God Exists, yet objectively

[cam.bankord]

Life as we know it, was an accident of energy from stars cooking the energy around chemical compounds, somehow instilling life and creating self-replicating organisms.  Amoebas.

 

Helium, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Etc

 

All of this was supposedly started by a big bang, but that had to have some sort of 'energy source,' as all life basically has some sort of origin of energy.

 

You consume food for energy, your body absorbs the chemical compounds and for some reason, your body stays alive and nourishes itself.  There is an underlying energy behind your being, as is every living organism.

 

Upon death, there is a time you will take your last breath, and this energy will fade.  But knowing the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.  This energy then is transmuted to the surrounding areas of a literal cosmic ocean of energy.  An ocean of energy that is as universal as gravity.

 

An easier way to describe it would be, a living organism = "1"

A dead organism = "0"

 

That number is indestructible and will always lead back to a source of living energy and life that is also finite and quantifiable, just undiscovered.

 

These absolute rules of energy creating life and gravity creating space and time, leads to the ultimate conclusion : "That god is energy, and that the stigma of 'god,' is no longer accurate.  Its not one person and its source has no opinion or preference, just objectivity.

 

Just take appreciation in knowing that your identity may fade with death, but you will never be destroyed.  Your life force and energy will always stay alive.

 

Those that study science, find a reinforcement of this, through the tentative resolutions of physics, and we can sort of see a god that doesn't think... a god that operates on rules and doesn't waver or compromise.  As consistent as the next day and not willing to destroy itself (you).  God is science and it doesn't make decisions.

[Kevin Beal]

Wait, which is it? Is "god" energy, science or objectivity?

 

Those things are disparate, mutually exclusive definitions.

 

You say that if you understand physics then you are going to be compelled to see a "god", and yet physicists are among the most atheistic groups. Professional scientists are the least likely of people to believe in gods.

 

If god is defined as something that creates a universe and exists everywhere then "energy" loosely fits that bill, but to call that a god is to confuse the issue. It doesn't explain anything to call energy "god".

 

"God" has constantly changed in definition throughout history to escape it's nonexistence. The "god" you are describing it completely different than the "god" described in the bible (for example).

 

People call say that "god" is "love", an super advanced alien, energy, life itself etc etc etc.

 

At what point do we just get to say "no, there are no gods" and end this silly game of redefining "god" back into existence?

 

Even in your definitions, "god" is only a concept, and since concepts don't exist, neither does your "god".

 

And you can't just say that something is scientific or objective without making that case. Like, come on guy.

[cam.bankord]

Wait, which is it? Is "god" energy, science or objectivity?

 

Those things are disparate, mutually exclusive definitions.

 

You say that if you understand physics then you are going to be compelled to see a "god", and yet physicists are among the most atheistic groups. Professional scientists are the least likely of people to believe in gods.

 

If god is defined as something that creates a universe and exists everywhere then "energy" loosely fits that bill, but to call that a god is to confuse the issue. It doesn't explain anything to call energy "god".

 

"God" has constantly changed in definition throughout history to escape it's nonexistence. The "god" you are describing it completely different than the "god" described in the bible (for example).

 

People call say that "god" is "love", an super advanced alien, energy, life itself etc etc etc.

 

At what point do we just get to say "no, there are no gods" and end this silly game of redefining "god" back into existence?

 

Even in your definitions, "god" is only a concept, and since concepts don't exist, neither does your "god".

 

And you can't just say that something is scientific or objective without making that case. Like, come on guy.

 

 

God has a stigma against it, which tampers its meaning through bias.  I am an atheist, but it doesn't have anything to do with god or deities.  My definition of god, is completely different, and I ignore the deity of supreme power.

 

Might as well cut that word out, because it's not very particular about philosophy and denotes faith.  It may seem like common sense and such a particular cannot be drawn by such a basic element of reality, but most do not acknowledge the layer of energy transformation all around them.  The underlying force that converts and subtracts chemical compounds, creates alchemical combinations and evolves our natural biology through adaption.  If such a supreme force exists,,, we know space + time exist, why not gravity + energy?

[Pepin]

Your use of the term energy isn't consistent with the physical definition nor is it held consistent within your theory.

[cam.bankord]

Your use of the term energy isn't consistent with the physical definition nor is it held consistent within your theory.

You either have life and you exist in reality with a source, or you don't and you're dead and you don't exist.  The atomic structure of your being is no longer symbiotic with existence you and decay because of your source dying off, turning that "1" to a "0".  But that source cannot eradicate itself and disappear into nothingness.  

 

You're not understanding me or I mis-worded my meaning. I'm putting energy on a secondary timeline that encompasses our entire reality like a blanket.  It's a theory, but I see the logic in it, and I don't see logic in annihilation of energy, as there's a finite amount it in the universe, and science has told us otherwise.

[Bradford26]

What benefit do you get by associating energy with God? If this were merely a theory of energy, would the title of this thread be different? Please help me understand how changing the definition of 'god' is helpful?

[2bits]

Please correct my attempt if needed, but I'll try to paraphrase your argument:

 

"We don't understand how life works. It is therefore sustained by a mysterious 'underlying energy'. Since this 'underlying energy' has no explanation, this must be God."

 

Suffice to say that for me, your coupe-de-grace moment was the appeal to thermodynamics in the 5th paragraph... May I ask what kind of physical sciences background you have?

 

Seriously though, imagine if someone went to a forum of physicians, stated that we don't understand germ theory, concluded sickness was caused by evil spirits, then expected those physicians to agree that evil spirits exist. Wrong on so many levels, yet you've just done the equivalent. Though some will try, I've never seen such pseudoscience and mysticism successfully reversed by an appeal to real science and logic. There is a fundamental knowledge gap here that can't be filled on a web forum.

 

My only response and advice would be to recognize what you don't know, and be careful in making conclusions in those areas. I do apologize if this sounds like an appeal to authority, but I think most undergrad science students (and logical thinkers in general) would be able to rebut your arguments, thus it's not an appeal to any particular authority.

[cam.bankord]

Please correct my attempt if needed, but I'll try to paraphrase your argument:

 

"We don't understand how life works. It is therefore sustained by a mysterious 'underlying energy'. Since this 'underlying energy' has no explanation, this must be God."

 

Suffice to say that for me, your coupe-de-grace moment was the appeal to thermodynamics in the 5th paragraph... May I ask what kind of physical sciences background you have?

 

Seriously though, imagine if someone went to a forum of physicians, stated that we don't understand germ theory, concluded sickness was caused by evil spirits, then expected those physicians to agree that evil spirits exist. Wrong on so many levels, yet you've just done the equivalent. Though some will try, I've never seen such pseudoscience and mysticism successfully reversed by an appeal to real science and logic. There is a fundamental knowledge gap here that can't be filled on a web forum.

 

My only response and advice would be to recognize what you don't know, and be careful in making conclusions in those areas. I do apologize if this sounds like an appeal to authority, but I think most undergrad science students (and logical thinkers in general) would be able to rebut your arguments, thus it's not an appeal to any particular authority.

My logic is sound because of a few things.

 

1. Energy surrounds us and everything is a chemical compound.

2. Chemical compounds can transmute into other matter.

3. Chemical compounds supplied with energy create complex organic molecules and adapt through chaos into a basic form of life.

4. Chaos is instilled through energy, in particular... star light.  Which causes the basis of mutation and evolution.

 

These compounds never erase themselves or disappear.

 

They will always transmute into the collective surrounding energy, making you ultimately infinite.  To try and see otherwise is to deny your current existence.

 

Death can never be void, because you only exist temporarily in a finite form, infinite from source.

What benefit do you get by associating energy with God? If this were merely a theory of energy, would the title of this thread be different? Please help me understand how changing the definition of 'god' is helpful?

God is many definitions and erroneous in biblical and belief terms of a person or an identity that could have feelings or opinions.

 

God by my definition is simply a process of death and rebirth, chemical transmutation, and chaos instilled mutation.

 

If you guys don't agree with my definition, that's fine... I don't use the term to describe it, and this is the first time and last time I will most likely ever post something about this...

 

If you disagree, if you think the theory sucks, then whatever... but I'm posting it here, hoping some eyes see it and view it as an interesting and plausible proposition to recognizing a source.

[wdiaz03]

My logic is sound because of a few things.

 

1. Energy surrounds us and everything is a chemical compound.

2. Chemical compounds can transmute into other matter.

3. Chemical compounds supplied with energy create complex organic molecules and adapt through chaos into a basic form of life.

4. Chaos is instilled through energy, in particular... star light.  Which causes the basis of mutation and evolution.

 

These compounds never erase themselves or disappear.

 

They will always transmute into the collective surrounding energy, making you ultimately infinite.  To try and see otherwise is to deny your current existence.

 

Death can never be void, because you only exist temporarily in a finite form, infinite from source.

God is many definitions and erroneous in biblical and belief terms of a person or an identity that could have feelings or opinions.

 

God by my definition is simply a process of death and rebirth, chemical transmutation, and chaos instilled mutation.

 

If you guys don't agree with my definition, that's fine... I don't use the term to describe it, and this is the first time and last time I will most likely ever post something about this...

 

If you disagree, if you think the theory sucks, then whatever... but I'm posting it here, hoping some eyes see it and view it as an interesting and plausible proposition to recognizing a source.

 

I apologize for the harsh responses.

 

I suggest you don't try to use the work GOD which has been used for quite some time to describe a specific concept, say concept X. your concept Y should be called something else...say X42-B

 

When you say death can never be void?

As far as elemental particles is not, but who cares about those? Can I claim that the destruction of my car is never void, because each and everyone of the tiny pieces of metal still exist? Regardless, I'm still walking to work. So practically speaking this solves nothing.