a trillion gods and counting

[MerlinsByte]

Look at the night sky with its 5000 visible stars. There are hunderds of millions more stars in this galaxy and nearly an infinite number galaxies with their hundreds of million (of ) stars. If only one of these suns produced intelligent life a few million years before we did, you would have a planet full of gods. Is this any more believable than the gods of the various deity based religions?

[Starboy]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Look at the night sky with its 5000 visible stars. There are hunderds of millions more stars in this galaxy and nearly an infinite number galaxies with their hundreds of million (of ) stars. If only one of these suns produced intelligent life a few million years before we did, you would have a planet full of gods. Is this any more believable than the gods of the various deity based religions?

Not really. Both are speculations elevated to fantasy and mistaken as reality. Typical MB gibberish. The only species that using currently known physics could be space faring are bacteria. That hardly qualifies as intelligent life unless you are willing to give it a proper planet and wait 4 billion years.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

By starboy...Both are speculations elevated to fantasy and mistaken as reality. Typical MB gibberish. The only species that using currently known physics could be space faring are bacteria. That hardly qualifies as intelligent life unless you are willing to give it a proper planet and wait 4 billion years.

Merlin sez...wait 4 billion years , wait 14 billion years you would just have old Bacteria. Most likely bacteria where harmful mutations have made them dead gook, evolution if it happens at all DE evolves not to more complex systems or species.

By starboy...Typical MB gibberish.

Merlin gibberishely replies to a closed mind...My gibberish has good company read and learn that I am not the only one that believes in little green men.

NASA joined in SETI efforts at a low-level in the late 1960s and early 1970s ... For more background on SETI history and the cancellation of NASA's SETI ... http://history.nasa.gov/seti.html


SETI NASA News Release 99-65, entitled "HUBBLE COMPLETES EIGHT-YEAR. Larry Klaes ( lklaes@bbn.com ) Tue, 25 May 1999 15:54:13 -0400 ...
http://seti.sentry.net/archive/publi...9/00000324.htm

1981: Congressional support of NASA SETI ... 1982: NASA begins SETI searches with The High Resolution Microwave Survey ...
http://www.setileague.org/general/history.htm

[Starboy]

Intelligent life on other planets and being able to communicate with them are two entirely different things. Based on current physics if there is or was intelligent life out there our chances of detecting any traces of it are for all practical purposes zero. There is always the possiblity that there is more physics as of yet unknown to us that would make it possible but if that is so then SETI is like listening to a tin can while aliens are trying to contact us on the internet. It is a no go.

Starboy

[tusaki]

The end of evolution is not neccesarily god-hood. And yes, there could exist an ancient race somewhere which has an empire to cover thousands of stars. But the universe is a big place, we might never come into contact with them. The stars closest to us might contain life, but it might not have evolved much at all. Another possibility is that we are actually one of the oldest races ourselves. Or that we are alone after all. But there is no meaningfull way of knowing. Contrary to starboy, I do hold the possibility open that there is a god, or that there is something else going on. But it might not be the version of events you believe in, MB.

[MerlinsByte]

The only idea that I was postulating in this thread was that it was possible that there could be other far advanced intelligent life in this old universe. Maybe advanced on the order of a billion years or more. For you evolutionists who believe that it’s possible to evolve complex systems from less complex systems, this may place them at a very high God like intelligence level.

Example if you believe in evolution a good billion-year comparison would be, we are to "them" today as life emerging out of the primitive earth ocean and they are modern man. In other words their intelligence level world be on an unimaginable order about ours. Not a billion times more advanced but infinitely more advanced than we as intelligence and learning advances much faster than the physical capacity of our brain.

Even given the primitive technology and the physics we have, there seems to be no barrier to near light speed interstellar travel today. With this in mind it isn't much of a jump to at least consider the possibility we have been visited in the ancient past. If they visited say only 2300 years ago (about the time of Jesus) and left at a percentage of light speed and returned to today they would have aged only a few years.

This would be only one way that there could be Gods afoot, another would be the fact not theory that time travel is possible.

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: tusaki Contrary to starboy, I do hold the possibility open that there is a god, or that there is something else going on. But it might not be the version of events you believe in, MB.

Good to know but what does this have to do with anything? What point is there in having a belief in god if you have no idea what it is good for?

Starboy

[tusaki]

I didn't say I believed in (a) god, I merely don't rule out the possibility that there could be one... I'm not inclined to believe the bible or the quran, but the existance or non-existance of a god doesn't rest with any religion per se. But what is it good for? nothing really... What is believing in the non existance of a god good for? does it make you happier, or the world a better place?

[tusaki]

Quote by: MerlinsByte The only idea that I was postulating in this thread... ....This would be only one way that there could be Gods afoot, another would be the fact not theory that time travel is possible. mb

Perhaps the universe came into existance at the whim of such an advanced being... maybe we're just some sort of experiment to them.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tusaki I didn't say I believed in (a) god, I merely don't rule out the possibility that there could be one... I'm not inclined to believe the bible or the quran, but the existance or non-existance of a god doesn't rest with any religion per se. But what is it good for? nothing really... What is believing in the non existance of a god good for? does it make you happier, or the world a better place?

I have no idea if there is a god or leprechauns or the tooth fairy or (place your supernatural construct here). But just like everyone else on the planet (except for those with their own pet magic), I give it no credence. It is irrelevant. My working hypothesis is that for all intents and purposes such concepts are fantasy. However the rules of the asylum appear to be that we are all to pretend as if the other person's superstitions are as real as we think our own are (and those are the nice ones). I'll not say anything about your Vishnu if you don't say anything about my Zarathustra. And then of course there are just the plain out and out crazies that insist that their Zarathustra is real and your Vishnu is not. Either way it is all just stupid and dishonest. If you were honest you would apply the standards you used to accept god X to god Y. If you ignored all the bad stuff about your god X and only considered the good stuff and you only considered the bad stuff of god Y and that is why you reject it then you are being dishonest. You should apply the same standard to god Y as you do to god X. You should shop around for the god that gives you the best deal. However if you have reached that level of rationality then if you consider god Y to be bullshit then that places god X in the same category since they all have the same levels of justification which is none at all.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

Perhaps the universe came into existance at the whim of such an advanced being... maybe we're just some sort of experiment to them.

Yes, I have considered this also or we may really be special other than just some dumb species in a universe of short lived dumb species. Or as I believe that the universe is a construct of our sentient brain, and we each one however they are so similar to everyone else's and causally connected by Quantum interactions that we cannot tell the difference, (between universes)....oh well that was a stretch sorta like photons being everything like one member suggested.


Godspeed to you in all your endeavors Tusaki......

mb

[Runa216]

Wow, for once I agree with Merlinsbyte. I think it's possible, I don't necessarily think it's true, but possible.

Starboy, you need to put your hatred for MB aside and admit that he has a good point. and here is my quote to show how people should approach any belief.

"Consider the possibility"

pretty much says that wou should try to at least admit that maybe what you disagree with is right. I don't BELIEVE there is a god, but I don't rule out the possibility. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Religious people were right....it's possible, so it would be foolish for me to be so close minded about such a concept.

Runa

[IndieC]

Too true, being Agnost is the best thing until you have proof either way, I was until quite recently, when I turned Christian. It is the most logical and sensible way too... until you see the proof, like I said, if you ever do.

[mindclear]

Interesting article by a Muslim

Jamal Harwood

Mankind’s Greatest Question

Where did I come from, and where am I going? is the question on every child's lips at some stage. What is the relationship between man, life and the universe? What is the link between life and what was before life, and what is after life? These are all the most natural of questions which man wants an answer to, and indeed needs an answer to, to form a basis for all actions. Without an answer, we are simply running with a limited view of life, i.e. what is here and now with no regard to the past and future. Such a view of life is comparable to applying for a job without asking the interviewer what the history of the company is, who they will be working for, why the previous person left, what the job is, how the job is likely to develop, what the prospects for promotion are and so on. To simply ask for the job without any reference to the past and the future and how they are related is superficial and naive.

Should a person be drugged and wake up in a darkened room, he will naturally ask; who put me here? why am I here ? and what will happen next ? (or what is outside the room ?). Questions of what happens after death evoke in many an uneasy feeling, a feeling that many shy away from if they do not have a convincing answer. If we look upon existence before our birth as unknown, one might say is doesn’t concern us, but we all return to a situation of seeming uncertainty after death. The truth of the matter is that we want and need answers, and we want answers with absolute clarity and certainty.
6. Solving the Great Question

A comprehensive answer to the question of man, life and the universe and their interrelationships through enlightened thought will provide the solution to all problems. This greater problem will act as a base or point of reference to any matter or problem relating to man and life . This is so because all problems are either partial problems related to the main problem or an outcome of the main problem. Armed with an answer to this most basic question mankind individually and collectively is in a position to progress, freed up from the constant worry of finding a correct reference point for any problem.

We are looking for the basis or creed of the ideology (way of life) for our lives. The basis or comprehensive answer must agree with reality and be categorically proven as correct, otherwise any answer stemming from the basis could be false.

Before solving the question we should set some ground rules.

1. Firstly; any answer should be comprehensive. We must have the answer to the whole question of man, life and the universe. Without this any related questions or problems stemming from life, may be left unanswered.

2. Any answer must agree with the reality and be a verifiable fact, to meet this criteria the answer must agree with man’s nature and satisfy our mind or intellect.

3. To answer a question rationally requires that we limit ourselves to what we can perceive and sense. We cannot rationally assess something which is hypothetical or beyond our capacity to perceive it.

With these criteria in mind, we can proceed to challenge ourselves in this most important of questions. A challenge which can solve this issue with 100% certainty, or else we remain in the dark, and with the constant inefficiency and worry that doubt brings.
7. A Starting Point

To solve the question of man, life and the universe let us start by observing what we know in certainty about these three. All of the previous information we have of these three, tells us that they have certain similarities and unchanging rules. Man, life and the universe are limited, indeed all that we can perceive is limited. What we mean by limited is that it all has a starting point and an end point, and is not unlimited and infinite.

We can see that man is born and dies, and man cannot grow beyond a certain size in height and weight. All of life is similarly limited, and the earth, moon and stars likewise have a starting and end point. The life of a star or galaxy may be a very long period of time, but they are definitely limited in that they all have a starting and ending. The universe is a very large place but it is a finite space, and is not unlimited. No scientist has been able to bring a definite evidence that suggests the universe has no limits. So to suggest that it is infinite means we are going beyond the bounds of what we can rationally assess. Such a thought requires us to challenge ourselves to find any example in our world of perception that is unlimited, no matter how hard we search we cannot find such an example. All we can perceive is limited, finite.

A second attribute of man, life and the universe is that all of these are needy and dependant. Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something else, they are not self sustaining. Man needs food and water to survive. Plants and animals similarly are dependant on a water cycle which in turn is dependant upon the sun, which is dependant upon the relationship with the galaxies, and burning mass. Nothing that we can perceive can survive independent of other things, there is nothing in our perception that is self-subsistent. So things exist but do not have the power of existence.

The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all. The sum of all finite and dependant things is something that is finite and dependant, dependant on what ? Dependant upon something to start, and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things. We see things that exist without any difficulty or question, but nothing exists of its own nature as independent and in complete control of its own creation, or able to sustain itself. There can only be one solution to the question of Creation, that an unlimited Creator has accounted for all we see and perceive. Anything that is finite must have a dynamic force to create it, otherwise it cannot come into existence. All limited things depend upon something for their sustenance. There can be no doubt over these points, challenge yourself to bring any example, all limited and dependant things are created.

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either 1. All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum, or 2. All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited. The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with, it simply puts off giving a reason. It does not provide a reason why finite and limited things exist, or from whence they came, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature. The arguments start when a description or perception of the Creator is desired.
8. Attributes of the Creator

When we contemplate upon the Creator, we deduce that it can only be either of three things; Created by something else, Creator and created at one and the same time, or eternal self-subsisting. To be created means that it is limited and therefore part of the creation and therefore not the ultimate Creator. It is absurd that something can be creating itself and exist at the same time. Therefore the Creator can only be eternal and not dependant on anything in any time or space. This attribute of eternity, or of infinity cannot be fully perceived by us, man is limited and cannot perceive everything. If we hear a knock at the door, we have a strong feeling that there is someone behind the door, but we do not know who, we can only speculate. To speculate upon the essence or description of the Creator is not necessary, and can only be unproductive. We are concerned to prove the existence of a Creator, rather than speculate upon that Creators detailed description which is in any event beyond us.

The desire for greater understanding of something so important in our lives is only natural. To gain greater understanding of something we cannot perceive, and we cannot perceive something that is infinite and totally independent, requires that we seek only verifiable data from that Creator. To speculate about the Creator can only lead to misery and error as the unknown can not be deduced by our limited minds.

Further, we have not yet addressed the comprehensive question, of what is man, life, and the universe, what was before the life and what was after it, and what is the relationship between them all. The answer to this comprehensive question will act as the basis, or creed for all sub problems relating to life, and act as the reference for all the complex systems of life that man implements; social systems, economic, political, foreign policy, judicial, etc. In short this will explain mans very purpose in life, and give us direction for true progress. So far we have examined the existence of a Creator, what is the relationship with the Creator ? and interrelationships with man, life, and what is after creation ?

[mindclear]

There is also a Video Debate on ‘Does God really exist’? which I do recommend everyone to view at http://www.generationislam.org/multi...=1187_0_41_0_M

Have a see then give your feed back

[Starboy]

PART 1 OF 2

Quote by: mindclear 1. Firstly; any answer should be comprehensive. We must have the answer to the whole question of man, life and the universe. Without this any related questions or problems stemming from life, may be left unanswered.

It would be great to have such a comprehensive answer but why is it necessary?

2. Any answer must agree with the reality and be a verifiable fact, to meet this criteria the answer must agree with man’s nature and satisfy our mind or intellect.

This is not sufficient. An explanation that only fits the known facts is not necessarily a good explanation. Also why must the answer satisfy us? Isn't this a recipe for self foolery? Perhaps the actual answer is too horrible to contemplate. If we only look for satisfying answers we may just end up fooling ourselves.

3. To answer a question rationally requires that we limit ourselves to what we can perceive and sense. We cannot rationally assess something which is hypothetical or beyond our capacity to perceive it.

Not necessarily. If the hypothetical construct allows predictions of phenomenon that can be perceived reliably then it can be placed on the table for consideration.

With these criteria in mind, we can proceed to challenge ourselves in this most important of questions. A challenge which can solve this issue with 100% certainty, or else we remain in the dark, and with the constant inefficiency and worry that doubt brings.

Wait a second you left out all sorts of other important considerations. Least of all is the idea that anything can be known with 100% certainty.

7. A Starting Point To solve the question of man, life and the universe let us start by observing what we know in certainty about these three. All of the previous information we have of these three, tells us that they have certain similarities and unchanging rules. Man, life and the universe are limited, indeed all that we can perceive is limited. What we mean by limited is that it all has a starting point and an end point, and is not unlimited and infinite.

Yikes such sloppy thinking right at the get go. If man and life were limited that does not automatically mean that the universe is limited. Because man and life are limited there is no way to know what the possible extent of the universe is. All we can do is explore the best we can and explain the best we can, rinse and repeat.

We can see that man is born and dies, and man cannot grow beyond a certain size in height and weight. All of life is similarly limited, and the earth, moon and stars likewise have a starting and end point. The life of a star or galaxy may be a very long period of time, but they are definitely limited in that they all have a starting and ending. The universe is a very large place but it is a finite space, and is not unlimited. No scientist has been able to bring a definite evidence that suggests the universe has no limits. So to suggest that it is infinite means we are going beyond the bounds of what we can rationally assess. Such a thought requires us to challenge ourselves to find any example in our world of perception that is unlimited, no matter how hard we search we cannot find such an example. All we can perceive is limited, finite.

Funny how you understand that saying that the universe is infinite is going beyond the bounds of what can be rationally assesses and from that you irrationally conclude that therefore it must be finite simply because our perception is finite. This is a major logic boner. You are jumping to a conclusion from ignorance.

A second attribute of man, life and the universe is that all of these are needy and dependant. Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something else, they are not self sustaining. Man needs food and water to survive. Plants and animals similarly are dependant on a water cycle which in turn is dependant upon the sun, which is dependant upon the relationship with the galaxies, and burning mass. Nothing that we can perceive can survive independent of other things, there is nothing in our perception that is self-subsistent. So things exist but do not have the power of existence.

How is a universe needy? You seem to know what you claim to not know. You know what the universe needs to exist. Wait, I have a prediction. My prediction that from all of this verbiage you are going to make.....

The Watchmaker Argument.

The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all.

Claim - everything is interwoven
Conclusion - it had to be created

This is classic anthropomorphization. Because man makes complicated thing and since the universe is complicated therefore some man like thing must have made it. Of course you ignore some very basic things.

1) Man has never made anything even remotely resembling a universe. At this time mankind is doing the best it can to understand much of anything at all about the universe. And mans finite nature automatically limits what we will find. Your presumption of a finite universe says more about mankind than it does the universe.

2) It is not obvious that the universe has any purpose at all. No purpose ergo no purposeful creator. You presume a purpose in order to justify you claim of a creator. Why all the subterfuge, why not just cut to the chase and boldly and honestly just presume a creator and be done with it?

The sum of all finite and dependant things is something that is finite and dependant, dependant on what ? Dependant upon something to start, and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things. We see things that exist without any difficulty or question, but nothing exists of its own nature as independent and in complete control of its own creation, or able to sustain itself. There can only be one solution to the question of Creation, that an unlimited Creator has accounted for all we see and perceive. Anything that is finite must have a dynamic force to create it, otherwise it cannot come into existence. All limited things depend upon something for their sustenance. There can be no doubt over these points, challenge yourself to bring any example, all limited and dependant things are created.

Just a very verbose restatement. Repetition is not going to improve your very flawed argument.

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either 1. All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum,

If we are finite how can we know this? Also aren't you contradicting yourself. Previously you said that the universe is finite. Make up your mind.

or 2. All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited.

Why is that? Because you say so? And couldn't there be other possibilities?

The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with, it simply puts off giving a reason. It does not provide a reason why finite and limited things exist, or from whence they came, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature. The arguments start when a description or perception of the Creator is desired.

Let us examine your tactics. You try to boil down existence to two possibilities and you state the first possibility as a contradiction. Looks to me like you are stacking the deck.

8. Attributes of the Creator When we contemplate upon the Creator, we deduce that it can only be either of three things; Created by something else, Creator and created at one and the same time, or eternal self-subsisting. To be created means that it is limited and therefore part of the creation and therefore not the ultimate Creator. It is absurd that something can be creating itself and exist at the same time. Therefore the Creator can only be eternal and not dependant on anything in any time or space. This attribute of eternity, or of infinity cannot be fully perceived by us, man is limited and cannot perceive everything. If we hear a knock at the door, we have a strong feeling that there is someone behind the door, but we do not know who, we can only speculate. To speculate upon the essence or description of the Creator is not necessary, and can only be unproductive. We are concerned to prove the existence of a Creator, rather than speculate upon that Creators detailed description which is in any event beyond us.

Now this is just so funny and very will illustrates your basic dishonesty. You will freely admit that man is finite and as a result can not comprehend the infinite but that doesn’t appear to stop you from stipulating an infinite creator, yet the idea that the universe in some sense could be infinite but is beyond the finite scope of mankind escapes you. A classic case of a double standard if there ever was one. You will not apply the same argument you use for god to consider the possibility of other explanations.

[Starboy]

PART 2 OF 2

The desire for greater understanding of something so important in our lives is only natural. To gain greater understanding of something we cannot perceive, and we cannot perceive something that is infinite and totally independent, requires that we seek only verifiable data from that Creator. To speculate about the Creator can only lead to misery and error as the unknown can not be deduced by our limited minds.

This is also very funny. By your own twisted and overly verbose argument you will accept that the universe is important to our existence simply because even you can see that we are interconnected to it and yet a construct that you admit for all intents and purposes is outside of all this interconnectedness you now want to contend is somehow important for us to know about. I fail to see why. What we are connected to is what is important. If there was a creator and it is not a part of all this and its only contribution was to get it going and it now plays no role in anything and hasn’t for at least 13.5 billion years then why in the world would anyone care anything at all about it. Sure some guy built the house that I own a long time ago, but that guy is long gone and the house is still there and contemplating the builder is not going to keep my house maintained. I must contemplate the house.

Further, we have not yet addressed the comprehensive question, of what is man, life, and the universe, what was before the life and what was after it, and what is the relationship between them all. The answer to this comprehensive question will act as the basis, or creed for all sub problems relating to life, and act as the reference for all the complex systems of life that man implements; social systems, economic, political, foreign policy, judicial, etc. In short this will explain mans very purpose in life, and give us direction for true progress. So far we have examined the existence of a Creator, what is the relationship with the Creator ? and interrelationships with man, life, and what is after creation ?

It will be interesting to see how you will pull knowledge of an infinite creator from thin air and even attempt to do it honestly.

Starboy