Is God an energy being ?

[Sheldon]

"Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3]... -- Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

IOW, he looked for a more naturalistic link with creation itself, which the pantheistic position holds. Matter of fact, Spinoza's substitute name for God was "Nature".

Anyhow, the link provides a lot more detail on this.

Do you think Einstein thought that energy could be "created" Only that is what TheBrokenSoul said...

to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

That as the post you quoted when you said "Einstein was drifting that way".

 

[metis]

"Nick Spencer, a senior fellow at the Christian thinktank Theos, said: “Einstein offers scant consolation to either party in this debate. His cosmic religion and distant deistic God fits neither the agenda of religious believers or that of tribal atheists.

“As so often during his life, he refused and disturbed the accepted categories. We do the great physicist a disservice when we go to him to legitimise our belief in God, or in his absence.”

Compare that evaluation to the claim you made, and the context of the claim you were answering. Do you know what a begging the question fallacy is? Well here's an example:

"Before God there was no energy...that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy."

I'm far from being sure where we supposedly disagree. Basically, he was quite agnostic but believed that whatever happened must have had "natural" causation, much like Spinoza hypothesized. This position certainly doesn't please the conventional theist nor the devout atheist.

BTW, my old signature statement at the bottom of my posts read "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"-- and I still "believe" as such.

 

[metis]

Do you think Einstein thought that energy could be "created" Only that is what TheBrokenSoul said...

That as the post you quoted when you said "Einstein was drifting that way".

Namely that he felt "God" had to be entirely "natural", but he wasn't apparently clear to what level he was willing to take that. For example, was he more of a pantheist or a panentheist? As far as I know, he never answered that question, and I have several books on Einstein's religious/philosophical approaches but none cover that question about him.

Either way, he repeatedly stated that he believed in "Spinoza's God".

 

[rational experiences]

Energy cannot be created.
Energy cannot be destroyed.

Energy hence does not exist.

Created creation exists.

Does man constantly destroy created creation?

Yes.

And man's destruction of form takes it back to remainders.

Yes says science.

Yet earth gets holes. So what is the remainder in science man's observation?

The mass holding the hole.

As you cannot logically persue a human thesis without self inclusion yet the thesis first is not intentionally to include self.

So science says hence earth is God God is the remainder as compared to nothing says a man.

As we are talking conscious teaching for human liars.

Now man of science has lost his conscious mind is possessed by AI intelligence and he is claiming I am now the hole...space. where I began.

As just a man owning an equal life theorising falsely.

As his mind by causes ended as he removed God earths mass as just a human scientist. By being theist plus machine destroyer of earth mass. As energy does not exist.

Destruction releases energy. Conversion is science...Sion. Why men said Sion fusion is holy.

Why his mind forces him to claim I am God the earth. As we own human instinctive self survival.

As the bible was natural humans summation of man's evil science theories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a feeling that God is going to show God's self soon .

Any day now.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, they are all literally different interpretations of exactly the same math. The particles and waves are NOT classical particles and waves: they are *quantum* particles and waves. And those are also quantum fields.

And Einstein was wrong when it comes to quantum mechanics, as shown by actual experiments he dreamed up as thought experiments. His intuition was that they would come out in a different way than they, in fact do.

The problem is that, ultimately, the philosophy of realism (where things have definite properties at all times) is simply false. Einstein would be disappointed, but ultimately, he was wrong in his intuitions on this.



I think one of the problems is that people are trying to interpret quantum mechanics based on a metaphysics based on classical physics and that simply doesn't work with what we know about the universe now.

What we need is new metaphysics, not new physics, I think.



No. There are properties that can be detected. But the way those properties change and are correlated is not consistent with classical ideas. if you use the same metaphysics to attempt to understand quantum mechanics as what you used to understand Newtonian mechanics, you will fail.

The problem is in the philosophy, not in the physics.



Precisely. The universe works on probabilistic principles, not classical/realist principles. That makes a huge difference.

But it is a serious error to try to interpret the new, more accurate description of things (quantum mechanics) in terms of the old, less accurate description (classical mechanics). That is the origin of most of the 'paradoxes' of quantum mechanics.

Yes, it’s widely stated that Einstein was wrong about QM, but that may be unfair. He stated that quantum theory was incomplete. Nearly 100 years later, physicists are still arguing over interpretations, suggesting it still is incomplete even if only, as you say, philosophically.

The thrust of the EPR (Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen) paper was that either quantum theory was incomplete (Niels Bohr had declared it a “closed theory”), or it broke non-locality. Since that observation, Bell’s Theorem, confirmed by Bell’s Inequality and subsequent experiment, effectively proved non-locality in the form of entanglement. So Einstein was right - but not in the way he expected. He was wrong in the sense that the “spooky stuff at a distance” appears real. He was right in the sense that either QM was incomplete, or it broke non-locality.

Be all that as it may, what you say about the limitations of the old classical physics is undoubtedly true; all the old certainties are illusory. Time and space, and the phenomena unfolding therein, are not as we perceive them to be. Our perception of them is a function of our particular perspective, and a paradigm shift equivalent to that which occurred with the shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican models, may be required for us to further expand our understanding of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it’s widely stated that Einstein was wrong about QM, but that may be unfair. He stated that quantum theory was incomplete. Nearly 100 years later, physicists are still arguing over interpretations, suggesting it still is incomplete even if only, as you say, philosophically.

I don't think it is unfair to say Einstein was wrong. He expected there to be what we would call a hidden variable theory underlying the results of QM. The observations related to EPR show this is untenable.

The thrust of the EPR (Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen) paper was that either quantum theory was incomplete (Niels Bohr had declared it a “closed theory”), or it broke non-locality.

No, that is NOT what EPR showed. It (and the results of experiments that showed Einstein's intuition about it were wrong) showed that there is no way to have realism (all things have definite properties at all times) and locality. The observations ruled out local hidden variables, which is precisely what Einstein was looking for.

Einstein proposed the EPR idea because he thought that QM would give the wrong answer. We was wrong. The predictions of QM held up in the Aspect experiment (and in others, like the quantum eraser, etc). QM is a *local*, but non-realist description.

Since that observation, Bell’s Theorem, confirmed by Bell’s Inequality and subsequent experiment, effectively proved non-locality in the form of entanglement.

Wrong. Under QM entanglement happens locally (the correlations propagate at less than the speed of light). But QM is NOT realist. The correlations are real.

So Einstein was right - but not in the way he expected. He was wrong in the sense that the “spooky stuff at a distance” appears real. He was right in the sense that either QM was incomplete, or it broke non-locality.

It certainly does NOT break locality. But it *does* break realism. And that was intolerable to Einstein. Most physicists are OK with it now.

Be all that as it may, what you say about the limitations of the old classical physics is undoubtedly true; all the old certainties are illusory. Time and space, and the phenomena unfolding therein, are not as we perceive them to be. Our perception of them is a function of our particular perspective, and a paradigm shift equivalent to that which occurred with the shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican models, may be required for us to further expand our understanding of the universe.

I think most of the work has to be done by the philosophers. We have a physical theory that works incredibly well. It is a local and non-realist description, based on probabilities, not definite properties at all times.

The problem isn't the physics. It is the metaphysics. As long as philosophers hold on to realism, they will be going exactly the wrong direction to understand QM.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't think it is unfair to say Einstein was wrong. He expected there to be what we would call a hidden variable theory underlying the results of QM. The observations related to EPR show this is untenable.


No, that is NOT what EPR showed. It (and the results of experiments that showed Einstein's intuition about it were wrong) showed that there is no way to have realism (all things have definite properties at all times) and locality. The observations ruled out local hidden variables, which is precisely what Einstein was looking for.

Einstein proposed the EPR idea because he thought that QM would give the wrong answer. We was wrong. The predictions of QM held up in the Aspect experiment (and in others, like the quantum eraser, etc). QM is a *local*, but non-realist description.


Wrong. Under QM entanglement happens locally (the correlations propagate at less than the speed of light). But QM is NOT realist. The correlations are real.



It certainly does NOT break locality. But it *does* break realism. And that was intolerable to Einstein. Most physicists are OK with it now.



I think most of the work has to be done by the philosophers. We have a physical theory that works incredibly well. It is a local and non-realist description, based on probabilities, not definite properties at all times.

The problem isn't the physics. It is the metaphysics. As long as philosophers hold on to realism, they will be going exactly the wrong direction to understand QM.

Hm. When you say that QM breaks reality, are you saying that independent reality with definite properties does not exist, when not being being observed? Isn’t that rather solipsistic?

Also, when you say that most physicists are okay with it now, don’t you mean most theoretical physicists - in other words, mathematicians - are okay with it? No one can possibly deny the success of QM in developing new technologies, that’s not in question. Thus Feynman’s ironic injunction to “Shut up and calculate”, became an effective manifesto - but an unsatisfactory one, nonetheless.

What QM cannot currently give us - and neither of course, can classical theories of which relativity is one - is a complete description of the universe we live in. Something Stephen Hawking, echoing Einstein’s sentiments, declared to be the ultimate goal of all physics.

I do agree with your observation about holding onto realism btw. We need to be willing to let go of old ideas when they no longer serve, of course.

Finally, when you say that QM breaks realism but not locality, isn’t this in a sense an application of the uncertainty principle - in other words, validating one property is impossible without partially invalidating the other? That’s just a thought, really.

 

[Polymath257]

Hm. When you say that QM breaks reality, are you saying that independent reality with definite properties does not exist, when not being being observed? Isn’t that rather solipsistic?

I didn't say it breaks reality. It breaks *realism*: the idea that things have definite properties at all times and that those properties determine what happens.

Superpositonal states are good examples of not having definite properties: light might not be either right or left circularly polarized, but rather a combination of the two. Electrons might not have spin up nor spin down, but a combination of the two.

Entanglement is another aspect of this same phenomenon. For example, suppose we have two entangled electrons. One is spin up and the other is spin down, but which is which? The answer is that this is not definite: it is probabilistic: if you measure one and get spin up, the other will be measured to have spin down. But prior to the measurement, there is not a definite answer to which is spin up and which is spin down.

That is the aspect of QM that Einstein didn't like. But it is precisely the aspect that has been shown to be the case time and time again. Objects do NOT have definite properties between interactions with other objects: they have probabilities for having different values for the properties. THAT is the most unusual aspect of QM.

Also, when you say that most physicists are okay with it now, don’t you mean most theoretical physicists - in other words, mathematicians - are okay with it? No one can possibly deny the success of QM in developing new technologies, that’s not in question. Thus Feynman’s ironic injunction to “Shut up and calculate”, became an effective manifesto - but an unsatisfactory one, nonetheless.

Theoretical physics is not the same as applied mathematics.

but here's the question: why is 'shut up and calculate' unsatisfactory? partly because it doesn't address what philosophers say we should be addressing. But maybe the philosophers are wrong about this? At some level, for a fundamental theory, there can be no deeper explanation: it *has* to be that we 'shut up and calculate'.

Now, I *do* think there are interesting philosophical questions. but to answer them, we need to get away from our ideas about 'things having definite properties at all times' and away from the notion that causality is fundamental. QM is NOT a causal theory! It is a probabilistic theory. As such, it simply not compatible with classical philosophy.

What QM cannot currently give us - and neither of course, can classical theories of which relativity is one - is a complete description of the universe we live in. Something Stephen Hawking, echoing Einstein’s sentiments, declared to be the ultimate goal of all physics.

I do agree with your observation about holding onto realism btw. We need to be willing to let go of old ideas when they no longer serve, of course.

Finally, when you say that QM breaks realism but not locality, isn’t this in a sense an application of the uncertainty principle - in other words, validating one property is impossible without partially invalidating the other? That’s just a thought, really.

In a certain sense, the uncertainty principle is behind superpositions and entanglement. It really is the basic philosophical notion that needs to be adopted, thereby rejecting classical understandings.

 

[Sheldon]

I also think the Dinosaurs were placed here and I have a feeling that God is going to show God's self soon .

I "have a feeling" the first claim is contradicted by the theory of evolution, and the second is pretty meaningless since "a feeling" doesn't really mean much. What if I "have a feeling" that no deity will show itself ever, is my feeling equally as valid as yours?

 

[rational experiences]

The spiritual human pursuit...save ourselves from evil.

If you believe we were unconditional love eternal first.

Who inherited a mistake of research.

We live in a non physical spatial filled in heavens. Expanded form.

The space we inhabit is empty as our being fills it in leaving the space expansive. As a human.

Why we can freely move.

So to save us from science liars as men ...man said there is no space as empty. For a reason.

If you took mass and stretched it out from being contracted compacted there is no space just presence of multi forms.

As just in the heavens where we live presence is all variable Multi forms co existing.

So man's consciousness says creation co habitats in co existence.

And space is in fact full not empty.

Yet in reality the two became separated. As burning does remove making holes.

Is why he says non stop energy exists in an ethereal non physical thought of mass whilst he tries to invent what he believes could be a first hole ever.

What would happen is his thesis.

Unknowable he says about the great deep infinite himself.

Scary he states to even think it might occur.

Must preach to my own self accept that there is no empty space and hence all my theories are fake.

As all status of man's self being is about saving myself from my destroyer deceit.

I am a spiritual being who came into the mistake. As the small version of my own eternal thought.

If you want to conclude all men should stop arguing and realise you are wrong.

My brother's thoughts non stop thesis that I heard being told.

The reason why.

 

[lukethethird]

I've been thinking then I thought that I am energy , the earth is energy , the atmosphere is energy , between heavenly bodies there is energy .

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

So what you are saying is that there was no energy, then there was energy. Is that your theory?
and there was a time before when there was no God, interesting.

 

[rational experiences]

Energy does not exist. Says the theist.

I am not a God. Said the theist.

I however want energy. So earth stone the God will give it to me. God created energy he says is direct a human theory. About the earth.

Science a human standing on earth inside a water oxygenated heavens mainly water content himself. Not energy.

Microbes organic food substance in water his life is energy first. Food biology is what we survive by.

Says. Once the sun converted earth mass. It created reactions. Water stopped it.

Lie number one.

Space pressures plus water stopped the sun attack. Notice earth science never owned what space had ceased.

Man says a hole was the moment.

Sink holes existed. Thesis the hole human theist memory. Gods sink hole thesis.

So he writes a formula to alter earths God ground mass to release energy.

Beginning end is a Formula.

All he wanted was the energy. What he caused was new sink holes. New heavens spatial voiding moment reaction an end.

Lived it as Jesus term the day the sky went dark.

Thinks it's a channel by cause effect recorded memories.

End.

So he now believes he controls space as a channel. Possessed by his own origin scientific thesis.

Where does man get energy from today. First is science. Nuclear power plant model. No sink hole.

Transmitters by man's design feedback false information. As space increases as dust mass reacts diminishes. No hole is left as reside still exists.

New possesion.

Why the human theist mind is inundated with false advice.

As nuclear ground dust non sink hole occurred also. A reaction to the ground. As two causes exist in the earth's ground thesis in one advice as ice is higher than water cooling.

Unlike origin thesis first science earths ground was snap frozen with ice presence. Colder reason.

So in Two incidences he was scientific advised. God the earth released energy as energy first does not exist. It is contained within mass only. God.

The advice how to get energy. A hole. The hole was first existing as no energy existed anymore in mass. Big bang sun blast event. Earths hole thesis is first.

Mind says reaction removed first. Then gases water went into fill up the hole.

Then the ground dust mass still reacting itself owned an energetic release. No hole left. Just ditches.

Earth no mass was never real. The Sink hole was. Earth as the planet never went anywhere.

Father said the American continent by mind cause owns the largest underground hole. So your minds believe you have the largest space channel.

What warnings he gave me as man's teachings...consciousness and it's science self possessions.

The thesis God creating energy by human science thesis was by a man. Was planet earth only.

O God earth was sitting in the dark as a planet formed in space. No light hence no time. Gas burning is light is time by human scientist thinking status.

We already were taught our human science brother was our destroyer. A correct teaching. A known teaching.

No argument said men in law.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

I've been thinking then I thought that I am energy , the earth is energy , the atmosphere is energy , between heavenly bodies there is energy .

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

Is Thor an energy being?

 

[rational experiences]

What is God in human science?

By egotism mans design. Thought controlled by his word use talking to himself using words. Design by maths. Built by human labour. Control of by words of men thinking talking.

Physically manipulating his God the machine. Talking by worded explanations how to operate machine constantly.

We don't own a God of science.

We all just live in exact nature balanced in a water oxygen biological life.

In rational human natural law status said by living humans.

Equal life.

So machine science looks for energy for the life of the machine.

They are consumed by the life of their machine.

We live in water. Drink water. Eat food. Have sex. Have babies. Live and die. Basic spiritual natural just a human advice. For humans as humans.

The subject topic humans.

Human versus human designer inventor theists.

So they have a machine. Take water and place it under a microscope that advised them that other life lives in water.

Is what they see. Observe. Is natural.

Then they want to make up stories about what they claim is its history.

Is who claim they are super intelligence as humans.

God in science was a theory for how you give life by operation control to a machine designed by humans. Thinking. Visionary.

Energy for machine life is what he theories comparing our biology human. Talking about God.

In dream image thoughts designer Ai caused feedback of our life in attack said by the reading of the vision...life harm was by alien operation depicted in visions whilst physically hurt in pain.

How you read the psychic vision warning depends on how advised you are.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I've been thinking then I thought that I am energy , the earth is energy , the atmosphere is energy , between heavenly bodies there is energy .

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

It would depend. El and Yahweh were not originally abstract energy. They were physically humanoid.

 

[rational experiences]

No man thinker theist first. Is reality.

O earth existed.
It's heavens existed.

Salt water seas.
Land water

Ground bared

Theme a creator created.

Not anywhere.

Men of science claim. Science for machine theory a reaction first. A conversion of a higher state to get a lowered state created creation.

No thesis.

First is the self. The theist.

Reason two direct beings only.

Don't use the human word as man claims ownership by egotism as a theist.

Hu ..man status.
Being...natural status.

Claiming he him his thoughts knows everything

Man said we are a hu man.

The creator being sent out two beings.

No name inferred as they were direct.

Names are only used by men theists wanting to understand all things to remove all things to send it back to an origin.

Why they theoried then built a time shifting machine.

Time shift is time

Time to a man of science is light gases burning. So where do you want it shifted to theist human?

I am conscious life in a light atmosphere. I want it transformed to the immaculate no time conscious status. Theism. A human. A being first. Thin king. Can only think live as being inside a heaven state.

No day he says is to shift time...light.

Jesus why life got sacrificed the day the sky went dark lost light.

Liar theists human men tried to time shift light to its higher value the non burning immaculate.

Was his man lying answer.

Theism today I must have the highest coldest clear gas in my machine reaction.

Theism I must hence shift the state out of its position first. Natural immaculate by space...dark conditions.

First I must theory God stone. Shift it into stone he says as the coldest. Black is his thesis. Historic thinking said dark cold space empty pressure held stone first.

How do you shift it being as the theist? The coldest clear conscious status first position the highest?

I burnt it and it fell to the ground making sin holes.

How science the being shifted the highest state. Really men did it. But if you quote don't infer yourself in gods stone mass or its heavens abstract your self status. Egotist. Status I own anything I say I do in group bullying.

Never owning use of the truth.

To tell any truth.

Being then says no. I physically manipulated the ground first in machine science. I get the gas put it into my machine first myself.

I have time shifted it safely.

Why then are you doing atmospheric experiments about heavenly ufo status? Want of radiation mass? Channels direct to radiation?

In a beings conscious thesis I am following natural heavens history myself to copy status.

Now I want voiding natural light in my machine.

Each step copying earths heavens natural history theoried.

Knowing the UFO attack gets vacuum activated voided.

If I get it then next moment I have real natural light. Yet the vacuum.voids it gets removed. Status stopped.

Theist I am a being who would do no harm I am not theorising Jesus.

No the theist isn't actually he owns a new machine with new ideas for a new outcome. I am telling the truth is his theist claim.

Totally informed as the theist.

Far worse than the last cause and effect he says.

Reality what position is far worse as a being on earth?

Not being on earth anymore as life gets destroyed.

Reasoned answer. Not the Jesus life sacrificed then saved thesis.

No. The being state the theist discusses is first highest status not on earth.

In the coldest place out in space.

 

[rational experiences]

No man thinker theist first. Is reality.

O earth existed.
It's heavens existed.

Salt water seas.
Land water

Ground bared

Theme a creator created.

Not anywhere.

Men of science claim. Science for machine theory a reaction first. A conversion of a higher state to get a lowered state created creation.

No thesis.

First is the self. The theist.

Reason two direct beings only.

Don't use the human word as man claims ownership by egotism as a theist.

Hu ..man status.
Being...natural status.

Claiming he him his thoughts knows everything

Man said we are a hu man.

The creator being sent out two beings.

No name inferred as they were direct.

Names are only used by men theists wanting to understand all things to remove all things to send it back to an origin.

Why they theoried then built a time shifting machine.

Time shift is time

Time to a man of science is light gases burning. So where do you want it shifted to theist human?

I am conscious life in a light atmosphere. I want it transformed to the immaculate no time conscious status. Theism. A human. A being first. Thin king. Can only think live as being inside a heaven state.

No day he says is to shift time...light.

Jesus why life got sacrificed the day the sky went dark lost light.

Liar theists human men tried to time shift light to its higher value the non burning immaculate.

Was his man lying answer.

Theism today I must have the highest coldest clear gas in my machine reaction.

Theism I must hence shift the state out of its position first. Natural immaculate by space...dark conditions.

First I must theory God stone. Shift it into stone he says as the coldest. Black is his thesis. Historic thinking said dark cold space empty pressure held stone first.

How do you shift it being as the theist? The coldest clear conscious status first position the highest?

I burnt it and it fell to the ground making sin holes.

How science the being shifted the highest state. Really men did it. But if you quote don't infer yourself in gods stone mass or its heavens abstract your self status. Egotist. Status I own anything I say I do in group bullying.

Never owning use of the truth.

To tell any truth.

Being then says no. I physically manipulated the ground first in machine science. I get the gas put it into my machine first myself.

I have time shifted it safely.

Why then are you doing atmospheric experiments about heavenly ufo status? Want of radiation mass? Channels direct to radiation?

In a beings conscious thesis I am following natural heavens history myself to copy status.

Now I want voiding natural light in my machine.

Each step copying earths heavens natural history theoried.

Knowing the UFO attack gets vacuum activated voided.

If I get it then next moment I have real natural light. Yet the vacuum.voids it gets removed. Status stopped.

Theist I am a being who would do no harm I am not theorising Jesus.

No the theist isn't actually he owns a new machine with new ideas for a new outcome. I am telling the truth is his theist claim.

Totally informed as the theist.

Far worse than the last cause and effect he says.

Reality what position is far worse as a being on earth?

Not being on earth anymore as life gets destroyed.

Reasoned answer. Not the Jesus life sacrificed then saved thesis.

No. The being state the theist discusses is first highest status not on earth.

In the coldest place out in space.

To con by word use.

To explain.

Big bang blast light and heat.

I am not theorising against life said the theist

Where he knowingly lives naturally in an alight atmosphere.

Yet theory first as the theist human cold space terms. As highest in science is cold.

How he shifts ideals in speaking conning you. The "Connor" he says.

So if you challenge a theist asking where is the blasting part you quote is in full knowledge of? Copying a theme how to convert the earth.

Step by step history how earth came to its being first.

As the being theist said God was earth his science position one in machine status.

Why Connor is themed as machine Terminator warnings. When boys get asked to save our life.

Modern times boys becoming scientists at a young age intelligence.