Are the Programmers Gods?

[Heyo]

I am still unsure about whether I am an atheist or not because I still suspect that there is a creator.

So I am drift between agnostic and deist. Rather consider me agnostic.

Thank you. I have edited the summary.

 

[RabbiO]

I am still unsure about whether I am an atheist or not because I still suspect that there is a creator.

So I am drift between agnostic and deist. Rather consider me agnostic.

Did I miss a thread or post detailing your move from being a Jehovah’s Witnesss to somewhere on the atheist/agnostic/deist side of the spectrum?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Did I miss a thread or post detailing your move from being a Jehovah’s Witnesss to somewhere on the atheist/agnostic/deist side of the spectrum?

I stopped being a JW last year February, still considered myself a Christian for a while after that and then I became agnostic (atheist? deist? Dunno). I actually did have a few posts on here about it but it was more concerning their doctrine than anything else.

Thanks for noticing

 

[icehorse]

i'm an atheist - 6 on Dawkin's scale

 

[Link]

Heyo, God is defined through a relative word. There is three words that are highly connected in Quran, "God" "Exalted" "Great".

Great is for believers, exalted is for his chosen, and "God" - that is a level of greatness we have to see, that nothing can close enough to God or be near on par with him, to be god.

God means Exalted, but at much higher level than Exalted ones, that the exaltedness of God is on a higher absolute level, that makes for all intended purposes all exalted ones nothing and trivial.

Exalted ones compared to great ones (believers who do good), of course, the believers seem trivial compared to them, exalted ones are MUCH more higher and great then believers. There is no comparison really.

Believers due to their love of God and love of the exalted ones, when compared to disbelievers and two faced people who don't really believe even if they convince themselves or others they do, are of course, incomparable, for God has promised paradise to believers and forgiveness, while hell and wrath to the unbelievers.

The right of exalted ones is linked to God as God is Exalted, God says he Exalted to remind us the rights of the chosen are linked to Him.

And Greatness is linked to the Exalted ones and recognize their position and God's love for them and appreciating them as favors of God to us and submit to their authority and greatness, will yield us to become legends of greatness as well, but never to the level of exalted for that is for his chosen ones.

Yes, you are right in a sense, if for example, God doesn't exist or Exalted ones don't exist, all of a sudden, because it's relative, humans or aliens can be gods because they would be the highest things compared to everything else.

But despite the word being relative, the meaning to mean is quite clear. Now God is in fact not just the highest being to be revered, he is higher still, he is one such that he is a Necessary being that by which all things depend upon and cannot exist without because he is the Living by which life of created doesn't add to the amount of life there is, nor evil of his creatures diminish the goodness there is. He is absolute by which extending his life to others to borrow doesn't diminish any of his treasures nor decrease him in any way.

And where it possible that God creates his equal and begets one with all his traits, there would be no creation, and there would be only Gods on par with him, because he is not greedy and doesn't to be worshiped so that we feed him and increase him, but rather God is the sustainer wanting to sustain us honorably, and his exalted ones, honorably to the extent of powers we cannot even imagine by which they guide and help humans and jinn reach God.

 

[Quintessence]

@Quintessence polytheist don't care not worthy of worship

Not quite.

I pointed out that deification is an attributive process - it is a title humans place upon things they deem worthy of worship. I also pointed out that non-monotheists, making this attribution doesn't necessarily mean you actively worship that deity. I didn't specify if I, personally, would consider such a thing worthy of worship.

But the answer is yes, because I consider everything worthy of worship (all things are divine). However, as a polytheist, I obviously have to prioritize. I am not interested in worshiping this hypothetical abstract programmer of the universe for a variety of reasons, none the least of which is I simply have no need of it. Even less of a need for it than I do the one-god of the Abrahamic religions, who I actually give a passing nod to from time to time as a way of honoring my human ancestors.

 

[Earthtank]

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

This is an enormous waste of time. I can't believe people are even willing to entertain non sense but, there are some people that believe something can come out of nothing

 

[blü 2]

So am I. I suspect they know (maybe unconsciously) very well how severe the problem is and therefore ignore it or refuse to understand it.
But that's armchair psychology. We may never know if we can't get them to talk.

I have asked theists IRL this question and I have asked it on an other channel. The interest in answering was always low, the number of those who didn't understand the question or weren't able to handle the hypothetical was always high and the answers were mixed and the reasons even more. I see this OP as another evidence towards my (Huxleyan) Agnosticism. I don't know what a god is - and neither does anyone else.

For me it has become more a psychological conundrum than a theological. I'd like to hear your hypothesis.

The ideas here aren't original to me. But they start with that observation ─ wherever you find a human culture, it contains some or other kind of divinities, or at the least supernatural beings, spirits, invisible but empowered principles, even Plato's forms, even Platonist views of maths.

So somewhere in evolution, we could well infer, is the proposition that belief in divinities is good for survival. I take it there's no argument that we're tribal creatures (as sports fans and their favored teams testify every minute). In social terms we instinctively want to belong somewhere. On this basis, it's part of tribal solidarity, along with our instincts for respect for authority and loyalty to the group. Thus it's good for a tribe to have a common language, and a shared set of customs, and of stories, heroes, accounts of the world and its phenomena. And between respect for authority and community of worldview, one or more gods is a Swiss army knife to account for what we see and tell our children as explanations. These things are part of our personal sense of identity. (While females feel them too, I wonder if they feel them as strongly, or whether overall they mind switching tribes less keenly than males.)

The alternative would be that it's a (simple, neutral) artifact of intelligence, that the human brain instinctively seeks explanations for phenomena ─ thunder, drought, pestilence, dreams (not least of the dead), &c ─ and also understands chance / luck / good and bad possible outcomes, and imagines / wishes for / really really would like, beneficial outcomes. My own experience of this was driving a cab in my student days, where I noticed that when I had good luck ─ easily compared to, say, a hunter's luck ─ I'd murmur Thanks, TG, where, I also noticed, TG stood for Taxi God. When I say, 'I noticed', I mean that I became conscious of the phenomenon after I'd done it. This may put you in mind of the line which Chesterton attributes to DG Rossetti, "... the worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank." I'm therefore persuaded that gratitude-for-luck is instinctive, ergo evolved. Bart Ehrman makes the same point about himself (as a former believer), but as far as I know doesn't give it an evolutionary context.

 

[rational experiences]

Males in science who have always been the preachers of philosophy say, humans live on modern day Earth after the dinosaurs died, Earth was snap frozen. The gases changed and new animal life emerged. And by information as a status, seeing he gives status to self, claims I am better than all other life forms.

I live as the highest human form after a monkey.

Then does a complete historic study to unearth that life and technology used to exist on Earth a long time ago...and then asks, and how old is man actually.

And he is just one self.

The single self male can say....I am as old as I am today and maybe might live to be 100 years old. Am just my own self, a male and a human who owns 100 years of life.

As a correct science statement.

Then you have a whole lot of other information taught to you to think about.

Such as, if human artefacts are found inside of coal, and deep Earth digs show that humans lived before, and Earth as a body and a mass greatly changed....then you would own other themes as a human being in awareness.

If humans did live a long time ago on Earth and all life destroyed, then where did we come from. For what you theory about today would not own factoring about life before.

And so you would then wonder about what the information of God meant.

Was God an entity in the Universe, which would be non sensical when a male says I am the highest form of consciousness....to be thinking about God.

Which could only ever place God in a lower place than his own self.

For if you want to be rational, if a human being placates that they speak on behalf of any title referencing God, that they have to be practical and be higher than God.

And then have to explain that theme to self....how could a human be higher than a God?

And if that were not a truthful review, then why is it that he applies scientific research to the states of God as entities to by forced want, science and machine, apply reactive changes to the status of God or Gods?

Does not make sense does it.

Now if you say as a natural human, and a spiritual human as I do, I own my life from 2 human being parents who had sex.

You and I both come from sperm and an ovary....and you do not infer to that self history.....then you personally own as a human a problem.

For that is the only place in natural circumstance that you personally came from, as a human and a bio life.

If you do research on a theme God...then it is just science...about what you claim are powers in a created Universe.

If a male in self statement says I am a God my own self, and creates human babies....then he would claim God the human male has sex and then creates human being babies...as the God human.

But you do not make that claim in occult science. You try to infer that some other entity evolved to create a human being life.

For what reason?

If a scientist says it, then a scientist must believe it his own self.

If a spiritual human being says it...then a spiritual human being believes it also...but we own a different story to a male claiming such statements as a cloud image of angel transformed and became human. Or an alien transformed and became a human.

And yet when that bio human being dies....a body is left that looks very much like stone...the God of their science preaching.

And if a male says, a human being bio life is their own beginning, with bio flesh...then our ending is a skeleton of bone like/stone.

As our God self.

So males in science of the occult meaning UFO mass history and alien themes say....a living alien existed first and evolved into a human.

Alien...Satan angel...the Jesus Christ he says...for self.

For surely that belief is not rationally machine science is it....you know metal machine….reaction, I want a resource called Jesus Christ?

You would ask why you think these sorts of thoughts.

Ufo mass metal...alien out of that metal...then satan cloud mass angel images then the image Jesus Christ in the same cloud mass.

Does not make any sort of rational sense to a human attacked and harmed by occult sciences, the state AI...artificial intelligence.

So I learnt as a spiritual healer, I do not believe in your God stories scientist.

As a spiritual human who is informed as a baby by pre lived, human being adult memories.....as proven by many little children who can account in accurate detail having owned the same DNA life before and its memory.

So I learnt from my original spiritual human being parents memory, that they came out as an eternal spiritual being, in eternal, were androgynous. Meaning were the same spirit....were not sexual. Gained their transformation due to their sound spiritual bodies, as each self...to be sexual. So were both human, but of different variations to the body.

What my parents told me about the highest spiritual form of knowledge.

And that God information is less than us.

Now if you were a higher spiritual being and you wanted to be released from being forced to own a lower spiritual form.....then the reasoning was SCIENCE.

And if you knew about stone O the God body and the planet, how did you think you got converted into owning a spirit of bones? And yet still be a bio flesh body if in fact you were a higher spiritual being?

As that living self proof.

And so did a ground fission reaction with the pyramid machine, and it converted your pre owned living spirit into a changed bio life form.

Seeing we always said our own God human male self did it.

And then in that cause.....spiritual being male invented the machine, encoded the atmospheric body with your own higher memory, that you hear speaking to you everyday since.

And then claim that one day that spiritual presence, that you encoded in the atmosphere, as a vision, that took water mass away from your own life body, would give it back to you.

Would make common sense as a story...as compared to some male today in a bio life trying to tell me that I came out of a UFO metallic mass as a metal alien spirit.

 

[Heyo]

The ideas here aren't original to me. But they start with that observation ─ wherever you find a human culture, it contains some or other kind of divinities, or at the least supernatural beings, spirits, invisible but empowered principles, even Plato's forms, even Platonist views of maths.

I wouldn't call the Platonic ideals divinities and there is a tribe in the Amazon forest that doesn't seem to have a concept of gods, but I agree that the vast majority of societies are somewhat religious.

So somewhere in evolution, we could well infer, is the proposition that belief in divinities is good for survival. I take it there's no argument that we're tribal creatures (as sports fans and their favored teams testify every minute). In social terms we instinctively want to belong somewhere. On this basis, it's part of tribal solidarity, along with our instincts for respect for authority and loyalty to the group. Thus it's good for a tribe to have a common language, and a shared set of customs, and of stories, heroes, accounts of the world and its phenomena. And between respect for authority and community of worldview, one or more gods is a Swiss army knife to account for what we see and tell our children as explanations. These things are part of our personal sense of identity.

Yep. Add to this our propensity to seek patterns and sometimes find them also they aren't really there and the survival benefit that those category I errors have over category II errors (not detecting patterns that are there) and you have a strong evolutionary pressure for religious behavior.

(While females feel them too, I wonder if they feel them as strongly, or whether overall they mind switching tribes less keenly than males.)

Mitochondrial DNA testing seems to indicate that migration is driven by women. While men are more adventurous, they tend to come back. Women who go away are more likely to stay away.

The alternative would be that it's a (simple, neutral) artifact of intelligence, that the human brain instinctively seeks explanations for phenomena ─ thunder, drought, pestilence, dreams (not least of the dead), &c ─ and also understands chance / luck / good and bad possible outcomes, and imagines / wishes for / really really would like, beneficial outcomes. My own experience of this was driving a cab in my student days, where I noticed that when I had good luck ─ easily compared to, say, a hunter's luck ─ I'd murmur Thanks, TG, where, I also noticed, TG stood for Taxi God. When I say, 'I noticed', I mean that I became conscious of the phenomenon after I'd done it. This may put you in mind of the line which Chesterton attributes to DG Rossetti, "... the worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank." I'm therefore persuaded that gratitude-for-luck is instinctive, ergo evolved. Bart Ehrman makes the same point about himself (as a former believer), but as far as I know doesn't give it an evolutionary context.

That raises the question how atheism developed. There must be a counter force to religiosity or we would all be theists. One possibility would be a mutation. I may have that one. I can't remember ever believing in any gods or Santa, the Easter bunny or other magical creatures.

 

[rational experiences]

I wouldn't call the Platonic ideals divinities and there is a tribe in the Amazon forest that doesn't seem to have a concept of gods, but I agree that the vast majority of societies are somewhat religious.

Yep. Add to this our propensity to seek patterns and sometimes find them also they aren't really there and the survival benefit that those category I errors have over category II errors (not detecting patterns that are there) and you have a strong evolutionary pressure for religious behavior.

Mitochondrial DNA testing seems to indicate that migration is driven by women. While men are more adventurous, they tend to come back. Women who go away are more likely to stay away.

That raises the question how atheism developed. There must be a counter force to religiosity or we would all be theists. One possibility would be a mutation. I may have that one. I can't remember ever believing in any gods or Santa, the Easter bunny or other magical creatures.

When a human who is equal to being human observes another human, do you not infer self superiority in that status?

How a human in that status gave self a status of superiority, when it is falsely implied.

If you observed another human who is sick, then you would study why that human was sick...and then infer reasonable explanations about it....to how you would assist that human.

What does an irrational occult science that theories for reactions and machines infer medical science conditions to our life for that machine?

Unless his original male intention as that machine owner, as Stephen Hawkings inferred was to replace the human life with that machine and its reaction?

 

[Heyo]

When a human who is equal to being human observes another human, do you not infer self superiority in that status?

How a human in that status gave self a status of superiority, when it is falsely implied.

If you observed another human who is sick, then you would study why that human was sick...and then infer reasonable explanations about it....to how you would assist that human.

What does an irrational occult science that theories for reactions and machines infer medical science conditions to our life for that machine?

Unless his original male intention as that machine owner, as Stephen Hawkings inferred was to replace the human life with that machine and its reaction?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you. I guess you are using a translation service? I'm not a native speaker myself and grammatically nonsensical sentences confuse me. I can't deduce meaning from your language. It might help to know your native tongue. And it might help if you try another translation service.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you. I guess you are using a translation service? I'm not a native speaker myself and grammatically nonsensical sentences confuse me. I can't deduce meaning from your language. It might help to know your native tongue. And it might help if you try another translation service.

A human looks at another human, the 2 interactive study conditions, says EQUAL.

Yet the studier gives the human DATA or symbolic inferred reasoning, that the WHOLE self does not own...if you are claiming the language of life is non transferrable or does not translate.

If that is what you are asking AI through my psyche/consciousness...in science studies!

A healer in their spiritual life, reviews the natural form/image of a human to make comments about their body and does not falsify a strange and wrong language as given to science for sciences own reasoning.

Which first says I will study it to understand it, as to where it came from...and it never came from anywhere. It is only owned in the body living with you.

If none of the living bodies existed, then science would have no discussion......being relative to being truthful, which science is not.

medical science was determined for medical reasons, not for occult atmospheric radiation falsification.

When science says...I want a machine reaction.

The machine gets built and reacts in the natural atmospheric mass that a bio Nature lives with.

I want my machine to have precedence over the Nature....so says ideas...what if I could channel radiation through the bio life form to a machine...by knowing.

First of all a bio life does not own a metal body, as the machine does.
Secondly the bio life lives naturally in those gases....a machine mass ended with GOD mass in out of space....so does not own the atmospheric gases at all.

What you always were taught.

So if a scientist says to self and congratulates self on a wisdom that is fake.....I can pass the natural amount of radiation through the bio cell....then we would already be living with that mass passing through a bio life. And as we are not any machine it would own no effect if you claimed intelligence and said you were copying.

Which is what science first falsifies....says I am copying, but your intention was never to copy life creation, it was to copy its destruction....for it was a machine reaction that you are researching for....not bio life creation.

So first you have to coerce the group mentality and coerce reasoning to be allowed to do the experiments.

Why Stephen Hawking in his science knowledge aware of what you were doing advised you not to do it.

 

[blü 2]

I wouldn't call the Platonic ideals divinities

True ─ but they're immaterial dreams of perfection, essentially existing supernaturally.

and there is a tribe in the Amazon forest that doesn't seem to have a concept of gods

Even they don't quite live up to their billing. Wikipedia says:

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god, and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made. However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people. Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.​

Yep. Add to this our propensity to seek patterns and sometimes find them also they aren't really there and the survival benefit that those category I errors have over category II errors (not detecting patterns that are there) and you have a strong evolutionary pressure for religious behavior.

Good point.

Mitochondrial DNA testing seems to indicate that migration is driven by women. While men are more adventurous, they tend to come back. Women who go away are more likely to stay away.

Interesting. I'd be interested to read more of that, if you have a link or the like.

That raises the question how atheism developed. There must be a counter force to religiosity or we would all be theists. One possibility would be a mutation. I may have that one. I can't remember ever believing in any gods or Santa, the Easter bunny or other magical creatures.

My guess is that there have always been people more skeptical about the gods than their peers. Psalm 14, which is of uncertain date but perhaps of the Babylonian captivity 6th century BCE, declares that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God', the same century as Xenophanes in Greece who thought the anthropomorphic gods of his region were nonsense.

While I learnt early that Santa=parents, I'm still a fan of Christmas (in the name of universal goodwill, the tribal assembly, exchange of gifts, excesses of food and drink &c). And my relationship with the divine isn't totally pure, more an evolution. And whether or not it's better to travel than to arrive, I still may learn something ─ often enough a process that starts with a question to which I have no ready answer.