God Alternative

[ozzie666]

Since the dawn of religion, an arguement has exsisted. Is there, or is there not, a God? Is there an architect of the universe, and all life in it? A God who is concerned with the affairs of man, omniscient and omnipotent, and who can read your thoughts? Or, is Earth just a result of an event that occurred billions of years ago that has gradually evolved and adapted to its given conditions? And in turn, grew to house the ability to support life. Being an Agnostic of sorts i tend to lean towards the latter, but if proof to the contrary arose i would gladly convert. It seems its Evolution vs Creation or more commonly known as Science vs Religion.

This may basically be the entire arguement. But I say we're not asking the right questions. What if, for example, there is such thing as monotheistic God who did create the universe? Who's to say he didn't create it for the purpose of evolution? A God poured etheric energy (meaning, In ancient cosmology, the element that filled all space beyond the sphere of the moon, constituting the substance of the stars and planets. Conceived of as a purer form of fire or air, or as a fifth element relative to 'otherworldly energy') into some sort of containment for it, and over billions of years it evolves to take the form of planets and stars and other physical entities which in turn evolve to house there own forms of life? The ultimate creation. Until the time when the product of his creation, being of its own mind and body, takes his initial creation and does what it does best and destroys it like a parasite. Who's to say this hasn't happened previously to our current occurance? And maybe it was God who held unconditional love and faith in his creation to one day, hopefully, evolve into something beautiful or even perfect. Molded in his image? These are things we do not understand. But this most definately does not mean that they're inconceivable.

Another perspective; throughout time man has been given evidence (whether it is considered substantial is debatable) to the exsistance of alien life. UFO's, so-called abductions, sightings of humanoid beings etc. All evidence pointing to an elusive, but still plausible, race of higher intelligence. Assuming these UFO's are machines (as opposed to a living organism) we must apply the rule 'a creation is only as complex as its creator'. Besides the Roswell, New Mexico, incident* there has been little to say much about the actual physical evidence. But im sure we can safely say that these constructions are presently beyond our grasp. therefore, being unable to understand something, for these beings, as simple as a form of transport , its almost certain that they're that of a higher intelligence. Furthermore, in light of the fact that we currently have no knowledge of another form of life in our immadiate galaxy, we can ask: are they from this galaxy? are they even from this universe? or, taking a leap, this dimension??

So, lets investigate the basics behind dimensions. We've been categorised into the 3rd, taking a step back in intelligence and ability (basically) is the 2nd and obviously the opposite (i.e. going forward in intelligence and ability, BASICALLY) is the 4th and it continues forward through even higher planes of awareness. Ive also read that the 4th dimension is timeless, which implies its inhabitants would be also. Would it be so wrong to suppose that maybe this 'race of higher intelligence', being timeless and therefore much more omniscient, conducted an experiment of evolution in a lower plane? and/or in the very, very early stages of homosapien developement, maybe they intervened to point us in the right direction, the right direction being to follow in their own foot steps (molded in THEIR image?) as depicted by the mayans, who worshipped Gods very similar in image and description to our modern day extraterrestrials. Maybe it was these beings who could see our wayward and illogical (or emotional) capacity and decided to abandon the experiment, losing faith and ceasing to support and guide us. Essentially, they realised a poor investment and cut their losses (not suggesting humanity was initially a business to be manipulated!)

I am no academic, I've never been one. Im inquisitive into the origins of man and our purpose here presently, or in the future. These words are no more than simple observations and speculation. I put no stock or faith in them unless they can be proven accurate. I'd love some constructive criticism to fill the holes, and some elaboration for maybe a bit of illumination.
　
*Roswell UFO incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Peter]

Who's to say he didn't create it for the purpose of evolution? These are things we do not understand. But this most definately does not mean that they're inconceivable.

A deist god, one that created everything and went on holiday, can be supported by the evidence. It may be that he'll eventually return to reap what he's sown here on earth. Who cares.

[Ken Carman]

What if, for example, there is such thing as monotheistic God who did create the universe? Who's to say he didn't create it for the purpose of evolution?

The watchmaker/deist mindset. I lean that way. I don't believe in a marionette God who controls all. If that's the case, why worship? Why bother? "Free will" is a joke, for it's not "free" at all. God has it covered. The watchmaker makes the watch; using items maybe not even of his creation, to operate by certain rules. Does he intercede to put in a new battery, update it or fix it now and then? Maybe. Not sure. Or we could go all 60s God is dead-ish on this. Is it time now for a Garcia-band joke? Nah, never was all that fond of them, or "Grateful" for that matter.

Assuming these UFO's are machines (as opposed to a living organism)

Why? I tend more towards the biological/machine mix, ala' Battlestar's Cylon ships. If you think about it organic does have a ability to adapt that's usually superior. We can make machines: computers, that mimic the mind, but not really match it's adaptability. Yes, we're working on it, but imagine combining the two to get the advantages of both.

Who's to say this hasn't happened previously to our current occurrence?

Agreed. Theists often argue there has to be some starting point where all things come from and nothing other than what was there before. I disagree. I think we're in an always evolving scenario and something has always been: not something were may recognize for it too was evolving: change being a constant.

Maybe we've already met or seen "aliens," we just don't recognize them for what they are. The differences are that great. The Ender series: the first three books, by Orson Scott Card, does this. The Buggers were the enemy who didn't understand us, us them: recognize the sentience. The piggies evolved by brutal means we didn't understand when the DNA on the planet all had far more in common than ours with plants. They were all different forms of the same species.

I think this far more likely a scenario than Trek. They won't be all that much like us, if we ever do recognize them. But I do suspect some will believe that since they breath methane, live in high gravity etc etc, then their deities created it all, specifically that way, for them.

[Ken Carman]

A deist god, one that created everything and went on holiday, can be supported by the evidence. It may be that he'll eventually return to reap what he's sown here on earth. Who cares.

Or maybe by that time he'll be so old we'll have to put him in a nursing home and visit him on Saturdays, and he'll confuse us with Adam or Eve?

[grandpa]

Or maybe by that time he'll be so old we'll
have to put him in a nursing home and visit
him on Saturdays, and he'll confuse us with Adam or
Eve?

Maybe God can provide health care to our nation...

Grandpa h.

[Peter]

Or maybe by that time he'll be so old we'll have to put him in a nursing home and visit him on Saturdays, and he'll confuse us with Adam or Eve?

A senile god. Now that has some genuinely funny possibilities!

[ALIHAYMEG]

Being agnostic means different things to different people. The "new agnosticism" that is emerging has only 1 basic tenet. It is the measuring stick by which all information is judged and valued. It is also very simple:

Option 1- Premise A is true. (Requires a preponderance of evidence)

Option 2- I DON'T KNOW. (This is always the default position until a preponderance of evidence is presented)

Option 3- Premise A is False. (Requires a preponderance of evidence)

All other speculations or opinions are of no consequence. You see, we don't all start off as atheists as some have claimed. We all start of in the default position which is “I don’t know”. Choosing to believe that there is no god would require a preponderance of evidence which does not exist. You can't prove or disprove a negative.

[Angry Citizen]

Atheism is not Option 3, and there are more than three options. We humans make no statements concerning absolute reality -- at least, those of us with a modicum of logic try very hard not to do so. This transcends the question of God's existence. If I were to say that the fan across the room is blowing, that would technically be an absolute statement. How can I know the fan is blowing? Well, by a preponderance of evidence, conditional on the acceptance that I cannot know whether the fan even exists, let alone whether it's blowing.

We make statements based only on this evidence. And the evidence for God is wanting. Therefore, I'll pick option 4, which states only that the claimant (I.E. the theist) has failed to convince me of their argument, and reject it as such.

[ALIHAYMEG]

We make statements based only on this evidence. And the evidence for God is wanting. Therefore, I'll pick option 4, which states only that the claimant (I.E. the theist) has failed to convince me of their argument, and reject it as such.

I apologize if I offended you Angry. It is also not my intention to argue the correctness or incorrectness of either approach. It is just rarely understood what difference there is between an atheist and an agnostic. My intention was to shed some light on that.

[neochronomo]

There are charts (such as this) that give 4 options of belief and knowledge, but I tend to think these over-complicate the issue. There's only 2 important positions, as far as I'm concerned anyway:
1) Claim that a god exists
2) Reject the above claim

If you don't know, then you fall into #2 (i.e. you're not claiming that a god exists). There is no middle ground: either you accept the claim or you do not.

[ALIHAYMEG]

There are charts (such as this) that give 4 options of belief and knowledge, but I tend to think these over-complicate the issue. There's only 2 important positions, as far as I'm concerned anyway:
1) Claim that a god exists
2) Reject the above claim

If you don't know, then you fall into #2 (i.e. you're not claiming that a god exists). There is no middle ground: either you accept the claim or you do not.

I agree with you in regards to weighing the value of a particular claim. It is still impossible to completely discount the possibility without a preponderance of evidence; therefore the default position is "I don't know." That is only in regards to making a statement of belief or disbelief. If someone were to say to me, "I know for a fact that there is no God", I would have to say, "Based on what?" The same would apply to the statement, "I know there is a God.'

Rejecting a claim is not the same as making a statement of belief or disbelief.

[Ken Carman]

AC

Atheism is not Option 3, and there are more than three options.

Option 3- Premise A is False. (Requires a preponderance of evidence)

I thought the second poster was talking about Agnosticism, not Atheism: not necessarily synonyms.

I know of no "new Agnosticism". Of course all beliefs evolve.