If a God type being really existed, what do you suppose it would be like?

A coke bottle dropped from an airplane.

But I already exist.

I’d like to believe he’d be a loving, merciful, accepting God. If the Old Testsment is accurate, we’re in big trouble because he’s a bit of a dick.

The creepy Egyptian Gods from Stargate SG1. I don’t know what religion I am, I was raised Catholic but I fought my teachers all the way. I am more of a worshiper of the goddess Discord or a Buddhist, new age mix.

A god that’s not vengeful, commanding, and unkind would be great. One who doesn’t encourage killing in his name and isn’t affraid to make his presence known to the world.

I think it would have to be one that is aloof and does not interact with whatever it created. One that neither demands nor requires acknowledgement from its’ creation and is willing to let the chips fall where they may without interference.,

I’ve always imagined she would be like Mother Nature.

As an atheist I would think the god being would not be the psychopathic clown that the Abrahamic religions make him out to be.

This god being, other than the Abrahamic god, would not look so human designed, so obviously human in nature and origin.

Deistically, this god being would something indescribable by humans and certainly not in need of anything humans could offer it.

Fortunately, without evidence this is just idle speculation.

It would really be something if he turned out to be exactly like Rodney Dangerfield.

No disrespect intended. But wouldn’t that be, like…...totally AWESOME ??

Imagine the hype of the royal baby being cast as the next Doctor Who.

whateverrrr

@OneBadApple There would be lots of boobs everywhere…

Exactly what @rojo said. Whether God exists or not is beyond the reach of science and evidence. But whether a deity suspends cause and effect, and answers prayers, and such is completely within the realm of science and evidence. And the fact is there is no deity suspending cause and effect. True, double-blind studies on prayer for healing have shown that there is no correlation with recovery times for those who don’t know they are being prayed for, and either no correlation or a negative correlation in recovery times for those who do know about the prayer chain.

Wrong question.

I can describe something that is observable.

I mean, without defined attributes attached to it, the word “god” is meaningless. You might as well ask me to describe a “snarglefrump”.

Posit a god, and I can test the hypothesis on its own merits against available data.

Otherwise, as far as I can see, the universe doesn’t need god.

^^^ Milo here: PM me for description of snarglefrump.

One that hides and does bugger all.
That would at least fit the utter lack of evidence.

A giant pillow with a picture of Xena on it.

Some of you have missed the point of the question. I’m not arguing the existence of a God like being one way or another. I’m requesting you to build your own God, or instead of how you would make a God be, then imagine what one would actually be like if it did indeed exist.

We describe many things that are unobservable, like your day tomorrow, or a Build a Bear, or the results of a diet plan, or a vacation to a place we’ve never been before. If you don’t want to play along, then fine. You have the right to express your lacking imagination.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies K I’ll answer seriously lol. I have a religious mom, who was really hardcore about it when I was a kid, and well since I have no imagination, I pretty much figured that God looked like Jesus did. Some scrawny guy with a beard and long hair, running around wearing a white robe. That satisfied me, so I never questioned it. But dude, I was like, three.

If you ask me now, I’d say that, if God looks like anything that my mind can hack, probably the sky. Not sure where I got that from…probably a Conan movie. :D

My god is the sky, and yours lives under him…:D But yeah. That’s my pick, God probably looks like a blue sky.

Let him know that @gailcalled has his coke bottle.

^^^ No, the deity is the coke bottle.

The Gods Must Be Crazy”:

@gailcalled Don’t be fuckin’ with no hyenas, bro.

That brings up a good discussion of the differences between idols vs gods.

Aren’t idols something that would represent a god? (even if said god looked nothing like the idol it was attributed to?)

Coke bottle it is, but only if sky comes out of it when you open it.

Cuz Coke sucks and it’s what Satan drinks.

@gailcalled I love that movie.

It would also be pretty cool if he didnt rape any virgins, that shit is not cool.

Barack Obama’s cum face with the body of a pigmy hippo with chickenpox.

If there was a god, I believe it lost interest in our universe shortly after the big bang. Isn’t it strange that 5000 years ago, god talked and walked with the inhabitants of earth? We haven’t heard from it since. A real god would have made its presence known for at least once per generation. The idea of faith without proof is repugnant and the height of foolishness.

I didn’t miss the point of the question at all.

I can describe tomorrow because I can use today and yesterday as a basis for comparison.

The word “god” is a place holder. You must define it further before it holds meaning. Is God the omnipotent sky-father of the Abrahamic mythos, or the relatively unimportant courier Hermes of Greek mythos? Or perhaps Charles Manson really is the second coming of the Christ, and God is an old man rotting in a jail cell.

Some gods do big things, like creating the universe or assuring the sun rises tomorrow. Other gods have much smaller bailiwicks, like guarding
human heroes on the battlefield.

If a god existed, what would it be like? Fuck if I know. It’s not because I lack imagination, it’s because the question isn’t about imagination, it’s directly tied in to plausibility.

The “make up a God” game is fun. I’m a big fan of Ralph, the Egyptian god of Bowling, who directs the path of his followers by pointing a fried chicken drumstick. But that’s not the question at hand.

If god exists what is it like? Unobservable, unconcerned, and unnecessary. That is my answer.

@Symbeline Some scrawny guy with a beard and long hair, running around wearing a white robe
You take that back! [TW: Super duper NSFW]

@Seek_Kolinahr “I can describe tomorrow because I can use today and yesterday as a basis for comparison.”

This is good conversation.

To describe a God-being, you can use your fascination with ancient lore as a basis for comparison. Some might use sci-fi. Some might use Einstein’s impersonal god that doesn’t play dice. Some, like myself, use the principles of The Word (linguistic) style comparisons described by Bhartrihari, the Bible, and the Tao.

As well, can you prove that tomorrow will exist any more than you can prove yesterday existed? Certainly look around, and infer their existence. But you cannot point to a tomorrow or yesterday that actually does exist in any observable space/time manifold.

You may have family movies which apparently prove the existence of yesterday? Those,
according to Dawkins, could easily have just leapt into existence by pure chaotic chance… just as he claims Paley’s Watch could have. Your personal experience on making an iPhone movie is no more valid than someone else’s personal experience of Alien abduction. You offer data as proof. They offer trauma as proof. According to some, either one could arise by blind chaotic chance.

@Ron_C “Isn’t it strange that 5000 years ago, god talked and walked with the inhabitants of earth? We haven’t heard from it since.”

Those gods (supposedly) walked and talked with a few folks, but not everyone on the planet. And I don’t think it’s so much a matter of god walking with humans, as much as it is a few humans choosing to walk with god. Slight difference.

Some would claim they hear from god every day. Possibly the one thing that Jim Jones and Mother Teresa could agree upon.

The fact that there are thousands of gods worshiped throughout human culture and nearly that many invented in science fiction and fantasy novels, and that these deities are so varied in their attributes, bailiwicks, and expectations renders comparison useless.

If all you took from my last post is that god is like yesterday because we can’t prove yesterday happened, I’m ending this conversation now.

Also, Dawkins did not say it would be easy for the watch to form itself by pure chance. He does put a numerical probability on several things that are for all intents and purposes impossible, and then goes to great lengths to illustrate just how improbable they are, and then to mention that this downright laughable improbability is still immeasurably more probable than “god did it”.

(The Blind Watchmaker. 1988, I believe.)

If it’s “immeasurably more probable”, then the probability cannot be measured.

No problem. It’s a thought, an opinion. They cannot be measured. With a position like Dawkins takes, he unwittingly places himself smack in the middle of all other immeasurable opinions.

@Michael_Huntington Fuck did I ever laugh lol.

Real, you can’t measure the probability of “god did it” without the existence of a god in question. Since none of the world’s posited gods have so far been proven to exist and be interested in making watches, the probability figures cannot be accurately tabulated.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies did you ever hear the theory that the bridge between the two halves of the brain has only been in existence for about 5000 years? That is about the same time as god quit talking to people. That is when people understood that most of the god talk was in their own heads.

I find that much more interesting than the religious myths.

That’s an interesting theory @Ron_C. I’d like to hear more about it. Reminds me a bit of Terrence McKenna’s rap on psilocybin mushrooms being responsible for human consciousness, as we know it today. As the story goes, 30,000 years ago, (give or take a few millennia) the monkeys left the trees due to environmental pressures. The easiest food source is the large round mushroom patties. Tripping, the monkeys experienced increased visual acuity, stronger sex drive, and… wait for it… they heard the voice of the psychedelic shroom speak to them.

As the bible says, their eyes were opened to see as God sees. Doesn’t take much to posit the psych shroom event upon Adam and Eve realizing they were naked. Some might suggest this event, as the moment which extended phenomenal language descriptions were created. The monkey could now observe any object, and associate it with a name (image/object relationship). They go beyond simple communication between monkeys, and now embrace abstract associations for any observable phenomenon. Basically, it may have been the beginning of language as we know it today.

There are more details, but you get the idea. Adam and Eve may have been the first schedule 1 drug abusers.
___________

@Seek_Kolinahr We infer the existence of a yesterday based upon observable phenomenon today. Likewise, we infer the existence of a first author (some call it god) based upon the observable phenomenon of today. Science is a game of inference. There can never be proof. All models are wrong, but some are useful.

because adam and eve were real persons.~

That’s a literalist position. I’d doubt very much either one of us believes that. Would be like supporting 7 Day Creationists.

I prefer to entertain the idea that Adam/Eve represent an archetype.

There is no “we”. I don’t posit an author. You do.

Infinite regression. If you posit everything had a cause, then name the cause, the causer must have a cause. But you know this. I’m out.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The most fundamental problem with god did it as the explanation of the bewildering complexity and apparent design we see in nature is that we replace the genesis of what is with the genesis of something we don’t have any evidence for the existence of, but something or someone who, to have designed and brought into existence everything that is; would need to be far more complex than its creation. Who created the creator is the question the god hypothesis begs.

If we say that something as complex as an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the entire Universe and its laws needs no designer or creator, we have simply confounded and amplified the improbability of a windstorm in a junkyard assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. It’s every bit as rational to claim the Universe needed no creator.

I’m always surprised how some can accept an uncaused cause, like the big bang, but cannot fathom an uncaused author.

The reason this surprises me, is that I am an author. We all are. Playing by materialistic rules, if my creation is “something from nothing”, then in fact, an author can be created from nothing. Thus we have evidence to satisfy any materialist concerns that authors can be created from nothing. Thus we cannot claim that a master author needs something to create it.

In this sense, the atheist must concede that the universe has become self aware… sentient. For I am a sentient recombination of the universe. Is the atheist ready to claim the universe is sentient? If so, they give credence to folklore of whispering streams and talking bushes.

^ I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spits a little coffee out, burns lip a touch.

There are magnitudes of difference in complexity between a sapient all powerful superbeing ( and the only known examples of sapience and intelligence in general btw are the result of evolution, thus being not ‘uncaused’) and a primitive, chaotic protouniverse.
Besides, going by String Theory, the Big Bang would likely be caused by a collision of 2 p-branes within an 11 dimensional, ‘eternal’ hyperverse.

Here’s where it gets even worse for the atheist. The ‘eternal’ hyperverse… That would demand the existence of a God-being. For as my potential splits, and yours does too, into infinite possibilities, then one of those possibilities is that one of us achieves ultimate enlightenment, becoming a God-being, to thwart the other who became pure evil being with the power to destroy all reality. Were it not for one @ragingloli God-being having evolved, then my evil twin would have destroyed us all now.

And since the @ragingloli God-being came into existence, it decides (of course), to create another entire ‘eternal’ hyperverse capable of sustaining a life form which will one day question the existence of the @ragingloli God which created it.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Wait… I thought @ragingloli was as close to god that an androgynous demi-human from another planet can get.

@Seek_Kolinahr Playing by purely materialistic rules, IF the big bang is without cause, and it created the universe, and the universe created me, and I am an author, THEN we have precedent that authors do not need a cause. For ultimately, the nothing that didn’t cause the big bang, is the same nothing that didn’t cause me.

It also requires us to accept that the universe, through you and I, has become sentient. If we are nothing more than stardust, then stardust has become self aware.

@talljasperman I have great respect for @ragingloli. I’ll take any chance I get to talk with a God, or even a demi-god.

@ragingloli You may presume that a God-like being would require a magnitude of complexity far beyond an earthly author. But that would be a presumption. There is one religion that teaches God cannot be understood unless viewed with the simple eyes of a child. Your presumption also requires that all other possible realities must conform to the same laws of physics we are currently aware of. It is no secret, that multiverse theory doesn’t demand other universes to share our laws.

Go read the wiki on “big bang”. Your question leads me to believe you have little if any understanding as to what the big bang is.

The big bang is a placeholder word that means “we don’t have a clue”. It’s the one free miracle that science doesn’t like to talk about.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
I base my ‘presumption’ on observation. There is a reason why a worm does not do quantum physics calculations.

A worm doesn’t view mathematics the same as a human. Does anyone suppose a God would?

And with that, I cease following this question.

Go placidly
Amid the noise and waste.
And remember what comfort there may be
In owning a piece thereof.

Avoid quiet and passive persons
Unless you are in need of sleep.

Rotate your tires.

Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
And heed well their advice,
Even though they be turkeys.

Know what to kiss… and when!

Consider that two wrongs never make a right
But that THREE… do.

Wherever possible, put people on hold.

Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.

Remember the Pueblo.

Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate.

Know yourself.
If you need help, call the FBI.

Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you.
That lemon on your left, for instance.

Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.

Fall not in love therefore;
It will stick to your face.

Gracefully surrender the things of youth:
The birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan
And let not the sands of time
Get in your lunch.

Hire people with hooks.

For a good time call 606–4311;
Ask for “Ken.”

Take heart amid the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.

And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

Therefore, make peace with your god
Whatever you conceive him to be
Hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.

With all it’s hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal
The world continues to deteriorate.

GIVE UP!

You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Deteriorata – National Lampoon.

You would do well to memorize this and recite it often.

What do you think the word “singularity” means? @Seek_Kolinahr

Nice one @rojo… ;)

I’m a theist, not religious, and I believe that everything sentient is god. Mind experiences life through us, whether here or in spirit. I believe we exist to experience things, not to worship. I have no way of knowing what this creator is like, but I’m willing to bet from all of the near death experiences and other phenomena I’ve read about that It is probably much more loving and forgiving than the image painted upon It by some religions. These are my current opinions and I’m not stating them as facts.

I’m out too, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. When you just ignore my rebutal and restate your claim, debate ain’t happening.

What did I ignore? Read my comments right under yours. I answered the something from nothing paradigm playing completely by materialistic rules. What part of my reply under yours doesn’t specifically address your comments?

Specifically to your quote @ETpro “If we say that something as complex as an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the entire Universe and its laws needs no designer or creator…”

Why would a creator be held to the same laws it created?

The creator of Scrabble doesn’t live his life by the rules of Scrabble. He lives outside those rules.

As well, there is a consistent theme among atheists that a creator must be infinitely more complex than its creation. But they hold the complexity to laws within the creation.

As Einstein was most fond of the simplest formulas, I suggest the complexity of a real God-being to be as simple as the power of a smile to dispel grief. How will math explain that God?

Frankly, I find it laughable.
Claiming that god is not subject to the rules we know is nothing but a resignation.
It is the same as saying that god is “timeless”, and that he can create a rock to heavy for him to live because he is not bound by the rules of logic.
These are not arguments, they are excuses, because the theist is utterly incapable of rationally defending his beliefs, so he resorts to these cop-outs.

She puts it simply and clearly- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnwww1rsnSo

@ragingloli “Claiming that god is not subject to the rules we know is nothing but a resignation.”

Do you really want to make me argue for a god that is bound by the same laws of physics as we are? Earlier you mentioned the hyperverse. Assuming this theory is valid, do you believe that all other universe are bound by the same laws of physics as our universe?

@ragingloli “It is the same as saying that god is “timeless””

A reasonable attribute for a being which is purported to have created time. That shouldn’t be such a hard swallow since Entanglement research is suggesting both timelessness, and reverse time are plausible. Would you reject infinity math because it represents timelessness?

@ragingloli ”...and that he can create a rock to heavy for him to live because he is not bound by the rules of logic.”

We’re not discussing Superman. A God that creates gravity is not bound by human concepts of weight. A God that creates mass is not bound by human concepts of size. A God that creates chaos and order is not bound by human concepts of logic.

@ragingloli “These are not arguments, they are excuses…”

Don’t cry foul because I won’t let you pick my God for me.

@ragingloli ”...the theist is utterly incapable of rationally defending his beliefs, so he resorts to these cop-outs.”

Is it rational to defend belief in a creator bound to the same rules set upon the creation? Science suggests allowance for suspension and reversal of time. Science suggests allowance for reality beyond our universe. Science suggests allowance for reality beyond our dimensionality. Why would I limit a God-being to less than science allows for?