The human quest for knowledge has led us asking several questions about the inherent plausibility of a super-intelligence (SI) creating the material world (MW) (this includes the many universes or galaxies in existence). The question Does God exist? is by and large as a result of the foremost question of What is the source of life and this material world (MW)? and is this material world a product of super-intelligence (SI) or other theories out there?
In postulating a case for the MW being a product of super-intelligence, the identity and attributes of the creator is often brought into question. This borders on the ontological definition of God. Since the debate centres on whether or not God created the world, we might as well start from ground zero and create a comprehensive analysis of the ontology of the super-intelligence in question.
Any super-intelligence (SI) capable of creating the MW as we see it today must definitely be more intelligent than man. It is impossible to accurately gauge the intelligence of man, simply because there is no basis of comparison. What exactly would we be comparing man to? animals? However for the sake of intellectual clarity and the basis of the lagging question, we ask that considering the intelligence of man, what would we expect of a super-intelligence capable of creating life and man.
Based on repeated ontological attributes, we know that the SI is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, benevolent and many more. However the most important ontological attribute the SI has is the fundamental liberty to do as He pleases within the dictates of His will and without His actions being in contravention of His pre-stated ontology.
This means that even though the SI is omnipotent, He can refuse to do certain things if they are not in conformity with His plans. Just like I can ask the obvious questions that, since you can walk, why have you not chosen to walk from London to Manchester? Since you can eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard, life-cat or life-snake? since you can sleep, why have you not chosen to sleep in the same room (in the zoo) with an untamed lion?
If you refuse to walk from London to Manchester, does this change the fact you cannot walk? IF you refuse to sleep in the same room with an untamed lion, does this change the fact that you are incapable of sleeping? The key discuss here is that, the choices we make as humans are usually not a direct result of our inherent abilities, but a direct result of our intelligence represented by our choices. The choices we make are shown by our individual course of action.
The omnipotence of the SI does in anyway suggest that He has to to all things and anything.
His refusal to do anything (not in conformity to his plans) suggests a fundamental liberty, dictated by intelligence to act strategically in consonance with primordial objectives. The SI remains omnipotent and reserves the right to do what He wills. His choice to act or not to act does not erode His status as omnipotent.
Since we have our own likes and dislikes, perhaps it is commonsensical to expect that an absolute intelligence like our SI would also have a sense of taste and choices. Implying that the concept of sin, righteousness, heaven and hell reflect the opinion of the SI. If as humans we are divided along sentimental opinions and ideological lines (that includes communism, democracy, monarchy, centre-left, centre-right, liberal, conservative, socialism), why is it as such impossible for a more intelligent being to have His own opinions as well.
So if the SI asserts that homosexualism is a sin and that love is the greatest of all deeds, so be it. If the SI asserts that billions of people regardless of their good works are condemned for not acknowledging the sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary, and would subsequently rot in hell, so be it. On the bigger picture, what we have is a conscious plane of choices where the SI has given humans choices to make and also decreed the consequences of these choices. What we await is to see, if He has the corresponding ability to implement these consequences. which we can only find out (for those who live by sight) at death.
In debating the plausibility of the MW being a product of SI, it is pertinent that several assumptions are laid aside. The SI is not a robot without a mind of his own. Neither is he bound by the limited imagination of humans who have outlined an ontology for him. should you choose to doubt or disbelieve the existence of a SI, fair enough. It is just inconceivable that nothing is behind the intelligence of the universe we see today.
Can you prove this assertion wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment