If we were to classify spiritual things as energy then prayer can be defined as a transfer of energy from a physical being to a spiritual being. If the all poweeful GOD were to reduce and reveal HIMSELF in a scientific formula sceptics would still question HIS existence. What they see will simply not be enough to quench their thirst for logic in everything.

Texasscroundrel



Actually I don't know about the "God hypothesis" but the "Thinking stuff" can indeed be tested and if done correctly, will work every time.

But for people who call this stuff B.S. it will never happen. I mean, they will never prove it to themselves. They will not agree and they will not put forth the effort required because why would they want to disprove their own theory or change their own limited method or way of thinking and ways of testing things?

They would first have to acknowledge the fact that the elementary particle is still a mystery. They can't actually see it. They only know it exists because of what it does. They can't rightly deny it exists. If they could they certainly would.

Prayer and thought are indeed transfers of energy that hold vibrations. I draw no line between physical and spiritual beings as I see all as spiritual. Physical beings have just come further into the manifestation process. They are the ones who are like the first pioneers. They are thinking centers on the leading edge of the manifestation of the expanding universe, which is a thought universe projecting as light and sound.

I have heard that there are some scientists who do believe in some concept of "God." I haven't seen any of them come forward to try to prove or disprove the god hypothesis, so I'm betting that they decided it was not 'testable' within the realm of current science.

I have high hopes that current science will reach that level of inquiry but that could prove to be very tricky. Dangerous even.

Therein is where your so-called "mad scientist" destroys the spacetime continuum and reality as we know it.

If you believe in a pantheistic view of God...

Then God is self-evident

My statement above wasn't intended as an assertion that cells aren't conscious - to evaluate that claim, you are right, we would have to resolve semantic issues first.

When I said "which is incorrect" I meant the argument itself, independently; separate from the conclusion.

Simply because a quality exists at one point on a spectrum, and there is no place where that quality 'comes into existence', doesn't mean that the quality must exist at all places on the spectrum. At first glance, it seems like a very simple matter of logic, but its actually a fallacy. Drunkenness works as an illustrative example, as does baldness.

VIBRATIONS... LIGHT... SOUND....

Actually, All mentioned in the bible.


God created vibrations ( sound waves) and light.

God created it ALL, including science and quantum physics and math

and chemistry and technology.

And GOD gave this knowledge to man, but that doesn't mean man

didn't/won't misconstrue it.


Whether man realizes this or not,true knowledge ALL comes from God.

Btw, MANY Scientists actually now agree with what's written in

the bible.

EVERY answer that man searches for, can be found in that

book called the bible.

Every single one.

Well I think I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense when you consider "consciousness" to be a quality.

Okay, so I am using the wrong word when I use consciousness.

I don't really consider electricity a "quality." Nor do I consider "Chi" or the "life force" to be a quality. I consider it an energy or a force. It is a tangible force, not a quality.

Unless gravity, electricity, magnetism etc are considered "qualities." Are they?

So, do you consider gravity or magnetism to be a qualities of the universe or a properties of the universe?

I don't consider drunkenness to be a quality of a person either. I see it as being more of a condition. Baldness is not a quality either, it is a condition. So I don't see the logic in comparing that to a light switch being on or off or a dimmer switch being on or off or an organism or person being dead or alive.

It may be how a few people try to describe what they believe about their idea of consciousness.

But I have now owned the term "Chi." = THE LIFE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE.

It either exists or it does not. If it did not exist, neither would we.

So it is indeed self-evident.

God does not mind being called Chi.



Gravity and Magnetism are both qualities and properties of the universe. There is no need to distinguish between various elements
of the whole. The universe is both green and has planets.

And yes, it is self-evident. Beautiful that. And there is only one.
The same one Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians believe in
whether they realize it or not.

I'm not going to argue these other points because they are OFF TOPIC.

I call these ideas "new age" because that is the generic name for the ancient religious notions that have been wrapped up in a new package and sold to pop culture.

Asking for evidence isn't closed minded. On the contrary, it's giving your ideas a fair chance. If something is real there must be good, solid evidence for it. If there is none, it cannot be real.

Also Jeanniebean, you have posted too many times. It's 6 am and my turn to take care of my baby. I also have a new smart phone to figure out. And, sense you didn't address any of my on topic arguments, I'm done.

Texas, I don't know if your comments about being off topic are directed at my posts but I was certainly trying to be on topic.

The question of God in my viewpoint is scientific. My view
of God is not new age at all but dates back to the ancient Greeks
and eastern philosophers such as Lao Tzu - pantheism - and was
popularized in the West by Spinoza in the 17th century.

In this monotheistic view, God and the Universe are the same and
since the Universe can be scientifically measured then so can God.
This is completely consistent with other monotheistic concepts
and since there is only one God in these religions it is always
the same God for everybody.

I think that the eastern religions such as Taoism and Buddhism
as well as Judaism, Islam and at least some Christian denominations
have no problem with a pantheistic view of their one God.

I wonder if he minded being in a episode of Futurama?




-Kerry O.

I'm pretty sure God didn't mind Futurama.



And in the case of arson, it it is done right, it is impossible to
determine exactly how the building is burned down...but one thing
is certain ~ the landscape has been altered permanently...

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Jeanniebean.

I asked if the question of god's existence could be validated by scientific study. The question was never "is god real?" Or "what is god?" These questions don't matter and are wide of the point. What god is, is unimportant. What god does, on the other hand, is everything because that's what would have to be measured.

Does god answer prayers? If so, how could god's effect on those who pray be measured? If god doesn't answer prayers, we'd have to find some other effect to study. If there are no effects to study, then god must have no effect on the universe and therefore either not exist or doesn't interfere. IMHO the former is more likely than the latter.

Jeanniebean insists that the universe it self (and each tiny part of it) is conscious and living. I have asked for evidence of her assertion and she has yet been unable to provide any other than her personal experience, which I do not accept as a valid, scientific study.

The evidence is that the universe is expanding. It is growing too. It is alive. New stars are being born.

Also you insist that I agree on all your meanings and definitions of the terms "consciousness" "Conscious" and "life" and you refuse to define or describe the meaning of the term "God" and say it does not matter.

That does not follow your own rules that we must agree on the meanings of words!

And I did answer your question. The study you used for an example is useless and your scientific methods are inadequate for proving that God answers prayers because they don't know what they are doing.

So yes, you are done. So am I.

May the force be with you!

IT'S ALIVE!

I posted the dictionary definitions of both life and consciousness. Instead of re-defining these words, use words that better suit your meanings. Or do you want to re-write the dictionary?

It seems that we agree on the answer to the original question. If done properly, the effects of god can indeed be measured by scientific means. They'd just have to be careful about what is being prayed for and the words they use. Yes?

Yes, the universe is expanding. Hubble proved it by documenting the redshift of galaxies. Yes, new stars come into being, shine for a time and burn out. But, this isn't proof they are living or conscious.

Your argument (simplified) goes like this:

Jeanniebean: The universe and everything in it is alive and conscious.

Texasscoundrel: Really? What evidence is there to support that idea?

Jeanniebean: It just is. I know it in my heart to be true.

Texasscoundrel: Well, I'm afraid that won't do.

Jeanniebean: Well, it has to do.

Texasscoundrel: Why?

Jeanniebean: Because it does.

And you call me closed minded?

You two may not agree on a definition of "living" and that could
hamper further conversation and preclude a common understanding...



I don't actually think that the term "living" applies to my concept
of God. God in my view includes life and living things but also
inanimate objects like rocks and stars as well as incorporeal things
like mathematics.

So my God is "bigger than life"...and the evidence is that there
is more to the universe than merely living. Look at that sunrise!!

http://vimeo.com/23205323

Well goody for you. Every Dictionary is different. Dictionaries try their best to keep up with human language and how people use it. However they are not the end all to communication. Dictionaries are not "law."

People create languages.

But that is beside the point. In case you haven't been reading my posts, and it appears you haven't, I already conceded to your "dictionary meanings" and I found another term to use for what I am talking about. That is "CHI." The Life force.

So what you did was reject it, call it B.S. and declare that you were not going to "argue" about "Chi" or the "life force" because you think it is B.S.

It isn't. It is the difference between something alive and something dead. It's so obvious you can't or won't see it.

What I am telling you is the truth.
I see the evidence and the proof and you can't.

It has nothing to do with what I "feel in my heart."

You are like the forest that refuses to believe that trees exist.

So be it, so it is.

But Its Alive.

You can't prove that it is not alive.
The Life Force is self evident in all things.
It is energy, it is living, it is moving, growing, changing, manifesting and it is ALL CONNECTED.

The quantum particle experiment of "spooky action at a distance" is evidence that all things are connected.

I just read through this thread and I would like to comment on a few posts I found along the way:

First post by Jeanniebean:





I'm in total agreement with Jeannie on this one.

Who's definition of God would a "God Hypothesis" be referring to?

If scientists are still trying to disprove the OLD TESTAMENT they are way behind the times. Those texts have shot themselves in the foot a billion times over and have already discredited themselves beyond any hope of salvage.

The New Testament is not different. That single fable proclaim that the "The Father" (i.e. God) judgeth no man and that all judgment has been committed to the "The Son" (supposedly Jesus).

But then those very same fables have Jesus himself asking "The Father" to forgive the men who crucify him.

Well, duh?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

So why anyone would even considers those kinds of "God Hypotheses" like from the Greek or Hebrew mythologies is truly amazing.

So let's move on to something more reasonable.





Now we're getting closer to a "God Hypothesis" that can indeed be discussed with some rational sense.



I think Jeanniebean is certainly trying to address these issues but you seem to refuse to recognize this.

Jeannie will be the very FIRST to acknowledge that's it's impossible to even talk about a "God Hypothesis" until you have actually defined one.

Otherwise it's a meaningless question to address. Because if you don't even have a clear-cut hypothesis how could you ever hope to apply a "scientific method" to it?

So if you want to bring it into the realm of science you need to define your "God Hypothesis" first, before you can TEST it.

When it comes to the "God Hypothesis" that Jeannie is considering, it's difficult to pin-point. It's kind of like the "quantum field" and that is science!

We can't directly detect the quantum field, but we can postulate its existence by giving it properties that it must have in order for our theories and observations to make sense.

Well, in a very similar manner a "God Hypothesis" can be put forth in a very similar way. Jeanniebean hypothesizes that the universe is the result of "thinking stuff".

Scientists hypothesize that the universe is the result of "quantum stuff".

Where is their any real difference?

Especially when Jeannie allows for the possibility that the scientist's "quantum stuff" and her "thinking Stuff" might even be the very same entity!

All of a sudden Jeanniebean's "God Hypothesis" is every bit as scientific as Quantum Theory.

So to dismiss it as being unscientific is nonsense.