The Best Tool

[selfinflikted]

I've learned that God has a wonderful sense of humor. If that's in there, it's not talked about a lot in church in my experience.

But nothing specific?

Only his presence and the "feeling" of that relationship with him.

This goes back to relationship with god = feeling good.

Suppose we talk about someone that you personally "know" very well. You've gotten to know their "personality" over many years and many conversations. You've seen how they "react" to you in a one on one situation, etc. I could now be introduced to that same person for a few minutes and never make the effort to see them again, but would I ever actually KNOW them like you do?

An atheist or two may not have a "relationship" with God, but how often do they actually "make the effort"? Most people feel "closest" to God during prayer and meditation, and these "practices" are in fact taught in virtually every religion. Surely there's a good reason.

I made an effort for years when I was a Christian. Nothing ever came of that effort, though. I didn't have any relationship with god, even though I tried. The conversations were, let's say, just a bit one-sided.

 

[Michael]

But nothing specific?

They were very specific to ME, but would that matter to you?

This goes back to relationship with god = feeling good.

No. Lots of "things" make people "feel good", including a GOOD relationship with someone they love, God, etc. Having a relationship with God doesn't always necessarily "feel good" as Jesus can attest. It typically involves a lot of ego death, and a lot of painful introspection. It's not always a "feel good" process in my experience.

I made an effort for years when I was a Christian. Nothing ever came of that effort, though. I didn't have any relationship with god, even though I tried. The conversations were, let's say, just a bit one-sided.

In terms of vocals, they are necessarily "one sided" conversations for most folks, most of the time, myself included. Sometimes they involve timely and important insights. Were you expecting trumpets?

 

[DaneaFL]

First of all, there is no guarantee that "God" is "supernatural" as opposed to simply "natural".

Well now you've done it... By asserting that God might actually be natural not supernatural puts God under the same microscope as everything else natural.

So if God is natural then we should be able to observe and test his effects on matter the same way we test dark matter, right?

Ok, so which effects of God can we observe and predict? prayer? nope, that's been shown not to work. anything else?

My advice is stick with the supernatural definition of God like the rest of the theists do.... at least they can claim that the reason God leaves no evidence for himself is because he is supernatural.

ur gonna dig yourself into a hole with thinking like "god is part of nature." cuz he clearly has no effect on anything... and everything in the universe behaves as if they wasn't a god.

 

[selfinflikted]

They were very specific to ME, but would that matter to you?

I did ask, didn't I?

No. Lots of "things" make people "feel good", including a GOOD relationship with someone they love, God, etc. Having a relationship with God doesn't always necessarily "feel good" as Jesus can attest. It typically involves a lot of ego death, and a lot of painful introspection. It's not always a "feel good" process in my experience.

I still would like to know specifics about peoples' "personal relationship" with god.

In terms of vocals, they are necessarily "one sided" conversations for most folks, most of the time, myself included. Sometimes they involve timely and important insights. Were you expecting trumpets?

Well, not exactly, but for an almighty-creator-of-everything, you'd just expect a bit... more.

 

[Elendur]

Well now you've done it... By asserting that God might actually be natural not supernatural puts God under the same microscope as everything else natural.

So if God is natural then we should be able to observe and test his effects on matter the same way we test dark matter, right?

Ok, so which effects of God can we observe and predict? prayer? nope, that's been shown not to work. anything else?

My advice is stick with the supernatural definition of God like the rest of the theist do.... at least they can claim that the reason God leaves no evidence for himself is because he is supernatural.

ur gonna dig yourself into a whole with thinking like "god is part of nature." cuz he clearly has no effect on anything... and everything in the universe behaves as if they wasn't a god.

Well there is actually the possibility that he operates under laws we don't know of yet. Thus justifying calling him both supernatural and natural.

I'm not really sure that we can ever encounter anything supernatural other than in fiction. Since it will be natural the moment we get a hold of it

 

[DaneaFL]

Well there is actually the possibility that he operates under laws we don't know of yet. Thus justifying calling him both supernatural and natural.

I'm not really sure that we can ever encounter anything supernatural other than in fiction. Since it will be natural the moment we get a hold of it

hmm good point... but even if god is interacting with us vicariously through laws of physics that we don't understand, we still should be able to test and predict the effects of this...

we might not be able to see the puppeteer pulling the strings but we still see exactly how the puppet dances.

 

[Tiberius]

Well there is actually the possibility that he operates under laws we don't know of yet. Thus justifying calling him both supernatural and natural.

I'm not really sure that we can ever encounter anything supernatural other than in fiction. Since it will be natural the moment we get a hold of it

Really? Just because something operates by laws that we don't understand, doesn't mean it is warranted to call that thing supernatural. By this logic, radioactivity was supernatural back in the 15th century.

 

[DaneaFL]

Really? Just because something operates by laws that we don't understand, doesn't mean it is warranted to call that thing supernatural. By this logic, radioactivity was supernatural back in the 15th century.

I think that was kind of his point. seems like anything we dont understand we just call supernatural because we haven't found a natural cause for it yet.

Fortunately we are living in an interesting time where the supernatural is almost completely gone. Everything used to be supernatural until we learned about it.
Lightening, Fire, germs, life, and now the universe and laws of causality themselves...

god is getting smaller and smaller; and I think once they complete quantum field theory, god will be completely useless.

 

[Michael]

Well now you've done it... By asserting that God might actually be natural not supernatural puts God under the same microscope as everything else natural.

True.

So if God is natural then we should be able to observe and test his effects on matter the same way we test dark matter, right?

We should be able to test his effects on grey matter in fact.

Ok, so which effects of God can we observe and predict? prayer? nope, that's been shown not to work. anything else?

Woah. First of all, the fact that most humans believe in to this very day, and that they actually PRAY to something they call God would in fact be a "successful prediction" of the the cosmology model I specified as opposed to some other cosmology theory. For instance, modern cosmology theory makes NO predictions about such human behaviors, nor could it.

We can use our "cosmological perspective of choice" to start making some rational predictions about events HERE on Earth.

We can also create empirical experiments in actual TESTS of concept, but the kinds of tests you mentioned are actually "too sloppy" for my liking. I've outlined at least one experiment that might not require that God always "says yes" to our requests.

My advice is stick with the supernatural definition of God like the rest of the theists do....

Sorry. Once you choose empirical physics over metaphysical mythologies of any kind, it's hard to simply "go back". Once the blinders come off, they tend to stay off.

at least they can claim that the reason God leaves no evidence for himself is because he is supernatural.

Whereas I see evidence of God in everything I see. I like my beliefs much better thank you.

ur gonna dig yourself into a hole with thinking like "god is part of nature." cuz he clearly has no effect on anything... and everything in the universe behaves as if they wasn't a god.

No, not at all. In fact one of the KEY PREDICTIONS of a LIVING God/Universe would necessarily be related to an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE prediction. By selecting this particular belief (pantheism), I've necessarily chosen a scientific path that would insist that this theory would expect that the universe would either:

A) be electrical in nature, not just magnetic in nature

or

B) the theory itself would be falsified.

Remember, it's an empirical theory.

There are a clearly definable set of COSMOLOGICAL implications of this belief system that can be 'tested' against other cosmological ideas, like "dead inflation sky bunnies" (aka inflation) to see how they stack up. Are you going to pass up the chance to EMPIRICALLY COMPARE cosmological concepts and the implication of those concepts as it relates to spacetime?

For instance, no forms of 'dark matter' are required or necessary for life. Likewise no forms of 'dark energy' need to exist for life and consciousness to form in the cosmos. Ditto with inflation. Not one of the mainstream metaphysical constructs is necessary or required in a pantheistic view of the universe.

Some things that we WOULD EXPECT to observe in spacetime are features that are COMMON TO LIVING ORGANISMS on Earth. We should find patterns of energy releases that are repetitious, some that are not repetitious, and lots of *ELECTRICAL CURRENT*.

 

[DaneaFL]

I think it's so ironic that theists haven't yet seen the pattern in how god is slowly yet constantly getting smaller and smaller after every discovery.

I think it's funny to imagine as if we were having this forum discussion in the 19th century... just like people today say "The universe MUST have a supernatural cause! It's god!", they used to say "Disease MUST have a supernatural cause! It's God!"

They would say things like "you think diseases can just CREATE themselves out of nothing? that's ridiculous!" the same way today they say "you think the universe can just CREATE itself out of nothing? that's ridiculous!"

anyone else see the pattern?

 

[Elendur]

Really? Just because something operates by laws that we don't understand, doesn't mean it is warranted to call that thing supernatural. By this logic, radioactivity was supernatural back in the 15th century.

DaneaFL got my point I may have presented it a bit sloppy though

 

[Michael]

I think that was kind of his point. seems like anything we dont understand we just call supernatural because we haven't found a natural cause for it yet.

You've stumbled unto my beef with cosmological metaphysical "dark" stuff by the way.

It's essentially human ignorance (of the actual physics) with a fancy sounding "label".

Fortunately we are living in an interesting time where the supernatural is almost completely gone. Everything used to be supernatural until we learned about it.
Lightening, Fire, germs, life, and now the universe and laws of causality themselves...

god is getting smaller and smaller; and I think once they complete quantum field theory, god will be completely useless.

You'd have to see things from my perspective (Cosmological Pantheism) to understand how funny that comment about God becoming "useless" sounds. Science is simply the study *OF* God from my perspective. We're still groping around in the dark to understand the living being that we call the "Universe". Once we do finally "get it", the physical components and the true majesty and scope of God will be fully understood. They are no more useless to us at that point than water is useless to a fish. We will still owe our very existence to God/The Universe.

 

[selfinflikted]

anyone else see the pattern?

Indeed. "God of the Gaps" and such.

 

[DaneaFL]

You've stumbled unto my beef with cosmological metaphysical "dark" stuff by the way.

It's essentially human ignorance (of the actual physics) with a fancy sounding "label".

to call dark matter/energy metaphysical is, I think, misleading. Just because we've observed something that doesn't reflect protons and therefore cannot be "seen" doesn't mean it's not still a part of the regular, natural world.

You'd have to see things from my perspective (Cosmological Pantheism) to understand how funny that comment about God becoming "useless" sounds. Science is simply the study *OF* God from my perspective. We're still groping around in the dark to understand the living being that we call the "Universe". Once we do finally "get it", the physical components and the true majesty and scope of God will be fully understood. They are no more useless to us at that point than water is useless to a fish. We will still owe our very existence to God/The Universe.

The problem I have with pantheism is that it gives the universe the label of "God" when it doesn't have any of the attributes people normally associate with god, not least of which is intelligence.

the christian god is all-intelligent, all-present, all-powerful, merciful, vengeful, righteous, loving, he answers prayers, etc....

the only resemblance the universe has to your god is that it's eternal in some form. so i have no idea how you get from "there must be a god" to "it's the christian god"

 

[Michael]

I think it's so ironic that theists haven't yet seen the pattern in how god is slowly yet constantly getting smaller and smaller after every discovery.

That's an atheistic "meme" by the way. It's one of the 'God of the ever shrinking gaps' argument that I've heard for over a decade. Our IGNORANCE is simply getting smaller, but God remains "unchanged" according to all religions. Only atheists see some kind of NECESSARY conflict between all forms of religion and science.

I think it's funny to imagine as if we were having this forum discussion in the 19th century... just like people today say "The universe MUST have a supernatural cause! It's god!", they used to say "Disease MUST have a supernatural cause! It's God!"

You really should define "supernatural' for me. Is "inflation' natural or supernatural? Dark energy? Dark matter?

They would say things like "you think diseases can just CREATE themselves out of nothing? that's ridiculous!" the same way today they say "you think the universe can just CREATE itself out of nothing? that's ridiculous!"

Actually, all those ideas are "ridiculous". Nothing comes from nothing. Something requires something.

 

[DaneaFL]

That's an atheistic "meme" by the way. It's one of the 'God of the ever shrinking gaps' argument that I've heard for over a decade. Our IGNORANCE is simply getting smaller, but God remains "unchanged" according to all religions. Only atheists see some kind of NECESSARY conflict between all forms of religion and science.

you can't deny that people, for thousands of years, have used "god did it" to fill every single hole we've ever had in science.

You really should define "supernatural' for me. Is "inflation' natural or supernatural? Dark energy? Dark matter?

supernatural is "anything we don't yet have a natural explanation for."

Inflation is natural... so it dark matter and energy... why wouldn't you think they were natural? they behave predictably according to laws.

Just because you can't see or touch something doesn't mean it's not natural. you can't see wind. you can't see dark matter. so what? they still are part of reality.

I'd like you to observe and test the effects of God the same way if you can.

Actually, all those ideas are "ridiculous". Nothing comes from nothing. Something requires something.

well if you think that then obviously you aren't a physicist.

look up Lawrence Krauss on youtube.

 

[Michael]

to call dark matter/energy metaphysical is, I think, misleading.

To call it anything else is misleading IMO.

Just because we've observed something that doesn't reflect protons and therefore cannot be "seen" doesn't mean it's not still a part of the regular, natural world.

Suppose I put that right back at you with the topic of God. How do you know God isn't part of the natural world again? How do you know that such things even exist in nature?

Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com

The problem I have with pantheism is that it gives the universe the label of "God" when it doesn't have any of the attributes people normally associate with god, not least of which is intelligence.

How do you know that the universe isn't "intelligent" and not "aware" at at macroscopic scale?

the christian god is all-intelligent, all-present, all-powerful, merciful, vengeful, righteous, loving, he answers prayers, etc....

the only resemblance the universe has to your god is that it's eternal in some form. so i have no idea how you get from "there must be a god" to "it's the christian god"

You're caught up in "religion' rather than debating the merits of cosmology theories. That simply makes the conversation more specific and less generic. For the time being, we can simply agree that the universe can be "aware" (or not) yet have no religious preference and focus on the physics of awareness. That would simplify the conversation tremendously.

 

[Michael]

you can't deny that people, for thousands of years, have used "god did it" to fill every single hole we've ever had in science.

Sure. Now it's just "dark matter,dark energy,inflation, yada yada yada did it" and that somehow passes for "science" today. Of course no real holes are plugged, and no understanding is gained because nobody can tell you where to find some of the stuff....

supernatural is "anything we don't yet have a natural explanation for."

Most astrophysicists willingly admit that "dark matter" and 'dark energy" are simply placeholder terms for things we don't yet understand. I guess by your definition, well just call them "supernatural' too. That sounds right to me.

Inflation is natural...

Really? Where can I get some?

so it dark matter and energy...

Ditto. Where do I get some?

why wouldn't you think they were natural? they behave predictably according to laws.

Which laws? No other field in nature does what inflation does, supposdly retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. That behavior is UNNATURAL in fact.

Dark energy isn't "natural' or you could tell me where to get some or how to produce it here on Earth.

Just because you can't see or touch something doesn't mean it's not natural. you can't see wind. you can't see dark matter. so what? they still are part of reality.

I'm fascinated that you still think God is not a part of 'reality" with that attitude.

I'd like you to observe and test the effects of God the same way if you can.

Let's start by putting some of the cosmology aspects 'to the test', shall we?

well if you think that then obviously you aren't a physicist.

Actually that's true but entirely irrelevant. Most physicists adhere to the laws of physics and realize that whatever energy exists today likely predated any "bang".

look up Lawrence Krauss on youtube.

I've critiqued one of his movies around here in one of these threads. He seems to have a strong "emotional need' for a 'flat" universe to sell his "free lunch" theory, as though that single revelation is a full justification for his ENTIRE RELIGION. Nothing comes from nothing. Guthanity was a crock in the 80's and it's a crock today. He's selling a "free lunch", "Free energy" bogus bunch of nonsense.

All that is required for the energy that exists today is energy predating the bang. That's it. There's no NEED for a "creation" event except in a "religion".

 

[DaneaFL]

Really? Where can I get some?

Go outside and scoop up a bottle of wind. it's the same thing basically.

I'm fascinated that you still think God is not a part of 'reality" with that attitude.

Well I can look into a telescope and see dark matter... which way should I point it to see god?

...assuming he is as observable as you claim he is.

 

[Michael]

Go outside and scoop up a bottle of wind. it's the same thing basically.

Oh come now. That's not even a good equivocation fallacy.

It's not even close to the same thing. I'll get real oxygen, nitrogen and carbon in that bottle. I'd even be able to "see" those atoms at the right temp and with the right equipment.

Well I can look into a telescope and see dark matter...

Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com

No, actually not anywhere humans will ever reach in your lifetime.

which way should I point it to see god?

Pick ANY direction.

...assuming he is as observable as you claim he is.

Anything and everything you see and DON'T see is a part of God IMO. The only think I'm claiming you "can't" see is his AWARENESS, but we have ample examples of awareness manifesting itself in various forms right here on Earth.