The Nature Of God:

[jak731]

Its comparable because, the technology to prove or disprove Higgs Boson was not available when the Higgs mechanism was first theorised. As science has progressed so has our understanding, to the point when we may or may not be able to prove this Theory. God can be proven or disproven the same way, To say the existence of God can never be proven or disproven is wrong.

It really isn't. The higgs boson is a predicted logical outcome of a long standing (for modern science anyway) theory (the standard model). The prediction has been about for several decades and the attributes the particle should have are well known due to how good the theory is. It has predicted several other particles before they were discovered, such as the W and Z boson, the mass was predicted correctly to the first 4 and 5 significant figures respectively. So we know what we are looking for.

The idea of god on the other hand has not come out of any theory, it has just been made up to explain unknowns. The attributes of god depend on what religion you ask and who even within those religions you ask. I think it is fair to assume that most religions believe their god to be omnipotent, if that is the case it won't be discovered unless it wants to be. Their is no test we can construct even in principle to test it. Therefore it is not a scientific theory.

For example, what if in the future we make contact with a species that prove to be what our ancestors though of as God

Then we will have discovered that our ancestors were incorrect (if we are talking about a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god that the major religions believe in). Life will not suddenly evolve and become omnipotent. It is quite possible that there are intelligent species in the cosmos today which have technology so powerful that they would appear godlike to us even today. If it were possible to go back in time technology today would appear godlike (or witchcraft, whatever) even 300-500 years ago. That does not mean that our technology today is god. Likewise another species that perhaps visited earth in the past were contacted today, and we made the link in our own history, we wouldn't then call them god. We would say 'x tribe believed this race to be god.'

or science comes up with proof of a Universal Conciousness which could also be interpreted as God.

Could you define 'universal conciousness'? I can't discuss something without having a concept of it and i can't find a definition.

Just because we do not understand something or have no proof of something, does not automatically mean that it cannot be. God may not be what we expect, if he exists at all. The reason for the thread.

I agree to some extent, before the past 110 years odd people believed that everything that could be known was known. Even in physics it was thought that just about everything that could be discovered already had been, except for one or two things such as black body radiation. Then Einstein’s theory of relativity came along and showed that Newton’s laws of mavity (which had stood for well over 200 years) are in fact wrong, merely approximations of low speed effects. The true explanation behind blackbody radiation also lead to quantum mechanics, which has proven all our classic theories to be either approximations or just straight out wrong. The difference between then and now is that we know our knowledge is very far from being complete. This is exciting because we know there are so many discoveries to make and new unforeseeable technologies that may come from them. The idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient god is simply not useful and gets you nowhere, besides contradicting yourself.

Everything I have talked about so far focuses on the monotheistic belief of a single omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient god (as this is the major belief the big religions). If you are interesting in polytheistic religions then the picture becomes different. For instance the sun god could be understood today as being nuclear fusion, the god of fire being the chemical reactions between molecules reacting with oxygen to reach a lower energy state etc.

I want to learn more from this fellow, inspiring how his mind works

Feynman was a great scientist, the Einstein of his day really. Those videos are very good, I especially like the analogy he gives of trying to learn the rules of chess simply through observation. Hope you enjoy the book

 

[Gaidin109]

It really isn't. The higgs boson is a predicted logical outcome of a long standing (for modern science anyway) theory (the standard model). The prediction has been about for several decades and the attributes the particle should have are well known due to how good the theory is. It has predicted several other particles before they were discovered, such as the W and Z boson, the mass was predicted correctly to the first 4 and 5 significant figures respectively. So we know what we are looking for.

You are missing the point completely. The higgs boson, may or may not exist, The standard model itself is only the best description of all experimental data currently, there are many reasons to believe there are phenomena that are not accurately described by this, such as Dark Matter, cosmological constant problem . If the Higgs Boson does not exist which is a possibilty then the Model fails and what we believe to be true is incorrect or exists in a different form which we do not yet see so the anaology stands. You assume the discovery would have to fit the preconceptions of God as described by religion. I did not make that requirement. Any number of hypothetical situations could explain why ancient people created a belief structure based around Monotheism or Pantheons or whatever. You cannot discount God just because you dont know how to prove or disprove his/her/its existence. The Higgs field theory is just incidental as an example, any other hypothetical theory would do as well, I dont think a discussion into Quantum and Particle physics is apt here. My master's was Physics so start a thread and I'll participate if you wish.

the second part of your explanation is proof of what I'm saying, you took a preconception and added it to my statement.

You said God can never be proven or disproven, my point is that NEVER is too absolute and thus false. I did not narrow my view of may or may not be considered God by Religious or Mythic conceptions as you discuss further down the page but I didnt that read staight away.

 

[Angilion]

What constitutes heresy and to what degree would depend on which branch of Christianity you referred to. It isn't just "x is against the Bible" therefore it's heresy. The Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches each have their own dogma/tradition/interpretations and as such will view dissenting opinions differently. Papal infallibility is part of the Catholic church and is rejected by the other branches of Christianity.
[..]

As an aside, the oddest thing I know of that was ruled to be heresy in Christianity was translating the Christian bible into English (late 14th or early 15th century, as a result of the Wycliffe bible). That was probably because the power of the church would be compromised if more people could read the Christian bible for themselves rather than having it read to them by a cleric.

 

[jak731]

You are missing the point completely. The higgs boson, may or may not exist, The standard model itself is only the best description of all experimental data currently, there are many reasons to believe there are phenomena that are not accurately described by this, such as Dark Matter, cosmological constant problem . If the Higgs Boson does not exist which is a possibilty then the Model fails and what we believe to be true is incorrect or exists in a different form which we do not yet see so the anaology stands. You assume the discovery would have to fit the preconceptions of God as described by religion. I did not make that requirement. Any number of hypothetical situations could explain why ancient people created a belief structure based around Monotheism or Pantheons or whatever. You cannot discount God just because you dont know how to prove or disprove his/her/its existence. The Higgs field theory is just incidental as an example, any other hypothetical theory would do as well, I dont think a discussion into Quantum and Particle physics is apt here. My master's was Physics so start a thread and I'll participate if you wish.

the second part of your explanation is proof of what I'm saying, you took a preconception and added it to my statement.

You said God can never be proven or disproven, my point is that NEVER is too absolute and thus false. I did not narrow my view of may or may not be considered God by Religious or Mythic conceptions as you discuss further down the page but I didnt that read staight away.

I still think the analogy is not sound because their is nothing to indicate the existence of a god whereas there is for the higgs boson. When the higgs was first theorised it was possible in principle to test. They knew all they needed was a more powerful particle accelerator. If someone had come up with the idea of the higgs particle say 150 years ago it would be as meaningless as the idea of god still is today. The idea of a fundamental particle that is responsible for mavity 150 years ago would have been as meaningless as my statement about the elephant. Particle accelerators had not been conceived of and particles were not understood at all. That is how meaningless the idea of a god is today as there is no theorised method of discovery/testing. That is not to say it is NEVER possible, non of these (un)provable statements are 100% meaningless but they are so close to being meaningless that they may as well be. It becomes tedious in conversation to constantly say something is almost impossible as it sounds like you are unsure when in reality you are not really unsure. This is especially frustrating when trying to explain things to religious people as they claim they are 100% certain in their beliefs no matter how contradictory they are.

I've always been curious about the meaning life and the nature of the universe. As you say absolute truths do not really exist but their are some things which you can be so certain of that they may as well be absolute truths. Death is a very good example of this, I expect to die someday. So is dropping a pen, I expect it to fall. These are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the 'almost' meaningless statements. Science and particularly the scientific method gets closer to finding these 'almost' truths than anything else does.

I'm currently in the third year of a physics degree, when I am talking about physics I don't mean to patronise you as you probably know more than me but I try to write in a way that is accessible to everyone as it is an open forum. Your definition of god seems to be fairly vague in this thread. I tried address your main question albeit briefly earlier on in the thread by saying if there is an all powerful god then there is no reason to believe it would be interested in our affairs. If you don't think a god would have any of the facets religion says it would, i.e. be omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient then why describe whatever it is as a god?


BTW this video is very interesting:

 

[Ziggy]

...

 

[xrs]

Perhaps God exists and he created the Universe. Perhaps he created other universes. Perhaps he is so unfathomabley complex, our minds can not even begin to contemplate what even 0.00000000000000000000001% of God is. Certainly I think it would be wrong to try and predict his will.

On the other hand, maybe the term 'existence' is not applicable to God. He neither exists, nor does not exist or even exists and not exists at the same time!

Maybe God does simply not exist and the human mind is simply the end product of a string of un-probable events.

I believe that God probably does not exist. However, I believe myself enlightened enough that I should not concern myself with the tyranny of Religion. Religion really gets on my nerves. I think it is the root of so much evil. I hate it.

 

[jak731]

Gaidin you might find this ted talk interesting, you could see the ability of the human brain to put itself in a another's position as a form of linked consciousness:

http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html


I've been thinking about a better way to express my views on god and came across ignosticism on wiki, the first point on that page pretty much sums up what i think.