God and the Big Bang

Originally posted by Deadline
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.

[b]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. [/B]

Do you believe that any of these gods are real?

If we stay in the world of fiction and mythology, I can see your point. However, when I apply this to reality, it falls short, and doesn't work.

.

I better take a break.

Originally posted by Deadline
.

I better take a break.

You had better. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Deadline
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.

I think this is the crux. Humans are gods in your opinion. Fair enough. Though, as others have pointed out, humans aren't consistent with traditional definitions of gods. I think shakya went so far as to post a very generic definition. But they are consistent with what you consider to be the criteria for being a god.

To quote myself earlier, it's absolutely pointless. If everyone is a god, no one is, because the idea is so watered-down as to mean nothing meaningful. But you're welcome to such an opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe that any of these gods are real?

ET isn't real either doesn't stop the fact that aliens are plausible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If we stay in the world of fiction and mythology, I can see your point. However, when I apply this to reality, it falls short, and doesn't work.

No it doesn't. If you want to talk about specifically wether Thor or Odin exists then the logic fails.

Eventhough gods are fiction the defintion of what a god is derived from reality just like aliens. When we see examples of fiction even though specfic examples don't exist they are examples of what is possible. For examples a water breathing alien called Bob can't be proven to exist but people have deduced by looking at humans and earth that an alien like that may exist at some point in the universe.

Also humans can deduce that godlike beings exist by looking at the relative power levels of creatures. Humans don't think they are gods therefore there must be a race of godlike beings that don't think they are gods either.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You had better. 😉

Are you kidding? You think I stopped because I don't know what im talking about. I stopped because I was tired. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
I think this is the crux. Humans are gods in your opinion. Fair enough. Though, as others have pointed out, humans aren't consistent with traditional definitions of gods.

Yes they are and I even explained and proved that with a detailed post. Humans aren't gods to you because you're a human being. Nobody pointed out anything all thats happened as i've explained it in detail and its been ignored.

Feel free to disagree but you are clearly not getting the point. That defintion applies to "God" that defintion does not apply to some pagan gods. Humans do not fit that defintion but they do fit the defintion of a pagan god. Pagan gods are examples of what you would consider to be a traditional view of what a god is and humans fit into THAT defintion.

Originally posted by Digi

I think shakya went so far as to post a very generic definition. But they are consistent with what you consider to be the criteria for being a god.

That defintion was consistent with the Biblical God as I pointed out that defintion was not consistent with the Norse Gods. So are the Norse Gods not gods anymore? Of course not.

Originally posted by Digi

To quote myself earlier, it's absolutely pointless. If everyone is a god, no one is, because the idea is so watered-down as to mean nothing meaningful. But you're welcome to such an opinion.

Then clearly the Norse God and to a lesser extent Greek Gods shouldn't be considered to be gods either. In their mythology they are not the most powerful beings either....just like humans.

Just because everything can be a god doesn't make the term is meaningless because its relative and it depends on what you are comparing it with.

That logic applies to the "God" ie Islamic and Christian God that does not neccesarily apply to paganism. In some forms of paganism the term god is relative and that logic you are using here could be appllied to them as well.

Originally posted by Deadline
ET isn't real either doesn't stop the fact that aliens are plausible.

Aliens are only possible because there is a real example of life on a planet in this universe (Earth). If there were no examples of life in this universe, then we do not know if it is plausible.

Originally posted by Deadline
No it doesn't. If you want to talk about specifically wether Thor or Odin exists then the logic fails.

That is what I was saying.

Originally posted by Deadline
Eventhough gods are fiction the defintion of what a god is derived from reality just like aliens. When we see examples of fiction even though specfic examples don't exist they are examples of what is possible. For examples a water breathing alien called Bob can't be proven to exist but people have deduced by looking at humans and earth that an alien like that may exist at some point in the universe.

As long as they do not break the laws of psychics, then they can exist. However, one of the main attributes of a god is the ability to break the laws of psychics.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also humans can deduce that godlike beings exist by looking at the relative power levels of creatures. Humans don't think they are gods therefore there must be a race of godlike beings that don't think they are gods either.

There is a limit to this, and that is the laws of psychics. Also, just because an ant may think a man is a god does not mean the ant is right.

Originally posted by Deadline
Are you kidding? You think I stopped because I don't know what im talking about. I stopped because I was tired. 😐

If the shoe fits…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Aliens are only possible because there is a real example of life on a planet in this universe (Earth). If there were no examples of life in this universe, then we do not know if it is plausible.

Yes and as I said before...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

As long as they do not break the laws of psychics, then they can exist. However, one of the main attributes of a god is the ability to break the laws of psychics.

No it isn't. They just seem to break the laws of physics because they are more powerful than us. Again thats not an essential part of the defintion. They just seem to be supernatural. Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

There is a limit to this, and that is the laws of psychics. Also, just because an ant may think a man is a god does not mean the ant is right.

What the ant is wrong that humans are vastly more powerful than them?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If the shoe fits…

Excuse me? 😬

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes and as I said before...

You said a lot of things before, but nothing like what I said. 😉

Originally posted by Deadline
No it isn't. They just seem to break the laws of physics because they are more powerful than us. Again thats not an essential part of the defintion. They just seem to be supernatural. Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

Supernatural does not exist. The laws of physics cannot be broken, but they can be worked around. If a race of being are powerful enough to seem to defy the laws of physics, then we might think they were god like, but they would still not be gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
What the ant is wrong that humans are vastly more powerful than them?

No, about humans being gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
Excuse me? 😬

No problem, I didn't smell it. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Supernatural does not exist. The laws of physics cannot be broken, but they can be worked around. If a race of being are powerful enough to seem to defy the laws of physics, then we might think they were god like, but they would still not be gods.

There are millions of people who believe in God, gods, angels and ghosts who believe that it can be explained by science. That doesn't mean that they think it stops them from being what they are. I have said this numerous times and in no way is my opinion uncommon. Millions of religous/spiritual people think that the term supernatual is just relative. That doesn't mean that if a God could be explained and comprehended through science that they would think its not God anymore, you might be right about the Christian or Islamic God though.

Originally posted by Deadline
There are millions of people who believe in God, gods, angels and ghosts who believe that it can be explained by science. That doesn't mean that they think it stops them from being what they are. I have said this numerous times and in no way is my opinion uncommon. Millions of religous/spiritual people think that the term supernatual is just relative. That doesn't mean that if a God could be explained and comprehended through science that they would think its not God anymore, you might be right about the Christian or Islamic God though.

Originally posted by Deadline
Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

Originally posted by Mindship
How do you know this?

Within their own experience the supernatural would be something completely different. I'm sure that fish aren't very impressed that they can breathe under water, the feat of breathing air would certainly seem more impressive to them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Popularity does not dictate the truth. In the past most people believed that the Earth was flat. Now that we know the Earth is a ball, can we call this ball flat? If we do, we are simply changing the meaning of the word flat?

We already agree that powerful beings could exist. Here is were we disagree....you said that if a god can be explained by science then its not a god and that is the traditional view of what a god is. Im not saying thats incorrect im saying thats not the only traditional view.

Truth is irrelevant at this point because we both agree that these beings can exist we disagree on how its defined. Im not saying your defintion is wrong im saying its not the only traditional one. You can't say that that view of what a god is incorrect its a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Mindship
How do you know this?

Pretty much what Sym said. Which is what i've been trying to say.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Popularity does not dictate the truth. In the past most people believed that the Earth was flat. Now that we know the Earth is a ball, can we call this ball flat? If we do, we are simply changing the meaning of the word flat?

Just to add. The reasons why I mentioned angels, ghost etc wasn't because I was trying to prove they exist. Im just saying that if people believe that science can be used to explain these things then they obvoulsy believe that with gods and possibly God. Wether or not ghosts exist isn't relevant. What were focusing on is gods we already agree that they could exist we disagree on what is a traditional view. Ive proved that science being used to explain god doesn't stop a god from being a god is a traditional view, and you can't say its wrong.

You can't say its wrong logically, you also can't say that its wrong thats lots of people feel this way.

Originally posted by Deadline
Pretty much what Sym said. Which is what i've been trying to say.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Within their own experience the supernatural would be something completely different.

What's unclear here is the nature of the universe-at-large. If the universe is mostly supernatural, then what you say would hold more truth. Gods would see themselves as in line with the order of things, whereas humans (and the small 'natural' part of the universe we inhabit), might be seen as subpar. However, if the supernatural facet of the universe is the smaller aspect, then it seems to me that a god would recognize its higher nature by comparison to everything else.

I'm sure that fish aren't very impressed that they can breathe under water, the feat of breathing air would certainly seem more impressive to them.

My point is, we're doing a lot of projecting and making suppositions about beings that may be entirely fictional. I don't know how a 'real god' would think, except that it would see me as an inferior being bound by laws of physics, whereas a supernatural god would not be (and if it was, it would not be 'super'natural).

In closing, this discussion reminds me of Clarke's Law: Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

But does that make the tech supernatural? I think how the laws of physics fit into this scenario is what's key here.

Deadline doesn't seem to want to budge. If he wants humans to be gods by his definition, more power to him. But my new question is this, Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans, when there is no change is our actual composition and nature?

Because it seems to me like you're just applying religious terminology where none is needed. Why not discard the matter and say that humans are humans?

Originally posted by Digi
Deadline doesn't seem to want to budge. If he wants humans to be gods by his definition, more power to him.

Seriously your still not getting it. According to your logic the Norse gods are not gods. Also the term fast is clearly meaningless because Usain Bolts isn't as fast as a bullet or laser. Does Usain Bolt come under the defintion of fast, of course he does.

The term isn't meaningless its relative just like everything else.

Originally posted by Digi

But my new question is this, Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans, when there is no change is our actual composition and nature?

Don't see how thats relevant really.

Originally posted by Digi

Because it seems to me like you're just applying religious terminology where none is needed. Why not discard the matter and say that humans are humans?

Nope your just not getting it and clearly not listening. As I pointed out humans are similar to the Norse God conceptually.

.