Math, God and party Politics.

[Scales]

My current religious views are pretty much fixed in most popular terminology as Spiritual Atheist though I go with Atheist Mystic. Many wonderful emotions are mixed in with dreams and the dreaming experience, and I've never been so concerned with religious books as I am with those who experienced what inspired books like them. While I'll debate religious dogma.. I now think the debate over whether god exists or not is a non-dualistic one, whatever its solution, the elegance of it is enough for me not to debate it. However I do have a skeletal idea as to the possibility of god.

I formulated an offshoot of Deism (a god exists, but doesn't intervene) that I think of as a philosophical theory, where basically the idea is something along the lines of a sleeping god (I think a fellow Atheist sarcastically referred to it saying "So God is an Atheist"). Similarly, when we go into dreamless sleep there is still is an intelligence, it exists, we are conscious in what we've deemed a subconscious sense.

Noteworthy from a naturalist perspective, we have three empirical states of consciousness. Waking, dreaming, and sleeping. If consciousness is not directly based on the physical human mind, then its more logical that these states could continue after death then any religious textbook's opinion-- of course dreams take any form including the personalization of religion and general culture.

Since afterlife belief is related to god, I'm more prone to believe in the more scientific, dreamless sleep death and personally can even see the elegance and union of it as another side-note.

The sleeping god idea doesn't solve what caused the universe, though to me it does give more say that nothingness is more than just the accepted norm of the word "nothingness." I think form and space everywhere is far beyond human comprehension even though this is not a new concept: you have dark matter in science and enlightenment in spirituality-- which I'd slimly define as loving fulfillment with the moment and an impartial consciousness towards everything (both within cognitive possibility). The idea of nothingness being 'no-thingness' as its been put before, is at least worth stating out of how much the idea can be appreciated, awed at, or experienced with suspension of judgment and thought.

My 0.02.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

disagree. we don't even understand all of the physics in our universe, there's no possible way we can understand the physics contained within a singularity, and therefore, even my "uncertainty" argument is invalid. saying something else HAD to be there is not necessarily true.

*sigh* I am not even sure how to repsond to that. It does tie in nicely with what this thread was really about (that no one seems to have the guts to address). The Science and Math give an answer you don't like. More to the point, the Math and Science give an answer that uses the word "God", so it must be wrong. It doesn't matter that no one is saying that the "God" in the equations is the Judeo/Christian God. You throw all the science and math out like last weeks leftovers because it doesn't fit your view of the Universe. 2+2=5 for you.

You seem to have ansered my question about why people in Academia have this new mindset that if the Science doesn't give us the answer we want, we will just all agree that it gives a different answer.

[n0Mad]

You seem to have ansered my question about why people in Academia have this new mindset that if the Science doesn't give us the answer we want, we will just all agree that it gives a different answer.

Project Alpha showed that scientists tend to come to their conclusions before the tests are even run. They ignore data that contradicts their conclusions and use data that support them. Most of the time they do this unknowingly; it's just a part of human nature.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Gaf, I thoroughly disagree with you. It doesn't follow at all. If the original argument had contained some scientific, not just semantic, proof that necessarily singularity = god, there would not be so much disagreement here. To conclude that necessarily the opinions of those who disagree comes from some outside mind-controlling source as opposed to one's own ability to question a premise is insulting. Not only have you confused semantic with mathematical argumentation, you have developed a false polarity in which either someone MUST accept your claims or he is brainwashed.

It can be argued that whatever the singularity is, there was one, and it MAY have been God, but there is no absolute proof that singularity = god or, even, singularity = act of god.

[phee]

Gaf, I thoroughly disagree with you. It doesn't follow at all. If the original argument had contained some scientific, not just semantic, proof that necessarily singularity = god, there would not be so much disagreement here. To conclude that necessarily the opinions of those who disagree comes from some outside mind-controlling source as opposed to one's own ability to question a premise is insulting. Not only have you confused semantic with mathematical argumentation, you have developed a false polarity in which either someone MUST accept your claims or he is brainwashed.

It can be argued that whatever the singularity is, there was one, and it MAY have been God, but there is no absolute proof that singularity = god or, even, singularity = act of god.

Good post Miss

[torn asunder]

Gaf, I thoroughly disagree with you. It doesn't follow at all. If the original argument had contained some scientific, not just semantic, proof that necessarily singularity = god, there would not be so much disagreement here. To conclude that necessarily the opinions of those who disagree comes from some outside mind-controlling source as opposed to one's own ability to question a premise is insulting. Not only have you confused semantic with mathematical argumentation, you have developed a false polarity in which either someone MUST accept your claims or he is brainwashed.

It can be argued that whatever the singularity is, there was one, and it MAY have been God, but there is no absolute proof that singularity = god or, even, singularity = act of god.

actually, from what i can tell, gaf's not saying singularity = god, he's saying that god existed outside of the singularity, and was the cause of the fluctuation that made the big bang happen. thing that i have a problem with is that, we know black holes warp time & space & even dimensionality. we know (or know as best we can) that our classical physics, including quantum, break down in a black hole. now, imagine every black hole in the universe, and every sun, every planet, asteroid, rock, dust particle, and even all of the theoretical dark matter, contained within a space so small that our science defines is as a one-dimensional mathematical point... there is no possible way we can say that that "point" has no effect on anything else, nor can we say whether or not it allows for anything external to itself. it's possible that nothing could exist outside of the singularity, so to say "god" (which, btw i do not define as the x-tian deity, but as the universal 'subconscious', the energy that connects us all and from which we all come) must have acted on the singularity from the outside is pure conjecture and guesswork on the part of the author. there is no way it can be proven.

[phee]

There is one way I can understand the use of the word "God" in an argument such as this... if people are referring to God as "That which is unknown to us at this point" I can dig that term.

God as a personality, being, some dude, all powerful thinking thingy.... not sold on that.

[torn asunder]

and now that i think of it, why are we assuming there was only one singularity? perhaps there were "billions" of them, cruising around whatever passed for their universe, and by chanceover the course of eons, one singularity just happened to "bump into" another, thus creating a "big bang".

i mean, there are so many scenarios that preclude the "external god" theory, to my mind, that i just can't buy it.

[phee]

and now that i think of it, why are we assuming there was only one singularity? perhaps there were "billions" of them, cruising around whatever passed for their universe, and by chanceover the course of eons, one singularity just happened to "bump into" another, thus creating a "big bang".

i mean, there are so many scenarios that preclude the "external god" theory, to my mind, that i just can't buy it.

I agree completely

A "God" is one possibility amongst the infinite that are out there....

Why I lead towards Atheism with a shot of Agnostic... I know enough to know that I DONT KNOW...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Gaf, I thoroughly disagree with you. It doesn't follow at all. If the original argument had contained some scientific, not just semantic, proof that necessarily singularity = god, there would not be so much disagreement here. To conclude that necessarily the opinions of those who disagree comes from some outside mind-controlling source as opposed to one's own ability to question a premise is insulting. Not only have you confused semantic with mathematical argumentation, you have developed a false polarity in which either someone MUST accept your claims or he is brainwashed.

It can be argued that whatever the singularity is, there was one, and it MAY have been God, but there is no absolute proof that singularity = god or, even, singularity = act of god.

I am not the one confusing semantics. No where have I or any physist claimed singularity = god. I have also stated that the "god" in question is NOT the Judeo/Christian God.

The singularity was simply that. A singularity... that's once special property is that it was the only thing in existance. Thats the accepted model for the Big Bang theory.

the "God" in question is that one thing, what ever it was, that was "other". It is refered to as "god" because it caused the Big Bang and created the Universe.

And torn, you are prefectly correct. It may have been that there was more than one singularity and two bumped into each other... or just got close enough to destabalize one of the two. That act, still created the Universe... it may have created two if both singualirty exploded. In this model, that other singualirty would be "god"... because it created our Universe... God is just a label in this unknown until we know what it really is.

Also, if there was more than one... they were not part of this Universe.... our Universe, including all 10 clockwise and 26 counter clockwise dimensions our Universe exists in, were compacted down into that singularity.

Where you are wrong about , if wrong is the right word, is that anything outside of the singularity that affected it, no matter what is was, is "God".

The "God" I am refering to is what ever it was that caused creation (the big bang). It's being used as a generic term.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

In normal physics and quantum physics... nothing changes unless something changes it. There is always a cause.

[torn asunder]

In normal physics and quantum physics... nothing changes unless something changes it. There is always a cause.

related to the above - we've already established that normal and quantum physics wouldn't apply to anything contained within a singularity; it doesn't even apply in a black hole, and *it* has mass & size. therefore, "there is always a cause" isn't necessarily true.

as for your previous post..

Where you are wrong about , if wrong is the right word, is that anything outside of the singularity that affected it, no matter what is was, is "God".

The "God" I am refering to is what ever it was that caused creation (the big bang). It's being used as a generic term.

that, to me, comes across as someone trying to use semantics to create an argument/debate. the common meaning of "god" is "deity" for most all laymen (laymen = common people) not some newly created definition. if

God is just a label in this unknown until we know what it really is.

, why don't we just call it a "schnickle-gruber" or something - at least that way, there is no preconceived notion about a word that's being used in an unconventional way. the fact that they used the word "god" is inflammatory at best.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

related to the above - we've already established that normal and quantum physics wouldn't apply to anything contained within a singularity; it doesn't even apply in a black hole, and *it* has mass & size. therefore, "there is always a cause" isn't necessarily true.

When did we establish that? You keep saying it, but I have not seen anyone agree with it. I have tried to find an academic web site that says it... failing at that. Here is an example of what I am finding:

Very little changes for a test particle as the event horizon is crossed; classical general relativity is still a very good approximation to the quantum gravity outcome. But the further the particle falls down the gravity well, the more the Hawking temperature increases, the more Hawking particles there are buffeting the test particle, and the greater become its deviations from a classical path as the increasingly limited density of quantum states starts to pinch. Ultimately, much further in, the density of the quantum "corrections" becomes so pronounced that the classical variables cease to be good quantum numbers to describe the system. This deep into the black hole it becomes the quantum gravitational forces, above all else, that dominate the environmental interactions which determine the appropriate decohered states for sensibly talking about the system. Further in than this, the core of the system needs to be treated in its own, specifically quantum, terms.

thats from the wiki, not the greatest source, but it's in something close to english.

[torn asunder]

When did we establish that? You keep saying it, but I have not seen anyone agree with it. I have tried to find an academic web site that says it... failing at that. Here is an example of what I am finding:

thats from the wiki, not the greatest source, but it's in something close to english.

well, i guess saying "established" was a poor choice of words!? i figured that you'd already stated our universe sprang from this singularity...

The Big Bang is pretty much a proven fact. OK... So... about 15billion years ago we have the Singularity. Everything that is, squashed into a single point of infinite density and infinite mass. For it to exists at all it would have to be in perfect balance. That means, according to physics, special physics and relativity that it will always be that way. Except it wasn't. It exploded. Which means it had to interact with something other. Thats the "God" he is refering to. That "other" that interacted with the singularity and created teh Universe we live in.

and the physics, special physics and relativity to which you refer, only apply in this universe because we know no other experience, and can't say whether it would apply inside a singularity, a different universe, or especially outside of this universe (external to the singularity, which is where you claim "god" was).

if we look at your wiki quote, (which i agree, is not the best, but let's work with it)...

Very little changes for a test particle as the event horizon is crossed; classical general relativity is still a very good approximation to the quantum gravity outcome. But the further the particle falls down the gravity well, the more the Hawking temperature increases, the more Hawking particles there are buffeting the test particle, and the greater become its deviations from a classical path as the increasingly limited density of quantum states starts to pinch. Ultimately, much further in, the density of the quantum "corrections" becomes so pronounced that the classical variables cease to be good quantum numbers to describe the system. This deep into the black hole it becomes the quantum gravitational forces, above all else, that dominate the environmental interactions which determine the appropriate decohered states for sensibly talking about the system. Further in than this, the core of the system needs to be treated in its own, specifically quantum, terms.

we see that the more dense things get, the more general relativity breaks down, and we are forced to use quantum mechanics. now, if we extrapolate from there, and take into account that a singularity contains *all* of the known and unknown material in this universe, contained within a mathematically one-dimensional point (which is for all practical purposes infinitely more dense than the densest black hole) i don't see how anyone can state that even quantum physics could still be applicable. i don't see any possible logical way to positively say that's true.

am i making a bit more sense? i can try to explain further, but i'm not sure how much better i'll be able to do so.

Edited December 14, 2009 by torn asunder

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You can though. In the mathmatical models used in physics, quantum mechanics applys even in the singularity. You should look up loop quatum gravity. Not just because it's cool as fuck, but because it shows we can describe the mechanics of a singularity.

[Rev.Reverence]

No, this is not that case. In this case, we know. The Big Bang therory is well documented and it states that somwthing other.. an outside force HAD to be there or the super particle would not have destabalized and exploded. By the definition of "Creator of the Universe" that outside force is "God". What was that outside force? Now thats the really good question. Thats the question that physisits are trying to answer.

but you all are missing the point of the article. 2+2=4. The current state of mind in acadamia is that the "truth" is subjective. It's what ever the majority decides it is no matter if the data proves otherwise.

...AHhhh.....the new Science, is a Democracy...

..I always thought that Science was an Empire..& G*D, it's Ruler.

.....Gaf, looks like these ones did it...they overthrew G*D... </sarcasm>

[Rev.Reverence]

*sigh* I am not even sure how to repsond to that. It does tie in nicely with what this thread was really about (that no one seems to have the guts to address). The Science and Math give an answer you don't like. More to the point, the Math and Science give an answer that uses the word "God", so it must be wrong. It doesn't matter that no one is saying that the "God" in the equations is the Judeo/Christian God. You throw all the science and math out like last weeks leftovers because it doesn't fit your view of the Universe. 2+2=5 for you.

You seem to have ansered my question about why people in Academia have this new mindset that if the Science doesn't give us the answer we want, we will just all agree that it gives a different answer.

It was an uncomfortable laughter.

Project Alpha showed that scientists tend to come to their conclusions before the tests are even run. They ignore data that contradicts their conclusions and use data that support them. Most of the time they do this unknowingly; it's just a part of human nature.

THEY...are NOT scientists then, & they should be dragged into the street & shot.

[phee]

Project Alpha showed that scientists tend to come to their conclusions before the tests are even run. They ignore data that contradicts their conclusions and use data that support them. Most of the time they do this unknowingly; it's just a part of human nature.

What you just described here.... is this not the basis of all religion?

And I agree.. if this is what they are doing, it is not science, it is belief.

(I know I am opening up a floodgate here)

[torn asunder]

You can though. In the mathmatical models used in physics, quantum mechanics applys even in the singularity. You should look up loop quatum gravity. Not just because it's cool as fuck, but because it shows we can describe the mechanics of a singularity.

i'll do that, because right now, it doesn't make any sense to me. sounds interesting though.

[torn asunder]

hey, gaf, did you read the whole wiki article on loop quantum gravity? 1st thing that struck me was #3...

The main successes of loop quantum gravity are:

1. It is a nonperturbative quantization of 3-space geometry, with quantized area and volume operators.

2. It includes a calculation of the entropy of black holes.

3. It replaces the Big Bang spacetime singularity with a Big Bounce.

you're trying to use this theory for a big bang based on a mathematical singularity, when it's stated that this theory replaces the "big bang" with a "big bounce", therefore it's not really valid for your argument.

i'm going to finish reading it when i get back, i have to head out for a bit. thanks for letting me know about this, it's really interesting!

[Rev.Reverence]

Yes Torn...as ZEN clearly states, THIS EXISTENCE, IS BUT A BREATH OF THE DIVINE.

[phee]

Yes Torn...as ZEN clearly states, THIS EXISTENCE, IS BUT A BREATH OF THE DIVINE.

Halitosis?

[Rev.Reverence]

Halitosis?

Why you gotta' be a smart-ass?

...THIS, is why many peoples are not into sharing about spiritual affairs, they are mocked & berated by such childish puns, that if you had ANYTHING to add (other than naysaying) may have been seen as a joke, but this is clearly an insult.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[phee]

Why you gotta' be a dick?

...THIS, is why many peoples are not into sharing about spiritual affairs, they are mocked & berated by such childish puns, that if you had ANYTHING to add (other than naysaying) may have been seen as a joke, but this is clearly an insult.

Calm down dude...

I was making a joke about the state of the universe being not very good atm from where I am standing... you used the term breathe of the divine, when the universe seems to be unkind it seems to have bad breathe

No disrespect meant.

[Rev.Reverence]

Calm down dude...

I was making a joke about the state of the universe being not very good atm from where I am standing... you used the term breathe of the divine, when the universe seems to be unkind it seems to have bad breathe

No disrespect meant.

I do not see it that way, show me where have you ever even taken any of these conversations seriously.

You don't, you love to mock others beliefs...you do it all the time.

Does not show a good face for the side you debate for, you look more & more closed minded the more I hear you mock.