Everybody eventually gets around to using the term "God" in philosophical discussions, either with reverence or disdain, but how often in a discussion do people actually define what they mean by that term?

If you don't define it how can you talk about it when everyone probably has a different idea what that word represents?

If God is energy, can you prove that God exists? YES.

Are we energy? Yes we are. We exist. We can prove it.

If God is the universe, can you prove that God exists? YES.

If God is consciousness, can you prove that God exists? YES.

If God is Nature, can you prove that God exists? YES.

If God is some super natural being whom nobody has ever actually seen who is rumored to have created the universe and everything in it, can you prove that God exists?

NO!

Interesting

Hi Jeannie.

I'm in absolute agreement with your suggestion that it makes absolutely no sense to argue about whether or not a 'god' exists without first defining what is meant by the term "god".

In fact, I'm glad you brought this up because I use the term 'atheist' to mean a disbelief (or lack of belief) in "god", and for me, by my definition (which I'll explain momentarily), a disbelief in god necessarily = materialism. Therefore by my defintion of "god" atheism = materialism. There's no other choice.

All me to go through your questions and give my answers. (not as an argument to your answers, but just to share my views).




That's an interesting question because from a physics point of view I can't see that we can prove that energy exists. This may seem like a technicality, but by the latest theory of the Big Bang called "Inflation Theory" it is explained that the sum total of the energy of the universe is basically zero. This is because gravity is mathematically equivalent to 'anti-energy'.

So if God is energy, then God doesn't exist (in total).

That may sound strange but I accept it as a technical fact. This doesn't bother me because I don't define God as energy so this is irrelevant for me.



Our physical bodies are constructs of standing waves of energy. Yes, this is true. But I don't believe that we are our physical bodies so, no, I don't believe that we are 'energy'.

In fact energy itself is a physical notion, as far as I can see. It's a direct property of spacetime.



Well, this could get really deep. What are we calling the "universe"?

Is all of spacetime the "universe"?

Or is the "universe" all that philosophically exists whether it's in the realm of spacetime or not?

I think we already have evidence that spacetime events pop 'into existence' from seemingly 'nowhere'.

So is that 'nowhere' part of the 'universe'?

If we're suggesting that the word "universe" should include all of reality then I think it's clear that much of the universe is not physical at all. In fact, I'm not even sure if a 'quantity' could be assigned to it since the very idea of 'quantity' is a property of spacetime.

The part of the 'universe' that isn't 'spacetime' must be some kind of mystical well of 'potentiality'. That's about all I know to call it. We have to call it mystical at this time because we have no clue what it is or how it works. All we know is that spacetime "thingies" appear from 'nowhere'. That's the best we can describe it. And they always appear in pairs of energy/anti-energy (or matter/antimatter).



Well consciousness itself is a difficult term to define I think. I mean, a thinking machine like a computer exhibits what I would think of as 'consciousness'. But is it 'aware' that it's conscious?

So I would prefer to define God as 'awareness'. That is more firm than mere 'consciousness'. So my definition of 'spirit' is anything that can be 'aware'. And I equate spirit to "god". So yes, humans are aware, therefore humans are spirit. Therefore humans are god. As are all animals that are aware. And if computers ever become aware then they to would be spirit. I see no reason why they couldn't since they too are made from the same mystical standing waves that pop out of nothingness.



Well, how do we define 'nature'. That could become a whole topic on it's own. For me personally, 'nature' includes not only spacetime events, but also all of the spiritual awareness that goes with it. I personally believe that all living things are 'aware' to some degree, even trees and grass. In fact, I personally believe that all spacetime objects have a degree of awareness, even rocks and crystals.

So yes, if god is nature then god certainly exists. And by my definition of god I accept that all of nature is god.



Well, not only that, but now we're moving into a whole different category. Now we're not speaking about an entity. Now we're speaking about doctrines and stories that claim to be descriptions of how a particular personified godhead behaves, has behaved, and what he supposedly demands from us.

As far as I'm concerned some of those stories can easily be shown to be clearly false simply because they blatantly shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly.

For example one story has a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful God betting with a demon that the demon can't turn a particular devoted follower named Job away from God. The story is inconsistent because God is supposed to already know what's in the hearts of men and therefore he shouldn't need to test a man. It's also inconsistent in that it implies that this God has something to prove to a demon.

Another example is a story where a supposedly all-wise God commands people to murder heathens were a heathen is defined as anyone who disagrees with the writings of this God. Then the story goes on to have this same God send his only begotten son into the same crowd to disagree with his previous teachings. There's clearly nothing wise about such a foolish action. So clearly this God can't be both all-wise and all-absurd simultaneously.

So when it comes to documented personified mythological Gods I think they can easily be shown to be false. At least some of them can. Some other religions have personified Godheads that never wrote a book. They simply claim that their Goddess said, 'Do as ye will and harm none'. And that was that. It's pretty hard to disprove a Goddess based on such scant doctrine.

So anyway, my definition of spirit is anything that is aware. And I hold that all spirit is 'god'. Therefore any spirituality is a believe in God as far as I'm concerned. And so it follows, for me, that atheism (which denounces a belief in God) necessarily equates to materialism then (based my definition of what I mean when I use the term "god").

Thanks for posting a great OP!

I would like to address the concept of the "universe" just a tad more.

I can personally think of at least three types of universes.

1. The Physical Universe.

This would be everything that we can detect via means that we have traditionally called 'phsysical phenomenon'. This would be all of what to call 'spacetime'.

However one interesting thing is that scientists have already discovered that most of what we thought was the physical universe turns out to only be about 5% of what actually exists. And the 95% may only be detectable via gravity which is a very weak force.

We've also found things like neutrinos which are extremely difficult to detect. In fact, countless billions of neutrinos supposedly pass through our bodies (and the entire planet Earth)every second of our lives and never interact with anything.

So there are many 'physical things' that are almost ghostly as it is.

Then we have the quantum field that is even more ghostly.

Then we have a second universe that we can call:

2. Abstract Concept Universe.

According to Plato the entire world of mathematics resides as asbstract thought. Exactly what that would mean or how or where it would be manifest 'outside of' (or in addition to) the physical universe I have no clue. But clearly an abstract thought universe an idea that has not gone unnoticed by philosophers.

3. A non-physical physical universe.

What the hell does that mean? Sounds like a contradiction in terms doesn't it?

Well I just made up the name so let me explain.

What materialists like about our physical universe is the idea that it can indeed have 'structure'. The reason it can have structure is because it has physical 'properties' that can be arranged in patterns.

Well, what if there is another "universe" that also has it own set of 'physical' properties and laws but those properties and laws don't interact with our universe directly. Then there would be another 'place' where structure could reside even though it doesn't have anything do with the spacetime of events in this unviverse.

Yet there may be special ways in which these two universe can interact on a certain plane.

I'm actually inclined to believe that this is actually quite likely. Especially in light of what we already see in the quantum field. The quantum field itself could contain even more structure that the physical universe for all we know. Yet it remains completely out of ability to measure directly.

So when materialists get too hung up the need for structure they really need to think that there may be far more structure in places that we can't even access. Why should we think that the spacetime that we experience is the only 'structure' that exists?

That's a pretty huge assumption right there I think.

Again, thanks for asking the questions.

Of course a Pantheist or (pardon my irreverence) Naturalist would answer "yes." God is every (tangible) thing and every (tangible) thing is God.

That's just it: "..God is super natural," above or apart from what is natural; according to the Bible (the Hebrew Bible, in case anyone wants to get "smart"). It would make no sense to prove God, who is spiritual, exists in a physical sense--by empirical methods of observation. In fact, it makes no sense to prove He exists at all; one should approach and know God by faith alone.

"For faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

Sorry. I did things a bit backwards, Abracadabra. Thanks to Jeanniebean for starting this discussion and to you for your interesting thoughts on science.

I'm not sure if you're using the term "materialists" correctly, though. Don't you mean "Naturalists"? I always thought "materialists" were individuals who focus solely on material (or monetary) gain--affluence--or believe only material objects have value. Maybe "Naturalists" would be a more accurate description, considering your science acumen?

And since your post centered mainly on the scientific side of things, I will attempt to represent--to defend--the theological.

I agree that Christianity is an entirely different category from Naturalism, Atheism, or any secular (and even other religious) views of the world. Christians live and think by faith; Atheists live and think by sight. Christians *believe* the Bible is the Word of God; Atheists *believe* it is mythology.

How-ev-ah (that's right), the Bible does not have internal conflicts--it is not self-contradictory. All these blithe claims of It having contradictions are empty. So, what it seems to come down to, is you either believe it or you do not.

Well, knowing from other contexts God's traits you mentioned--His omniscience, omnipotence, etc.--wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that the "testing" actually is for man's benefit? Not only for Job's benefit--as he learns, in the end, to trust God when everything (literally, everything) has been stripped away--but for the New Testament Christians' and today's Christians' benefit, to disprove again the devil and prove to us again God's righteousness? Of course, God knew Job would stay strong (er, well, survive and NOT curse God, as was what Satan claimed Job would do) until the bitter end; but Satan and mankind did not know that outcome.

Which story from the O.T. are you talking about?

Also, "heathens," by way of their rampant dissension from God and His ways, are in the slow and subtle process of destroying themselves. As you said, God knows man's hearts; therefore, He knows which people would never turn from their ways to Him (like with Pharaoh, who actually had numerous chances to repent, but never did).

God is not merciless. Mankind, when left to its own purposes, is just relentlessly arrogant and (self-)destructive.

And it is quite ironic to call God's mercy--His giving grace and life to those who don't deserve it--foolish. Perhaps "it is."

Yes; gods that are made of straw are easily destroyed.
(I would guess you have heard the term "straw-man argument" before?).

Also, that logic seems a bit absurd in itself. So, if I concoct a Lobster-Centric Religion, venerating the Great Ever-Slippery Crustacean, only in my mind, but never put it in "book form," could it potentially be "true"?

Do "lies" have to be written to be proven "false"?

Ah, so you're at least, in part, a Pantheist, are you? Interesting.

At one point, you said that grass--lo, even rocks--are self-aware? Can you empirically prove that? Otherwise, it could be (and, I daresay, is) more absurd than the intangible God--because it is both illogical and unscientific to state that things that lack a Central Nervous System could be conscious in any biological sense. To say otherwise is to say there exists something supernatural (or "contranatural"? Is there even a word to properly describe sentient rocks?), opening up a whole array of possibilities inconsistent with an avid disbelief in God.

James (Abra)

ENERGY

I think it is an excepted fact that there is something we call energy and that it, as it is defined, does exist. But then if you are defining 'existence' as a physical thing that you can touch or feel or describe, then you are correct. The whole subject of energy would be an interesting one.

Everything and everyone exchange 'energy.' We get 'energy' from the food we consume, we get energized exchanging thoughts. So is thought itself a form of energy? Or is our reaction to ideas a form of energy?

If we trace energy down to the quantum level of movement, it translates into waves and frequencies (like everything else.) But if you say it does not exist because of this fact then you would have to say that nothing else that we think exists exists either.

Therefor I would have to say that I believe it exists but I don't quite know what it is or where it comes from overall. There are different kinds of energy and they are all well defined in science.

Wars are fought over 'energy.' We buy expensive curled up light bulbs to save 'energy." We need energy to exercise and work and heat our homes. If we exist, then energy exists. We are energy. We create energy. I can create energy just by thinking. Perhaps thought itself is energy.

"If God is energy, can you prove that God exists? YES."

How?

If god is energy and still within the concept of (GOD-IS-ALL-THINGS) how can you measure...

You have no outside frame of reference, no way of comparing it to anything else.

the GOD concept is and will remain greater than our ability to define... By its very essense Unknowable to the mind of man.

How?

Simply by 'proving' that energy exists.

Proof of course, is always a matter of belief and agreement.

Does energy exist? If you say it does not, then what heats your home? What fuels your body? How do you define energy?

Proving energy exists is a small thing.

Proving 'god' is energy is quite a different thing as we can't even prove 'god' exists how could we than prove it is energy.

Energy is a meaningless concept outside of the whole spacetime thing. Energy 'comes into existence with spacetime' just like space and time do.

So from my point of view energy is just as 'physical' as anything else. It's also just as non-physical as anything else.

I say the latter because matter and anti-matter (energy and anti-energy) become nothing when they come together. They disappear from the physical universe altogether.

Where did they come from?

They came from a field of pure potentiality.

Potentiality is what I'm calling 'god' (or spirit) and although energy is one things that can arise from spirit it's not the 'substance' of spirit. It's an effect of the substance of spirit. The 'substance' of spirit is a non-physical potentiality.

Can I say that this non-physical potentiality exists?

Yes. Based on modern science it necessarily must exist even though we can't detect it directly.

As far as I'm concerned we've already proven through scientific methods that spirit necessarily exists.

Spirit is that from which things like 'energy' arise.

And we know that it exists.

Uhhh, no . . .

I perfer to use the word 'Atheist' to mean a disbelief in anything spiritual. But I've had a few (very few) atheists complain that they think the word 'athiest' should only be used to mean a lack of a believe in an egotistical godhead, like Zeus, Yahweh, or Jesus (as an incarnation of God).

So they suggested I use the word "Materialist" to mean a completely disbelief in any spirituality at all. But now we see where this usage is troublesome for other people.

We can't make everyone happy I guess.

I would never use the term "Naturalist" to mean non-spiritual. I personally believe that a lot of Naturalists are highly spiritual people who believe that spirit is part of "Nature".

I think I'm going to go back to using the term "Atheist" to mean non-spiritual and just leave it at that. I've used it that way for the better part of 60 years and haven't had objection until extremely recently.



Well, we're all entitled to our views I guess. You say that Bible has no internal conflict. I see it as being so utterly self-conflicting that it doesn't even make any sense at all. So it would be impossible for me to even place my faith in something that conflicts with itself.

Moreover, even if I were willing to accept the absurdities I would have absolutely no reason to want to place faith in the stories. As far as I can see it's all about a God who tries to solve all his problems using violent blood-and-guts methods. I don't see where it represents any wisdom whatsoever. Much less compassion or mercy.

I want no part of a God who feels that having someone nailed to a pole is a solution for anything.

I would rather place my faith in pure atheism. I would rather that we just cease to exist than to be the eternal slave of a God who solves problems by having people nailed to poles.

So even if the contradictions could somehow be overcome, it's still the sickest picture I can imagine for a God. If anything I would rather have FAITH that it's not true!

If I'm going to have faith in a God I'd prefer to believe that God is at least as wise and compassionate as me. Why have faith that God is a sadistic idiot? Seems like a waste of faith to me.



I never said they are 'self-aware'. I simply said that I believe they are 'aware'. Big difference. In fact, my exact words were:

"I personally believe that all living things are 'aware' to some degree, even trees and grass."

A blade of grass can be 'aware of sunlight' and of air currents, and moisture, etc. It can be 'aware' of it's existence without being 'self-aware' of what it is. It doesn't consciously know that it's a blade of grass. It's not going to fear a lawn mower for example.

Same thing with trees. I think they too have a level of awareness. Precisely what that level is I don't know.

I think it's hard for us as humans to understand awareness outside of the 'THOUGHT'. We are so fully aware of our thoughts that we often tend to believe that thought is the only meaningful kind of awareness. But in truth we can actually meditate into states where we experience an awareness between out thoughts.

I think that's the kind of awareness that tress and grass have. It's a non-thinking awareness. They don't THINK, they are just 'aware'. And since they don't think they aren't going to be 'thinking' that they are a blade of grass or a tree. They aren't thinking. They're just aware without thought.

Once you start to understand awareness without any need to being the conept of thinking into it, then you can move on to the idea that rocks might also have a level of thoughtless 'awareness'.

No need for a brain or even a nervous system to have a thoughtless 'awareness'.

This is why I perfer not to use the term "consciousness" because we as humans think of conciousness in terms of "thoughtful awareness".

But all "awarness" does not need to be in terms of thought.

That's where I'm coming from with that.

Yes, well that's an ambiguous term isn't it?

I suppose I should have said that they become no-physical-thing.

We already know that they arise from a non-physical well of potentiality. Virtual particles come into existence all the time from 'nothing' (actually we call it the quantum field).

The problem is that the quantum field is totally undetectable until somthing spring from it? (or as Sky would demand, "because" of it).

So in physical terms the quantum field itself is 'nothing' yet clearly it exsits which means that it must be 'somthing' but whatever that 'something' is it's non-physical which makes it physically 'nothing' again.



Just goes to show how hopelessly little we truly know.

The fact that the conservation of energy is not broken to me clearly states that these particles are not arising from nothing.

The best we can describe it is by saying that the energy is borrowed either from a non local source, or from a future source and is paid back when the particles annihilate and release radiation.

BUT NEVER in the processes does something come from nothing, or ever become nothing. Very poor choice of words.

And as far as radiation being non-physical, not by my standards. The fact that the radiation from a particle annihilation is the EM field waving . . . EM field is physical . . . all physical interactions, all dealt with by physics . . .

I don't know about that. I was going by Alan Guth's Inflation Theory. If his theory is correct, then conservation of energy is an illusion. It's only relative to the state of explansion.

In other words the univese isn't "static" with respect to it's total energy content over time. Or maybe a better way to state that is that the total energy of the unvierse is always 'ZERO'. Which clearly explains what we call 'convservation. All it truly means is that when all is said and done the sum total must always be 'ZERO'.




Where did I ever suggest taht EM ratition is non-physical? As long as EM radition can be 'detected' then it is physical. Clearly if it can't be detected then it's not "physical".

In fact, whether or not something can be 'detected' is really the only definition we have for what we mean by 'physical' isn't it?

Not exactly.

Something can have an interaction too weak to detect, any interaction would make it physical regardless of our ability to detect it.

If we can't detect it what sense would it make to claim that such an undetectable event had even occurred?

Besides in what sense would it be 'too weak'?

If it's less than a Planck's constant of energy then it violates QM.

If it is equivalent to a Planck's constant of energy then how could it be considered to be 'weak'?

In particle physics 'weak' interactions are actually interactions that simply have a very LOW probability of occurring. However when they actually do occur they can be quite spectacular.

There's nothing 'weak' about a 'weak intereaction' in the scientific sense of QM. The term 'weak' in that regard only refers to low probabilities, not 'weak' in terms of actual energy exchange.

In other words the "weak force" isn't weak at all. It just doesn't happen very often. That's just poor terminology on the part of the scientists who named these things there. They should have called it the "rare force" rather than the "weak force", that would have been more accurate.

Although in the early going perhaps they did think of it as being a 'weak' force and unfortunately the name stuck.

It makes no sense to talk about a 'weak interaction' as being 'weaker' than a Planck's constant of energy exchange. If that were true then QM would be violated (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be violated).

In all of my discussions I'm assuming that QM stands. If it falls, then this changes everything (at least from a scientific point of view anyway)

I was merely saying that our ability to detect something does not change the existence of a thing.

Keep it simple abra . . . this is how you confuse things and make a discussion far more convoluted then it needs to be.

In no way when I said weak, did I mean the weak nuclear force.

Remember, ask questions, it may save you time and keep conversations from branching off so much.

What ever the sum of all reality is, if something has an effect, it exists, no matter if we can EVER detect it or not.
Again this gap between knowledge and actuality, it seems to trip you up all the time abra.

All things detailed through physics, are physical. Any interaction between one system and the system detailed by physics would also be physical, in fact if we could detail this interaction it would be added to physics and we would label it a physical interaction. However it would have been that way all along even if humans never found it.

I agree its amazing how little we actually know, but I disagree totally that any effect can manifest from nothing. The illusion of nothing is not the same as nothing. The lack of knowledge about something, in no way indicates nothingness.

Yes, this would be a 'cause' that we cannot see, but a 'cause' just the same. On its own level, it can effect something else eventually that we CAN detect. Therefore, we may see an effect but not the (undetectable) cause. The cause may be out of our frequency range or just out of our ability to detect it.

As the domino effect is applied, that tiny undetectable cause may eventually cause the earth to quake or any other effects.