God

[TomK]

All I see here are a bunch of what-ifs, what-abouts, misinterpretations of the scientific method, and the use of the words of someone who was, without a doubt, a genius, but who lived in the 17th/18th century and whose work has been superseded. That's no fault of his, and that work is still good enough for space navigation in our solar system, which shows how good his physics was. But it's classical and basic physics and can't cope with things traveling at or near the speed of light, , the expansion of the universe, and certainly doesn't handle quantum mechanics. He didn't even know how the sun worked. You can make Newton's laws fit all you want to how you think the brain works and consciousness, but it's all complete speculation.

How any of this even attempts to provide evidence for a god or some deity is beyond me. To me, you've fallen into this trap of thinking the universe was created for you, for us, rather than we are a result of the universe. It's how we thought centuries ago, i.e., the universe exists for us, and unfortunately, some folk still have that egotistical belief today - we're here because a god made us, damn the evidence, let's try to fit everything into our way of thinking. How about trying something different? Let the evidence lead you, not your beliefs.

[Punatang]

Tom, as you know, I am a great fan of yours so please know that I share the following thoughts with the utmost respect.  You make an excellent point about the shortcomings of Newton's legacy. There is no argument that on a long enough timeline, nearly all "science" becomes adorably quaint.  In that same spirit one must recognize that in 2326, today’s scientific orthodoxy will, at best, be regarded as a provisional footnote.

The scientist who catalogs Newton’s shortcomings would do well to exercise the same intellectual humility toward the limits of their own epoch. If Newton’s framework, for all its predictive power, proved incomplete because it lacked access to relativistic regimes, quantum phenomena, and higher dimensional mathematics which were obviously unavailable in the 17th century, then intellectual consistency requires an honest person of science to admit that our current instruments and models are extremely likely to be blind to entire domains of reality. 

There likely exist dimensions, scales, or causal structures, whether extra spatial dimensions, substrate realities beneath quantum fields, or aspects of consciousness itself, which lie beyond the resolution of our telescopes, colliders, and detectors. To assert dogmatically that no evidence of God (or any transcendent intelligence)exists, simply because it has not yet registered on our present apparatus seems less like skepticism, and more like provincialism IMHO. True scientific humility would acknowledge the overwhelming probability that what we call ‘the universe’ today, is only the observable slice of a far richer reality, where evidence of design, purpose, and indeed a Mind/Intelligence/Force resides precisely in those dimensions that we are, as yet, unequipped to observe, much as Newton lacked the tools to apprehend the workings of the sun.

Of course, none of this qualifies as evidence of what some describe as God.  Clearly, our science, at this time, is too primitive to offer what you wish to see. Having avoided reading the majority of this thread, I'm curious if any Punawebber has provided any scientific evidence demonstrating a likelihood that no "God" - like force exists?

BTW, if you ever make it over to Maui, you may enjoy Kraken coffee, which is measurably out of this world, without getting out of your automobile. This would have been unthinkable even 100 years ago. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and menehune.

[MyManao]

Rob - For me considering the fact that humankind is just beginning to have a light grasp on what might be called the known universe and zero grasp on what might be called the unknown universe my little brain can find no reason to reject anyone else's opinions out of hand.

Exactly. That’s the core of all speculation. No matter how much we think we know there is a mountain of evidence that we don’t even have the wherewithal to comprehend what exactly is our place in the big picture. And still we are such inquisitive little buggahs… so we speculate, even though, as ’Tang points out, our speculation is built upon a ridiculously small understanding of our surroundings.

randomq - I'm not claiming the existence of anything just that we may understand the issue better once we can account for how consciousness exists.

Interestingly Scientific American published an article just the other day..

From.. https://archive.is/VWSOy

Are the roots of consciousness hidden in the ancient deep brain?

Where it begins..

Some neuroscientists argue that the roots of experience lie deep inside the brain. If they’re right the consciousness club will get a lot bigger

It’s another example of how our understanding of things is still in its formative years.. all things, even the origins of man. And OMG the implications of finding our consciousness in our deeper more primitive, older, portion of the brain.. fun stuff.

It’s like our Big Bang Theory. It’s a grand concept. And those whose ideas hinge upon it cling to it rather than just be casual in their beliefs (and yes, there's no facts here, just beliefs) and open to all other, often contrary, ideas. And now, with the likes of the Webb telescope, as we are just beginning to see that far back in time.. just beginning to see.. and already the entire concept is in question. It leaves one to realize, all our concepts are most likely wrong.. are in a state of early development, and to cling to anything, and vehemently argue for them as some do, is a fool's errand.

At least with a skeletal doctor when a bone breaks they do their thing and it sets, and heals. So we can say, look that guy knows what he’s doing. But in reality the ‘science’ of setting a bone is probably so primitive compared to what it will be one hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, that folks will look back at what we think we know today as some kind of archaic voodoo medicine practiced by apes.

That’s why when one of us picked on another's casual comment about god I was motivated to write out (my OP) my belief. Which is, again, to say I have no religion, I believe in nothing, and haven't got any concepts other than faith there’s a rhyme to it all. And that, for me, is the ticket. Have faith, and no idea what I have faith in. In other words, I have faith in a unifying force that we all are a part of. But what that force is, how it works, why it works, I have no idea. But I am curious. And because I imagine unity I call the whole thing god.

Further, I point out, there are examples of more than we otherwise collectively accept as the conditions of life. As I have said, I am way impressed by the placebo effect. It is one of the very few examples of science having demonstrated, in their relished scientific format, that something is going on here that we’re not fully understanding. That just in ourselves, if we focus our attention, either with conscious intent or by being tricked into it, our minds are more powerful then we otherwise give them credit for. And this implies, to me, that there is so much more going on here, in life, in the very existence of the universe we find ourselves in, than our limited interpretation of everything encompasses. As randomq points out what is the magic of our consciousness?

And yeah, some in their pondering of all this call the mystical, the unknown, god. The religious give god form. It/he does this or that.. has a moral structure.. there’s a right and a wrong and consequences. While some foolishly cling for dear life to their need for god to be a deity, so they can deny god's existence. I don’t know anything about all that. But I do look at the universe and believe there’s structure, purpose, and am very curious about it all. But beyond that, hell, I have no idea.

I look at nature as more the story, a map of, an example of god than I do the Bible. Nature, as a natural construct must be more inline with the creation than any man made idea. So I turn to nature as an example of god. And nature baffles the shit out of me. Nature isn’t all love one another like the Bible thumpers go on about the lion and the lamb living in a peaceful harmony. In nature, the lion eats the lamb. I’ve had occasion to know hawks, Io, in their natural settings. They are very social, and amazingly I have had direct and repeated encounters with many of them. They’re incredible creatures, and yet they live wholly on meat, live, raw, meat. Their entire existence is predicted on killing in order to survive. And it is so incongruous with our’s. But then I try and grok that our place in this here and now is to wrestle with just that, our deeply embedded animalistic instincts over our perceived, imagined, higher selves.

Religion suggest there's a reason to attend our higher selves, our higher calling. To live by a set of morals. And we've built society upon hat structure. Others suggest we’re hybrids; primitive apes bred with spacefarers to meet specific needs long ago and then left to find our way. There’s so many variations on the theme.. the origin of man. Though, with so little data, sheesh we can’t agree on the state of mankind two thousand years ago let alone speak for our origins. Forbidden archeology brings up artifacts from tens of thousands of years ago and mainstream archeologists balk at them.

Personally, I enjoy the insights of Chandra Wickramasinghe, and find the work of Avi Loeb to be thought provoking, though I know both are dissed by “mainstream” astronomers. But damn, who’s to say they are wrong, or that those that would say they are wrong are right? I loved Clarke’s RAMA series. And OMG 3I/ATLAS sure does fill the imagination. I find Heinlein’s World as Myth proposition wholly plausible. I certainly find the notion that we are unique in having a higher consciousness to be absurd.. statistically it’s just nonsense.. and find both Chandra’s and Avi’s zeal for the quest of finding examples of others to be the real reason we’d support the sport of astronomy at all. But then after all the hours I spent as a kid on Mt Palomar as my father worked with the Hale Telescope, coupled with my love for the works of Heinlein, Bradbury and Clarke, I was raised to this point of view.. to ponder the heavens and imagine creation, imagine god. But give it all a name.. especially one that limits its possibilities.. that’d be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying there's no such thing.

[TomK]

Punatang,

Thanks for your thought-provoking and well-thought-out post. I appreciate it very much because it helps clarify a few things. 

The only shortcoming of Newton is that we see his theories only centuries later. Rob brought Newton into the discussion for reasons only he can explain, and you'll see in my post that I called him a genius. His theories of gravitation are still used today, even by NASA. However, they are incorrect and have been superseded. They are good enough for government work, but do not explain the effects of relativity and quantum mechanics.

That's the beauty of science: it is continuously self-correcting, based on evidence rather than faith, hope, or popular demand. When done properly, science eschews bias and personal opinions and relies only on actual evidence and on repeatedly testing its own hypotheses.   Even today, some modern claims in astronomy, especially in cosmology, are continually changing. What was once solid evidence for a theory is now suddenly called into question by a new observation that challenges its validity.  

Religion doesn't work that way. It's stuck with scripture and a god telling people how to behave based on centuries-old writing or word of mouth. Look at how another scientific genius was treated by the catholic church -- Galileo. He is probably the father of modern observational astronomy, yet he was treated as a criminal, imprisoned, defamed, and all because he realized the sun was the center of our solar system. You are more than likely aware that he was right, the pope and the catholic church were wrong, and it took centuries, well after his death, for another pope to issue an apology for how unjustly Galileo was treated.

Science doesn't care about what we'll find out years from now; it cares about what we observe now and our observations, ideas, hypotheses, and theories that we have developed based on real and actual evidence, not some vague idea of what we might discover about a god sometime in the future for which we have no evidence in the present.

[TomK]

[...]

Personally, I enjoy the insights of Chandra Wickramasinghe, and find the work of Avi Loeb to be thought provoking, though I know both are dissed by “mainstream” astronomers. But damn, who’s to say they are wrong, or that those that would say they are wrong are right? I loved Clarke’s RAMA series. And OMG 3I/ATLAS sure does fill the imagination. I find Heinlein’s World as Myth proposition wholly plausible. I certainly find the notion that we are unique in having a higher consciousness to be absurd.. statistically it’s just nonsense.. and find both Chandra’s and Avi’s zeal for the quest of finding examples of others to be the real reason we’d support the sport of astronomy at all. But then after all the hours I spent as a kid on Mt Palomar as my father worked with the Hale Telescope, coupled with my love for the works of Heinlein, Bradbury and Clarke, I wthe inas raised to this point of view.. to ponder the heavens and imagine creation, imagine god. But give it all a name.. especially one that limits its possibilities.. that’d be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying there's no such thing.

Avi Loeb is an extremely well-respected astrophysicist. That's why it was a shock to the astronomical community when he kept claiming that the interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS was an alien-controlled spaceship. In the end, he "conceded" that given the evidence, it was more likely that 3I/ATLAS was an interstellar comet.

I probably won't comment on the rest of your post because it comes across as rambling, incoherent nonsense, and I don't wish to take it to the obvious conclusion.

[TomK]

It’s another example of how our understanding of things is still in its formative years.. all things, even the origins of man. 

It's so formative that it has to be the origin of man. Not human beings, not women, man.

https://youtu.be/BGASvVqzOa0?si=hARU9cQTgguFngXy

[TomK]

---

BTW, if you ever make it over to Maui, you may enjoy Kraken coffee, which is measurably out of this world, without getting out of your automobile. This would have been unthinkable even 100 years ago. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and menehune.

PS. I don't like coffee. I tried my best to like it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

[Punatang]

just not my cup of tea.

[Translated to English]

Now, far be it from me to criticise, & I say this with the utmost respect, old bean, but if God wanted us to drink tea instead of coffee, he wouldn’t have let the British Empire run on the stuff and then buggered off the moment someone offered them a proper espresso.

On the matter of your thoughtful and informative post, I take full responsibility for our miscommunication. Without reading the thread, I jumped in with my 2 cents (not the Punawebber) and posted about a completely different subject. It is clear now that you are discussing religion. I am discussing a supernatural force. These are completely different things.  I'm not a believer of old men in the sky, old women in the volcano, The Easter Bunny, Father Christmas, Central Planning, or that "the natives" would be eternally grateful for railways, cricket, and warm beer. However, regarding the poor treatment of Galileo,  I do feel obliged to convey, again with the greatest respect, old bean, your lot replaced the Pope and the Inquisition with the Royal Society, SAGE committees, and Twitter mobs. Galileo got house arrest for saying the Earth moves. These days a British scientist gets his funding cut, his reputation torched, and a polite letter from the Vice-Chancellor if he dares question the consensus on GM food, drugs policy, lockdowns, or climate targets. Much more civilised, of course.

Right, well....that's quite enough of that. Must dash. Coffee time. Farewell, and may your tea never taste of wet lace and broken dreams. 

Aloha

[TomK]

just not my cup of tea.

[Translated to English]

Now, far be it from me to criticise, & I say this with the utmost respect, old bean, but if God wanted us to drink tea instead of coffee, he wouldn’t have let the British Empire run on the stuff and then buggered off the moment someone offered them a proper espresso.

That is a tough theological question to answer. I need some time. I suspect it's an ecumenical matter.

https://youtu.be/ptd_h0dF7NE?si=3VJ9RKAEnyqpW3eK

[Punatang]

HAHA!  Loved the video. Yes, quite.