Do you believe in higher being?

[ray245]

I'm not saying about Christianity and the creations of earth and mankind here. What I am talking about, is...do you believe in something like 'Q' or gods that some how shaped the universe we live in, some how allowed the big bang to happen instead of it becoming a totally random event.

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being. Reason? We STUDY science, we cannot CREATE science. Or maths for that matter. We learn from things around us, with new discovery changing our VIEW of science, instead of creating new science logic, or destroying things like physics.

How can we be free-thinkers when there are a set of rules or law(whatever you call them) shape our life?

Can you say 1+1=3? No. Why? Because 1+1 simply equals to 2. Why can't we just create our own set of equations and be right?

What exactly is energy? Where does it come out from? Where does it start? Why can't we destroy or create it?

Hence I believe in higher beings than somehow bound us to the way the universe is. Math and science bound us to that. We cannot avoid from them no matter how much we wanted.

What about you guys? I know most people here did not believe in the Christianity god. But do you agree that we are not 'free-thinking' as we thought we are?

[HSRTG]

I have no belief in any god pending quantified (quantifiable?) evidence to the contrary. We might not know why the universe works yet (or we might and I just might not know), but we'll probably figure it out in a few thousand more years (assuming we're not all dead).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

No. There is, of course, the faint probability that some super-advanced civilization in a different universe might've done something with a black hole in their own universe to spawn this one, and there always exists the probability that this is all a simulation taking place in a fantastically sophisticated supercomputer that we cannot yet even concieve of building. But these scenarios have such a low probability of occurence that we can treat the odds as being effectively equal to zero.

And science can't be a "being." It has no consciousness, no purpose. Science just defines a methodology and a set of tools. It can also encompass the data gathered by these tools and methods, but by itself, it's no more alive than a roaring campfire.

There may be intelligences in this universe superior to ours, but they can't be blamed for creating anything that we'd care about, insofar as a sufficiently old and advanced civilization should be capable of constructions that we could observe indirectly. In fact, all evidence suggests that any higher intelligences extant in the universe either don't care much about the goings-on of more primitive life, intentionally leave it alone, for whatever reason, or they can never get here since the speed of travel is likely to be slow, and the costs of travel sufficiently prohibitive that the vast majority of intelligences die out before they can afford to pony up for enough interstellar travel to expand past a few lightyears, let alone tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of lightyears, from their home planets.

[Master of Cards]

I'm not saying about Christianity and the creations of earth and mankind here. What I am talking about, is...do you believe in something like 'Q' or gods that some how shaped the universe we live in, some how allowed the big bang to happen instead of it becoming a totally random event.

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being. Reason? We STUDY science, we cannot CREATE science. Or maths for that matter. We learn from things around us, with new discovery changing our VIEW of science, instead of creating new science logic, or destroying things like physics.

How can we be free-thinkers when there are a set of rules or law(whatever you call them) shape our life?

Can you say 1+1=3? No. Why? Because 1+1 simply equals to 2. Why can't we just create our own set of equations and be right?

What exactly is energy? Where does it come out from? Where does it start? Why can't we destroy or create it?

Hence I believe in higher beings than somehow bound us to the way the universe is. Math and science bound us to that. We cannot avoid from them no matter how much we wanted.

What about you guys? I know most people here did not believe in the Christianity god. But do you agree that we are not 'free-thinking' as we thought we are?

"Oh Scinece!"

[Jew]

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being.

So in a manner of speaking, you worship Science. Yay!

I suggest you study some philosophy. There's lots of good stuff. Maybe start with Descartes.

[Mange]

I can't say I'm 100 % sure (I can't search the entire universe), but no, I don't believe in that. The only thing I'm 100 % (or as near as possible) sure of is that there's no personal Biblical God.

[Bounty]

Hence I believe in higher beings than somehow bound us to the way the universe is. Math and science bound us to that. We cannot avoid from them no matter how much we wanted.

And just like millions before you throughout the ages, you anthropomorphize a concept.

We are not "bound" by maths and science. Scholars have chosen ways to describe the world around them; of course 1+1 will never equal 3, because if it did, the whole purpose of a unified way of describing the natural world would be lost. Math isn't a universal force that humans are "discovering", it's a too designed by humans and used by humans. If I start a mathematical counter-movement that says 1+1 is 3 I'm free to do so, it won't make a lick of difference (well, except that I'll be branded a loon).

How can we be free-thinkers when there are a set of rules or law(whatever you call them) shape our life?

Ask yourself this: is there an alternative to those laws?

I don't believe in higher powers, as such. If someone proved their existence to me I'll happily accept it - I will never say a "higher power" (if left undefined) cannot exist, but for practical purposes they are not something I consider to be real.

[Rye]

I'm not saying about Christianity and the creations of earth and mankind here. What I am talking about, is...do you believe in something like 'Q' or gods that some how shaped the universe we live in, some how allowed the big bang to happen instead of it becoming a totally random event.

No, because all the intelligence we've seen is the direct result of lots of biological evolution. It is an incredibly delicate and complex thing to be even capable of intelligence, the idea that there are beings that are just that complicated without any sort of proper origin is just not realistic. It'd be like saying you believe that the sunset is caused by an incomprehensible and uncreated red my little pony that sheds meta paint that makes photons act that way. Why the hell would intelligence crafting the universe be any more likely than that?

As for the BB being "totally random" I don't think we can assume this. What if the BB had to happen because it couldn't be any other way?

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being.

You mean nature. Nature could be argued to be the ultimate god because it is omnipresent, omnipotent, etc, it's just not totally self aware, it is only self aware in little pockets of biology and potentially machine.

Reason? We STUDY science, we cannot CREATE science.

No, we created science, science is the method of investigating the universe.

Or maths for that matter.

No, we created maths like we created language. Ones and twos didn't exist in some platonic heaven before we discovered them, we conceptualised numbers as part of our language.

How can we be free-thinkers when there are a set of rules or law(whatever you call them) shape our life?

Being prepared to change our minds based on what is the most realistic.

Can you say 1+1=3? No. Why? Because 1+1 simply equals to 2. Why can't we just create our own set of equations and be right?

What exactly is energy?

Energy is a largely conceptual means of describing the behaviours of matter. It has real world predictions.

Where does it come out from? Where does it start? Why can't we destroy or create it?

We can only do things with matter, consequentially, when you use matter, energy is involved. (Note that in this case, I am considering all material phenomena part of the overall matter system.)

Hence I believe in higher beings than somehow bound us to the way the universe is.

Why? We both know nature exists, so how does this universe differ from a totally unconsciously selected natural one? If you can't point out those differences, you cannot conclude that "higher/magical" beings were involved anywhere.

What about you guys? I know most people here did not believe in the Christianity god. But do you agree that we are not 'free-thinking' as we thought we are?

Free thinking allows you to examine any conceivable concept, it doesn't mean unfounded and unrealistic concepts get undue consideration when all they're based on is incredulity and ignorance. Mankind is largely ignorant about the universe, this doesn't make it at all likely that there are non-biological post-sapient enities out there enforcing apparent order on the universe.

[Superman]

I find it more interesting to ask why people seem to have this drive where something HAS to be a "higher being."

[Wicked Pilot]

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being. Reason? We STUDY science, we cannot CREATE science.

We did create science, as our most accurate method of understanding the world around us. Your phrase should read "We STUDY the universe, we cannot CREATE the universe."

If you want to declare the universe some higher being based on our ability to study it, but inability to create it, go right ahead. And when you find some usefullness in classifing it as such get back to me.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find it more interesting to ask why people seem to have this drive where something HAS to be a "higher being."

If some species created our universe on purpose, you can bet your bottom dollar they beat the shit out of us on a great many things. Ergo, they are higher or more enlightened and powerful beings. That's the only definition I've ever seen for "higher being(s)".

[Wicked Pilot]

I find it more interesting to ask why people seem to have this drive where something HAS to be a "higher being."

Not to comment on ray245, since I don't know anything about him personally, but I think in most cases it's to try and fill a void left by a deity after one's deconversion.


Imagine that someone found out the leprechauns don't exist, but still spent many sleepless nights wondering who's putting the gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Superman]

I find it more interesting to ask why people seem to have this drive where something HAS to be a "higher being."

If some species created our universe on purpose, you can bet your bottom dollar they beat the shit out of us on a great many things. Ergo, they are higher or more enlightened and powerful beings. That's the only definition I've ever seen for "higher being(s)".

Agreed.

Even here, though, the poster says that science is his 'higher being.' Why do we have to have a 'higher being' at all? Can't we kind of "grow up" and shed this need for the invisible parent?

[aerius]

Only when I'm puking into a toilet after a drinking binge.

[darthbob88]

Personally, I believe in a higher power for various reasons. On the one hand, I refuse to believe that people are capable of this degree of malice by themselves, and that there must be a God or a Devil urging them on. On the other hand, I choose to believe that there is someone out there, even if it's just the Story, who can get me out of my predicament. On the gripping hand, I believe in Eris Discordia because it gets Fundies' noses out of joint.

[Covenant]

What about you guys? I know most people here did not believe in the Christianity god. But do you agree that we are not 'free-thinking' as we thought we are?

I think we're just as free-thinking as we thought. If we suddenly found out, due to revolutionary scientific breakthroughs, that all of science was wrong... we'd change our perceptions. Thing is, all of science will NOT be wrong, because science isn't built up upon it's own wishful thinking, but on observation and rational experimentation.

There's no element of faith whatsoever. I don't need to believe in Gravity, I can have it demonstrated. If a scientist has a theory, he has to publish proof of it, or everyone will deride him as a quack and his theory as bullshit. Even reasonable theories that end up being right get this treatment until they cough up some real world evidence.

How much of a religion can you have where everything is tested, faith in a theory you cannot prove is derided as delusional fantasy, and only the most truthful elements are the ones given credibility? It's not. It's a fairly ridiculous idea. You can't worship science, no more than you can worship a BLT. There's no way someone could understand science and also worship it.

Things like "How can you be a free thinker when rules govern your life?" are silly word-games. 1+1 doesn't equal three because three means 3 of something. If you have two ones, you don't have a three. You have a two. It's not that way because we have a law, but because we have a language. It's like saying Oranges grow underground. They don't. Saying they do doesn't make you a free-thinker, it just makes you wrong and insane.

Energy, similarly, is not some vague mystical force. There's no higher force. You're using language to assert there is a deeper meaning to the words, when there isn't. Math and science are not gods, they do not ask for our worship and worshipping them would make no sense, from anyone's perspective.

The reason you can't avoid math and science is because you can't avoid reality. If you could take one rock, and put another rock next to it, you have two rocks. That's why math is what it is. Religions are a way of assigning a supernatural explination for physical phenomena. Sciences are a way of creating rational rules to predict physical phenomena. Science doesn't tell us how things act, it just gives us a framework for saying how things have acted in the past. We use it for guessing how things will behave in the future, but unlike faith or religion, scientists don't conform the world around them to their knowledge, they conform their understanding to the world around them.

Science =! Faith

[Darth Wong]

For me, I think science itself can be considered as a higher being. Reason? We STUDY science, we cannot CREATE science. Or maths for that matter. We learn from things around us, with new discovery changing our VIEW of science, instead of creating new science logic, or destroying things like physics.

You are confusing science with reality. We study reality. But we can create or destroy scientific theories.

How can we be free-thinkers when there are a set of rules or law(whatever you call them) shape our life?

Being a free thinker doesn't mean intellectual anarchy. It means that you are not bound by unnecessary rules. Binding yourself by religious dogma is totally unnecessary. Accepting that you can't add 2+2 to get 36 is quite necessary.

Can you say 1+1=3? No. Why? Because 1+1 simply equals to 2. Why can't we just create our own set of equations and be right?

Because numbers are defined that way. You could create your own number system, but then nobody else would understand it. And what would be the point anyway?

What exactly is energy? Where does it come out from? Where does it start? Why can't we destroy or create it?

You know, there's this really cool place where you can go to learn stuff like this. It's called "school".

Hence I believe in higher beings than somehow bound us to the way the universe is. Math and science bound us to that. We cannot avoid from them no matter how much we wanted.

That's fucking retarded. You can't refer to useful methods of thought as if they are discrete "beings".

[Lord of the Abyss]

Certainly not in the sense of something watching over us. If there is a "higher being" behind the universe, I expect it would be some supercivilization in another one that touched off the Big Bang, accidentally or on purpose, for some reason having nothing directly to do with us. Part of some process to extract energy from the vacuum, for example, our universe could just be the equivalent of waste heat; a side effect. Or a version of panspermia; they could be deliberately be creating universes that can support life, but having no access to those universes afterwards.

I find the idea of the universe being manufactured rather cool, but completely lacking in evidence or practical relevance. Fun to speculate about on a message board, but not something I take all that seriously.

[Darth Wong]

Why can't society be considered a "higher being"? It is greater than any one of us. It is more powerful than any one of us. It is organic, constantly growing and changing.

[Superman]

Why can't society be considered a "higher being"? It is greater than any one of us. It is more powerful than any one of us. It is organic, constantly growing and changing.

Or the Earth in its entirety, for that matter.

[Darth Wong]

Why can't society be considered a "higher being"? It is greater than any one of us. It is more powerful than any one of us. It is organic, constantly growing and changing.

Or the Earth in its entirety, for that matter.

The Earth is an inert object. Society, on the other hand, is arguably sentient. It responds to stimuli, reacts, etc. It fits all of the criteria for a "higher being".

[Covenant]

Why can't society be considered a "higher being"? It is greater than any one of us. It is more powerful than any one of us. It is organic, constantly growing and changing.

Or the Earth in its entirety, for that matter.

The Earth is an inert object. Society, on the other hand, is arguably sentient. It responds to stimuli, reacts, etc. It fits all of the criteria for a "higher being".

Is this just a mental exercise?

I'd say society may be a higher being than us in a gestalt 'being'ness sense, but it's not a higher power in the sense that it can create worlds and breathe life into clay or ribs or whatever it is you want to do. Plus, everything a society does is done by individuals, so at some level this higher being is still made of small, constituent elements that have more power over it than it would have alone. I'd say Society is more of a Metaorganism, like a complete Biosphere. Humans are the cells of a society, but a society is a thing which has no independant brain. As higher organisms go, this thing's dumber than an amobea.

[Superman]

Collectively, one could argue that society does have what each individual has, but in a collective form.

[Darth Wong]

Is this just a mental exercise?

No, it's a valid question.

I'd say society may be a higher being than us in a gestalt 'being'ness sense, but it's not a higher power in the sense that it can create worlds and breathe life into clay or ribs or whatever it is you want to do.

Since when does a "higher power" have to be supernatural, never mind world-creating supernatural?

Plus, everything a society does is done by individuals, so at some level this higher being is still made of small, constituent elements that have more power over it than it would have alone.

So? Your thoughts are made up of countless individual neurons firing, and your thoughts can even be altered by tiny chemical changes in that system of neurons, yet you still think of yourself as a discrete thinking being.

I'd say Society is more of a Metaorganism, like a complete Biosphere. Humans are the cells of a society, but a society is a thing which has no independant brain. As higher organisms go, this thing's dumber than an amobea.

Nonsense. No individual human can accomplish what society has accomplished. Take science for example; it relies on cumulative, co-operative work. No individual human, not even the greatest genius who ever lived, could possibly duplicate even a small fraction of it on his own.

[Max]

I believe in myself.