1 of 12
1
god theory…
Posted: 01 August 2010 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

Hi Folks,
  I’m very impressed with the level of intellectual discourse in this community. I hope you’ll recieve me in the spirit in which I come…as a seeker of knowledge and understanding and hopefully, a free thinker. Having said that, I respectfully request your help. I am working on a theoretical philosophical treatise on unification theory. It is, I think, rather unique in some ways and not so much in others. I am attempting to answer those basic philosophical questions like: why life rather than ~life, why sentience rather than ~sentience, why this universe rather than some other or ~universe. I covet your opinions, criticisms and ideas of this labor.


As it now stands, I am unsatisfied with scientific interpretations based solely on a form of naturalism that strains everything through empirical methods. In my humble opinion it’s circular, confining, its explanatory power narrow minded and transitory. I know many others share my dissatisfaction. Maybe even some of you feel the same way.
I am convinced sufficient data has already been garnered to postulate this theory. It is by no means exhaustive.

I see no good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, need be anything more than a reflection of something completely basic from within the universe itself…This something need not be encumbered with all the standard theistic assignments, but must, in some way, be foundational to existence, space/time, sentience, evolution, physics, etc. It need not have willfully or accidentally caused anything. Only be the most basic source wherein everything else derives its being as an incidental consequent. Thus its attributes would be the influence upon the universe, incidentally, that set the stage for what we see now and how it came to be so. The one unifying factor that doesn’t necessitate or imply purpose, volition or creation but still accounts for why these are reasonable inferences. Thus I envision a universe that unfolds to reflect the attributes of a most basic something greater than, but from within the universe itself. Nothing outside time, supernatural, transcendental, or willfull.

Thus I chose to formulate this “god theory” as a more satisfactory foundational explanation for reality. The attributes of this god are unlike anything you’ve likely ever heard before and may cause you to wonder how such a being could reasonably be designated a god. The fact is, there currently exists no authoritative source for making this determination, so the field is wide open. Certainly an existent god must exist and be unique among existent things. It must have qualities that are sustainable within themselves and from which all other existent things emerge. Aside from these three requisite conditions for godhood status, I see no need for more.

I chose the term theory over hypothesis or argument because of its elegance and simplicity. In anticipation of the Razor I will remind everyone that the most elegant and simplest modern theories are binary in nature, i.e. you have matter/energy, space/time continuum, particle/wave function, etc. and so forth, thus I present the god/universe theory and call this god OMS, (for omni-minimus) as a possible unifying theory. The one unifying explanatory factor that every major scientific discipline seeks can be found in omniminimus, (hereinafter referred to as OMS),  the existing god of everything that exists.

OMS would be the unchangeable foundation of an ever changing universe. Both are eternal. The ever changing universe derives its very being, like a shadow, from the unchanging OMS.  They are inseperable but not indistinguishable.


His major distinction: Everything that exists does so as an incidental consequent, like a reflection, of his existence. Beyond that, the laws of nature, time and chance take over and we can only infer his existence.

He does not create, cause, plan or intercede. He does not care if he continues to exist or if anything and everything else ceases to exist so any argument based on the PoE or PoS only reinforces this theory.

Lets begin with the basics:

Universe: The sum of all existent things within a space/time continuum on a cosmological scale. Distinguished from any given thing within its cosmology by virtue of its eternality. No beginning yet dynamically changing, BB cosmology to the contrary notwithstanding, is but a localized event occuring at different times all over the universe.

Space: A three dimensional place wherein all existent things reside. Being three-dimensional it must therefore, necessarily have a center. It is not necessary that the center be an absolute center but, due to permeabilitity, must necessarily be relative.

Time: A fourth dimensional abstraction assigned to the changeability factor observed thusfar in all existent things. A facilitator of changeability but not a causation, thus without causation, changeability is not a factor.

Now let’s start with OMS:

List of attributes:

1. Eternally existent.

2. Omni-aware

3. Omni-impotent

4. Omni-amoral

5. Omni-unwilfullness

6. Omni-unemotional

Now let’s flesh out these attributes:

1. Eternally existent:


a. Eternality: In any given space where changeability is not a factor time, as a facilitation of change, becomes infinite and thus eternal. If time for all existent things were compressed into a finite dimension, it would cease to be a facilitator of change, thus something must necessarily exist in a state of unchangeability to maintain the infinity of time. In this case that something would be OMS/universe. In any case where an existent thing changes, time, relative to that specific thing, is compressed and ceases to be infinite. In any case where an existent thing ceases to be infinite, it becomes temporal. In any case where infinity is applied to time we are referencing eternality.

b. Existent: Existence, in this case, is being expressed as an attribute. For something to exist it must have both a place and a time to do so. Changeability is not a necessary component of existence. In special cases where changeability is not a factor and time becomes infinite, space remains permeable. Thus space, in all cases of existence is finite. In all cases of existent things, only that much of said space is occupied to facilitate existence as is not occupied by something else. Thus all existent things occupy their own space and no more. Any void between existent things is a vacuum. Any space where existent things converge becomes an event. Any existent thing must have at least one additional attribute besides existence. It makes no sense to say something is with no means of determining what it is. OMS must therefore have a place to exist and that place must necessaily be in the center of the universe, for reasons forthcoming. The universe, likewise, being the sum of all existent things, must necessarily have a place to exist. Outside of the universe, existence ceases to be relevant. 

2. Omni-aware: In as much as the universe, in its current state of affairs, contains existent things which additionally display characteristics of sentience, and the universe exists as an incidental consequent of OMS existence, it must be the case that OMS has some basic attribute of sentience in its simplest form. Current biological theory holds that the most basic and common distinction between animate, (living), and in-animate matter is awareness. It must therefore be the case that the least common denominator between animate and inanimate matter is awareness. In as much as awareness in all temporal existent things facilitates continued existence, and eternal things are, by their very eternality, exempt from this facilitation, it is not necessary that eternal awareness serve any purpose greater than awareness for its own sake nor complexify into any other expression beyond itself as a basic common denominator between animate and inanimate material. Only temporal things need complexify awareness, obviating in sentience and beyond, (not predictable), to facilitate continued existence. Thus sentience in temporal things is a reflection of omni-awareness in OMS. This, taken together with natural theoretic laws, infinite universe time, complexification, and mutation/evolution…equates in sentience as an inescapable coincidental consequent. Thus we can infer that which exists in its simplest form eternally as one of OMS attributes, polarizes temporally in some existent things as an eventuality of progressive complexification.

3. Omni-impotent:

Not to impose on anyones time I have cut this short at this point and grasciously await any input denizens of this community might care to offer. I thank you in advance and apologize for the length of the read.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Then you introduce the problem of ‘who made the maker?’

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
asanta - 01 August 2010 06:57 PM

Then you introduce the problem of ‘who made the maker?’

Hello asanta,

If OMS is eternal where does infinite regress set in?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
whynot - 01 August 2010 07:11 PM
asanta - 01 August 2010 06:57 PM

Then you introduce the problem of ‘who made the maker?’

Hello asanta,

If OMS is eternal where does infinite regress set in?

I am not a student of philosophy, but I do have problems with the ‘he’ wink label. I don’t understand why sentience and awareness is necessary. It appears that you are taking humanity and still making a super human. It looks to me like a deist position…..and while you’re at it, why one, why not a committee?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 12:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10

A ghost that supposedly is necessary for the universe to exist. With attributes that supposedly are the only attributes that would make sense for the universe to exist as it does. Time is a dimension in the real sense like the other three dimension of space; not just a property change. Further there are things in the universe that never need to change a photon for example is eternal and unchanging provided it never strikes matter in which case it would change forms but continue to be eternal. Time is also relative so whether or not time is infinite for your god would have no bearing on time for anything else. Your god would merely need to have the property a time dimension whether it be infinite or not would be inconsequential. Theoretically Sentience is not a physical property in the way I think you believe it is (something extra a force a ghost etc.), it is simply a property created by matter being configure in a certain way i.e. brain cells neurotransmitters etc. Thus sentience can exist solely by matter and energy being configured in the proper way. Meaning your god would not need to be sentient but rather only have the attribute of providing laws that would allow for matter and energy to configure itself in the necessary way.

Without empiricism all claims are equally possible. Maybe god is the fundamental properties of existence i.e. nature which basically means atheism.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
whynot - 01 August 2010 07:11 PM
asanta - 01 August 2010 06:57 PM

Then you introduce the problem of ‘who made the maker?’

Hello asanta,

If OMS is eternal where does infinite regress set in?

What does it mean to be “aware” (one of your points) for “eternity”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 04:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

Whynot, it sounds to me like you’re trying to redefine God to be the universe itself.  Why go through the trouble?  Why not just look at the universe and accept it on it’s own terms?

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

I am not a student of philosophy, but I do have problems with the ‘he’ wink label.


An astute observation. Mayhaps you are more of a student of philosophy than you give yourself credit for. The gender specific assignment does imply something more than I intend to convey. I have put that on my list of things to do. Thank you.

I don’t understand why sentience and awareness is necessary.


Well, I am trying to devise a unified theory of reality/everything, and sentience is part of our reality.

It appears that you are taking humanity and still making a super human. It looks to me like a deist position…..and while you’re at it, why one, why not a committee?

Then I still have a long way to go in this endeavor, it seems. Deism asserts a creative act, and in some cases a purpose driven one. I am trying to convey reality as nothing more than an incidental by-product of OMS existence. No creative act or purpose driven reasoning. And the various attributes of reality are an ever changing reflection of OMS attributes…either as enhanced consequences or polarized opposites, which are still a reflection of the same…much like the North and South Polar regions are regions of the same globe. Keep these criticisms coming. They are much, much appreciated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

[quote ]A ghost that supposedly is necessary for the universe to exist.


A ghost? Hmmm…Nah…maybe….I’ll have to think about it. I haven’t decided the form of OMS yet. An eathereality…Has potential. Thanks.

With attributes that supposedly are the only attributes that would make sense for the universe to exist as it does.

Yes. You do understand, at least some of what I’m trying to convey. You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

Time is a dimension in the real sense like the other three dimension of space; not just a property change.

Of course, and I did not intend to convey otherwise.

Further there are things in the universe that never need to change a photon for example is eternal and unchanging provided it never strikes matter in which case it would change forms but continue to be eternal.

 

Ummm…this would only be true in an infinite vacuum, which is not, as yet, an observable phenomenon. And, it would be untestable. As you say, once it collides with another particle it changes forms…I call it an event…and ceases to be that particular photon. Time is compressed at that event and it ceases to be eternal, in fact, as you point out…it, (meaning that specific photon), becomes something else.

Time is also relative so whether or not time is infinite for your god would have no bearing on time for anything else.

As you say, time is relative, eternality is irrelevant to this fact about time. thus, time for everything else is always relative to time for OMS. There is no disconnect between temporality and eternality except in lenght of time. Which is why time compresses during change into temporality.

Your god would merely need to have the property a time dimension whether it be infinite or not would be inconsequential.


Two points here. Keep in mind my goal is to devise a unified theory for reality, meaning a foundation that explains why everything appears to us to be the way it is, including the way it isn’t. If there was not a possibility of infinity relative to time, as a dimension, then temporailty would cease to be meaningful as an expression of our reality…yes? In much the same way light, as a concept, would be meaningless in a reality where darkness does not exist.

Theoretically Sentience is not a physical property in the way I think you believe it is (something extra a force a ghost etc.), it is simply a property created by matter being configure in a certain way i.e. brain cells neurotransmitters etc. Thus sentience can exist solely by matter and energy being configured in the proper way. Meaning your god would not need to be sentient but rather only have the attribute of providing laws that would allow for matter and energy to configure itself in the necessary way.

Sentience is an observable attribute of our reality. If this theory does not account for abstracts as well, then what use is it?

Without empiricism all claims are equally possible. Maybe god is the fundamental properties of existence i.e. nature which basically means atheism.

Actually, it just means naturalism. Atheism is a revolt against any other purported explanation for reality outside naturalistic explanations. And it is a justified position…up to a point. But remember, even atheistic naturalistic science/scientists, are searching for that one unifying theory of everything…yes? This translates into something I believe is an abstract but very real phenomenon of sentience. The “sense” that there must be a foundational explanation for why reality appears to be what it appears to be. In my humble opinion, early man, faced with this sense of “something missing” and without the benefit of the data we currently have…took the next best option. But underlying religion and theism is this sense that a foundational something is needed to account for our reality. Sans the data we now have, early man, plagued by this same sense, created his own explanation and filled in the blanks, which resulted in all the various forms of theism we see today. Natural science, driven by this same plaguing sense, is still seeking the resolution. Now, is this something that can be resolved? Is the quest even justified? Or is it, like light and darkness something we need to give meaning to a meaningless conglomeration of events we call reality? What many proponents of empiricism fail to understand is that, even with empiricism, all claims are equally possible. Empirical collection of data still necessitates interpretation of said data. We observe X. What does that observation tell us? Presto…intepretational assertions based on Y and Z.  The world is divided into two camps relative to this quest…the natural and supernatural. I believe some truths reside in both…perhaps more so in naturalism than theism…but nonetheless..my theory is an honorable attempt to extract those truths without prejudice towards either side and devise something that might, if not entirely successful, at least point us in the right direction. The only thing that drives a virtuos man more than “no answer” is the “wrong answer”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

It appears to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
TromboneAndrew - 02 August 2010 04:46 AM

Whynot, it sounds to me like you’re trying to redefine God to be the universe itself.  Why go through the trouble?  Why not just look at the universe and accept it on it’s own terms?

TromboneAndrew - 02 August 2010 04:46 AM

Whynot, it sounds to me like you’re trying to redefine God to be the universe itself.  Why go through the trouble?  Why not just look at the universe and accept it on it’s own terms?

It is my position that man is seeking a place to plant his feet. To say, “this is where my reality originates”. If I surrender the quest to science I am left with a string of transient theories that are infinitely regressive…that obviate in a final, “we don’t know”. A theory of everything is basically an historical explanation of reality. I can’t speak for you but my reality encompsses many more things than just an endless series of chemical equations, mathematical constituents and cosmological theories. A theory of everything must explain man’s history since it is man who is seeking. A theory of everything must provide a foundation that allows everyone to say…this is our history. It starts there and who knows where it will go from here.

Any such theory must absolve itself in something extremely unique. Else we’re back to infinite regress and “I don’t know”. I could have entitled the theory something like the theory of supernature, but that implies another string of supernature phenomenon. A foundation must be singularly expansive, thus it must obviate in a single something from which history elides. I decided to use god, to borrow the term from theism, for this very reason. The theist, no matter his errors, driven by that same sense of something must account for my reality, has fathomed the basic requirements of what this something must be to be functionally foundational. Of course, he went in the wrong direction with the right idea. Instead of something more basic and simple he went for something ultra and incomprehsible. Ultimately he defeated his own purpose. His God only invokes more questions and defies reality rather than accounts for it except by fiat. But, to give credit where credit is due, he did provide the correct format even if he took it in the wrong direction. The universe, on its own terms, is but a small part of my reality. A theory that accounts for those terms would improve the quality of my reality immensely.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
asanta - 02 August 2010 08:26 AM

It appears to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else.

Its not intended to be an argument at all. Incredulity is an uncharitable accusation that could be leveled against almost any attempt to explain anything. The theory of relativity could also be labeled an argument from incredulity except it works/functional and thus attains credibility. I can only propose a theory. If it works it works. If not…well…back to the drawing room.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

What does it mean to be “aware” (one of your points) for “eternity”?

I almost missed this very good question. I’ll try to define it in context with this theory. I’ll do so from three perspectives, so to speak.

On a human level I’ll use analogy to get at the meaning. It’s like the first time we come to our sense of mortality. A teenager who survives a car accident or experiences the death of a friend or close family member. That very sobering sense that says, “hey, I’m not indestructible.”

On a simpler level, say a single celled organism, it’s an interpretational construct derived from observation of the cells behavior. It’s defense mechanisms, niche in the food chain specifics, and procreation or cell division. All speak to a set of drivers we call the instinct of survival. Elements of a sobering sense of mortality/temporality.

In respect to OMS, being eternal mitigates against awareness being a function of survival, thus it must serve some other, more basic, function. On a human level awareness is the foundation of problem solving. One is not motivated to solve a problem one is not aware exists. Thus awareness is the first step towards knowledge acquisition. On OMS level, problem solving is not an issue, thus awareness is simply a matter of existence acknowledgement. If ones existence encompasses everything else that exists then one will simply be aware of everything that exists. When temporality is not an issue, then awareness need not obviate in anything more complex since the problem of continued existence does not reach beyond temporality. In this respect it is not a matter of “being” aware but a simple awareness of “being”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-08-02

I’m honestly having trouble discerning whether you’re being serious or not. At best you’re engaging in the worst kind of philosophical sophistry, and at worst you’re a way-too-invested troll.

You skim over all of the important parts, like why naturalism is not a satisfactory answer to why we have something rather than nothing (notice how I can say this without using ~,s. It’s okay to speak colloquially, we aren’t in a formal logic class). Your first mistake is here:

I see no good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, need be anything more than a reflection of something completely basic from within the universe itself…

You’re looking at this backwards. Possibilities mean absolutely nothing. Sure, it doesn’t need to be more, but that doesn’t mean you have any reason to think it isn’t. The right way to frame this is:

I see a good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, should be anything more than the universe itself…

You’re skipping the entire point of your post. You haven’t demonstrated any reason at all that we need this convoluted and philosophically pedantic non-entity, and as such you haven’t demonstrated at all why this is the case. You have neither need nor evidence. Until you present those two your ideas are next to worthless philosophical speculation along the lines of “wouldn’t it be cool if…”

And I object to your characterization of this as a ‘theory’. Hypothesis too, would probably be a bad word. This is neither testable, nor falsifiable, nor scientific at all. It’s a thought exercise, bordering on a Kipling-esque just-so-story. Conjecture is more like it.

[ Edited: 02 August 2010 11:33 AM by aredgasd ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2009-01-28
whynot - 02 August 2010 09:45 AM

On a human level awareness is the foundation of problem solving. One is not motivated to solve a problem one is not aware exists. Thus awareness is the first step towards knowledge acquisition.

Psychologically speaking,“problem” is purely subjective term:  a “problem” only exists because a person CHOOSES to frame it as such.  Anything can be a “problem” if you define it as a problem; if other people don’t agree it does not necessarily mean they lack awareness. 

On OMS level, problem solving is not an issue, thus awareness is simply a matter of existence acknowledgement. If ones existence encompasses everything else that exists then one will simply be aware of everything that exists. When temporality is not an issue, then awareness need not obviate in anything more complex since the problem of continued existence does not reach beyond temporality. In this respect it is not a matter of “being” aware but a simple awareness of “being”.

You haven’t answered the question of why such an entity is necessary.

It soiunds as if you’re talking about the question of where does consciousness come from.  It’s a valid question and there are lots of theories about that.  However, I doubt that the earliest forms of conscious organisms possessed the cognitive sophistication to process “everything that exists”.  Most likely they were aware of “something” but whatever that was would have had to have been on an extremely basic level. 

Have you read the work of people like Daniel Dennett, who are conducting research on the origins of consciousness?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02

Whynot, why not take a look at Pantheism and see what you think:

http://www.pantheism.net

and

http://www.pantheist.net

I wonder if this might be something you may find more satisfying for you.  Of course, that is, if I understand your post right.  I’m not sure that I do.  It all sounds confusing to me.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 12
1
 
‹‹ A Religion for Atheists?      LOL... :) ››