• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The scientific god model

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Define a scientific God model, a theory of God. A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes.

1.) God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
2.) God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
3.) God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.
4.) God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.
5.) God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.
6.) God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.
7.) God revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.
8.) God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective process of science.

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument.

1.) Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.) Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.) Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.) If such evidence is found, conclude that God MAY exist.
5.) If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does NOT exist.

Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than to verify one. The best we can do if the data supports a particular God model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religion that worship any Gods that fail to agree wit the data.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
I disagree with that falsification, Richard, because you'd only be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with those properties does not exist. But you'd never be able to discern what the actual properties of God are. You'd be disproving (likely incorrect) assumptions. That doesn't prove anything. But it's certainly better than nothing.

This may all be fine and dandy where you can observe a naturalistic phenomenon and make some accurate assumptions about it and do the same. But where do you begin to assume when it comes to a God? And this only postulates against an interventionist God. What of a deist God? That would be much more difficult to falsify.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
I disagree with that falsification, Richard, because you'd only be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with those properties does not exist. But you'd never be able to discern what the actual properties of God are. You'd be disproving (likely incorrect) assumptions. That doesn't prove anything. But it's certainly better than nothing.

This may all be fine and dandy where you can observe a naturalistic phenomenon and make some accurate assumptions about it and do the same. But where do you begin to assume when it comes to a God? And this only postulates against an interventionist God. What of a deist God? That would be much more difficult to falsify.

The science model is of an interventionist God, specifically Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. The actual properties of God are dictated by those who believe in this God, the eight points listed are the properties they say this God has, and because there is no observable evidence of this God these are the only properties available. So this does not disprove an assumption, but rather their position on the attributes this God is suppose to have.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
The science model is of an interventionist God, specifically Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. The actual properties of God are dictated by those who believe in this God, the eight points listed are the properties they say this God has, and because there is no observable evidence of this God these are the only properties available. So this does not disprove an assumption, but rather their position on the attributes this God is suppose to have.

Fair enough. I'll accept that then.
 

0zyzzyz0

Murphy's Law is the TOE.
I realize this thread is fairly old, but for anyone interested in persuing this line of thought some more I recommend reading Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. I recomment it even though I didn't find it to be one of those great reads I can enthusiastically recommend. It is worth investing the time to read this though because Stenger manages to effectively present in a systematic way the case for looking at the God question as we would any other extraordinary posited claims. He attemts, and succeeds (even if somewhat crudely) in holding the popular notion of God up to critical analysis. I would not call the book an excellent philosophical work, but it does bring some valuable perspective to the "Does God exist?" debate. For anyone pasionately involved with this debate, or at least likewise interested, this is a volume they should make themselves familiar with.
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
It is a mutation linked to insanity; the mind is evolved to recognize agency, so when a non-standard signal processor occasionally disassociates and exposes the illusion of objective reality by momentarily processing simultaneity the machine either adapts or fails. As the primary function of the brain is the simulation of a consistent visual environment, generating a vaguely comfortable figure keeps a social primate spreading them jeans. It is my contention that a certain group of yahoos noticed a trend, did what any self-respecting tool using ape would do. Experiment, devise a tool of utility; run with it. What they actually performed was a scientific analysis of a type of witchcraft, but who cares, it works and now we're special. Yay us. Until, of course, repeated exposure grew tolerance; what once was perhaps god, what now is. is merely us. What to do? What do we do when our miraculous technology suddenly becomes an embarrassment? Sell it to our enemies, of course; so that they can kill us later with it. Only this most unfortunate group had enemies of epic design. Gee willizers, they declared, our wicked cool wizbang device, it is down to the last whammy. Why let it happen? Why not direct? Human's first medical casualty of mad science is half the world's lord and savior; humanity's first mad scientist was of course Paul. And the indulgence of a Roman empire was succeeded by Roman psychological dominion, and like any good mutation it skipped a breed, found a suitable environment, and prospered. Now we got a western culture half full of zombies, and eastern middle-age revival brewing in the desert. Cause we're all advanced and tolerant and stuff, democratic and all, with a reprogrammed moral mandate to keep "electing" the same old same old while we decay in our comfort, speak to each other on cell phones in the same room, and wonder; whatever happened to us?

Caveat emptor.

Everything you think you know about the advance of western civilization, prophets of peace, religious tolerance, and other unnatural concerns derives from those two words. Buyer beware. Customer is never right, merely prey; and the wealth of a nation built on diversity goes where? To save the planet. From what? Developmental technology, for one. Gee golly willikers, ya know what? No one has to work on this planet, much less starve or go hungry; but wowzers those breads and circuses have yet to fail us. if you are curious to see how democracy doesn't work, watch c-span; if you wonder about starving children in Africa, count the churches in your neighborhood; for how long has the rights of devotion kept the poor humble and giving, and what was achieved besides the creation of an underclass to sponsor more guilt? We have become an automation, a conditioned response to accepting our sin, expecting our fate, we are compassionate but unworthy beings, sold on the illusion of freedom so well that we do not speak lest we offend, content to accept moral guidance from what is actually a weapon... it makes me wanna burn a creationist. I know god wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind, but my Gwynnies would be sad
 

chinu

chinu
The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective process of science.
They will ever remain STILL TESTABLE
Because: Science can work only in "TIME" & "God" is beyond "TIME".

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument.

We are almost unable to tell about the birth of our own FATHER,
So, how can we tell about the birth of the FATHER OF UNIVERSE.

Hah...! Science thinking herself more intelligent than his FATHER.

_/\_Chinu.
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
Sorry. I fell in a hole of despair... I may have peeled some Christians of their faith... it was odd. Whatever malfed in the brainpan; there was a sense of vampiric witchcraft, and like a hole... and it was laterz. This unit is not expected to maintain functionality for much longer. Insane is one thing, non-standard deviation is not sustainable. Oh, and I was watching Dawkins talk earlier about the brain's propensity to ascribe agency... and a large, ovoid, black fish casually swam by. I take it the LC ain't exactly impressed.
 

ChieftheCef

Weedian Magnus
Define a scientific God model, a theory of God. A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes.

1.) God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
2.) God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
3.) God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.
4.) God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.
5.) God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.
6.) God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.
7.) God revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.
8.) God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective process of science.

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument.

1.) Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.) Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.) Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.) If such evidence is found, conclude that God MAY exist.
5.) If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does NOT exist.

Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than to verify one. The best we can do if the data supports a particular God model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religion that worship any Gods that fail to agree wit the data.


Check this out.

I also believe in a Deity, whose living body I describe above that all religions are aiming at but are missing because they have not given over to science for checking purposes.


This deity is the underlying unity of everything that is indivisible: the quantum field from which all of everything springs


This monad is seen by looking at the attributes of God/what is said of God/The Supreme God/The Animating Force and seeing how it is absence/the Void


Let’s look


Nothing is God


Nothing came before, is during and would be after the universes. It is eternal or always. Nothing surrounds and composes all universes, just take for example atoms. They are mostly made of space, like 99.9999%. The not empty space is just empty space contorted into somethingness. The Void, who is ultimately one thing including us, is composed of everything from nonexistence to existence; nothing-something. We are the cells, they the body. They the ocean and us the wave. Who is intangible as nothing and tangible as something. Composition as atoms show that commonality between this nothing and something, as if it is the common familial ground that unites us all. The only thing available before the big bang to cause the big bang, think about it slowly, is absence (still this point is unproven). That which does not even exist but because of it’s absence provides for everything that happens by the sheer consequences, the schematics, of the Void.


Lack is Brahman


Brahman is said to be infinite and eternal, being before during and after creation. As we’ve discussed absence fits the bill. Brahman is the unity of all, shown in his fullness as absence. Imagine a cup. Is the cup in it’s materials? It is also in it’s air. What is in the air? Space. Space itself is empty, it derives itself from nothing. But that’s where the chain ends, nothing which composes everything. What we are all interelating back to nothing. They are without qualities and formless: nothing! It is distinctionless, does not change, and is utter potentiality.


Absence is the Dao


Dao nr. 4 states “The Tao seems empty, yet it is never exhausted. Oh it is profound, it existed before anything”. That is Nothing, it is before all things, it seems empty, never goes away. It continues “Oh it is peaceful. Infinite, eternal. No one knows from where it came, it is older than the gods”. Absence is eternal, it is before during and after everything. Nothing is infinite, it stretches through, past and between all universes. Dao nr. 14 states “It is unseen because it is colourless; It is un heard because it is silent; if you try to grasp it it will ellude you because it has no form”. Nothing has no form and is clear, if anything. “…Because of it’s diverse qualities it cannot be summarized, yet it comprises an essential unity”. On it’s surface it appears incomprehensible because it includes everything. But in the depths it reveals itself. Dao nr. 40 states “The Tao seems nonexistent but it is the basis of existence”. This is true of Nothing: everything is just the sheer reacting of nothing to itself.



Absence is the Dryghten


The Dryghten is the divine force that permeates all of existence. Nothing permeates all of existence as everything’s composition of absence. The Dryghten embodies the interconnectedness of everything. Everything consists of mostly nothing, with some nothing that became something yet still is nothing, as evidenced by its composition even down to atoms, and smaller stuff


Emptiness is the Monad.


Nothing is the concept of Monad from the Greeks. The Monad is the first being, the prime mover, the eternal spark in each of us. It is eternal and equates to zero, nothing; absence. The monad is the indiscernible essence present in all beings and throughout existence, It is the totality of all things, the supreme being. It is indivisible and immaterial. That’s nothing. We can see this because both nothing and something have seeds of each other. Something is composed of mostly nothing, think atoms or molecules. Nothing is made of small something, planck scale which is the smallest scale. The monad exists independently of anything else and is the source of all things from which all things emanated. So is nothing, something arises from the little bit of something that composes nothing. The One is the first principle, outside of space-time, created the universe and is the underlying principle: nothing making the most of itself; efficiency which all things show regardless of their percentage.


Absence is Pan


Nothing is the lack of distinction, the one monistic thing. Opposites, like nothing and something contain seeds of each other. Nothing is actually something, not simply absence, and something is actually alot of nothing. There’s more space in what we are composed of than what our senses let on. They, nothing and something, are on a spectrum and are one in the same though are composed by each opposite which evolves nebulously from nothingness to somethingness, one in the same.


Lack is Teotl


Teotl continually generates and regenerates as well as permeates, encompasses and shapes the cosmos by it’s self generation and regeneration: Nature; the unity of something and nothing of which something consists of mostly nothing and nothing consists of mostly something, the quantum field. Thus there is seed between each seemingly different thing and thus it is one big thing: a whole lotta… Nothing


I believe this god between gods, or even goddess, rewards those that help further it’s agenda, whatever that seems to be though it seems to be rather pleasant actually. Take for instance Shiva. The Hindus had invented the concept of nothing, absence, this purported god(dess) and for this, perhaps, they were given Shiva translating dually both “that which is not” and great yogi as if yoga was their gift.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No difference between 'nothing' and 'something'.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
(sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā)
Circa 1,000 BCE
 

ChieftheCef

Weedian Magnus
No difference between 'nothing' and 'something'.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
(sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā)
Circa 1,000 BCE
See? We're all fussing and fighting about the same thing because we don't even know what that thing is! It's nothing-something, the great undifferentiated whole; the Ocean doing the wave, the Reality doing the human; us!
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The science model is of an interventionist God, specifically Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. The actual properties of God are dictated by those who believe in this God, the eight points listed are the properties they say this God has, and because there is no observable evidence of this God these are the only properties available. So this does not disprove an assumption, but rather their position on the attributes this God is suppose to have.
I figure out a way to do this. We live in a space-time universe, where time and space are tether together like two people in a three legged race. This tether sets limits that are defined by the laws of physic and nature, such as the speed of light, with speed, tethered mathematically as d/t.

Say we took off the tether, so space-time becomes separated space and separated time and now each can act separately. Like in the three legged race, the tether slows both people down. If we remove it, both are now at full power and speed. If I could move in space, apart from time, I could be omnipresent, which is a classic attribute of God. Mathematically there is a way to verify at least this attribute of God by assuming separated space and separated time.

However, this overall concept depends on whether we can show separated space and time in the lab. Actually we can. This is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that we cannot measure both position; space, and momentum; needs time, at the same time. The more accurate we measure one, the less accurate the other becomes; uncertainty. This is an example of separated space and time at the quantum level. If space-time were always tethered, one should imply the other; no uncertainty, But since it does not, these are not exactly tethered as space-time at the quantum level. There is at least some separated space and time within space-time. This is most evident at the quantum level.

Quantum coupling where two particles synchronize in time, although separated by space or distance, is another example; moving in time apart from distance. They can be close or far in space, and the synchronization in time hold true. This is not a space-time effect since it exceeds the speed of light. It is acting like distance does not apply to these actions in time.

Another place where separated space and time appears is within consciousness. Fictional stories, like the Hobbit, do not have anything to do with space-time reality, since these characters, actions and places do not exist except in fantasy; mind. This type of thought processing is not confined to space-time. We can think way outside the box of space-time. In science fiction, the story often occurs in the future; time, with technology that is not yet part of our space-time reality. The brain appears to be able to extrapolated outside space-time; prophesy. This may be a quantum induced effect; adds uncertainty in space-time but is causal in separated space and time.

Humans are unique to this planet in that we can make all forms of manmade things, that did not naturally form from just natural laws. The Empire Stand Building needed human imagination, where space and time were not fully tethered by natural laws. However, for the building to stand it still needs to be built and defined by the limits imposed by space-time. However, at the blueprint stage one can exceed space-time and be partly separated space and time. The School of hard knocks; space-time reality, will show these as defects or innovations in the final space-time limited building.

Religion, which science says is not part of space-time reality, is also an example that can exist in separated space and time. This is how humans can imagine such things and have faith. There is a Bible quote that humans were made in the image of God. This is usually assume to mean a face in the mirror. However, based on this analysis for consciousness, human creation beyond natural creation and separated space and time, it may mean more like a disk image in a computer memory. What we appear to have in common to the idea of God, is access to separated space and separated time.

The very idea of God and its mythology and stories is not exactly part of space-time, since it is not tangible matter in the lab, but it could be processed in the imagination, if space and time were not tethered. The disk image allows for human creation in separated space and time, to add to natural creation. In religion, God comes first, so that would imply separated space and time were first; the void before space-time.

Theoretically if we knew how the brain firmware is designed, to process in separated space and time; image of God, there would be way to develop a neural pathway that can interface deeper aspects of separated space and time and head toward the limits like omnipresence and omniscience and God, where the final proof then appears.
 
Top