Cosmic Gods

[Straw Dog]

Hello,

I've decided to open my mind and explore the notion of gods further. I believe that if there's one god then there must be another. This race of gods would've risen through physical and biological processes and transformed socially, culturally, and technologically to a certain omega point in cosmic evolution where they transcended all mortal concerns and entered into an existence of perfect contentment and well-being. I don't believe it'd be appropriate to worship these hyperadvanced entities, but a healthy degree of awe and reverence seems warranted in light of their excellence and self-mastery over countless cosmic cycles. I realize this is speculative, but is it plausible? Do you think cosmic gods could exist?

 

[BSM1]

Check your Genesis. Adam and Eve were denied access to the Tree of Life to keep them from becoming "...Gods (plural) like us".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I wouldn't see much reason for reverence if their content and superior selves have no concern for helping others achieve the same.

 

[jonman122]

I wouldn't see much reason for reverence if their content and superior selves have no concern for helping others achieve the same.

It could be that their understanding of the universe was far beyond ours when they achieved their form of enlightenment and thus immortality or godliness or what have you. It's very likely that if they would exist, they would have laws against helping races that have a lesser understanding of the universe transcend to their level, lest they use the understanding and knowledge they would obtain for nefarious purposes which could now affect things on a galactic scale.

I wouldn't revere them I suppose, but I'd certainly be in awe. I don't think I'd consider them gods though either, just hyper advanced compared to us.

 

[Quintessence]

As a polytheist, I feel like I should reply to this thread, but I really have no idea what to say. The OP is a far cry from what traditional forms of polytheism represent, and it's more of a science fiction speculation than a theological question. In that spirit, I would only say that we humans ought to remember the limits of our understanding and exactly how big the universe is. There is little that is not plausible when we remember that.

 

[Straw Dog]

I wouldn't see much reason for reverence if their content and superior selves have no concern for helping others achieve the same.

Perhaps the process is necessary. Maybe they can't or won't force unnatural transformations. We need to evolve on our own and earn self-mastery rather than it just being handed to us. They don't want to treat us like children.

Granted they're social beings, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have also evolved ethically, culturally, and spiritually along with the technological. Any species that fails to master their own nature would destroy itself long before reaching the omega point.

I call these beings "gods" because they would hypothetically be the most powerful and all-knowing intelligent entities in existence. They would be at the pinnacle of transcendence in every way. Plus, most other modern notions of deity are extremely vague tending to mean everything and nothing at the same time, which I don't find particularly useful.

 

[Straw Dog]

As a polytheist, I feel like I should reply to this thread, but I really have no idea what to say. The OP is a far cry from what traditional forms of polytheism represent, and it's more of a science fiction speculation than a theological question. In that spirit, I would only say that we humans ought to remember the limits of our understanding and exactly how big the universe is. There is little that is not plausible when we remember that.

Quite true.

I know Epicurus proposed material deities in Ancient Greece. I view it as sci-fi meets theology, which is pretty awesome. Keep in mind that some fiction actually foreshadows future realities. When I open my mind and let it wonder about the possibility of gods, I personally conclude that they'd probably be physical deities. I'm a fan of polytheism in general however.

 

[Straw Dog]

Check your Genesis. Adam and Eve were denied access to the Tree of Life to keep them from becoming "...Gods (plural) like us".

Well, I was going to avoid the Ancient Astronaut theory, but...

I don't know. I was thinking these cosmic gods would be so far beyond even extraterrestrials and have little interest in manipulating mortal affairs. They may or may not even be aware of us because they've entered a different plane of experience.

 

[BSM1]

Well, I was going to avoid the Ancient Astronaut theory,

but...

I don't know. I was thinking these cosmic gods would be so far beyond even extraterrestrials and have little interest in manipulating mortal affairs. They may or may not even be aware of us because they've entered a different plane of experience.

I got ya... But if this were the case, what would be the point? Could they still be considered Gods? Would they become just curiosities? Would we be back to religiously contemplating our collective navels?

 

[Sumit]

Hello,

Do you think cosmic gods could exist?

They exists and there are many methods through which you can see them. We call them demigods or devtas.

 

[Straw Dog]

They exists and there are many methods through which you can see them. We call them demigods or devtas.

Neat. Methods like through the imagination?

I'm not so familar with your pantheon, but I would consider demigods to still be at the level of spiritually-advanced ETs. The Gods I envision would've reached the pinnacle of existence such that there could be no greater display of natural excellence. The Universe plays the counterpart by representing the greatest display of natural beauty. Together they create a context for transcendence.

What you might call "Brahman", I would call "primal chaos" and both have different connotations. It might make for an interesting comparison.

 

[Sumit]

Neat. Methods like through the imagination?

No its a whole science of devtas. However these devtas or demigods cannot be compared to god.

 

[Straw Dog]

I got ya... But if this were the case, what would be the point? Could they still be considered Gods? Would they become just curiosities? Would we be back to religiously contemplating our collective navels?

I suppose they would be similar in effect to deism, minus the creator role.

I don't know. I find it soothing and inspiring to contemplate these hypothetical beings. I do thrive off curiosity and creativity so maybe it's not for everybody.

 

[Straw Dog]

No its a whole science of devtas. However these devtas or demigods cannot be compared to god.

Sorry, I never heard of devtas science. Is it a culturally-specific science?

I would say the gods cannot be compared to primal chaos, which is on a level beneath that of distinction-making. Fields of probability bubble up from primal chaos into the human reality and beyond. It's a dynamic and eternal process with endless causes and effects. There's no greater display of natural beauty.

 

[Sumit]

Sorry, I never heard of devtas science. Is it a culturally-specific science?

Yes you can say that because it is about to extinct. Before 1200 to 1500 years ago there was more than 90,000 books related to it. But now only few are left. Also now there are very few people who have knowledge of these fields. I am lucky to meet some of them. But It makes me sad that we are loosing something very precious that was discovered by our ancestors.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes you can say that because it is about to extinct. Before 1200 to 1500 years ago there was more than 90,000 books related to it. But now only few are left. Also now there are very few people who have knowledge of these fields. I am lucky to meet some of them. But It makes me sad that we are loosing something very precious that was discovered by our ancestors.

The loss of certain knowledge can be disheartening, but it can always be re-discovered through similar methods.

Why do you call it science rather than "proto-science"? I find many ancient philosophies of "science" actually fall into this category, which can still be distinct from pseudoscience by recognizing its limitations.

 

[Sumit]

The loss of certain knowledge can be disheartening, but it can always be re-discovered through similar methods.

Why do you call it science rather than "proto-science"? I find many ancient philosophies of "science" actually fall into this category, which can still be distinct from pseudoscience by recognizing its limitations.

Well we call it science because it is practical and not philosophical. You will see results in just your first day. It is called Tantra. It is based on two main factors factors.
1) Mantra= Mantra produces Vibrations.
2)Yantra= It constitute device and rosary used.

 

[Straw Dog]

Well we call it science because it is practical and not philosophical. You will see results in just your first day. It is called Tantra. It is based on two main factors factors.
1) Mantra= Mantra produces Vibrations.
2)Yantra= It constitute device and rosary used.

Interesting. It's starting to sound more like mysticism than science, though. I thought you might present a protoscience more like astrobiology. Tantra does sound like a practical personal discipline, however. Philosophy without a practical application doesn't pay its way over time.

I believe mystical traditions have a lot to offer, but think it's a mistake to confuse them with understanding the modern scientific method and tradition. These are different approaches that often reach different conclusions and ways of understanding reality. I think we should respect those differences and work with them.

 

[Sumit]

but think it's a mistake to confuse them with understanding the modern scientific method and tradition.

I never referred it as as modern science. It's totally different from modern science. Modern science is based on materialism. While this science is based on Aadhyatma.

 

[Straw Dog]

I never referred it as as modern science. It's totally different from modern science. Modern science is based on materialism. While this science is based on Aadhyatma.

I would say modern science started in classic materialism, but evolved its own philosophy along with the method. Physicalism holds that existence consists in much more than just ordinary matter. There's the fundamental forces of nature, wave-particle relationships, dark matter, dark energy, light, non-material forces, etc. I believe that material interactions alone cannot explain existence, but that the physical interactions between subatomic particle/waves, forces, and/or strings may.

Can you hear the One Song?

What is Aadhyatma?