NationStates Jolt Archive

I can’t help but get the feeling I’ve stumbled onto something absolutely huge here. Okay, so maybe that’s not the best way to start a topic. Most people tend to open on a line with a little less self-appraisal than that. This is an entirely self-deduced opinion, so perhaps even bringing it up is a bit of a problem. But bear with me.

What if someone could redefine what we think of as God in such a way as to make Atheists acknowledge its presence?

Whoa... lookit that. Only just started writing and already I’ve raised two unusual issues. One, I’m referring to God as it. Not He, not S/He, not they (which, I maintain, can be used in the uncertain-gender singular) but it; the reason for that being that my definition of God doesn’t identify it as a person. A living creature, yes, but not necessarily human or indeed anything remotely resembling it. Perhaps even having what we think of as consciousness, or personality, but almost definitely not in the form that we tend to associate with those phrases. I’ll elaborate on that in a minute.

Secondly, making Atheists see God? Doesn’t that basically render them non-atheists? Well, I’m not expecting any sort of dramatic “rebirth”, or whatever it is Christians tend to see conversion as, from this; it’s simply food for thought. On the other hand, this is an attempt to make an allowance in the current laws of Science for the existence of (what for the sake of political correctness I’ll call) a Higher Consciousness. Take what you will; it’s a scientific theory, and I want it to be treated as thus rather than sacred testimony or whatever. I’m not going to be upset if you’re instantly repelled by it.

One more thing before I really explain it. My own religious background fits somewhere between Buddhism, Christianity and Agnosticism: Christian Morals, Buddhist Philosophy and Agnostic Analysis. Three pretty important templates for behaviour, I reckon. But, again, that’s just me. Now, to business.

Here’s a question. How many people have ever thought: “If God created the Universe, where did it exist before the Universe began? Did someone or something make it? And who made that someone?”? The biggest problem I tend to find with thinking in these terms is that it all depends on something at the top of the hierarchy. There’s one being that always was, always shall be, has more power than physically could ever possibly exist, sees and knows everything... Few people sum up the argument better than Douglas Adams; check out his piece in the “The Salmon of Doubt” omnibus on the Artificial God scenario.

Humans can’t think in these terms. It’s technically absolutely impossible. How could you possibly picture infinity? (Standing in between two mirrors gets you pretty close, I suppose) But, on the other hand, the impact of God on society is undeniable, even if only through the actions of the various religious sects in activity. To say that God is a concept of human design seems rather short-sighted; how many people believe in some form of deity or higher power? I couldn’t answer that, but I bet it’d be more than you probably think. I find it highly unlikely that one human-formed idea could ever become so widespread. Even early cavemen seem to have been into Gods Besides, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha made some pretty deep observations that probably would be of benefit to everyone, no matter what label you assign yourself to.

So, the way for us humans to approach the idea of God is by looking from the bottom up. A rather simple way to start is to look at the human body. We are, in essence, a collection of tissue types, which are in turn collections of cells. Something out of this collection grants us a personality. Biologically, we’re forced to assume that this consciousness does not emerge from one single cell. Where might it come from? Well, where else do we see personality in human terms? Societal groups have a sort of a consciousness too. Our societal influences feature pretty heavily in our own personality. The human tendency to label social groups in stereotypes is probably explainable when you think of those groups as having an identity of their own.

Here’s the first part of my theory. Probably the most questionable one, but whatever.

1) Personality and individualism emerges from congregation. This could be on a molecular level (behaviour of gases?), a cellular level (heart cells acting together to pump blood), an organism level (animals using organs to maintain life), a societal level and possibly higher still.

Higher still. Maybe you can see where I’m going with this. The global human community can be seen as a collection of societies. The Galaxy might be seen as a collection of planets. The universe might be seen as a congregation of galaxies.

Some people go on about there being a universe for every possibility of existence. Which could well be true. It’s beyond our capabilities to explore, but it’s still something we could come to terms with. Hence part two of the theory:

2) All possible universes exist in some form or another.


What would we call the organism created as the congregation of universes?

God?

Why not? It fits the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist viewpoints of God pretty well, especially under the assumption that this consciousness is one of general good-will. After all, if we are all in God, and God is formed from all possibility, it can safely be considered omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It’s scientifically explainable, and in biological terms even. If our personality is a part of God, then it’s also a reasonable assumption that our personality continues as long as God Lives, hence an afterlife (for those of you who really want one... >_>; ).

Thus, Part Three of the theory:

3) The ultimate congregation; that is, the congregation of all possible universes, is God. God Is One, God Is All, All Are God and All Are Themselves as well.


So. Whaddaya think? Does the God Community idea portray enough of what everyone sees the concept of God as? Would it stand against the criticism of the cynics? Has someone got there before me? Should I copyright this theory so that no-one else can claim it as their own?

Actually, your theory still holds an idea that there is a being. Which atheists abhor. So it's flawed.
However, let me explain my theory to you, so you may use it.
But too many people already know I thoughtb of it, don't bother trying to steal it. Just use it.

Anyway..
What if someone could redefine what we think of as God in such a way as to make Atheists acknowledge its presence?

Done and done.

The idea of devine spirits is really nothing more then a manifestation of the lwas of Physics in such a way as to make them easily creditible to humans. We believe in many gods as just re[presentations of individual laws of nature and physics, we give them divine power both because they are so prominent in our existance, and because we wish to pay respect to them.
The idea of a single got however, can be directly related to the "Unified Feild Theory", which is an idea that there is a physical equation that can relate all the laws of physics together (They don't all work together, or all the time as it is).
Having said that, I hope you see my oversimplified idea. It can make atheists happy (Just science afterall). It can make religious people happy (It's still a power with control over you, you might as well respect and worship it, however you view it.)

the problem arises from thousnads of years of dogma from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trio, who move off into the realm of "Heaven" and "Hell",ideals that promote their beilefs through reward, and I have yet to find a predating religion that offers the same incentive on the same level.

Actually, your theory still holds an idea that there is a being. Which atheists abhor. So it's flawed.
Hmm... I always thought the atheistic grudge with the idea of God was with this idea of him as some far-away spirit guy with a big stick who hits you when you annoy him. You might be right, but hopefully one of them will respond to clarify that.

The idea of devine spirits is really nothing more then a manifestation of the lwas of Physics in such a way as to make them easily creditible to humans. We believe in many gods as just re[presentations of individual laws of nature and physics, we give them divine power both because they are so prominent in our existance, and because we wish to pay respect to them.
The idea of a single got however, can be directly related to the "Unified Feild Theory", which is an idea that there is a physical equation that can relate all the laws of physics together (They don't all work together, or all the time as it is).
Interesting idea, but it seems to hold to the preconception that humans give gods power through belief in them, and that the laws of the universe themselves are the deities to which worship is given, which sends some weird signals to me somehow. And, to be honest, I find it incredible that people see things falling and think "Oh! There must be a little spirit responsible for that!". But then again, I suppose the four elements of ancient civilisation were revered somewhat... Anyway.

the problem arises from thousnads of years of dogma from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trio, who move off into the realm of "Heaven" and "Hell",ideals that promote their beilefs through reward, and I have yet to find a predating religion that offers the same incentive on the same level.It is a problem, isn't it? Religion buying its people over with promises. But, I think the separation needs to be made between God and Religion. There're loads of people who feel some sort of spiritual presence without a tendency towards a particular religion, just like that topic on the forum here.

Another decent idea, but it seems to me to be more of a refutation of religions than a constructive theory on spirituality. I guess that's not really a conflicting viewpoint then...

I'm not really sure how the "God Community" is any different from our regular beliefs in a diety.

You can reallign your organization of reality all you want, it still doesn't change reality.

Well, if you truly want it to be a "scientific theory," as you said...

Proof! Gimme EVIDENCE! A cool-sounding story does not a scientific theory make.


1) Personality and individualism emerges from congregation. This could be on a molecular level (behaviour of gases?), a cellular level (heart cells acting together to pump blood), an organism level (animals using organs to maintain life), a societal level and possibly higher still.


The very first problem with that statement - you start with two undefined terms. What is "personality" or "individualism?" Your very first example, about gases, seems to run counter to your line of thought - whereas a single gas molecule is unpredictable, can do many things, has its own "identity/personality/whatnot," a gas as a whole is quite predictable.

Also, I am not sure whether it is valid to extrapolate from living things (organisms, their subcomponents and their organizations) to larger-scale phenomena such as galaxies - since we humans living on the surface of a planet don't really impact the overall activity of the solar system. I do not see how you can call a galaxy an "organism" - it lacks the fundamental characteristic of all of what we call "living organisms," reproduction.

Yes, a galaxy can be seen as a collection of stars, some of which happen to have planets around them, some of which (at least one) happen to have "living" things - but calling it an "organism" seems like an unfounded stretch of the imagination. Sounds cool, but is no more than a pretty analogy.


2) All possible universes exist in some form or another.

Prove it. Or, rather, give a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis. Again - it sounds cool and catchy, but we have no way of knowing. I, personally, think that it is complete bullshit that sounds nice - but hey, that point of view is just as unsupported as the claim that other universes do exist.


3) The ultimate congregation; that is, the congregation of all possible universes, is God. God Is One, God Is All, All Are God and All Are Themselves as well.

You're calling everything that exists "god." Sure, that works. You call it God, I call it "the universe" - sure. I'll agree that the universe exists, not going to argue that point there. If you want to rename that universe "God," go right ahead. We named our planet "Earth," we named our star "The Sun," we named our galaxy "The Milky Way," we can name our universe "God" if we want.

Not sure what any of this has to do with being a "scientific theory" though. Makes no predictions, makes no testable hypotheses, gives us nothing more than a cute redefinition of terms. Playing around with semantics.

Hmm... I always thought the atheistic grudge with the idea of God was with this idea of him as some far-away spirit guy with a big stick who hits you when you annoy him. You might be right, but hopefully one of them will respond to clarify that.

I can assure you that there are far more complex reasons than that. I can't possible fathom a God that is pervasive as both your "theory" or the bible would have us believe. I cannot fathom a God that is omnipotent, to me that is impossible.

But mainly it comes down to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a supreme being and there never will be. I prefer my beliefs to be rooted in something that can be documented rather than something that cannot possibly be documented.

... Too true. I knew there was an obvious mistake in here, most likely in that first part. How does one go about proving conscious thought? Could String theory dip into the possibility of multiple universes?

If Science can tell us about the origins of self-awareness (if I can call it that), maybe then I can go about thinking through this a bit more. Still, I thought it might be something worth sharing.

I can assure you that there are far more complex reasons than that. I can't possible fathom a God that is pervasive as both your "theory" or the bible would have us believe. I cannot fathom a God that is omnipotent, to me that is impossible.

But mainly it comes down to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a supreme being and there never will be. I prefer my beliefs to be rooted in something that can be documented rather than something that cannot possibly be documented.


Which is exactly where my theory of laws of physics come in. They are generally held by Atheists as documented, right? Then perhaps a good way of explaining god(s) is that they are said laws? The Laws of physics have power over us wether or not they are held as beliefs. Not believing in the theory of gravity does not make you immune to gravity.
I merely suggested a way of viewing it that can work for both sides, and does not conflict. Unless you bring in the problem I already addressed.

God and existence as a mathmatical construct.
Once, long ago, as I struggled thru calculus, someone told me "There are only three numbers. None, something and all."
None can be equated to a Buddist concept of Non-Being. Atheists probably find this comforting.
Something is us. Matter, peices and bits of energy interacting. We can touch and measure it.
All- This is God. All things, including us. All energy. The infinity. We aren't able to measure this. But also a Buddist concept, I think, of acheving nirvana though the suppression of the self.
Interesting? Or else I need more ethanol in the system. . .
I lean toward Buddist thoughts, though raised christian. I don't suscribe to any one religion.

Here’s a question. How many people have ever thought: “If God created the Universe, where did it exist before the Universe began? Did someone or something make it? And who made that someone?”? The biggest problem I tend to find with thinking in these terms is that it all depends on something at the top of the hierarchy. There’s one being that always was, always shall be, has more power than physically could ever possibly exist, sees and knows everything...


Saying that the universe itself is God doesn't give any answer to the question: where did it come from? ;)


So, the way for us humans to approach the idea of God is by looking from the bottom up. A rather simple way to start is to look at the human body. We are, in essence, a collection of tissue types, which are in turn collections of cells. Something out of this collection grants us a personality. Biologically, we’re forced to assume that this consciousness does not emerge from one single cell. Where might it come from? Well, where else do we see personality in human terms? Societal groups have a sort of a consciousness too. Our societal influences feature pretty heavily in our own personality. The human tendency to label social groups in stereotypes is probably explainable when you think of those groups as having an identity of their own.

Here’s the first part of my theory. Probably the most questionable one, but whatever.

1)Personality and individualism emerges from congregation. This could be on a molecular level (behaviour of gases?), a cellular level (heart cells acting together to pump blood), an organism level (animals using organs to maintain life), a societal level and possibly higher still.


Here's the last point that I do not like (except for those already mentionned).
Human conscience clearly comes from the congregation of their brain cells (or all cells, whatever). But this is an exemple - no more. You cannot generalize that to all animals, less to plants, less to rocks, less to the earth, and definetely not to the universe ;)

The Empire of Presidency thanks you for dedicating a thread to discussing my empire.

Done and done.

The idea of devine spirits is really nothing more then a manifestation of the lwas of Physics in such a way as to make them easily creditible to humans. We believe in many gods as just re[presentations of individual laws of nature and physics, we give them divine power both because they are so prominent in our existance, and because we wish to pay respect to them.
The idea of a single got however, can be directly related to the "Unified Feild Theory", which is an idea that there is a physical equation that can relate all the laws of physics together (They don't all work together, or all the time as it is).
Having said that, I hope you see my oversimplified idea. It can make atheists happy (Just science afterall). It can make religious people happy (It's still a power with control over you, you might as well respect and worship it, however you view it.)

the problem arises from thousnads of years of dogma from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trio, who move off into the realm of "Heaven" and "Hell",ideals that promote their beilefs through reward, and I have yet to find a predating religion that offers the same incentive on the same level.

My problem with the "God Community" comes with his definition of God, as you touched upon.

I actually engaged in an argument with a couple of friends where I said that I believed that there could exist a governing force over everything that guides everything. Not a conscious creator but more like a current or a wind. They dismissed it as belief in a supreme being. I also agree that most athiests only view God as it is represented in religious dogma, and I believe that is where much of the rejection comes from.

Well, if you truly want it to be a "scientific theory," as you said...

Proof! Gimme EVIDENCE! A cool-sounding story does not a scientific theory make. .
Refer to Adam's "Salmon of Doubt." I actually find that to be one of the greater theological/philosophical achievements of the late 20th century, it just gets ignored as it is presented in a comic/sci-fi format.

I can’t help but get the feeling I’ve stumbled onto something absolutely huge here.You probably tripped over the tracks of the masses who have explored this line of thinking before you.

omg

lol

You probably tripped over the tracks of the masses who have explored this line of thinking before you.

LOL again

I'm going to have to go with "humans created god, and not the other way around." Just take a look at history and how many "gods" people created. The original poster is a good example of this also. He just created a new "god."

Always a happy thing to see people come up with new variations (explanations) of pantheism (everything is a god) and pantheistic monism (the monism part gets added if you posit all are one as well as all are god). Basically it is a way of spiritualizing the universe and all the physical laws. The general ideas themselves are very old. It is the underlying principle of Hindu concept of Brahman. I find it amazing that all the laws of physics have backed the world's oldest major religion far more than it has backed up the upstart Abrahamic trio that has taken over.



The very first problem with that statement - you start with two undefined terms. What is "personality" or "individualism?" Your very first example, about gases, seems to run counter to your line of thought - whereas a single gas molecule is unpredictable, can do many things, has its own "identity/personality/whatnot," a gas as a whole is quite predictable.


Read some of the works of Ilya Prigogine or the scientists who have studied and based their work on his. In 1977 he won the nobel prize for the theory of dissipative structures - it is basically an explanation of HOW systems go from entropy into organizing themselves into more complex structures.



Also, I am not sure whether it is valid to extrapolate from living things (organisms, their subcomponents and their organizations) to larger-scale phenomena such as galaxies - since we humans living on the surface of a planet don't really impact the overall activity of the solar system. I do not see how you can call a galaxy an "organism" - it lacks the fundamental characteristic of all of what we call "living organisms," reproduction.

Check out the book Cosmic Evolution by Eric Chaisson - he's an astrophysicist. In it he explains his theory how the very same fundamental properties of physics caused the ordering of galaxies as caused biological evolution. The theory is brand new and a bit rough but interesting non the less. As far as what happens on Earth affecting the rest of the Universe think in terms of thermodynamics. The Earth is an open part of the closed system that is the universe. Any change in energy/matter/entropy that happens here is going to have an effect (even if it is miniscule) on the entire universe.



You're calling everything that exists "god." Sure, that works. You call it God, I call it "the universe" - sure. I'll agree that the universe exists, not going to argue that point there. If you want to rename that universe "God," go right ahead. We named our planet "Earth," we named our star "The Sun," we named our galaxy "The Milky Way," we can name our universe "God" if we want.

Yeah, but the overall implication that I like best about pantheism is that everything is god. Every human, cat, stone, mp3 player, neutrino, etc, etc, and nothing is more god than anything else. Thus when everything is god, nothing is god. Gets rid of all those pesky dieties AND you get to go around saying I am god and meaning it
:)

Actually, your theory still holds an idea that there is a being. Which atheists abhor. So it's flawed.
However, let me explain my theory to you, so you may use it.
But too many people already know I thoughtb of it, don't bother trying to steal it. Just use it.

Anyway..


Done and done.

The idea of devine spirits is really nothing more then a manifestation of the lwas of Physics in such a way as to make them easily creditible to humans. We believe in many gods as just re[presentations of individual laws of nature and physics, we give them divine power both because they are so prominent in our existance, and because we wish to pay respect to them.
The idea of a single got however, can be directly related to the "Unified Feild Theory", which is an idea that there is a physical equation that can relate all the laws of physics together (They don't all work together, or all the time as it is).
Having said that, I hope you see my oversimplified idea. It can make atheists happy (Just science afterall). It can make religious people happy (It's still a power with control over you, you might as well respect and worship it, however you view it.)

the problem arises from thousnads of years of dogma from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trio, who move off into the realm of "Heaven" and "Hell",ideals that promote their beilefs through reward, and I have yet to find a predating religion that offers the same incentive on the same level.

I am all for make a compromise but the thing is, your idea can't make a REAL religous person happy it could only really make a salad bar religous person or a falsly religious person happy ( sorry to burst your bubble :( )

nice try though

the problem is that "God" has ordained through Jesus (for christians) that he is the one and only truth and there are no others which basiclly kills your compromise immediatly

I am sure the other religions with a single god have something like this Judaism does for sure not sure about the Muslims

... Too true. I knew there was an obvious mistake in here, most likely in that first part. How does one go about proving conscious thought? Could String theory dip into the possibility of multiple universes?

If Science can tell us about the origins of self-awareness (if I can call it that), maybe then I can go about thinking through this a bit more. Still, I thought it might be something worth sharing.

I don't know if it counts as concious thought but look into the theory of self-organiztion. Oh, and I haven't read it but a friend mentioned David Brohm (I think I have the spelling correct) and holism - something about conciousness as an explicitive factor. TG me if you want and remind me to check with my friend on the name if you want.

I am all for make a compromise but the thing is, your idea can't make a REAL religous person happy it could only really make a salad bar religous person or a falsly religious person happy ( sorry to burst your bubble :( )

nice try though

the problem is that "God" has ordained through Jesus (for christians) that he is the one and only truth and there are no others which basiclly kills your compromise immediatly

I am sure the other religions with a single god have something like this Judaism does for sure not sure about the Muslims


And you marke out my last point where I say "The problem arises when...".
I am a REAL religious person, and I hold that belief that my gods and goddesses are representations of the laws of physics, given form and personality by Humans.
Your statement clearly ignored the fact that you don't have to be a monotheist to be a REAL religious person.

Always a happy thing to see people come up with new variations (explanations) of pantheism (everything is a god) and pantheistic monism (the monism part gets added if you posit all are one as well as all are god). Basically it is a way of spiritualizing the universe and all the physical laws. The general ideas themselves are very old. It is the underlying principle of Hindu concept of Brahman. I find it amazing that all the laws of physics have backed the world's oldest major religion far more than it has backed up the upstart Abrahamic trio that has taken over.




Read some of the works of Ilya Prigogine or the scientists who have studied and based their work on his. In 1977 he won the nobel prize for the theory of dissipative structures - it is basically an explanation of HOW systems go from entropy into organizing themselves into more complex structures.




Check out the book Cosmic Evolution by Eric Chaisson - he's an astrophysicist. In it he explains his theory how the very same fundamental properties of physics caused the ordering of galaxies as caused biological evolution. The theory is brand new and a bit rough but interesting non the less. As far as what happens on Earth affecting the rest of the Universe think in terms of thermodynamics. The Earth is an open part of the closed system that is the universe. Any change in energy/matter/entropy that happens here is going to have an effect (even if it is miniscule) on the entire universe.




Yeah, but the overall implication that I like best about pantheism is that everything is god. Every human, cat, stone, mp3 player, neutrino, etc, etc, and nothing is more god than anything else. Thus when everything is god, nothing is god. Gets rid of all those pesky dieties AND you get to go around saying I am god and meaning it
:)
You ROCK.
Good thread and good posts.
I can say a similar train of thought shared itself with me around 7 years ago and i put it away in a notepad with all my other musings. The notepad started to keep track of obscurities and facts to qualify my own novel about things. That novel was inspired by some things that happened with two iconoclastic friends of mine and some peculiar theological situations, advanced through an RPG. The catalyst to my putting it to paper was reading (by another's request) the Adams Hitchhiker series. I met him before he died, he was a prick in person. Inspiring writer, obviously though. Although i've known of the rudiments of it for a few years now, I've never read "Salmon" and in three seperate threads today alone i hear there's some version (posthumous of course) for consumption, so maybe i'll get around to it after Science, Nature and SciAm ....
Interesting coinkydink.
Good luck to the folk who pursue this line of thought, it can really do a lot for your outlook on things!

You ROCK.
Good thread and good posts.
I can say a similar train of thought shared itself with me around 7 years ago and i put it away in a notepad with all my other musings. The notepad started to keep track of obscurities and facts to qualify my own novel about things. That novel was inspired by some things that happened with two iconoclastic friends of mine and some peculiar theological situations, advanced through an RPG. The catalyst to my putting it to paper was reading (by another's request) the Adams Hitchhiker series. I met him before he died, he was a prick in person. Inspiring writer, obviously though. Although i've known of the rudiments of it for a few years now, I've never read "Salmon" and in three seperate threads today alone i hear there's some version (posthumous of course) for consumption, so maybe i'll get around to it after Science, Nature and SciAm ....
Interesting coinkydink.
Good luck to the folk who pursue this line of thought, it can really do a lot for your outlook on things!

My own thoughts on the matter started when I read Stranger in a Strange Land.

RPG's are great for pathworking. People who think they are just about rolling dice are missing a lot.