Just biological factors nulled by societal standards

Then the universe would create itself. That would be arguing in a circle. Something that does not exist can not bring itself into existence. Even if it wouldn’t be circular, you would have to offer good reasons of why we should believe that. It’s like saying: „The universe doesn’t exist“. Such claims are not that impressive until you have reasonable arguments for it.

​@@Serenity5460Your analysis doesn't quite capture the essence of what I'm proposing. It not so much "circular" as it is a causality paradox that challenges our limited linear perception of time. Closed time curves are genuine theoretical concepts in general relativity. (As an example, see: "Closed Timelike Curves" by John Friedman, Helmuth Jacob, Ted Piran) This is where spacetime curves back on itself, allowing for a closed loop in time. The advanced civilization is my scenario would certainly exist much further down this cosmic timeline, but theoretically could exploit such a loop to influence the past... our universe's origin. For example, our universe might have originated from a chaotic singularity brimming with quantum fluctuations. But if these fluctuations were entangled across time, not just space, then quantum fields linked before the singularity might be manipulating so as to influencing each other in a way that amplifies instabilities within the singularity itself. This "backward causation" driven by the entanglement wouldn't be true time travel, but rather a destabilization that triggers a phase transition within the singularity. This fundamental shift could have unleashed the energy that kickstarted the Big Bang's rapid expansion. While timelike entanglement is speculative and causality issues remain, the theory highlights the potential of future discoveries in quantum mechanics and gravity to unlock the secrets of our universe's birth. Do be sure, we don't have time machines or knowledge of civilizations reaching such a technological peak. But where this scenario is so different from god claims is that, where we have no empirical evidence for gods, we have empirical evidence of civilizations (our own). This scenario may be science fiction, but the god concept is a matter of pure faith. While offering comfort to some, it doesn't provide a testable framework. It's only a placeholder for what we don't yet understand. My proposition might be fantastical, but it adheres to a materialistic outlook. It suggests an advanced intelligence within the confines of our universe as the causal agent, not some unseen, unexplored entity existing outside the realm of science. It's not about proving my theory is correct, but about acknowledging the limitations of our understanding and the possibilities that science continuously unravels. Future discoveries in quantum mechanics or string theory could shed light on manipulating time in ways we can't even fathom today. The ontological argument for God's existence hinges on the concept of a most perfect being - one than which nothing greater can be conceived. This supposedly implies its necessary existence. However, the possibility of a future, ultra-advanced civilization with time travel capabilities throws a wrench into those gears. If we can imagine such a civilization manipulating the very fabric of spacetime to travel back and influence the universe's origin, haven't we just imagined something greater than the traditionally defined all-powerful God? This advanced being wouldn't be a static, perfect entity, but one capable of incredible feats beyond our current comprehension. Moreover, the ontological argument defines perfection in a rather abstract way. The possibility of a highly advanced civilization challenges that definition. Perhaps true perfection lies not in pure omnipotence, but in the evolution of intelligence and technological mastery over the universe's laws. This scenario doesn't disprove God's existence, but it demonstrates the limitations of the ontological argument. It highlights that our conceptions of "greatest" and "perfection" can be stretched by scientific possibilities, weakening the argument's claim that the idea of a perfect being necessarily implies its existence. The bottom line is, we have concrete evidence of civilizations evolving. We have zero evidence of gods. So, while my scenario might seem outlandish, it at least operates within the realm of what we know the universe is capable of - incredible complexity and evolution. The god explanation, on the other hand, remains a comforting fairy tale with no basis in observable reality.

@@Serenity5460 Your analysis doesn't quite capture the essence of what I'm proposing. It not so much "circular" as it is a causality paradox that challenges our limited linear perception of time. Closed time curves are genuine theoretical concepts in general relativity. (As an example, see: "Closed Timelike Curves" by John Friedman, Helmuth Jacob, Ted Piran) This is where spacetime curves back on itself, allowing for a closed loop in time. The advanced civilization is my scenario would certainly exist much further down this cosmic timeline, but theoretically could exploit such a loop to influence the past... our universe's origin. For example, our universe might have originated from a chaotic singularity brimming with quantum fluctuations. But if these fluctuations were entangled across time, not just space, then quantum fields linked before the singularity might be manipulating so as to influencing each other in a way that amplifies instabilities within the singularity itself. This "backward causation" driven by the entanglement wouldn't be true time travel, but rather a destabilization that triggers a phase transition within the singularity. This fundamental shift could have unleashed the energy that kickstarted the Big Bang's rapid expansion. While timelike entanglement is speculative and causality issues remain, the theory highlights the potential of future discoveries in quantum mechanics and gravity to unlock the secrets of our universe's birth. Do be sure, we don't have time machines or knowledge of civilizations reaching such a technological peak. But where this scenario is so different from god claims is that, where we have no empirical evidence for gods, we have empirical evidence of civilizations (our own). This scenario may be science fiction, but the god concept is a matter of pure faith. While offering comfort to some, it doesn't provide a testable framework. It's only a placeholder for what we don't yet understand. My proposition might be fantastical, but it adheres to a materialistic outlook. It suggests an advanced intelligence within the confines of our universe as the causal agent, not some unseen, unexplored entity existing outside the realm of science. It's not about proving my theory is correct, but about acknowledging the limitations of our understanding and the possibilities that science continuously unravels. Future discoveries in quantum mechanics or string theory could shed light on manipulating time in ways we can't even fathom today. The ontological argument for God's existence hinges on the concept of a most perfect being - one than which nothing greater can be conceived. This supposedly implies its necessary existence. However, the possibility of a future, ultra-advanced civilization with time travel capabilities throws a wrench into those gears. If we can imagine such a civilization manipulating the very fabric of spacetime to travel back and influence the universe's origin, haven't we just imagined something greater than the traditionally defined all-powerful God? This advanced being wouldn't be a static, perfect entity, but one capable of incredible feats beyond our current comprehension. Moreover, the ontological argument defines perfection in a rather abstract way. The possibility of a highly advanced civilization challenges that definition. Perhaps true perfection lies not in pure omnipotence, but in the evolution of intelligence and technological mastery over the universe's laws. This scenario doesn't disprove God's existence, but it demonstrates the limitations of the ontological argument. It highlights that our conceptions of "greatest" and "perfection" can be stretched by scientific possibilities, weakening the argument's claim that the idea of a perfect being necessarily implies its existence. The bottom line is, we have concrete evidence of civilizations evolving. We have zero evidence of gods. So, while my scenario might seem outlandish, it at least operates within the realm of what we know the universe is capable of - incredible complexity and evolution. The god explanation, on the other hand, remains a comforting fairy tale with no basis in observable reality.

Your analysis doesn't quite capture the essence of what I'm proposing. It not so much "circular" as it is a causality paradox that challenges our limited linear perception of time. Closed time curves are genuine theoretical concepts in general relativity. (As an example, see: "Closed Timelike Curves" by John Friedman, Helmuth Jacob, Ted Piran) This is where spacetime curves back on itself, allowing for a closed loop in time. The advanced civilization is my scenario would certainly exist much further down this cosmic timeline, but theoretically could exploit such a loop to influence the past... our universe's origin. For example, our universe might have originated from a chaotic singularity brimming with quantum fluctuations. But if these fluctuations were entangled across time, not just space, then quantum fields linked before the singularity might be manipulating so as to influencing each other in a way that amplifies instabilities within the singularity itself. This "backward causation" driven by the entanglement wouldn't be true time travel, but rather a destabilization that triggers a phase transition within the singularity. This fundamental shift could have unleashed the energy that kickstarted the Big Bang's rapid expansion. While timelike entanglement is speculative and causality issues remain, the theory highlights the potential of future discoveries in quantum mechanics and gravity to unlock the secrets of our universe's birth. Do be sure, we don't have time machines or knowledge of civilizations reaching such a technological peak. But where this scenario is so different from god claims is that, where we have no empirical evidence for gods, we have empirical evidence of civilizations (our own). This scenario may be science fiction, but the god concept is a matter of pure faith. While offering comfort to some, it doesn't provide a testable framework. It's only a placeholder for what we don't yet understand. My proposition might be fantastical, but it adheres to a materialistic outlook. It suggests an advanced intelligence within the confines of our universe as the causal agent, not some unseen, unexplored entity existing outside the realm of science. It's not about proving my theory is correct, but about acknowledging the limitations of our understanding and the possibilities that science continuously unravels. Future discoveries in quantum mechanics or string theory could shed light on manipulating time in ways we can't even fathom today. The ontological argument for God's existence hinges on the concept of a most perfect being - one than which nothing greater can be conceived. This supposedly implies its necessary existence. However, the possibility of a future, ultra-advanced civilization with time travel capabilities throws a wrench into those gears. If we can imagine such a civilization manipulating the very fabric of spacetime to travel back and influence the universe's origin, haven't we just imagined something greater than the traditionally defined all-powerful God? This advanced being wouldn't be a static, perfect entity, but one capable of incredible feats beyond our current comprehension. Moreover, the ontological argument defines perfection in a rather abstract way. The possibility of a highly advanced civilization challenges that definition. Perhaps true perfection lies not in pure omnipotence, but in the evolution of intelligence and technological mastery over the universe's laws. This scenario doesn't disprove God's existence, but it demonstrates the limitations of the ontological argument. It highlights that our conceptions of "greatest" and "perfection" can be stretched by scientific possibilities, weakening the argument's claim that the idea of a perfect being necessarily implies its existence. The bottom line is, we have concrete evidence of civilizations evolving. We have zero evidence of gods. So, while my scenario might seem outlandish, it at least operates within the realm of what we know the universe is capable of - incredible complexity and evolution. The god explanation, on the other hand, remains a comforting fairy tale with no basis in observable reality.

Thank you! I have hundreds more tutorial videos and quizzes for revision at cogito.education

Not really though. We can define yellow in terms of its wavelength but our actual idea of yellow is related conceptually to vision. Someone couldn't know what yellow 'is like' through knowing its definition as a wavelength of light.

@@nofanks284 what yellow is like is an abstraction of what yellow is. Our conception of yellow is less accurate than the reality of the wavelength. Our conscious experience of all reality is a low resolution picture , a simplified abstraction of reality so we can think about are surroundings and make predictions easily. We don’t have the processing power to do that with a completely accurate picture of reality.

Excellent illustration!