An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

That and the Orch OR articles were very interesting. Thanks for posting.

On another note, are you trying to suggest that these findings have anything to so with the supernatural?

No. I'm sure whatever "soul" might be, it's explainable via physics. I'm really not much of a fan of the 'supernatural' myself.

 

[Mr Clean]

No. I'm sure whatever "soul" might be, it's explainable via physics. I'm really not much of a fan of the 'supernatural' myself.

It would have to be explainable by physics given the conservation laws in the universe. The whole entropy thing makes "forever" pretty far fetched though.

Maybe they will find something some day. I'm not holding my breath for it...

 

[Michael]

It would have to be explainable by physics given the conservation laws in the universe. The whole entropy thing makes "forever" pretty far fetched though.

Actually, the laws of physics pretty much require it if you think about it. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed as we understand the laws of physics. That means that energy can change forms, but it's *always* (as in eternally) existed in some form or another.

Maybe they will find something some day. I'm not holding my breath for it...

Nor am I. I'm quite comfortable with my 'faith' being a pure form of faith. That's never really been a problem. It would 'be nice' if empirical physics one day catches up and figures it all out, but I seriously doubt that will happen during my physical lifetime. Until then I'm happy just rounding up some small bits of evidence here and there to support the beliefs that I believe are worth exploring.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, the laws of physics pretty much require it if you think about it. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed as we understand the laws of physics. That means that energy can change forms, but it's *always* (as in eternally) existed in some form or another.

Nor am I. I'm quite comfortable with my 'faith' being a pure form of faith. That's never really been a problem. It would 'be nice' if empirical physics one day catches up and figures it all out, but I seriously doubt that will happen during my physical lifetime. Until then I'm happy just rounding up some small bits of evidence here and there to support the beliefs that I believe are worth exploring.

Nothing wrong with that outlook.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, the laws of physics pretty much require it if you think about it. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed as we understand the laws of physics. That means that energy can change forms, but it's *always* (as in eternally) existed in some form or another.

Nor am I. I'm quite comfortable with my 'faith' being a pure form of faith. That's never really been a problem. It would 'be nice' if empirical physics one day catches up and figures it all out, but I seriously doubt that will happen during my physical lifetime. Until then I'm happy just rounding up some small bits of evidence here and there to support the beliefs that I believe are worth exploring.

I am curious about this Michael:

We all know you have a theory as to how God interacts with us in regards to the universe etc and that theory is quite important to you, because it likely makes sense and matches with your beliefs. I am not saying your theory is right or it is wrong, because there is not enough evidence either way to confirm or to absolutely deny it. But, what if it is discovered with strong evidence, that your theory is indeed incorrect, would that crush your faith, or would you be able to retain your faith by other means?

 

[Michael]

I am curious about this Michael:

We all know you have a theory as to how God interacts with us in regards to the universe etc and that theory is quite important to you, because it likely makes sense and matches with your beliefs. I am not saying your theory is right or it is wrong, because there is not enough evidence either way to confirm or to absolutely deny it. But, what if it is discovered with strong evidence, that your theory is indeed incorrect, would that crush your faith, or would you be able to retain your faith by other means?

I went though about a 9 year stint as an atheist from about age 15 to about 24. One of the 'positive' experience (there were many actually) of embracing atheism for a time was learning to live with ambiguity.

My return to theism wasn't instantaneous anymore than embracing atheism had been an 'instant' decision. That was about thirty years ago, and I have been quite comfortable with my faith in God being a pure form of 'faith', completely devoid of *any* empirical evidence. My own personal experiences during prayer and meditation matter more to me personally than the physical evidence.

I didn't really even "hear" about electric universe/plasma cosmology theory until about 2005 after having a revelation about electrical discharges related to solar physics. Once I started exploring the theory however, I couldn't help but eventually revisit and take a fresh look at the concept of Pantheism/Panentheism. The more I did, the more evidence I found.

I do recognize that Panentheism may be wrong. We may live in an electrically active universe that isn't "alive". That wouldn't surprise me, nor would it "freak me out' at all.

EU/PC theory was never a "fundamental/foundational principle" in my "faith" in God to begin with. It just so happens that a living universe would 'scientifically' explain all my personal experiences during prayer and meditation from the perspective of empirical physics. That alone 'intrigues' me, but it's not a foundational aspect of my faith. My faith in Christ isn't really related to any specific scientific beliefs. I embraced Jesus as my Savior, long before embracing or even hearing about EU/PC theory.

Christ is important to me personally. Cosmology theories are just 'interesting' to me personally, and I've always been interested in the topic. Somehow over the years, I can see how they can all come together quite nicely under the umbrella of empirical physics. IMO, why not give it a scientific whirl?

 

[Mr Clean]

Actually, the laws of physics pretty much require it if you think about it. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed as we understand the laws of physics. That means that energy can change forms, but it's *always* (as in eternally) existed in some form or another.

I agree. I was trying to say that. I should have emphasized HAVE in my statement to make it clearer. But you and I are on the same page there.

Nor am I. I'm quite comfortable with my 'faith' being a pure form of faith. That's never really been a problem. It would 'be nice' if empirical physics one day catches up and figures it all out, but I seriously doubt that will happen during my physical lifetime. Until then I'm happy just rounding up some small bits of evidence here and there to support the beliefs that I believe are worth exploring.

Sounds good to me. I haven't found such bits myself, but that is my journey just as you have yours.

 

[Michael]

I agree. I was trying to say that. I should have emphasized HAVE in my statement to make it clearer. But you and I are on the same page there.



Sounds good to me. I haven't found such bits myself, but that is my journey just as you have yours.

Enjoy the journey and may it be fruitful for you.

 

[Michael]

Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy - life - 16 July 2014 - New Scientist

FYI, it turns out that lifeforms that feed on electricity are quite *common place* on Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy - life - 16 July 2014 - New Scientist

FYI, it turns out that lifeforms that feed on electricity are quite *common place* on Earth.

Are there any lifeforms on earth that do not use energy in one form or another? Could we even be having this discussion without those electrical currents surging in our brains?????

 

[Michael]

FYI, I thought that this was an interesting article on consciousness. I'm still working my way through the paper, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...r-like-a-solid-a-liquid-or-a-gas-5e7ed624986d

 

[Michael]

Just because this song by Coldplay always makes me think of God......

Coldplay - A Sky Full Of Stars (Official audio) - YouTube

 

[Michael]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161101152352.htm

According to research published in the journal Physical Review C, neutron stars and cell cytoplasm have something in common: structures that resemble multistory parking garages.
.......
"They see a variety of shapes that we see in the cell," Huber explained. "We see a tubular network; we see parallel sheets. We see sheets connected to each other through topological defects we call Terasaki ramps. So the parallels are pretty deep."

I found this to be another interesting discussion about the similarity between the physical structures of the universe and the structures of living organisms.

 

[Radrook]

Are you sure you understood my point? As long as everyone is free to call "God" what they wish, an agreement that "God exists" is not an agreement in beliefs but merely a glitch in communication.




Do you understand the difference between a president and God?


Since I am free to call "God" whatever I wish, I could immediately change my icon to "theist" without changing my opinions. I´d just had to change my terminology.

Your ability or right to call something whatever you wish doesn't automatically make the tag that you might choose a logical or appropriate one. It merely proves that you have the ability and right to name things. For example, you have the right to call a horse a chicken. But obviously that is ridiculous and might make you a candidate for an insane asylum if you insist that you are right.

 

[quatona]

Your ability or right to call something whatever you wish doesn't automatically make the tag that you might choose a logical or appropriate one. It merely proves that you have the ability and right to name things. For example, you have the right to call a horse a chicken. But obviously that is ridiculous and might make you a candidate for an insane asylum if you insist that you are right.

Who has the authority to define the meaning of the word "God"?

 

[Radrook]

Who has the authority to define the meaning of the word "God"?

From a Christian viewpoint the Bible has the authority.

 

[quatona]

From a Christian viewpoint the Bible has the authority.

What renders the Christian viewpoint the basis for the meaning of words?

 

[Radrook]

What renders the Christian viewpoint the basis for the meaning of words?

I never made the claim that a Christian viewpoint is essential for giving meaning to words.
Such a claim would be ridiculously nonsensical.

 

[quatona]

I never made the claim that a Christian viewpoint is essential for giving meaning to words.
Such a claim would be ridiculously nonsensical.

Yes. So it seems that you think that there are "logical and appropriate ways" of what to call things, and that certain names are "ridiculous" (post #754) - but you can´t give us the authority on these ways (subsequent posts).
I am not sure why you even addressed my post #753.

 

[Radrook]

Yes. So it seems that you think that there are "logical and appropriate ways" of what to call things, and that certain names are "ridiculous" (post #754) - but you can´t give us the authority on these ways (subsequent posts).
I am not sure why you even addressed my post #753.

Of course there are appropriate ways and inappropriate ways to call things. Otherwise our dictionaries, which are the recognized authorities on proper word-usage, would not be necessary. I addressed your post because you stated otherwise in an effort to trivialize the word God.