Originally posted by: Spammer.
Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?
First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.
I stumbled upon this debate very late , but ah.. the way the topic maker has worded it, I simply had to respond.
Since I haven't had the time to go through all the responses here,(and I am most certainly a metaphysics illiterate) I will limit to arguing against exactly the point raised by the tm. And I will keep it short.
I'll let alone the concept of omnipotence and immortality, since these are among the innumerable concepts which we have not been able to be successfully unraveled or understood beyond their very obvious meanings (and thus have been bestowed a degree of awe and reverence of sorts), and thus bear just about as much relevance to the definition of God as everything known about Nature does. Which is not to mean that I do or do not believe in God. That is again irrelevant.
What is relevant though is your question that if someone can gain the full understanding of what this universe is, and how it relates and operates for each unique conscious, then can that person can be called God or, atleast the God of Creation ,if only by strict definition?
No. No he cannot be. How can he? How can a person be called a God of creation if all he does is simply have the capability to reverse engineer creation? It would say a lot about his intellect, he would be far above all mortals, yes, and even work on an entirely different plane that us all, but how does that qualify him to be called God? Even if he were to recreate it all in a self sustained replica, that is all iot would be- a replica. A reproduction.
You can call him a genius, a saint,depending on how your definition for those go, but he cannot equal the God of creation!
For a person, an engineer, an artist, to reach so far, so exalted a title, it would have to be an original idea from him , as original, profound, self-replicating-yet unique self-sustaining and deceptively simple as life. His universe will have to function on its own unique set of laws, and not on those which govern ours.
How can mere programs written or mysteries solved, or imaginations wielded with only the elements known in this world afford a man a stature that is beyond it? The new universe would have to be as elemental as this one. Its weaknesses should be unknown and unimaginable to us all, and its strengths just as confounding .
It has been ages, eons since we have existed and we have been battling the same questions. It commands an enormous respect, reaching the answers, no doubt, but those who answered aren't the ones who inspired those questions. And that is where A new God has to begin.
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
