Laboratory

Hi, everyone!

Just curious whether any of you have had similar thoughts.

I have for many years considered myself an Agnostic, mainly because I think that proving God's existence (or non-) is simply impossible. But every once in a while I feel as though there is a God and many sub-Gods under him/her/it. And these sub-Gods are given charge of various Universes. We here on Planet Earth are simply the "rats" in our sub-Gods' laboratory. As scientists come up with all kinds of factors that they put in the rats' and mice's life in proving one thing or another, so these sub-Gods might send us an assortment of travails (tornadoes, hurricanes, diseases) or inject us with one or another of some disability or genius to test us against the "norm", whatever that might be. I could go on and on with this idea, but I think you get what I mean.

I know this is way out, but have any of you ever wondered something like that?

The real question I think would be: Given a universe with no god and a universe like you describe what observable differences should we expect to see between them? If there are differences look for them to find out which is the case. If there are no observable differences why complicate things with an unnecessary god?

You're right, I suppose. But I'm stuck on the "necessary" part. A part of me still thinks some god is necessary, and if I can accept that, then a committee of gods is no more preposterous. Certainly my lab idea could be a possible explanation for the immense diversity of circumstances in which humans find themselves. I often wonder what my life would have been like if I'd been born in this century or that, this country or that, a princess or a slave -- and on and on. I know those questions have no answers, but my fecund mind conjures up all kinds of images and possibilities.

 I think you have interesting ideas about possible unobservable forces and the would make a good novel, but I'm with azrad: "If there are no observable differences why complicate things with an unnecessary god?"

And I definitely don't think gods are necessary elements in an explanation of the universe.

I agree with all of you who responded and feel a little foolish. But I'll work on that idea for a novel. If it ever comes to print, will you buy it? I'll even autograph it.  (But by then, Kindle will be the norm -- how do you autograph Kindle?)

Anda, there are many philosophical proposals about the nature of the universe we live in, and the nature of reality, which I'm sure you'd find fascinating (even though they may make your head spin) - for a good, layman level understandable review of cosmology and all (or at least many) of the ideas out there, I'd recommend "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies.

Not a book I agree with in every particular, and there's at least one very aggravating mistake in there, but on the whole it's a real thought provoking, fascinating journey into the rhealm of possibilities.

Paul Davies, as I understand it, believes in some sort of a deity, but he does an admirable job describing cosmologies not involving any conscious entities as causal agents.

There are many reasons I don't find the sorts of gods believed in by mainstream religions even plausible, but for some less-superlative-ridden versions I can only revert to occam's razor - why make things more complex than they need to be. Why open up a whole new set of questions that aren't made necessary by any piece of evidence? (Where do the gods come from, do they have gods of their own and so on ad infinitum, and if it's not infinite regression, why assume even a single tier of gods in the absense of evidence, rather than view this world itself as that necessary natural "first cause"? How do the gods achieve what they do, whatever it is, in practice? What mechanisms do they use to manipulate things, and why haven't we observed at least indirect evidence of these mechanisms?)

I find the idea of the God of the Bible utterly preposterous:  unlikely in the extreme, and not worthy of worship (if we are to take the Bible literally) in any case.  Though my understanding of other religions is less thorough I think that they similarly fail. 

I think that all attempts to explain the universe in terms of a "personal God" are doomed to fail since they all seem equally implausible.  Although I personally am an atheist I don't personally see a problem with the idea of a supreme being per se, (the great cosmic it as my wife would say) yet I see absolutely no evidence at all that he/she/it would have the slightest interest in humanity in general, earth, or any particular individual whom has ever lived.  I guess on some level you could call this a God of the gaps, except that this is usually used in reference to a personal God. 

If there is in fact a supreme being, and I am right in my suposition that he is not one of the personal Gods described by the myriad of religions, and is not concerned with the affairs of men, then so what...on a practicle level you might just as well be an atheist or agnostic.