This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Does this theory explaining God's existence naturally have a name?

#11CuddleWithClawsPosted 11/12/2012 6:15:02 PM
What the hell?

The OP did not ask for a cause or a source for the "God" alien, so your question was irrelevant.
---
There must be hope.
#12hamsandwich3141Posted 11/12/2012 6:44:49 PM
CuddleWithClaws posted...
What the hell?

The OP did not ask for a cause or a source for the "God" alien, so your question was irrelevant.


He brought up his "God" alien, it's pretty relevant to ask a question concerning it.
---
I only have a signature so I can type my posts in CAPS LOCK.
#13CuddleWithClawsPosted 11/12/2012 8:19:39 PM
He brought up his "God" alien, it's pretty relevant to ask a question concerning it.

That's like saying abiogenesis is relevant to a discussion of how evolution works (which mind you is a mistake commonly made). So, no. He merely postulated an imaginative theory for the creation of humans. Not the creation of, well, everything.

I'm not saying you can't ask the question, but the question is clearly baited. You cannot seriously expect an answer to it, not when it's been asked multiple dozens of times on this board in one form or another and the answers to it are as varied as my list of geology puns is long.
---
There must be hope.
#14FingerpuppetPosted 11/12/2012 9:52:27 PM
Mr_Red_Herring posted...
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think think this.

God could be explained naturally without any spiritual undertones. What if God is merely an advanced being whose people came from a galaxy far away at the other end of the universe? He possessed technology that humans do not yet understand to create life and form planets. Time is calculated differently in his homeland so 4,000 years on his planet could be billions of years in earth time.

Sometime after he begun the process of shaping life on earth, an emergency forced him back to his galaxy where his people became extinct after some sort of disaster caused by their advanced technology.


I call that science fiction. Not only is it highly unlikely, but it's also a product of those insane gentlemen on the History Channel.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#15hamsandwich3141Posted 11/12/2012 10:02:36 PM
CuddleWithClaws posted...
He brought up his "God" alien, it's pretty relevant to ask a question concerning it.

That's like saying abiogenesis is relevant to a discussion of how evolution works (which mind you is a mistake commonly made). So, no. He merely postulated an imaginative theory for the creation of humans. Not the creation of, well, everything.

I'm not saying you can't ask the question, but the question is clearly baited. You cannot seriously expect an answer to it, not when it's been asked multiple dozens of times on this board in one form or another and the answers to it are as varied as my list of geology puns is long.


And I'm sure his imaginative theory has enough thought behind it to answer the question I asked. I'm looking to learn more about the initial post. If he doesn't want to answer or doesn't have an answer for it, that's fine, but you're being extremely nitpicky for what I see as no real good reason.
---
I only have a signature so I can type my posts in CAPS LOCK.
#16FlashOfLightPosted 11/14/2012 2:31:38 PM
OzymandiasIV posted...

Whoop-de-do. Most atheists don't necessarily believe that there is no god. They just see no evidence of any, and so don't adhere to any belief concerning one.


And that's fine, they don't have to, but initially it's not about the denying of a deity, it is the denial of higher intelligence, and what a higher intelligence can be capable of, there are enough science fiction films and subjects which touch on modern man's encounters with more primitive civilizations within world history, and how such cultures would see our own technological advances, which are yet petty, to be that of the gods.

Plus, there have been some indigenous people who attributed sightings of planes to be other worldly, and those have been documented. So, even if one doesn't concede to any god right away, since atheists often trump science as their be-all and end-all, modern science allows for evolution, which carries with it advancement of intelligence, and ultimately even a man-made computer could contain enough knowledge and programming to do god-like things, even if the computer lacks intelligence.

I'm sorry, but what orifice did you pull this from?


Did you watch Michio Kaku's explanation?

I'm not sure I see the point of any of this. You're theorizing that some life evolved and was able to create matter and life, and that that could be god? Am I reading you correctly? If so... what started that life? Why would that life be necessary if, by its very existence, it proves that it is not necessary to create life?

I really hope I'm reading you wrong. If not, that has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard.


I'm saying that atheists deny the powers and attributes of the Godhead, which include as also Michio touched on, the manipulation of weather, the cultivation of a planet, and the eventual strive for creating life - and ordering that life by guiding it along. I tie this in to what the Scripture says, that God, before he created anything, searched out all things first, and since we know that man is trying to recreate so many things of the known universe even within our own time, and the accumulation of knowledge they have gathered, and continue to gather - they too, as the Scriptures say would be like "gods";

and why? because intelligence ultimately allows for that and leads to that. What I am ultimately saying is to deny the progress of intelligence, as we see evidenced in our society, is to deny the testimony which is confirmed in the Bible, that an infinitely intelligent being, created by his spoken word - all things, because he already considered every factor, every detail, every method in how to quickly and without billions of years time bring everything together into what is called the universe, and life.

God made man in his own image, and while, according to modernistas, they have the ancient Sumerians as primitive shepherds, God's testimony already then declared that they were capable of ANYTHING due to their intelligence -

"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

<- That's progressive intelligence, which according to evolutionary theory, it allows for.
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.
#17FlashOfLightPosted 11/14/2012 3:00:56 PM
I am ashamed that on a video game website this is not understood or acknowledged.

1985 - Nintendo
1991 - SNES
1996 - N64
2001 - Gamecube
2006 - Wii
2012 - Wii U

And what do so many genres in video games try to do? They are simulations, simulations of what? Life, and matter, and the manipulation of simulated-beings often created in man's image.

And what has the progress been from early on? It has gone from a remote controlled based command, to PS3's SENSOR commands via Move, to Microsoft's voice-command via Kinect.

The simple video game industry, which is taken for granted, is in all ways mimicking and simulating the creating progress of intelligent beings.

Of worthy note also is how along the way, Nintendo's failed Virtual Boy tried to introduce simulated environments.

But what can we predict will be an eventual step that gaming will take? Eventually, the same mechanics that are used in video games will be attempted to switch over to robotics, robots about the size of a small toy at first, but operating within a limited space, but progress will eventually demand that such robots be scaled down in size, becoming nano, and a person able to manipulate a nano-robot world within the size of a small room.

Which will proceed to the next step, arena-sized projects, which will also be urged on by the military to simulate the operation of worlds, and this is only on a very minor beginning scale. The progress of intelligence woulld eventually lead to a town-sized implementation of a nano-community.

But they will not be pleased with robots, they will want to have them be organic - bio organisms, and the process will then go back to upscaling from nano, to living-sized bio-organisms, and that mimic not just animals, but human beings, which have blood, can feel, and have limited life spans.

And if you think any of this is crazy, I have backup for all these claims.
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.
#18ThuggernautzPosted 11/14/2012 3:08:55 PM
Your view of a greater intelligence is simply one of many potential hypotheses. Except, your analogy still has a creator who is not godlike at all. In fact, when humans do have technology indistinguishable from magic (thanks, Arthur C. Clarke!) are you suggesting we become equivalents to your God, or potentially even more powerful...

What you are suggesting is that God himself could have been created by another previously powerful being, which potentially stretches back ad infinitum. And all of this with no reason to think that is the case. It's a nice story, but certainly nothing new or ground-breaking and lacks what every other hypothesis does; evidence.
#19FlashOfLightPosted 11/14/2012 4:13:39 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Your view of a greater intelligence is simply one of many potential hypotheses. Except, your analogy still has a creator who is not godlike at all. In fact, when humans do have technology indistinguishable from magic (thanks, Arthur C. Clarke!) are you suggesting we become equivalents to your God, or potentially even more powerful...


In short, not equivalents, nor more powerful, but by any definition what would even be called gods in your typical understanding of not being limited by completely by space, time, or matter.

When Satan gave the famous line himself, of "Ye shall be as gods" he was appealing to Eve's desire to have omniscience, one quality of the Godhead, which includes with it the fruits that knowledge brings. If Eve had omniscience first, Satan was suggesting to her that it would lead to the other two qualities of the Godhead - Omnipotency, and Omnipresence.

God, however, from the beginning and through his promise (and this is different than what many christians believe), already promised man one distinct quality of the Godhead, which is eternal life, and man can never achieve Omnipotence or Omnipresence, but he yet promised them, collectively, power over all other things - "and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

That's why God makes the difference in saying that human beings will not be God, but gods - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

By saying gods, he does mean the manipulation of matter -

"And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you."

And he makes it clear further - "for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Christ wasn't speaking "figuratively", he meant it literally "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

What you are suggesting is that God himself could have been created by another previously powerful being, which potentially stretches back ad infinitum. And all of this with no reason to think that is the case. It's a nice story, but certainly nothing new or ground-breaking and lacks what every other hypothesis does; evidence.


I am first suggesting that intelligence is infinitely progressive, but God was the first and only and original intelligence, which created all other intelligences, as per the Bible's testimony, but in what science today acknowledges, without leaving sight of this topic's focus, is that progressive intelligence does exist. Now man, today, says that we are yet to reach its bounds, but the most High is the one who reached all bounds, having no pre-originator, nor a rival after him.

I protest strongly you saying there is no evidence, I have merely touched on how our current progress is that evidence, and you can say that doesn't mean it already happened, what I am saying is that at the very least, according to evolution, you have to admit it is possible.
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.