The Science of God

I skimmed through the first portion of this thread...so as not to cause any confusion, I am an atheist....I believe I am open minded to new ideas behind the existence of our physical universe and what not. The initial part of the thread covered areas that years of scientific research has helped explain..and what many of us are already familiar with to some degree. My only problem is how -god- would be defined by science....because it seems to be that -god- is defined differently by each person. Not only that, but it would seem to be a contradiction to say that -god- is not comprehensible by our puny brains, yet still, we contemplate what -god- is...or how science should define it. If god is not comprehensible then tell me..how did such a concept even form into your minds?

[edit on 23-5-2009 by laiguana]

Overall , a very good posting with a few off-topic posts.

Since we are all just theorizing here, try this one on:

The ERV viral sequence seems as plausible as anything else, except consider the virus as a form of local "god" if you will. From our initial viewpoint, it would appear to alter genetic code in hopes of continuing it's own survival, but it could be just as feasible to say each virus is purposefully injecting new code, not for it's own survival, but for evolvement of the species it inhabits. This would indicate a presence of mind, or the very least presence of intent, whether it is conscious of it or not.
But my personal favorite: The universe is the brain of "god". Dark matter, the essence of the space that surrounds us, is the grey matter of this brain. Each solar system is an individual atom. Each galaxy a molecule and so on to constitute the make-up of said brain. In order for this brain to function at all, not one piece can be missing, it can be changed, but not missing (i.e. Conservation of Matter). Now lets take nebulae, these are the formulation of ideas, ideas that become the atoms and molecules... People, animals, plants...etc are fermions, quarks, bosons...etc. I think you can see the correlations now; Here's the kicker of it all, perception is everything. I think in order to truly understand what we are debating about, trying to understand the whole by 'looking' at the parts, is fine for everyday observations. The real trial comes in trying to understand the parts by 'acting' within the whole and realizing that all things ARE related , interconnected, and cannot be separated and should not be separated in order to fully comprehend what is going on. It's all an infintity loop. The universe appears to be expanding by our perception, when it's possibly closer to being a tubular rubberband wadded up and yet revolving so that the surface is constantly moving in upon itself, giving us the perception of time and expanding space.
So now i come full circle, back to the virus. The finite is the infinite is the finite...but it really fails to be just a circle of 'life' and more like a entropic and extropic doughnut exhibiting properties of matter conservation and energy conversion.
Grand Unified Theory is a nice idea on the right lines of thinking, but until all sciences, philosophies, metaphysics and theologies can come together and consider how their fields of study fit into the larger puzzle, we are just going to spin our wheels and never really get anywhere.
Had fun thanks for reading.

reply to post by laiguana


It's not comprehensible in the sense that I can't show you a broken down diagram that explains it completely in our physics terms. Time isn't a force of nature, its a phenomenon of consciousness. Maybe a higher consciousness can process information at a higher speed.

I'm atheistish but there is still a good bit of info that leads me to believe in an energy that transcends em in terms of speed and impact on events. Whether that energy is sentient and there are various levels, is the very matter of debate and rather hard to prove one way or the other.

If a god or a god-like force exists, it is not of anything that we can observe without models based in our terms. There is steady continuous change at our level but who's to say that at another level the change in the universe has halted because all the change that is going to occur has occured. At that point anything could be observed and an action could be inserted along the "time-line". Compared to the great energy emissions and transformations of stars and galaxies, human activity pales in comparison. Yet we have to believe our actions are significant in the big picture because we see it differently through our eyes. Our eyes are like galactic microscopes to view the very small workings of the entire universe.

I still maintain that light and em are simply catching up to the future which has already happened.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Eitimzevinten]

reply to post by Eitimzevinten



I agree with you that for us to see light it has to reflect of something.

But that doesn't mean it lasts forever or is constant and never changes. We hardly know what light is.

How can you prove that the light is the same from point A to point B in time and so on to point C and D in time. When we observe the Sun or the stars from the same place all the time. I mean we observe the reflection from the same place all the time.

When we look away from the sun and study other places how do you know the ID of the source form where the light comes from. Our sun is not the only star in the universe that produce light or energy.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by Remiel


There's another side to the virus idea in that there are viruses that simply alter dna for their own existance. As a "lifeform" (term used to describe matter that takes action seemingly of its own accord), how does it know how to hack into said groups of dna and even better, where did it get compatible samples? A plant virus can't go ahead and infect a human cell unless it is familiarized with it. Viruses are interesting because they present evolution on the fly that occurs much faster than at the animal level.

They almost have to be just as, if not older, than regular cellular organisms. How does our immune system know it could face an attack from such a thing? It almost has to be embeded in our dna. I know there's bacteria we harbor as well that are symbiotic as opposed to staph and other various bacteria that infect to rule.

Thats biology and as you said everything we interact with is made of atoms, quarks, etc. Biology (IMO) is a simplified form of physics. If we are studying something down to its smallest parts, then we SHOULD be able to explain what happens all the way down to those parts.

reply to post by spy66


Most of our light comes from the sun thats not to say most of our em also comes from the sun, its a big spectrum. Light can and does change. If you need proof, look in a mirror. You will see an absolute dark spot (the pupil) behind the shiny cornea. It absorbs all light. in fact if you look closely you'll see that apparently there is nothing there at all. Since light is absorbed, it can't just stay there or our eyes would never stop burning from the overflow. Somehow its broken down into electrical nerve impulses or something else.

reply to post by Eitimzevinten


I agree, which leads me to another concern,"Genetic memory". What are your ideas on this? How does it relate to "Science of God" post?

reply to post by Eitimzevinten


I don't see why a 'god' is the only means of explaining an event (or something) we cannot observe or measure through our current technology. I am comfortable say that -I don't know- what caused the big bang or what lies beyond that point, and I won't make any conclusions about it either. Why people seem to think that a 'god' would be the only explanation for that is not something I can understand. I wonder if it is because it gives us a sense of security knowing that there is a sentient force behind the physics of our universe, and so forth.
I don't believe many of us here are astrophysicists.. so, unfortunately much of what I have read here appears to simply be regurgitated material that anyone can contort to fit a specific agenda.
And again...it just doesn't seem to be logical to say that something or 'god' is out there, but we don't know what it truly is..and we cannot measure or observe it as a whole, but it's there...This is what I would define as 'faith' and that is where science ends.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by laiguana]

Originally posted by Remiel
reply to post by Eitimzevinten

 

I agree, which leads me to another concern,"Genetic memory". What are your ideas on this? How does it relate to "Science of God" post?

In psychology, I was taught the idea that certain ideas are spread among the species (which I concluded means ingrained genetically) and then by specific bloodlines. This would mean, that certain traits are localized as opposed to generalized among the entire species. By the region our ancestors grew up in, certain adaptations were made. At birth our chromosomes are "randomized" half and half among the line of mother and father but how random are they if they derive from genes specialized over centuries (or milleniums) of an occupation of a single area or living condition?

Seeing as all my ancestors are from europe, its easy to explain why I prefer cold vs. hot and like wise would have a good tolerance to any virus that is native of europe. Now if I was to go to africa, within a week I would likely be sick from something because my genetic memory has long discarded any immunity to living conditions in that region.

How it relates is simple: If we were crafted from scratch to be "god-like" in our intelligence, there should be a trail that predates the mammal family that strategically and (keyword you pointed out) intentionally drove our evolution into man.

Science and Mathematics have actually never actually found out what a singularity (what the universe started as) is, and one physicist (forgot who) said we use the word singularity simply to hide our own ignorance. Apparently, it was too one of Stephen Hawkings greatest regrets not finding out what it was. Therefore it can only be true that most atheists simply believe that through science and mathematics we will one day find out how the Big Bang occurred, the same way how we found out how the Earth was formed, or how a star was formed. Richard Dawkings himself said that Athiests are technically Agnostic, however they do not believe in a god because that to them would be covering up their own ignorance. At least, that's how I see it.

In any case, if I recall correctly, the universe created hydrogen first and stars created the rest of the elements. As far as I know, helium would sink to the centre of the star where the star will begin fusing helium into progressively heavier elements in that order. Once it gets to Iron it takes more energy to fuse than it released to the sun dies. Creating a dust cloud, where future stars can form as well as planets. Also, stars can be made out of old stars as long as they do not contain too much of heavy elements- and their composition will be different compared to previous stars.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by laiguana


Its doesn't have to be a god. It could very well be that we are seeing all there is to see in existance and we know more than anything else that has ever existed. We, at this time however, have no proof to either claim. If there is a force above human competence at this point, again it doesn't have to be sentient. It could just as well be another inanimate force if it even exists. The fact that we are as scientifically advanced as we are and yet pushing forward for more is a testament to our own intelligence. Anyone's pro-god argument is meaningless without an atheist view point and vice versa. Knowledge is useless unless it is tested beyond itself.

reply to post by C0bzz


Is our sun is a Population 1 star meaning it was created by the guts from a population 2 star that went nova that was originally created from the guts of a population 3 star that went nova?

Does the "Population" reference towards stars translate into "Generation"?

Or am I getting it wrong?

Hello everybody.. First post!

I read the first 3 pages of this thread yesterday and I remembered a documentary i saw from BBC called the The Elegant Universe (in 3 parts).
The third part was about the 11th dimension/M Theory in continuation of the string theory. If we believe in the M theory we believe that our universe is covered by a membrane. Thise membrane is made of an electric string (from the string theory) that has expanded to such an extend that it covered the whole of OUR universe. This membrane which is an electrical field, that is covering our universe is floating around in this big "universe for universes?" and when it collides with another universe covered in an electrial membrane the energy generated by this encounter, will have to go somewhere. The theory is that this energy is the spark for the Big Bang, which created our universe, alongside the other universes.

This theory is an explanation to how the universe could be created without God launching the Big Bang.
I do believe that God created the universe, my question is just How? And what is this container of all the universes? According to the documentary gravity (or gravatrons) which is in the core of every atom, is a substance that can travel through the different dimensions and universes and is therefore an universel force, compared to the other forces of our universe.
Just thoughts... No real conclusion

Thanks for the thread, really made my brain overheat !!



[edit on 23-5-2009 by Alternative Thinker]

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Alternative Thinker]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a thread i started about this same topic. Just thought I should share it. Hope it ads some more discussion to the topic.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by SugarCube
As you say, time appears to be intrinsically associated with mass and what I would deem as the local event of the oscillation, therefore, time is encapsulated as an attribute of the the local event without being an attribute of The Idea per se.

By that logic, since time is also intrinsically associated with space (from v = s/t), wouldn't the Idea have to be extrinsic to space as well as time? If so it acquires the lineaments of fantasy, so far as inhabitants of this cosmos are concerned.

You interpret the concept of The Idea correctly, it would be extrinsic to space and time, both being specific properties of the created universe. As to whether it requires a constructed fantasy to exists... well, the very subject we are talking about is still a matter of great debate - Do 11 dimensions exist? Is the speed of light constant? I do not state that what I write is fact, merely that it is conceivable and I haven't has my citizenship revoked from this cosmos just yet.

There is no beginning of time or end of time. There is only time and matter. Matter is shifting in time. The very first assumption at the head of the thread is wrong.

You thread pretty much summarizes my idea up about religion and science.

I have always believed both were intertwined with each other.

But the fallacy with this is that who created "God"?

The real answer to all of this I feel is one that does not follow logic, and therefore we as a species will never agree on it.

I originally U2U'd some material to DaMod concerning some thoughts that have occupied men for centuries if not millennia. This material is from a work compiled in 1739 and I have to admit, I frequently reference it in posts as I am always surprised how prescient it is when compared to our modern understand:

Now, all good men are tasked to exhalt God the Almighty as The Undifferentiated Power before all things. In that place without age or location, nor substance or measure, neither wet nor dry, neither earth, nor air, nor fire, nor light, nor darkness, God being before all things, in entirety as existence without definition may be described in absolute terms Omnia et Nihil. God was in essence and presence as The All without further discretion, or context, or comparison, that no constraint of measure, or age, or any other quality or quantity known to man may be applied and said to be relevant. For the understanding of man, we may term the nature of this state of being as ignorabimus as it is beyond all knowledge of the created.

OK, so the thought is that "God" exists as an entity and that here is, literally, nothing else. In this context, no dimensional measurements are applicable and it acknowledges that humans may not have a concept of this as mankind is firmly rooted in a dimensional sense.

We may conjecture The All as one of sublime paradox for the understanding of man, that each part may be termed the whole, that each moment may be termed as the ever, that light was as dark and dark as light, that high was as low, wide was as narrow, deep was as shallow. We may define no aspect in this existence as pertinent to the state of being but as nihilation without contradiction. So as each moment may be said to be the ever, so came the ordination de novo that we may now know as creation which may be shewn to have always been for that event without ante hoc or post hoc within the state of being of The All existed as a happening at coincidence with all other happenings that may be said to be, as everything and so as nothing and this may be known as The Idea. That the moment of creation did occur is only as known to man but as God may ever be described as omnipotent so creation has always occurred and was ever to occur. Now in action so did God perform the Greatest Sacrifice as issue of The Idea and in so doing did create one Substance from the very being of that most holy presence, Hyle, which may be called the First Matter. This conversion to a physical dimension may be ascribed to a single undefined moment excepting our understanding as the beginning of all things that are known, now and as yet.

So, the concept of being everything without any form of differentiation is iterated and specific mention of "each moment" being the same as "all time" since it promotes the idea that time does not exist. It also indicates the paradox of God being everything and nothing. However, it indicates that an undefined moment occurs when God initiates the creation of the universe. However, it is interesting that although constrained by language, it attempts to reconcile the perception of a moment by indicating that the moment "always" occurs - because it has no context within time since time is not applicable.

Now, understand that Chaos is the first beginning of the first created from an Uncreated Being, that God omnipotent created in the beginning, but before the work of ages it was without shape and also confused. But afterwards all the most sound Philosophers nominated that Essence, the Mother and the first matter of the world and indeed the Universe as it may be known, in whose bosom innumerable forms lay hid, which the Omnipotent Builder, that great Spagirus, appointed in time to break forth, for God was as spirit in that Undigested Matter, Chaos, who some have affirmed ought to be called the Soul of the World, some the Form of Forms, others the Proximate Instrument of the Creator. Nevertheless, God’s design was of change and in that first moment all things that may only be known to man as post hoc, by The Lord’s Will, that The Divine Presence did in entirety become as substance and in doing so rendered all manner of artefact known to man. From the immeasurable divine essence did The Lord’s sacrifice spring forth the primordial matter and ordain the ages that man but measure as the passing of seasons and of the longevity of Sol and Luna.

The author has borrowed from alchemical thought (and text!) and shown how matter is created for the conceptual first time - although not really the first time since it consistently occurs. However, this suggests that the created of matter exists within a repeating framework of the created universe - newborn each time. So, not only matter but the universe (space and time) is created anew each time.

We may also understand that the moment itself was created as may be a measurable quality of the new being, that each day and night and the division of either as we have come to understand may be accorded a name and a comparative relation with another and therefore determined and recorded as so. That man may assign futile measurement to the passing of each moment is not to equate understanding with knowledge. In the Infinite Wisdom of God and in accord with the Great Work so was the moment of age created to support the Holiest Sacrifice that we in turn may come to wonder at the same. That passage has no name or continuity excepting that which man may experience by design, so may all the sides of a dice be known but man may not predict with certainty the happening of each unless by the Grace of God who in All Knowing Wisdom has bequeathed all the ages of man in full knowledge of their destiny but with keen aspiration as to their making as with all things ordained so that some measure of unknowing may become again.

In the previous passage, it is explicitly indicated that "time is created", also suggesting that a paradox of free will against predetermination. The ultimate destiny of this newly created universe is not clear, however, it indicates a possible purpose in the last sentence, "that some measure of unknowing may become again"; Now this may pertain to God or to the universe itself (i.e. a destruction) but it is difficult to interpret even in context.

I have posted this rather long entry simply because I find it comforting to think that people considered this 250+ years ago.

Originally posted by FeedingTheRat
There is no beginning of time or end of time. There is only time and matter. Matter is shifting in time. The very first assumption at the head of the thread is wrong.

This is not true. Time does have a beginning. Time is a construct created by the big bang, along with three-dimensional space. Before that point, time did not exist in this universe.

Now, does time in this universe have an end? Not in a steady-state or expanding universe. In a collapse, yes, time will have an end as it will break down, along with three-dimensional space, as it approaches the singularity (a bit like a black hole does).

Brilliant thread. Most thought provoking. My hat is off to this person/being. Great videos of Capt. Quantum..or who ever he is.
I was enthralled.