Singularity as God

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that I don't see any creative intelligence outside this world.

The creative intelligence of man (and woman) can be seen in art and architecture, in music and literature, and in science. Nothing amaze me more than the human achievements.

And I certainly don't see any "spirit", intelligence or otherwise, being involved in the singularity or the formation of the early universe.

That you think can see a (creative) spirit being involved in creation of the universe, is nothing more than wishful thinking.

More logical deduction than wishful thinking. If you see the word 'help' spelled in rocks on a deserted island beach, with no evidence of anyone around.. you know that it's possible the waves could have washed them up that way, but is it the most likely explanation?

 

[gnostic]

More logical deduction than wishful thinking. If you see the word 'help' spelled in rocks on a deserted island beach, with no evidence of anyone around.. you know that it's possible the waves could have washed them up that way, but is it the most likely explanation?

Sure, you can deduce someone has been on the deserted island, and left the sign there. But it is also common sense, to conclude that it was human (or possibly more than one), a man, woman or even child.

I think it would be highly illogical to think it was made by animal who could spell help, or some invisible spirits or gods, don't you think?

And a singularity, the Big Bang or the universe doesn't require that it was some spirits or deities, who were responsible for creating these.

Using deduction is all fine and well, but only if it isn't illogical conclusion or assumption that you.

If you think a god is responsible for the Big Bang, using the deduction, without the need for any evidence to support your assumption or conclusion, something that no one can prove, then I could also deduct that it was pink elephant wearing a tutus.

Anyone can make any wildly silly deduction.

This is why I frequently I'd prefer inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning. You can come closer to the truth with strong evidences, with inductive reasoning.

 

[Thief]

Sure, you can deduce someone has been on the deserted island, and left the sign there. But it is also common sense, to conclude that it was human (or possibly more than one), a man, woman or even child.

I think it would be highly illogical to think it was made by animal who could spell help, or some invisible spirits or gods, don't you think?

And a singularity, the Big Bang or the universe doesn't require that it was some spirits or deities, who were responsible for creating these.

Using deduction is all fine and well, but only if it isn't illogical conclusion or assumption that you.

If you think a god is responsible for the Big Bang, using the deduction, without the need for any evidence to support your assumption or conclusion, something that no one can prove, then I could also deduct that it was pink elephant wearing a tutus.

Anyone can make any wildly silly deduction.

This is why I frequently I'd prefer inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning. You can come closer to the truth with strong evidences, with inductive reasoning.

and this posting requires that you believe substance is 'self' starting and dead material can beget life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

common sense, to conclude that it was human
.

Yes, it's about power of explanation--
the analogy admits absolutely no sign of creative intelligence being present, it merely allows the possibility- right?

Yet it utterly grants you 100% a fully functional random generator fully capable of producing the observed result- even though that's something we have no evidence of re. randomly manufacturing a singularity.

So the analogy is actually heavily biased towards naturalism, yet you still pick creative intelligence- because of it's vastly superior power of explanation. The random wave action - even when granted- is the wild silly assumption here is it not?

 

[paarsurrey]

The obvious question is that if you think the universe is god - why not just call it 'the universe', and avoid all of the unecessary inferences?

What difference does it make to call the universe 'god'?

It is the meaning that matters really not the name. Yet, the name should denote some befitting meaning. Why should Existence be named Universe?
Anybody please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Than why you used the word "Until" ?

Good question.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Singularity would be responsible for everything this universe is. Not a personal god, probably not.


The highest energies were doing things in timeless states. We get caught in time by slowing down and having lower energy frequencies relative to energies at the speed of light. Imagine god so powerful he goes the speed of light standing still.

Who would make the Singularity responsible for anything?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Who would make the Singularity responsible for anything?
Regards

Without the singularity, there would be no universe.

At that time, before the expansion or the Big Bang, the singularity was the universe.

The singularity was a god, as idav have been suggesting. There is no god or there are no gods, until man created religions and these spiritual beings.

 

[idav]

and this posting requires that you believe substance is 'self' starting and dead material can beget life.

The clue is it wasn't a dead planet that begat life.

 

[paarsurrey]

Without the singularity, there would be no universe.

At that time, before the expansion or the Big Bang, the singularity was the universe.

The singularity was a god, as idav have been suggesting. There is no god or there are no gods, until man created religions and these spiritual beings.

Singularity might be an imaginary god of the Atheists. It has got nothing to do with G-d who introduced Himself to humanity in the truthful Religion.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Singularity might be an imaginary god of the Atheists. It has got nothing to do with G-d who introduced Himself to humanity in the truthful Religion.

• I am not an atheist; I'm an agnostic.
• The singularity has nothing to do with atheism. Do not view science with atheism; your utter ignorance and bias are showing.
• Lastly, I had never said that the singularity was god. That was never my view; you must have mistaken someone else's post(s) with mine.

This...

The singularity was a god, as idav have been suggesting.

...is a typo. It should read as "the singularity wasn't a god, as idav have..." My mistake, and it was too late to edit it. Can you understand that I had mistyped "wasn't"?

 

[Thief]

The clue is it wasn't a dead planet that begat life.

It's dead until God says....... 'It's alive!...it's alive!'

 

[gnostic]

and this posting requires that you believe substance is 'self' starting and dead material can beget life.

It's dead until God says....... 'It's alive!...it's alive!'

Oh, that was very funny. *sarcasm*

Again, I would ask you:

What does the singularity have to do with "self" or "life"?
What evidences do you have for god?
​

If there are no evidences, then there no creation by a deity (or deities), because such god or creation is nothing more than blind faith and wishful thinking.

 

[idav]

It's dead until God says....... 'It's alive!...it's alive!'

Apparently not until humans say so. We already know the universe is teaming with energy, nothing is dead in the sense that everything has energy and is animate.

 

[Thief]

Apparently not until humans say so. We already know the universe is teaming with energy, nothing is dead in the sense that everything has energy and is animate.

I've heard this routine too many times.
Just cause it moves....doesn't mean it's alive.

Our previous generations made that error at great length and injury.

Or maybe you would claim to be one of those reincarnated virgins tossed in the volcano god.
Or maybe the tornado that wrecked a line of houses did it on purpose!
Or maybe the ocean got tired of all the villagers on the beach.....tidal wave!
Or maybe the earthquake was 'upset' about 'something'.
or maybe..................................................

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When I look at the Andromeda galaxy through my telescope it's awe-inspiring. But no way does a limited human idea like "God" do it justice.

 

[idav]

I've heard this routine too many times.
Just cause it moves....doesn't mean it's alive.

Our previous generations made that error at great length and injury.

Or maybe you would claim to be one of those reincarnated virgins tossed in the volcano god.
Or maybe the tornado that wrecked a line of houses did it on purpose!
Or maybe the ocean got tired of all the villagers on the beach.....tidal wave!
Or maybe the earthquake was 'upset' about 'something'.
or maybe..................................................

It needs more than to just move as this thread gets into.

What is the line between intent and action with no thought. This universe has intelligence even without humans or it couldnt be spawning lifeforms on "dead" planets. We are evidence intelligence exists not the masters of the universe.

 

[Thief]

Seems to me...thought precedes intent.
Intelligence spawning life forms?.....as in It's Own Image?