Our role in "God"

[Jew]

In my opinion, I perceive God to be the culmination of the universe. The "Big Bang," that great expansion of energy that created the universe, resulted in our "being," and we, as beings, are in the act of "becoming." The process of becoming is the development of our understanding of our role within the universe and how we should interact in our microcosmic world (Earth). The life we live is mostly based on what we create in our universe (on this planet) and we, as newly established "creators," are attempting to follow in footsteps of "God" in our act of creation.

Through this establishment, we in turn are becoming God-like, not in a egotistical sense but rather, we are beginning to understand that there is an order to the universe and as we begin to understand its functionality, we too can grow within it. We call this process "evolution."

As we evolve, our functionality increases and our mechanisms grow. Our expansion is exponential, and the more we expand the more condensed we become. This synergized-movement could be called "globalization," which has been largely perpetuated by the arrival of the internet.

We, as social creatures, strive for camaraderie, and I believe that this drive to connect with others functions in the exact same way that the elements bond together. There are positives (+) and negatives (-) and they can be seen within our world in a Newtonian sense ("every action has an equal and opposing reaction"). Gravity functions in this way, there is good vs. evil, light and darkness, supernovas and black holes etc... the order of the universe is the same on each and every level and this balance is necessary in order to form the super being ("uubermensch" as Nietzsche would say).

The only way to create though is through the process of "chaos" (destruction is the form of creation). As we experience chaos within our world (wars, famine, disease etc...) we grow technologically, medically etc...the big bang was a massive form of creation, and we can view this initial act as pregnancy. The sperm that penetrates the egg eventually results in birth, and birth is the formation of a being, and the cells of this being are in the act of becoming.

After this being dies its cells decompose and these very cells transform ("matter cannot be destroyed, only rearranged") to form something else within that universe (birth and death, destruction and creation). This process is cyclical and infinite, just like the universe, and we beings are merely a part of that cycle, fulfilling our roles within the universe.


I should write more to full explain the concept but I'm tired of typing. Please provide your views on the matter, contest it, support it, whatever you'd like. I'm interested in hearing your views.

Cheers

 

[Herman Li]

I'm very interested to hear more of your opinion on this. I believe consciousness is simply ourselves as god, experiencing itself.

 

[Jew]

I agree with you Herman, would you like to expand on that?

 

[Emperor Nero]

I feel like you are pushing this argument in a psuedo-scientific way by presenting it with scientific terms. Evolution isn't becoming God-like and understanding the balance of the universe; it is simply adapting to environments through mutations of species. You're making a very illogical argument by trying to reconcile an immense and illogical concept like God in a logical way by trying to pair it with scientific concepts. I kind of see this as a sort of scientific name dropping, in my personal opinion.

 

[Jew]

Nero, you clearly haven't studied philosophy or understand the study of etymology. If you want me to take your comments seriously please try to learn the basic concepts of philosophy first. Can anyone actually provide a counter-argument or present an alternative view? I'm interested in hearing your own views, not regurgitated textbook definitions.

 

[Emperor Nero]

You're trying to put together a lackluster argument based on half facts. That is my opinion. I have studied philosophy, but here you are just trying to make an illogical argument and not a philosophical argument. There is a difference between philosophy and pseudoscience and what you have here is an example of pseudoscience. You are trying to force scientific theory into a religious/philosophic mold by trying to piece together bits and pieces of theory . The base of you of your argument is flawed because I feel they lack any real foundation in philosophy or science. What are you trying to argue? That God is everything? You jump around and never really focus on anything to build a complete argument. You have cast a broad net and are trying to pull things together from everywhere, you jump from Good Vs. Evil to black holes and super novas with no real reason of juxtaposition.

'A casual stroll through the lunatics asylum proves that faith means nothing.' As Nietzsche would also say.

It is my philosophy and opinion that everything is based on sets of logical facts that all can be proven mathematically if given enough time. Good and evil are subjective and life is measured in moral shades of grey. This is just a brief overview.

And studying word origin is one of my favorite things to do.

I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I am just saying the argument you present is weak at best.

 

[Jew]

I'll contemplate fleshing it out then, the information is there but perhaps the transitions aren't as evident.

I agree with your philosophical view though.

 

[kragon]

Nero, you clearly haven't studied philosophy or understand the study of etymology. If you want me to take your comments seriously please try to learn the basic concepts of philosophy first. Can anyone actually provide a counter-argument or present an alternative view? I'm interested in hearing your own views, not regurgitated textbook definitions.

Funny how you talk about the basics of philosophy yet you write at least 2 falacies in your post. What Nero said is actually correct, and logically correct, and it is the only counter argument needed "against" the OP. Also thanks to him, for not making me write that down, which I would, and not ebcause it is something "defined in a book" but rather because in 7bilion people of course there are similar thoughts and as I did, maybe Nero got to that conclusion himself.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Since I am a pantheist, I agree with your views for the most part, but I feel as though you have not made the interpretation of God as clear as you should have. I'm also not sure how much I agree on the evolution part of your argument, but I like how you point out how the universe recycles everything. That's a central part of my beliefs, I enjoy the fact that I am the result of natural processes, not limited to evolution. Nearly every atom in my body was fused inside of a star and then ejected into the vast emptiness of space until it eventually became me.

Nero, I feel like you might understand what he's trying to say better if you looked a bit into pantheism. It is essentially the belief that the universe and God are identical. However, it is not God in the sense that most of us think when we hear the word. In fact, many pantheists shy away from the use of the word God in relation to their beliefs because of the misinterpretation. The pantheistic God is not a personal, anthropomorphic, or creator God. It's not a God you worship, God is basically synonymous with nature in this sense.

It's like when Stephen Hawking said that a unified theory of everything would allow us to "know the mind of God". He did not mean that we would understand how were were created/who created us, he basically meant that we would understand the universe fully.

I like to think of it not as a scientific explanation, but more or less a way of understanding our relation to the universe at large.

 

[Dilly_Picky]

Let us note that before I say anything else that what ANY of us say, in hindsight will always be flawed in some way shape or form from any perspective of though. There is no reason for intellectual insults towards anyone because of their word choice or ideals, which is common in something for all.

[Non believer Perspective]

I have studied philosophy in multiple courses through college, I am not majoring or specializing in the concentration of study but I feel I could weigh in on what the Jew is trying to say here. Like he said, the information is there but the punchline is not really included. So ill take a stab at what he meant, because I agree on most of it.

This, "God" is a term that is used widely in different religions, but even people who do not believe in a "God" in some real tangible form still use the term "God" (occasionally) in the sense of an idea.

Now some will start raging saying "blah im athiest, i have removed god from my vocabulary" and thats fine. But even if you do not use the phrasing "God", there is still this grand idea of 'God'. But what is this idea? This idea, or even better said 'this image' of god is someone who created the universe which we exist in. This god gave us a set of rules to live by, and he gave us the threat of justice but also the prospect of a prosperous life and afterlife by taking and following his advice.

Whether or not we believe in god, we try to emulate the idea of god just like sons try to emulate their fathers. Why? Because the IDEA (NOT THE REALITY) of god is that he has done and does the following below.

NOTE: This is not the reality of what this imaginary 'god' does, but it is the idea that we perceive even if we know he does not exist

1. Created the world we live in, earth. (Gave us a home)
2. Gave us the tools and resources on earth to prosper (Puts food on the table, Gives us what we need)
3. "Praying" may bring his assistance when in strife (He helps you when you need it)
4. He is righteous and will punish his "children" or "creations", Yet he is also forgiving and will reward his creations for conformity to his rule.
5. He is perfect, and never wrong

Now when we see this list the reader might think, well god is not real so all of those things are not true. But like I said, these things are the idea's we grow up with even if we do not believe. In the end, god is like your father, and you will try to emulate him to the best of your ability in the pursuit of being perfect, infallible and ultimately righteous.

This pursuit of infallibility is the reason why even if you do not believe in god, he is still this ever present idea. He is our conscious, he is our drive for success, so we may have our own "creations" or "children". We will punish our children for their wrongdoings, we will forgive them, and we will reward them. Eventually we will have readied them for their own path to "godlyness" or "fatherlyness" to repeat the cycle.

This is as close to infallibility and righteousness that any human will reach. And this is why "god" is an idea, rather than a real entity.

So, to get to Jew's point. I think he meant, god is this idea, or this human emulation of an idea.

 

[T V]

That was some excellent insight Jew. I always find it really interesting to hear other people's perspectives on creation and existence. The way I see it, anyone's theory is as good as the next; some may make more sense than others, or they may appeal to a larger portion of the population, but in the end the answer is still unknown. I agree with you completely that everything interacts with it's surroundings (it's "universe") in the same fundamental way, thus creating balance.
As they say, "everything small is just a small version of something big".

 

[Emperor Nero]

Since I am a pantheist, I agree with your views for the most part, but I feel as though you have not made the interpretation of God as clear as you should have. I'm also not sure how much I agree on the evolution part of your argument, but I like how you point out how the universe recycles everything. That's a central part of my beliefs, I enjoy the fact that I am the result of natural processes, not limited to evolution. Nearly every atom in my body was fused inside of a star and then ejected into the vast emptiness of space until it eventually became me.

Nero, I feel like you might understand what he's trying to say better if you looked a bit into pantheism. It is essentially the belief that the universe and God are identical. However, it is not God in the sense that most of us think when we hear the word. In fact, many pantheists shy away from the use of the word God in relation to their beliefs because of the misinterpretation. The pantheistic God is not a personal, anthropomorphic, or creator God. It's not a God you worship, God is basically synonymous with nature in this sense.

It's like when Stephen Hawking said that a unified theory of everything would allow us to "know the mind of God". He did not mean that we would understand how were were created/who created us, he basically meant that we would understand the universe fully.

I like to think of it not as a scientific explanation, but more or less a way of understanding our relation to the universe at large.

This makes more sense, but the way the original post is worded it sounds like he was trying to present this as hard facts. I did some reading and it really cleared some things up for me.

I don't exactly agree with it, but everyone is entitled to their own views. Thanks for clearing it Ivy.

 

[Jew]

Since I am a pantheist, I agree with your views for the most part, but I feel as though you have not made the interpretation of God as clear as you should have. I'm also not sure how much I agree on the evolution part of your argument, but I like how you point out how the universe recycles everything. That's a central part of my beliefs, I enjoy the fact that I am the result of natural processes, not limited to evolution. Nearly every atom in my body was fused inside of a star and then ejected into the vast emptiness of space until it eventually became me.

Nero, I feel like you might understand what he's trying to say better if you looked a bit into pantheism. It is essentially the belief that the universe and God are identical. However, it is not God in the sense that most of us think when we hear the word. In fact, many pantheists shy away from the use of the word God in relation to their beliefs because of the misinterpretation. The pantheistic God is not a personal, anthropomorphic, or creator God. It's not a God you worship, God is basically synonymous with nature in this sense.

It's like when Stephen Hawking said that a unified theory of everything would allow us to "know the mind of God". He did not mean that we would understand how were were created/who created us, he basically meant that we would understand the universe fully.

I like to think of it not as a scientific explanation, but more or less a way of understanding our relation to the universe at large.

Thanks for the clarification Ivy, that's exactly what I meant--I didn't realize there was a term for it though!

& Nero, what is your view then? I'm interested to hear it.