The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

[Scott]

Ever since I was young, I found the nature of the universe to be a fascinating subject. I grew up in a family that was rather ambigous about God. My father has called himself an atheist in the past, although he's liked the concept of synchronicity and astrology, suggesting that there's actually something a type of 'behind the scenes' organization to things. My mother's been part of more than one religion in her lifetime. I personally had this idea that everything was connected and part of the whole and when I found the term Pantheism, which is essentially a religion with this idea, I settled on this for myself. I'm also a strong believer in sychronicity, have read a book on the subject and am currently working my way through another.

So this thread is essentially about the nature of the universe. I personally tell people that I believe in God, but Pantheist's idea of God with it being everything is not what many people associate with God being separate from their creation. Anyway, I made this thread because the subject of God(s) or the lack thereof came up in another thread whose subject had little to do with this, and I thought it'd be good to have a thread where this was in fact the main subject so that I could transfer any thread posts I was going to make there over here.

Anyone else who's interested in the subject of the nature of the universe and whether or not they believe that a God or Gods exists and how they define their God(s) may wish to make a comment or 2 here.

 

[Scott]

A lot of people believe God is a lot more than an idea. As a Pantheist, I define God as everything that is. By that definition, studying anything would be studying a part of God.

True. You can measure the energy from nature. It is a living ecosystem.

And yet the Christian God can be applied to that as well. Christians always tell me to look around me as if it's a proof of God's existence.

Such an argument is a circular argument fallacy. It is fundamentalism. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist, or whether no god or gods exist.
If, however, one simply tells you to look at the evidence of a god or gods, or the evidence that there is no god or gods, that is simply a circular argument, not a fallacy. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

The moment someone tries to use that evidence as a proof, the circular argument fallacy occurs.

I seldom get involved in discussions involving religion because people tend to believe that circular arguments are proof they are right all the time. However, there are a few people who are more open minded. As a Pantheist who believes that everything is God, no one I know would argue that God exists under this definition, but they -have- pointed out that this is not how they define God, so for -them- God doesn't exist because of how they define God. This subject of whether God exists and perhaps more importantly, how we define God, has been one I've found to be interesting but as it's significantly off the subject of this thread, I decided to make this new thread and put my response here.

 

[Scott]

I think we can agree that it all depends on the definition of God. I don't know anyone who would deny that everything exists. There are plenty of people who don't believe that Christianity's version of God is real though.

Quite true. There are a lot of people that believe in no god or gods at all. That is a religion like any other. It is based on faith.

Well, that depends on how one defines religion . It wouldn't fit with the American Heritage Dictionary's first definition of the term:
**
The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/religion

But the third definition gets close:
**
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
**

I've seen the definition without the second part there, that it's based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. We -all- have a set of beliefs and values, so that is certainly universal.

Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with other arguments stemming from that. For example, in Christianity, the initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument.

I'm curious, is there any evidence that Jesus actually said he was the Son of God? I saw a documentary called Zeitgeist which argued that it was more that his mythos was combined with the worship of the -Sun-, which gives an explanation as to why his day of worship is on Sunday, rather than the traditional Friday/Saturday as is customary for jews, which Jesus was. If you haven't seen the documentary and are curious about it, it's here:

 

[Cypress]

There very well may be a higher organizing principle underlying the universe. But since we are basically
just souped-up chimpanzees, we might not have the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend it.

To me, the most important lingering unanswered questions are these:

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

Why are there physical constants, and why do they take the values they do? Seemingly arbitrary numerical values which cannot be derived from first principles.

Why are the natural laws, the physical constants, and the geometry of the cosmos so finely-tuned in such a mathematically-improbable way to allow the development of complexity, life, and even conciousness?

 

[Scott]

Yeah. An idea in science is a hypothesis. The theory is developed by observations, measurements and experiments. Can the same be true for any version of god?

It works for the theory of viruses.

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates.

From what I've read, it's more the other way around- that is, that theories are born from hypothesis. First, a definition of hypothesis:
**
a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

Now for theory:
**
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/theory

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That is, it must be testable to try to break the theory (the null hypothesis). That test must be specific, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.

Falsifying a theory utterly destroys it. Nothing replaces it.

I've seen nothing in the dictionary definition saying that a theory -must- be falsifiable. One definition of theory from the link above highly resembles what is typically thought of as hypothesis- that it is simply abstract reasoning, or speculation. Now, I can certainly agree that -ideally- a theory or hypothesis would be falsifiable, but that's not always the case.

A theory can come from anywhere. It can come in a dream, by observation of phenomena, by the consequences of falsifying a theory, by mathematical manipulation, by logical manipulation, or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob.
If the theory is falsifiable and can withstand tests designed to destroy it, it is automatically part of the body of science.

Suggesting that if it can't be, it remains the territory of... philosphers perhaps? I don't see why this has to be the case. A scientist could simply say that science can't prove whether something is true or false at the present moment.

Science is atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply does not go there.

Atheism means the belief that God or Gods don't exist. I think science doesn't have any beliefs at all, not actually being an entity per se- I'd characterize it as a methodology to try to find out truths.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

this.......logically if the rules of physics had been in place even a day sooner than the Big Bang, said Bang would have had to occur a day sooner.......a scientific examination of everything in our universe will never explain what occurred outside and prior to our universe.......

 

[Scott]

There very well may be a higher organizing principle underlying the universe. But since we are basically just souped-up chimpanzees, we might not have the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend it.

Lol, this may be true .

To me, the most important lingering unanswered questions are these:

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

Not necessarily. That assumes that this universe was the first universe. There's a theory that universes are actually birthed from other universes.

Why are there physical constants, and why do they take the values they do? Seemingly arbitrary numerical values which cannot be derived from first principles.

Why are the natural laws, the physical constants, and the geometry of the cosmos so finely-tuned in such a mathematically-improbable way to allow the development of complexity, life, and even conciousness?

An argument has been made that the reason all the values are as they are is that without these values, life wouldn't exist. It may well be that there are many universes with other values where life simply can't exist.

 

[Cypress]

Lol, this may be true .



Not necessarily. That assumes that this universe was the first universe. There's a theory that universes are actually birthed from other universes.



An argument has been made that the reason all the values are as they are is that without these values, life wouldn't exist. It may well be that there are many universes with other values where life simply can't exist.

The argument that we are just one universe is an infinite hyperspace of infinite universes is just as speculative as saying there is some higher organizing principle underlying this Universe.

I think the multiverse is a wonderful idea, but it also gets used to just sweep fine tuning of our observable universe under the carpet.

 

[Scott]

The argument that we are just one universe is an infinite hyperspace of infinite universes is just as speculative as saying there is some higher organizing principle underlying this Universe.

I actually think there's some evidence of a higher organizing principle in our universe. A combination of evolution and synchronicity. As to evidence that there's more than one universe, I'm not sure. I remember hearing the theory, but don't remember whether there was any evidence for it.

I think the multiverse is a wonderful idea, but it also gets used to just sweep fine tuning of our observable universe under the carpet.

I think it's a possible explanation for why the physical constants are as they are. If you have another possible explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it

 

[Cypress]

I actually think there's some evidence of a higher organizing principle in our universe. A combination of evolution and synchronicity. As to evidence that there's more than one universe, I'm not sure. I remember hearing the theory, but don't remember whether there was any evidence for it.



I think it's a possible explanation for why the physical constants are as they are. If you have another possible explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it

I love the multiverse idea, but it still doesn't explain where the physical constants or the laws of physics come from

 

[Scott]

I love the multiverse idea, but it still doesn't explain where the physical constants or the laws of physics come from

Maybe there are many other universes with different constants and we're just in one with the constants we have?

 

[Cypress]

Maybe there are many other universes with different constants and we're just in one with the constants we have?

Multiverse could be invoked to explain that physical constants take on different values in different universes, or that physical laws aren't the same in every universe.

But it can't explain the origin of physics and the constants.

 

[Scott]

Multiverse could be invoked to explain that physical constants take on different values in different universes, or that physical laws aren't the same in every universe.

But it can't explain the origin of physics and the constants.

Ah ok. My own theory as to why physics' constants' and indeed everything exists is because it wants to. I know that's not much of a theory, but it's the best I've got on that .

 

[Cypress]

Ah ok. My own theory as to why physics' constants' and indeed everything exists is because it wants to. I know that's not much of a theory, but it's the best I've got on that .

I personally have never found the "well, that's just the way it is" explanation to be either scientifically or philosophically satisfying.

As to the origin of physics, it seems our options are to say that physical laws randomly appeared out of nowhere for no conceiveable reason, or that there is some higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos we cannot fathom. The Neoconfucians called it Li. The Hindus call it Brahman.

It would be nice if a theory of everything can be discovered in our lifetimes, unifying the fundamental forces of nature. But even then, it doesn't explain where the unified force came from, and the answer to that may forever be beyond the reach of the scientific method.

 

[Scott]

Ah ok. My own theory as to why physics' constants' and indeed everything exists is because it wants to. I know that's not much of a theory, but it's the best I've got on that .

I personally have never found the "well, that's just the way it is" explanation to be either scientifically or philosophically satisfying.

That's not actually what I said though.

As to the origin of physics, it seems our options are to say that physical laws randomly appeared out of nowhere for no conceiveable reason, or that there is some higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos we cannot fathom. The Neoconfucians called it Li. The Hindus call it Brahman.

It would be nice if a theory of everything can be discovered in our lifetimes, unifying the fundamental forces of nature. But even then, it doesn't explain where the unified force came from, and the answer to that may forever be beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Agreed. As I mentioned before, I believe that things are the way they are because they want to be, but the only evidence I have for that is the fact that living things do what they want to do. Which suggests that I believe that the universe (or multiverse) is alive in some way. Have you read much on the subject of synchronicity, a term first first coined by psychologist Carl Jung, and fleshed out with his physicist friend Wolfgang Pauli? There's an article on their theory here:

How iconic psychiatrist Carl Jung and nobel-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli bridged mind and matter | lefkadazin.gr

 

[Cypress]

That's not actually what I said though.



Agreed. As I mentioned before, I believe that things are the way they are because they want to be, but the only evidence I have for that is the fact that living things do what they want to do. Which suggests that I believe that the universe (or multiverse) is alive in some way. Have you read much on the subject of synchronicity, a term first first coined by psychologist Carl Jung, and fleshed out with his physicist friend Wolfgang Pauli? There's an article on their theory here:

How iconic psychiatrist Carl Jung and nobel-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli bridged mind and matter | lefkadazin.gr

Much to the annoyance of Einstein, some of the early pioneering quantum physicists like Pauli dabbled in Hinduism and Eastern religions and seemed to try to fuse science and religion Into a type of quantum mysticism.

That kind of speculation isn't much different than religion or metaphysics, and certainly never gained traction in the mainstream scientific community. But I still think that kind of speculation is perfectly reasonable to engage in.

 

[Into the Night]

I seldom get involved in discussions involving religion because people tend to believe that circular arguments are proof they are right all the time. However, there are a few people who are more open minded. As a Pantheist who believes that everything is God, no one I know would argue that God exists under this definition, but they -have- pointed out that this is not how they define God, so for -them- God doesn't exist because of how they define God. This subject of whether God exists and perhaps more importantly, how we define God, has been one I've found to be interesting but as it's significantly off the subject of this thread, I decided to make this new thread and put my response here.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

Well, that depends on how one defines religion . It wouldn't fit with the American Heritage Dictionary's first definition of the term:
**
The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/religion

But the third definition gets close:
**
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
**

I've seen the definition without the second part there, that it's based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. We -all- have a set of beliefs and values, so that is certainly universal.



I'm curious, is there any evidence that Jesus actually said he was the Son of God? I saw a documentary called Zeitgeist which argued that it was more that his mythos was combined with the worship of the -Sun-, which gives an explanation as to why his day of worship is on Sunday, rather than the traditional Friday/Saturday as is customary for jews, which Jesus was. If you haven't seen the documentary and are curious about it, it's here:



Dictionaries don't define any word. That is not their purpose. False authority fallacy.
The term 'religion' is defined in philosophy, just like the term 'science', 'real', and 'reality'.

 

[Into the Night]

There very well may be a higher organizing principle underlying the universe. But since we are basically
just souped-up chimpanzees, we might not have the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend it.

To me, the most important lingering unanswered questions are these:

Where did the physical laws of the universe come from? Prior to the big bang, nothing presumably existed, and nor did physics exist.

Why are there physical constants, and why do they take the values they do? Seemingly arbitrary numerical values which cannot be derived from first principles.

Why are the natural laws, the physical constants, and the geometry of the cosmos so finely-tuned in such a mathematically-improbable way to allow the development of complexity, life, and even conciousness?

So you believe in the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of Abiogenesis. Gotit.

You've got a problem.

Assuming that abiogenesis took place, and through a series of random unspecified events, a cell DID manage to form.

What's it going to eat?

 

[Cypress]

So, a cell DID manage to form.

What's it going to eat?

The first cells, like cyanobacteria, used photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolism.