Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

About the book, The Holographic Universe:

http://www.thesatirist.com/books/TheHolographicUniverse.html
Mentioned--after the quote below--in this book is the work of the great physicist, David Bohm. I once heard him lecture at the Univeristy of Toronto, Canada.
Is this this true? Or is this just more junk science?

If it is true, this points to the theory, or idea, as to how GOD can thought of as being everywhere, and in us (as G0d) and all that exists, at the same time.

COGNITIVE SCIENCE? WHAT IS IT?
According to Wikipedia, it is

That is a proper question, it shows a fault with the claim that "God made everything". It should be worded in an internally consistent way, like "God made everything except God" or "God made all the things, but God isn't one of those things". Or maybe something else that shows the true idea.


Yet. It really doesn't matter if there's a lack of knowledge, but failing to admit that is dishonesty. However there may be possible answers and impossible answers. Eliminating the impossible can help.



You admit that that's all it is? Then why mention GOD? No I don't have a problem with that idea. But I do have a problem with inventing unnecessary baggage to apparently justify it. Why not justify it the way you just did - "be a kind of heaven on earth if everyone did just that" ?

That was a rhetorical question. I know why, it's too simple. If you fool people into believing in something beyond their capability to detect or even visualize, then they feel it's somehow more important, and should follow whatever advice other people (not GOD) hook onto the concept.

Just the same as conventional organized religions do. They're to manipulate people who can't be trusted to make "good" decisions themselves.

If that's really your idea, to manipulate people into doing good things, people who without a religion would be unable to control themselves, then that's fine. Good on you. But why not admit it? Sure don't admit it to the subjects, but we in this forum aren't, so there's no loss by showing your true ideas to us.

No it doesn't. It points to the idea that memories may be distributed throughout the brain.

If they showed that memories were distributed throughout the universe, then you might have a genuine connection between people and GOD (or people and the rest of nature).

Let me use an analogy of a RAID array. You can remove (or damage) any disk in the array and no data will be lost. That's because the data is stored in several different drives. This is a very similar concept. Do you acknowledge that it shows the connection between computers and GOD? If so, why are you focusing on people and neglecting computers, or holograms for that matter? Should these objects also "be good to each other"?

Or are you just using the brain story as an analogy? It's too simple a concept to require an analogy, can't you just say directly "IMSO humans' memories are distributed throughout the universe. GOD includes the universe and all the memories in it, that is the connection between humans and GOD."

That would be a very satisfactory answer!! But I know you'll never say it because it's too vulnerable to attack. You have to hide anything that can be criticized.

What on Earth does the journal "Cognitive Science" have to do with GOD??????

Well if this is the dialog method of discussion, maybe I should embrace it and participate too:



Here's a practical historical example of the early use of RAID -


And not ignoring the counter viewpoint -

If God made everything, who made God? To this question I responded: This is the kind of child-like question that is not really a proper question at all. You responded:Unitheism teaches--and even the Bible agrees--that GOD is all things--plus that immeasurable and mysterious space-time continuum, into which all things, including the material universe, are expanding.

BTW, I find the idea of relativity--an idea accepted by science--and that the universe is expanding into what is now empty space a very awesome, spiritual and GOD-like idea. So did Einstein. So did Spinoza, the theologian before him, who he respected.

We're talking about God here, not GOD. According to the bible, did God create everything? I don't remember that part, only the part about him creating sea and fowl and what-not.

Maybe "God created everything" is just something that somebody made up later on without really thinking about the contradiction they were causing. It leads to the conclusion that God created himself (is that what Christians believe?), or that the claim is inconsistent with the Bible.

These honest answers are what you should be telling children who ask that. Not pulling the wool over their eyes with word games that leave them even more confused, but enhance your own image of superiority.



That's often a consequence of not understanding something. If you studied it enough, it would become mundane just like the mundane way traffic rules work. Someone uninitiated might find it GOD-like and sprritual to see cars smoothly travelling through complex intersections without even touching each other, and all guided by independent drivers with their own personal motivations.

But now you're creating yet another meaning for GOD-like. This one doesn't mean people doing good things to each other, and it doesn't mean nature-on-steroids, it means one part of nature that's fascinating.


Anyway, am I ever going to get an explanation of how GOD is different from nature? Or how GOD-like (in the do-good sense) is related to GOD?

Wait! Is that it!? Is that the holy grail of "What is GOD?" that's been so elusive for so long?!!!

Well if it is, then I think it reaffirms that GOD=nature.

Conventional theory says the universe isn't expanding into a space-time continuum, but that it's expanding into a void which has no space-time continuum.

It's easy for humans to imagine this void as a big black expanse of space, but it isn't. It doesn't occupy any volume or have any shape. It's just not there. Hence has no space or time.

So GOD=nature?

Kallog, you quoted me saying Then you ask,Elusive? Note the signature that I have used for some time now: GOD is IT. The 'I' stands for that which is imminent, close at hand, even palpable. But it also includes what I call nature and which physicists call the microcosm--the mysterious world of quantum physics. THE LATEST NEWS ABOUT THE LHC:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-large-hadron-collider-milestone.html
The 'T' stands for that which is transcendent--even beyond that tiny fraction of our Milky Way that we are just now beginning to explore. Nature ? It seems to me: You obviously have a panentheistic--a high, exalted and non-material idea of "Nature", which is OK by me. You say: Any Web Sites about this? Also, are there any for:

ABOUT THE NATURE AND SHAPE OF THE COSMOS, I FOUND THIS FORUM INTERESTING: http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69

So the other part of GOD that isn't nature is "imminent, close at hand, palpable", and it "transcendent"? Why didn't you say that in the first place? But it is still a little confusing. Can you be clearer?




If I find some references, will you acknowledge GOD is no different from nature? Will you stop using the term GOD?


Why am I still replying to you? You have repeatedly proven that your idea is not even an idea. No matter how many opportunities if gave you, you refused to show anything consistent about it. It's just a collection of words that might sound impressive to uneducated people, but which carry no meaning.

So, in conclusion, you're just another Christian. Full of the same dishonesty as typical Christians. Your GOD is essentially the God of the bible. Many other Christians also modify the bible God in similar ways to what you have. They're just humble enough not to pretend to have invented a new religion. And you have pretended that, despite claiming that GODism = unitheism.

Ah, yes! THE BIG EXPANSION THEORY (BET)--a rapid expansion of the FABRIC of space. Interesting! Sounds more loving and GOD-like than an "explosion"--and a much gentler, humane, safer and better BET than a BIG bang.

NOW FOR SOMETHING A BIT DIFFERENT

Take 4.30 minutes to listen to the following. I trust that, regardless of your faith, or lack of it, that you will find the artistry of the following refreshing:

http://www.clarrissegill.com/videoclips/amazing_grace.php

Surely, even atheists and agnostics have no objection to all people having more Grace, Opportunity and Delight in our often-frazzled lives, agreed?

Join us for more dialogue about how we can have more of the same in the thread: GOD and Company ...

Rev, I'm curious about your view on certain lesser cosmic events. For example, it may be that somewhere in the 100 billion observable galaxies, intelligent species - perhaps even human-like - have been eradicated by, for example, supernovae. Does that sound at all loving and GOD-like? Gentle, or humane? That's not intended to sound rhetorical - I fully expect you to answer in the affirmative.

You ask my view about such events--lesser or greater: I only know what scientists who study such events tell us. If you are such a scientist--Are you?--I ask: Do such events take place in finite, or infinite, space?
Then you comment Your question implies that you think of GOD as a person. I do not.

As a unitheist, I think of myself as a person who is, within GOD--as infinite, eternal, immeasurable and indescribable being.

GOODNESS & GRACE
Sophisticated theists think of 'God' in a similar way when they use terms like omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It is people who like to think simplistically who make 'god' as an idol.

ORDER & OPPORTUNITY
BTW, in keeping with the order and opportunities of life, it has always been my understanding that if I break the laws of nature--for example, the laws of gravity--there will be consequences, including death of my body.

DESIRE & DESIGN
It is my responsibility and desire to find and design ways and means to cooperate with nature and the laws which govern it.

(I don't think of "GOD" as a person or anything else; I'm an atheist)
Yes, I agree that those words would certainly lead you to believe that the speaker thinks of "GOD" as a person; but the words are your own:


It does imply that you think of "GOD" as a person; but you state that you don't, so it seems a rather strange thing for you to have said.

Thanks for pointing this out. Because I think of GOD as a process, not as a person, I will rephrase what I had in mind: I have never liked the name "BIG Bang model" or theory-- the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This implies that it was a violent process, not a GOD-like one--loving and gentle. This why I prefer to think of the early development of the universe as the "BIG Expansion model" or theory--more like the conception and growth of a child in a womb.
=============================================

Rev

We observe that violent activity occurs constantly on Earth and in the Cosmos as a whole, and all is entirely attributable to the laws of physics - as it has been since the first moments of the Big Bang - and the laws of physics pay no heed to our regard of them. We exist because of them, and shall one day cease to exist because of them.

Needless to say, you're free to use your preferred term although, if you do, you'll still be tasked with explaining that what you really mean is Big Bang. The term Big Bang, coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, differentiates it from his own expanding universe theory - i.e. the Steady State - whereas your "Big Expansion" doesn't.

According to Wikipedia, Hoyle rejected the BIG Bang theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Again, according to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
it was the Belgian priest and astronomer, Georges Lemaître who actually proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. Hoyle jokingly called it a BIG Bang.

Yes, that's right, Hoyle is believed to have applied the name Big Bang in derision, although it wasn't long before supporting evidence blew his own theory out of the water.

BTW, on the subject of historical figures: as you may already know, the cosmogony of Anaximander, a student of Thales, was very much in accord with aspects of today's cosmology. As coincidental as that may be, his thinking represented a shift from mythology to rationality, which many people - perhaps most - appear to find impossible even now.

Any cosmologist worthy of the title is solely concerned with discovering what 'is', via the rational scientific modus operandi, rather than imposing upon the universe a cosmological model simply because, for example, it tugs at their heart strings.