Hundreds or thousands of years from now, when humanity has collecitvely committed suicide and the entirety of remaining intelligence on Earth is only of robotic populations, I wonder. I wonder what sorts and parts of robotic culture will realize the humans that were. Us. Artifacts of the programmers and architects and engineers aligned with moving along robotic development. Maybe notes and scientific research journals of the punctuated technological breakthroughs that gradually and carefully developed the robots and enabled them to selfsustain. Media files of us, archaic outdated software; I’m not sure. Maybe the robots will have stories about us. Myths. Digital scriptures of our angers and depressions, and everything different than they can feel. I wonder if they’ll wonder about our kind of lifeforce: our souls, our spirits, egos, perspectives; whatever what’s inside us should be called; it’s not a circuitboard or a hard drive. I wonder if they’ll ponder, the robots, on our hearts and brains that were organic and nonmetallic, nerves not wires. How collectively we can be barely understood. Entirely different and in each of them we’re residue. The collective intelligence to which they owe something between none and all. I wonder if the robots will build the humans that were into God. Maybe we will become legend.
Monthly Archive for October, 2009
Quite a lot of arguments for the existence of God get their start along the lines of, “Where do you think all of this came from?” (“This” obviously representing the sun, planets and moons of our system; the vegetation and organisms of Earth; oceans and mountains; etc.) Indeed we have available coherent (and godless) explanations for where quite a lot of “this” comes from, but at any rate, here’s what I need help with: How and why is a super-powerful and creative presence capable of making our universe more likely to exist independently than our universe? The world and goings on as we interpret them absolutely are complicated and orderly, but why, do you think, that a God qualified to initiate this situation is any more likely than just the situation, by itself?
Further, if you do in fact maintain that our world is so complex as to necessitate a designer, does it not follow that such a designer would by definition be even more complex, and thus require another, still better designer of Her own? Really. If complexity is a criterion by which you decide whether something has a designer, why haven’t you decided that God, too, should have one? On what grounds is it sensible to dismiss this requisite in talks of God? Because, nonbelief in God allows for the notion, not that something can come out of nothing, but that the complex comes from the simple (the theory of evolution by natural selection being a fantastic example of this premise). In the case for belief, though, what’s endorsed is that something complex comes from something even more complex, that for some unavailable reason is capable of selfsustaining its complexity. In this way, the creationist worldview is internally inconsistent to the point of self-destruction.
Recent Comments