whynot - 02 August 2010 08:34 PM

Mriana - 02 August 2010 12:40 PM

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.

Thanx for the recommendation but I’m not seeking another religious expression. This OP is a tad more than another theist angling for a fight over his particular god. I’m not a theist, deist, pantheist, or muslim. No classical gods for me thank you. I’m just an honest seeker exploring all the avenues. But thanks for caring.

OK then I don’t have a clue what to suggest to you.

Still looks like ‘god of the gaps’ to me..

whynot - 02 August 2010 08:07 PM

I suspect memory is one of those brain functions that evolved along with our other mental faculties as a survival mechanism. Being able to recall the pertinent circumstances that led up to an unpleasant experience helps us not to duplicate those circumstances. I’d say awareness, like the sensations from our pleasure/pain centers, is more immediate and ongoing. For a being that is eternal, survivability is not an issue thus memory is too complex a mechanism for awareness on that level.

Ok, so without the ability to recall what has occurred then you’d be looking to define a concept of God which has no self awareness?

Awareness on that level in humans is electrochemical response. Another survival mechanism. You experience pain, you react.

If you are basing a God concept on the lack of any necessary survival traits it seems there is no need for this God to have any form of awareness.

You want to arbitrarily add awareness into the mix of your God construct. Seems no different then then wanting to add “self-awareness” or memory to such an entity.

You can imagine a God to your personal specifications. That’s what men have done in the past and likely will continue to do so. You call it a “Theory” however to my understanding a theory needs to have a method of testing and verification at least implied. How do you plan to test this God theory?

Considering that if it is not testable, you are free to imagine a God of any attributes you are willing to dream up.

Personally I am not an atheist however, you want to create a God that is palatable to the secular paradigm of the universe?

You should understand regardless of your desire for an existent God, any conceptual God is unnecessary to explain the universe.

IOW a belief in God is an unnecessarily arbitrary complication to explaining the secular view of the universe.

No one can tell you that you can’t make such an arbitrary choice of belief but at that point you could as well imagine the universe resides on the back of a herd of pink unicorns and based your paradigm of truth on their existence.

Understand the Christian view is not based on imagination. It is based on the authority of personal testimony of others who claim to have experienced first hand objective evidence of God. Not something created from personal imagination. 

Not to say that a person who chooses to disregard such personal testimony has an unreasonable position. However there is IMO a difference between using one’s personal imagination to create a God and relying on the authority of someone else’s objective experience.

I suspect memory is one of those brain functions that evolved along with our other mental faculties as a survival mechanism. Being able to recall the pertinent circumstances that led up to an unpleasant experience helps us not to duplicate those circumstances. I’d say awareness, like the sensations from our pleasure/pain centers, is more immediate and ongoing. For a being that is eternal, survivability is not an issue thus memory is too complex a mechanism for awareness on that level.

Ok, so without the ability to recall what has occurred then you’d be looking to define a concept of God which has no self awareness?

You’re right, but for the wrong reason. Since I’m postulating the existence of the universe as an incidental consequence of OMS existence, I’m likewise postulating OMS awareness of his existence includes the existence of any incidental consequences of his existence. “Self” awareness is too much to ascribe to OMS awareness since “self” connotes much more complex psychological constituents than OMS possesses. I’m reaching here for the least common denominators in OMS relationship to the universe. While the universe advances towards maximum complexity, OMS remains the least, simplest foundational center of this advancement.

Awareness on that level in humans is electrochemical response. Another survival mechanism. You experience pain, you react.

Neurotransmission. OMS does not experience anything outside the basic awareness that he exists and that the universe does also. The precise mechanism for this attribute would be similar to gravitational influence.

If you are basing a God concept on the lack of any necessary survival traits it seems there is no need for this God to have any form of awareness.

How many various facets of reality pass through our sensory perceptors everyday, peripherially speaking, that we are aware of, but pose no threat to our continued existence?

You want to arbitrarily add awareness into the mix of your God construct. Seems no different then then wanting to add “self-awareness” or memory to such an entity.

I chose awareness, over memory and other more complex facets of our consciousness, because I believe it represents the baseline dividing point between animate and inanimate matter. I’m trying not to duplicate the theistic error in correctly reading complexity in nature and assuming therefore something even more complex, or super complex must be responsible. Something that was responsible, assuming this to be the case, would likely have to be something that represents the baseline simpleness or least common denominator…see what I mean? From that point forward, natural attributes of the universe itself gets the remainder of the credit.

You can imagine a God to your personal specifications. That’s what men have done in the past and likely will continue to do so. You call it a “Theory” however to my understanding a theory needs to have a method of testing and verification at least implied. How do you plan to test this God theory?

Considering that if it is not testable, you are free to imagine a God of any attributes you are willing to dream up.

And this is a valid criticism. Have you considered that the most prized cosmological theory of modern times is the big bang theory that allegedly originates in a singularity, and that the relevant points of inquiry into what this singularity must have been are all equally untestable? I am basing all of my terms in refernce to the universe from many of those same theories. Some I agree with, others I agree with in part, and others still I find almost ridiculous. I am drinking from the same wider body of knowledge as you in theorizing OMS. Everything I’ve postulated in this theory can be supported either by reference to credible naturalistic theories or inferred from them. Instead of a singularity I am postulating OMS and attempting to define him and his relationship to reality.

Personally I am not an atheist however, you want to create a God that is palatable to the secular paradigm of the universe?

And this, I think, is the clearest expression of the problem everyone herein seems to be having with this theory. It is a basic misunderstanding caused entirely by my use of the term “god” in this theory. Let me state most emphatically that I am not trying to devise a new god. That is not the purpose of this theory at all. I explained in an earlier response why I chose to call this the god theory. It has zilch to do with promoting another theistic version of a deity. As I explained at the outset, I am seeking to devise a UNIFICATION theory of everything. A theory that draws all other valid theories into a central singularly foundational whole. There is a disticnt difference bewteen inventing a new god and devising an explanation for reality as we experience.

You should understand regardless of your desire for an existent God, any conceptual God is unnecessary to explain the universe.

If you, and others herein, would be generous enough to understand I have no desire that any such god as has ever been postulated by any theist of any persuasion actually exist, you might actually come closer to fathoming what this theory is really trying to accomplish.

IOW a belief in God is an unnecessarily arbitrary complication to explaining the secular view of the universe.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

No one can tell you that you can’t make such an arbitrary choice of belief but at that point you could as well imagine the universe resides on the back of a herd of pink unicorns and based your paradigm of truth on their existence.

You’re preaching to the choir, brother. Amen…

Understand the Christian view is not based on imagination. It is based on the authority of personal testimony of others who claim to have experienced first hand objective evidence of God. Not something created from personal imagination. 

It’s a Jewish fable. There is no authority derived from anecdotal evidence save that which some might self-proclaim.

Not to say that a person who chooses to disregard such personal testimony has an unreasonable position. However there is IMO a difference between using one’s personal imagination to create a God and relying on the authority of someone else’s objective experience.

Indeed. I re-iterate. In no way am I trying to invent another god. OMS requires no worship, obedience, allegiance, or sacrifice. No rituals, prayer, repentance, or fear. No atheist ever need feel he/she has to convert, change, doubt his/her worldview, or sacrifice his/her intellectual integrity to test, consider or rationally agree with any or all of the postulates claimed in this theory. It isn’t about a god but about a foundation for reality based on the best of our naturalistic methods and empirical observations.  If it turns out to be very close to the truth no atheist need ever consider changing his/her worldview as a result. The god aspect of it is as harmless to both theist and atheist alike, as a hummingbird.

A minor additional clarification for why I chose to use the term/concept “god” in the title of this theory.

God has become one of the most controversial subjects. As I see it, in the case of worldviews, there appears to be two basic camps: Theism and atheism. Any theory of reality that disregards this observation falsifies itself.

Basically there are degrees of intellectual possession in both these worldviews. Those who hold their respective worldview in relation to gods for reasons other than genuine intellectual inquiry are usually the least confident of their position. This is true on both sides of the fence. This absence of intellectual confidence, only attained by honest reflection, manifests itself in dogmatism on the theist side and a rabid anti-theism by those on the atheist side. It’s a clear admission of intellectual dishonesty.

I don’t care to discuss my ideas with people who aren’t confident of their own worldview.

So using the term/concept “god” in the title of this theory acts as a catalyst that separates the chaff from the wheat, so to speak. Folks who came by their respective positions honestly with great personal effort to actually know and understand the many relevant reasons for holding their position are the same folks who can look at ideas like this one clearly, which makes their criticisms robust and cogent. All others tend to wade in swinging, generating more heat than light in their often insulting and condescending attacks.  I appreciate the responses I’ve recieved in this forum thusfar. I appreciate them tremendously. I’ve taken on a BIG challenge and need any and all the help I can get. This is a theory of reality so I want, more than anything, to keep it as real as it gets.

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to this thread in a couple of days . . .

whynot - 02 August 2010 07:36 PM

My use of the term “god”  in this theory has become a distraction. I did not set out to create another god, but a focal point for reduction to unify existing theory in a philosophical context. We go beyond “I don’t know” everyday. It’s called inferance. Hume’s criticisms notwithstanding, everytime we make a weather prediction we go beyond “I don’t know”.

To sum up, we both agree that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable personal position.  However, I think that it really isn’t useful to come up with theories about the universe which don’t have the potential to provide some information or other utility about it.  In that way, I am something of a hardcore scientific pragmatist.  It can be fun to think about many kinds of theories, but without a way to fact-check, such thinking is merely daydreaming, not hypothesizing.  And such thinking sometimes does replace (without logical justification) that position of “I don’t know” with something else.  That’s just something to be careful for.

And your weather analogy doesn’t quite match up with this thread of God discussion.  Weathermen can make predictions with probabilities, which is more information than “I don’t know”.  And weather isn’t completely unpredictable.  For example, I don’t expect a hurricane to suddenly pop out of the blue and roll over Denver.  There are also testable elements in weather prediction.  I don’t see any testable elements in your proposed god/universe view.

TromboneAndrew - 04 August 2010 12:57 AM

It can be fun to think about many kinds of theories, but without a way to fact-check, such thinking is merely daydreaming, not hypothesizing.  And such thinking sometimes does replace (without logical justification) that position of “I don’t know” with something else.  That’s just something to be careful for.

`
You’ve summarized the core issue perfectly ~ 10/10 for economy of expression :)

`

Axegrrl - 04 August 2010 01:56 AM

TromboneAndrew - 04 August 2010 12:57 AM

It can be fun to think about many kinds of theories, but without a way to fact-check, such thinking is merely daydreaming, not hypothesizing.  And such thinking sometimes does replace (without logical justification) that position of “I don’t know” with something else.  That’s just something to be careful for.

`
You’ve summarized the core issue perfectly ~ 10/10 for economy of expression
`

He gets an Occam award for succinctness !

My use of the term “god”  in this theory has become a distraction. I did not set out to create another god, but a focal point for reduction to unify existing theory in a philosophical context. We go beyond “I don’t know” everyday. It’s called inferance. Hume’s criticisms notwithstanding, everytime we make a weather prediction we go beyond “I don’t know”.

To sum up, we both agree that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable personal position.

Exactly, and the only reasonable alternative that would render “I don’t know” an unreasonable position would be omniscience.

However, I think that it really isn’t useful to come up with theories about the universe which don’t have the potential to provide some information or other utility about it.

And I couldn’t agree with you more. So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

In that way, I am something of a hardcore scientific pragmatist.  It can be fun to think about many kinds of theories, but without a way to fact-check, such thinking is merely daydreaming, not hypothesizing.

Meaning utilitarianism. All I can say is that, while taking up this challenge is quite stimulating on a personal basis, I do take it seriously in the sense of the implications it could present to all other aspects of our reality. It may not eventually prove to be the entire answer but it may point us in the right direction, which in itself would be extremely useful. Sometimes getting at the right answer involves asking the right questions.

And such thinking sometimes does replace (without logical justification) that position of “I don’t know” with something else.  That’s just something to be careful for.

Well, there is every logical justification for seeking an answer beyond “I don’t know”, but I understand what you mean in this context. So I have to be careful not to make the same mistake as primitive man and end up with an answer that resolves nothing but makes resolution impossible.

And your weather analogy doesn’t quite match up with this thread of God discussion.  Weathermen can make predictions with probabilities, which is more information than “I don’t know”. 

And I couldn’t agree with you more. I can’t think of any analogy that would start from ground zero, completely ignoring everything and anything we currently do know. In fact, that would be tantamount to inventing an entirely new reality. That is not my goal here at all. An exhaustive response to your observation would entail exploring all the many epistemeligical schools of thought on what it means to “know” something. A theory of everything (TOE) doesn’t resolve all questions about everything. It does, however, provide a foundational launching point for devising the right questions.

And weather isn’t completely unpredictable.  For example, I don’t expect a hurricane to suddenly pop out of the blue and roll over Denver.  There are also testable elements in weather prediction.  I don’t see any testable elements in your proposed god/universe view.

The short answer to why you don’t see the testable elements is because I’m not finished with the theory. You don’t know how much I appreciate the time and energy you’ve invested in presenting these very pertinent observations and criticisms. It forces me, in every case, to consider how I am to make this a bonafide theory that is both falsifiable and credible. Let me try to articulate a few things about theories in general in an effort to equalize the playing field here. I fully realize using the term/concept “god” in the title of this theory immediately loads it with all sorts of “baggabe” and could eventually necessitate a name change. But consider some of our most basic, accepted natural theories. How many people really understand “relativity theory”, or Heisenbergs un-certainty principle, or quantuum mechanics, or particle/wave theory, etc.? And these are all legitimate theories because they are, thus far, functional pieces of a percieved larger puzzle. And you’d be surprised how many holes some of these theories have and how many alternative theories are out there that actuality are legitimate replacements to some degree.

One of the things I see developing in the natural sciences is a tendency to gravitate in the same errant direction, in their anticipation of a TOE, that drove primitive man to evolve theism. The assumption that because the parts, in and of the selves appear quite complex…therefore the final solution/explanation/cause/etc. must therefore be even more complex. Anyone, regardless of their pedigree or expertise, is subject to make this assumption either directly, or to carry it into their investigations as an unstated expectation. So this mistake, made first by the theist, could easily be duplicated by the natural sciences. When studying any specific existent thing the sheer complexity of it emerges as a reasonable observation/interpretation and to then assume its cause therefore must be even more complex, is a very reasonable, but errant conclusion/assumption.

Evolution, astrophysics, cosmology, abiogenesis…all of these disciplines have shown how our universe has this built-in tendency to complexify from the basic sub-atomic particle all the way up to the proposed big bang from the Singularity. Thus it is my underlying paradigm, based on this observational characteristic of our reality, that any valid TOE will point, not towards something of extremely complex construction…but in the opposite direction towards something extremely and uniquely simple.

I hope this helps…thank you ever so much for your clarity of thought and valued criticisms. keep ‘em coming when you can.

whynot - 04 August 2010 02:20 PM

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

GPS units, for one. How does your god fantasy (it is not a theory) add to our knowledge of the Universe?

whynot - 04 August 2010 02:20 PM

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

It provides an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable observed orbit of the planet Mercury.

the PC apeman - 04 August 2010 05:29 PM

whynot - 04 August 2010 02:20 PM

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

It provides an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable observed orbit of the planet Mercury.

Awww… that’s too bad. I was hoping it would unite Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or at least give us the secret to whirled peas.

whynot - 04 August 2010 02:20 PM

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

Explaining the colour of gold?

Whereas most other pure metals are gray or silvery white, gold is yellow. This color is determined by the density of loosely bound (valence) electrons; those electrons oscillate as a collective “plasma” medium described in terms of a quasiparticle called plasmon. The frequency of these oscillations lies in the ultraviolet range for most metals, but it falls into the visible range for gold due to subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms. Similar effects impart a golden hue to metallic cesium (see relativistic quantum chemistry).

GdB

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

Explaining the colour of gold?

Whereas most other pure metals are gray or silvery white, gold is yellow. This color is determined by the density of loosely bound (valence) electrons; those electrons oscillate as a collective “plasma” medium described in terms of a quasiparticle called plasmon. The frequency of these oscillations lies in the ultraviolet range for most metals, but it falls into the visible range for gold due to subtle relativistic effects that affect the orbitals around gold atoms. Similar effects impart a golden hue to metallic cesium (see relativistic quantum chemistry).

Does it explain this? matter decides? Of course the scientist suspects some other, as yet, un-discovered particle. An infinite regress of new, exotic particles. I predict quantuum physics will reach a point where no other particle will be found to account for the behavior of matter in complexity emergence.

So the real test of this theory is functionality, since usefulness is basically implying, of what use is it, ergo…how does it make my reality more functional. Consider this: How does the theory of relativity make your reality more functional?

It provides an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable observed orbit of the planet Mercury.

How does that make your reality more functional?