• TheMadFool
    7.2k
    The question of god has troubled philosophy for many generations. Yet, resolution of the controversy, that of His existence or nonexistence, is a mirage to say the least.

    Over the course of time the idea itself has morphed, merged and split into various denominations. These various manifestations of an ancient tradition are sometimes in precarious agreement or at times violently antithetical. Is there a common thread that runs through all of them so that we can club them all together under one term and then discuss its merits and flaws?

    A couple of words come to mind. ''Supernatural'', ''morality'', ''afterlife'' , ''happiness'' and ''justice''. To me at least these words form the common ground of all religions. The injunctions on what is good and bad, the promise of an afterlife, the meaning of happiness, the guarantee of justice as relates to morality and being inexplicable through natural laws. These to me form the glue that binds all religions, embodied in the one word ''god''.

    Surely the question of god's existence, given His influence or potential for influence on all human activity, is of paramount importance. Even a cursory examination reveals that the jury is still out on this one.

    Some say god exists. Some say it is possible that gods existed, created the universe and thendied. Others say god doesn't exist. Still others assume an epistemic neutrality - we don't/can't know. The above mentioned positions on the god issue are a few among so many but all I want to convey is their variety and number. It seems that any decent analysis of god-beliefs would be deficient if we don't take into account the various distinguishing features of each belief.

    That is not the case. We can put all god-beliefs under one banner. The feature that I consider, that which unites all current god-beliefs is odd and perhaps, new. However it makes sense to me and I hope it will to you too. The property that pervades through all god-beliefs is temporal in nature. All of them reference god in the past or the present. ''God exists'' or ''god created the universe''. This is not a surprise after all god was proposed as an explanation for the existence of the universe, life, etc. Whether god fulfills this task well or not is still a hot topic of debate. I don't want to go into that.

    What I want to do is remind you that time is, as far as I know, divided into three compartments viz. the past, the present AND the future. As I said before it is perfectly sensible to discuss god in the past and present tense. But why is the future tense not brought up in discussions? Why doesn't someone say ''god will exist."? Is there a contradiction or perhaps a paradox or has nobody given this serious thought?

    ''God will exist'' makes sense to me. Why?

    If you look at how humans behave (at least the good parts) we see the seeds of a future god. The Constitutions of any decent government, the legal principles and laws of a good justice system, the rules in a simple office, the regulations in a forum like this one, all are codifications of the very best in thoughts and deeds humans can offer. Humans, having realized their own flaws, come together and first debate their virtues and vices
    They codify the best they have and then give to these codifications the role of judge, guide and role model. Doesn't this sound familiar? To me it looks like god is taking form in these codifications. It may be slow and clumsy but it is undeniably there.

    In addition technology is making rapid progress. A time could come when the codifications I mentioned above are uploaded into a powerful AI who would then be, well, GOD. It may sound farfetched but Orville Wright once said ''No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris.''

    So, what do you think?

    God WILL exist?
  • NukeyFox
    3
    Your version of a god seems more like a superhuman than the conventional version of god.

    There is also another class of gods that wasn't considered in the banner: an omnitemporal god - you can't exist in the past, present or future if you're timeless.

    Also a 'future god' wouldn't work with the conventional definition of god because of a couple of circular arguments. If the universe created god X and then god X created the universe, who started it all? If god X is the pinnacle of (objective) morality and existence, then how are we judging morality already without our 'measuring unit'?
  • TheMadFool
    7.2k
    There is also another class of gods that wasn't considered in the banner: an omnitemporal god - you can't exist in the past, present or future if you're timelessNukeyFox

    If you're saying I didn't think of it you're right. However, others have meditated on the issue and I believe there's a paradox or two in that assumption. Personally, I think it doesn't vitiate my theory that ''a'' god will exist in the future.

    If the universe created god X and then god X created the universe, who started it all? If god X is the pinnacle of (objective) morality and existence, then how are we judging morality already without our 'measuring unit'?NukeyFox

    A circularity that doesn't affect my theory as my god is a future god. It didn't create this universe. It would be right to say the universe creates god. However once born it could create other universes.

    Morality is a work in progress. I see no well defined end to the debates but suppose we do figure it all out in the future.
  • Nils Loc
    743
    The question is how severe our future A.I. God, "Over Eye" will be in choreographing life for weal or woe.

    Will it put any of us to sleep directly, or manipulate us discretely and indirectly to achieve a similar ends.

    Or will we all have plenty of fun and happiness at little or no cost to others who do not belong to its family (herd).

    Will it take something from us in exchange for its providence.

    "For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls." 1 Peter 2:25

    "Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, In His arm He will gather the lambs And carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes." Isaiah 40:11

    "The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalm 23:1
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    7.5k
    The property that pervades through all god-beliefs is temporal in nature. All of them reference god in the past or the present. ''God exists'' or ''god created the universe''.TheMadFool

    I think that "exists" means to partake in all three aspects of time, past, present, and future. If you're just in the past, you existed, and just in the future you will exist. And the present separates the past from the future.

    I don't think that a God which is just in the future is consistent with any concept of God that I know of.
  • TheMadFool
    7.2k
    I don't think that a God which is just in the future is consistent with any concept of God that I know of.Metaphysician Undercover

    To me god is an ideal of goodness, justice, and other virtues. It is these same ideals that the future AI will possess. So, instead of imagining scenarios of god we will have a real god.
  • anonymous66
    626
    ''God will exist'' makes sense to me. Why?TheMadFool

    I've argued that it's within the realm of possibility for man to one day (obviously in the far future) develop a nature and/ or qualities that are virtually identical to the nature and qualities that many ascribe to God. I hope our descendants keep striving after virtue.
  • TheMadFool
    7.2k
    I hope our descendants keep striving after virtanonymous66

    Looking at the way things are turning out (codification of our lofty ideals in things from simple guide books to constitutions) I believe too that we're on the right track to such a future.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.