It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I May Have Accidentally Found The Three Laws of Divinity

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   


I don't subscribe much to theism, but this doesn't prevent my mind from entertaining the possibility - the possibility that somewhere in the universe there exists a life form way more advanced than us. In fact, I might have accidentally devised three laws by which divinity (or at least the appearance of it) may interact with our level of existence.

******

Law I (the "God law"):

Given enough energy and enough time, a living being will evolve to control all of its given space.

Law II (the "Saviour law"):

The victim of an unseen danger cannot recognise being saved unless the saviour shows the danger from which the victim is being saved.

Law III (the "Plan Law"):

To a less intelligent mind, the actions of an extremely intelligent being is indistinguishable from extreme absurdity.


All these laws were first formulated with no thoughts of any supreme being. In fact I formulated them while observing very material events, and only later realised that they could extrapolate to divine questions on which my christian friends were meditating.

I discovered Law I by watching beaver dams. Beavers are relatively small, yet they can build large dams which blocks water and generates an artificial lake where needed. Now the only thing preventing a beaver from achieving such a control over its entire environment is time (the beaver cannot live long enough) and energy requirements (the beaver's muscles are not efficient enough, its teeth not strong enough, its legs not fast enough - the beaver would waste too much energy).

Law II came to me as I was trying hard to save a moth from flying into an incandescent lightbulb. I caught the moth in my cupped hands but it could not understand that I had just saved it. So it escaped and flew back into the lightbulb. It didn't understand that the lightbulb was dangerous, so it could not recognise my action as an act of salvation.

Law III was formulated after I watched a man park his car in a very absurd fashion. My first thought was that this man was just plain stupid, but upon examining the position of the car, I noticed that it made the car very risky to steal. I realised that I couldn't decide if the man had been really stupid or really genius - and if the actions of a smart person was indistinguishable from mere eccentricity, then to us the actions of a supreme intelligence would most certainly be indistinguishable from pure absurdity.

So here we are. Three laws, which might just help us explore the very nature of an extremely advanced being. Why does evil exist if a divine being exists? Law II might just bring the answer. If an ultimate being exists, what is its plans? Law III brings the answer (basically disproves Theism in favour of Deism). What is the difference between a supreme being and a mere man, or even a mere soul (if such a thing exists)? Law I.

Remember though that the Three Laws are not meant as an easy answer to every religious questions, and would fail if used as such. Instead, the Three Laws provide our mind with a logical platform, a tool with which the exploration of the question of a super-advanced being may begin with a more rational approach.

At Time's End,

Swan


edit on 12-5-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

You should look into Frank Tippler's Omega Point.

The book that best illustrates that is "The Physics of Immortality"

Then read "The Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

You will see that there is reason and science that leads to concepts of deity, specifically with the unique attributes of the God of the Bible.

Your observations seem reasonable.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Does your entity supercede human's current knowledge of existence? Meaning in your idea is this "god" the actual creator? Or just an architect in a grand design beyond its own comprehension.

I can dig the architect theory, but not the creator theory.
edit on 12-5-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
What about justice, love and relationship

Kinda important as well



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

haha, so true dear Raggedyman
in my contemplation,
if there are some universal laws, than love is the most important.

imho.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Probably more of an architect than a creator. The Kardashev Scale speaks of a Type 4 civilisation, with immense powers over a system - but the system still has to exist first for the civilisation to then gain control over it.

 

a reply to: UniFinity

You misunderstand the purpose of the three laws - they are not "universal" laws, they actually are logical gates by which we humans could identify advanced beings. More like those handbooks to bird identification, except the subject here is divinity.


edit on 12-5-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

YES!

I love that theory, and can buy into it easily.

Someone from such a civilization would indeed appear to us as a god.

While our "god" wouldn't be the creator of everything, he/she/it would indeed be the creator of us.

We just don't fit on earth outside some kind of intervention.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

What a way to start my day.. I'm still waiting for my coffee to cool down (I'm temperature sensitive). WOW! haha thanks for sharing this with us - mind-boggling and I think of Quetzalcoatl the feathered serpent, perhaps he was a "God" to the Mayans for a reason. All throughout history there is reference to entities that could fit the description. Some are just myths but how could we be certain, some could be referring to actual entities that were interacting with the civilization.

Ancient civilizations and thinking about the grand scheme of it all - these are my favorite topics. Swanne thank you again for your analysis. Impressive and intriguing



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Don'tcha just hate it when your walking around and suddenly trip over the Three Laws of Divinity? 👀👣




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

oh I see. I did not read it good enough and as soon I see divinity and law
...my intuition auto-jumps to love : )

as you mentioned divinity.
Implying advanced and good natured beings.

So what would be considered advanced being aka. divinity.
- is this related to technological advancement of the external world?
- is this related to "internal" advancement and they are advanced in morality, love and compassion - spiritual advancement

one can be very advanced in some ways and in others not so much and vica versa.

How do you propose we identify who is who and what is what, after all I would rather relate to the second type, but it is far harder to identify.

And furthermore we love to be amused by magic and tricks and most of us can be simply persuaded to other side, if an advanced being just plays a role of a good guy, while having bad intentions....

All I am saying is,
when we meet another beings,
and we will in my opinion,
we should not focus only on what they say and they do in plain sight,
but we should focus on what they are not saying or not doing also,
this is just as much, if not more important.

I don't want to attack you, just thinking out loud
...it is a great thread!
edit on 1463057133545May455453116 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Very interesting and thought-provoking opening post.

At present your three laws seem to be rock solid and your overall premise appears to be plausible. I cannot really refute them myself.

Anybody out there up to the challenge?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's justice? Is it: letting a man shower in a women's locker room or allowing women to shower without worry?

What's love? Us it: a parent protecting a child by letting their child avoiding pain or making the child endure the pain?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Good post OP .I say good without completely understanding or am able to consider the perspective point .I am just marking the post and will watch and listen to others .Hopefully I will pick up from others what exactly you are saying .



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's justice? Is it: letting a man shower in a women's locker room or allowing women to shower without worry?

What's love? Us it: a parent protecting a child by letting their child avoiding pain or making the child endure the pain?


Justice is the law as written
It's not a valid question in the context of God who has a moral, spiritual, and civil code

How do you figure enduring pain is love?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Well, as much as I want all advanced beings to be benevolent, I however believe such a scenario to be unlikely. I base this opinion on my observation of mankind. When I speak of advanced beings, I mean advanced technologically, and with higher intelligence (problem-solving abilities). I cannot however guarantee that such beings are all loving and peaceful, though, and this is because we have a fine example rigth here on Earth. Humans are much more advanced technologically and mentally than, say, a seal; but this doesn't prevent many humans from being quite evil towards less-advanced animals.

*But* this doesn't rule out the possibility that at least one of such advanced beings is benevolent, just like there are good men helping out the environment right here on Earth.




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Given enough energy and enough time, a living being will evolve to control all of its given space.


Humans have done this, several times over. First with small villages, than cities, states, countries, continents, and now entire planets.


The victim of an unseen danger cannot recognise being saved unless the saviour shows the danger from which the victim is being saved.


Humans have also done this. Think of vaccines, intelligence gathering agencies, infrastructure, and such. There's so much we don't think about, or even know exists, that we have immunized ourselves from, to an extent.


To a less intelligent mind, the actions of an extremely intelligent being is indistinguishable from extreme absurdity.


Humans are exceptionally good at this one. Not only the man-in-car example you used, but consider the cat-mouse game of serial killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths. The sheer amount of unsolved murder cases and disappearances with potential-patterns we don't recognize. We also have more benign examples, like the Nazca lines or Voynich manuscript, which represent absurd, but organized, actions.

So, if human beings exhibit all three of your laws, how are we to distinguish ourselves from divinities? If we can't, and we are of the same capabilities as God, do we need God?

Just some food for thought.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
I May Have Accidentally Found The Three Laws of Divinity

Without dealing point by point, where your (Xtian flavored) 'laws' fail is in your erroneous assumption that your 'God/divinity' is 'other' than the Universe, all inclusive!
There is no 'God' "and"!
Omni- means that there is no 'and/other'!
There is just 'One'!

(T)Here is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality/God/Self!

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Your anthropomorphic and unKnowable notion of a 'Xtian' God, with all the 'salvating' and 'plans' and such is childish and vain ignorance. Just more of the same religion... Vanity!



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
I think these are not so much laws as rules, inasmuch that rules can be broken. But I think your observations are rather accurate in a general sense.

Your third law reminds me of the comic Dilbert, where the garbageman is the smartest man alive. When Dilbert questions him why the smartest man would choose such a profession, he tells Dilbert that he wouldn't understand.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wandering Scribe

So, if human beings exhibit all three of your laws, how are we to distinguish ourselves from divinities? If we can't, and we are of the same capabilities as God, do we need God?

Just some food for thought.


The answer is, of course, that advancement is not limited to mankind.

As you yourself observed, humans are capable of controlling the Earth's environment, capable of saving other life forms from unseen dangers, and capable of intelligent actions which appear enigmatic.

But now push this to the next level - and this is where the Three Laws help you grasp the bigger picture. What if there are supreme beings out there who can control not just events on Earth, but actually entire galaxies or even universe? Beings who are attempting to save less advanced species such as us from a danger, but who must also make us experience the danger so that we understand what we are being saved from? Beings whose actions are so esoteric to our primitive minds, that we cannot hope to comprehend their motivations or greater plans?

Such beings would appear as to hold divine powers.

The Three Laws uses mankind as an experimental platform, but it is by extrapolating them to cosmic proportions that the exploration of divinity becomes apparent.



new topics




 
14

log in

join