Straggler writes:
The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws. A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it?
GDR writes:
I fundamentally disagree. If an intelligence is capable of bringing into existence our universe with the laws that apply to it, then frankly I don’t care if this intelligence is constrained by the laws of that universe or not.
You, and the intelligence in question, would however be left wondering why the natural laws in that original universe are as they are. Your 'god' would himself be left wondering why there is something rather than nothing. Left wondering "Why am I here..."
GDR writes:
From our reference point as it is outside the laws of our universe it is supernatural. Also, if this intelligence is responsible for this universe and we live because of him/her/it then that is god-like enough for me...
The link I provided previously outlines how humans could theoretically harness the natural laws of our universe to create new universes, design life and suchlike. If you (or I) were in possession of such technologies and able to use them would we qualify as supernatural gods?
Personally I know that no matter what gizmos I am armed with, and no matter how godly I may seem to anyone/anything else, I will never actually be a god.
GDR writes:
From our reference point....
If godliness is just a matter of reference point then you or I armed with a Tazer, a packet or Oreos and a mobile phone could qualify as gods to a primitive tribe that had never had any contact with the modern world.
But - Again - I am no god and no amount of gizmology will ever change that.
GDR writes:
...which as far as I’m concerned answers your question which was Why is it meaningless?.
I think your "reference point" dependent notion of godliness is pretty meaningless. What does or does not qualify as a god at any given time requires a sort of technology dependent theological relativism.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.