The Science of God.

[John D. Brey]

I completely understand that color only exists as a product of the mind's interpretation of "actual reality" (whatever that is - various states of vibrations/energies/"strings"/whatever), however - what can you possibly believe that a lack of such understanding informs one about any "god" that might exist? The only thing you can actually state (provided your summation is correct and you can properly demonstrate that) is that an error is being made in judgment on one subject (regardless the actual subject matter - i.e. "God") while adherence to or acceptance of equally improbable or unknowable quantities is also in play.

By drawing a parallel between the qualia (subjective conscious experience) of color, and the experience of God, I'm implying that just as a subjective conscious experience, say the color purple, is purportedly a shared experience, such that there's an objective (versus merely subjective) criteria for believing in the "reality" of the color (since it's experienced by more than one person), so too, the experience of God can not only be considered an objective experience (billions claim to have experienced it), but, furthermore, and this is what's new and important to where I'm trying to go, the objectivity (more than one person experiences it) of the experience of God is, as I'm attempting to show, based not just on metaphysics (per the traditional philosophies and theologies of Western tradition) but on the exact same physics as the experience of color.

I completely understand that color only exists as a product of the mind's interpretation of "actual reality" (whatever that is - various states of vibrations/energies/"strings"/whatever), however - what can you possibly believe that a lack of such understanding informs one about any "god" that might exist?​

This is where I mentioned color-blindness in the other thread. The exact same "actual reality" exists for a color-blind person, or animal, as exists for a color-experiencing person or persons. The difference is not in the objective "actual reality," but in the mechanics of subjective interpretation or experience. I'm implying that similarly, the "actual reality," which exists in a true physical sense outside the experiencing person (whether they experience it or not), contains not only the raw "actual reality" that becomes color in some but not others, but also the raw "actual reality" of God, which some people experience, while others don't.

Just because you can point out that someone is making some sort of logical leap in accepting one thing . . . that has no verifiable basis in whatever "objective reality" is, while rejecting the idea of "God," does not even remotely serve as evidence that God's existence is even somehow probable.

Absolutely. I agree with you completely.

And if that isn't the bridge you're trying to build... then why not just leave "God" out of it and make the simple point that the person you are talking about is accepting things that have no basis in reality and go about the business of providing evidence of that? Why bring "God" into it, specifically?

It seems to have been quite the opposite I think. The atheist in question was rejecting things ---God --- that he assumes have no basis in physical reality. In the thinking of many, if not most atheists (probably most theists too) God doesn't have a basis in "actual reality."

For the theist, "faith" allegedly takes up the slack for God's lack of physical "actual reality." . . Which is why, I presume, most persons responded to the thread about atheism in a positive manner. The atheists got the gist of the fact that there's purportedly no physical proof or reason to believe in God, while the theists agreed that there's no physical proof, but that some metaphysical proof fills that void.

I'm prepared to posit a true scientific theory of God that's not only subject to examination in a genuine scientific manner (no faith required), but furthermore, I've already surveyed the landscape of this God existing in "actual reality" and believe I can prove his physical, "actual reality" form of existence, to any scientifically adept person not too contaminated either by the metaphysics of atheism, or the metaphysics of theism.

In effect, I'm claiming that just as we can explain the physics of sight to a blind person (electromagnetic waves cause vibrations on the retina that are transformed into signals interpreted in the brain, etc., etc.,), so too we can explain the physics of God to a person who is "god-blind" in a manner that's not just interesting, or perhaps possible within the laws of physics, and or logic, but in a manner that can reveal to the true agnostic (free of metaphysical suppositions) that God not only exists in "actual reality" but that his presence there is absolutely as tangible, and provable, as the existence of the raw physical energy transformed into the experience of color.



John

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The exact same "actual reality" exists for a color-blind person, or animal, as exists for a color-experiencing person or persons. The difference is not in the objective "actual reality," but in the mechanics of subjective interpretation or experience.

I'm with you here. I understand fully and agree.

I'm implying that similarly, the "actual reality," which exists in a true physical sense outside the experiencing person (whether they experience it or not), contains not only the raw "actual reality" that becomes color in some but not others, but also the raw "actual reality" of God, which some people experience, while others don't.

However, the rather large data-set we have to work with on various forms and figures of "God" lays bare the problem with this thinking. While we humans can point to something of a particular "color" and give that "color" a name, anyone with a full working sense of sight can then also share in our experience of "purple" (for example) even if the actual "color" they experience through their mechanical senses is nowhere near our own! "God" however, has so many names, so many "colors," and barely any can agree on the experience of them. That data set points to a fundamental failure of the idea of "God" to correlate with reality. So it is very much unlike "purple" in this respect. And note, when I use the term "reality," I am not just referring to "physical reality" as you seemed to assume, but rather anything and everything that encompasses something that actually exists in ANY realm of existence. Whether that be physical, the so-called "metaphysical," some alternate dimension, etc. Anything that exists in any way is what I am referring to in my use of the word "reality."

For the theist, "faith" allegedly takes up the slack for God's lack of physical "actual reality." . . Which is why, I presume, most persons responded to the thread about atheism in a positive manner. The atheists got the gist of the fact that there's purportedly no physical proof or reason to believe in God, while the theists agreed that there's no physical proof, but that some metaphysical proof fills that void.

And what "metaphysical proof" actually exists in any sort of available/accessible reality? And here is exactly where the problem comes in. If the evidence/proof supposedly exists in some inaccessible "place," then that condition is exactly the same as if it doesn't exist at all to the person hoping to perceive it in some way. Done. A complete failure to provide any cogent evidence is all you have on your hands. Just a bunch of empty assertions that even you admit you can't validate, verify or demonstrate. You may as well have a bridge to sell me without being able to produce the deed or even show me something as simple (though indeterminate) like your name being carved into one of the foundational beams.

I'm prepared to posit a true scientific theory of God that's not only subject to examination in a genuine scientific manner (no faith required), but furthermore, I've already surveyed the landscape of this God existing in "actual reality" and believe I can prove his physical, "actual reality" form of existence, to any scientifically adept person not too contaminated either by the metaphysics of atheism, or the metaphysics of theism.

In effect, I'm claiming that just as we can explain the physics of sight to a blind person (electromagnetic waves cause vibrations on the retina that are transformed into signals interpreted in the brain, etc., etc.,), so too we can explain the physics of God to a person who is "god-blind" in a manner that's not just interesting, or perhaps possible within the laws of physics, and or logic, but in a manner that can reveal to the true agnostic (free of metaphysical suppositions) that God not only exists in "actual reality" but that his presence there is absolutely as tangible, and provable, as the existence of the raw physical energy transformed into the experience of color.

Again, unfortunately for this idea of yours, the many flavors of "God" are entirely a hindrance to this endeavor. If there were an overwhelming consistency to everyone's accounts then you might tentatively gain the ears of those of us who understand statistical significance, but as stated before - barely any of you theists are able to keep your stories straight. What you call "purple," another theist calls "ultra-marine", and yet another will claim that it isn't even registering on the visible spectrum unless you turn to the west and pray 5 times a day. I posit that your claim of "what exists out there" may as well be something arbitrary, and that may as well be what you put forth as "the thing" in control of it all. Like a 10-horned, flying, ultra-violet, space-faring manta-ray. That's what "God" is. Why not? Just another among the 100,000+ accounts already in the mix, right?

 

[John D. Brey]

Except people who aren't color blind can all agree on what "purple" is and what it isn't.
The religious obviously can not. Not even within the same religion. Not even within the same denomination of the same religion.

Just as people who aren't color-blind agree that purple is a color, religious theists tend to agree that God is a God. Subsequently, many, if not most theists, agree that he's an all-powerful, all-knowing, creative force.

Naturally a God would have many more facets, nuances, and dimensions, than a mere color on a color-wheel. So yes, there's a lot more to disagree about and research.

Also, we understand the concept of "color". We KNOW what it is that makes us see "purple". To the point of being able to "blindly" set up things of which we can predict accurately that people will perceive it as "purple".

To be honest, we should point out that we don't know if two people experience the same experiential quality (qualia) when they experience the wavelengths of light associated with purple. There's no way to know that absent a Vulcan mind-lock. And as far as I know, we don't have one yet?

Furthermore, we don't know the first thing about why the brain experiences the quality "purple" when the eye is subjected to the electromagnetic wavelength associated with purple. In fact, scientists have actually tinkered with the brain and made people experience "purple" from wavelengths of sound rather than light. So there's not really a hard and fast rule that says any wavelength of light, or sound, contains the quality it's experienced in a human brain. In the future experience might be shuffled around in all kinds of ways.

This fits with the hypothesis that gods aren't backed by anything real, while things like perceived colors ARE backed by things that are actually real.

That's the belief I might challenge in this thread. Assuming, that is, someone proves to be truly agnostics. I've no more desire to argue against an atheist's metaphysical belief in the non-existence of God than most atheists have to argue with theists who base their belief in God on metaphysics.

Metaphysics are complicated and difficult if not impossible to get under a microscope or a telescope. I don't have the patience for metaphysics. I'm interested in pure, unadulterated, science.

Your god model has NOTHING of the sort.

Patience grasshoppa. <s>



John

 

[John D. Brey]

However, the rather large data-set we have to work with on various forms and figures of "God" lays bare the problem with this thinking. While we humans can point to something of a particular "color" and give that "color" a name, anyone with a full working sense of sight can then also share in our experience of "purple" (for example) even if the actual "color" they experience through their mechanical senses is nowhere near our own! "God" however, has so many names, so many "colors," and barely any can agree on the experience of them. That data set points to a fundamental failure of the idea of "God" to correlate with reality. So it is very much unlike "purple" in this respect. And note, when I use the term "reality," I am not just referring to "physical reality" as you seemed to assume, but rather anything and everything that encompasses something that actually exists in ANY realm of existence. Whether that be physical, the so-called "metaphysical," some alternate dimension, etc. Anything that exists in any way is what I am referring to in my use of the word "reality."

At this level of conceptualism semantics are pretty important. I think we're on the same sheet of music using "actual reality" not for subjective experience alone, but all that has an actual reality outside of metaphysical speculation. But what I'm interested in is not theistic metaphysics, but a theism found in "actual reality" and not merely argued persuasively, or in a "faith" kind of way, by using religious or theological predicates.

As a dyed in the techelet lamb's wool theist, I believe in the temporary necessity of metaphysics and "faith" as guardians of God's reality. But I believe we're on the eve of a transformation of biblical proportions where science and theology have scratched and clawed their way out of the darkness and almost into the light of a God who can be understood scientifically and not just metaphysically or in a faith-based renunciation of our lying eyes.


John

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As a dyed in the techelet lamb's wool theist, I believe in the temporary necessity of metaphysics and "faith" as guardians of God's reality. But I believe we're on the eve of a transformation of biblical proportions where science and theology have scratched and clawed their way out of the darkness and almost into the light of a God who can be understood scientifically and not just metaphysically or in a faith-based renunciation of our lying eyes.

Well... I'll believe it when I perceive it.

 

[John D. Brey]

Again, unfortunately for this idea of yours, the many flavors of "God" are entirely a hindrance to this endeavor.

Again, a color is a relatively simple thing in relationship to a God. There are bound to be more arguments and question about a God than a color.

Just think about the human brain. Think about how many things it's compared to. Think about all the theories about how it works; theories going back thousands of years. Even today physicists can't agree on its power, how it works, or proper metaphors for it.

I think it was Michio Kaku who said for a computer to have anything close to the power of the human brain, it would have to have a Pentium chip the size of Manhattan, powered by a nuclear power plant, cooled by a river like the Mississippi. He said the human brain does the same work using a cool breeze and sweet on the brow for a cooler, and a Coca Cola in place of the nuclear power plant.

Explaining what the brain is, how it functions, elicits nearly as many theories as other complicated things. I submit to you that God is as real as the brain, or the nuclear power plant, but orders of magnitude more complex than either.

Nevertheless, the hope of this thread is far less extravagant than the hope of explaining the brain or God. It's merely the belief that there is a scientific proof of God's existence that's an evolutionary leap orders of magnitude beyond things like arguments about the Immovable Mover, or Pascal's Wager.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Well... I'll believe it when I perceive it.

I don't think you'll like the transitionary phase associated with it's unveiling if the Bible is correct about the nature of that rapidly approaching day. Nevertheless that shant concern us since we're talking about the science that unveils God's existence and not the ramification of that dramatic historical apocalypse.


John

 

[icehorse]

In effect, I'm claiming that just as we can explain the physics of sight to a blind person (electromagnetic waves cause vibrations on the retina that are transformed into signals interpreted in the brain, etc., etc.,), so too we can explain the physics of God to a person who is "god-blind" in a manner that's not just interesting, or perhaps possible within the laws of physics, and or logic, but in a manner that can reveal to the true agnostic (free of metaphysical suppositions) that God not only exists in "actual reality" but that his presence there is absolutely as tangible, and provable, as the existence of the raw physical energy transformed into the experience of color.

bring on your proof!

 

[JoshuaTree]

I've read this thread a couple of times now and it occurs to me the point you make about color blindness seems closely related to the distinctions between image and imagination, image being a physical manifestation of an object (snapshot of something that exists) while imagination is the act of creating something not yet perceived. Perhaps God created mankind in his own imagination makes a clearer translation... Or to put another way perhaps God's imagination is our reality... and perhaps our soul is God's memory of us? If we are figments of God's imagination or treasures of his recall then wouldn't God be absolved of all the apparent suffering in the world? Perhaps we all share a part in God's dream with no responsibility no free will, all living breathing dying exactly as God wills it? Is this what you meant by your color blindness metaphor?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Again, a color is a relatively simple thing in relationship to a God. There are bound to be more arguments and question about a God than a color.

A color is also a relatively simple thing with regard to the Loch Ness Monster. So... ?

Just think about the human brain. Think about how many things it's compared to. Think about all the theories about how it works; theories going back thousands of years. Even today physicists can't agree on its power, how it works, or proper metaphors for it.

Sorry. The human brain is examinable within our own sphere of activity and perception. You're out of luck here again with comparing it to ideas of God. It just isn't going to work.

Nevertheless, the hope of this thread is far less extravagant than the hope of explaining the brain or God. It's merely the belief that there is a scientific proof of God's existence that's an evolutionary leap orders of magnitude beyond things like arguments about the Immovable Mover, or Pascal's Wager.

Believe all you want that such a proof exists. And I will go on believing that you will have just as much luck providing evidence of this "proof" as any theist in the history of mankind has had luck providing cogent evidence of God's actual existence in any form of reality. Until you can verifiably demonstrate otherwise, that is. Good luck. You will most certainly need it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't think you'll like the transitionary phase associated with it's unveiling if the Bible is correct about the nature of that rapidly approaching day. Nevertheless that shant concern us since we're talking about the science that unveils God's existence and not the ramification of that dramatic historical apocalypse.


John

Turning to veiled threats already?!? Tsk tsk. You Christian theists never succeed to impress.

 

[John D. Brey]

Which is a question that has largely been answered. The outstanding problem simply relating to how the process of replication with inheritance and variation started out - and we aren't short of hypotheses for that.

If we assume that natural selection weeds out things that aren't valuable for survival we might wonder why at this late stage in the game so many of the most prodigious survivors believe in God?

Is there a survival benefit to believing in God even if God is a childish pacifier?

Or could it be that God is the ultimate environmental-niche such that those who are adapted to whatever God is survive and thrive while those who are less adapted have, like the dinosaur, either disappeared, or perhaps, like another organism, hung around by becoming a parasites living off well-adapted living things?

Parasitism, is, naturally, a remarkably efficient survival strategy . . . though one that in my humble opinion will eventually be weeded out by the environmental niche called God.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Turning to veiled threats already?!? Tsk tsk. You Christian theists never succeed to impress.

You appear to have misread me. I merely noted that the Bible implies that the unveiling of God, which it calls the "apocalypse" (a Greek word meaning "unveiling"), occurs simultaneous to an apocalyptic unraveling of man's longstanding understanding of reality.

I only noted that since in this thread I'm implying that I've read ahead and have some small modicum of proof that we're entering the apocalypse of God, which is subsequently going to be apocalyptic for mankind as he has formerly existed.



John

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If we assume that natural selection weeds out things that aren't valuable for survival we might wonder why at this late stage in the game so many of the most prodigious survivors believe in God?

So, to your mind, the sheer number of people who believe a particular thing are correct, is that it? Careful now John. Hahaha...

Is there a survival benefit to believing in God even if God is a childish pacifier?

Potentially. But that doesn't, at all, make it "right" or "true." Besides, this is also something you would need to provide evidence for and demonstrate. Lucky for you in this case, you're talking about examining actual, real-life data and individuals. Wow! What a relief that must be eh? Quite a change of pace from arguing for a thing which has absolutely zero presentation in any sort of reality whatsoever, am I right?

Or could it be that God is the ultimate environmental-niche such that those who are adapted to whatever God is survive and thrive while those who are less adapted have, like the dinosaur, either disappeared or become parasites living off theists?

See how you started "Or could it be?" You're bordering on presenting a false dichotomy here, and the fact that you have no evidence for this second proposition necessarily means that anyone should be able to inject any other options they want into the set of possibilities, and you would have to accept those as well as long as they started "Or could it be..."

For example, here's mine:
"Or could it be that any given god only exists so long as there are enough believers focusing their time, energies and thoughts into him/her. Hence the reason that the vast majority of people no longer regard the Greek pantheon of gods as active/real, and so their influence in the world has diminished? This would point to there being an even higher controlling force than any given "god" who maintains the various buckets of "faith" and allows or disallows a given god to be active based on the fill of their bucket."

Besides this... non-belief has only ever been on the rise for quite a while now. You would have to posit factors that existed prior to modern times as those that comprise some kind of "natural selection" weeding out non-believers from the gene pool. And the most ironic thing of all is that most of the ones I can think of are forces wrought by believers themselves - such as executions of "witches", torment, ostracization or execution of non-believers of all stripes, men and women choosing mates based (at least partially) on their having like belief-sets, etc. All pretty ethically-questionable stuff. You believers just aren't cool when you think about it. Hahaha...

 

[Thief]

I believe in God .....because of science

 

[ratiocinator]

If we assume that natural selection weeds out things that aren't valuable for survival we might wonder why at this late stage in the game so many of the most prodigious survivors believe in God?

Why do we see faces in clouds and fires? Never heard of hyperactive agency detection, which probably was a good survival tactic because false positives are less dangerous than false negatives?

Or could it be that God is the ultimate environmental-niche such that those who are adapted to whatever God is survive and thrive while those who are less adapted have, like the dinosaur, either disappeared, or perhaps, like another organism, hung around by becoming a parasites living off well-adapted living things? Parasitism, is, naturally, a remarkably efficient survival strategy.

Let me take a wild guess here that you think your particular notion of god is the truth and everybody else's is parasitic?

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe in God .....because of science

Thanks for a genuine LOL!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You appear to have misread me. I merely noted that the Bible implies that the unveiling of God, which it calls the "apocalypse" (a Greek word meaning "unveiling"), occurs simultaneous to an apocalyptic unraveling of man's longstanding understanding of reality.

I only noted that since in this thread I'm implying that I've read ahead and have some small modicum of proof that we're entering the apocalypse of God, which is subsequently going to be apocalyptic for mankind as he has formerly existed.



John

No... no misreading going on here. You said this:

I don't think you'll like the transitionary phase associated with it's unveiling if the Bible is correct about the nature of that rapidly approaching day.

You didn't simply state that "The Bible reveals that not only is the day of the apocalypse rapidly approaching, but there is a period of some tribulation prior to." You started with "I don't think you'll like...", as if it were already a done deal that we should all be considering and worried over. You made it personal to we, the readers. It wasn't just a conveyance of information, nor an unbiased journalistic reporting. To my mind it was stated that way precisely to try and "strike fear" into the heart of the non-believer. Granted, it was a really, really tepid and weak attempt at such... but that is exactly what I read in it.

I mean, don't take it too hard - I honestly don't think you believers can help yourselves. Fear is one of the strongest tools you've had on your side for quite a while. I mean, let's face it... you don't have much else to work with! Stick with what you know, and all that. It does make it a lot more fun when you try to hide it though. Makes me feel like we non-believers are definitely doing something right. Keeping you guys on the run, etc. Maybe someday we'll get to a point where you only say these types of things very quietly to the back of a closet, eh? Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[ratiocinator]

I only noted that since in this thread I'm implying that I've read ahead and have some small modicum of proof that we're entering the apocalypse of God, which is subsequently going to be apocalyptic for mankind as he has formerly existed.

Proof, eh? Do tell.

 

[Thief]

no ....really

Cause and effect

Spirit First
as science would have you believe.......
nothing moves with out something to move it

substance is NOT self motivated