Jump to content

Could there be a God?


Recommended Posts

So if it's not all knowing and not all powerful, why refer to it as God, with all of the connotations that word carries?

 

But why do we need to call that something God, especially if we're positing it's a natural, not supernatural source.

 

''So if it's not all knowing and not all powerful, why refer to it as God, with all of the connotations that word carries?''

 

Because such a God would be something I couldn't describe. It might as well be in that case, the kind of care-free evaluation a normal church-goer who see's God, something beyond the normal bounds of what could be called for the sake of arguments, the limits of science.

 

''But why do we need to call that something God, especially if we're positing it's a natural, not supernatural source.''

 

We don't need to call him God. I've simply called him a superintelligence a couple of times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm frustrated that you're being so unnecessarily evasive and petulant, but I'm hardly angry.   I knew up front what you likely meant when referencing Einstein. You're not the first, nor will you

The lack of evidence is not evidence against. Something you will learn in science friend.

Sure, there "could" be a god. There "could" also be microscopic garden gnomes living in your armpits and singing songs accompanied by tiny fiddles.

Do yourself a favor and stop adding words to claims.

 

The relativistic equations says there is nothing outside of the universe for a number of reasons. One of them being there is no boundary to the universe. There is no edge.

 

For there to be something outside of the universe, it almost certainly requires a boundary between this universe and something else, which none of today's current equations in mainstream science support...

 

Has the Hawking's No boundary proposal proved to be a scientific fact? There are many scientists who have their own theories and leads to different cosmoslogical conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need to call him God. I've simply called him a superintelligence a couple of times.

 

 

Why would "it" have to be intelligent of even an entity? Why could it not simply a natural process we are currently unable to describe?

 

Good job ignoring my response to your assertions, you were the one who made the insinuations i was trying to clarify...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the Hawking's No boundary proposal proved to be a scientific fact? There are many scientists who have their own theories and leads to different cosmoslogical conclusions.

 

It emmm.... it has good scientific reference to our theories. Even before the No Boundary Proposal, it was taken as a natural prediction of relativity. I think... Einstein had at some point made a few references to the universe having no edge.

 

I mean, if we want to deal with other theories, that's fine. But in the context of our most tested theory, the no-boundary proposal seems to fit the Big Bang most precisely.

 

Why would "it" have to be intelligent of even an entity?

 

I'll need to be careful, but I often change the words intelligence and information about --- God could be an intelligence or information - I just don't believe it is a sentient being. It's just a very high ordered state, which in a sense has very strong correlations with the thermodynamical view that entropy was very very highly ordered at the point of ''creation''. Again, I don't want the word ''creation'' here to be thought of as an sentient decision.

 

The highly ordered state of entropy could be something which has a ''buzz'' of intelligence about it: I just don't take intelligence and sentient beings as being synonymous. There are many animals in the kingdom which do not have a state of conscious awareness but can be looked upon as quite intelligent, driven by their gene's.

Edited by Aethelwulf
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called the wave function. When the universe was very small, we believe it was still subject to quantum effects. In other words, the rules of quantum mechanics is the same everywhere. This would mean that just a single particle may have several outcomes to any state, the universe also had many states it could have arisen in. In fact, according to current belief, the universe could have had an infinite amount of possible states it could have arose in, but only so many of those states would allow the kind of stable vacuum we observe today.

 

Now the reason why this creates a question of God, is who made the first measurement which pulled the universe out of this superpositioning? We are led to this question because if the universe had arose out of so many states, we would effectively still see some of these states smeared over spacetime. We don't.. however, this is one reason why parallel universes was created.

And how do you jump from current belief about QM to near certainty that we know why the multiverse was created (ignoring for the moment that multiverse theory is one interpretation). Even if all your assumptions and "proofs" are correct, the why question shouldn't even enter into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll need to be careful, but I often change the words intelligence and information about --- God could be an intelligence or information - I just don't believe it is a sentient being. It's just a very high ordered state, which in a sense has very strong correlations with the thermodynamical view that entropy was very very highly ordered at the point of ''creation''. Again, I don't want the word ''creation'' here to be thought of as an sentient decision.

 

I honestly can't take your assertions any other way, you seem to be applying definitions that are your own and no one else's...

 

The highly ordered state of entropy could be something which has a ''buzz'' of intelligence about it: I just don't take intelligence and sentient beings as being synonymous. There are many animals in the kingdom which do not have a state of conscious awareness but can be looked upon as quite intelligent, driven by their gene's.

 

This is another assertion that cannot be taken at face value, how can you know that a creature has a state of conscious awareness or does not and how is intelligence automatically a part or not a part of self awareness? I am not trying to bait you, I think these are reasonable questions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you jump from current belief about QM to near certainty that we know why the multiverse was created (ignoring for the moment that multiverse theory is one interpretation). Even if all your assumptions and "proofs" are correct, the why question shouldn't even enter into it.

 

Because nothing can be absolutely certain. But I am certain enough myself that... God is not the traditional biblical text God.

 

And, I don't believe parallel universes exist for a number of reasons.

 

I honestly can't take your assertions any other way, you seem to be applying definitions that are your own and no one else's...

 

 

 

This is another assertion that cannot be taken at face value, how can you know that a creature has a state of conscious awareness or does not and how is intelligence automatically a part or not a part of self awareness? I am not trying to bait you, I think these are reasonable questions...

 

Animals which have consciousness have been tested for ''self-awareness'' or as it is often called ''self-reflectiveness''. There are about three animals I know of in the animal kingdom which are able to ''recognize'' themselves.

 

This is not to say that a Cat or Dog cannot ''feel''. just don't think they are capable of the level of consciousness required for extremely high thinking. And yes, many of these definitions of God are my own, but not too far off Einstein's, since I am basing this on the natural world, the same stance Einstein believed in.

Edited by Aethelwulf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand. You said IF God exists. I notice the IF.

 

 

No, I am treating this as saying "IF God exists He would be subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics".

 

 

You should consider the possibility that perhaps people disagree with you not because they didn't read what you wrote, but because they think you are wrong. You do understand that you could be wrong, don't you?

 

Your assertion has inspired me to make one of my own:

 

God is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. If a God truly exists, he therefore must exist outside of the universe. If he did exist inside the universe it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. Since this has not happened, it is proof that IF he exists, he exists outside the universe.

 

Yes, sure. God exists outside the universe. To me that is saying that God does not exist, because anything that exists, exists in space and time.

 

The only other possibility is that we can give relative meaning to the domain of abstract things, like mathematical constructs. They too don't live in ordinary space time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sure. God exists outside the universe. To me that is saying that God does not exist, because anything that exists, exists in space and time.

 

yes, I think I agree. Saying God is outside of the universe, is like saying he has no implications at all in the universe. If that was the case of course, why should we care about him or her? He may as well be a separate system... I guess... if there was an outside to the universe, the most implications he would have is defining an energy, but this kind of nature is unheard of, at least from the physical implications of quantum mechanics.... which is perhaps ironic considering the massive implications it would have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, many of these definitions of God are my own, but not too far off Einstein's, since I am basing this on the natural world, the same stance Einstein believed in.

 

Cool. I believe in the universe too. I'm sure the other posters do as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. I believe in the universe too. I'm sure the other posters do as well.

 

More than though. I am talking about some... underlying driving force which guides the universe. You might even think of it as the thing which might drive pilot waves (found in deBroglies description of the wavefunction).

 

What is it that drove expansion? The universe contains more than simply the physical stuff, it has information in it which is perhaps... not always about the physical manifestion of the world around us. There is a force, which keeps things in order, a causal set which was originated from an origin where space and time began to make sense...

 

As I said before, out of a highly ordered entropy, came a very high improbability of events. From this, one can only assume there must have been...

 

 

.... a high probability in contrast. What was there to control that?

 

Put it this way, nothing exists without a sense of smeared results unless something comes along and disturbs that. Interestingly enough, in the de Broglie Universe, the wave function collapsed at the point of origin, out of which all information had been predestined.

 

Why? How did it collapse? Who was the observer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, out of a highly ordered entropy, came a very high improbability of events. From this, one can only assume there must have been...

 

 

.... a high probability in contrast. What was there to control that?

 

I'm a Christian. So I say God. But all it seems to me like is that you're presenting a god-of-the-gaps with a few physics buzzwords and \LaTeX equations. You still have no evidence. And you keep saying "assume" and "must" as if that makes you correct. And it doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian. So I say God. But all it seems to me like is that you're presenting a god-of-the-gaps with a few physics buzzwords and \LaTeX equations. You still have no evidence. And you keep saying "assume" and "must" as if that makes you correct. And it doesn't.

 

I thought you liked the universe?

 

 

No offense, but if you respected the universe and the science behind it, you should realize that a gospel beyond scientific limit is... unreasonable. What does your God consist of? Four years ago, I was a devout Christian as well... thinking all souls would be burned in hell. I soon came to realize, that the God spoke of in the Bible had no merit with science, as much as the tooth fairy does not take my teeth away... however... I also simultaneously came to realize, that God is not outside the realms of possibilities... in the sense that science itself has no bounds to a superintelligent artifact of the world around us. God is mearly an instrumental device. Hoyle I think had one of the best theories concerning this. So from an ex-Christian to a Christian, don't think I am being neglectful of your ways for they were once mine.

 

I use so-called ''buzzwords'' because I am educated in science. To see I do not use ''Buzzwords'' frivolously, you should join us in the science subforum, because until now, I have never seen your face. Maybe because you are Christian, you have avoided the subforum? Speculation mind you... no doubt you dabbled in the science area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you liked the universe?

 

I do. A great deal. It is a marvelous place.

 

No offense, but if you respected the universe and the science behind it, you should realize that a gospel beyond scientific limit is... unreasonable.

 

Why it's called faith, brother.

 

What does your God consist of? Four years ago, I was a devout Christian as well... thinking all souls would be burned in hell.

 

Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.

 

I also simultaneously came to realize, that God is not outside the realms of possibilities... in the sense that science itself has no bounds to a superintelligent artifact of the world around us.

 

My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.

 

I use so-called ''buzzwords'' because I am educated in science. To see I do not use ''Buzzwords'' frivolously, you should join us in the science subforum, because until now, I have never seen your face.

 

No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either. :)

 

Maybe because you are Christian, you have avoided the subforum? Speculation mind you... no doubt you dabbled in the science area.

 

Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

 

Did I adequately answer your condescending question?

Edited by A Tripolation
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. A great deal. It is a marvelous place.

 

 

 

Why it's called faith, brother.

 

 

 

Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.

 

 

 

My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.

 

 

 

No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either. :)

 

 

 

Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

 

Did I adequately answer your condescending question?

 

Faith no doubt, is for empty souls who have no evidence.

 

''Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.''

 

Sorry... which christian order are you a part of?

 

''No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either.''

 

Interesting... only people who can't write the science in a math format and understand it correctly use buzzwords... do you want to test me on something??? Strange.. being tested on something... does that sound like something that your are familiar with?

 

''My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.''

 

I am no longer in your league... however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it?

 

''Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

What is your knowledge of physics. Can you calculate singularities in a black hole... can you evaluate simple relativistic dynamics... Talk about being condescending, you are not far off it yourself, but trust me, I can be worse.

 

">Did I adequately answer your condescending question?''

 

No... no more condescending you coming in here proclaiming you are a Christian. Or where you offended by the fact I don't appreciate your God?

 

Are you really a christian... this should be more interesting than it has raised so far then...? No?

 

I had to edit a few things there... sometimes my hands work far to fast for the computer.

Edited by Aethelwulf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith no doubt, is for empty souls who have no evidence.

 

''Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.''

 

Sorry... which christian order are you a part of?

 

''No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either.''

 

Interesting... only people who can't write the science in a math format and understand it correctly use buzzwords... do you want to test me on something??? Strange.. being tested on something... does that sound like something that your are familiar with?

 

''My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.''

 

I am no longer in your league... however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it?

 

''Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

What is your knowledge of physics. Can you calculate singularities in a black hole... can you evaluate simple relativistic dynamics... Talk about being condescending, you are not far off it yourself, but trust me, I can be worse.

 

">Did I adequately answer your condescending question?''

 

No... no more condescending you coming in here proclaiming you are a Christian. Or where you offended by the fact I don't appreciate your God?

 

Are you really a christian... this should be more interesting than it has raised so far then...? No?

 

I had to edit a few things there... sometimes my hands work far to fast for the computer.

 

How quickly we forget...

 

... I could try and stop being a **** about it sometimes...

 

...In the end, I have no intentions to be negative intentionally...

 

...i give my humble apologies to anyone I may have .... insulted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of the Uncertainty Principle do you not understand?

 

You do realize, in it's fullest that it is a Law of Nature - an inherent law within all matter...

 

You do realize, that particles could not be sustainable if such a law broke down at any time?

 

So explain, if a God existed, why don't we see these violations? (Not that we'd be around for long if he did anyway...)

 

I understand the Uncertainty Principle just fine. I also understand the meaning of any/all gods/deities to include those that are supernatural, outside of nature, and/or those that are outside the Universe as we know it. I guess I can assume at this point that you didn't understand the question.

 

BTW, it's exactly that abrasive, arrogant, finger pointing, holier-than-thou attitude you exhibit toward others, as you have me, that keeps getting you neg repped by others. It's really quite juvenile.

Edited by doG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry... which christian order are you a part of?

 

The order that does their utmost to follow Christ's teachings and philosophies.

 

 

 

Interesting... only people who can't write the science in a math format and understand it correctly use buzzwords... do you want to test me on something??? Strange.. being tested on something... does that sound like something that your are familiar with?

 

Oh, shut up. I don't care how much schooling you may or may not have. You could be a quantum field theorist for all I care. You're still using terrible logic in this thread.

 

 

[quote

however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it?

 

Define God. Then show me the empirical, objective evidence for his/her/its existence. Then, explain why I should call ANYTHING that we can test "God." If I can understand God, it is not a god.

 

 

[/b]What is your knowledge of physics. Can you calculate singularities in a black hole... can you evaluate simple relativistic dynamics... Talk about being condescending, you are not far off it yourself, but trust me, I can be worse.

 

No. I can't. As far as I know, no one can understand the singularity at the "core" of a black hole because there is no successful theory of quantum gravity. I can calculate basic curvature around a black hole. I vaguely understand entropy measurements of black holes. And, yes, I can do basic relativistic dynamics. Did you have a point, or do you just want an intellectual-pissing contest instead of focusing on your fallacy-riddled OP?

 

 

No... no more condescending you coming in here proclaiming you are a Christian. Or where you offended by the fact I don't appreciate your God?

 

I couldn't care any less about whether or not you worshiped my God. I care that you try to act like God can be modeled scientifically, or that God is a necessity for our universe.

 

Are you really a christian... this should be more interesting than it has raised so far then...? No?

 

This is off-topic. No more questions about my beliefs. I am a Christian, but not a kind you would recognize.

 

 

So, once more, explain how you are defining God. You are presupposing that there was an initial observer. But this is not valid.

Edited by A Tripolation
Link to post
Share on other sites

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. (Albert Einstein)

 

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the human mind. (In stone around a Washington Shrine, by Thomas Jefferson)

 

If one purges the Judaism of the prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire for personal independence – these are the features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it.

Those who are raging today against the ideals of reason and individual liberty and are trying to establish a spiritless state slavery by brute force rightly see in us their irreconcilable foes. History has given us a difficult row to hoe; but so long as we remain devoted servants of truth, justice and liberty, we shall continue not merely to survive as the oldest of living peoples, but by creative work to bring forth fruits which contribute to the ennoblement of the human race, as heretofore. (Albert Einstein)

 

Psychology will accept astrology without further restriction because it represents the sum total of knowledge of the human psyche from antiquity. (Carl Jung)

 

Halley : Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you believe such foolishness as astrology?

 

Newton : Because Sir, I have studied it and you have not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone says the word ''God'' most people think of divine, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing entities. There are some problems with an all-knowing entity, such as the Uncertainty Principle.

 

If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics. If he didn't it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. There is one reason why (a) God cannot be outside of the rules of quantum physics, assuming that relativity has any universal truth or precedence. Since nothing exists outside of the universe, we must assume God is contained within his own creation - indeed, assuming he even created the universe. A possibility of such an entity would be that they were created inside of the bubble of the universe, entwined if you like in a ''creation'' which he (or indeed she) had no control over.

 

Many people have traditional views of God today, mostly evolved from scriptures and ancient proverbs - but these have been adapted by men on Earth who have created these views to suit their doctrine and way of thoughts and systematic beliefs and foibles. What does seem certain, if a God does exist and are so superior, beyond the intellect of man, it is doubtful he or she would even find us interesting. Indeed, the God of Einstein was Spinoza's God, a God who does not care for the doings of mankind.

 

This is likely, the kind of God we can deal with in physics, or any kind of understanding of any physical kind of science. God is not outside of science, so long as you realize that God must be ignorant of many physical qualities that we often think he is superior for.

 

So what is ''God'' if not something we associate to scripture?

 

God in my eyes, should be ''something'' which has as quantum nature about it. Usually in quantum mechanics, to encode the information about a particular system, we consider a ''State Function'' often denoted with a [math]\Psi[/math] ''a capitol Psi''. The is the wave function which describes if you like, all the information of a system, which could be from a particle to the entire universe. The problem however, is, just like a particle you can only know [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] of any attribute of a particle system. You may know for instance, with almost correct parameters the position of a particle, but doing so would result in an amazing uncertainty inherent in its momentum/trajectory.

 

The wave function therefore itself, or rather, the state function cannot ever really be known completely unless we where talking about systems which was ''macroscopic'' because such systems are devoid of quantum effects (not entirely, but enough) to be ignored. A position of Schrodinger's cat is not smeared over space for instance. So in it's full form, is the universe a victim of quantum effects? It is after all, something large and can be modeled as a macroscopic system?

 

Well, most of the universe is made up of about 99% space. The rest of it exists as tangible ''existing out there'' matter, the kind that our most functional telescopes can hone in on and take pictures of. The rest of space is made up of ghostly matter which appears to be smeared over all spacetime. Some of it in the form of radiation, others will be smeared over spacetime as particles or other types of matter resonating from other distant galaxies. And even, some of this matter might actually turn up in different parts of space which a most recent experiment has shown (citations can be given if asked for).

 

I have even speculated within myself whether anamolous gravitational effects show up in the universe because the matter in the universe turn up in places they shouldn't according to this experiment, and thus, adding a reason why we pick up gravitational distortions where they should not be present.

 

God could even be some kind of ''supercomputer'' who is located in the future sending signals back in the form of (what I will call) Cramer Waves. Cramers delayed choice experiment has shown that actions in the future can in fact alter present conditions we see today. In relativity, we have no such thing as a ''true past'' or even a ''true future''. So maybe God is really some kind of machine in our future horizon which creates the world we see around us today, (which would mean ultimately) that things we do and observe in the present is really shaping the world in the past, when the universe was young and ripe.

 

I haven't read the entire thread, only the 2 first pages.

I am surprised that the discussion bypasses (did it?) the reference to Cramer waves.

 

I knew nothing about Cramer waves & Transactional interpretation. I learned something today. Thank you Aethelwulf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

AethelWolf, I'm giving you two options here:

1. I move this thread to Religion and you focus the conversation on that aspect.
2. It stays here and I close it for violation of the rules outlined in my previous note (the one about needing evidence).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the whole universe is inside you then definitely something exists outside the universe?

 

Then it can be stated that is the worldview of solipsism, and nobody can take that serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it can be stated that is the worldview of solipsism, and nobody can take that serious.

 

Not necessarily a reality independent of the mind could exist and we could access it, it doesn't have to be solipsism where only your mind is real. One of the reasons why many 20th century physicists resorted into mysticism is because they knew science could not give an objective account of reality. I think that neither science nor mysticism can give an objective account of reality, only God can give an objective account of reality and the universe could be made of anything, I'm a realist not a solipsist.

 

 

I disagree with your earlier statement that everything has to exist with in the space-time, I'm not buying that unless we can know how quantum entanglement works. Objectivity of the world has been falsfied, an alternative view is that the universals in the mind is responsible for the assignment of attributes to something and bringing out the empirical reality for every observer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your earlier statement that everything has to exist with in the space-time, I'm not buying that unless we can know how quantum entanglement works.

 

Alright, I've only had basic quantum, but I'm pretty sure we know how entanglement works. Hint: It's nothing that will ever lead to interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.