Page 1 of 9
Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventually..
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:23 pm
by attofishpi
....exist?
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural pre-destined universal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' projects reality by feeding five senses of input to each lifeform. It 'judges' whether each entity has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.
In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...well, you see what im getting at?
To me it is more logical to believe that eventually a 'God' will exist.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:59 pm
by Thundril
Ummm. Where does this god get its energy from?
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:16 pm
by Typist
The idea that a god might arise out of evolution is an interesting proposal I don't recall reading before. Well done.
attofishpi wrote:In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency.
Yes, virtual reality is definitely part of our future.
As virtual reality evolves, it will increasingly out compete reality in getting the mind's attention.
Here we are, doing it already. We're talking to each other here, people who are nothing more than screen names, because our real world neighbors don't want to talk about the crazy shit that interests us.
So, it seems we're headed in the direction you suggest. When we become gods is unknown.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:27 am
by attofishpi
Thundril wrote:Ummm. Where does this god get its energy from?
Ummm. The same place we do. That big shiny thing about two planets from here.
Typist wrote:The idea that a god might arise out of evolution is an interesting proposal I don't recall reading before. Well done.
Thanks.
Typist wrote:
attofishpi wrote:In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency.
Yes, virtual reality is definitely part of our future.
As virtual reality evolves, it will increasingly out compete reality in getting the mind's attention.
Here we are, doing it already. We're talking to each other here, people who are nothing more than screen names, because our real world neighbors don't want to talk about the crazy shit that interests us.
So, it seems we're headed in the direction you suggest. When we become gods is unknown.
Don't be so sure it has not already occurred...aeons ago.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:34 am
by chaz wyman
attofishpi wrote:....exist?
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
That is no the necessary consequence of evolution. A bacteria is just as likely to inherit the earth.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural pre-destined universal outcome.
Duh!
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Not necessarily.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' projects reality by feeding five senses of input to each lifeform. It 'judges' whether each entity has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.
In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...well, you see what im getting at?
No. What are you taking?
To me it is more logical to believe that eventually a 'God' will exist.
So is god a quadruped with thick skin, big ears and a trunk that can be used for lifting water?
Or do you mean the creator of the universe?
What do you mean "god"?
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:50 am
by attofishpi
I thought i had defined a rough idea of what i meant by this particular 'God'.
A system able to project our current reality to precisely match our current perception of reality. You could consider it an operating-system...
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:21 am
by chaz wyman
attofishpi wrote:I thought i had defined a rough idea of what i meant by this particular 'God'.
A system able to project our current reality to precisely match our current perception of reality. You could consider it an operating-system...
How ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous than the original god. And a bizarre claim that such a thing could be the result of evolution. Have you ever read Darwin?
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:52 am
by attofishpi
It is not ridiculous...you are obviously extremely short sighted.
I read the beano a few times, what is your point?
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:58 am
by Typist
When will science end?
How long will it be until science reaches the point where there's nothing new to learn?
If we assume that science will continue to learn new things for a very long time, probably at an accelerating rate....
...Then it follows that what we know now is a very small fragment of what can be known.
Thus, it's absurd to make adamant proclamations about what is or isn't possible.
Please observe how we can come to this open minded point of view without reference to religions of any kind.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:08 pm
by Arising_uk
Whats absurd is not hearing whats been said.
No-one has said science might not produce through technology something that others might call a 'god'.
What is absurd is the idea the evolution has a purpose or a cause or a natural progression of intelligence. Its a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution a la Darwin.
What's also absurd is the idea of an 'open-mind' when the topic is about how an 'intelligent god' must arise via some 'pre-determined universal outcome' which is already an assumption of some 'god-like' purpose. Its assuming what it wants in the first place.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:28 pm
by Typist
What is absurd is the idea the evolution has a purpose or a cause or a natural progression of intelligence. Its a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution a la Darwin.
You assume Darwin is entirely correct, and that his work will never face an effective challenge.
Darwin says evolution has no purpose, and therefore you reason, no purpose will be discovered by science over the next 10,000 years. Could we please ask how you could possibly know such a thing?
What's also absurd is the idea of an 'open-mind' when the topic is about how an 'intelligent god' must arise via some 'pre-determined universal outcome' which is already an assumption of some 'god-like' purpose. Its assuming what it wants in the first place.
Your pretensions to logic have already been demolished in my previous paragraph. Your declarations of absurdity have thereby been declared to be absurd.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:52 pm
by Arising_uk
Typist wrote:You assume Darwin is entirely correct, and that his work will never face an effective challenge.
Darwin says evolution has no purpose, and therefore you reason, no purpose will be discovered by science over the next 10,000 years. Could we please ask how you could possibly know such a thing?
Because evolution is a theory not a thing in the sense of a thing with intentions, which you are assuming with your every word. You are reifying a concept and I think its because you still want your 'god' to exist and explain your existence as having some purpose or meaning that you appear to not be able to find for yourself.
Your pretensions to logic have already been demolished in my previous paragraph. Your declarations of absurdity have thereby been declared to be absurd.
Given that you've ably demonstrated over countless posts that you have no clue what logic is as you've regularly denied that the tautologies are not always true and that the contradictions are not always false, I'll be sticking to my pretensions thanks. And in the clear knowledge that you've demolished nothing but then again nothing is what you claim to know.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:40 pm
by Typist
Ok, let's try again.
How do you know that evolution has no purpose?
It's agreed that we are currently unaware of a purpose, no problem there.
But how does us being unaware of a purpose automatically equal there being no purpose?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state what we do know?
We are currently unaware of any purpose driving evolution.
That's a fact. Why not stick with the facts? Why the leap to wild speculation?
Adamantly claiming to know there is no purpose is no different than adamantly claiming to know there is a purpose.
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:53 pm
by chaz wyman
attofishpi wrote:It is not ridiculous...you are obviously extremely short sighted.
I read the beano a few times, what is your point?
You are trying to claim the know the consequence of 'evolution'.
Such a claim is ridiculous.
Did your get a grasp of evolution by reading the Beano?
Re: Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventual
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:00 pm
by chaz wyman
Typist wrote:Ok, let's try again.
How do you know that evolution has no purpose?
Where is the purpose. In what mind is it held. What agency decides.
WHy are you such a blindingly stupid moron?
It's agreed that we are currently unaware of a purpose, no problem there.
We are agreed that there is no purpose to 'typist'.
But how does us being unaware of a purpose automatically equal there being no purpose?
Not even a question.
But how does us being unaware that there is no cream-cakes on Mars automatically equal there is no cream cakes on Mars?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state what we do know?
That would be the shortest post on the Forum in your case.
We are currently unaware of any purpose driving evolution.
We are currently unaware that you represent intelligent life.
That's a fact. Why not stick with the facts? Why the leap to wild speculation?
Fact: you are a moron.
Adamantly claiming to know there is no purpose is no different than adamantly claiming to know there is a purpose.
Bullshit. Not even close. If you had stopped for 2 seconds to think about it you would now how dumb that statement is.