Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Most of us scientists believe in God. We just spell it 'n' 'a' 't' 'u' 'r' 'e'.
There's no difference between those 2 except to atheists and fundies.
Then why is it necessary to use the word "god"? To most people this conjures up images of a deity, which is a problem. And yes, I'm aware that intellectual giants like Einstein and Stephen Hawking used the word "god" in this manner from time to time. I just think it's irresponsible, and only serves to give the fundies ammunition is a war of strawmen, hyperbole and flat out lies.
I doubt that Einstein cared or that Hawking cares what you or fundies think about the matter. "God" is the most appropriate word in this context, i.e. when discussing the universe as the one all everything creating itself. The fact is that it's the fundies and the atheists who are wrong about what the ancients meant by God.
how are atheists interpretations of what the religion's define as God wrong? religions clearly define a creator, a supernatural being above the laws of the universe.
and to go on the record, Einstein did not believe in a deity, so when one states he believes in god, one should clearly define it with a lowercase g, because its not a lifeform nor a creator, just a set of laws.
Notice how I said earlier that the opinions of rabid atheists and fundie religionists are something I don't care about. Now... why they appeal me to their definitions?
And no, the capital G is correct. I wasn't referring to a set of laws, I was referring to the universe itself. Expand. Your. Closed. Mind.
how does one presume my mind is closed? i respect and let people believe in what they want, I merely have my own set of beliefs. What do you want me to do? Start going to church and believing in this God figure?
And no, I refuse to believe there is a difference between how a capital G changes the idea between the laws of the universe and the universe itself. All the scientists who believe in the universe god are merely believing in the laws of the universe that determine the natural course of changes that happen in the universe. I have never seen it mentioned that they believe the universe ITSELF is God, but merely they refer to NATURE as god. But the Universe is not nature, nature is merely the governing laws of the universe and the actions that are actually carried out.
don't tell me to open my mind. It's as opened as it can get. You don't know how my mind operates and how I behave. You merely misinterpreted either me, the Einsteinian belief, or both.
now, if some scientists deviate from Einsteinian belief and change their understanding to be that the Universe is God, then that's different. I am merely arguing what the Einsteinian belief is.
When did I say I wanted you to go to church or believe in the Christian God? Whoops, I didn't, as I don't believe in the Christian God or go to any church myself.
Laws are a human concept. We observed strict consistencies in nature and decided to call them laws. If you actually believe that there's a difference between these human observances of the universes' consistencies and the universe itself, well, you have more faith than the most faithful of the religious. In the meantime, go back to junior high. You obviously forgot to take science classes.
i apologize, I just think we are thinking the same exact thing, but have different ways of conceptualizing it in words.
i merely don't believe in calling the universe itself God because it brings to mind the idea of it being an entity, versus calling nature god doesn't in my mind. it's just... different. so yea my bad.
I'm pretty sure I'm thinking along the same vein as you guys. The way I see it, in detail...
The cell is made of molecules, interacting in a organized, yet completely mechanistic fashion. Its just chemical reactions and energy shifting and flowing in various ways, that you could certainly break down to its constituent parts and pathways, but this doesnt take away from the fact that a cell in and of itself is a cohesive unit, emerging from these interactions, the sum being something conceptually more than just its parts. Yet you cant completely separate the cell from the rest of the environment and reality because it is made from the same parts, shares in the same energy, and there is no real black and white boundary between the two.
Take it to the next level, and youll find that an organism is a collection of cells in the same vein.
You could just as easily take it a step back and see the same kind of emergent interactions between lesser units (atoms, quarks, strings?).
But continue forward, and you have populations, ecosystems, and then the entire planet. The planet may not be an individual as we understand it anthropomorphically, but it shares in the same basic idea - an interconnected set of units, built from smaller units, emerging into a larger unit with a higher order of organization, which cannot be separated from it's environment (space) and reality.
Continue forward to the solar system, galaxies, and our entire universe. By the time you reach the concept of the universe (or multiverses, even, but we'll stop there) as a interconnected, organized unit, the level of interaction is several orders of magnitude higher than that in even the human body, which is already incredibly, stupendously, magnificently complex. Take that, to the power of practically infinity, from our perspective.
And this single unit of "universe" is something that we are intimately a part of, we do not merely exist within it or outside of it.
I think its certainly ridiculous to imagine a guy in the sky watching down on us, getting angry when we say bad words, when we can conceptualize with our own knowledge of a much more powerful concept.
And this doesnt even take into account consciousness, which is still an amazing mystery to us, but as far as well can tell, it's largely an emergent interaction between our neurons, which are again, composed of smaller units, etc (I think you all get it). Until its more fully understood, one cant be sure as to how it would fit within such a framework, but if we are to assume that consciousness exists due to emergence, the "consciousness like" (there really is no proper word to describe this) properties of the sum of all the interactions in the entire universe would certainly be on a level beyond human understanding or recognition, and quite similar to what you would imagine of a supernatural being.
Supernatural, as in beyond nature, because it is an emergent "being" composed of all of nature and the entirety of reality, known or unknown, no different than the body made of inteactions between cells, and molecules (and so forth).
Realize then, that matter (the interactors) and energy (what drives the interaction) are just different forms of the very same thing, and you have a singular being created from a singular concept, arising only from its complex internal interaction within itself.
This is the closest you can get to a "deity" without completely throwing away science. We *know* what can arise from such interactions (humans, consciousness), so it would be downright egotistical (yet purely human) to imagine that that stops at our level, and doesn't continue on.
Compared to the universe and all within it, we have no more idea or concept of what we're REALLY a part of then as much as a cell knows its a part of a human body.