TOE incomplete without God

does the TOE require integration of spirituality

  1. yes

    29 vote(s)
    34.1%
  2. no

    47 vote(s)
    55.3%
  3. undecided

    9 vote(s)
    10.6%
  1. ready?

    ok.

    here we go.

    me = God = you.

    that's it. no more, no less.

    what does that equation MEAN?? excellent question. i've been asking myself that question my whole life. and i think i've known the answer before i've known the question.

    of course, you have to define what "me" is. this is HARD. it requires self examination. not easy.

    then you have to define what "=" means. this is HARD. VERY hard to put in three dimensional terms. i'm gonna have fun with this one. it’s like a double chemical bond or something.

    then you have to definte what "God" means. this is HARD. again, self examination and examination of God and the nature of God.

    then i have to define what "you" means. this is HARD. i want to examine you.

    the definitions will NEVER be complete in any sense. the question is will the definitions be complete enough for you to be satisfied. you may think your levels of dissatisfaction are limitless, and belive me, i know the feeling, but you can still your ego when you choose to. remember, you can choose to do anything you want. do, or do not. there is no try.

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  2. jcsd
  3. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace).
     
  4. Nice quote.

    What's so special about TOE's, nothing. There is no more need for a God in a TOE than there is for an explanation of automechanics. Still, no accounting for taste. If you insist on using God or the Easter Bunny to explain automechanics have fun.
     
  5. "God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace)."

    are you sure? no TOE has proven itself experimentally as correct as far as i know. perhaps this is because things exist in the universe that are not taken into account.

    kaku feels that the one inch equation will allow us to read the mind of God. i think this can be done without the TOE. it's not that hard.

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  6. Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist.
     
  7. The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existance of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

    - KitNyx
     
  8. "Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist. "

    then they choose their euphemisms in a very interesting manner, in a manner in alighment with some religions. why are you in denial about the fact that einstein and kaku (and hawking) all believe in God?

    i'm not saying one should believe in God just because those "great" men do, but i do find it interesting that they do. i find it particularly interesting that kaku thinks the one-inch equation will enable us to read the mind of God, not something i've heard hawking say.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  9. "The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existance of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

    - KitNyx"

    true. God is definitely not neccessarily the missing variable, nor are the spirit/higher dimensions. but i wonder what is missing. i would have to examine the supposed TOEs first before learning that...

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  10. Believe in god or not, but if you put the moniker 'theory' on something, in the context of scientific theory, then it requires a great deal of evidence. God has no (objective) evidence which cannot be explained better by physical means. By 'better', I mean either fits the observations better, or fits Occam's definitions of a more rational choice.
     
  11. i agree that there is skant, circumstantial physical evidence that God exists.

    why not permit ourselves to allow ourselves to consider spiritual feelings as evidence?

    just a thought.

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  12. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    One problem with that is that language is a very poor instrument for describing our inner feelings. It is notoriously unable to do anything with qualia (the "immediate redness" of red, for example), and spiritual experiences are likely to be heavily if not entirely of the qualia kind.

    "I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that.

    So while scientists can come to agree what a quark is, even if they will never see one, we cannot come to reliable agreement about each other's inner experiences.
     
  13. ""I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that."

    you have an odd sense of humor if you think that's a joke.

    i think it's a joke to say we shouldn't even try to use language to articulate spiritual feelings.

    i find both poetry and abstract mathematics as vehicles.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  14. Does TOE require GOD to be complete?

    If we are being literal then the EVERYTHING in TOE must include GOD and not GOD. Yet, to reply as in "God, is a euphamism for the laws of nature" is to infer and conclude without licence. We are not in a position, yet, to address GOD as an answer to why the Universe is.

    The Universe and it's mechanisms will be proven without addressing GOD as an explaination. It is said that to fully embrace something is to know it all. If that is true then should we ever fully understand the Universe we will know.
     
  15. Lets try simple, Plato asked; "What is God?", milenia later I (by God's Grace) respond; "The 'Truth'"

    So if we start there, then the Entirety of the universe is representative of God in all of the Manners in which that presentation of the universe, to us, is truthfull.

    So, as for a T.O.E. we have none yet, as we already know that there is no one theory that yet encapsulates the "Truth of the Universe" completely enough, for any of us to accede to it.

    If God is the Truth, (as I say) then any T.O.E. will, wittingly, or unwittingly, be a description of that God, yet it will still remain incomplete of the Fullest knowledge of God, inasmuch as, that God is greater still then all of this Universe.

    If in doubt of that assertion, well, try figuring out just where in the Universe "Ideologies" come from, as they are clearly non-existent "things", insubstantive, and cereberal in all of there derivations, and yet have arisen in people from the beginning as best as we can tell.

    To know exactly how the Universe is comprised, operates and functions, is to know still only a partiallity of the truth about God's Mind (so to speak) inasmuch as, if spiritualism is explored, we find the idea of "Lies", and that is clearly NOT a presentation of the/A God which "Is the Truth" hence, we can know that there is more to all of this then meets the eyes, literally...................quite literally.

    If there is an infinity, that would be God, but Infinity is unprovable, in either direction, (for or against) so to disprove the existence of God you would first need to prove that there was NO inifinite, to Prove the existence of God you would need to prove that there is an infinite, hence the best we are ever going to get, sorta, is a T.O.E. which helps us to know more simply about our collective physical surroundings.

    Does that help??
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2003
  16. LURCH

    LURCH 2,514
    Science Advisor

    Does The TOE Require the Integration of Spirituality

    I agree that definitions become somewhat sticky on this point, but I voted "no". Not because of the difficulties in defining "God", but because of the definition of "TOE". In nearly every context I've observed, the TOE is only used as a refference to a theory that integrates the three forces EM, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear, with gravity. I think this could be done quite handily without an understanding of God, just as automechanics can be understood without believing in the existence of auto makers.

    A complete cosmological model, well that would be a different story.
     
  17. In having learned a little bit about "auto mechanics", I would tell you that it helps. enourmously. if you believe in "automakers", if for only the reason that it helps you to find the 'thinking patterns' of the "originator", hence enables both, learning, and understanding, of design. (Therefore purpose/use too)
     
  18. Strange, i was always of the opinion that a Theory of Everything was a complete cosmological model.

    First off, you likely cannot properly describe to me your spiritual feelings, and not having felt them, I cannot understand what they are, or more importantly, what they might mean. The same goes with my spiritual feelings. Also, there is no real proof that a feeling in the human brain that leads people to spiritual thinking is in any way connected to an actual spiritual world. (or whatever.)
     
  19. For the emboldened, O.K. try thinking that every 'thought' is actually a spiritual 'feeling', as opposed to what you have otherwise 'thought' it was, a 'thought'.
    Does that help?
     
  20. Nereid

    Nereid 4,014
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If one applies the scientific method to 'the meaning of god' (and, since it's the scientific method, you can see/check/do the work too), one might conclude as follows:
    -> 'god' is a highly culture-specific concept (caveat: lots and lots of difficulties being certain that expressions in different languages - several thousand - have been adequately addressed)
    -> many people in many (but not all) cultures - sometimes a large majority - appear to believe that their 'god(s)' is (are) unique, universal, and ubiquitous (and much else besides)
    -> (for the avoidance of doubt) the christian culture (or any one of its sub-cultures) in the USA in the early 21st century is not different, in any significant way, from any other culture (wrt 'the meaning of god').

    Question for phoenixthoth: what do you think about these conclusions?
     
  21. LURCH

    LURCH 2,514
    Science Advisor

    All of this is irrelevant to the original question, isn't it? All cultures' thoughts (or feelings) about God have at least this much in common, that "God" is creator. A scientific theory (or feeling:wink: ) that integrates all of the four natural forces can be arrived at without taking into account whether or not such a creator exists.

    However, a model of the event of creation itself would necessarily have to be incomplete without accounting for the existence or non-existence of a creator.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: TOE incomplete without God
Loading...