This thread is not to argue whether GOD as discussed by religious bodies exists or not. I will leave that to the pope and others of the sort.
I define GOD as a sentient being, result of evolution and susceptible to natural selection that may have evolved enough
to be able to create/accelerate evolution in another life form.
It is quite simple to understand that if any event has a probability greater than zero it may very well happen. The earth as we know it today and life on earth as we know it today are the result of this mathematical probability.
Given the earths timeline its improbable that such a ‘GOD’ ever evolved on this planet. Now to understand whether such a being had probability greater than zero lets start by asking wheter our current knowledge of the formation of universe allows for it.
The amount of energy in the universe is finite. Elements/gases/stars/planets formed as that energy changed state. As the system (disturbed by the big bang?) tried to achive equilibrium it formed systems that are affected as the energy is spent. Our planet was the effect of this energy being spent in the right amount.
Now I like to think that energy has states, pretty much like electrons in an atom. Therefore as some energy changes its ‘state’ to form helium it will do so till the time that it can no longer change /affect matter around it to form a helium atom.
As this energy formed the elements and the ‘remaining’ energy affected these elements they came to changed state configurations that gave rise to galaxies/stars/planets.
Obviously some of the energy went into forming our sun and also the planets around it. Our sun and even our planet consumes this energy like other planets in other galaxies as these are not bodies that have achieved equilibrium.
Now given that the energy is finite and some of it has changed state is/was there enough energy in the ‘right’ state available to form another life bearing planet? Can 2 planet/star/galaxy configurations that are able to bear life (think of these configurations as machines that ‘consume’ energy every second or change its state) coexist? If yes, wouldnt it be like putting 2 humans in a capsule with enough oxygen only for one. This would either lead to one ‘victor’ human that survives twice as long as the first OR 2 humans with equal life (the assumption is a perfect system and does not allow for other variables).
if we go for the the first idea then we formed at the end of the nth energy cycle and therefore all data of the n-1th system was wiped out when the system was disturbed. Then It is also improbable that we have neighbours or that another life bearing planet can exist. (I dont like this idea as it kinda makes space travel a tourist attraction!). It also rules God out.
If we go for the second then we can rule god out as both systems have most probably had equal amount of time to evolve. We should then find these guys and engage in conflict. (Game theory says there has to be conflict) hopefully living longer or worse, being wiped out by them.
By your definition the probability of God existing is precisely one (1) since we are the result of natural selection and have evolved enough to create accelerate evolution in other species. Thus, by your definition, we are god, and since we certainly exist, then God certainly exists.
Um… Not really, my definition holds. The disclaimer in the first line disassociates my ‘GOD’ from god of religious origin. I merely use the word ‘GOD’ for effect to discuss possibility of us or some other life possibly in some other timeline existing and having evolved enough to affect/accelerate(even decelerate) our existance.
Didnt some greek bloke say ‘Thou thyself art God’…
well anything well said by anyone is mine…
Very interesting article, but it merely provides the possibility of god existing based on factors that are assumed to be gods work in religious contexts like… “the recognition of goodness,” and “religious experience”…etc which are arguable as the “evidence” used is statistical data.
Its like a shrink claiming that crime is a result of child abuse as 67% of people who visited him and had commited a crime were victims of child abuse. This for the shrink may be acceptable data but not so for others.
Its hardly relevant as those are not the subject(s) of this thread. I will request people to read my opening post carefully and debating in context only.
Well, yes, your definition holds. But since your definition allows humans to be “god,” and you asked for the probability of God’s existence, and since humans exist, then the probability of Gods existence is one.
But I can’t believe you were asking “do humans exist?” That’s why I wanted clarification on your definition.
Other parts of your post imply that you are interested in the existence of extraterrestrial life. There simply isn’t enough data to quantify the probability of life beyond earth. My own opinion–repeat opinion–is that there probably is intelligent life out there (because of the vast number of stars in the universe) but that it is probably very rare (because of the complex confluence of factors necessary to support life at all, let alone intelligent life.) At most two or three species per galaxy. But I base that last sentence on nothing at all.
Also, Game theory doesn’t say there has to be conflict, it merely describes what conflict will look like. In fact, in “prisoner’s dillema” the optimum strategy is cooperation, not betrayal.
well… by my definition humans MAY be Gods possibly for some other life form…The question arises on the probability of ‘GOD’ races to coexist with their ‘creation’. The word GOD is merely for effect so I dont have to type in ‘sentient beings, result of evolution and susceptible to natural selection that may have evolved enough
to be able to create/accelerate evolution in another life form’ everywhere. WHY? Coz’ creating life is an attribute often credited to ‘GOD’ in religious context.
I apologise for using the word GOD as there seems to be some kind of fixed definition/copyright on it… I wasnt aware of that…
I suggest readers substitute the word ‘GOD’ in my opening post with ‘sentient beings, result of evolution and susceptible to natural selection that may have evolved enough
to be able to create/accelerate evolution in another life form’
Currently there is no empirical evidence that Humans have been tampered with gentically by another being. So I’d say the probability of your kind of “God” existing is vanishingly small. There is a greater probability that such a “God” or “Gods” exist(s) without having had contact with humans yet.
YEY! A very good answer larry! Well the only problem is you have assumed that we are sentient enough to be able to create/accelerate life. Apart from slime moulds and cloned sheep we havent actually done anything to suggest that and even those examples dont really satisfy the actual condition. What the ‘GOD’ would have to satisfy is be able to understand and create another life form from ground up and even give room for evolution in that life form.
So while we may be ‘GODS’ what is the possibility of similar ‘GODS’ having helped us form. and the bigger question… can they coexist.?? (Not socially but plain pure physically!)
Probability cannot be ascertained. Probability is a practice concerned with sample size, measurement within the sample, and extrapolation from sample to the set of which it is assumed to be a representative sample.
If we assume we have (a) God in (this) Universe, that gets us nowhere. One is not a valid sample size.
Get back to us when you have a couple thousand universes’ “Godness” figures available, and then we’ll see about establishing standard deviation.
Hmm, consider the implications if stepwise regression shows reasonable cause for positing a causal relationship with God as the dependent variable?!
Your definition of god though is unlike every religious notion of God in that you specify “evolution”.
No modern religion I know of claims a God as being a a product of evolution. In fact most would consider the notion heretical.
When the inevitable progress of Life is complete, and every atom in the Dead Universe becomes part of an organic molecule, and Life is One, then God shall exist, as of that moment.
But, being boundless, and unhindered by time or space, God shall always have existed. As of that moment.
It pays to be precise. “May very well happen” makes something out to be a good deal more likely than just a probability of marginally greater than 0.
Unless that amount is 0, in which case it’s not clear if it’s right (in an everyday sense) to call it either finite or infinite.
I’m not sure why no one else brought this up, but your idea of the universe maybe only having enough “energy” to create one life bearing planet seems a little… unsupported. There’s little reason to think that any particular solar system is the way it is because it spent more energy to get there out of a finite universal pool that is somehow all connected.
Or at least, that’s what I think you might be saying. I suggest you try restating your OP in the form of a few simple arguments, because it’s a little confusing exactly what you are suggesting.
“Accelerated evolution” isn’t a very clear concept, but we’ve been affecting the evolution of millions of species forever, be it breeding dogs, generating smog that evolves dark-winged butterflies, taking antibiotics making bacteria evolve resistence.
Is the question you’re trying to ask “What is the chance that some being (presumably a ‘natural’ one) deliberately evolved us so we acheived sapience?”
If so, then imho there’s not enough information, so no real way of assessing the chances.
so that we may all start from some point of agreement and can define and describe what we don’t agree on.
As far as I can tell romeo is only creating his own universe, for his own pleasure, and changing the rules whenever he sees fit to demostrate his correctness.
This is not a great debate. This is mental masturbation.
