The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am

Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.

The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.

Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.

Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.

One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

(A summary, added to the original OP:)

An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?

Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.

The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.

The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.

Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
Last edited by Greylorn Ell on Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:16 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.
Speak for yourself here. Please do not try to speak for me.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
The existence of either one cannot be verified.
Are you sure?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit.
Are you sure?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.
Are you sure?

Some would say that both can very easily be evidenced, and explained, through science.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.
Are you sure?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.
Fair enough, will be interesting to see. However, you would have to support "the beginning" hypothesis first, for me anyway.

If you want to propose an alternative theory for "the beginnings", then do you have any actual evidence that there was in fact a "beginning", in the first place?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
Okay

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm

Age,

Thank you for your comments.

Long ago one of my daughters got a doll that came with a little loop at its plastic navel. Pulling the loop yanked a string, which played a programmed recording that said, "I want my mommy!" This engaged a 2-year old kid's attention span for about 7 yanks of the string.

I'm guessing that modern dolls have replaced the string with a button, battery, and a digitally recorded voice with at least a randomized response to button pushes. You might consider reprogramming your "Are you sure?" tape.

And of course I'm sure. Just like I was sure that as my wife aged, her body would look like that of her classically beautiful mother, and that her mind would prove as intelligent as her rotund father's.

You wrote, "If you want to propose an alternative theory for "the beginnings", then do you have any actual evidence that there was in fact a "beginning", in the first place?"

Of course I do not, but others do. I'm wearing my philosopher's hat here, having retired from the astronomy field long ago.

One requirement for anyone attempting to engage a serious conversation about metaphysical or related subjects is, at the very least, a knowledge of dumbed-down (a.k.a. popular) science. This is readily available via pop-sci magazines and a few horrid documentary channels that waste their time showing up-looking images of a dubious authority figure loudly reading a teleprompter and reiterating nothing of consequence. Wikipedia is a better and more interactive source of information, and is often accurate.

In the absence of personal experience in a hard science field plus ongoing self-education, you might research "expanding universe" and of course, the reasoning behind Big Bang theory. Get yourself up to speed. No more pointless questions, please. Thank you.

Atla
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:26 pm

Just to be annoying :)
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--
There is also a deeper paradigm here: the illogical idea that things had a beginning. You assume it, and the ones you critize also assume it, almost everyone assumes is.
An alternative idea is that spacetime is a closed loop (or something like that, circular), so it's both finite and without a beginning.

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:08 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
theists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept.
The difference between the God Creator and Maintainer of the Universe , and nature, is that the God Creator planned and intended that the universe would happen and also maintains the functioning of the Universe, and nature which does neither plans nor intends.

This difference really matters because the God Creator is usually believed also to have revealed his plans and intentions to mankind, whereas nature did nothing of the sort. The practical effects of God belief are that priests and other elites can and do assert that God revealed such and such and thus the priest elites assume authority over others.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:33 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:26 pm
Just to be annoying :)
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--
There is also a deeper paradigm here: the illogical idea that things had a beginning. You assume it, and the ones you critize also assume it, almost everyone assumes is.
An alternative idea is that spacetime is a closed loop (or something like that, circular), so it's both finite and without a beginning.
Good job at being annoying. You've done your job, so go away for a time long enough to elucidate whatever the fuck you imagine that you're talking about. Then explain it, on a thread of your own please.
G

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:50 am

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:08 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
theists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept.
The difference between the God Creator and Maintainer of the Universe , and nature, is that the God Creator planned and intended that the universe would happen and also maintains the functioning of the Universe, and nature which does neither plans nor intends.

This difference really matters because the God Creator is usually believed also to have revealed his plans and intentions to mankind, whereas nature did nothing of the sort. The practical effects of God belief are that priests and other elites can and do assert that God revealed such and such and thus the priest elites assume authority over others.
Belinda,
I appreciate your comments. I once believed many similar ideas. Then I studied physics.

I won't argue against your beliefs as stated. That's not what this thread is about.

One of the things that this thread is not about is the notion that a gaggle of priests or imams or pinheads professing their theories on the stupid Science Channel know anything whatsoever about the beginnings of the universe and the origin of human consciousness.

Believers like yourself are as ignorant on this subject as are Ph.D cosmologists. None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.

If you wish to obtain an alternative explanation to your own, please stick around this thread and offer insights. Do not offer dogma. I've had a lifetime of that bullshit. Else find a comfortable religious forum and share your programmed beliefs there.

Thank you.
GL

Age
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:58 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
Age,

Thank you for your comments.

Long ago one of my daughters got a doll that came with a little loop at its plastic navel. Pulling the loop yanked a string, which played a programmed recording that said, "I want my mommy!" This engaged a 2-year old kid's attention span for about 7 yanks of the string.

I'm guessing that modern dolls have replaced the string with a button, battery, and a digitally recorded voice with at least a randomized response to button pushes. You might consider reprogramming your "Are you sure?" tape.
All that was asked for was a "yes" or a 'no".

If you do not want to answer the simple question, with a simple answer, then that is fine. Just say so. Saying the above was completely unnecessary.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
And of course I'm sure.
So, you are, of course, SURE that neither God nor the singularity can be explained.

Why are you so SURE of some thing, which infers forever more?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
Just like I was sure that as my wife aged, her body would look like that of her classically beautiful mother, and that her mind would prove as intelligent as her rotund father's.
I am still NOT sure how you can KNOW what will or what will not happen in the future.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
You wrote, "If you want to propose an alternative theory for "the beginnings", then do you have any actual evidence that there was in fact a "beginning", in the first place?"

Of course I do not, but others do.
Who are those 'others'? And, what actual evidence have they obtained that there was an actual "beginning"?

Also, why can you OF COURSE not have any actual evidence, but others can? Surely if others have evidence of some thing, then you could also obtain it, right?

If fact if one human being has actual evidence of some thing, then why can the rest not have access to that evidence also?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
I'm wearing my philosopher's hat here, having retired from the astronomy field long ago.
This does not explain why you can not just point us, here, to where the actual evidence is for there being in fact a "beginning".

Was there no evidence for a "beginning" when you were in the astronomy field, long ago? But there is evidence now?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
One requirement for anyone attempting to engage a serious conversation about metaphysical or related subjects is, at the very least, a knowledge of dumbed-down (a.k.a. popular) science.
Having a knowledge of dumbed-down (popular) science, does NOT even come close to inferring some thing is even remotely close to being a truth. After all, having knowledge that the sun revolved around the earth, which was the dumbed-down (popular) science knowledge, at that time, was NO help at all for any one attempting to engage in a serious conversation about metaphysical or related subjects.

I could imagine that most people here, in this forum, when this is written, would have knowledge of the dumbed-down (popular) science view that there was a "beginning", but just having this (absolutely incorrect?) knowledge is NOT really helpful in any conversation, serious or not. If one wants to start of by saying that there was, in fact, a "beginning", then I, at least, want to see some sort of evidence for this dumbed-down (popular) scientific alleged "beginning".

If one who proposes there is a "beginning" and does NOT want to provide any evidence for this, then that is fine. I will then just listen to what else they want to say, and theorize.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
This is readily available via pop-sci magazines and a few horrid documentary channels that waste their time showing up-looking images of a dubious authority figure loudly reading a teleprompter and reiterating nothing of consequence. Wikipedia is a better and more interactive source of information, and is often accurate.
So you appear to be aware of where the 'accurate' information is, which would obviously hold the evidence, that I am looking for. Would you now care to share where that actual information is?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
In the absence of personal experience in a hard science field plus ongoing self-education, you might research "expanding universe" and of course, the reasoning behind Big Bang theory.
But I already know the reasoning behind the big bang theory. The reasoning behind the big bang theory comes from a human concept about some thing of which they have absolutely no idea about in regards to what actually took place, at that very moment, nor before.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 pm
Get yourself up to speed. No more pointless questions, please. Thank you.
So, are you trying to suggest here that any or all of the above will point me to some actual evidence that there was A "beginning"?

If yes, then surely it would be so easy for you to just link us to some thing, which provides the actual and real evidence for A "beginning".

If you do not want to do this, then feel free to just moving on to propose your alternative theory for "the beginnings" which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional).

surreptitious57
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:23 am

I do not know if there was an actual beginning to this Universe or not so make no knowledge claim regarding this
Physics only goes as far back as the Big Bang and so what happened before that is not known at this point in time
However that question might be capable of producing an answer once a Theory Of Quantum Gravity is discovered

Age
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:23 am
I do not know if there was an actual beginning to this Universe or not so make no knowledge claim regarding this
Okay, so YOU make no claim regarding this.

But are also claiming that what happened before the so called big bang is not known "at this point in time", right? Is this in regards to you, or to any one, or to some thing else?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:23 am
Physics only goes as far back as the Big Bang and so what happened before that is not known at this point in time
To who?

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:23 am
However that question might be capable of producing an answer once a Theory Of Quantum Gravity is discovered
If the question has already been answered, and thus is already KNOWN, by one, then an answer has already been produced.

Also, instead of just making up some "theory" of quantum gravity, what is it exactly that is trying to be discovered and known here?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:04 am

I have no knowledge of anyone knowing what happened before the Big Bang and making any such knowledge public
And I have no knowledge of anyone having a Theory Of Quantum Gravity and making that public so this is all I know

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:43 pm


Those are truly excellent questions Belinda and emphasise all the possible interpretations of human consciousness

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
To speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).

And it immediately poses a dilemma. If an AI is smart enough to convince us that it is 'human', it's also smart enough to fail the test to avoid the human moral panic that will ensue if it actually passed it!

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:05 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?

Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
To speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).

And it immediately poses a dilemma. If an AI is smart enough to convince us that it is 'human', it's also smart enough to fail the test to avoid the human moral panic that will ensue if it actually passed it!
So that's what Greylorn Ell meant.

There is something about Logik's hypothesis that reminds me of chaos theory and how a prediction can skew an effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest