CategoriesCasual Discussions Users List Who is Online

The Last Question

5 years ago
The Watchcat
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 32
Cregath said:
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't really have time to write another lengthy message (or just didn't feel like it in some cases, which I probably shouldn't admit ^^).
What I wanted to tell about how I think something can be explained is quite similar, but we probably have a difference in what gains how much weight. What I mean is, if you see something you probably say that there is a scientific explanation, if not, it can be created in time. I on the other hand would say almost the same, except if I can't imagine a scientific explanation, then I will dismiss it as hallucination. Take ghosts for example: if I saw one, I wouldn't be able to imagine an explanation, thus saying that it's not even there and I must be mistaken. Judging from your wording (though I might very well be misunderstanding something) you would accept it, because you saw it and say that there is an explanation somewhere.
Although I agree that the more we think about something the better insight we get, but that's not always the case. Thinking about something that you simply can't comprehend with your current knowledge will just result in headache. The more you think about that thing the less you will understand, because you will notice small details as you think that make you theories useless. For example let's take someone who "controls gravity". You can't fully comprehend how that power works, but you try nonetheless, but then you notice small details like, why doesn't the planet's gravity affect the object anymore? That's just one example and not the best at that, but it should still be fine. Though it is clear that humanity is using this method to advance. Imitating nature and the likes after thinking about them more and more.
Going by these, a God does not exist. It simply can't in my opinion. (I don't mind other people believing as faith usually has a positive effect on their outlook.) I can't explain it, I won't be able to and I can't imagine anyone being able to. A God as you said is unexplainable, omnipotent, so they can do whatever, whenever, however in an instant. First, I can't imagine anything happening instantly. Secondly, I think that everything we are in is inside something bigger and even that is inside something bigger, because if time is infinite, then why wouldn't space be? This means that even this "God" should have it's boundaries, making it impossible for it to be omnipotent. And lastly, if we explained it somehow, wouldn't that collide with the condition of it being "unexplainable"? I think it would, so nothing that we can explain can be a God.
What I meant earlier the "AC being God" is that it is the closest thing to it. It still isn't God, because humans created it, which means that even if it advanced faster than humans can comprehend, they would still be able to in time. They were immortal after all, why wouldn't they be able to? Even if there are a hundred new generations of AC, then if they explain an earlier one, then that can't be God. With infinite time, they are able to explain every generation of it, no matter how long it takes.

I had an interesting thought about the ending. What if "Let there be light" was something different. I mean, what if it wasn't like "that's how God was created", but rather how human culture had an effect on the future even after they went extinct. If in that world the Bible really was just fiction, but the AC took that as the "Handbook to create humanity" and just simply imitated what was in it? This would mean that even the AC didn't know how to revert enthropy in the end, but it knew how to start again from a clean palette and that's why it couldn't do anything until everything was gone. I find this thought quite interesting.

Hello again!

For about dismissing something you cannot explain scientifically:
You have written about ghost. If you would see one, you would dismiss it for example as a hallucination. But are you sure, that saying that you brain just played tricks on you is not a scientific explanation? Or what if someone played a prank on you with a high-tech projector? These are also scientific explanations. So if you hallucinated it, it's also an explanation by saying that your brain is not functioning as you expected, and projected something which is not really there.

Also, thinking about something you cannot comprehend is usually the lack of data. That's why we (or at least, people who has the urge) always learn about new things, in every field, so we could explain things, even if for only ourselves. Also, about gravity. We still cannot even grasp what gravity is it in it's basic principles. We know how it's work, what it does, but we cannot really know what's it's basic components. Of course it would give us a headache. But without thinking about it, we will never know more. Just think about Stephen Hawking. He's researching about gravity in his whole life, and he still cannot completely understands it. But he's know more and more about it, and we can also learn from him, what he already found. And after a lot of people will know about his findings, maybe others later will find a much more advanced theory, or a solution for gravity, or black holes.

Also, about God. First of all, I don't believe in the omnipotent God. In our world, I'm the one everyone calls an atheist, but nevertheless, I also have something I believe in. In this light, you can say that every single individual has her/his own God. As yours for example cannot be a supercomputer, I can very much can accept one. It's also another question what a God can do in your eyes. As in your eyes a God cannot exist, I label someone/something with an extraordineraly amount of data, and solutions a God. In your world, a God cannot be explained. In mine, with enough research and data, can be. Also I never said that a God is omnipotent. They just know way more than the majority. Also, nothing can change in an instant, as we talked about this earlier.
5 years ago
NEET Detective
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 139
Just as you said. It can be someone's joke with the projector as well, but if that's the case, it's still not a ghost. It would just be a simple projected image. If my mind is playing tricks, then it's a hallucination and not a ghost. Sure, they can be considered scientific explanation, but those explanation tell you that it's not a ghost. That's my point.

As for how much we can comprehend: I usually split this into two. The things we can comprehend and the things we can comprehend that we can comprehend them later. Staying with the earlier example, ghost don't belong to either, thus I deem them nonexistent. The same goes for the omnipotent version of God. Gravity belongs to the second group. And everything we have gained enough knowledge about move into the first group. That's how I think it.

As for what I believe is a "God". Well, I already said which ones I don't believe in however, there is something that I do. If we say that something is guiding us, then it can only be the amount of elements in the universe and the way they were connected at the beginning as well as the starting size of it and the direction of forces etc. I will sum these up as starting position. We are where we are, because of these. I don't believe the universe to be infinite, which means that the amount of the smallest units in it are finite. A finite number of things can only connect in a finite number of ways. Which means that in case there are infinite universes, it is certain that there is at least one that is the exact copy of ours. Since by these theories we can confirm it, we can tell that we have no actual "free will". We make decisions according to earlier experiences. If any of them were missing you might've made a completely different decision. Of course, you can say that that's not you, which is true, but for the sake of this explanation let's accept it for now. Let's say that there were minor differences in the starting position. As a result, a smaller extra object hit Earth in the starting phases and cleaned off a mountain. This resulted in an island not appearing on the maps after humanity appeared and not inhabiting it. Without that island the family that moved to someone as a neighbour did not exist. That family would've had a major impact on that someone's life, but since they didn't move there, that someone's life went in a completely different direction. That's a simplified version, but this is what I think.


You have to be signed in to post on the forums.