Can science now say how it could be that God is eternal, if It exists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

 

[Ingledsva]

The only problem with that -

is that the science starts with what is real, - and then speculates beyond.

Religion starts with an unseen/unknowable/speculated being, - and claims it is real, and always was.

It would not be the same thing.

*

 

[HonestJoe]

I think the problem you face here is that once you start talking about quantum mechanics and things happening in an “external, timeless environment”, you’re so far from the traditional image of gods as relatable sentient beings as to render that image irrelevant. Quantum mechanics may well be used to support the idea of some initial universe-creating force but if it was, I’d suggest that would be in opposition to all of the existing theological claims rather than supporting them.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The only problem with that -

is that the science starts with what is real, - and then speculates beyond.

Religion starts with an unseen/unknowable/speculated being, - and claims it is real, and always was.

It would not be the same thing.

The point is that science is being pulled, kicking and screaming, into facing this likely timeless environment rather than to believe that the Moon isn't there if we aren't looking at it. It had literally gotten that bad. I'm only using that to say that if a non-revealed (IOW, essentially a rational to us) God does exist, this could make It's eternal preexistence intuitively understandable to us--not to mention quantum weirdness. It's an epic intellectual breakthrough in human comprehension, and from a reliance on a mythical mindset, on a par with the realization of Copernican reality.

I think the problem you face here is that once you start talking about quantum mechanics and things happening in an “external, timeless environment”, you’re so far from the traditional image of gods as relatable sentient beings as to render that image irrelevant. Quantum mechanics may well be used to support the idea of some initial universe-creating force but if it was, I’d suggest that would be in opposition to all of the existing theological claims rather than supporting them.

Exactly, it does indeed render the traditional image of God(s), as well as their existing theological claims, to be irrelevant, which is a bonus--but then science already knew that, given that this isn't a non-solipsistic "reality". The only God that science (i.e. reason) can't eliminate is a laissez-faire God, and >>>IF<<< that God does exist, then this could/would apply to It as well and to Quantumland reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

Sure, science says that God could be eternal... in the sense that because there's no evidence for God or any aspect of God, nothing in science contradicts the idea that, if God did exist, God could be eternal.

In the same sense, science says that God could be a juggalo: there's no scientific evidence against the claim that God likes ICP.

Now... the question of whether science says that God exists at all: I'd say that science leans toward non-existence (though not conclusively).

 

[HonestJoe]

Exactly, it does indeed render the traditional image of God(s), as well as their existing theological claims, to be irrelevant, which is a bonus--but then science already knew that, given that this isn't a non-solipsistic "reality". The only God that science (i.e. reason) can't eliminate is a laissez-faire God, and >>>IF<<< that God does exist, then this could/would apply to It as well and to Quantumland reality.

I don’t see the reason to even introduce the term “God” in to this discussion though. The term carries far too much emotional baggage for it not to be disruptive and you’re redefining it to such an extent that it doesn’t relate to its initial definition in the first place. If the kind of thing you’re think of does exist, it would be absolutely nothing like a God as commonly understood so would be much better suited to its own name.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sure, science says that God could be eternal... in the sense that because there's no evidence for God or any aspect of God, nothing in science contradicts the idea that, if God did exist, God could be eternal.

In the same sense, science says that God could be a juggalo: there's no scientific evidence against the claim that God likes ICP.

Now... the question of whether science says that God exists at all: I'd say that science leans toward non-existence (though not conclusively).

That's not the point. The point is to try to understand on an intuitive level, scientific and philosophical timelessness.

I don’t see the reason to even introduce the term “God” in to this discussion though. The term carries far too much emotional baggage for it not to be disruptive and you’re redefining it to such an extent that it doesn’t relate to its initial definition in the first place. If the kind of thing you’re think of does exist, it would be absolutely nothing like a God as commonly understood so would be much better suited to its own name.

Exactly. If I could accomplish only one thing in this world, it would be to separate the irrational concept of revealed God(s) "as commonly understood", from the only model for the term which is rationally viable. It would be to everybody's benefit if society were to be more rational and less reliant on un-reasoned emotion. A rational approach to the idea of God (rather than just irrationally dismissing it out-of-hand) would be a huge step in that direction.

Science has enough problems, they don't need any more.

But this is nothing more than applying a solution to one of science's most troubling problems, quantum weirdness, to the possibility of the existence of a God. If society and rationality are to find a common ground more often than history shows to have happened, and move toward making our decisions rationally, the question of God must be faced reasonably. To that end, we must realize (admit) that the declaration that a God doesn't exist is as much a statement of faith and emotional investment as claiming the opposite.

 

[HonestJoe]

A rational approach to the idea of God (rather than just irrationally dismissing it out-of-hand) would be a huge step in that direction.

I don’t see why it’s more rational to apply the same word to something entirely different. It only serves to cloud the question with the previous definitions. You’re not talking about the “idea of God”, you’re talking about an entirely different idea but attaching the term “God” to it, presumably because you believe it makes the idea more palatable to some people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the point. The point is to try to understand on an intuitive level, scientific and philosophical timelessness.

"Timelessness" implies being static with respect to time, which implies not creating or destroying anything (since creation and destruction depend on the idea of change over time). Does this describe your God?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don’t see why it’s more rational to apply the same word to something entirely different. It only serves to cloud the question with the previous definitions. You’re not talking about the “idea of God”, you’re talking about an entirely different idea but attaching the term “God” to it, presumably because you believe it makes the idea more palatable to some people.

"Timelessness" implies being static with respect to time, which implies not creating or destroying anything (since creation and destruction depend on the idea of change over time). Does this describe your God?

If you are hard atheists, you're just as dogmatic about "God" as any theist. The question is, how do we get people to think reasonably with an emotional, irrational attachment to a "revealed" God, or with an emotional, irrational attachment to there being no God? And you can't avoid the issue by using a different word. I equate God with Truth whatever that Truth might actually be. But sub that for God and people's eyes either glaze over or go to the ceiling. And God, in a philosophical context, is, for our purposes, an omnipresent, omnipotent super-being, with at least the power to create the universe and/or possibly to embody it. So which is it, demean theists and call them names, or approach them with reason. Yes, it often won't work, same as with hard atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are hard atheists, you're just as dogmatic about "God" as any theist. The question is, how do we get people to think reasonably with an emotional, irrational attachment to a "revealed" God, or with an emotional, irrational attachment to there being no God? And you can't avoid the issue by using a different word. I equate God with Truth whatever that Truth might actually be. But sub that for God and people's eyes either glaze over or go to the ceiling. And God, in a philosophical context, is, for our purposes, an omnipresent, omnipotent super-being, with at least the power to create the universe and/or possibly to embody it. So which is it, demean theists and call them names, or approach them with reason. Yes, it often won't work, same as with hard atheists.

I'm not calling anyone names; I'm just pointing out the contradiction in saying that a thing is "outside of time" but then crediting with doing things that require time (i.e. doing things in general).

Is your God (or your "Truth", or whatever label you want to use) outside time or not? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not calling anyone names; I'm just pointing out the contradiction in saying that a thing is "outside of time" but then crediting with doing things that require time (i.e. doing things in general).

Is your God (or your "Truth", or whatever label you want to use) outside time or not? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

No, I can't, but quantum level entities can and do, according to the Transactional Interpretation. Can you explain the double-slit experiment or the Einstein-Rosen paradox? Those are apparent windows onto the time/timeless duality of reality at the quantum level. Cutting edge source, Ruth Kastner's Understanding Our Unseen Reality (2015)

And if you don't call theists names, I apologize. I'm grouping you in with hard atheists, most of whom do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I can't, but quantum level entities can and do, according to the Transactional Interpretation.

I don't see what you're basing that on.

In any case, when people cite "quantum physics" as the justification for their gods, I usually take this as a big red flag.

Can you explain the double-slit experiment or the Einstein-Rosen paradox?

Not off the top of my head. Do I need to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

I don't see how it can be an excellent reason in light there needs to be interaction to even establish something like that.

There's no relevance as to how externalism is defined scientifically, and how it can be applied.

As mentioned already, there needs to be a point of interaction within the scope of time and space by which its suggested. I don't see how anything can be appropriately timeless and external in any true sense.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't see what you're basing that on.

In any case, when people cite "quantum physics" as the justification for their gods, I usually take this as a big red flag.

Jesus! pun intended. Re-read what I wrote.

Not off the top of my head. Do I need to?

Well then, how do you know what I'm saying?

I don't see how it can be an excellent reason in light there needs to be interaction to even establish something like that.

There's no relevance as to how externalism is defined scientifically, and how it can be applied.

They're only just now establishing that as the reason for quantum entanglement in the examples I gave, it's the only thing that makes sense, and they believe it's tied to dark matter and dark energy, which exists but we just can't say where or when yet. Until now, quantum mechanics has been and excellent theory that has proven to be a reliable predictor; and now we're finally on the track of finding out how and why that's so.

As mentioned already, there needs to be a point of interaction within the scope of time and space by which its suggested. I don't see how anything can be appropriately timeless and external in any true sense.

That's the whole point, the interactions take place outside of our 4D time and space. None of the other previous interpretations could explain the how and why, but TI is beginning to.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Not Science but Math possibly. The Christian NT suggests "God is spirit," which if accurate may put God somewhere in the invisible, conceptual; and in terms of physical observations and Science etc it is not impossible for reality as we now know it to merely be a subset of the conceptual. I think its significant that Science has not overturned such a possibility.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I am not familiar with the 'Transactional' interpretation. I think though that time can be just a perception we have.

I think that we could be part of a large conceptual mapping that we perceive to be a dynamic system. For physical dynamic systems that can be observed and studied, Mathematicians have found that large patterns in dynamic systems are repeated on a smaller scale within those same systems with less definition but carrying the same general form, similar to how a ringing bell has overtones. This was first observed by someone named Lorentz. Now if you consider we humans, analogously, to be patterns in some conceptual representation then its not much of a stretch to think that perhaps our presence indicates a larger and more complex pattern of which we are merely like overtones, smaller and less complex but representative. Perhaps we are the overtones and God is the bell. None of this requires discussion of quantum mechanics. The question of how we exist leads us to ask what existence means.

 

[George-ananda]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

I think the universe is beyond our ability to understand and so we work with concepts that we can kind of relate to like 'God'. An eternal God we can kind of (but not fully) grasp and it is I think the best we can get at.

 

[Ingledsva]

The point is that science is being pulled, kicking and screaming, into facing this likely timeless environment rather than to believe that the Moon isn't there if we aren't looking at it. It had literally gotten that bad. I'm only using that to say that if a non-revealed (IOW, essentially a rational to us) God does exist, this could make It's eternal preexistence intuitively understandable to us--not to mention quantum weirdness. It's an epic intellectual breakthrough in human comprehension, and from a reliance on a mythical mindset, on a par with the realization of Copernican reality.

Why would any of that make a God real?

There is no proof, evidence, verifiable appearances, of a God, etc.

If we take your original post - we would have to also believe every weird thing someone thinks-up is real. A sentient - wish granting - flying - ten legged - pickle - God, for instance.

How is my pickle God real, - just because I believe it exists and grants wishes, - using the science and speculation you mention?

Substitute YHVH, Zeus, Demeter, Dagon, etc.

You can't compare science which starts with actual known verifiable facts, - to people's -belief- that something exists, with no proof.

*

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Timelessness" implies being static with respect to time, which implies not creating or destroying anything (since creation and destruction depend on the idea of change over time). Does this describe your God?

Get's to be close...God is one...the apparent duality of creation and destruction arises only in a mind that perceives reality from a reference point within universal space...'time' then is abstracted from the observation of the relative movements of the observed aspects of the oneness. In fact time has no reality except as a measurement of relative movement of the observed apparent aspects of the oneness...The God/Tao that is conceived of is not the Eternal God/Tao... God/Tao never changes regardless of the never ending 'play' of the complementary opposite aspects of ying and yang, good and evil, creation and destruction, etc... for it is timeless....the manifestation though is eternal...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not Science but Math possibly. The Christian NT suggests "God is spirit," which if accurate may put God somewhere in the invisible, conceptual; and in terms of physical observations and Science etc it is not impossible for reality as we now know it to merely be a subset of the conceptual. I think its significant that Science has not overturned such a possibility.

Yes, but whether God, if It exists, is spiritual or not is not the issue. God exerting influence in the universe is. The only argument for supernatural events is ancient hearsay. Therefore, there's no grist for the scientific mill to grind.

I am not familiar with the 'Transactional' interpretation. I think though that time can be just a perception we have.

Ours is a 4-D universe,and relativity theory says that time is one of those dimensions. But our universe could be suspended in or otherwise associated with an ether of many/infinite dimensions. Understanding TI is vital to comprehending what's going on in quantum theory and the so-called Quantumland. Again, I recommend Ruth Kastner's book that I mentioned, Understanding Our Unseen Reality.

None of this requires discussion of quantum mechanics. The question of how we exist leads us to ask what existence means.

I think our fully self-aware existence leads inevitably to the question "Why?", more so than how. And as to why, I have an answer--we are here in the pursuit of Truth, where the aspects of Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. The question we're dealing with here certainly involves acquiring knowledge, but there's an element of a beautiful mystery as well.