Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phoenixthoth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Toe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the Theory of Everything (TOE) is incomplete without including the concept of God. Participants explore philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives on the relationship between a TOE and the existence or role of God, touching on definitions, implications, and the nature of understanding the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that defining "me," "God," and "you" is complex and requires deep self-examination.
  • Others argue that physics does not require the hypothesis of God to explain the universe, citing Laplace's perspective.
  • A participant suggests that the lack of a proven TOE does not imply that God is a missing variable, but rather highlights our limited understanding of the universe.
  • Some express that references to God by physicists may be metaphorical, representing the laws of nature rather than a divine being.
  • There is a suggestion that spiritual feelings could be considered as evidence, though this is contested due to the subjective nature of such experiences.
  • One participant asserts that if God is equated with truth, then any TOE would inherently be incomplete in fully encapsulating that truth.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that the universe's mechanisms can be understood without invoking God as an explanation.
  • Discussions also touch on the challenges of articulating spiritual experiences and the limitations of language in conveying such feelings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether a TOE requires the inclusion of God. Some argue against the necessity of God in scientific explanations, while others suggest that a complete understanding of the universe may inherently involve spiritual or metaphysical considerations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the difficulty in defining key terms such as "God" and "truth," and the implications of these definitions on the discussion of a TOE. There are also references to the subjective nature of spiritual experiences, which complicates the discourse.

does the TOE require integration of spirituality

  • yes

    Votes: 29 34.1%
  • no

    Votes: 47 55.3%
  • undecided

    Votes: 9 10.6%

  • Total voters
    85
  • #181
My Take On This

I think that we, as ambulatory chemical fires, basically consume fuel, protect our physical selves and reproduce ourselves. Much as been speculated as to why we perform this simple set of acts in such a complex way. Our brains and bodies perceive energies at large in our environment, and perhaps on levels that we have not yet taken the time to measure. The complexity and variety of our capacities for thought and perception, lead me to think that we are a part of a much larger network, that as small subscribers, we cannot fully perceive. That does not make us subject, it is just where we inhabit a larger form. We act in so many ways that have no bearing on our survival, no rationale in the natural world, that the natural world needs a broader definition. I wonder if human brain tissue has been tested for response for every kind of energy at large, we can generate, or perceive?

As far as religion goes, and people programmed to believe; this is a multi billion dollar business on one hand, that relies on belief to continue; and on the other it represents our most profound aspirations. I tell you this, if someone arrived on Earth proclaiming to be God, and making aggressive, and destructive acts then we would need to deal with that entity in kind. On this world, we need to have the self respect, and knowledge that we are the owners here, and have rights to this property. On this issue we need to be of one mind. We do unto the other life forms on this planet, as we certainly would not like to be treated. What if we are just some livestock that wandered off, and our shepard really intends to eat us, after he and his family arrives?

The Sufis have a saying, "As above, so below."

Most primate groups have an order of dominance, we are unusual, in that we have projected that onto the Universe at large; as if what happens in primate society is the rule of law in the Universe. Therefore there must be a God, that has power over our power structures. We are very specific in response to our environment, the myriads of environments in the Universe at large, make for untold variety I would imagine. That is the other statement, I would imagine. I am very clear on the difference between imagination, and running into the furniture in my living room, on the way to work in the dark. I don't want Science to be ruled by the organized religious imaginings rampant in this world. That presents too many highly subjective variables for the equation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
I think their are 2 possibilities that the universe must reside in (means that the 'whole' universe are these 2 possibilities) 1: the infinite state 2: the finite state. now, in this universe it is a finite state and will die out, but due to the infiniteness of nothing becomes an infinite state of continuum to creation. God is only able to preceive itself through us, meaning that logic can have intelligence because we have intelligence, and therefore a new questions arises. Did logic ever make any choice that was not of an order pre ordained within the definitions of some event: ie. if god changed his mind would it be a completely logical change? and if it were, wouldn't it be seen as not a decision, but a realization?
how human is this, and I think the answer arises willingly. Its not bad to be godless, its not good to be god blessed. but this can be reversed 'its not bad to be god blessed, its not good to be godless', which proves only one thing, guess cause its all about TOE, to understand any concept even close to such a thing one must first realize that all is all but what defines all, and picking at the list and getting more technical at every moment.
 
  • #183
if god created time, space and everything in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?
 
  • #184
I am the eternal, I am Ra, I am that which created the word, I am the word.

The egyptians believed that before the Earth there was an abyss of unpolarised matter (primodial soup).

They also believed every sound had a corresponding form, when Ra created things he literally 'commanded' matter to take the form of his word.

I believe the universe is a body of space, this body can contain other bodies (spacial constructs). The motion of the space (at string level) is a rattle effect, creating the effect of time.
 
  • #185
terra firma said:
if god created time, space and everything in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?
God is logic in the sense that Einstein used the word when he said, "God does not play dice with the world". There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.
 
  • #186
Mike2 said:
There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.
Why can't the origins of the universe and of god too... be completely logical?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
22K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K