Australian Politics Forum - New theory on God could spark new religion

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43516
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #30 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:35pm

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:22pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

I can't get past the idea that the universe has a conscience . The universe is a reaction to a series of events. Much like thunder, sunshine and rainfall.

Sounds more like modern day sun worshipping

Consciousness, not conscience.

And again, we don't know what the universe is. We've only been able to observe a tiny fraction of it.

Actually we do know what the universe is. It is EVERYTHING. Whether we observe a little bit of it does not change the fact the the universe is everything. There is nothing outside it, by definition.

From Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one".

That simply refers to it's role, not it's composition. Furthermore, there are thought to be multiverses so there goes that theory.

We have only observed a tiny fraction of the universe. It is exceptionally arrogant to ascribe certainty to what it actually is.

You do not understand basic words, let alone concepts.

Everything is not a role, nor a composition. It is EVERYTHING, ie, nothing outside it. That is a definition, not a role or composition.

A thought of multiverse is not what you think it is.

That we observe only a fraction of EVERYTHING does not mean that there is stuff outside everything. It just means we do not understand or observe everything. Everything is still everything, observed and understood or not.

You are no more educated than a Pavlovian dog. You cannot think, you can only react. Stupidly.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47237
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #31 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:36pm

Multiverses are just as 'thought up' as much as 'consciousness' Universe and parallel and all the other 'imaginations' of the human mind as it clutches at straws to understand in impatience and to just put out papers for Academic Grants for $$$.
There maybe over 142 different 'theories' of Rainbow Serpent like speculations.

There is no ounce of proof and just juggling maths, physics, quantum mechanics and all the rest - still does nothing but fill the pages of Cosmo/Astronomy's version of New Idea Magazine and keep YouTuber Reviewers in a job.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35054
Gender: female

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #32 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:37pm

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:35pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:22pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

I can't get past the idea that the universe has a conscience . The universe is a reaction to a series of events. Much like thunder, sunshine and rainfall.

Sounds more like modern day sun worshipping

Consciousness, not conscience.

And again, we don't know what the universe is. We've only been able to observe a tiny fraction of it.

Actually we do know what the universe is. It is EVERYTHING. Whether we observe a little bit of it does not change the fact the the universe is everything. There is nothing outside it, by definition.

From Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one".

That simply refers to it's role, not it's composition. Furthermore, there are thought to be multiverses so there goes that theory.

We have only observed a tiny fraction of the universe. It is exceptionally arrogant to ascribe certainty to what it actually is.

You do not understand basic words, let alone concept.

Everything is not role, nor a composition. It is EVERYTHING, ie, nothing outside it. That is a definition, not a role or composition.

A thought of multiverse is not what you think it is.

That we observe only a fraction of EVERYTHING does not mean that there is stuff outside everything. It just means we do not understand everything.

You are no more educated than a Pavlovian dog. You cannot think, you can only react. Stupidly.

Um, multi = more than uni ... what am i misunderstanding?

The point is, fruitbat, you are merely waxing lyrical where actual thought is in demand. Never mind, it's historically a problem for you.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47237
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #33 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:46pm

It's a good topic Mothra.

...but we should be discovering the Human-Gaea 'Consciousness' first, before we can understand the Universe.
Just using 10% (Maths) of our brains (as Einstein would put it) to understand the Universe is... well, not stupid - just limiting.

James Webb has been good for things that are so far away, they have basically 'no impact' on our way of life here.
We should be investigating Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and all the major Moons of those planets besides the realms of Jupiter and Saturn.

It's all about $$$$ Mothra. Take Mars. There is no life and there never will be beyond a plant inside a test tube there one day.
If you look at the Earth/Moon set-up - this is what has given 'life' its stimulus.
So unless they move Ceres to orbit Mars to start making its heart beat within or put a similar sized moon around Venus. Both these planets will be sterile and lifeless.
But they keep pumping out 'colonisation' propaganda and nearly every planetoid now has a claim to it that is might have 'oceans' with life, etc - all for attracting $$$$ funding, etc. Pure propaganda.

If anything, I would say Pluto might have 'bacterial' like life due to its moon Charon having a similar impact on its core, as the Moon does to earth. Therein might be stimulus for activity. But I'm pretty sure the first 'microbe' Alien contact being brought back to earth would probably cause a Mass Extinction of Life here like an 'infection' from a virus.

Anyway. Instead of wondering about the Universe consciousness, maybe just wonder about this planet's one instead first.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43516
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #34 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:49pm

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:37pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:35pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:22pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

I can't get past the idea that the universe has a conscience . The universe is a reaction to a series of events. Much like thunder, sunshine and rainfall.

Sounds more like modern day sun worshipping

Consciousness, not conscience.

And again, we don't know what the universe is. We've only been able to observe a tiny fraction of it.

Actually we do know what the universe is. It is EVERYTHING. Whether we observe a little bit of it does not change the fact the the universe is everything. There is nothing outside it, by definition.

From Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one".

That simply refers to it's role, not it's composition. Furthermore, there are thought to be multiverses so there goes that theory.

We have only observed a tiny fraction of the universe. It is exceptionally arrogant to ascribe certainty to what it actually is.

You do not understand basic words, let alone concept.

Everything is not role, nor a composition. It is EVERYTHING, ie, nothing outside it. That is a definition, not a role or composition.

A thought of multiverse is not what you think it is.

That we observe only a fraction of EVERYTHING does not mean that there is stuff outside everything. It just means we do not understand everything.

You are no more educated than a Pavlovian dog. You cannot think, you can only react. Stupidly.

Um, multi = more than uni ... what am i misunderstanding?

The point is, fruitbat, you are merely waxing lyrical where actual thought is in demand. Never mind, it's historically a problem for you.

Everything - that includes ALL possible universes.

What is the collective noun for an infinite number of multiverses? Everything. Ie Universe. Universe means everything and that includes ALL the multiverse.

In any case, multiverse is like Narnia - You can utter it because language lets you say all sorts of things, but it is nothing but a fantasy or a thought bubble.

And of course your senses being anchored in this universe, you could never have any experience of any other, differently constituted universe since your senses are attuned to this one.

Anyway, multiverse or not, the consciousness or self-consciousness of the universe - There is only one by definition - is the point of discussion.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 47237 Gender:	Re: New theory on God could spark new religion Reply #35 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:52pm Well I know the Trolls are from TV Land like TV Mike from Willy Wonka fame. They can't cope that another 'multi-world' exists beyond theirs and doesn't play by their rules.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35054
Gender: female

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #36 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:53pm

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:49pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:37pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:35pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 8:22pm:

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

I can't get past the idea that the universe has a conscience . The universe is a reaction to a series of events. Much like thunder, sunshine and rainfall.

Sounds more like modern day sun worshipping

Consciousness, not conscience.

And again, we don't know what the universe is. We've only been able to observe a tiny fraction of it.

Actually we do know what the universe is. It is EVERYTHING. Whether we observe a little bit of it does not change the fact the the universe is everything. There is nothing outside it, by definition.

From Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one".

That simply refers to it's role, not it's composition. Furthermore, there are thought to be multiverses so there goes that theory.

We have only observed a tiny fraction of the universe. It is exceptionally arrogant to ascribe certainty to what it actually is.

You do not understand basic words, let alone concept.

Everything is not role, nor a composition. It is EVERYTHING, ie, nothing outside it. That is a definition, not a role or composition.

A thought of multiverse is not what you think it is.

That we observe only a fraction of EVERYTHING does not mean that there is stuff outside everything. It just means we do not understand everything.

You are no more educated than a Pavlovian dog. You cannot think, you can only react. Stupidly.

Um, multi = more than uni ... what am i misunderstanding?

The point is, fruitbat, you are merely waxing lyrical where actual thought is in demand. Never mind, it's historically a problem for you.

Everything - that includes ALL possible universes.

What is the collective noun for an infinite number of multiverses? Everything. Ie Universe. Universe means everything and that includes ALL the multiverse.

In any case, multiverse is like Narnia - You can utter it because language lets you say all sorts of things, but it is nothing but a fantasy or a thought bubble.

And of course your senses being anchored in this universe, you could never have any experience of any other, differently constituted universe since your senses are attuned to this one.

Anyway, multiverse or not, the consciousness or self-consciousness of the universe - There is only one by definition - is the point of discussion.

You have no idea what the universe is. Nobody does. Simply saying "it is everything" because that's how the dictionary defined it is worthy of a year 5 paper on the solar system.

Nobody knows.

We are only guessing.

To think anything else is hubris.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47237
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #37 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:00pm

He's saying that it is everything that has been 'proven' so far.
But the 'multi-verse' theory is not proven in the slightest beyond mathematicians, Physicists, Quantum Mechanics, etc - just 'juggling' numbers and computer simulations... because they can, not because it proves anything.

Douglas Adams is still the 1/3 odds on favourite of being right.
...afterall, Marvin the Robot had a brain the size of a planet to figure it all out. Wink

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Super Nova

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3063
Everywhere
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #38 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:09pm

The key word here is "theory".

A good theory is only useful if it predicts in advance something that can be observed in the universe or by experiment. Any theory that is not testable is not useful, E.g String Theory great advancements in maths but has not led to a definition of the universe that says anything different to established theories plus they just work to model to align with what is observed but has not made a prediction that is testable that is not in the current models.

So if this theory of God is to be a real theory, I would ask what does it predict that is testable that is new.

God would be amused that we still keep trying to use her to explain what we cannot explain or to fill a hole in our hearts, minds or spirit. She would say 42.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 47237 Gender:	Re: New theory on God could spark new religion Reply #39 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:13pm Good post SN.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35054
Gender: female

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #40 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:15pm

Super Nova wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:09pm:

The key word here is "theory".

A good theory is only useful if it predicts in advance something that can be observed in the universe or by experiment. Any theory that is not testable is not useful, E.g String Theory great advancements in maths but has not led to a definition of the universe that says anything different to established theories plus they just work to model to align with what is observed but has not made a prediction that is testable that is not in the current models.

So if this theory of God is to be a real theory, I would ask what does it predict that is testable that is new.

God would be amused that we still keep trying to use her to explain what we cannot explain or to fill a hole in our hearts, minds or spirit. She would say 42.

Respect for the scientific process is a different thing from scientism, which maintains that science is the only way to establish truth. Logical positivism is pretty much on the nose these days.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 47237 Gender:	Re: New theory on God could spark new religion Reply #41 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:16pm Whoa Mothra pulls one out of leftfield! What say you Frank & Supernova??
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

Super Nova

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3063
Everywhere
Gender: male

Re: New theory on God could spark new religion
Reply #42 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 10:09pm

mothra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:15pm:

Super Nova wrote on Apr 6^th, 2024 at 9:09pm:

The key word here is "theory".

A good theory is only useful if it predicts in advance something that can be observed in the universe or by experiment. Any theory that is not testable is not useful, E.g String Theory great advancements in maths but has not led to a definition of the universe that says anything different to established theories plus they just work to model to align with what is observed but has not made a prediction that is testable that is not in the current models.

So if this theory of God is to be a real theory, I would ask what does it predict that is testable that is new.

God would be amused that we still keep trying to use her to explain what we cannot explain or to fill a hole in our hearts, minds or spirit. She would say 42.

Respect for the scientific process is a different thing from scientism, which maintains that science is the only way to establish truth. Logical positivism is pretty much on the nose these days.

Not really, my view is not scientism. I too hold views that are not supported by a scientific analysis and I will go with old wife's tales or even anecdotal evidence in my day to day life. However if someone expresses a theory, then scientific process should be applied. At least religion states it is all about faith without evidence. Is this a faith or a theory. if theory it will be subjected to the same scrutiny as any theory, otherwise I think they are taking the piss like flat earthers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Super Nova Gold Member Offline Posts: 3063 Everywhere Gender:	Re: New theory on God could spark new religion Reply #43 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 10:14pm However, It could spark a new religion... so the premise of your post could be where this goes.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 47237 Gender:	Re: New theory on God could spark new religion Reply #44 - Apr 6^th, 2024 at 10:16pm Yes. Some Religious fanatics will 'appropriate' the Universe as the New God and thus rule the minds of many under the blackmail of 'faith'. Usually some executions and the fear of death make 'faith' a valid reason to be 'believable'. Such are Humans.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged