Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God

[Seminarysnoozer]

You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say snoozer, when I said the following I was paraphrasing the second lecture in Lectures on faith, pgs 25-26. We cannot become godlike independently, but once we have achieved godhood (by virtue of grace made possible by the Saviors atonement) we are no longer dependent on anything or any one, that is what it means to be a god as explained in Lectures on Faith. I will grant that the term atheist is used to reject the notion of Gods existence, so in this regard I will retract my statement as false, in the sense that Heavenly Father, while independent now, was dependent on his Heavenly Father to become God.

On pages 38-39 in the third lecture his attributes are defined and explained, it was never my intent to say that I only want to be a god to glory in my achievements. Just to reiterate, once one becomes a god faith becomes dormant because we will be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. We become to object of faith no longer requiring faith. But we will also possess the following attributes because once we are a god our only purpose will be to labor with the other intelligences who will be our offspring to be able reach their full potential, and thus we will have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

2 From the foregoing testimonies, we learn the following things respecting the character of God.

13 First, That he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was, after it was created.

14 Secondly, That he is merciful, and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting.

15 Thirdly, That he changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday to-day and forever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation.

16 Fourthly, That he is a God of truth and cannot lie.

17 Fifthly, That he is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him.

18 Sixthly, That he is love.

I didn't say 'faith', I said charity (or charitable). Your point number 18 and number 14 says it. If God has nothing to love He is no longer God.

For some reason people of LDS persuasion tend to relate intelligence in this life to glory. I think we see many examples in this world where intelligence and education does not directly correlate with righteousness. It is the desire of the heart and what a person does with their intelligence that matters. My great grandfather couldn't read but joined the church leaving, disowned by his family gave up everything and yet Hitler was well educated and so was Osama Bin Laden. Intelligence and education alone have an equal opportunity for evil or good. Reaching a certain level of intelligence is not what makes God, God. His power is wrapped into the fact that He is charitable and has perfect love. And He expands that love and thus His glory by having more and more people to love.

How much do you think you learned in the millions and millions of years (or whatever time it was) as a spirit child of God, living with God and learning all you could until you couldn't progress any further until experiencing the challenges of having a body?

I'll tell you, it was enough to make Satan think that he could be the savior by himself. We have all learned all the secular knowledge it takes to become like God, some slightly more than others depending on being valiant or not so valiant, without having the experiential knowledge and the opportunity to prove our 'true natures'. One of the most important experiences we can learn here is to have charity and to really learn what the value of charity is to God, our Savior and the way that Eternal Joy is produced. God without charity and giving of Himself and having someone to give to, is not God anymore.

I disagree with your idea of 'lack of dependency'. There is no alone God anywhere.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[maiku]

John 18:36 "my kingdom is not of this world"

The Lord is an alien.

[Seminarysnoozer]

President Eyring said; " The thirst for education can be a blessing or a curse, depending on our motives. If we continue to seek learning to serve God and His children better, it is a blessing of great worth. If we seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride.

That is one of the reasons we should always put spiritual learning first. And that is why the Church has placed institutes of religion across the earth wherever young members are gathered in sufficient numbers. Their spiritual education in the institute will shape the purpose and speed the process of their secular learning.

The Lord said:

“I give unto you a commandment that ye shall continue in prayer and fasting from this time forth.

“And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

“Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

“Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

“That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you” (D&C 88:76–80).

Learning is really only valuable in this life if we have service in mind, service to our God and His children. Learning can be a curse depending on the motives.

[Seminarysnoozer]

John 18:36 "my kingdom is not of this world"

The Lord is an alien.

By that reasoning, we are aliens too. What does one "alien" call another "alien" from the same place? .... brother?

[dahlia]

Would it blow anyone's theology if we actually were alone in the universe? Would it not be remarkable if the whole of existence really found it's highest place in us?

I guess it wouldn't blow my theology, but it would make me rethink my rationality. I don't see how, in the entire universe and the wonder of creation in all of its forms, that we could possibly be alone.

For Star Trek NG fans - Could god be Q? I think not, since Q evidenced malevolence, but if there was a beneficent Q being, I'd be willing to think about whether a "sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God."

[mordorbund]

I feel like we are debating this: geocentric versus heliocentric

The idea that we are the only planet that has life on it is just like saying we are the center of the universe. It's evidence vs. arrogance. I prefer to be humble in my place in the universe.

What is the evidence of other life in the universe?

[maiku]

By that reasoning, we are aliens too. What does one "alien" call another "alien" from the same place? .... brother?

I guess you are right... my alien brother

[Seminarysnoozer]

when one understands what knowledge and power are, and understands how humankind is, were humanity to last long enough, they would eventually become (with a couple of provisos) as God whether there was one or not.

I find the LDS theology very reasonable.. infact i find it impressive- pretty much we have a being that is going to grant the chance to everyone to have that potential, and he's going to make it so it won't take as long as it would require and he's going to insure only those who won't destroy everything will be able to make it to that point

You are implying that the selective process is done by God to restrict the use of power that comes from it. I believe though that most LDS believe the principles and concepts of faith and charity and love your neighbor etc, in other words, being Christlike, is what gives the power and the lack of Christlike attributes is what limits the power. Those that don't have those attributes would not want to be like God, once we really see what God does and who He really is beyond the little we have here.

I do not believe that the natural order of a mortal life is Godhood but I do believe the natural order of a spiritual life is Godhood, or has that potential. This is why the more carnal we are the less potential we have and the more spiritual minded we are the more potential we have. To be a "natural" man, that seeks knowledge (of the worldly type) and power and pleasure etc. does not lead to Godliness. Not because God restricts it but because those are prerequisite traits to have that kind of eternal joy and happiness.

[mordorbund]

I have to take issue with the thread title-quote. It's not entirely accurate unless we limit the definition of God to "more powerful than me". Let's compare myself with George Washington. I can fly across the country, carry my voice around the world, project my image around as well. George Washington, if he witnesses all this, would be justified in acknowledging me as more powerful. But he would be greatly amiss if he worshiped me. He can certainly fear me for my abilities, but if I'm a total jerk I hope he doesn't think of me as God. By these standards, the statement can also read "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from Satan". I should also point out that extraterrestrial is superfluous.

Eric Clapton is sufficiently musically advanced, does he deserve worship? (actually, this is a bad example. I'm pretty sure that Clapton concert I attended transitioned to a praise and worship service. In fact, before he ever hit the stage people used to "applaud"; once he hit the scene they needed a new word to describe audience reaction, so they named it after him - "clapping")

God's other attributes (the Moral ones that SeminarySnoozer calls out) also enter into the equation of what it means to be God.

Edited July 14, 2011 by mordorbund

[prisonchaplain]

How does it make God smaller? imo, diminishing the creation is the same as diminishing the creator.

Think in terms of perspective. If I am rising up and attaining Godhood, then the God I look to is getting smaller. Again, it's like the teenage child who comes to see parents more as consultants than permission-grantors. That's okay for our children, because they are becoming adults. If we are becoming Gods, then your quip above makes sense. If not--if God's design for us is to enjoy eternity growing as the highest of his creation, but not as God-children...then we might fall into the very error of the enemy, who thought he could ascend to God's throne.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have to take issue with the thread title-quote. It's not entirely accurate unless we limit the definition of God to "more powerful than me". Let's compare myself with George Washington. I can fly across the country, carry my voice around the world, project my image around as well. George Washington, if he witnesses all this, would be justified in acknowledging me as more powerful. But he would be greatly amiss if he worshiped me. He can certainly fear me for my abilities, but if I'm a total jerk I hope he doesn't think of me as God. By these standards, the statement can also read "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from Satan". I should also point out that extraterrestrial is superfluous.

Eric Clapton is sufficiently musically advanced, does he deserve worship? (actually, this is a bad example. I'm pretty sure that Clapton concert I attended transitioned to a praise and worship service. In fact, before he ever hit the stage people used to "applaud"; once he hit the scene they needed a new word to describe audience reaction, so they named it after him - "clapping")

God's other attributes (the Moral ones that SeminarySnoozer calls out) also enter into the equation of what it means to be God.

You are very funny, good stuff. I think what universeman is trying to suggest is that some in the scientific field believe that the place of the human brain devoted to religious devotion makes up a God-like individual, for religious people it is a divine being and for non-religious people it is an alien or it could be. It's a what came first, the chicken or the egg? kind of question. If one doesn't believe in spiritual beings then of course it came from the brain.

It is true the physical brain tries to make sense of spiritual influences and often times gets it wrong. It is only when a person is practiced at distinguishing the source that one can tell where the thought comes from.

The other part of that argument from the atheist view (the little I comprehend about that view) is that the divine being belief causes a lot of problem. But they fail to compare that to the 'hunt for the alien' or some scientific breakthrough. Think about how much money and time is spent on the space program, or was spent. And how much money and time was spent on global warming alarmist (as if we somehow can change the weather). How much money and time is spent on Star Wars and Star Trek, etc. The alien vs. God argument has to include all of that in terms of its effect on society.

[prisonchaplain]

I suppose whether one attains to "evangelical godliness" or LDS exaltation, the further we progress the less we notice. After all, our example is Jesus, and his ultimate act of Godhood involved letting it go and embracing martyrdom.

[mordorbund]

no one watched my links?

[summary in case anyone doesn't want to watch the full 18 minutes, but wants to get to the crux of the argument]

It's not really relevant to evidence of extra terrestrial life until 3:06 of the second clip (3 of 3) where it talks about evidence of amino acids carried by comets. Before that it discusses how comet collisions change life that already exist.

[end summary]

Thanks for referring me to the video again. I will say it's a start, and I think it shows that the notion of ET life is not completely laughable. But I don't think it's strong enough yet to make the opposing view of TO life (terrestrial-only) "arrogant".

[hungrytrash]

Thanks for referring me to the video again. I will say it's a start, and I think it shows that the notion of ET life is not completely laughable. But I don't think it's strong enough yet to make the opposing view of TO life (terrestrial-only) "arrogant".

I think a word as strong as "arrogance" can be used, despite no "proof" of ET life, because of sheer numbers. The amount of solar systems out there is so incomprehensibly high that to think a single one didn't have life would defy all logic.

"Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.

At least 500 million of those planets are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold zone where life could exist."

If there are 50 billion planets, 500 million of those being "not-too-hot, not-too-cold", in our galaxy alone, and there are several hundred billion galaxies out there...well, alien life becomes a practical certainty. Unproven, but so statistically likely that it is for all intents and purposes true.

Even if only one out of a million of those "not-too-hot, not-too-cold" planets in the universe had the overall fine-tuning and necessities for life (and that's probably being generous), and only one out of a million of THOSE actually had life, we still have something like 50 million planets in the universe with life. With numbers like that, it almost does become arrogance to believe Earth is the only planet that supports life. The rest of the universe would be a whole LOT of wasted space.

And this is only the observable universe.

Edited July 16, 2011 by hungrytrash

[mordorbund]

I think a word as strong as "arrogance" can be used, despite no "proof" of ET life, because of sheer numbers. The amount of solar systems out there is so incomprehensibly high that to think a single one didn't have life would defy all logic.

"Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.

At least 500 million of those planets are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold zone where life could exist."

If there are 50 billion planets, 500 million of those being "not-too-hot, not-too-cold", in our galaxy alone, and there are several hundred billion galaxies out there...well, alien life becomes a practical certainty. Unproven, but so statistically likely that it is for all intents and purposes true.

Even if only one out of a million of those "not-too-hot, not-too-cold" planets in the universe had the overall fine-tuning and necessities for life (and that's probably being generous), and only one out of a million of THOSE actually had life, we still have something like 50 million planets in the universe with life [mordorbund]I'm assuming this is a typo. Based on your earlier numbers, this should be 100 trillion in the universe (2*10^11)*(5*10^8)/(10^6). I'll be working with that number in my remarks.[/mordorbund]. With numbers like that, it almost does become arrogance to believe Earth is the only planet that supports life. The rest of the universe would be a whole LOT of wasted space.

And this is only the observable universe.

Where does 1/10^6 come from? It sounds like a number you made up in an effort to be generous. Is it really so generous? With a single point of data (earth), we could say the statistic is 1/10^14 (actually, to be honest, we can't really generate a statistic on only 1 piece of data). Bring more data to the table, like Changed's amino acids, before assuming arrogance; I'm equally inclined to assume presumption on your part, especially considering the lack of consistency in a definition for "life".

Edited July 17, 2011 by mordorbund

[mordorbund]

Thanks for watching the links!!!

you have to add a few more things to see a little more relevance...

I found the correlation between the Cambrian explosion (something gradualist evolutionary theories cannot account for) and the frequency of comets of interest. Punctuated equilibria models - which I think the fossil record support better than gradualism (ie - still way too many "missing links" to support gradualistic theories imo)

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....

Thanks for the summaries. What I'm missing regarding the relevance to this discussion is what additional evidence is there that these comets are carrying life? I see that major changes happen when large comets hit the earth (Cambrian explosion), but that's easily explained with the current evolutionary model. You are correct that earth is not a closed system, and that is precisely what makes the current evolutionary model work.

When you reference "new information" in the system, does it have to be biologic? Or is it sufficient to be a "significant" shake-up like a large-scale natural disaster (or even better the introduction of organic material (I used to joke with my friends that "organic food" was redundant - my meat and vegetables are largely carbon? DUH!! but nobody got it))?

So back to my earlier post, I haven't hear a lot of evidence for ET life, although I'll admit it may be more my ignorance of the evidences available.

[mordorbund]

One more to the OP. This is a little tangential, but I think you would enjoy reading Kimball's Voices from Outer Space in his book Faith Precedes the Miracle. He takes quotes from scientists of his time and addresses them in the context of the presence of the Book of Mormon and Revelation.

[hungrytrash]

Where does 1/10^6 come from? It sounds like a number you made up in an effort to be generous. Is it really so generous? With a single point of data (earth), we could say the statistic is 1/10^14 (actually, to be honest, we can't really generate a statistic on only 1 piece of data). Bring more data to the table, like Changed's amino acids, before assuming arrogance; I'm equally inclined to assume presumption on your part, especially considering the lack of consistency in a definition for "life".

I divided by 1,000,000 twice. We started with 50,000,000,000 planets per galaxy, then divided by 100 to get 500,000,000 planets in a system with temperatures that can sustain life. Then we divided by 1,000,000 to bring it to planets that actually had all of the correct conditions for life. Then we divided by 1,000,000 once more to say that life actually started.

Dividing by 1,000,000 is an assumption, I was basically quoting the movie "Contact". Unless Earth has something special that other planets don't, the assumption is generous enough. The numbers alone were enough for Stephen Hawking.

If you believe that life wouldn't start in even one in a million planets where all of the conditions necessary for life were met (I'm talking about a planet that could support life environmentally, obviously if ALL of the conditions were met there would be life automatically), then we are different .

Sort of irrelevant though. Looked through with the lens of faith, we know that God has created countless worlds, and those countless worlds all have life.

Edited July 18, 2011 by hungrytrash

[mordorbund]

The current evolutionary model cannot explain the Cambrian explosion because it happened too fast...

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iow - the current evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian explosion by saying "we just need to find more missing links" - incomplete fossil record? - but we've been digging in the dirt for quite some time, and sorry, but the fossil record is not that incomplete - what we have found within the fossil record points to something VERY different than gradualism... these new critters did not just come "out of nowhere" ....

there are "a range of theories" all unverified, all scrambling to either explain the Cambrian explosion or deny that it happened - it happened - the most logical theory (imo) is ET info + HGT.

...

...

Uncle! UNCLE!!!!!!

[Christyba75]

In Richard Dawkins the God Delusion (a wonderful book which in an odd way strongly agrees with the Mormon view of God, of course Dawkins is completely ignorant of this fact), chapter 6 asks the question if our sense of morality (or light of Christ) has a Darwinian origin, which in fact it does. I find this concept especially intriguing because it means that our brains have been hardwired with the light of Christ through the process of evolution, what an amazing concept! These studies also indicate that all humans have the same sense of right and wrong regardless of nationality or upbringing.

The point that I really want to drive home is that Heavenly Father is a God only in the sense that he is far more advanced mentally and technologically then we can imagine, but because he is not of a terrestrial origin he is by definition an extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) and he is an animal, like were are who has advanced to the point of having the qualities of deity. I see no shame in recognizing the fact that we are animals who are capable of creating universes, life and consciousness itself. Heavenly father is a real physical male human who is the most advanced form of life which can possibly exist, we are atheists of any other description of God. We do not believe in a supernatural God of no substance who is an uncreated creator and who created the universe out of nothing.

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths (from A Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan).

As Latter Day Saints we have an understanding of the universe as reveled by revelation and science is infinitely larger and more fantastic than Carl Sagan could have imagined! What has been revealed to us through modern revelation and by science in no way diminishes my awe and love of our Heavenly Father. Methodological materialism = no threat to spirituality. Methodological materialism = good scientific assumption. All Mormons should embrace scientific discoveries with an open mind and a sure knowledge that if there is an apparent contradiction between them it is due to our limited understanding of the universe and how the plan of salvation fits into it and not because there is any real conflict.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for writing this!! I read "The God Delusion" and I wanted to keep believing. I appreciate knowing that there are others who do so.

[NightSG]

Ok, so I haven't read all six pages, but another question that could be raised is simply what "eternity" means in the context of both timeless and time-limited beings. How do the meanings differ? Could it be that for us, here, eternity, like any other temporal concept, only refers to the time that passes until we also become timeless on the other side? Thus, things described as eternal and unchanging could actually change at that time without contradicting any scriptural teachings.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Ok, so I haven't read all six pages, but another question that could be raised is simply what "eternity" means in the context of both timeless and time-limited beings. How do the meanings differ? Could it be that for us, here, eternity, like any other temporal concept, only refers to the time that passes until we also become timeless on the other side? Thus, things described as eternal and unchanging could actually change at that time without contradicting any scriptural teachings.

Timelessness is a man made concept. In other words, the possibility of being in a state where there is no past, present or future is a man made concept. That doesn't preclude that the passage of time is experienced differently for God, or it is "reckoned" differently. It can still be reckoned differently and yet maintain "past, present and future" designations.

After all, the glory of God is dependent on bringing things to pass, i.e. - making them in the past.

[Christyba75]

One of the things that Dawkins and other atheistic writers propose is that man is not duelistic in nature. I am my brain. There is no me that can be separated from me. This does not appear consistent with Christian teaching. I can reject it or chose to harmonize it. A naturalistic approach does not permit for life after death, but it depends on how we define life. LDS teaching teach that we get a "new" body. It's a different, yet similar body which will house my "spirit". We usually think of my spirit as my memories and desires. My old body will be gone. No more split ends, no more scars. The new body is very dissimilar from my old body. It's more than just the old body cleaned up; it's a new body that is fashioned to look somewhat like the old body when it was at it's best, and then made perfect. This new body housing my desires and memories will then be me, and it will last as long as the universe lasts.

[Vort]

One of the things that Dawkins and other atheistic writers propose is that man is not duelistic in nature.

That is, not "dualistic" in nature. I think we're all too "duelistic." :)

This is a great example of atheistic writers going well beyond any possible scientific investigation and injecting their own (limited and foolish) philosophy into things. Whether man is "dualistic" in nature is not a scientific question. How can science possibly shed the least light on such a thing? A strictly scientific approach requires no such thing.

A naturalistic approach does not permit for life after death, but it depends on how we define life.

If what you say is true, then the naturalistic approach is clearly deficient. Science has zero to say about the survival of an immortal spirit after death.

[Christyba75]

A naturalist would not say that their approach is deficient, just that it can't prove or disprove that a person's conscience exists after dealth. There is no proof that it does. The evidence that it doesn't is that graveyards are very quiet. My faith and hope is that my mind/spirit will exist after death, but there is no evidence supporting this.