WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

[Yazata]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc.

I think that science strives for objectivity. It tries to penetrate through to an understanding of the universe as it is in itself, independent of the personal ideosyncrasies of any single observer. But that's kind of a cognitive ideal more than it's a reality. Not only is there the problem that experiments interfere with what might have happened had no experiment occurred (which can totally change things on the microscale), there's also the problem that we inevitably find ourselves conceptualizing things in terms of our existing conceptual vocabulary.

Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time.

It's true. Not only that, there's a question of cognitive processing-power. A cockroach can tell when I've turned on the light and it runs for cover. But a cockroach will never comprehend Maxwell's equations. The physics of light kind of overflow the cockroach's limited ability to uniderstand.

So scaling the analogy up, what confidence can we have that human beings possess the unique ability to understand whatever principles underlie reality itself?

I'm skeptical about whether we do. So our scientific quest for understanding might turn out to be kind of an endless quest into the unknown, in search of a hypothetical destination (a true 'theory of everything') that human beings like ourselves can never attain.

This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless.

I'm inclined to agree. The thing is, that kind of makes 'God' synonymous with 'the unknown'. That's an argument for agnosticism more than for theism.

You cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

Probably most scientists in history have entertained some kind of transcendental religious ideas.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc. Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time. This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless. An example of our restricted insight, for me, was demonstrated by Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest publication, one of the greatest thinkers of our time appears to be incapable of envisaging a dimension which exists ‘independently’ of space-time. You cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

They would be (for me) if it required that the confinement to spacetime constitutes a limitation on knowledge. It's not that folks can't imagine existence outside of spacetime, it's just so absurd to (without mind altering sacramentals). Herein lies the rub for non-believers. Religion requires dwelling in that 5[sup]th[/sup] dimension, which is unknowable, never present, and impotent.

 

[darksidZz]

God is the one that will still exist when we do not

 

[spidergoat]

GOD is the name given to the reality of 'omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent' . What is this reality ?

God from a scientific point of view is an untestable and therefore nonsensical hypothesis. Your statement is one of faith, not fact. In asking this question, you are asking us to assume the same unsupported faith as you do, and that's wrong.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Sorry, I didn’t explain the term ‘independently’ very well in my post. What I meant was: Professor Hawking is of the opinion that space-time, and therefore time itself, was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’. Consequently, he feels that the question of there being a divine entity initiating the big bang is a null and void question. He concludes that such a ‘creation’ would imply causality, where causality is not a valid concept since time has not yet been created. This is what I meant when I stated he could not conceive of a dimension which exists ‘outside of’/’independently’ of space-time. All of the phenomena mentioned in your quote are constrained by the material/energy based time-space universe. Even questions of whether the universe is/is not infinite, the possibility of parallel universes or multi-verses etc. are constrained by the time-space continuum.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Sorry, I didn’t explain the term ‘independently’ very well in my post. What I meant was: Professor Hawking is of the opinion that space-time, and therefore time itself, was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’. Consequently, he feels that the question of there being a divine entity initiating the big bang is a null and void question. He concludes that such a ‘creation’ would imply causality, where causality is not a valid concept since time has not yet been created. This is what I meant when I stated he could not conceive of a dimension which exists ‘outside of’/’independently’ of space-time. All of the phenomena mentioned in your quote are constrained by the material/energy based time-space universe. Even questions of whether the universe is/is not infinite, the possibility of parallel universes or multi-verses etc. are constrained by the time-space continuum.

The particles that I needed to create space time had to equal zero to work. There is nothing less than zero. On a computer monitor you just see black. What I can do is give them a fake colour in a computer simulation, and you could see them. Because I can make zero visible, I can see before time. Now you might think that I could just put a sphere on the screen, and make it black. But zero has a strict pattern to it which must obey all of newtons laws, and that pattern is what I would make visible. If it breaks one of Newton's laws, it breaks its zero energy state, and is no longer zero.

 

[DaveC426913]

there is nothing less than zero.

-1?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

-1?

It's greater, because it breaks an energy law. Loads of stuff would fall into it. Anyway I get the joke.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's greater, because it breaks an energy law. Loads of stuff would fall into it.

Presumably one of your laws, since the ones adhered to by mainstream science are all incorrect.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Presumably one of your laws, since the ones adhered to by mainstream science are all incorrect.

Mainstream.. energy moves to lesser energy. The mistake was to ignore themselves, and listen to a word in their head.. attraction. Even I sometimes say that a magnet pulls. Once a word is in your head it is hard to get rid of it.

 

[Arioch]

God is the one that will still exist when we do not

So my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will all be gods? Nice to know.

 

[hansda]

Are you just defining the word 'God' that way for the sake of discussion? Or are you claiming to actually know that God is those things? If the latter, how is it that you know it?

Its a general belief that ; GOD is omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent .

How is science relevant to questions about God?

Why , you think science should not be relevant to GOD ?

Do you think only faith should be relevant to GOD ?

Whatever corresponds to our concept of God if we've defined the word 'God' to mean those things.

Dont you think 'omnipotent', 'omniscient' and 'omnipresent' existence can also be searched through science ?

Probably nothing in actual reality.

May be we can not vision them . Does it mean , they dont exist ?

 

[spidergoat]

If there can't be evidence of your proposition, then it's useless to science.

 

[hansda]

God from a scientific point of view is an untestable and therefore nonsensical hypothesis. Your statement is one of faith, not fact. In asking this question, you are asking us to assume the same unsupported faith as you do, and that's wrong.

I am not telling you to believe in , what i believe . I am just trying to tell that , believe in science . My specific science-questions were regarding some existence ; who/which is omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent .

 

[spidergoat]

I understand, but part of your question asks us to assume that something does exist with those qualities, and there is no evidence for it. The basic premise of your question makes no sense scientifically.

 

[hansda]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc. Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time. This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’

So, science depends upon the perception of an observer .

God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless.

How are you so sure about this ? Have you seen GOD ? Can you show GOD to others ? OR , Is it just your strong faith ?

An example of our restricted insight, for me, was demonstrated by Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest publication, one of the greatest thinkers of our time appears to be incapable of envisaging a dimension which exists ‘independently’ of space-time.

I think Professor Hawking believes in science than faith .

You cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence.

Then how do you think omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence can be proven by other than science ?

However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

So , you agree partially that SCIENCE and GOD can be related .

 

[hansda]

I understand, but part of your question asks us to assume that something does exist with those qualities, and there is no evidence for it. The basic premise of your question makes no sense scientifically.

What evidence do you need ? The whole Universe is existing . Isnt the Universe an evidence of Universal-Existance ?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sorry, I didn’t explain the term ‘independently’ very well in my post. What I meant was: Professor Hawking is of the opinion that space-time, and therefore time itself, was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’. Consequently, he feels that the question of there being a divine entity initiating the big bang is a null and void question. He concludes that such a ‘creation’ would imply causality, where causality is not a valid concept since time has not yet been created. This is what I meant when I stated he could not conceive of a dimension which exists ‘outside of’/’independently’ of space-time. All of the phenomena mentioned in your quote are constrained by the material/energy based time-space universe. Even questions of whether the universe is/is not infinite, the possibility of parallel universes or multi-verses etc. are constrained by the time-space continuum.

Yes, I think it is widely held that time is "created" by the Big Bang. Obviously this produces a huge challenge for human understanding. What comes before the clock's first tick? With the creation of time comes the creation of causality itself. But if causality could not be in play before the instant of creation, then how is creation caused at all? It's a great question.

My explanation is as follows. All of this is hypothetical, just walking through the logic: There is a vortex at which spacetime collapses. Looking back to that vortex from our vantage point is equivalent to looking back in time. The vortex converges to a point at which neither space or time exist. But to be "at" that point is to be outside of time and space. Therefore this is a dimensionless point. Furthermore, since its "clock" can't tick, it is eternal. This means the static spaceless timeless point always was and always will be. Now, if we could move to that vantage point and look forward we would see all that ever was and all that ever will be within the spacetime continuum, as an extrusion (a disk that moves longitudinally for 1m, integrated over time, produces a 1m long rod).

Note, I'm not claiming this is how things are, I'm just explaining the dilemma using the same reasoning that says causality for the Big Bang is impossible.

From my standpoint this disproves the existence of a Creator God, since it requires God to exist in a state of timelessness. Such a state is incapable of anything sequential. For example, if God was to attempt to utter the word "pistachio" his lips (again hypothetical) would be forever pursed and the sound would never emit. I am just giving this as an example to attempt to clarify what "eternal" means. It means static.

A static agent has little or no ability to intervene in the real world. The closest manifestation I can think of is the photon, which apparently "exists" outside of time. Indeed its mere existence is at times fuzzy. But it seems to be the slave of the universe, not its God. (And I don't suppose you were advocating for a photonic God anyway.)

Given this reasoning, how do you propose that God exists at all, or do you see a glaring flaw in what I'm saying?

 

[spidergoat]

What evidence do you need ? The whole Universe is existing . Isnt the Universe an evidence of Universal-Existance ?

According to science, the universe is probably self-caused. The forces we observe in the universe are the product of sub-atomic interactions, not a top-down controlling entity with a personality. While there are some conceptions of a God that are not ruled out, it's simple unnecessary. The universe is not evidence of God.

 

[hansda]

According to science, the universe is probably self-caused. The forces we observe in the universe are the product of sub-atomic interactions, not a top-down controlling entity with a personality. While there are some conceptions of a God that are not ruled out, it's simple unnecessary. The universe is not evidence of God.

What about an observer ? Isnt he also part of Physics or Science ?