The Science of God

To many of us God is not a threat. He is an enhancement to our search.

If one leaves out the conditioning regarding a higher power, leaves the issues of religion behind, this MAY open a door to understanding the cosmos and consciousness more.

GOD extends the search through science. He doesn't inhibit it. Only our projections regarding him limit our thinking and our search.

It is not to be in fear of limiting science to God, it is limiting God to science! -MP

There is no god. No god!

reply to post by Damod

Perhaps the entangled universe is our God Mind. Which means every atom in every molecule is a part of this mind.

The best logical hypothesis I have heard in a long time.

Thinking outside of the box imagine this universe as a snapshot of the mind of God. Incidently when I think of God I do not try to singularise such a deity, to do so is to apply human characteristics to such an entity which is a futile exercise.

Using logic (logical to me anyway) one has to accept that there was an initial spark of consciousness from which other sparks stemmed or possibly were woken up, these sparks or spark imo organised existence itself which was full of unrealised potential, no consciousness or universe yet just shed loads of dormant potential and the vastness of space.

Now for me logically speaking I cannot accept this universe as the first attempt at creation. Science, chemistry and math are far too beautiful and elegant to have been created by chance. No the physical laws and the seed for creation were there all along, the stage at which the seed was introduced to creation is irrelevant, for me it's enough to say that at some point in existance consciousness introduced it.

So again sticking with logic if we want to experience the mind of God then logically speaking one of the options is to work backwards through time right to the beginning in order to catch a glimpse of said entity. So the simple answer is if one day when we are brave and powerful enough to understand that reality is our combined effort and we can shape said reality as QST suggests then one day in the future perhaps we can again cause this universe to converge into a singularity once more. It is then when the catch is brought in that we will all know who we truly are and what creation is all about! Imho.

I also ask that you try view time as you would view dimensions which I know only adds to the confusion.
Time as I understand it = movement.
Movement as I understand it = Conscious intent and purpose
Purpose as I understand it = exploration, discovery, understanding and contribution.

There is time as we know it which is all physical movement within our universe (with a few exceptions), obviously as one moves higher up the dimensions so the characterics of time change so as to incorporate all of the times within the dimension below. However its a common misconception that time somehow does not exist in 5D onwards, it does and is probably just measured in different ways!

Look for the time discrepancies and distortions in our reality and I believe you are closer to understanding the veiled aspect of reality, all the while getting closer to the mind of God.

Anyway cool thread.


[edit on 24-5-2009 by pharaohmoan]

reply to post by Deus Ex Machina 42

There is no god. No god!

Prove it!

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by spy66

 

Thirdly, if you have "nothing" you actually have something

Well your statement is not true. You only know of things that you have or exists.

Nothing is only a power if you relate it to something that exists as energy or matter.

If you have a absolute vacuum you have nothing. But if you put energy or matter to a dimension of absolute vacuum this vacuum becomes something. It becomes a power that will react with energy and matter.

But if you only have a perfect vacuum without energy or matter you have nothing.
You have no cause to create anything. A perfect vacuum is a state of infinite if there is no energy or matter in existence.

And last but not least. If you have energy or a power of some sort it must have a source. Because a power of + or - is something created by something.

+ and - create pressure. A absolute vacuum has no pressure, no energy, no matter, no time.

So how can a absolute vacuum create a energy of + and - on its own?

It needs a external power to be something. If not its just a infinite state of nothingness. And it wont change "ever".

So nothing is something that's quite right. But it wont do anything on its own. It needs something to be able to do something.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Deus Ex Machina 42

 

There is no god. No god!

Prove it!

Mmm he can't prove or disprove God. Nobody can. We can only argue if God is created in the image of Man. Or if Man is created in the image of God.

I don't think we get the image part right. Because we don't pay attention to what we Humans or anything else is made up of.
We like everything else are made up by many different types of energy's. What we are made up by is what gives us a shape, function and intelligence.

So energies joined together creates a function shape and intelligence.

The Bible describes God as pure energy or light. God is not a man or a woman. God is what we and everything else is made up of. "Pure energy"

We have been conditioned to image God in the shape of a Man a being or just a thing. That's where we go of track i think. We don't pay attention.

Question:
Could God alter or do anything if he was not pure energy?




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by Remiel
But isn't symmetry breaking still contingent on an external force or action?

Not necessarily. Imagine a chaotic system. Since it is chaotic, it must be perfectly symmetrical in every direction. And because it is chaotic, any conceivable instantaneous configuration of the system is theoretically possible.

Now imagine some configuration occurs that, before it can be torn to bits by the effects of the surrounding chaos upon it, actually affects that surrounding chaos in a way that causes order within the system to spread. This is how crystals, for example, form in a fluid solution.

And is symmetry breaking a concept in quantam physics, if so qp is largely theoretical anyway, right?

I think you mean quantum mechanics. Answer: (1) no, symmetry breaking is not confined to the quantum world, and (2) quantum theory has plenty of experimental support for it - in fact, QM is a field in which observation genuinely leads theory, and not (as was, for example, the case with relativity) the other way round.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SugarCube

 

As one citizen of the universe to another, nice work.

Was that a compliment? If so it was wasted, I can only claim responsibility for the transcription and not the text.

On another subject, some thoughts on the peak in interest in the infinity of time. The argument for an infinite period of time, i.e. that has no beginning and no end seems paradoxical when we consider the matter in our universe.

If time is infinite, then we occupy a point that has an infinite pre- and post- period of time surrounding it. If that is the case, then how do we account for the finite performance of stars and of matter itself.

In a round-about way, DaMod touched on this when he wrote on the subject of a finite amount of hydrogen burning up within stars. Although his point was aimed at a different proposition, the fact remains that we have a finite series of events occurring within an infinite series of time. So, why hasn't the finite series of events reached its natural end already?

From empirical evidence we can deduce that physical transformations occur, atomic elements break down and matter breaks apart. Clearly, there is "age" to our solar system and beyond. OK, so there is a limit to the function of the physical universe which must be constrained by something.

Even within an infinite period of time we can determine that the physical attributes of the universe, moons, planets, stars, galaxies, all had a beginning and will have an end to their form.

So what caused this finite series of events? A Big Bang? If a Big-Bang occurs within the infinite series of time then we have problems with our current mathematical model of the universe as the numbers do not add up when we get closer to the point of the "bang". If we change some so-called constants then maybe we could get the numbers to add up, but, by changing constants we then have issues with time itself.

Does it make sense that time and the physical being of the universe are independent within this framework? I believe not. Even if it is independent then we have an issue with our mathematics (OK - not perfect but the closet thing to perfection that we have) and we have the conundrum of the finite series of events within the infinite series.

If we assume that time is related to the physical being of the universe then we can see that it may have a beginning and end just as the physical entirety of the universe may have a beginning and end. If so, we may subscribe to the concept of a container in which these finite events can occur.

We may like to think of such a container as possessing methodical attributes subject to cause and effect, however, without a constraint of time we have the possibility of all and any event occurring - even the creation of a physical universe from nothing. Physicality is a manifestation of energy within the dimensions of our own universe - not necessarily the manifestation of energy without.

Rather than creeping up the scale of dimensions, I would see this as the "zero" dimension, in which all things occur simultaneously and, truly, instantaneously.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by spy66
By the way, anyone who naively believes that 'something cannot come from nothing' should familiarize themselves with the concept of symmetry breaking. OP, there's another hint for you.

I must be a naive person because i don't believe things can come from nothing. Things must have a source and a explanation.

I know some people will bring out the observation been done with the matter that just appeared out of nowhere, and disappeared without a trace.
But that doesn't mean it came from nothing.

To be fair to the theory of Symmetry Breaking, it doesn't necessarily literally translate that "something comes from nothing", rather that the source of the new emergence may be deemed beyond our comprehension and cognition.

In this whole thread, surely we have promoted the very idea that the manifestation of that source of which we have no comprehension and no cognition could be termed "God"?

reply to post by SugarCube

No, it's much simpler than that. Time is not infinite. It came into existence along with space when the Big Bang occurred.

Spacetime, you know.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yet the Big Bang is far from being proven fact. Ho hum. Go figure.

reply to post by SugarCube

In this whole thread, surely we have promoted the very idea that the manifestation of that source of which we have no comprehension and no cognition could be termed "God"?

Have we? I certainly haven't. No God of the Gaps for me, thank you. How do we know the sum of the universe is not zero? Fact: we don't.

Preexistence is unnecessary. There are conceptual limits within which the human mind must always work; this is clearly seen in the way the same basic metaconcepts are applied in every field of thought. It makes sense that there should be such limits, evolutionary determined.

Clearly, spacetime exceeds them, hence this insistence that there must have been something 'before': it is nothing but a naive (that word again) acknowledgement of those human limits to speak of the infinitesimal and the infinite, to invoke a 'before' and an 'after' and an 'outside'. Frogs in a well, speculating on the nature of the stars.

No infinite quantities have ever been found in nature.

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by ghaleon12
God is bestowing in quality, that is scientifically sound. We are receiving in our quality through the ego, that is also sound. How is egoism incongruent with God/spirituality, that's the question. It wants us to become bestowing in our qualities so to become like God, which is bestowal. The concept really isn't that difficult if a person just thinks about the ego and human behavior. Considering how our egos will basically kill each other if it benefits us, how is that going to fit in heaven? You're going to kill your brother in heaven? Yeah, don't think so....

[edit on 21-5-2009 by ghaleon12]

This thread does not mention the existence of heaven. Heaven is a man made term and does not apply. For all we know in reality there is no heaven and there is no hell. How do we know these things? Man made them.. Therefore the concept does not apply to this thread. Remember this is about god as a scientific concept. Heaven would imply a specific religion involved which is off topic. For all we know god and the devil are the same being therefore implicating polarity is invalid.

Ok really going to bed now...

God is a man made term/concept as well, I suppose it does not apply to this thread then, huh? Might want to apply the same rules to yourself.

I was purposely avoiding this thread for awhile but I'll come back to it at least for a bit lol. I know heaven isn't a scientific term, which is why I hesitated to use it. But by heaven, I thought people would translate it to "afterlife". And if you're talking about God and the afterlife isn't a topic you want to bring up, well that's a bit messed up frankly.

And you forgot to comment on the rest of my post, thanks. If you want to talk science of God I gave it to you. Please find an error and if you don't want to listen, thats your problem and you should change the title of the thread.

God is bestowing in quality, that is scientifically sound. We are receiving in our quality through the ego, that is also sound. How is egoism incongruent with God/spirituality, that's the question. It wants us to become bestowing in our qualities so to become like God, which is bestowal. The concept really isn't that difficult if a person just thinks about the ego and human behavior. Considering how our egos will basically kill each other if it benefits us.

You think there is a God without an after life? That makes no sense. Why do you use the term God then, hmm? Isn't that religiously charged? Sort of like if you used allah or yeweh, jehovah ect. It is of course religiously charged, so you're guilty of your own accusation.

If you wanted to be scientific, you would use the term "creator" since that's all we can observe, is that there is in a fact a creation in front of us.

A discussion about a God without an afterlife is stupid. It's like if you were talking about a God that could die, does that make sense to you? Or do you believe that God could die? Its ridiculous.

Instead of trying to figure God out, why don't we try to figure people/ourselves out? That's what I don't get. Ultimately it is us that has to change, so what good does going into quantum physics do? Is that going to complete the reason why we exist? Do some of you even know why we exist? Or what even "completion" looks like? Even if you somehow prove God, you're going no where if you can't answer those questions and you won't get those answers from science.

So again, whats the point? You're going to know absolutely nothing when it comes to spirituality. What's the point in try to figure out a God that doesn't include an afterlife, now or ever? Can anyone see the incentive in that?



[edit on 26-5-2009 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yet the Big Bang is far from being proven fact.

A key assumption of the OP is that it did happen, and this discussion is taking place within the framework of those assumptions. Don't you understand even the basic courtesies of civilized conversation?

[edit on 26/5/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by SugarCube



To be fair to the theory of Symmetry Breaking, it doesn't necessarily literally translate that "something comes from nothing", rather that the source of the new emergence may be deemed beyond our comprehension and cognition.

In this whole thread, surely we have promoted the very idea that the manifestation of that source of which we have no comprehension and no cognition could be termed "God"?

I agree.

When you mention a Symmetry Breaking concept. You are actually talking about something opposite of nothing. You use a "power" ( Symmetry braking) to explain a concept. A concept is a power of something.

Its hard to talk about the time before the BIG BANG. Because we cant trace energy before it has passed through equality. That means before it has changed into a new finite energy.
Energy is not infinite it changes all the time.

You can actually explain it quite good by trying to explain time traveling.

To be able to travel back in time to see the energy of the past you have to gather all the energy and matter that exists and put them back in place step by step until you reach the beginning.

I can give an example.

You have the number +4.

Your goal is to try and figure out how it was made. But how can you figure this out scientifically. You cant see the left side of the equation of the equality symbol.

There is something unique about this equation -5 + 9 = +4 that explain the complexity of energy . You only see the +4 but you have no clue to how it was made unless you make the equation up your self.








[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Hi DaMod

I liked your thread. It is obvious that you've put a lot of thought and work into it, and it sure seems like you know what you are talking about.

All the info and different opinions mentioned in this thread have stretched my mind and will still take me a while to fully absorb

reply to post by spy66

Surely your entire post assumes the God you are trying to prove?

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh, so that makes it correct? Fascinating. I liked your first response better. Not this new ad hom one.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Well, go contemplate the hexagram then, there's a good chap.

(Note to any watchful mod: as far as I'm concerned, this exchange ends here.)

reply to post by Astyanax


Topped off with condescention.