I have came to the conclusion that the universe closely fits many of the characteristics associated with God. By the Universe I mean all the energy matter that exists, all that exists, and the laws and science that determine how they act with each other.

I do not mean to suggest “look there's God” or this is what we were to figure out but instead just that the universe fits the definition of God.

I have compiled a list of common Characteristics associated with God and how they apply to the universe.

Omnipresence- The universe is everywhere, true by definition.

Omnipotence – While it can not do everything it can do all that is possible which fits into some definitions of Omnipotence

Omniscience - The universe certainly “knows” how the every thing in the universe works and where every thing is.

Its infallible – The universe can not be wrong. It decides what is true. Let me explain with an example .

Here we have the equation for synthesis of water (sure it can result in a few other things like H2O2, OH, and H3O but lets just say in cases that H2O are formed)

2H2 + O2 => 2H20

And time goes on

2H2 + O2 => 2H20

2H2 + O2 => 2H20

2H2 + O2 => 2H20

One day for one reason or another the physical laws change and under the same circumstances the protons and neutrons realign and we get

2H2 + O2 => 5B

2H2 + O2 => 5B becomes the part of workings of the universe, the new truth.

It is the Ruler of All- The laws of the universe control everything acts in relation to everything else.

It’s the creator – Assuming that the universe as we know it came into existence via nature means. Those Natural means would be a part of what the universe entails.

It Necessary– The universe needs to exist for anything to exist.

Eternal – If anything always existed forever the universe existed for ever, if anything always exists it will always exist. Or better yet if there was a time that there was nothing it would have to have created it self.

It the greatest thing conceivable - I can't think of anything grater than evey thing.

It is potentially perfect – Unless the ultimate fate of the universe is something is really messed up like heat death or anything is which the whole universe is equalized or argument that the universe is perfect for the fact that it can not mess up. This of coarse is looking at life just as a little spin off of things.



Well what do you think? Any errors in my logic?

Has Abrahim returned under another name?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Has Abrahim returned under another name?



I really never paid great attention to what abrahim posted. But from what I remember his ideas were new agey, and filled with and things that fit his Muslim religion. I am just suggesting this as fitting a definition

[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 01-31-2007).]

*applause*

I must say Q777, that was quite the post, and I do have to agree with you.

You should read "The Mind Of God" by Paul Davies. That whole idea is the premise of the book. He parallels the growth of both science and religion and relates the too but in an extremely legitimate scientifically and historically. He also discusses diffent religions take on the universe and god and to what degree science applies to them and he also discusses different scientific takes on god and theories of the universe. He also singles out how he feels on the subject at times without allowing it to influince the books direction. Good stuff if you ask me.

In addition to your theory:

We are made up in the likeness of god = The universe is made up of energy just as we are.

If I weren't agnostic, I'd be a pantheist. But I think asking how you define "God" is a pointles and trivial philosophical question.

But to apply a radical second order:

What if systems and laws are just illusions and delusions, and everything is random? Meaning that the system and law of reason is made void. - Paradox. (this isn't explained in much depth)

[This message has been edited by Lord. Better Than You (edited 01-31-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lord. Better Than You:



But to apply a radical second order:

What if systems and laws are just illusions and delusions, and everything is random? Meaning that the system and law of reason is made void. - Paradox. (this isn't explained in much depth)



If everything was random was truly random and in no way based with on values of constants, values, and what not, to the point that probability can not even be calculated then my idea is shot to poo. As with most ideas.

OOP, we are pretty much on the same page here. According to quantum physics, string theory and all, the universe consists of a unified field. At the quantum level, stuff just seems to come out of nowhere, collide , and go back to nowhere. What appears to be solid matter is illusory, being mostly empty space.

In my book, ths unified field is sentient, intlligent, creative, and loving. We are all a part of it, hence we are All One.

The notion of God as a discrete entity--some bearded dude in a white robe, say--is SO Piscean Age.

For a great read along these lines, se Power, Freedom and Grace (or is it Freedom, Power and Grace?) by Deepak Chopra.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



In my book, ths unified field is sentient, intlligent, creative, and loving. We are all a part of it, hence we are All One.



I disagree with most of that. Mostly because of lack of evidence to suggest as such.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

I disagree with most of that. Mostly because of lack of evidence to suggest as such.

I also disagree. Why would you think the "unified field" or "everything" is sentient or loving, and why would you call it "god"?

Good post. I don't get why people call it God, it just causes confusion.

The only point you made that I can find fault with is that the universe is omniscient. Doesn't omniscience imply sentience? Whose to say that the universe has sentience? I really doubt that it does.

Reading more, I see that the OP doesn't think that the universe has sentience either, and that he put the word "knows" in quotations. In that case, what did you mean by "knows"?

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:

Reading more, I see that the OP doesn't think that the universe has sentience either, and that he put the word "knows" in quotations. In that case, what did you mean by "knows"?

He probably means what the Hindus mean: God isn't all-knowing, he is knowledge itself, he isn't all-powerful, he is power itself, so in that sense all knowledge and all power comes from God and therefore God is all-powerful and all-knowing. God is existence itself and since everything in the universe exists, God is the universe.

Or some crap like that.

I somewhat agree with this post, creates a better understanding of "god" in a sense of logic. I've always believed something along these lines, which explains my beleifs of our connected consciousness, that we are all part of god, cause god is everything. This also makes somewhat sense to what spirtual prohpets had said in the past, but seems have been misinterpreted, because if you read all there teachings, they all give way the same general message.

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:

The only point you made that I can find fault with is that the universe is omniscient. Doesn't omniscience imply sentience? Whose to say that the universe has sentience? I really doubt that it does.

Reading more, I see that the OP doesn't think that the universe has sentience either, and that he put the word "knows" in quotations. In that case, what did you mean by "knows"?

I agree its one of my weaker points but let me explain. I did not think that the universe has a conscious like a human and did not want to imply so. But Instead knows something more like a computer, it "knows" how all the pieces act with each other and what they are.

But what Hare_Geist posted makes sense too.



[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 02-01-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

I agree its one of my weaker points but let me explain. I did not think that the universe has a conscious like a human and did not want to imply so. But Instead knows something more like a computer, it "knows" how all the pieces act with each other and what they are.

But what Hare_Geist posted makes sense too.







Without someone coding the "computer" how would it know how to start this cycle?

[This message has been edited by Dragon Slayer (edited 02-01-2007).]

This whole idea is so ridiculous. You are applying all these man-made concepts of what "god" what may be and then comparing them to tautological truths of the universe. How do you go around speaking of the nature of this supposed god and still consider yourself not schizophrenic?

Even abiding by your fallacious model - I would still disagree with omniscience and it is necessary. The universe has no consciousness, apparently, to even be endowed with any pedestrian concept of omniscience. Also, the universe is necessary to nothing, only to itself. You are necessary to nothing, only to yourself existing - these are simply tautological truths.

Not to mention, it is stated the universe created itself - would you like to explain a system creating itself with logic?

The universe undoubtedly produces logic and intelligence. Logic is present in humans and conciquently a part of the universe, therefore; logic is embedded in the systems that operate the universe due to the fact that it can spawn as such.

I am in no way suggesting that there is a personified mind operating the entire universe (that would be absurd). I am merely suggesting that universal actions can be dictated by the qualities of logical process.

Such as the way that societies seem to culture in a way that reflect a single cooperative organism. Gaia theorist suggest that the planet opperates as though living as a large scale but basic form of an organism. An extention to that would be to say that systems may apply a generalized form of a logical program to any social bodies in the universe (be it: star systems, planetary systems, or galaxies altogether).

I can understand where this kind of suggestion would be considerd absurd and a far stretch by many of you but take a moment to consider the potential inevitability of it and abstract your thought process to imagine different possible forms of logic (human though, to computer program, to bacteria cultures.)

[This message has been edited by Delysid (edited 02-01-2007).]

I still would like to know how this universe has created itself - that is if you ascribing god(and therefore the universe) with the attribute of being the creator of all. Of course, the basic notion of this attribute is illogical, therefore god is illogical, and if this attribute is carried over to the pantheistic view, this view is also illogical.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

OOP, we are pretty much on the same page here. According to quantum physics, string theory and all, the universe consists of a unified field. At the quantum level, stuff just seems to come out of nowhere, collide , and go back to nowhere. What appears to be solid matter is illusory, being mostly empty space.

In my book, ths unified field is sentient, intlligent, creative, and loving. We are all a part of it, hence we are All One.

The notion of God as a discrete entity--some bearded dude in a white robe, say--is SO Piscean Age.

For a great read along these lines, se Power, Freedom and Grace (or is it Freedom, Power and Grace?) by Deepak Chopra.

It's possible, it would mean that love and emotion is the ultimate truth. These are some question this hypothesis raises:

What makes something sentient?

What is emotion?

What does it mean to say that God is intelligent, creative etc? Like some sort of all loving, all knowing entity etc?

What would be the point of it all?

Does this mean that everything moves in love and affection? Or is it merely the beings we consider sentient?

etc etc etc etc....



I personally think it's stating the obvious to say that all is relative. But this is only based on what I consider to be arbitrary reason and perspective. But with faith in myself and my own mind, all IS connected.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I still would like to know how this universe has created itself - that is if you ascribing god(and therefore the universe) with the attribute of being the creator of all. Of course, the basic notion of this attribute is illogical, therefore god is illogical, and if this attribute is carried over to the pantheistic view, this view is also illogical.



Personally, I am a fan of the Hartle-Hawking model for the universe. It suggests that if you run the clock of time backwords, the universe approaches a point of singularity. It is much like the Big Bang theory, except they apply time to approaching singularity as well. This allows the beginning of the universe to be finite yet still not have a define point of origin. It allows the universe to exist out of inevitability rather then from a creation. You may want to look the theory up because it is a little too new to me to be able to really explain it in detail.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Slayer:



Without someone coding the "computer" how would it know how to start this cycle?





I see you basically asking how did the laws of the universe come into being. As for that I don't know, no one knows.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

Without someone coding the "computer" how would it know how to start this cycle?

They're not really "laws" per say, they're just descriptions of regular or patterned relationships among observable phenomena.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-01-2007).]