Chadillac

This is a new argument for "God" brought forth by Lincoln Cannon. I find it quite interesting as the more humankind progresses and the more science advances, the more probable this argument seems to be. This is not any Church's doctrine, but just someone's thoughts.

Here is my rough abstract of the argument.


First, we must assume that we will either go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or mankind becoming an advanced civilization is probable. It does not matter how long it will take us to become an advanced civilization, just that it's possible.

If it is possible for us to become an advanced civilization, we must assume that this could have been possible elsewhere in the Universe before we were able to become an advanced civilization. If advanced civilizations do exist, why should we suppose they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Would we not see their communications with us as "magic" or supernatural?

If mankind is able to progress to a point that it could create other worlds and start life on these worlds, could we not assume that our world is another creation from another civilization? If a civilization was able to reach this point, we can assume that this civilization must be benevolent as to not destroy itself before reaching this point. This civilization would probably have many of the attributes that we contribute to God.

Here is a link where you can download the actual argument:

http://transfigurism.org/community/f...entry4740.aspx


Anyways, I just thought it was interesting and wondered if any of you had any thoughts on it.

07BlakBlak

To me that is just as, if not more-so probable than the traditional argument for "God". But I am covered either way:

Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

Strong agnosticism is usually justified on the epistemological grounds that humans can only experience the natural world and thus cannot know about anything which may exist outside it, including deities. One criticism is that this justification is only valid if deities are viewed as exclusively supernatural beings, but to support such a view one must have at least some knowledge of the nature of deities. The agnostic reply is, as the natural world can be explained by science, the defining feature of any deity must be supernatural.

Since strong agnosticism concerns knowledge and not necessarily belief (depending on how "belief" and "knowledge" are defined), it may be reconciled with theism (as in fideism) or weak atheism (as in agnostic atheism). However, it cannot be reconciled with strong atheism, as strong atheism makes a positive assertion that God does not exist, without the possibility that God may exist and just be unknowable.

Haaska

Wouldn't that just be changing the definition of God?

Chadillac

Who's definition of God?

I actually don't see this as contradicting the Bible. It says that God created the Heavens and the earth, but is this creating something out of nothing? Personally, I don't believe so.

If you look at the original Hebrew, instead of created, formed or organized would be a better translation. God took something that already existed and formed it to create the world.

Chadillac

This argument is not to "prove" that God does exist. It just shows that a "God" more advanced and benevolent than us "probably" exists.

07BlakBlak

Why do you guys keep saying I want proof? You still are not getting what it is that I believe. Based on what I believe proof could be all around and we would not know it. My belief is that humans are incapable of confirming God's exhistance in any form you are suggesting due to lack of experience and something to compare it to since humans have never seen God they would not know what God is.

Haaska

Using the same argument, for all I know,

A unicorn with 3 heads that has a machine-type computer (more advanced being than us) implanted in it's head which makes it better, faster, stronger, and wiser than anything that's ever lived, PROBABLY exists.

Chadillac

This argument is based on the assumption that mankind will reach a point that we are able to create worlds like ours before going extinct. The argument goes on to say why a civilization with the attributes we generally attribute to God would be needed for such a civilization.

If you think that a 3-headed unicorn is needed for such a civilization, I would love to hear your case.

Again, if you read the actual argument, it gets much deeper than what I have explained.

Haaska

Well, it is possiblethat we may coexist with horses scientifically, and make them evolve at a faster rate than ours by using science, make them develop uni horns, thus becoming unicorns, and they may use their newly found knowledge and technical advances (as well as brain-development) to change all of their skin pigments to white. Also, they may become civilized, since they have knowledge of civilization (we gave it to them) and create other humanistic worlds. It's very possible, isn't it? I mean, with new advances of science and all. This is of course, all possible, assuming that we do advance in science in such a way that we don't annihilate each other before we realize this action.

Chadillac

I'll give you that it is possible, although quite strange. But you did not argue why this would be likely. Something that the new God argument does. And if you read the article, you'll see why.

Itchytoe

Since I can't log in to actually read the original argument, I'm going to assume you did a good job of paraphrasing it.

There are so many things wrong with it. The original assumption that we will either go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or mankind becoming an advanced civilization is probable, is absurd. (Do I have to point out why?) We have no reason to assume such, but for argument's sake, I'll go ahead and assume it. The second sentence saying that it's possible is completely true. It's possible, but that in no way leads to probable.

"If it is possible for us to become an advanced civilization, we must assume that this could have been possible elsewhere in the Universe before we were able to become an advanced civilization." We don't have to assume that. It doesn't follow from any argument presented nor do I see any reason to assume it. If such a string of advanced civilizations creating other advanced civilizations exists, one civilization necessarily had to be the original civilization. We have no reason to assume that we cannot be that civilization that starts the string, if we assume such a string exists. If you disagree, I beg you to show me why.

"If advanced civilizations do exist, why should we suppose they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Would we not see their communications with us as "magic" or supernatural?" We have a very good reason to suppose they would interact with us in ways slightly more advanced than our current capacities. It's because if they are so more advanced than us and are able to create other worlds and life itself, then they would know what we would be capable of understanding based on our evolution until now. They likely would have gone though a similar evolution and would be able to communicate with us as soon as it is possible. Magic ro supernatural communications? No they'd send us radio waves back because of the ease of use and it's what we would understand. The only plausable explination of why we wouldn't understand their communcation attempts is if we were the second in the seriese of civilization creating civilizations and the first hasn't yet figured things out to be able to tell us so that we can be ready for when the third is ready to hear from us. (Congrats if you understood that)

"If mankind is able to progress to a point that it could create other worlds and start life on these worlds, could we not assume that our world is another creation from another civilization?" We could make such an assumption, but more importantly, do we have reason to? Otherwise, why should we assume such? If only for argument's sake, ok I'll assume it.

"If a civilization was able to reach this point, we can assume that this civilization must be benevolent as to not destroy itself before reaching this point." We can assume that, but we have no reason to. Malevolence does not require self-destruction. Just look at any malevolent entity that exists, like a virus or parasite. They prey on the host until the host is dead, but do not prey on themselves, otherwise, as is evident, they would not exist for long. Why assume the civilization isn't an inteligent and malovelent civilization that is cultivating this planet as well as millions of others as a food source or sport hunting area to fulfil it's own malevolent desire for killing?

"This civilization would probably have many of the attributes that we contribute to God." Most common attributes of God: Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and infalibility. Omnipotence? I see no argument for that anywhere nor do I see any reason to believe such a civilization would have such a quality. Omnibenevolence? Umm, see above paragraph. Infalibility? I see no reason to believe such a civilization would have this quality either. In fact, I do see reason to believe infalibility couldn't be an attribute of any evolving civilization simply because it's not possible to be both changing and infalible.

Maybe it's just me, but everything in that argument seems flawed.

Chadillac

I am trying to condense several pages of arguments to a few paragraphs. I do not pretend to have presented the entire argument, just a few snip-its. I am able to download the argument while not logged in, I'm not sure why you're not able to.

What is the probability that humans evolved from multi-celled life forms? Very small, but we know that it has happened. What is the probability that advanced intelligent beings evolved from humans? Unless you believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, I would imagine that the probability of this is greater than the probability that humans evolved from mulit-celled life forms.


You are correct. However, If the capacity of God (creation of intelligent universes like our own) is possible, with the other countless planets in the Universe, could we not say that we are "probably" not the first to do so?

Or, they would communicate with us through a much simpler way than radio waves... What many people would call prayer. This way, they would be able to start communicating with us much sooner than radio waves.

Yes, again this is a probability. But what is probable?

I believe we can make this assumption by looking at past trends of human destructive capacity. Throughout history, humans have increased in destruction capability exponentially. Anthropologists have suggested that early humans probably first used spears 5 million years ago. 4.5 million years after that, there is evidence of wooden spears made with fire-hardened points. Over 100,000 years after that, humans began making complex blades used as spear points. Roughly 65000 years after that, the bow and arrow emerges. 14,000 years after that is the first confirmed use of gunpowder. And less than a thousand years after that, the first nuclear weapon is used
in war. If we are to extrapolate this into the future, we would find weapons that could destroy the earth for a few dollars.

If a civilization was to reach this point of planetary destroying weapons for a few dollars, their civilization would have to be at least more benevolent than ours. How long do you think our earth would last right now if everyone has this power?

I don't think it matters if they really are omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc... but wether or not they would appear to be so. How many 5-year olds think that their parents are all knowing and perfect? If they were to create our earth and do things beyond our comprehension, wouldn't it appear that they are omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? See above. Infallible? Again, I think they would appear to be so.

Or, a civilization is somehow able to reach the pinnacle of evolution...

RageOn

sweet fancy moses it's to early for such deep thinking!
Thank for giving me something to think about while i'm working in the server room.

audibleforce

So lets assume that we humans do not destroy or get destroyed for 10,000,000 years and we reach a point in our intelligence that we can create new life, worlds, suns, moons, our own galaxies and even our own universes, would that make us God?

It is mentioned on a post here that the Hebrews think that god created everything with something that already existed which I am guessing is energy and matter.

Now lets assume that we even get to a point where we can create matter and energy from nothing, would that make us something higher than God? Or can nothing ever be higher than God? if a civilization is capable of doing all of these things than is God the thing or civilization that did it first?

Chadillac

Would it take that long? With human intelligence growing at an exponential rate, would it be reasonable to think within the next couple of millenia? And with human genetic engineering we may be able to even further speed up this process.

You've always got the question that if God created matter, where did God come from? He just is?

If we're willing to consider the possibility of something having always existed like God, why shouldn't we also be willing to consider the possibility of other things having always existed as well such as matter and energy?

Here's another interesting read on the possibility that life along with matter and energy may have always existed.

The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

And if life has always existed, couldn't we be 100% statistically sure that some super advanced civilization is out there? The mathematical possibility may be almost infinately small, but with infinite time to work with that possibility will occur.


Or, we could just shrug and say, "I don't know."

audibleforce

I personally dont think so but that was just a number I threw out there as an example, but I agree with you, I wouldnt be surprised if it happened within 500 to 1,000 years from now if that. I have not doubts and put no limits to the ability of the human race. We only limit ourselves.

You have point but now we are getting into something that we would be able to physically prove and something we believe in. In the time that our civilization has pondered about the stars, universe and god, we have not been able to prove that god exists or even provide any kind of evidence that god exists. Yet we know that matter and energy does exist because we are it and see it every day. The way matter and energy is configured controls who we are and everything else that is in the universe.

It could be that we havent evolved enough yet to detect the presence of a god, but going by what we know now and assume that again in 10,000,000 we never find any proof that god exists or ever existed and we somehow did prove that matter and energy always existed then would it be logical for such an advanced civilization to continue to believe that a god does exist or existed at some time? or that does that mean that god is matter and energy? which would mean that we are all part of the same thing, the same energy the same matter and there is no actual individual being or entity that we should worship, but just worship life and the universe?

It almost seems like the definition of god is being changed and should I say lost as we learn more about ourselves and our universe.


I am almost sure (how ever much that matters) that there is a civilization out there that is millions of years if not billions of years more advanced than us that we cant even grasp the level of their intelligence. I saw a show a while ago that said that if there is a civilization that is millions of years more intelligent and evolved than us than it is possible that if they try to teach us what they know would be like us trying to teach our dogs how to do Calculus or even Algebra.

cayblood

Incidentally, this paper was presented at the most recent Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City and the audio and slides of the talk were recorded. Apparently the forum software won't accept embedded video, so here is the link:

The New God Argument on Vimeo

I'm enjoying the discussion so far.

Chadillac

Thank you. I didn't realize they had a video of it. Were you able to attend? What were people's reactions to the presentation?

Itchytoe

Humans evolved from multi-celled life forms = 100%
Humans will evolve from every multi-celled life form = infinitely small
Anything evolved from humans = 0% Humans have yet to evolve into another life form
Anything will evolve from humans = infinitely small since we can't gaurentee we will have a need toevolve.
Humans are the only known life form that adapts it's environment to suit it's needs and desires. That makes us infinitely more likely to evolve than all other known life forms assuming all other factors are equal.
We could say it, but we have no evidence of such, so we shouldn't make such assumptions with no evidence.
Assuming that is the capacity of God, it is possible (in that it isn't a logical contradiction), but that coupled with the large number of planets in existance does not lead to the conclusion that we are probably not the first.
Except that prayer isn't communication. It's solitary thought. People who claim to have prayers answered are simply answering the prayers themselves and attributing that to divine intervention. When you think about something the way you do when you pray for it, you keep it in your active and unconcious thoughts and search for the answer at an unconcious level. The signs people find, are just that, things they find because they are searching for them. The answer to your problems poping into your head after prayer is just you unconciously figuring it out, then transfering that solution from your unconcious thought to your active thought so that you can actively use the solution you found. There is no evidence of any kind showing that prayer has any effect of any kind.
I completely disagree. Benevolence has nothing to do with it. It's about inteligence. The use of any such weapon on one's own planet would destroy the purpose of the use making such a weapon useless. Even stupid people know that total destruction isn't a means to any end. Once humans are smart enough to make such weapons, it will be obvious to everyone capable of using one that they shouldn't.
Exactly 0 five year olds think their parents are all knowing and perfect because they lack the understanding of such concepts. Creating planets capable of sustaining life and doing things beyond our comprehension would only appear omnipotent to those who do not fully understand the meaning of omnipotent. Omnibenevolence and infallibility wouldn't be appearant though such actions though.
God isn't said to appear to be those things, he is only said to be those things, meaning that if the world creating life forms would still not fit the bill. Appearance isn't everything.
Nope it wouldn't. That would lead to a logical contradiction and is therefore impossible.
Of course we couldn't be sure of that. The concept that with infinite time all possible things will occur is absurd. It is possible that I will create a weapon that will destroy our solar system. It is also possible that an alien from some other planet will destroy the solar system exactly one minute after I am dead. Obviously even with infinite time, they cannot both happen even though they are both possible.

RageOn

I've solved the issue:

God created man and his mind > science came about by the human mind which was placed there by God > therefore God created science > man uses science because it’s Gods creation > man honors God by using His creation > science up holds faith > faith coincides with science > faith is believing in God

Cards of thanks and money can be sent to me