God or No God?

Originally posted by Digi
Gotcha. I'd remove the mystic monikers entirely, but that's me. In describing the universe in something other than causal, physical terms, it usually suggests the supernatural, paranormal, divine, or transcendent in a way that is usually not consistent with reality, or that needlessly obfuscates the meaning.

For example, I've heard of friendship or Brotherhood (the capital "B" kind) referred to in mystic terms. And it's like, why not just call it a good friendship, that occasionally is hard to describe using our language? But no, it's a mystic bond that transcends the material world. Really?

You can call it what you want, obviously. I don't take exception to that. I just usually don't see the reason to call something "The Divine Plan" or "Mystic Law" if it essentially amounts to describing causality (though Mystic Law may refer to something else entirely...I am not entirely sure how you apply it).

Try this:

We live in a universe, and we only see this universe. That leads to the question: why this universe? The fact we see only this universe seems to say that this universe is special; why? The best answer I have heard was this universe is only one of many other universes. That way, this universe is not unique, but just one of many. It also answers another question: why this arrangement of physical laws? If there is a multverse, then other universes could have all the other arrangements of physical laws.

We say that supernatural, paranormal, divine, or transcendent are not real in our universe, but are these normal in other universes? We also don't understand the relationship between universes within a multiverse.

I am not advocating god of the gaps, but there are places that science has not go. The word Mystic Law is only an admission that we cannot know something. This something is a law that rules all universes in the multiverse. Don't you think that such a law should exist?

no one can deny one supper power who has been controlling this whole univerese for even before the biirth of man in this worls without any disturbance. and that in Only one GOD.
_______
Vitiligo | Vitiligo Treatment

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Try this:

We live in a universe, and we only see this universe. That leads to the question: why this universe? The fact we see only this universe seems to say that this universe is special; why? The best answer I have heard was this universe is only one of many other universes. That way, this universe is not unique, but just one of many. It also answers another question: why this arrangement of physical laws? If there is a multverse, then other universes could have all the other arrangements of physical laws.

We say that supernatural, paranormal, divine, or transcendent are not real in our universe, but are these normal in other universes? We also don't understand the relationship between universes within a multiverse.

I am not advocating god of the gaps, but there are places that science has not go. The word Mystic Law is only an admission that we cannot know something. This something is a law that rules all universes in the multiverse. Don't you think that such a law should exist?

Ok, so it's a term for the unknown rules of the universe, or whatever binding force or rules guide existence?

I don't think it necessarily exists. If I am to reach a conclusion of a multiverse, it will be through mathematical means. I don't think personal logic, however careful or intuitive it may seem, has anything to tell us about the existence of a multiverse.

So I think it could exist, but remain ambivalent to its existence. Agnostic, if you will. It's possible, and I have no idea how plausible it is, so ignorance is the only reasonable position. I do believe there are a set of physical laws that determine the nature of our universe. But there isn't an a priori assumption we can make to suggest that universal laws are also multiversal.

Originally posted by Daniel12
no one can deny one supper power who has been controlling this whole univerese for even before the biirth of man in this worls without any disturbance. and that in Only one GOD.

Flawless. Supper power is indeed the universe's strongest force.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so it's a term for the unknown rules of the universe, or whatever binding force or rules guide existence?

I don't think it necessarily exists. If I am to reach a conclusion of a multiverse, it will be through mathematical means. I don't think personal logic, however careful or intuitive it may seem, has anything to tell us about the existence of a multiverse.

So I think it could exist, but remain ambivalent to its existence. Agnostic, if you will. It's possible, and I have no idea how plausible it is, so ignorance is the only reasonable position. I do believe there are a set of physical laws that determine the nature of our universe. But there isn't an a priori assumption we can make to suggest that universal laws are also multiversal...

Check out M theory sometime.

Originally posted by Digi
If everything is divine, nothing is. It removes all meaningful sense of divine to simply label existence as it. I can only see such logic as being justification for acceptance of others or one's life, not as a template for God.

This is a misinterpretation of what we both were talking about. That's not what we said.

Originally posted by Digi
Christians and Muslims make the distinction at least. Even if something has an element of the divine, to say "I am God" is blasphemy in either religion.

Well, I don't think you misinterpreted what we said, after all. Everything does have divine essence, but not everything is divine. That's basically the distinction I did not think you were making, above.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, if the universe is God, we eliminate sentience from the idea of God, again making it functionally inert. Humans are sentient, and in such a model we'd be part of "God." But, despite being made of the same stuff as, say, a book, we most certainly aren't the book. The book has no awareness, no life, etc. "God" only has sentience if we ignore reasonable and obvious distinctions between different entities. Humans have awareness, God does not, in such a belief system.

We do not eliminate sentience from God, at all, if the universe is God. It is only an assumption, either way, on the sentience of the universe.

A better comparison to what you're trying to convey is a multicellular organism. Obviously, the universe would be scaled up in both size and sentient complexity, but that is a more apt comparison and it avoids the problem you propose of a "non-sentient" book with...I don't know...sentient pages? I don't know what point you were trying to make because it did not work well to fit with what the pantheistic view is.

Originally posted by Digi
Pantheism only makes sense, imo, if you're high and saying cliche hippy things like "We're all ONE!" Otherwise it's just worship of the natural universe...which isn't terrible, mind you, but is also pointless.

You have misrepresented their position and belief and then used that misrepresentation to make a smug conclusion about that belief. You know that's hardly fair, right?

Your claiming "pointless" is very subjective and a statement you cannot claim. In your opinion, it is pointless. But since you view the universe as not being God and not being sentient, you have come up with a non sequitur justification for why it (pantheism) is pointless. If a person who believes in pantheism justified their position with the way you did (a non-sentient book with illogically sentient pages), of course it would be pointless.

However, they do not define their position as you do. They cannot conclude the same thing.

Originally posted by Digi
That's reasonable. I just think there ceases to be a reason to call it "God" at that point. "The beauty and majesty of the universe" can be awe-inspiring without ascribing a word to it that usually has supernatural or religious connotation.

Your position makes more sense after having read this portion of your post. Basically, you're offended that someone wants to use the label "God" for the universe because of the things you associate with it. Cool. But they really mean "pantheistic God" which is definitely not the same God you are obviously associating that label with. The fault of label association is yours, not the pantheists.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so it's a term for the unknown rules of the universe, or whatever binding force or rules guide existence?

I don't think it necessarily exists. If I am to reach a conclusion of a multiverse, it will be through mathematical means. I don't think personal logic, however careful or intuitive it may seem, has anything to tell us about the existence of a multiverse.

So I think it could exist, but remain ambivalent to its existence. Agnostic, if you will. It's possible, and I have no idea how plausible it is, so ignorance is the only reasonable position. I do believe there are a set of physical laws that determine the nature of our universe. But there isn't an a priori assumption we can make to suggest that universal laws are also multiversal.

Well, if a multiverse is to be believed, then there would be some sort of over-reaching laws that are universal in the multiverse. Such as the rule that the laws of physics in each universe are randomly created and the types of physics (there could be laws of physics/parameters that exist in one universe that would be present in another. For instance ,there could be a force in one universe that is extremely fundamental to that universe that does not exist in our own in any shape or form) in each universe.

****, we could even say that magic exists in one universe in a "Harry Potter"-ish sentient form. Even the force. They could be perfectly natural laws in that universe and the universe would be much more tangibly pantheistic to the sentient life in that universe than in our own.

We may have a relatively "dead" universe compared to others.

Sorry to inject it...but Star Trek: Voyager injected the idea that another universe could be made entirely of a biological fluid (not necessarily alive but a fluid that is fundamentally biological to our perception). They called it "fluidic space". In such a universe, the entire universe could easily be seen as alive/living and it very well could be.

I am obviously not a pantheist. But I do believe my own beliefs do cross over into pantheism at times.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your position makes more sense after having read this portion of your post. Basically, you're offended that someone wants to use the label "God" for the universe because of the things you associate with it. Cool. But they really mean "pantheistic God" which is definitely not the same God you are obviously associating that label with. The fault of label association is yours, not the pantheists.

Why do pantheists get to be in charge of what the word "God" means? After all there's a perfectly good term to use if they want to blow a lot of philosophical hot air about the nature universe.

I think Digi is seeing it as a weasley back door argument.

I don't see Pantheism as any different than other theisms, except that there's less personality to the deity.

Well even though my view on "God" takes a Pantheistic approach, I actually do not wholey believe in Pantheism. Assuming God is the universe one would have to wonder if God could create a mean to create/kill itself in an infinite cycle of destruction and rebith. Assuming that this were true that would mean the universe would be infinite with neither a definite beginning nor a definite end. Since the concept of "God" is a combination of existence and non-existence, I assume that this version of God would be able to do just that....I think.

I don't really think an omnipotent being has any need for a personality or sense of reason that anyone could understand. Besides if I could understand God I'd be even more pissed off at living than I already am.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your position makes more sense after having read this portion of your post. Basically, you're offended that someone wants to use the label "God" for the universe because of the things you associate with it. Cool. But they really mean "pantheistic God" which is definitely not the same God you are obviously associating that label with. The fault of label association is yours, not the pantheists.

Offended is the wrong term. I'm not offended, I just don't think it's needed or that it adds to our understanding in any meaningful way.

It also has nothing to do with what I personally label things as. Here's the crux of it: If I refer to the "beauty and wonder of the universe" and talk about "causality," I'm talking about them in strictly material terms. As soon as you label those things "God" or "Mystic Law" like shakya does, or any other similar term, you're taking something rational and explainable, and adding an arbitrary element of mysticism or spirituality to it. It's mostly harmless, but also unneeded.

Basically, I think it's a way for functional atheists (or agnostics) to cling to some sense of spirituality without having to give up a mostly scientific worldview. But in doing so, they muddy up definitions and descriptions by trying to ascribe special spiritual aspects to the universe that don't exist.

Because I've had this conversation with pantheists before (or people with vaguely pantheistic views). They'll ask me something like "Don't you feel something higher in the universe?" or "Do you give thanks to the forces in your life?" And I'll respond "by forces and powers, do you mean the deterministic physical laws that make up the universe? I don't see a need to thank them." They usually chuckle and say something self-deprecating to diffuse the counter like "yeah, I guess you could call it that," but they cling to their "higher/spiritual force" version of pantheism.

So it's not that "God" normally means something else (though it does). It's that pantheism seems to inject scientific ideas with religious terminology. It's like being at a Halloween party where they blindfold you and put your hand in spaghetti, but tell you it's brains. As kids, we'd imagine all sorts of gross stuff as our hands rummaged through the brain matter. It was fun, it gave us an exciting sense of mystery and the unknown. But it was just spaghetti.

Originally posted by Digi
It also has nothing to do with what I personally label things as. Here's the crux of it: If I refer to the "beauty and wonder of the universe" and talk about "causality," I'm talking about them in strictly material terms. As soon as you label those things "God" or "Mystic Law" like shakya does, or any other similar term, you're taking something rational and explainable, and adding an arbitrary element of mysticism or spirituality to it. It's mostly harmless, but also unneeded.

But if one thinks like I do, I do not differentiate the seeming supernatural and the natural: I consider them both natural. It's only supernatural until you understand it. So labeling things as such pose no problem for me even if I apply your logic to it.

Originally posted by Digi
Basically, I think it's a way for functional atheists (or agnostics) to cling to some sense of spirituality without having to give up a mostly scientific worldview. But in doing so, they muddy up definitions and descriptions by trying to ascribe special spiritual aspects to the universe that don't exist.

I disagree, of course, because I think there is a strong bias in the scientific community against things that are commonly associated with the "mystical". It is virtually career suicide to entertain those things on a serious level (from a scientific approach...it is always relegated to "pseudoscience"😉. Only thinly veiled anti-theistic studies like the one on prayer that I referred to a few days ago, are the types of "scientific" things that you can do on the "mystical". And, again, everything is mystical until you know how it works.

Also, atheistic transhumanists are just happy-church-goers that have shifted the concept of "God" to something else. If you view humans as aliens, almost all of us supplant "God" with one thing or another. There is that void that is always filled with something. Those that cannot fill that void are usually broken.

Originally posted by Digi
Because I've had this conversation with pantheists before (or people with vaguely pantheistic views). They'll ask me something like "Don't you feel something higher in the universe?" or "Do you give thanks to the forces in your life?" And I'll respond "by forces and powers, do you mean the deterministic physical laws that make up the universe? I don't see a need to thank them." They usually chuckle and say something self-deprecating to diffuse the counter like "yeah, I guess you could call it that," but they cling to their "higher/spiritual force" version of pantheism.

Well, I could argue with you, easily, then, if I were a pantheist. They just don't know how to argue against someone with strong atheistic arguments. The response could be something more mystical like, "but you're only moving the bar into the realm of something you might know rather than something that is unknowable unless you transcend consciousness into a pantheistic deity." Bam, then a truism is wrought upon you and your household and your family is confounded for generations because that position is not falsifiable.

You can then come back with, "A statement is is unfalsifiable is not supportable in any realistic discussion."

Then they can respond with, "That's an extremely subjective and close-minded position that you cannot form without also being omniscient."

You: 😬

Originally posted by Digi
So it's not that "God" normally means something else (though it does). It's that pantheism seems to inject scientific ideas with religious terminology.

That's what religion sought to do from the beginning: explain science with the supernatural. You cannot really separate religion from science, contrary to popular ignorant evangelical belief. Hell, there's even a "science of religion".

Originally posted by Digi
It's like being at a Halloween party where they blindfold you and put your hand in spaghetti, but tell you it's brains. As kids, we'd imagine all sorts of gross stuff as our hands rummaged through the brain matter. It was fun, it gave us an exciting sense of mystery and the unknown. But it was just spaghetti.

lol

The flip-side of your comparison is you are told it is spaghetti, it's not spaghetti, but you put your hands in it, taste it, smell it, and listen to the squish sounds, and you are convinced it is spaghetti.

Actually, it is a solid holographic projection mixed with a temporary matter creator and it is fake and only designed to fool your senses.

Or, it could be a living being that seems like spaghetti to all of your senses but is actually a being of infinite size if you could expand your consciousness to work in 5 dimensions.

How much bigger do you want the rabbit hole to go?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But if one thinks like I do, I do not differentiate the seeming supernatural and the natural: I consider them both natural. It's only supernatural until you understand it. So labeling things as such pose no problem for me even if I apply your logic to it.

Then you're the exception, and you're also not a pantheist. When nearly all people invoke God, they are referring to something not specifically scientific, rational, or causal.

It also begs the question that, say you were a pantheist, why you wouldn't just use the simpler term and avoid religious terminology altogether. It may not make a difference to you conceptually, but from a purely linguistic standpoint you surely see the advantage, no?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, of course, because I think there is a strong bias in the scientific community against things that are commonly associated with the "mystical". It is virtually career suicide to entertain those things on a serious level (from a scientific approach...it is always relegated to "pseudoscience"😉. Only thinly veiled anti-theistic studies like the one on prayer that I referred to a few days ago, are the types of "scientific" things that you can do on the "mystical". And, again, everything is mystical until you know how it works.

It's unexplainable until you know how it works. One meaning of "mystic" may be "unknown" but mysticism as a whole is a much more broad idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, atheistic transhumanists are just happy-church-goers that have shifted the concept of "God" to something else. If you view humans as aliens, almost all of us supplant "God" with one thing or another. There is that void that is always filled with something. Those that cannot fill that void are usually broken.

This is a God-centric view. Not everyone "replaces" God, which by the way you describe it makes God the default void-filler. We all construct meaning. God is the way some construct it. I'm much more comfortable calling it "meaning" instead of wording in a way that presumes it is a "God hole" that must be filled (no homo).

This paragraph is also problematic because it equates belief in God with other beliefs, putting them on the same level of plausibility and adherence. I'd argue that most transhumanists don't "believe" in transhumanism. It's a goal to work toward, or an interesting future to speculate on. It's closer to a 5-year business model for a start-up small business than a faith-based belief in God. The whole idea behind atheism is rejecting the faith-based belief in God. It's lack of a belief. That you would assume they replace their worldview with something equally dogmatic and unfalsifiable is deeply flawed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I could argue with you, easily, then, if I were a pantheist. They just don't know how to argue against someone with strong atheistic arguments. The response could be something more mystical like, "but you're only moving the bar into the realm of something you might know rather than something that is unknowable unless you transcend consciousness into a pantheistic deity." Bam, then a truism is wrought upon you and your household and your family is confounded for generations because that position is not falsifiable.

You can then come back with, "A statement is is unfalsifiable is not supportable in any realistic discussion."

Then they can respond with, "That's an extremely subjective and close-minded position that you cannot form without also being omniscient."

You: 😬

Pretty much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The flip-side of your comparison is you are told it is spaghetti, it's not spaghetti, but you put your hands in it, taste it, smell it, and listen to the squish sounds, and you are convinced it is spaghetti.

Actually, it is a solid holographic projection mixed with a temporary matter creator and it is fake and only designed to fool your senses.

Or, it could be a living being that seems like spaghetti to all of your senses but is actually a being of infinite size if you could expand your consciousness to work in 5 dimensions.

How much bigger do you want the rabbit hole to go?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You: 😬

Pretty much.

Mystic, as used in my religion, means cannot be known.

You guys do mean pantheism and not panentheism, correct?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mystic, as used in my religion, means cannot be known.

Cannot or is not? The first is a dogma, the latter is just stating a fact.

Originally posted by Digi
Cannot or is not? The first is a dogma, the latter is just stating a fact.

What? Cannot is not a dogma! There are mysteries in the universe that we humans can NEVER know. For example; what is the state of matter inside of a black hole. Sense information can never escape the event horizon, we can never know. We can try to model the inside of a black hole, but we can never compare those results with nature.

Do you believe that humans can know everything?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Cannot is not a dogma! There are mysteries in the universe that we humans can NEVER know. For example; what is the state of matter inside of a black hole. Sense information can never escape the event horizon, we can never know. We can try to model the inside of a black hole, but we can never compare those results with nature.

Do you believe that humans can know everything?

I don't believe one way or the other. I don't know. But saying that we can't ever know something is a logical leap to an absolute statement that can't be logically defended, imo. You don't know the absolute limits of our knowledge, both now and into the future of the species.

Hell, talk to dudemon, he'll tell you about how he thinks we, or sentient life as a whole, might create God in a transhumanist singularity sort of way. Ray Kurzweil, the semi-famous futurist, thinks we'll create God and then collectively bring back everyone who ever lived throughout time to live in our self-created Elysium at the end of time and have absolute control over reality. Mind you, I don't think he's right, but absolute statements prove to be troublesome in a philosophical sense, regardless of the plausibility (or lack thereof) of the statement.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Cannot is not a dogma! There are mysteries in the universe that we humans can NEVER know. For example; what is the state of matter inside of a black hole. Sense information can never escape the event horizon, we can never know.

For a long time even detecting black holes was scientifically impossible.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't believe one way or the other. I don't know. But saying that we can't ever know something is a logical leap to an absolute statement that can't be logically defended, imo. You don't know the absolute limits of our knowledge, both now and into the future of the species.

Hell, talk to dudemon, he'll tell you about how he thinks we, or sentient life as a whole, might create God in a transhumanist singularity sort of way. Ray Kurzweil, the semi-famous futurist, thinks we'll create God and then collectively bring back everyone who ever lived throughout time to live in our self-created Elysium at the end of time and have absolute control over reality. Mind you, I don't think he's right, but absolute statements prove to be troublesome in a philosophical sense, regardless of the plausibility (or lack thereof) of the statement.

I see the mistake you are making. I am not talking about the limits of information; I am talking about the limits of humans.

We humans can never know everything about the universe. Perhaps in a hundred billion trillion years, if we survive, we may be able to understand all, but we will not be human.

Originally posted by Digi
Then you're the exception, and you're also not a pantheist. When nearly all people invoke God, they are referring to something not specifically scientific, rational, or causal.

You have said that, before. And, no, I am not pantheistic. I think that some things in pantheism are compatible with my religious beliefs. And I think that "something" that is not "causal" can still be scientific.

Originally posted by Digi
It also begs the question that, say you were a pantheist, why you wouldn't just use the simpler term and avoid religious terminology altogether. It may not make a difference to you conceptually, but from a purely linguistic standpoint you surely see the advantage, no?

If I were a pantheist, I would say I am a pantheist. If the person I said that to needed me to define that as "a universal God", I would. Remember, I am the one that argued for proper labels if we are to use them. God definitely means a lot to different people and it is up to the individuals to communicate to each other what they want. That's why I say use the most specific and exact label possible and explain when someone asks.

Originally posted by Digi
It's unexplainable until you know how it works. One meaning of "mystic" may be "unknown" but mysticism as a whole is a much more broad idea.

Well, to me, you're just splitting hairs. I obviously did not mean "the mystics" version of "mystical". I meant "a mysterious unknown" that no longer seems mysterious or unknown when we figure it out. Of course, it is arrogance on my part to think we can uncover all the seeming mystical qualities of God. I don't think God is beyond reproach from humans, though, so you can call that arrogance, I suppose.

Originally posted by Digi
This is a God-centric view.

No, it is not. This is based on sociology, psychology, and neuroscience (the new area called neurotheology). You even admit later in your complaint against this point that people create meaning. You actually agree with me, 100%.

Humans evolved to be religious. Remove theism from a person's life and they fill the void with something that fulfills the need.

Originally posted by Digi
Not everyone "replaces" God, which by the way you describe it makes God the default void-filler.

Sure...but that's an extreme exception. They are very rare. If you can find one anecdote where a person has not filled that void with something, I will show you an exception that has lots of problems or is something like...autistic. The sense of belonging and meaning that I see atheists provide for each other and themselves is no different than the stuff I see at a church.

Originally posted by Digi
We all construct meaning..

See. 🙂

Well, not all of us. I pointed out some examples of exceptions.

Originally posted by Digi
God is the way some construct it.

In this sense, "God" can be a much more universal term such as "it" or "thing". God can become your dedication to biology and the joy it gives you (filling that void). The void is there because we evolved to have it filled. So normal humans will naturally (as in...naturalism) fill it. God? Sure. Transhumanism? Sure. Following a dogmatic system? Sure.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm much more comfortable calling it "meaning"

I am not. I am much more comfortable calling it biology or neuroscience.

Originally posted by Digi
instead of wording in a way that presumes it is a "God hole" that must be filled (no homo).

1. lol

2. Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. "God-void" must be filled. But I don't really want to label it as such because you can be a spiritual atheist without invoking deity into your transcendent experience.

Originally posted by Digi
This paragraph is also problematic because it equates belief in God with other beliefs, putting them on the same level of plausibility and adherence.

No it doesn't. 😬

If you want to twist the meaning that way, yeah, it sure does. Religion exists so it is very plausible that religion exists (yes, you read that right) and people adhere to it. So, yeah, in the same way that empirical methods exist and are adhered to, religion exists and is adhered to. But, imo, a spiritual/transcendent experience is more true for a person than anything empiricism could every create...because of my "subjectivity" argument.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd argue that most transhumanists don't "believe" in transhumanism.

Uh, no, they believe in it, alright. Just a like a religion. It is so similar, at times, that it is definitely a religion. They even meet and have "sunday-school". They have regular speakers that function like preachers/pastors. They have buildings. Dude...it's a religion.

Similar to how extreme some people got with WoW.

Originally posted by Digi
It's a goal to work toward, or an interesting future to speculate on.

Are you describing transhumanism or almost all major religions, at this point? 😉

Originally posted by Digi
It's closer to a 5-year business model for a start-up small business

Are you describing transhumanism or almost all major religions, at this point? 😉 (sssiiiiiiccck buurrrrnrrrnrnrnrnrnrrnrrn, lol).

Originally posted by Digi
than a faith-based belief in God.

No. Not even close. They put their faith in transhumanism on such a level that it is every bit your personal definition of blind-faith. Just the same as a gnostic atheist putting blind faith that there is nothing transcendent (the divine sense0 or godly about existence/the universe.

Originally posted by Digi
The whole idea behind atheism is rejecting the faith-based belief in God..

Which is quite silly, to me. Teller is right: what a waste of time and a "belief". But it would seem Teller is arguing for a neo-apatheist position rather than an extreme atheism.

Originally posted by Digi
That you would assume they replace their worldview with something equally dogmatic and unfalsifiable is deeply flawed.

No, to say that people fill a void that evolution has created in humans is to be correct. To say that humans just magically exist without needing to fill that psychological void is deeply flawed and, frankly, quite wrong.

Just because you (ambiguous you, not "you" you) don't like something about humans, doesn't mean you stop being human, yourself. We are stuck with the biology we were born with. Basically, I see humans, no matter their beliefs, still fulfilling some sort of biological "god" need in their life. You calling it "meaning" I call it biology.

Originally posted by Digi
Hell, talk to dudemon, he'll tell you about how he thinks we, or sentient life as a whole, might create God in a transhumanist singularity sort of way.

Yup.

Originally posted by Digi
Ray Kurzweil, the semi-famous futurist, thinks we'll create God and then collectively bring back everyone who ever lived throughout time to live in our self-created Elysium at the end of time and have absolute control over reality.

Does Ray believe that? I thought the author of "Omega Point" or whatever believed that. But, yeah, that's part of why transhumanism appeals so strongly with Mormons: it meshes well with our belief that we all can eventually become gods (did you know that there is a transhumanist Mormon organization/movement? lol...good times).

Originally posted by Digi
Mind you, I don't think he's right, but absolute statements prove to be troublesome in a philosophical sense, regardless of the plausibility (or lack thereof) of the statement.

I agree. We might be able to figure out, with some sort of godlike AI, all the information in a virtually deterministic universe.

I still hold that we can eventually discover all of God's secrets and then there will be nothing mystical/supernatural about God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We humans can never know everything about the universe. Perhaps in a hundred billion trillion years, if we survive, we may be able to understand all, but we will not be human.

Okay, I understand you, now. I agree. We could model a blackhole, down to the quark (disregard that violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and zero-point energy of a universal thermo-dynamic system...then deconstruct it and know everything that is in that black hole. That's still not knowing for sure what is in the "real" black hole: we'd have to put our faith that our extremely close replica is correct. As a fact, we cannot know all the information in a black hole because time slows to an asymptotic level the closer to the "hole" you get: meaning, you will never reach "zero-time". So, yes, you are still right and Digi is still right, at the same time. lol! PACHOW!