Jump to content

God as the Universe theory.


JohnSSM
 Share

Recommended Posts

I looked over some other threads that come close to making my point and asking my questions and I did look over the sticky "Define God"..

"If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes" was used in that thread...as well as...
"
f you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other"

So what of the option that God is the universe, and does not ever intervene in natural physical processes? Those natural physical processes are god, just as everything else that we observe, because the entire universe is god...When we prove something, we find the truth of god...This god does not reside outside of the natural universe, this god is the natural universe. But i don't see any reason to insist that this god would have to intervene or interrupt god's own entity or self (universe)...

So we would be referring to a god who IS rules than govern matter and energy...and also, the matter and energy...That's a seemingly high power...a consiousness of this God may not exist in any fashion we can consider...to be free of the effects of relativity...to be that thing which we are relatively experiencing from a dot inside it...it is the whole...there is nothing to hide any true perspective from a non relative perspective...

I saw another guy get clobbered for making this type of claim...but im not claiming any ressurection or past lives other than the info we get from our ancestors genes...

My point is much simpler and doesnt claim anything which science does not claim...the way I see it, as our science proves and disproves things, we are finding god and the truth in which god is constructed...a small truth of God...just because we cant make up our minds or get the science right does not mean anything has changed...to me, it sounds as if it has always been the same, but evolving from the intentions and doctrines of strictly following it's own rules...the universe interacts with itself...nothing outside it interacts with it...i do agree...

Of course, I dont have proof of anything...i see rules which have not yet become intuitive to anyone's sense of how nature might be operating...because we don't really understand every last bit of what is going on...intuition failed a long time ago and math became that which we used to seek the truth...it seems we are close to knowing everything we need to know about the physical universe and its interactions, fields and particles, but who knows how close? You cant really say till you get there and look back in hindsight...so...we claim to know what we know as we discover and prove it with math, which is all we can do...but that does not mean an entire answer is not waiting to be found...To me, that means god is there and has always been there as far back we can figure "there" is...If all we can detect is moments around the big bang, than that's all the further back I can claim god existed...

The nasty bit is trying to imply any type of consciousness...I just think...our little apparent relative consciousness is probably the effect of energy and interactions...it creates chemistry, biology, and that began brains and learning...these things which makes who were are, with an apparent consciousness had to evolve...and they undoubtedly sprung from from the natural universe in some way...Dont we have a consciousness simply from energy being used in different forms to communicate and sustain? What are all the processes of the universe? They all seem like methods of communicating relative perspective from one "mass" to another...and rules guide that process...entirely? they must...

Proof is something than can help the understanding of a certain truth...but just one bit of proof cannot prove anything...proof is a huge concept that can exclaim to the world that we have now have found a real perspective that is apparent to everyone who understands quantum mechanics and the proof we have is real and true...but we still dont have proof of all things...what I see has no proof at all...but believing that the interconnected web of energy, that is the universe, could not possibly render some type of awareness, based on that web of energy and its own communal awareness as energy, that radiates and absorbs into constant clicks of communication throughout that energy...well...it almost sounds like you dont believe your own brain and biology could have created your awareness...i mean...just a little...there is a metaphor there...I dont know if its worth anything as proof to anyone but me...but seeking to disprove my own ideas are hard...because I dont really claim much other than the structure and function of the universe seems analogous to that of the brain...and the brain can learn and store energy and feel emotions and create awareness through the sensations its recieves....

eh....god...but i had to write it because i have been thinking it...I wanted to see how it might stand up here...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death of the Universe is an expression you hear of quite often.

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html

The second possible end is where the universe would continue to expand forever: Everything will eventually disappear, and the temperature of the universe will be absolute zero (0 K, -459.688 °F). This second process has many names, but the most common is the "Big Freeze;" it would happen in the reverse situation of the Big Crunch - if the universe does not have enough matter for the collective gravity to counteract the expansion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If god is the whole universe, acting as it does without any kind of special privilege or omnipotent superpowers (other than the amazing processes we already know about), then why do we need to call it a god? Why is that bit necessary? Because that's the bit where it breaks down for me. It's so easy to see why we needed gods to explain things when we were ignorant, and how humans would have attributed coincidences to a supernatural force that was difficult to understand but simple to believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If god is the whole universe, acting as it does without any kind of special privilege or omnipotent superpowers (other than the amazing processes we already know about), then why do we need to call it a god? Why is that bit necessary? Because that's the bit where it breaks down for me. It's so easy to see why we needed gods to explain things when we were ignorant, and how humans would have attributed coincidences to a supernatural force that was difficult to understand but simple to believe in.

While it is not a 'necessity' to call it God, it is also not a 'necessity' not to call it god. Let's just say, people like to have options, especially when there are options, as is the case here.

 

If you disagree, kindly point out why 'unnecessary' is bad or irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is not a 'necessity' to call it God, it is also not a 'necessity' not to call it god. Let's just say, people like to have options, especially when there are options, as is the case here.

 

If you disagree, kindly point out why 'unnecessary' is bad or irrational.

 

I think the irrational option is an ignorant choice. The addition of the unnecessary god aspect to explain natural phenomena seems like window-dressing, and historically it also inhibits productive learning if your answer to what you don't know is "God did it!"

 

I think this god-as-the-universe theory just perpetuates the unfalsifiability of god(s), giving them a nice safe place to avoid observation and predictability. How do you support the concept that god is the whole universe? What evidence could ever show that a supernatural deity is behind a phenomenon we can also, and more easily, explain naturally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the irrational option is an ignorant choice. The addition of the unnecessary god aspect to explain natural phenomena seems like window-dressing, and historically it also inhibits productive learning if your answer to what you don't know is "God did it!"

 

I think this god-as-the-universe theory just perpetuates the unfalsifiability of god(s), giving them a nice safe place to avoid observation and predictability. How do you support the concept that god is the whole universe? What evidence could ever show that a supernatural deity is behind a phenomenon we can also, and more easily, explain naturally?

I'd like to inform you that theology has made progress, if you can call it that, and the religionists no longer say 'God did it' in the narrow sense you imply. They now say that the laws of the universe were decreed by God and we can discover and use them accordingly. So you see, the God vision has ascended to a grander scale than before. Our learning is not inhibited by it. Rather, we're spurred on to discover the wonders of the universe as created by God.

 

Also, there's no evidence that god is the universe. The argument rests on the irrefutable nature of such a possibility. Personally I don't think god is a plausible hypothesis. However, implausibility doesn't eliminate possibility. The OP is probably arguing from possibility which I think is wrong for possibility doesn't imply actuality.

 

Thus, we're at an impasse for despite improbability of god, we can't negate the possibility of god. The reasonable thing in this case would be to refrain from making categorical statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I dont have proof of anything...i see rules which have not yet become intuitive to anyone's sense of how nature might be operating...because we don't really understand every last bit of what is going on...intuition failed a long time ago and math became that which we used to seek the truth...it seems we are close to knowing everything we need to know about the physical universe and its interactions, fields and particles, but who knows how close? You cant really say till you get there and look back in hindsight...so...we claim to know what we know as we discover and prove it with math, which is all we can do...but that does not mean an entire answer is not waiting to be found...To me, that means god is there and has always been there as far back we can figure "there" is...If all we can detect is moments around the big bang, than that's all the further back I can claim god existed...

 

Well, if you look at intuition and imagination as tools, you can see how there are concepts/projects where those tools will come in very handy, and others where they will not. Most things we easily solve with math don't need much imagination, and they certainly don't need intuition mucking things up.

 

So I don't think intuition failed, so much as it was applied to the wrong concept. My intuition tells me that if I have a table 3 feet high, and I place a rifle on top, parallel to the ground, and also place a rifle bullet on the table near the edge, and I simultaneously fire the rifle and push the bullet off the edge, that the bullet I pushed will hit the ground 3 feet down waaaaay before the bullet I fired from the rifle hits the ground. But physics uses math as a tool instead of intuition, and it tells me, against every intuitive instinct I feel, that the bullets are both affected by gravity equally, and will hit the ground together.

 

Also, just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know a HUGE amount. And others might disagree, but I think science isn't as much interested in knowing everything as much as it's interested in knowing the next thing, and the next after that.

Thus, we're at an impasse for despite improbability of god, we can't negate the possibility of god. The reasonable thing in this case would be to refrain from making categorical statements.

 

I avoid "categorical statements" by prefacing my sentences with words like "I think". Since the whole concept of god(s) is supernatural and unsupported by reality, I try to show in this way that mine is an opinion only.

I'd like to inform you that theology has made progress, if you can call it that, and the religionists no longer say 'God did it' in the narrow sense you imply. They now say that the laws of the universe were decreed by God and we can discover and use them accordingly. So you see, the God vision has ascended to a grander scale than before. Our learning is not inhibited by it. Rather, we're spurred on to discover the wonders of the universe as created by God.

 

Progress? I think they've merely shifted the goalposts. No matter what they call it, it still doesn't seem to be necessary, and reality continues apace.

 

And I do think our learning is inhibited by it. Do you need some examples of how ignorance based on religious teachings has cost lives? Aren't we still fighting wars and burying innocents over Iron Age religious concepts that, if they were to spread, would throw a blanket on any kind of enlightenment we've acheived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phi for All: Frankly, I think the religious god is highly improbable. It just won't fit in the current knowledge framework. However,I'm worried about being to self-assured about what I know and for that matter, our current body of knowledge. I simply can't shake off the anxiety I fee when I contemplate the fact that we can sit on this tiny speck of space dust in one of billions of galaxies spread across unimaginable distances AND pronounce that we KNOW such and such about the universe. If it is anything at all, it is pure unadulterated hubris and more relevantly, foolishness.

 

Thus the miniscule probability of a god, given our current understanding, piques my interest. It looks improbable only when put in context of CURRENT wisdom which probably forms 0.00000000000.....01% of what can be known about the universe. So, it looks to me that we're jumping to conclusions here. That's why, despite the improbabilities imposed by extant stare of affairs, I remain open to the possibility of a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument needs me to assert that I KNOW there's no god, and my argument doesn't. I'm looking strictly at the preponderance of evidence, and determining that, based on what we've observed, supernatural involvement isn't needed, so why introduce it? Occam's Razor tells me there are simpler explanations that don't need an unobservable, universe-encompassing deity to make things go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If god is the whole universe, acting as it does without any kind of special privilege or omnipotent superpowers (other than the amazing processes we already know about), then why do we need to call it a god? Why is that bit necessary? Because that's the bit where it breaks down for me. It's so easy to see why we needed gods to explain things when we were ignorant, and how humans would have attributed coincidences to a supernatural force that was difficult to understand but simple to believe in.

There is no need to call the universe god unless it is a source of higher power and information...and if it is our source, then it would be a god in my mind...

Your argument needs me to assert that I KNOW there's no god, and my argument doesn't. I'm looking strictly at the preponderance of evidence, and determining that, based on what we've observed, supernatural involvement isn't needed, so why introduce it? Occam's Razor tells me there are simpler explanations that don't need an unobservable, universe-encompassing deity to make things go.

What is your simply explanation for the rules of the universe? why would it have any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to call the universe god unless it is a source of higher power and information...and if it is our source, then it would be a god in my mind...

That just sounds like you're changing the definition of god. Again, why does it need to be a god? Can't it simply be a universe?

 

What is your simply explanation for the rules of the universe? why would it have any?

Study science, and you'll find that we've observed many physical phenomena, and through experimentation we've developed theories to test that knowledge. These are the simpler explanations I was talking about. Much simpler than a god we can't see, doing things for unknown reasons (or not), and taking credit for events we're fairly certain we know the causes of.

 

Why do you think there needs to be a god(s)? Is it just because there are so many tens of thousands of religions around, all claiming a different version?

 

I'm not saying there is no god. I'm saying there's no need for one, so why do so many people feel the need to invent their own version? Or is there a way to distinguish between your god-as-the-universe concept and that of other believers? Is there anything to support this belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just sounds like you're changing the definition of god. Again, why does it need to be a god? Can't it simply be a universe?

 

 

Study science, and you'll find that we've observed many physical phenomena, and through experimentation we've developed theories to test that knowledge. These are the simpler explanations I was talking about. Much simpler than a god we can't see, doing things for unknown reasons (or not), and taking credit for events we're fairly certain we know the causes of.

 

Why do you think there needs to be a god(s)? Is it just because there are so many tens of thousands of religions around, all claiming a different version?

 

I'm not saying there is no god. I'm saying there's no need for one, so why do so many people feel the need to invent their own version? Or is there a way to distinguish between your god-as-the-universe concept and that of other believers? Is there anything to support this belief?

Can you give me an example of how the nuclear strong force came to be? How do you explain why particles radiate at all? It didnt have to be this way...the universe could be a place with no order at all...but it does have order and it has rules than cannot be broken...how can you explain the presence of those rules and that order?

Evidence....its pretty thin

 

"our little apparent relative consciousness is probably the effect of energy and interactions...it creates chemistry, biology, and that began brains and learning...these things which makes who were are, with an apparent consciousness had to evolve...and they undoubtedly sprung from from the natural universe in some way...Dont we have a consciousness simply from energy being used in different forms to communicate and sustain? What are all the processes of the universe? They all seem like methods of communicating relative perspective from one "mass" to another."

I could see that a universe is chaos, where energy had no ability to gather into matter, has no ability to create different fields, has no ability to create attraction or repulsion...and i would not suppose the presence of a god...and I was an atheist most of my life and only became convinced of the real possibilty of a god by studying QM...

We all have a consciousness apparently...that consciousness is created by energy, interactions and storage systems...why would the universe be seen to not have a consciousness when it is a similar system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give me an example of how the nuclear strong force came to be? How do you explain why particles radiate at all? It didnt have to be this way...the universe could be a place with no order at all...but it does have order and it has rules than cannot be broken...how can you explain the presence of those rules and that order?

This is more philosophy than science. "How things came to be" is not under its purview.

 

As far as rules go, if you let a hammer fall from your hand here on Earth, it's going to fall to the ground at a measurable rate. Are you saying that god(s) had to set that up, that the way gravity operates must have some kind of supernatural intelligence behind it?

 

I do agree that all these beliefs sprung from the natural universe in some way. I think our early hunter/gatherer ancestors looked out at night, into the shadows outside their fires, and imagined lions and tigers waiting to pounce. Those with the best imaginations only needed to be right a few times in order to inspire the belief that there are things out there we can't see, that can control our lives if we aren't aware of them, that can even kill. It's easy to see how humans who can imagine future troubles and prepare for them would be revered as seers and shaman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt man find the answer to what fire really is by asking "how does fire come to be? what is fire? what is the purpose of fire? what purposes create fire?" then they investigated, made theories, tested them and found out...isn't that how science does work?

I think we will find that gravity is the result of fields and particles...are you saying you cant have fields and particles without gravity? And we may know what fields and particles are but we still have no idea why they are there...

Wanting to know the origins of stonehenge or easter island is just as much science as wanting to know the origins of magnetism or god...or the universe...science can help lead to those answers of origins...like..."the origin of species"....

Yes...Man may have imagined god totally incorrectly...I am not inspired by fear or lack of control...i am inspired by seeing and realizing that nothing has no purpose....and to me, that includes the universe as a whole...behind purpose lays knowledge....and we may never get to know...but realizing there are purposes beyond our understanding, which are created and guided by forces with knowledge that would totally overwhelm our own, is a good realization to have....it sure has brought some positive changes to my life...and how does science judge what is right or wrong? when you get it right, it works...not that it didnt work before, you just didnt understand why..."and understanding why" is what enriches science to me...


Dont let all the people who got it wrong out of fear, make you believe that these isnt an answer not born of fear...


And i really dont know the answer to this question...but lets just say we DID find that PI repeats after 350,000 decimal places....what would that really alter in our measurements? IS it still worth knowing a complete answer to PI even if it wouldnt have any real effect on our experiments and such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt man find the answer to what fire really is by asking "how does fire come to be? what is fire? what is the purpose of fire? what purposes create fire?" then they investigated, made theories, tested them and found out...isn't that how science does work?

 

I think we will find that gravity is the result of fields and particles...are you saying you cant have fields and particles without gravity? And we may know what fields and particles are but we still have no idea why they are there...

 

Wanting to know the origins of stonehenge or easter island is just as much science as wanting to know the origins of magnetism or god...or the universe...science can help lead to those answers of origins...like..."the origin of species"....

 

Yes...Man may have imagined god totally incorrectly...I am not inspired by fear or lack of control...i am inspired by seeing and realizing that nothing has no purpose....and to me, that includes the universe as a whole...behind purpose lays knowledge....and we may never get to know...but realizing there are purposes beyond our understanding, which are created and guided by forces with knowledge that would totally overwhelm our own, is a good realization to have....it sure has brought some positive changes to my life...and how does science judge what is right or wrong? when you get it right, it works...not that it didnt work before, you just didnt understand why..."and understanding why" is what enriches science to me...

Dont let all the people who got it wrong out of fear, make you believe that these isnt an answer not born of fear...

And i really dont know the answer to this question...but lets just say we DID find that PI repeats after 350,000 decimal places....what would that really alter in our measurements? IS it still worth knowing a complete answer to PI even if it wouldnt have any real effect on our experiments and such?

 

 

Why does any of these things need a purpose? it's quite possible the way things are is just the way things have to be. It could be completely random or at some point we might discover why these things have to be the way they are. all we can honestly say is how they not why they are.

 

It's like the water in a puddle waking to find the puddle fits itself perfectly, surely some other intelligence must have made the hole fit the puddle perfectly?

 

Anytime you can reasonably replace the word god with "magical sky fairy" and get the same result you have seen why there is no need of the concept of a god..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why does any of these things need a purpose? it's quite possible the way things are is just the way things have to be. It could be completely random or at some point we might discover why these things have to be the way they are. all we can honestly say is how they not why they are.

 

It's like the water in a puddle waking to find the puddle fits itself perfectly, surely some other intelligence must have made the hole fit the puddle perfectly?

 

Anytime you can reasonably replace the word god with "magical sky fairy" and get the same result you have seen why there is no need of the concept of a god..

Its not that they need a purpose...but how many effects do not have a cause? To me, it seems most effects have causes...and so why not look for the cause of the universal effects? The puddle wouldnt be a puddle if not for gravity...so there is a power behind puddling and now we seek the power behind that power...but puddle's dont wake up...maybe your magical sky fairy can awake them...

 

I dont believe in a magical sky fairy...and my version of god is not the same to me...if it is to you, please consider relativity and that it can be one thing for me and another thing for you...

Why dont we all get on rocket ships heading different directions at really fast speeds and argue who's clock is keeping "real time"...im just describing my clock...it could be something to someone and nothing to someone else...

 

You might make fun of me and my magically fast running clock...who's being foolish in that act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe in a magical sky fairy...and my version of god is not the same to me...if it is to you, please consider relativity and that it can be one thing for me and another thing for you...

 

What is god if not a magical sky fairy? And relativity isn't "one thing for me and another thing for you". What changes is the frame of reference, not the theory.

 

If you're OK with having your own "version" of god that fits the way you think things should be, you aren't alone. A lot of people decide they can make stuff up/interpret God's meaning just as well as the next guy. I think that's what most people who believe in god(s) do, take in the basic doctrines and then tweak for personal reasons. I think it's why religion is more popular than science. Less work, less learning, and you get to make changes to suit your personality.

 

A lot of people don't like science because of the rigorous approach. If religion was held to the same standards, I don't think it would be nearly as pervasive. It appeals partially because it really is different for every person.

 

I also hope you don't think I'm "making fun" of anything you say. I think more people have your kinds of belief than do mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is god if not a magical sky fairy? And relativity isn't "one thing for me and another thing for you". What changes is the frame of reference, not the theory.

 

If you're OK with having your own "version" of god that fits the way you think things should be, you aren't alone. A lot of people decide they can make stuff up/interpret God's meaning just as well as the next guy. I think that's what most people who believe in god(s) do, take in the basic doctrines and then tweak for personal reasons. I think it's why religion is more popular than science. Less work, less learning, and you get to make changes to suit your personality.

 

A lot of people don't like science because of the rigorous approach. If religion was held to the same standards, I don't think it would be nearly as pervasive. It appeals partially because it really is different for every person.

 

I also hope you don't think I'm "making fun" of anything you say. I think more people have your kinds of belief than do mine.

Yes...using the term magical sky fairy is "making fun"...

 

So you cannot see from my frame of reference, right? Of course my proof would not be proof to you...But you should have a theory of human consciousness and how it exists and you may not be able to find any proof of that answer...it still begs the question, if there is no magic inside us from a sky fairy, then our consciousness is simply a factor of energy, communication and storage...and there is no reason to believe that other systems of energy, communication and storage wouldn't have a consciousness...and it wouldnt be strange or unfounded to believe the universe had a consciousness...it would be strange and unfounded to consider it didnt have a consciousness, to me...

 

I dont think I have made anything up in reference to this God...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...using the term magical sky fairy is "making fun"...

 

So you cannot see from my frame of reference, right? Of course my proof would not be proof to you...But you should have a theory of human consciousness and how it exists and you may not be able to find any proof of that answer...it still begs the question, if there is no magic inside us from a sky fairy, then our consciousness is simply a factor of energy, communication and storage...and there is no reason to believe that other systems of energy, communication and storage wouldn't have a consciousness...and it wouldnt be strange or unfounded to believe the universe had a consciousness...it would be strange and unfounded to consider it didnt have a consciousness, to me...

 

I dont think I have made anything up in reference to this God...

 

No, I use the term "magical sky fairy" to denote the supernatural aspect of god(s). Everything we know about so far has a perfectly rational, natural explanation. We didn't always have this knowledge though, and we used god(s) to explain what we couldn't understand.

 

As we gained this natural-world understanding through observation and experimentation, our god explanations began to get squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge. So far, there's not a single phenomenon we know of that would require an explanation using supernatural means. The preponderance of evidence would suggest that god(s) and magic aren't needed for a concept of consciousness.

 

So yes, you made up EVERYTHING in reference to this god. Unless you have some evidence you aren't sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started as an atheist John or at least have been one and then you, for whatever, reason decided there is a god and as you said “it sure has brought some positive changes to my life”.

 

The actual existence, or not, of any sort of deity is irrelevant; you would feel the same in both universes (the one in which god exists and the one in which it doesn’t).

My point is, those positive changes in your life were made by you; god may have motivated the changes but his actual existence isn’t needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, I use the term "magical sky fairy" to denote the supernatural aspect of god(s). Everything we know about so far has a perfectly rational, natural explanation. We didn't always have this knowledge though, and we used god(s) to explain what we couldn't understand.

 

As we gained this natural-world understanding through observation and experimentation, our god explanations began to get squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge. So far, there's not a single phenomenon we know of that would require an explanation using supernatural means. The preponderance of evidence would suggest that god(s) and magic aren't needed for a concept of consciousness.

 

So yes, you made up EVERYTHING in reference to this god. Unless you have some evidence you aren't sharing.

I didnt make up anything in reference to this god...can you quote things that I made up?

 

 

You started as an atheist John or at least have been one and then you, for whatever, reason decided there is a god and as you said “it sure has brought some positive changes to my life”.

 

The actual existence, or not, of any sort of deity is irrelevant; you would feel the same in both universes (the one in which god exists and the one in which it doesn’t).

My point is, those positive changes in your life were made by you; god may have motivated the changes but his actual existence isn’t needed.

Yes...It was my new beliefs in god's existence that changed...nothing else has changed besides my own experience...Im not expecting this experience to change anyone else's experience...

 

The way I see it now, both atheists and theists can have proof of their beliefs simultaneously and both can be correct...Its as simple as saying "that asteroid is headed towards me and the same asteroid is heading away from you"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...It was my new beliefs in god's existence that changed...nothing else has changed besides my own experience...Im not expecting this experience to change anyone else's experience...

 

 

I’m sorry if my lack of skills with the written word has confused you but you seem to have entirely missed my point.

Essentially, my question is what manifest difference would it make to your life if god didn’t exist?

 

 

The way I see it now, both atheists and theists can have proof of their beliefs simultaneously and both can be correct...Its as simple as saying "that asteroid is headed towards me and the same asteroid is heading away from you"...

 

 

 

Can you please clarify your meaning here, because at first glance this is twaddle?

Let’s imagine were in the universe where god does exist and you were able to actually prove it (an introduction would be necessary). It wouldn’t change my moral compass or me whatever god said:

 

If god asked me to sacrifice my son, or any creature, I’d refuse whatever he threatened because I despise bullies.

 

If god asked me to worship him I’d again refuse because I prize humility above arrogance.

 

If god asked me to be humble, do no harm, be charitable to anyone in need and judge nobody I wouldn’t refuse but that’s how I try to live now.

 

Now let’s imagine a universe in which I can prove god doesn’t exist, would the positive changes in your life suddenly cease?

That would be like a child suddenly hating Christmas because they found out Father Christmas didn’t exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt make up anything in reference to this god...can you quote things that I made up

So what of the option that God is the universe, and does not ever intervene in natural physical processes? Those natural physical processes are god, just as everything else that we observe, because the entire universe is god...When we prove something, we find the truth of god...This god does not reside outside of the natural universe, this god is the natural universe.

 

...

 

So we would be referring to a god who IS rules than govern matter and energy...and also, the matter and energy...That's a seemingly high power...a consiousness of this God may not exist in any fashion we can consider...to be free of the effects of relativity...to be that thing which we are relatively experiencing from a dot inside it...it is the whole...there is nothing to hide any true perspective from a non relative perspective...

 

...

 

the way I see it, as our science proves and disproves things, we are finding god and the truth in which god is constructed...a small truth of God...just because we cant make up our minds or get the science right does not mean anything has changed...to me, it sounds as if it has always been the same, but evolving from the intentions and doctrines of strictly following it's own rules...the universe interacts with itself...nothing outside it interacts with it...i do agree

 

...

 

To me, that means god is there and has always been there as far back we can figure "there" is...If all we can detect is moments around the big bang, than that's all the further back I can claim god existed

I say you must have made it up simply because you haven't shown any supportive evidence for these claims. They're assumptions on your part from your OP that you haven't yet explained.

 

The way I see it now, both atheists and theists can have proof of their beliefs simultaneously and both can be correct...Its as simple as saying "that asteroid is headed towards me and the same asteroid is heading away from you"...

This could be part of the problem. Atheists don't believe, they have a lack of belief. I don't disbelieve in god(s), I have no beliefs about god(s) at all. Just like I'm not anti-stamps just because I don't collect them.

 

Also, science isn't looking for proof, just a preponderance of evidence supporting the best explanations. And I don't get your asteroid analogy. How can you have a universe that is simultaneously a higher power and NOT a higher power?

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.