Who can we call God?

[Lasse]

Can the title God just be possessed by the first creating force or process of Nature (if there can be such)? 

Could any biological or physical (naturally existing or advanced AI supported) immortal entity with metaphysical values and absolute knowledge about Nature be called God? 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

As various people use the word god for many different things so it seems there is almost no limit to what it can mean. 

Perhaps that’s the problem with a word that doesn’t have an objective referent. 

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Can the title God just be possessed by the first creating force or process of Nature (if there can be such)? 

Could any biophysical  (natural or advanced AI supported) immortal entity with absolute knowledge about Nature be called God? 

I have a story to tell. It starts with the first appearance of life on Earth, by some as yet unknown Abiogenesis process, and then the evolution of that life to today with humanity seemingly at the top of that evolutionary process. Now when man first jumped down out of the trees, started to explore, farm, and spread across the planet, they had virtually no knowledge of the natural world, and/or the universe and how it came to be: They saw God in the form of the Sun, the Moon, great rivers, mountains etc. Then man discovered science, and the process of logical reasoning, based on what evidence he had, and the results of whatever experiments he undertook. Gradually, man realised that he, along with the Sun, Moon, the great rivers and mountains, could all be explained by this all powerful act of logic and reasoning via the discipline of science and the scientific method.

He found out that the Sun was not a God, neither was the Moon, nor the great rivers, nor the mountains. He found out that the Sun, and other stars, all formed from previous stars, that underwent gravitational collapse so as to promote nuclear fusion: He found out that as these stars burnt the hydrogen and Helium of which they were mainly composed of, they fused elements higher up the periodic table...he learnt that when some of these larger stars went Supernova, even heavier elements were formed....and sometimes when the remaining cores of Neutron material collided, even more heavier stuff was fused. Then gradually all these elements underwent gravitational collapse, and formed more stars, and planets around those stars. He found out that all the life that evolved to his form on Earth was all composed of these elements. He found out we were actually all born in the belly of stars!

This of course pushed the myth that  early man when he came down from out of the trees, needed to form to explain the wonders around him and the universe overhead. God was not needed...God was pushed back into near oblivion.

Science being a discipline in continued progress, can explain much, and we continually are learning more and more. We have even now reached a stage, where we can reasonably logically speculate how the universe/space/time arose from nothing or the quantum foam.

At this stage, yes, that final "piece of the puzzle, is still speculatory, and while some will see that as a opportunity to shove in their "God of the gaps,"  scientists, cosmologists, Astrophysicists etc, continue the search for evidence, observational data to explain the last piece of the puzzle, without any need of any omnipotent, eternal and unscientific supreme being that they wish to call God.

If you want to call nature God, or the quantum foam and the fluctuation that gave rise to our universe, that's up to you.

 

[Lasse]

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have a story to tell. It starts with the first appearance of life on Earth, by some as yet unknown Abiogenesis process, and then the evolution of that life to today with humanity seemingly at the top of that evolutionary process. Now when man first jumped down out of the trees, started to explore, farm, and spread across the planet, they had virtually no knowledge of the natural world, and/or the universe and how it came to be: They saw God in the form of the Sun, the Moon, great rivers, mountains etc. Then man discovered science, and the process of logical reasoning, based on what evidence he had, and the results of whatever experiments he undertook. Gradually, man realised that he, along with the Sun, Moon, the great rivers and mountains, could all be explained by this all powerful act of logic and reasoning via the discipline of science and the scientific method.

He found out that the Sun was not a God, neither was the Moon, nor the great rivers, nor the mountains. He found out that the Sun, and other stars, all formed from previous stars, that underwent gravitational collapse so as to promote nuclear fusion: He found out that as these stars burnt the hydrogen and Helium of which they were mainly composed of, they fused elements higher up the periodic table...he learnt that when some of these larger stars went Supernova, even heavier elements were formed....and sometimes when the remaining cores of Neutron material collided, even more heavier stuff was fused. Then gradually all these elements underwent gravitational collapse, and formed more stars, and planets around those stars. He found out that all the life that evolved to his form on Earth was all composed of these elements. He found out we were actually all born in the belly of stars!

This of course pushed the myth that  early man when he came down from out of the trees, needed to form to explain the wonders around him and the universe overhead. God was not needed...God was pushed back into near oblivion.

Science being a discipline in continued progress, can explain much, and we continually are learning more and more. We have even now reached a stage, where we can reasonably logically speculate how the universe/space/time arose from nothing or the quantum foam.

At this stage, yes, that final "piece of the puzzle, is still speculatory, and while some will see that as a opportunity to shove in their "God of the gaps,"  scientists, cosmologists, Astrophysicists etc, continue the search for evidence, observational data to explain the last piece of the puzzle, without any need of any omnipotent, eternal and unscientific supreme being that they wish to call God.

If you want to call nature God, or the quantum foam and the fluctuation that gave rise to our universe, that's up to you.

 

Thank you for your response Beecee,

It is a nice complying of evolution and the development of human cognition and by that science. The bounderies of human recognition is reached far thanks to science and I understand that humans tend to fill the gaps of the unknown with the concept of God. 

So if I understand your comment right you say that anything can be recognized as God based on the personal understandings (a bit like what Strange said)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

As various people use the word god for many different things so it seems there is almost no limit to what it can mean. 

Perhaps that’s the problem with a word that doesn’t have an objective referent. 

I agree with you. Everyone has his/her own individual understanding and so the concept varies almost limitless and yes the problem is most likely the lack of objective references. 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Lasse said:

I agree with you. Everyone has his/her own individual understanding and so the concept varies almost limitless and yes the problem is most likely the lack of objective references. 

Since the only answer to the title question is "everything", is there a way to ask so it has some meaning to it? 

You make some assumptions that may not be true, like immortality and omniscience. Are they necessary? What about omnipresence and omnipotence?

How are you using the term "metaphysical values", since it's a requirement?

[MigL]

I've been called God a few times...

" Oh God, please don't stop"

by  women, while having sex.

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've been called God a few times...

" Oh God, please don't stop"

by  women, while having sex  walking away.

There. FTFY