Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheRealBeaker420 t1_j3sub0z wrote

Reply to comment by OMKensey in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 09, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

> All of the universe's consciousness condensed in one density prior to the big bang expansion.

Do you think its experience would be in any way analogous to what we experience? There's no reason to think this entity would have biological sensations, like our experience of hunger, so it's unclear what we might meaningfully derive from this claim even if we accept it as true. As you pointed out, it just results in a lot of "I don't know"s.

> does this density qualify as a god?

Gods are usually described as intelligent beings that interact with humans somehow. I don't think the sort of information processing required for intelligence is possible here. There's also no evidence that it has any direct relationship with humans.

You might be able to simplify by appealing to a sort of deism, but IMHO that usually just ends up making it less godlike. Of course, it depends on how exactly you go about it. Here's an argument for atheism that I made a while back using similar terms. What qualities do you think such an entity might have that could make it worthy of the title "god"?

2

OMKensey t1_j3t82t6 wrote

I agree with your entire post. A complete lack of sensory organs makes me question whether this conscious density would even know anything as you point out. And, most certainly, what it is like to be this density (its consciousness) would be nothing like ours. I'm not even sure it would have any higher order consciousness because there is not a brain network - - everything might be too dense for pathways.

I also don't think any current relationship with humans other than parts of it literally became us. But just miniscule parts.

On the other hand, it is all of the universe's consciousness condensed into a tiny point. That seems... interesting. But as you say it raises more questions than answers.

I also tend to think this probably wouldn't qualify as a god under most definitions, but I did want others' opinions.

It's a strange place for me to be: "Hi I'm atheist but I do give pretty high credence to this weird thing at the beginning of the universe."

2

TheRealBeaker420 t1_j3tduhw wrote

Maybe a bit, but atheists come in all flavors, and can even be religious or spiritual. Other times it's basically just shorthand for being a religious skeptic. I even heard a pantheist claim to be an atheist once, which tbh felt a bit over the top. It's a pretty flexible term, though. I think either pantheism or deism are the appropriate terms for what you're describing, if you want to call it a god. If you don't then I wouldn't overcomplicate it.

2