Is Quantum Physics an open book for theists?

[Atheologian]

I would say that God expressed, becomes energy, and the factors that are governing the way energy behaves. Physics is a medium through which God is expressing itself. If so, then the question becomes; can we learn anything about the nature or character of God from how God is being expressed through this physical medium?

How do we know it's God expressing himself and not, say, Shiva throwing a temper tantrum

I understand what you mean, of course, but how can we be so sure of that? Isn't that a little vague, or at least wouldn't it still take an act of faith to accept that?

 

[PureX]

How do we know it's God expressing himself and not, say, Shiva throwing a temper tantrum

I understand what you mean, of course, but how can we be so sure of that? Isn't that a little vague, or at least wouldn't it still take an act of faith to accept that?

I'm just using the term that in my language applies to the creative and sustaining source of existence. I have no knowledge of "God's personality". If God has one, I suppose we would see it being expressed through the nature of existence.

I don't think it takes much faith the say that "God" is the creative and sustaining source of existence. That's a simple language exercise. To apply a personality to God, however, is an act of imagination, and therefor of faith if we choose to adopt this image.

 

[Atheologian]

I think the biggest question, at least in the future when we understand the nature of the subatomic particle, and that is assuming we will, is why? When we get down to the smallest unit of energy, since we know the universe is quantitave, so this is theoretically possible, what is it? This is why I posed the string theory question as well, how would tiny vibrating loops of string translate to "God"? If string theory is right, and the theist are right too, and "God" is just an expression of tiny vibrating strings that form matter and the universe, WHY DO WE EVEN CARE about "God"?

 

[Atheologian]

I'm just using the term that in my language applies to the creative and sustaining source of existence. I have no knowledge of "God's personality". If God has one, I suppose we would see it being expressed through the nature of existence.

I don't think it takes much faith the say that "God" is the creative and sustaining source of existence. That's a simple language exercise. To apply a personality to God, however, is an act of imagination, and therefor of faith if we choose to adopt this image.

I know, I was only being facetious.
But we really aren't saying here, in this case, that God actually even "exists" ar we?
Just that he sustains existance.

 

[PureX]

I know, I was only being facetious.
But we really aren't saying here, in this case, that God actually even "exists" ar we?
Just that he sustains existance.

I would say that existence is 'God expressed'. So yes, God exists. But God is not discernible because God is everything that exists.

 

[DarkSun]

The Uncertainty Principle contradicts the certainty of the theist's beliefs.

No. The Uncertainty Principle means that you can never stop an electron in space, at any time, and say: "there's an electron".

Which renders any aspect of particle physics, or string theory, or quantum physics... uncertain.

But many people believe in these ideas anyway, right?

 

[Atheologian]

No. The Uncertainty Principle means that you can never stop an electron in space, at any time, and say: "there's an electron".

Which renders any aspect of particle physics, or string theory, or quantum physics... uncertain.

But many people believe in these ideas anyway, right?

I think too much meaning is given to the idea of "uncertainty". It's uncertain because our expirements effect the particle itslef. We can't observe anything without affecting it. By measuring one aspect of the particle, we change another. We can say, "There's an electron," but we can't know what it's velocity was. We can say, "This is the direction it's going", but we'd have no idea where it is once we measured that, because we changed the direction(velocity) by doing so. We can't tell where, in an atom, the electron is, only where it has a certain chance of being. This doesn't mean we can't measure HOW MANY electrons there are, we know they are there, we just have no way to dermine EXACTLY where they are.

 

[Atheologian]

I would say that existence is 'God expressed'. So yes, God exists. But God is not discernible because God is everything that exists.

This goes along with the idea that God is consciousness right? Or is "consciousness" a "side-effect" of God?

 

[DarkSun]

I think too much meaning is given to the idea of "uncertainty". It's uncertain because our expirements effect the particle itslef. We can't observe anything without affecting it. By measuring one aspect of the particle, we change another. We can say, "There's an electron," but we can't know what it's velocity was. We can say, "This is the direction it's going", but we'd have no idea where it is once we measured that, because we changed the direction(velocity) by doing so.

Funny that.

 

[Atheologian]

Funny that.

Yes yes "uncertain"

but I think this just means we need to find better ways to examine particles. Fifty years from now, even 10 years from now, maybe tomorrow, we could very well have a way to overcome the "uncertainty" principle, by using other methods of measurement. The "uncertainty" of the principle refers to OUR uncertainty, not the particle's.

We don't "KNOW" that particles reappear and dissapear into the "quantum vacuum", but that seems to be the case. A new way to exaimine this charactaristic may show that this is not the case.

 

[PureX]

This goes along with the idea that God is consciousness right? Or is "consciousness" a "side-effect" of God?

I'm still very undecided about consciousness. I feel that the fact that physics results in consciousness is very important, considering that existence without consciousness is meaningless. Yet I still can't find an easy way to surrender to the idea that the quantum universe is itself a form of consciousness.

 

[Atheologian]

I'm still very undecided about consciousness. I feel that the fact that physics results in consciousness is very important, considering that existence without consciousness is meaningless. Yet I still can't find an easy way to surrender to the idea that the quantum universe is itself a form of consciousness.

So you are speaking in a very "real" sense, that he exists, just independent of the physical universe?
As in the universe only exists as a product or effect of his own existence?

also, at what level does an organism have a "sense of self"? Consciousness, which is required in order to have a "sense of one's self", is obviously not a necessary
charactaristic of life, unless you suggest that things like microorganisms or plants have a consciousness, which seems impossible as they don't have central nervous systems.

 

[madhatter85]

Comments about quantum physics giving us a vision of God are intended to be symbolic. As I understand it. Everything is energy. But energy can express itself in some ways, but not in any way. For example, sometimes energy is expressed an what we call a "quark". Sometimes as what we call a "gluon". Sometimes as what we call a "photon". We tend to think of these phenomena as "particles" but they really aren't. They are the phenomena right at the threshold where energy is becoming matter. We don't know why energy becomes this kind of matter and that kind, as opposed to some other. But we do know that some factor is governing what kind of matter energy becomes as it expresses itself.

Where I see "God" in this is in the fact that all this energy is being governed. And that because it's being governed as it is, it is expressing itself as the universe we are living in, and through us, of course, too. All that is, is the way it is, because energy is being governed in how it can express itself. And it's this governing factor that truly is the "creator" of all that exists.

Also, what is the origin of all this energy?

To say that energy is the direct manifestation of God's will, and that the factors governing the expression of energy are God's plan, is as reasonable, logical, and true as any statement one could apply to these aspects of quantum physics.

Something else that must be explored is that we are only able to detect certain forms of radiation within our limited spectrum. There are forms of energy we do not have the capability to detect.

 

[Atheologian]

Comments about quantum physics giving us a vision of God are intended to be symbolic. As I understand it. Everything is energy. But energy can express itself in some ways, but not in any way. For example, sometimes energy is expressed an what we call a "quark". Sometimes as what we call a "gluon". Sometimes as what we call a "photon". We tend to think of these phenomena as "particles" but they really aren't. They are the phenomena right at the threshold where energy is becoming matter. We don't know why energy becomes this kind of matter and that kind, as opposed to some other. But we do know that some factor is governing what kind of matter energy becomes as it expresses itself.

The elementary particles are quite different from each other, as far as we know. They "MIGHT" be the same elemetary particle, in different levels of "vibration" or "energy" however you choose to imagine it, but we don't really know. We do know their mass is different, and they have unique properties concerning spin and charge.

 

[PureX]

So you are speaking in a very "real" sense, that he exists, just independent of the physical universe?
As in the universe only exists as a product or effect of his own existence?

Actually, no. It's my observation that 'cause and effect' is a somewhat misleading concept. In realty, things tend to 'exhibit' or 'manifest' themselves relative to an innate nature. Energy manifests itself as matter, space, motion, and time, for example. Water molecules manifest or exhibit themselves as liquid, ice, and steam. My DNA code is expressing itself as me. All of existence seems to be based on these codes, or plans, blueprints or whatever that are then being manifested as all kinds of things.

I would tend to suspect that the universe is a natural expression of "God's" nature and will. It exists because God exists. It exists as an expression of God's "logos". It likely has more "levels" of being to it than we are able to grasp, just as there are likely more kinds of energy expressions in existence than we are aware of.

also, at what level does an organism have a "sense of self"? Consciousness, which is required in order to have a "sense of one's self", is obviously not a necessary
charactaristic of life, unless you suggest that things like microorganisms or plants have a consciousness, which seems impossible as they don't have central nervous systems.

I'm not sure it's a sense of self that matters. I think it might be more a sense of the world around us. The "self" is just so that we can appreciate the whole relative to ourselves.

 

[Atheologian]

Actually, no. It's my observation that 'cause and effect' is a somewhat misleading concept. In realty, things tend to 'exhibit' or 'manifest' themselves relative to an innate nature. Energy manifests itself as matter, space, motion, and time, for example. Water molecules manifest or exhibit themselves as liquid, ice, and steam. My DNA code is expressing itself as me. All of existence seems to be based on these codes, or plans, blueprints or whatever that are then being manifested as all kinds of things.

I would tend to suspect that the universe is a natural expression of "God's" nature and will It exists because God exists. It exists as an expression of God's existence. It likely has more "levels" to it that we are able to grasp, just as there are likely more kinds of energy expressions in existence than we are aware of.
I'm not sure it's a sense of self that matters. I think it might be more a sense of the world around us. The "self" is just so that we can appreciate it.

So would it be fair to say you believe God is synonomous with energy, assuming energy manifests itself as the material universe? And would you say that "self" is a way for this material manifestation to be "realized" or "experienced" or even "observed"?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Every christian, muslim, jew, scientologist, and any other type of religion would say the same about their beliefs. The thing is, no one believes what they believe is wrong, therefore all evidence is in conjunction with their belief system.

You can interpret anything to mean anything else.

What I am talking about is science not a belief structure Even someone like Richard Dawkins, has called this world view “sexed-up atheism.” Of all religious or spiritual traditions monism is approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists it is the only view that passes the muster of the even the world's most militant atheists.

Many of the beliefs of the Hindu Vedantic world view can not be proved by science and that is a given. But the unity of the universe is not the conjuncture of a belief system that depends on faith.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I'm still very undecided about consciousness. I feel that the fact that physics results in consciousness is very important, considering that existence without consciousness is meaningless. Yet I still can't find an easy way to surrender to the idea that the quantum universe is itself a form of consciousness.

I believe that it takes as much of a leap of faith to believe that consciousness is do to epiphenomenalism as it is to believe that it is endemic to the cosmos.

 

[PureX]

So would it be fair to say you believe God is synonomous with energy, assuming energy manifests itself as the material universe? And would you say that "self" is a way for this material manifestation to be "realized" or "experienced" or even "observed"?

Yes, I conceptualize God is the energy, and the "logos" or pattern of behavior that the energy follows. And I would say that consciousness is a necessary part of that overall God expression.

Think of it as love. For love to be expressed, there must be both the lover and the beloved. If God is all that exists, then for God to be properly expressed, it must manifest itself in a multiplex of structures and relationships at least some of which would need to obtain consciousness. And sure enough, that exactly the universe we see. We see a universe designed to express the widest possible variety of energy structures, more or less equitably, with maximum relationships between.

 

[logician]

"considering that existence without consciousness is meaningless"

Prove that existence WITH conciousness is meaningful.