:yes: i simply redefined the god concept with reason instead faith. so one can understand 'god' in rational terms without having to be subject to faith. everything can be understood simply through the application of reason.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
E = god
- Thread starter waydejac
- Start date
:yes: i simply redefined the god concept with reason instead faith. so one can understand 'god' in rational terms without having to be subject to faith. everything can be understood simply through the application of reason.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
1. Atoms don't evolve. They were atoms, they are atoms, they will be atoms.
2. 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted into different forms of energy.
3. Replace millions with billions
Everything in the universe is energy, it has energy, and it will use energy. Of course, smart scientists have predicted our demise due to the heat death where free energy will become obsolete.
since everything is energy we all are apart of it. this is the only thing that makes us equal. no matter race,religion,gender,natural origin,political opinion or sexual orientation we are equal one to another. this energy surrounds us, it penerates us, it binds the universe together. we are apart of one race-the human race, we exist on a planet called earth, which is home to 6 billion people. our planet orbits a third class star called the sun. the point is we should learn to come together instead of falling apart. bring balance to 'the force' and not leave it in darkness. this is the ethics of my concept previously stated.
1. Atoms don't evolve. They were atoms, they are atoms, they will be atoms.
2. 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted into different forms of energy.
3. Replace millions with billions
Everything in the universe is energy, it has energy, and it will use energy. Of course, smart scientists have predicted our demise due to the heat death where free energy will become obsolete.
1. energy evolved into atoms during the cooling process of the early universe.
2. if the universe is energy and nothing existed before the universe, energy wouldnt have existed either. energy would have to create itself.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
I didn;t say free energy didnt exist beforehand. Im just saying energy caused the universe as we know it to exist.
Subatomic particles had to have existed. Energy is in forms of smaller particles such as photons, etc. The first point was my bad, cheers for the correction.
rojse
RF Addict
But you have relabelled energy with all the emotional and theological baggage that comes with the title of God. You have not made it easier to understand, rather, more difficult.
there is no emotional or theological baggage, 'god' is simply a single substance defined as energy. it is not conscious nor does it have an independent will, it manifests its self through the process of natural law or physics. it may be the cause, but it is not limited to external effects on itself, so it to is effected as well as everything which is apart of it. it is not infinite, it once was, but after the big bang it fractured as seen with the seperation of electro-magnetism,gravity and strong and weak nuculear forces. we only understand 'god' in four dimensions, yet it is comprised of eleven. 'god' can be understood with the use of reason and applied sciences of various fields. to only view 'god' in the dogmatic sense is limiting ones understanding to other much more plausible concepts and that are free from blinding faith.
rojse
RF Addict
Everyone who has a different conceptionalisation of God carries emotional and theological baggage on what they think God is.
Why call it God, then?
The point is that relabelling energy as God means that you have to contend with the dogmatic sense. People have far different attachments to the idea of God than what you have.
And you still have not achieved anything by calling energy God - you haven't made God easier to understand, you haven't simplified anything, and it's not logical.
The thing about gods is that they have will. Energy does not.
i use the term 'god' as a title, for 'god' is neither a name nor a person in the respect to this concept. i use this title to represent the first principle from which everything was caused to exist. it is no different than to use the letter C to represent the speed of light.
as i said before you are basing your rebuttal on the dogmatic concept which as you stated that people have a different understanding of 'god' which is true, but i believe it is irrational to base ones understanding on faith instead of reason. im not attacking your understanding of things, i am merely pointing out a general approach. science and religion maybe two different camps, but with the validity of reason it is possible to create a sound concept as to satisfy both camps.
rojse
RF Addict
i use the term 'god' as a title, for 'god' is neither a name nor a person in the respect to this concept. i use this title to represent the first principle from which everything was caused to exist. it is no different than to use the letter C to represent the speed of light.
as i said before you are basing your rebuttal on the dogmatic concept which as you stated that people have a different understanding of 'god' which is true, but i believe it is irrational to base ones understanding on faith instead of reason. im not attacking your understanding of things, i am merely pointing out a general approach. science and religion maybe two different camps, but with the validity of reason it is possible to create a sound concept as to satisfy both camps.
And what is the point of calling energy God?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, is this an argument for science or for religion?
god is deemed as a religious concept, but i am redefining it as a concept of theoritical physics. so instead of a faith based concept i am generating a rational based concept.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
You arent generating a rational based concept, you are calling concepts we know exist god in the hope that no one will notice what you are doing.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
it is not just a religious concept, it a combination of religion and science fused together to form a new concept based on theoritical physics. as i said it is a theory that will satisfy both camps.
rojse
RF Addict
It satisfies neither, Waydejac. Physicists and scientists will see no reason to call energy God, and theists will say that you have debased the name of God further.
I would agree with both of them.
all is energy..the very energy that left the big bang and continues to pervade the cosmos .law of conversation of E..can neither be created nor destroyed..can be moved from place to place form to form etc. the universe is GOD,and ENERGY has countless ways of expressing itself.
why speculate about this when there is such limited understanding of oneself.
why speculate about this when there is such limited understanding of oneself.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Why use a meaningless label like 'god' to describe real phenomena?