Not a God, a creator.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

 

[D'rok]

Charming story. Unfortunately, "feelings" do not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

 

[trvlr2]

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?
"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe, and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Charming story. Unfortunately, "feelings" do not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

They are the only means by which you can tell you love something.

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?

Already?

"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe,

And you know this for a fact? And who said communicating? I implied an initial outside source. Outside this universe may help explain something one day. I think science is coming around to there possibly being more.

and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.

Well... I guess we know where we stand sir. Where was that again? Just a few words, i'll remember.

 

[Whiplash]

Computer, end program!

*looks around*

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

I don't understand why the ability to personally interfere in the lives of their creations would be limited by scale. Suppose I create a nanovirus. Then I create an antivirus for it and introduce one to the other. I have personally interfered in the life cycle of the nanovirus, despite huge differences of scale.

And you know this for a fact? And who said communicating? I implied an initial outside source. Outside this universe may help explain something one day. I think science is coming around to there possibly being more.

If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible.

 

[wollery]

 

[Tricky]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

 

[l0rca]

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?
"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe, and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.

Well, that depends on your definition of "universe". If the universe is considered to be a manifold containing reality, there may be many universes in different dimensional manifolds. Or, the universe could be considered to be "everything," in which your definition and conviction fits. However, if that's so, it leaves room for a new term, of these manifolds, or things similar in expression, which we may find.

I think it's better to talk about the universe as the set of resonant laws that govern our reality, but does not necessarily include existing states which can not interact with our reality. For an umbrella term, it's safer to use "the metaverse".

 

[D'rok]

They are the only means by which you can tell you love something.

Charming sentiment. Unfortunately, "loving something" does not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

 

[D'rok]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

Bravo.

 

[Beerina]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

Yes, but the plan, and its makers, are hardly some kind of flawless, Good entity.

So Bob went down to K-Mart and bought a Build-a-Universe(tm) kit, then hacked it so it could create sentient individuals. Now Bob wants us to "be good" and wishes us well, but really has no control on it other than throwing it in the trash?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Man, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just answer the spirit of the hypothetical.

Yes. If someone did all those things, then the mini-universe would have been created, and the people in it might consider the creator a 'god', but by our standards he wouldn't be.

If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible.

Possible, but probable? Language differences, spectrum differences, scale differences, etc. may preclude communication however 'possible' it may be.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

Indeed.

 

[Beleth]

But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

Unless the box-tweakers' only goal was to slap the box together and see what happened. That is not a plan, and the only purpose would be to be a source of amusement for the box-tweakers.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't understand why the ability to personally interfere in the lives of their creations would be limited by scale. Suppose I create a nanovirus. Then I create an antivirus for it and introduce one to the other. I have personally interfered in the life cycle of the nanovirus, despite huge differences of scale.

I'm saying that you would not be able to direct individual lives, with your own personal whims, like is often said of God.

If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible.

It is, through patterns like math and how we feel.

Charming sentiment. Unfortunately, "loving something" does not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

Yet it is the reason for the enquiry. The "feeling" of an elegant "pattern" that connects everything.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

That is exactly what you have shown they would be wrong about.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Man, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just answer the spirit of the hypothetical.

Yes. If someone did all those things, then the mini-universe would have been created, and the people in it might consider the creator a 'god', but by our standards he wouldn't be.

Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.

 

[D'rok]

Yet it is the reason for the enquiry. The "feeling" of an elegant "pattern" that connects everything.

Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions. A subjective emotional experience is the quintessential flawed premise of an objective enquiry.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions. A subjective emotional experience is the quintessential flawed premise of an objective enquiry.

We are who we are, surrounded by whatever it is. Emotions are the only way to understand that part of us. We are going to have to do the best we can, but we must do.
Mental/emotional energy is what is driving the interactions of life. They break down into well recoginzed "frequencies and polarities" that we have given names like love/hate, negative/positive, etc. They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do. Once the energy conveying their situation reaches us, we access our file on that, and hopefully, we have a good one. That, and act on it right.