
I challenge you to try presenting evidence that it's incorrect. TRY!:
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You are another idiot who knows absolutely nothing about how science works. Congratulations.
Here's the skinny, idiot: you're the one who claims that the only real possibility for a god's existence is if it's a highly advanced extraterrestial. Not only is that 1) a definition that only you are using and 2) a false dilemma (you haven't read the article, have you?), but also 3) a position that has absolutely no evidence that supports it.
Unless you can show us evidence of a highly advanced alien species that can satisfy the role of quasi-god, you have absolutely no ground to stand on, and thus you shouldn't talk about "presenting evidence that it's incorrect".
Get cracking, thicky!
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
You are another idiot who knows absolutely nothing about how science works. Congratulations. Here's the skinny, idiot: you're the one who claims that the only real possibility for a god's existence is if it's a highly advanced extraterrestial. Not only is that 1) a definition that only you are using and 2) a false dilemma (you haven't read the article, have you?), but also 3) a position that has absolutely no evidence that supports it.
Unless you can show us evidence of a highly advanced alien species that can satisfy the role of quasi-god, you have absolutely no ground to stand on, and thus you shouldn't talk about "presenting evidence that it's incorrect".
Get cracking, thicky!
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 11:40 AM)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
Looks to me like you have your doubts.
Looks to me like you have your doubts.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods Aliens do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 17 2009, 05:08 PM)
And it's unlikely that you will get anyone else to call them Gods.
People who cling to the unimaginable and extremely unlikely possibility that God would not be an alien don't appear to be able to think about this at all. They can't imagine how he could be one, and they can't imagine how he could not be one. Again, as always, that's not my fault.
People who cling to the unimaginable and extremely unlikely possibility that God would not be an alien don't appear to be able to think about this at all. They can't imagine how he could be one, and they can't imagine how he could not be one. Again, as always, that's not my fault.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 17 2009, 05:24 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I challenge you to try presenting evidence that it's incorrect. TRY!:
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You are another idiot who knows absolutely nothing about how science works. Congratulations.
Here's the skinny, idiot: you're the one who claims that the only real possibility for a god's existence is if it's a highly advanced extraterrestial. Not only is that 1) a definition that only you are using and 2) a false dilemma (you haven't read the article, have you?), but also 3) a position that has absolutely no evidence that supports it.
ALL evidence supports it. Also, you failed to meet the challenge as totally and completely as it's possible for a person to fail.
You are another idiot who knows absolutely nothing about how science works. Congratulations. Here's the skinny, idiot: you're the one who claims that the only real possibility for a god's existence is if it's a highly advanced extraterrestial. Not only is that 1) a definition that only you are using and 2) a false dilemma (you haven't read the article, have you?), but also 3) a position that has absolutely no evidence that supports it.
ALL evidence supports it. Also, you failed to meet the challenge as totally and completely as it's possible for a person to fail.
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Unless you can show us evidence of a highly advanced alien species that can satisfy the role of quasi-god, you have absolutely no ground to stand on, and thus you shouldn't talk about "presenting evidence that it's incorrect".
ALL evidence says that I'm correct. Also, you are completely incapable of even attempting to present evidence that I'm wrong. Again I challenge you to try and again you are going to fail, but this time at least TRYYYY!!!:
ALL evidence says that I'm correct. Also, you are completely incapable of even attempting to present evidence that I'm wrong. Again I challenge you to try and again you are going to fail, but this time at least TRYYYY!!!:
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.