God and the Big Bang

Originally posted by Deadline
Um they could have come to that conclusion from observing nature as well. 😬

You missed the point entirely. The references to fiction has nothing to do with why I think its plausible that gods exist. This is the issue, you don't consider human beings to be gods. Obvously your idea and concept of what a gods is comes from fiction. All I was doing is making comparisons with fictional gods and showing that human beings are consistent with the defintion of a god.

At this moment in our discussion were not talking about wether its plausible for gods to exist were talking about wether humans fit the defintion of a god.

But that goes back to my flashlight analogy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. That is like calling a flashlight magic just because it is magic to a primitive.

You can call a flashlight magic, but I wouldn't. Therefore you could call humans gods, but that would change the meaning of the word god. Now, I not against redefining the meaning of the word god. Religions do it all the time. However, how does that relate to god and the big bang? Humans didn't exist then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that goes back to my flashlight analogy.

Sorry it doesn't your still missing the point completely

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You can call a flashlight magic, but I wouldn't. Therefore you could call humans gods, but that would change the meaning of the word god.

No it wouldn't thats faulty logic. What you are saying is that since humans are not supernatural they do not fit the defintion of what a god is. This is indicated that human beings could be understood and comprehended ie flashlight can be comprehended.

Even in fiction and mythology humans are shown to have the ability to understand gods, according to your logic these gods become like the flashlight and cease being gods. Therefore just because you understand something doesn't stop that thing from being what it is.

The reason why humans are gods is because they fit the defintion of what a god is in lots of ways.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Now, I not against redefining the meaning of the word god. Religions do it all the time.

Except thats not what you're doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

However, how does that relate to god and the big bang? Humans didn't exist then.

Not sure I just got into a discussion with Digi where I thought the existance of gods was plausible and you decided to jump in.

Originally posted by magicturtle
well how does God, fit in with the Big Bang?

---

My own little theory is that God Caused, the Big Bang.
Post whatever but please base what your saying if its factual, on some sort of FACT

According to the beliefs of mystical Judaism and the non-Hollywood version of Kabbalah the big bang more or less describes how they aesthetically determined god created the universe hundreds of years ago so to them, there is absolutely no disconnect between god and science at all.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sorry it doesn't your still missing the point completely

No it wouldn't thats faulty logic. What you are saying is that since humans are not supernatural they do not fit the defintion of what a god is. This is indicated that human beings could be understood and comprehended ie flashlight can be comprehended.

Even in fiction and mythology humans are shown to have the ability to understand gods, according to your logic these gods become like the flashlight and cease being gods. Therefore just because you understand something doesn't stop that thing from being what it is.

The reason why humans are gods is because they fit the defintion of what a god is in lots of ways.

Except thats not what you're doing.

Not sure I just got into a discussion with Digi where I thought the existance of gods was plausible and you decided to jump in.

To me, a god is a variable in a math equation (1+A=B). The wind blows, but we don't see anything. Therefore, it must be some god that is moving around us. Later we find that the wind is air. The idea of a wind god goes away. We look up into the sky and see a sun. We don't know what it is, therefore it must be a god. Now we know what the sun is, and the sun god goes away.

I do not see how we fit the description of a god. However, it does remind me of a story:

There was this guy who climbed a maintain to talk to a wise sage. He asked the sage for the secret to the universe. The sage told him that you are god. The man was shocked, but delighted at the idea about being a god. He then went on with his life with idea that he was a god. Then, one day, he was walking down the road and he came upon an elephant. Being god, the man stood his ground. The elephant simply picked the man up and tossed him to the side. He was dismayed about this even, and went straight away back up the maintain to have a word with that sage. He then asked the sage, "how could I be god, if an elephant can just toss me off to the side of the road?" The sage replies that the elephant is also god.

Originally posted by Deadline
What makes you think that because I think gods exist that they created the universe, you seem to be assuming that. Are human beings ethereal or and supernatural? So why does a god have to be supernatural or ethereal?

Ug. I'm not talking about "God" and I know you aren't either. I've tried to keep my definitions of "gods" as vague and amorphic as possible, because I realize that's what you're talking about. So quit trying to knock down a straw man in my words that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Deadline
No evidence? What you mean like human beings? Which is why unicorns and ghosts have no place in this discussion. Can you give me an example of a ghost or a unicorn? Nope, but I can give you examples of gods.

Then give them to me. Don't just parade around some alleged evidence for gods without making yourself clear.

Originally posted by Deadline
What you don't seem to be comprehending is that the reason why its plausible for gods to exist is because there are examples of gods in existence now. The conclusion is come from observing nature not from reading the Bible or some vision. facepalm

When have I ever talked about the Bible or Biblical god in our discussion? Straw men...

Originally posted by Deadline
Im pretty sure the existence of other universes and dimensions is a plausible scientific theory. The microscopic world could come under the definition of a universe or dimension. Wait so all of a sudden it becomes implausible for other dimensions now? The only reason why it seems implausible to you is because I mentioned the g word.

If I read your implications correctly (though, tbh, I'd much prefer you just state your opinions clearly) you start talking about other dimensions and even humans themselves as evidence for divine. If you're going to define such things as "supernatural" or "gods," then there's no reason to. Humans aren't gods. Or if we're to define them as gods, the traditional meaning of the word loses its value. Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation. Which was my point all along. So if we're going to water down the meaning of such terms to the point that we're talking about, say, Einstein's "God" (which was just how he described the beauty and complexity of the universe, not as a personification of a deity) then you're absolutely right. If you want to describe nature as god, humans as gods, etc. go right ahead. But it's absolutely pointless.

Originally posted by Digi
Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation.

are we talking depth or width?

Originally posted by inimalist
are we talking depth or width?

I figure he means other realities.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I figure he means other realities.

like you've never been pedantic

Originally posted by inimalist
like you've never been pedantic

lol, indeed. But I've taken to ignoring or avoiding debates with inamilist like I ignore JIA, but for entirely different reasons. I'm almost always going to agree with him, and his respones to me are usually just to clarify or temper something that I've said, not in direct refutation to them, so it's best to just agree with him instead of arguing the point only to concede defeat later.

But in this case I was talking depth. B*tch.

uhuh

Originally posted by Digi
Ug. I'm not talking about "God" and I know you aren't either. I've tried to keep my definitions of "gods" as vague and amorphic as possible, because I realize that's what you're talking about. So quit trying to knock down a straw man in my words that doesn't exist.

I don't think thats my fault. You used words such as ethereal and supernatural, in all fairness you used the words creature as well and 'any god' but since you didn't specify you left it open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Digi

Then give them to me. Don't just parade around some alleged evidence for gods without making yourself clear.

I have you just don't agree on the defintion.

Originally posted by Digi

When have I ever talked about the Bible or Biblical god in our discussion? Straw men...

I never said you did. The point was that my basis is from nature. You used words such as supernatural therefore I assumed you thought my basis was from some vision or religous scripture. Its not my fault you didn't make yourself clear.

Originally posted by Digi

If I read your implications correctly (though, tbh, I'd much prefer you just state your opinions clearly) you start talking about other dimensions and even humans themselves as evidence for divine. If you're going to define such things as "supernatural" or "gods," then there's no reason to. Humans aren't gods. Or if we're to define them as gods, the traditional meaning of the word loses its value. Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation. Which was my point all along.

I don't know where your getting this from its like saying that if a Dragon doesn't breath fire then its not a dragon. Millions of people believe that science can be used to explain and gain a better understanding of God,gods,angels, and other supernatural phenemonon no where has it been made official that if a casual explanation is provided then it ceases being what it is. This is the same thing Shaky was saying and I pretty much showed how that was flawed logic.

Provide a causal explanation for a ghost its still ghost. Provide a casual explantion for telekinesis or magick its still telekinesis or magick.

Originally posted by Digi

So if we're going to water down the meaning of such terms to the point that we're talking about, say, Einstein's "God" (which was just how he described the beauty and complexity of the universe, not as a personification of a deity) then you're absolutely right. If you want to describe nature as god, humans as gods, etc. go right ahead. But it's absolutely pointless.

Except thats not what im doing. Human beings are consistent with the traditional defintion of what a gods is. Being supernatural is not an neccesary part of the definition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, a god is a variable in a math equation (1+A=B). The wind blows, but we don't see anything. Therefore, it must be some god that is moving around us. Later we find that the wind is air. The idea of a wind god goes away. We look up into the sky and see a sun. We don't know what it is, therefore it must be a god. Now we know what the sun is, and the sun god goes away.

I do not see how we fit the description of a god. However, it does remind me of a story:

There was this guy who climbed a maintain to talk to a wise sage. He asked the sage for the secret to the universe. The sage told him that you are god. The man was shocked, but delighted at the idea about being a god. He then went on with his life with idea that he was a god. Then, one day, he was walking down the road and he came upon an elephant. Being god, the man stood his ground. The elephant simply picked the man up and tossed him to the side. He was dismayed about this even, and went straight away back up the maintain to have a word with that sage. He then asked the sage, "how could I be god, if an elephant can just toss me off to the side of the road?" The sage replies that the elephant is also god.

This is just going around in circles. The fact of the matter is your analogy pretty much showed how thats flawed logic. Just because you find out that the flashlight isn't magic doesn't mean its not a flashlight.

If you want that to be your defintion of what a god is thats fine but its in no way official.

Originally posted by Deadline
This is just going around in circles. The fact of the matter is your analogy pretty much showed how thats flawed logic. Just because you find out that the flashlight isn't magic doesn't mean its not a flashlight.

If you want that to be your defintion of what a god is thats fine but its in no way official.

That is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that the flashlight is not magic, and never has been. You are the one who is saying that the flashlight is magic. In other words, you are saying that men are gods, because they fit the definition, but the definition was created by man. That means that humans are just human, and not gods, and never have been. Just like the flashlight. In order for men to be gods, then all things must be gods, and then word god has no meaning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that the flashlight is not magic, and never has been. You are the one who is saying that the flashlight is magic.

No im not. Your analogy implies that supernatural is an essential part of a defintion of god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

In other words, you are saying that men are gods, because they fit the definition, but the definition was created by man.
That means that humans are just human, and not gods, and never have been.

edit: Thats kinda embarrasing im rather tired right now

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Just like the flashlight. In order for men to be gods, then all things must be gods, and then word god has no meaning.

Thats a cop out. Thats like saying that the word evil has no meaning. I see what you getting at though. Everything is relative but your not proving your case here at all. Why does everything have to be a god is everything sentient? I think you're over complicating the issue.

Originally posted by Deadline
No im not.

Oh ok I guess humans are reptiles as well. The defintion of a reptile was created by man so men must be reptiles. What sort of logic is that.

Thats a cop out. Thats like saying that the word evil has no meaning. I see what you getting at though. Everything is relative but your not proving your case here at all.

😕 You are NOT making any sense. Reptiles have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The word god means:

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
(I went to Wiki because we are not ready for more advanced definitions)

How dose this above definition describe humans?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕 You are NOT making any sense. Reptiles have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Im kinda tired right now that would probably explain it, forget that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

The word god means:

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
(I went to Wiki because we are not ready for more advanced definitions)

How dose this above definition describe humans?

With all due respect I explained that already but im just going to have to do it again. The problem is that alot of things in your defintion are not essential part of what a god is. Omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal etc.

I think im too tired right now to get into it.

Originally posted by Deadline
Im kinda tired right now that would probably explain it, forget that.

With all due respect I explained that already but im just going to have to do it again. The problem is that alot of things in your defintion are not essential part of what a god is. Omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal etc.

I think im too tired right now to get into it.

If your tired that is fine. Come back when you are rested. But when you do, please link a post to the definition of god that you are using. The definition above is the most generic I can think of.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If your tired that is fine. Come back when you are rested. But when you do, please link a post to the definition of god that you are using. The definition above is the most generic I can think of.

Well im going to try again. Your defintion is generic but it is not an essential part of the defintion of what a god is.

Take the Norse gods . The Norse gods were born, and they die. They did not create the universe they were created by the universe and played a part in creating it. Just like humans. Norse gods are not all-powerful, ominpresent or ominpotent and neither are humans.

What makes the Norse gods gods essentially is the fact that they are vastly more powerful than humans...thats it.

The only reason why you dont think humans are gods is because you are a human yourself. Lets take another look at a race of gods. The Q from Star Trek fit the defintion of what a god is in many ways the only difference is that they are not worshipped. There is one episode where the humans were transported to the dimension of the Q and were made as powerful as the Q. When they went there everything was normal just the way the real world is to you and me. Does that stop the Q from being gods? No it doesn't.

Im not sure if I can make this any clearer. Gods can be limited and fallible and can be comprehended that doesn't stop them from being gods. Gods comprehend themselves the same way humans comprehend each other.

Originally posted by Deadline
Human beings are consistent with the traditional defintion of what a gods is. Being supernatural is not an neccesary part of the definition.

S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Empirical phenomena, by its own being, does not prove the existence of a transcendant, creator god. One can reinterpret empirical phenomena (eg, the Big Bang) to try and prove so, but this reinterpretation adds nothing to a purely empircal understanding of how the world works.

However, one can certainly use this reinterpretation (hopefully with a sound helping of common sense) to strengthen one's spiritual beliefs and feel connected to something which may exist beyond the hardware of reality. There is no way it can be proven wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right, not even close.

Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.

....

In response to the thread starter:

The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.

To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.

The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title.

100% agree

Originally posted by Mindship
So one person may include the supernatural part while another may not? That's not being consistent. In any event...

Millions of people believe that science can explain the supernatural. Thats consistent enough.

Originally posted by Mindship

S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Not sure what your point is but there is alot in your defintion that could exclude the greek and norse gods.

Originally posted by Mindship

Empirical phenomena, by its own being, does not prove the existence of a transcendant, creator god. One can reinterpret empirical phenomena (eg, the Big Bang) to try and prove so, but this reinterpretation adds nothing to a purely empircal understanding of how the world works.

However, one can certainly use this reinterpretation (hopefully with a sound helping of common sense) to strengthen one's spiritual beliefs and feel connected to something which may exist beyond the hardware of reality. There is no way it can be proven wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right, not even close.

Not sure what your point is and im not sure if I disagree.