1

Topic: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Main point - whether it is possible to pull out given "object" from area of purely mental perception of the separate person? Believers anyhow materialize "object". For atheists and agnostics to the interesting will approach to given "subject" strictly academically.
For the beginning, determination. "God - incomprehensible as a matter of fact the Higher Controlling Force, a root of all real, existing out of time, space and relocation. It is uncovered exceptional in creations according to level of similarity to this Force of personal properties." "An existence" question I suggest to lower, admitting, proceeding from B.Sulama's announcement "And actually, there is in the world an aspect of comprehension of the Creator as the desire to that does not exist actually does not clear up."
Whether it is possible to define and describe a phenomenon of God in the form of a consistent hypothesis? In my opinion, by this time there is all necessary data to create uniform model of God for all religions without an exception. What hinders it to create? Whether are available whom own model? Unconditionally, it is ready to give for questions and the interested criticism and own, quite to itself consistent.

2

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
Whether It is possible to define and describe a phenomenon of God in the form of a consistent hypothesis
Generally it is easy.
God is a Chaos, is shown in properties of systems. Its force - entropy. It is described by synergetrics and the theory of systems and other .
God is the Universe, is shown in properties of a matter and energy. Its force - interactions and substance conversions. It is described by physics, astronomy and other.
God is Mathematics, is shown in laws of numbers. Its force - interactions of numbers...
Only it concerns more to , than a science for "incomprehensible as a matter of fact"  is not scientific on determination. The science allows to comprehend all.
The item with. I think this subject it is possible to glue here: whether we Live in computer simulation.

3

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

77/99:puke:

4

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

God has many aspects. Purely : Life - casual process. Implementation of casual process - is casual only for its participants. Defining specific values of random variables it is possible to implement any  the scenario... I.e. God (programmer) along with a set of "physical" laws of a reality created also the mechanism which allows to supervise  a row, without making miracles.
About a matrix: Yes, years through 1000 in what  Space Studio any schoolboy on  can create the virtual Universe, selecting from the menu system of consistent laws of the nature, to create there ten another of the worlds occupied unstable, evolving  with "reasonable" beings and to watch process of evolution of consciousness and spirit, technics etc. As for stability system should have back couplings from the future in the past (differently it spaces simply apart) besides nature laws there are also the local "deities" implementing the purposeful scenario of development.
I.e. there Should be certain "DNA" of an organism of Mankind which leads to that it reaches a certain integral state. Here the cellular analogy is pertinent. All cells of a human body live the destiny is a colony of cells. Any cell does not know that such the person though has the target information on its structure, up to some singularities of behavior defining destiny (experiments with twins living separately). Process of formation of an organism from  deckman cells - too some kind of a miracle. I.e. in ourselves, probably, the program of formation of "Mankind" as an organism, but we cannot experience it is put also, yet we do not master mechanisms of self-organizing of systems such as a live organism. Moreover - any cell of the person does not know that the person for what he exists wants - he lives absolutely in other world with other senses. The mankind as an organism - too has the semantic environment which is distinct from level of people until people do not break some barrier.
Realization of can become such barrier, for example, that all laws of the nature are fulfilled on some "computer" and that it is necessary not only to study laws, but also to master the computer that allows to quit on level of God and to start not only to control nature laws, but also to quit on level of "creators" - for limits of the Universe and the computer in which it goes. Well it as virtual "mankind" it would master that computer on which "goes", would start to rewrite programs and to communicate with us not simply as equals, but probably and would teach us how to "break" our computer or it would make, leaving us as the tool creating physical computers in our world.
It is clear that for modeling of the Universes the present quantum supercomputers are necessary...
Adding from 12/4/2016 08:54:
On the other hand, creating the Universe it would be desirable to use model on a maximum, instead of to implement a certain unique scenario. I.e. probability density of the unique scenario ~ 0, hence statistical value of the unique scenario is close to zero. Means for learning of laws it is necessary to launch family of the parallel worlds different  by rows, but corresponding to criteria of stability if we do not set as the purpose learning of the end of the world that deserves separate family of models...

5

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

elcar
Generally it is easy. God is a Chaos, is shown in properties of systems. Its force - entropy. It is described by synergetrics and the theory of systems and other .
God is the organizing beginning, creating of Chaos intelligent forms. Created Chaos elements, sufficient for achievement of quite obvious objects in view. The theory of systems, avenue  and everything, so-called, nature laws - only the tool.
Only it concerns more to , than a science for "incomprehensible as a matter of fact"  is not scientific on determination.
Philosophers have a god. From this that I read is a surprise by secret of Life. They deprive of the god of the right of an original cause. From a science, anybody also does not demand to be engaged in transcendental, it out of its competence. At me to a science only one inescapable claim is a solid confidence, it is similar to a certain form of the dogmatism, stating that the nature is aimless.:down:
oxba1da
God has many aspects. Purely : Life - casual process. Implementation of casual process - is casual only for its participants. Defining specific values of random variables it is possible to implement any  the scenario... I.e. God (programmer) along with a set of "physical" laws of a reality created also the mechanism which allows to supervise  a row, without making miracles.
As a whole, it agree. However, "casual process" has the expressed direction. And time so it is possible and exists the purpose.
That allows to quit on level of God and to start not only to control nature laws, but also to quit on level of "creators" - for limits of the Universe and the computer in which it goes.
:up: Bravo! You catch the main thing. Not in it mission of mankind and its destiny?
On the other hand, creating the Universe it would be desirable to use model on a maximum, instead of to implement a certain unique scenario.
"On the other hand," and this unique scenario it is quite enough. Here you caught a tendency!? The purposes are quite achievable and with the given initial parameters.

6

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
What hinders it to create?
Formalizing god and translating it in a scientific plane, you endanger its scientific method which does not leave to god of chances of existence. Here therefore also do not create:gigi:

7

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
Formalizing god and translating it in a scientific plane, you endanger its scientific method which does not leave to god of chances of existence.
Not in the least. As it is known, to prove a postulate it is impossible within the limits of the theory which is based on it. Attempts to make it fail one for another. We tell, the theory of initial explosion which in the basis has the divine act of creation, besides seems true only to the believers. Despite of helpless attempt of the pseudoscientific proof through Doppler's effect.

8

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

forevic , is liquid throw, a bottom... .

9

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
Liquid
Give more abruptly if is. wink

10

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L :
The Baby bird
What hinders it to create?
Formalizing god and translating it in a scientific plane, you endanger its scientific method which does not leave to god of chances of existence. Here therefore also do not create:gigi:

That hypothesis, it as the sociology or biology hypothesis - does not contradict, and not in a state to contradict a physics hypothesis. For, are not intersected. I yours faithfully concern both a science and to all its achievements, however, it in any way does not contradict a hypothesis of God.

11

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
However, it in any way does not contradict a hypothesis of God.
When you Would write this word from capital letter, it produces the religious Christian side. And such concept of god entered by the bible (as, however, and other religious writing on a planet), cannot be described scientific methods in any way since completely to them contradicts. For the fairy tales of nations of the world created for control and restraint of anarchy , it only fairy tales.
If message speech it is narrower, for example, about the type creator  the sapiens, then already open space wider. wink

12

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

[:mad:]
About the type creator  the sapiens
only one of the created types of live beings

13

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

[:mad:]
When you Would write this word from capital letter, it produces the religious Christian side.
God as the Higher Controlling Force, a root of all real. At what here religion and Christianity, in particular?:eek:
For fairy tales of nations of the world
...Only the occasion to talk about this or that version of model. wink
If message speech it is narrower, for example, about the type creator  the sapiens
It is not necessary to go in cycles in the production technology of people. Whether from red clay, from a tree  - has no value. I quite accept the version that there was a general ancestor with a monkey. The animal was found by new quality and a monkey began to be called as the person. So ?:cool:

14

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

PZ1
  only one of the created types of live beings
But strongly differs from a remaining brain.
The Baby bird
God as the Higher Controlling Force, a root of all real.
Mere verbiage with  letters.
I quite accept the version that there was a general ancestor with a monkey. The animal was found by new quality and a monkey began to be called as the person. So ?
I.e. you about Darvinism?:insane:

15

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
That hypothesis, it as a sociology or biology hypothesis - does not contradict, and not in a state to contradict a physics hypothesis
And at what here physics? And yes, if a certain sociological hypothesis is based on a postulate "people are able to fly and do not feel need for meal" it will contradict evidently to physics so, will not correspond to a reality.
Adding from 12/4/2016 22:43:
The Baby bird
God as the Higher Controlling Force
The science does not need such force as it does not need in .

16

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

"A main point - whether it is possible given
"Object" to pull out from area it is pure
Mental perception of the separate
Persons? Believing anyhow
"Object" materialize. For atheists
And agnostics to the interesting will approach to given "subject" strictly
Academically.
For the beginning, determination. "God -
Incomprehensible as a matter of fact the Higher
Controlling Force, root of all
Real, existing out of time, space and relocation.
It is uncovered exceptional in
Creations according to level
Similarity to this Force of personal properties."
"Existence" question I offer
To lower, admitting, proceeding from B.Sulama's announcement "And actually;
There is in the world an aspect of comprehension
The creator as does not clear up
Desire to that does not exist in
Realities."
Whether it is possible to define and describe a phenomenon of God in a type
Consistent hypothesis? On mine
Sight, by this time
There is all necessary data;
To create uniform model of God
For all religions without an exception. What hinders it to create? Whether are available whom
Own model? Unconditionally;
It is ready to give for questions and
The interested criticism and
Own, quite to itself
The consistent. ".
Generally, in  for a long time already (the horse-radish knows how many centuries or millenia back!? But for especially "loud" and fans to describe "in a correct way" start up will be centuries... To adherents of carry and...) there is an uniting... There is no not a theory, and probably primordially philosophy of all religions. And, generally this question for some reason for contemporaries is not closed till now... Though it and is clear, as in the interests the modern politicians use "this" question! In general, not this especially interesting subject... Ancient, as...... A mammoth! (Well who knows!?).
P.S.: so in general-theories it is a lot of... The main thing to come to a consensus...

17

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

[:mad:]
The Mere verbiage with  letters.
Apprx. the Root - it is eliminated.:D
I.e. you about Darvinism?
More likely, about the modern evolutionary synthesis. And what not so?:eek:
Fracta1L
And at what here physics? And yes, if a certain sociological hypothesis is based on a postulate "people are able to fly and do not feel need for meal" it will contradict evidently to physics so, will not correspond to a reality.
- the assumption or a guess; the statement, the assuming proof , unlike axioms, the postulates which are not demanding proofs. wink
Adding from 12/4/2016 22:54:
grastat
So in general-theories it is a lot of
So select the most consistent.:up:

18

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

[:mad:]
But strongly differs from a remaining brain.
Certainly. The creator supplied the creations with different adaptive mechanisms for a survival.
At  it is a brain which develops spasmodicly and its development depends on set of parameters.
All is thought so over that wonder:shuffle:

19

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

PZ1
All is thought so over that wonder
You saw a normal snowflake at magnification?

20

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

21

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
Gipoteza - the assumption or a guess; the statement assuming the proof, unlike axioms, the postulates which are not demanding proofs
Yes I in course. Wanted what to tell?
Adding from 12/5/2016 07:38:
PZ1
All is thought so over
It is exact about the person who represents mountain of crutches, props, defects and absurd?:laugh:
Adding from 12/5/2016 07:39:
The Baby bird
In many respects, religious representations were formed on the basis of certain divine revelations
How to distinguish divine revelation from an attack of a schizophrenia or a poisoning with an ergot?

22

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
It is exact about the person who represents mountain of crutches, props, defects and absurd?
, this incomplete mechanism is fitted to existence in strictly certain ranges of physical characteristics of a planet
The Earth also it is supplied by a good software for embedding in the general biological cycle of its inhabitants.
Someone   all our zoo wink

23

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
God as the Higher Controlling Force, a root of all real.
And here it is everyone understands moderately the perversity:gigi:
I quite accept the version that there was a general ancestor with a monkey. The animal was found by new quality and a monkey began to be called as the person. So ?
Not, does not roll, contradicts outputs in genetics wink
We with a pig of one blood, therefore from it it is possible to transplant organs also
Fracta1L
It is exact about the person who represents mountain of crutches, props, defects and absurd?
Into the account like defects and absurd:
Tonsils, like quinsy source
But it is necessary to delete them and instead of quinsy you awake to be ill a pneumonia
Appendix, like anything good and still an appendicitis
But it is necessary to delete it and you can receives violation of microflora of intestines at its various diseases as the appendix is emergency storage of microflora of intestines
More shortly: if you do not know for what it it is necessary, it does not mean that it is not necessary wink
PZ1
Someone   all our zoo
Just about, and all is very simple:p

24

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

25

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

PZ1
Ugu, this incomplete mechanism is fitted to existence in strictly certain ranges of physical characteristics of a planet
The Earth also it is supplied by a good software for embedding in the general biological cycle of its inhabitants

And the pool  is adjusted to fit a hole relief densely.
Local Kotjara
More shortly: if you do not know for what it it is necessary, it does not mean that it is not necessary
Decisions ad-hoc with which the human body - a sign of worthless designing abounds. It is a lot of normally them, when designing at all was not.