What if god...

[raphaelh42]

Hi

Seems to me we always think god is someone nice etc, i propose we think things differently, maybe to have some fun but mostly to try to evolve about this subject

 

Personally, if god / a god exists, i see it as a conscious living being, who created universe, for an experiment, to see how things would go in, maybe just to be curious/for fun, or maybe for a future job

 

Anyway.... ->

 

What if god was a jerk?

 

What if god was dead?

 

 

 

[iNow]

What if god never existed anywhere outside of our imaginations 

[gawdzillasama]

What if any god or gods were the result of humans taking the easy way out with regard to ethics?

[TheVat]

God is dead.  - Nietzsche 

Nietzsche is dead.  - God

22 minutes ago, gawdzillasama said:

What if any god or gods were the result of humans taking the easy way out with regard to ethics?

God seems like one of those handy concepts when a community tries to enforce ethical rules.  The chief, or constable, or consigliere can't monitor everyone or resolve disputes all the time, so they promote the idea that a divine eye in the sky is watching them and they'd better be good for goodness sakes.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

What if god was a jerk?

Read the the old testament. That god was. Still is in much of modern preachment. Read Norse or Greek mythology. Those gods were. 

3 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

What if god was dead?

Read 'Towing Jehovah' by James Morrow. Other people have considered these ideas.

[gawdzillasama]

The OT was written by angry old men with camels. The NT dropped the camels. 

[TheVat]

On 12/25/2024 at 12:17 PM, Peterkin said:

 

Read 'Towing Jehovah' by James Morrow. Other people have considered these ideas.

I have seen this novel on library shelves and meant to get around to it.  Thank for mentioning it.  

[Phi for All]

What if god is just a scam that promotes a brand of chaos that allows men to justify/denounce any behavior they want? What if god is the nasty root of patriarchal exploitation, aggression, and greed? What if god is the sole obstacle to humans deciding to live in a peaceful, cooperative society that practices a more horizontal morality, focusing on those beside us rather than those above or below us?

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

I have seen this novel on library shelves and meant to get around to it. 

It gets a little OTT at about the three-quarter mark, but the concept is interesting.

I found a couple of his other novels equally original, yet uneven in execution. But that's just my literary critic talking. They're wild rides.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Peterkin

[LuckyR]

A better question would be, if there actually are gods, are they among the 10,000 gods invented by humans, or some as yet to be thought of gods?

And if they are among the 10,000, does it even matter which they happen to be?

[Khanzhoren]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:58 AM, LuckyR said:

A better question would be, if there actually are gods, are they among the 10,000 gods invented by humans, or some as yet to be thought of gods?

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings . But how can we define "power"  when talking about gods? Anyway, If other more mysterious (higher?) beings than human exist, there must eventually exist more mysterious (higher ?) attributes  that distinguish them. A question that can arises is the following: Are humans the pinnacle of self-consciousness and intelligence? Are there "things" deeper (higher ?)  than "human consciousness" and "human intelligence"? Indeed, it seems that these are the main attributes that distinguish humans from other living beings, just as life distinguishes living beings from non-living things. But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Khanzhoren said:

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings

And if there's more than one?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

One way to look at this is solar efficiency. Organic or living matter can much more efficiently absorb and dissipate sunlight as heat than inorganic matter or non-living matter can. A rock is very durable, but it has limited ways to disperse the heat it collects. Life is just better at that.

As for comparing intelligences, that's not as meaningful. We're more than big brains. Human intelligence is different in a large part because we have lots of compatible features other animals don't, even animals with bigger brains. They don't walk upright to free up their hands, their thumbs can't oppose their fingers for gripping, and they can't communicate as well so they can't cooperate as well when they need help.

Any gap is purely perspective and context, and not a mystery at all. Birds gave up a lot for flight, just like we gave up a lot for bigger brains. Sharks are incredibly evolutionarily stable, and our brains would be of little use if a human and a shark were tossed together in the middle of the ocean.

[Khanzhoren]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

And if there's more than one?

Can there be more than one 'most powerful'? Even if there are several possible gods, there must be one who is the strongest? The God of gods ? the top of the pyramid ?

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

One way to look at this is solar efficiency. Organic or living matter can much more efficiently absorb and dissipate sunlight as heat than inorganic matter or non-living matter can. A rock is very durable, but it has limited ways to disperse the heat it collects. Life is just better at that.

As for comparing intelligences, that's not as meaningful. We're more than big brains. Human intelligence is different in a large part because we have lots of compatible features other animals don't, even animals with bigger brains. They don't walk upright to free up their hands, their thumbs can't oppose their fingers for gripping, and they can't communicate as well so they can't cooperate as well when they need help.

Any gap is purely perspective and context, and not a mystery at all. Birds gave up a lot for flight, just like we gave up a lot for bigger brains. Sharks are incredibly evolutionarily stable, and our brains would be of little use if a human and a shark were tossed together in the middle of the ocean.

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example? And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

Edited Wednesday at 06:42 AM by Khanzhoren

[LuckyR]

11 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings . But how can we define "power"  when talking about gods? Anyway, If other more mysterious (higher?) beings than human exist, there must eventually exist more mysterious (higher ?) attributes  that distinguish them. A question that can arises is the following: Are humans the pinnacle of self-consciousness and intelligence? Are there "things" deeper (higher ?)  than "human consciousness" and "human intelligence"? Indeed, it seems that these are the main attributes that distinguish humans from other living beings, just as life distinguishes living beings from non-living things. But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.

Well originally the definition of gods were that they had superhuman powers, it was only when Modern (monotheistic) religions were invented that gods were required to be omnipotent. So your focus on "most powerful" while common currently, was not a requirement back when the concept of gods was invented.

[Luc Turpin]

 

6 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example? And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

The question of how life emerged from simple molecules remains unresolved. Various theories, such as prebiotic chemistry, the RNA world hypothesis, and protocell formation, offer some insights, yet the exact pathway from non-living matter to living organisms remains elusive.

Great apes, dolphins, elephants, and certain birds like the magpie have passed the mirror test, indicating a level of cognitive self-recognition. Also, elephants, dolphins, great apes, crows, dogs, and whales display mourning behaviors, suggesting an emotional understanding of death. And animal intelligence spans a wide range of cognitive abilities, including tool use, problem solving, communication, and social intelligence.

Therefore, while there is a clear gap between the non-living and the living, the cognitive divide between humans and other animals may not be as vast as often assumed.

Edited Wednesday at 12:44 PM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Can there be more than one 'most powerful'? Even if there are several possible gods, there must be one who is the strongest? The God of gods ? the top of the pyramid ?

Precisely. They can’t all be most powerful. So in that case “if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings” can’t be a true statement

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example?

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/20%3A_The_Origins_of_Life/20.03%3A_Formation_of_Organic_Molecules_in_an_Earthly_Reducing_Atmosphere

https://ebrary.net/70968/education/conversion_inorganic_materials_organic_matter_through_series_complex_reactions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1093669

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

8 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly  big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

Of course it's remarkable. But so is an animal that can fly because it's given up just about everything that doesn't aid flying. Birds don't even have the muscles to swallow water. Their evolution focused so much on wing muscles that now birds have to hold water in their mouths and then thrust their heads forward to force the water down their throats. Just about every species has something quite remarkable about it. Our remarkableness seems more relevant to us, for obvious reasons, but nature is full of remarkable species.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began. They contend that new insights are crucial to fully explain life's origins. The main challenges remain replicating the complex processes that lead to the creation of living matter, producing stable molecules under prebiotic conditions, explaining how DNA or RNA could arise from simple molecules, and understanding how simple protocells might evolve into fully functional living cells. Additionally, the difficulty of having random events occur naturally to result in life adds another layer of complexity. In summary, creating life from non-living matter remains an extraordinarily difficult challenge, with many unanswered questions regarding the necessary conditions and processes.

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis

On the RNA world:

The undreamt-of breakthrough of molecular biology has made the problem of the origin of life a greater riddle than it was before: we have acquired new and deeper problems. — Karl R. Popper

It goes without saying that the emergence of this RNA world and the transition to a DNA world imply an impressive number of stages, each more improbable than the previous one — François Jacob, 

There is no remnant or trace evidence of precellular life anywhere today. That it ever existed is entirely conjectural. Although its emergence from nonliving matter is hard to conceive, precellular life must have appeared almost immediately. There was almost no time for precellular life to evolve into the simplest bacterial cells. Precellular life has never been created in a lab. In spite of the RNA world, there is no consensus on the model for precellular life - Brig Klyce

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example?

So you are literally making a god-of-the-gaps argument.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began.

The member I responded to didn't ask that question, so I didn't respond to it. They asked for proof rather than supportive evidence, but I gave some supportive evidence that we know of ways inorganic matter could react in an early Earth environment to form the building blocks of what we define as life. There is an understandable amount of debate and argument over which way it happened.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Several scientists, including Smith, Sutherland, Kauffman, etc., argue that we are still far from understanding how life began.

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

The statement seemed to suggest that we were on the verge of resolving the issue, which is not the case.

While it's true that unanswered questions in science do not serve as evidence for the existence of a supreme being, they may indicate "gaps" in our understanding of life itself.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 While it's true that unanswered questions in science do not serve as evidence for the existence of a supreme being, they may indicate "gaps" in our understanding of life itself.

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

[Luc Turpin]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

Agree!