If we ignore the “omnivax god” then referring to anything as a god is pointless by most people’s definition of the term.
If we, for example, were to learn that some star had gained sentience and could control how it distributes its energy and convinced a planet full of human-like entities to worship it, while it would act like a god it would not be a god. Toss a modern human with advanced technology back to the stone age and he could act like a god as well. Hell, it doesn’t take much for some people to think of something as a god, so a strangely formed lump of rock or tree or volcano would be all that was needed at times.
To use these different definitions of the term god interchangeably just leads to baseless conclusions. Being powerful or attracting worship does not make someone or something a god. Those things are just things like anything else and follow the same laws of the universe.
Absolutely not. If you are ostensibly making this argument under the laws of the physical universe as science currently documents, entities that are all-powerful and all-knowing would contradict basic physics.
I’m not an expert on quantum physics, but why do people believe that quantum theory allows for the possibility of the absurd? Like there is some non-zero probability of air spontaneously turning into gold? I don’t think it works that way.
By “energy” I assume you mean the four primary non-contact forces. Electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as “strong” and “weak nuclear force”) and gravitation. Perhaps including some theoretical or heretoundiscovered forces like “dark energy”. Well the problem is that the ones we know about can’t exist without matter AFAIK. You don’t just have balls of gravity or magnetism with no mass floating around in space. Perhaps one might be able to arrange photons in some sort of self propagating, self sustaining configuration? I can’t imagine how though.
There’s a huge difference between infinity of size and infinity of variety. Even in an infinitely large universe, some things may never occur. Some things will occur an infinite number of times, other things will occur a finite number of times (even once), and some things will never occur. What’s the problem?
I don’t see how this is a valid analogy at all. We know exactly one case of life existing. Therefore we can say with 100% certainty, that it is possible. odds are irrelevant.
Energy or ‘spirit’ beings do not, to our knowledge, exist. not even one sample of such a creature. however, no, that does not preclude it’s existance. I just have no reason, with my limited knowledge, to believe such a thing does exist somewhere in the universe.
Even though I’ve had something like 30 credits of Calculus-level or higher math*, I’ve never heard this expressed this way. Simple, elegant, and neat. Thanks for posting it.
Well, not that that means anything, since lately a couple of Dopers have posted about how stupid they think I am… :rolleyes:
Before this can go on any further it would be helpful if you defined god and spirits. Can god/spirits see into the future? Can they act across distances instantly? Can they violate causality?
If so, then they are violating laws of physics. Your last sentence in the OP is missing a vital piece. The original sentence you have is:
The way it should be written is:
But if the “infinite universe, infinite monkeys, anything can happen so long as it’s does not violate the laws of physics” school of thought is viable, does this provide a valid, scientifically sound (albeit silly and evidence free) basis for spirits?
“In an infinite universe something that has happened once will likely have happened more than once.”
does not imply
“In an infinite universe, something conceivable that we have no knowledge of ever occurring, and in fact, we suspect to be remarkably improbable is likely to have happened.”
Stable (or at least sustained) energy fields are possible without matter
Such energy fields could become sufficiently complex to be considered both “living” and “intelligent”
Such intelligent energy fields meet the definition of gods or spirits
The probability of such fields coming into existence, given the right conditions, is >0
The probability of the right conditions existing somewhere in a random region of time/space is >0
The universe is infinite
The similar assumptions for life arising would be:
Chemical reactions are possible (empirically true)
Such chemical reactions can become sufficiently complex to be considered both “living” and “intelligent” (empirically true
The probability of such chemical reactions coming into existence, given the right conditions, is >0 (empirically true)
The probability of the right conditions existing somewhere in a random region of time/space is >0 (empirically suggested, but not yet conclusive)
The universe is infinite
Mathematically, your claim would be similar to claiming because, given the set of all real numbers is infinite, just because there is sure to be infinite incidences of prime numbers, there must also be infinite numbers of numbers that are both positive and negative at the sametime and that those numbers prove that god exists.
If the universe is in fact infinite, several of the probabilities in the Drake equation could be zero, which makes its conclusion meaningless. For this reason I believe the Drake equation should only be used based on the assumption of a finite universe.
To continue with the analogy of even and odd integers, it is possible for an integer to be positive, even, and prime. Despite the fact that the set of integers is infinite, only one number actually has all three properties. Although there is no uniform probability distribution of the set of integers, it isn’t hard to see that the probability of a “randomly” selected integer being positive, even, and prime is zero.
‘Gods’ aren’t gods, they’re ‘spirits’. ‘Spirits’ aren’t spirits, they’re some kind of electromagnetic remanence or interference. A ‘glitch in the Matrix’, if you will. It’s all semantics really. NB: I have no actual evidence to buttress this. But nor does theology for anything it propounds, so…
So in an infinite universe there must be a God or alternativley we could assume there is no god. Inifity does not suspend logic or include everything by default.
I think the Gods you are speaking of were of human origan not a divine one. People worshipped many things. The Egytians had many gods, and the Pharoh was called a God. Osiris was called God and son of God.It seems in those early days the word God just meant powerful person, not as people think of God today. Even the psalmist called people gods! The idea of god is also eveloution of thought!
We do know that nothing really dies it becomes the atoms etc. that are part of the universe, even wood or paper burned, turns to carbon, I could be wrong but that is my understanding of it.
Not exactly. It means that there will somewhere be an infinite number of Superfluous Parentheses*, with an infinite number of “god like beings”. The godoids in question however being mere artifacts of probability have no stability, and may dissipate at any time; they are no more a stable thing than a long run of sixes when rolling unloaded dice is.
A “God” of this kind has the same problem; there are infinite numbers of “Gods” that will randomly vanish, randomly change behavior. And it has no actual power; any powers it demonstrates are merely a massive collection of coincidences that create the illusion that it is actually doing something. As if someone shot at me and by an incredible chance at just the right moment a meteorite fell from the sky in front of me and intercepted the bullet. That’s not me using Meteorite Control, that’s me getting ridiculously lucky.
And on top of that by nature something like this is effectively irrelevant to us since the chance of such an entity ever appearing in our locale for even a nanosecond is so tiny as to make “astronomically unlikely” grossly overgenerous. I don’t think that a weird theoretical artifact of coincidence that is nearly infinitely unlikely to ever appear in the observable universe is really what most people define a “god” or “spirit” as being.
And I’ve got to say seldom has a username fit an argument so well…
I would tend to agree that in an infinite (and importantly, uniform) universe you would have to assume that everything that is consistent with the universe’s natural laws would have occur, no matter how improbable.
So yes, in an infinite universe you could argue that something like a god or a spirit could exists but you’d first have to define it in such a way that it’s existence is at least possible, at which point it would no longer be a spirit or a god since these are defined as being super-natural. Any likeness to the mythical stuff that we have invented would be purely coincidental.
