The Materialistic God: Could a Multiverse Have Evolved God?

Here's an idea I had which makes sense to me but I'm no scientist sooooooo I was wondering if anyone more knowledgeable than myself could poke holes in it and tell me why it wouldn't be possible. So, here goes:As I understand it, there are two possible causes for why at least one life-supporting universe exist........the first possibility being the only one considered and accepted throughout most of human history ("God did it"), or there are an infinity of universes and, therefore, every type of universe that CAN exist, DOES (or has) exist/existed. But if this is so, if it were even possible for a God or a God-like entity to have evolved naturalistically, then that means that there exists a God or gods.So, is it possible for God to have evolved?

Definitely Cosmological. Thanks.

In terms of Frank Tiplers God?>>I don't know who this is. Please elaborate.

we must first define what a God is before we can determine the likelihood or possibility of it's existence.>>Ok, fair enough. How about a disembodied conciousness that has far-reaching (but not necessarily infinite) powers which can extend to other universes (a necessary pre-requisite for this materialistic God to be able to create new universes).Basically, a God which, in terms of power, could match the theistic concept. For all intents and purposes (though not necessarily literally) omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-09-2004 01:58 AM

This is an ID argument, not a creationist argument. Therefore, I'm not making the assertion that this idea accounts for the existance of the Biblical God.

I don't think the laws of physics would allow this sort of thing.>>Maybe, maybe not.......that's what I wanted to hear from you guys, if any of you knew of any evidence as to why it would or wouldn't be possible.BTW, Tipler is the author of The Physics of Immortality. This fantasy deals with superhumans that would have the ability to bring the dead back to life.>>Give me a little break down on what he has to say.

what's an id argument?>>Intelligent Design.i stated two things. one was that the bible does indeed say that god has a physical body. the other was what god is quoted as saying makes a god in genesis 3.>>Gotcha, but the Bible has nothing to do with my idea.

No, I was saying MY argument is an ID argument.we were looking for a definition of god, and i provided the opinion of one source.>>I'm thinking a better definition of God would be one that would be universally agreed upon.........which would be a God that was, for all intents and purposes, all knowing and all powerful.

As quick as possible: In the distant future, human computer technology will have developed to the point where we can accurately model the entire universe; at that point, we'll be able to retrodict backwards in time and reconstruct every human who has ever lived. We'll all live forever in the Matrix, or whatever.>>I know you didn't bring it up, but what does this have to do with the subject?

You don't think that the power to reincarnate every human being who has ever lived into a perfect digital paradise is maybe just a little bit godlike?>>Would that really be reincarnation? That'd just be duplication.He was trying to answer how gods might have evolved by making reference to a theorist who predicts that we'll someday all be gods ourselves. I think it's a load of horseshit, though. Maybe you agree?>>I don't see how it could produce THE God.........

It'd be duplication of you at exactly the moment of your death. You won't notice the difference, theoretically. Sounds like reincarnation to me.>>Sounds like a computer program tricked into thinking it's a reincarnated human to me.