Truth, reality, evolution, god, spirit and more

Science still doesn't answer the question of the spirit and while Sam Harris denies the spirit along with many others, I'm not convinced there is not one in all of consciousness. Science tells us about nature, but frankly I think nature is sometimes outside the realm of science and too strange for science and reality is not explained alone by it. 

 

I take the view of truth. I'm interested in truth and while I agree with science and nature is amazing and there are natural explanations for everyThing, I don't want us, as humans, to miss something and personally I feel we are when we close all doors but that which is in the science class. 

Evolved to understand or to have a relationship with God?

Yes, I agree we evolved to eat and survive, and  not to understand quantum mechanics or the universe perfectly, and so doesn't it seem that we would not understand God perfectly either, if God exists? We did not evolve to understand God, but to have relationships....connections. So, our understanding is blocked and so we can't say we know for sure when we ourselves know our understanding is limited.  

Science and Religion

The problem here is we are talking apples, oranges. Intellectual pursuits and emotional developments. Nature and spirit. All very two different things.

Science and religion are very different things. 

Scriptures --from whatever religion--are not supposed to be read fact-fact-fact and fact-fact-fact. That is NOT how they transferred information from person to person at that time.

So, as people, we really have to understand HOW to READ. 

Because science is not about words and reading. Science is about a process and way of thinking and evidence and facts, facts, facts. 1+1=2. 

But words are not all about that. Words need to be understood, and interpreted and can vary in comprehension. 

So, science and religion are different in that spectrum as well. 

Our Universe, a quantum computer?

There have been various philosophical conjectures along these lines since antiquity but there was at least 1 serious theory in the modern sense that predates the books listed here....(but this book is pretty interesting too)

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/03/the-universe-is-a-quantum-computer.html

"In 1967 Zuse also suggested that the universe itself is running on a grid of computers (digital physics); in 1969 he published the book Rechnender Raum (translated into English as Calculating Space). This idea has attracted a lot of attention, since there is no physical evidence against Zuse's thesis. Edward Fredkin (1980s), Juergen Schmidhuber (1990s), Stephen Wolfram (A New Kind of Science) and others have expanded on it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse#Calculating_Space

There's also work by Burkhard Heim about possible implementation.



In my view, this makes a lot of sense. Reality is a system of percentages of probabilities, and so is science, because that is what nature is. A quantum computer universe basically allows for various percentages of probabilities. 

Or you can see it as potentialities. 

I don't necessarily see the evolutionary process as luck of the draw. Evolution is random and non random. Very important. Nature is random and non random. 

As xexious said, it doesn't matter whether it was humans or something else that evolved. It doesn't matter if we have two arms or two legs. 

To me, what is important is that higher consciousness evolved, and from our universe and all our random and non random processes... higher consciousness
will evolve.

To me--the immaterial consciousness (energy of our being/awareness/thoughts/emotions) is linked to the immaterial Spirit. To me, that energy is "God". 

For myself, I view this consciousness energy, when the brain goes off (dies), as a natural echo that lingers. That is what I think often people see when they see a Spirit. 

It is possible this echo fades, but I tend to think it becomes interconnected with all things and all that in Nothing. 

I think when people say "God" what that really is, is EveryThing and NoThing. The natural and the spiritual. All our consciousness (this includes animals and aliens) all linked as one with all that is immaterial, and all will return as one in space, time, and energy again. Then, it will all possibly be reborn again and do it all over again, but physically differently.

We've probably been through this so many times it is crazy to think about...

For myself, religions try to understand the spirit while the sciences try to understand nature. But both get it wrong a lot and neither has a perfect model. Reality, in my view, will always be just an echo away which we can never quite grasp...

But perhaps we are getting there. 

On Purpose, Guidance, and Randomness

The natural is a process
The spiritual is a process

Both are a part of God's process. Both are a part of God, but God is not these processes.

There was a predetermined system that in this system there would be things undeterminable and determinable. Those things which are undeterminable are random. Man cannot determine these things because we lack all the variables. Man cannot foresee the undeterminable either. However this does not mean that God does not foresee. In fact, if everything existed as one- in space and time and energy-if "God" is this one, and is a living God, then this God would see tomorrow just as we see today, all at the same time. In fact it seems electrons might just do this-but they are not conscious. If nature was alive it would see itself everywhere and every when.
Things that are determinable are not random. 

Perhaps the issue atheists have isn't that spiritual people don't understand science, but that they don't understand God?


It is very important to understand what one means when they say Random or Purposeless or without a Guide or Directionless. To a mathematician and a biologist those terms can mean different things. Even behaviorist and biologist will have different meanings. 

Random can mean unpredictable or without a cause for a mathematician. Random can also mean to a biologist purposeless or directionless. But then you also have to understand the connotations used by each user.

Is anything truly random? 

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than, yes. I say this, because we simply do not know if a higher intelligence like an alien would have the same limits. We only know what we know through our own eyes. However they may be certain things --within the very fabric of nature itself- which always have a random value. Undeterminable. 

Where do we find randomness?

In physics we find randomness in virtual particles which are said to pop in and out of existence. For some this means for no cause, and for others there could be a cause we simply do not see yet, because we can't even really see the virtual particle itself.

Is it random in terms of unpredictability? It is interesting, because from my readings it seems that the beginning and end states of virtual particles are predictable, but it is the in-between states that are not. The end state could be predicted to be a quark. You could have several virtual particles pop in as a virtual photon and some as a virtual gluon- but in the end the overall number of virtual particles that pop in as a quark will be more and the particle will be defined as a quark. As the end state is "becoming" all kinds of things can happen. We can't predict all the in-between states, but the overall state is predictable.

Another point is that we can see particles having to take path A or path B and they chose one over the other. There is no reason we can see why one is better than the other or preferred, or different. They are the same and yet the particles can chose which path to take and retain all their internal order. However if it was determinable then that would mean it truly would have no choice in the path, it would always have to take the predicted path, certain points would always force it down a certain path. This freedom shows me the very freedom consciousness will soon have after evolutionary processes in biology and consciousness take effect billions of years later. 

So, this is unpredictable as to which path they will choose and apparently no cause per se. A computer game given the same problem will crash because it cannot compute what to do. Yet, our quantum universe can figure it out.

This is interesting to me, because it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

So, as an unconscious entity randomness allows for freedom of choice fundamentally and as a conscious entity we also have freedom of choice, but based now on our consciousness.

 If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important, because this means that our paths are our choice---however in the end everything is set and will be as it is set to be. This is important too, because although something in undeterminable it does not mean it is unforeseeable. If we could see all things, we could see where it would end up though we'd have no why. 

Are variables hidden? We know it is possible. We do not see the reasons why virtual particles pop in and out, because we cannot even see the VP themselves and so perhaps there is something underlying in the quantum vacuum beyond what we can see that provides a cause, or perhaps not. Perhaps it just pops and in the right conditions, it will form a certain way and so the conditions are what are important for growth. I tend to think the later.

We also know through HUP that we cannot see the momentum and location of particles at the same time. That through our very interaction and observation, we have changed the nature of what we are observing. So, there certainly are aspects that are unseen or what I call hidden.

...If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see all the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random in nature on a fundamental level, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully on a fundamental level keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes. Or for God to do so. 

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

If you define random as unpredictable like a mathematician, then this definition makes perfect sense to me. Of course there are things we cannot see. We don't fully see nature and nature has a fundamental random aspect to it. Even our brains perceive random and non random events. This is because our brains evolved out of nature and so are wired to perceive it--both random and non random processes. Therefore, it makes sense that nature is both random and non random, because our brains perceive both as well.

Now, biologist tend to use this randomness to yield words such as purposeless or directionless or without guidance. 

There are certain events in biology such as genetic drift and draft that are defined as random. The scientist who first purposed genetic drift did not agree it was random. I tend to agree. Random would be unpredictable and while fire spreading and wiping out an entire population and therefore their genes, could be viewed as random...we still have cause and effect. Certain events caused others and certain effects took place. If we had been vigilant to these variables and causes and effects, I think we could predict these events. They had reasons for taking place. We simply lack the variables and cannot see all of the factors. But these random acts also were not purposeless, because they had a cause. A cause is a purpose. 

Some of genetic drift/draft does appear to be mathematically random at first. If given two different alleles in a population -let us say one blue and one red- and depending on the number of that allele in the population that will be its chance for survival (If I understood that correctly). So, if we have 50% red and 50% blue alleles in a population, each has an equal chance to survive. But only one will. This is because at some point one will become greater than the other and populations survive by common traits and that which is common becomes more poplar and chosen and eventually the population conforms. However, there is a chance the less likely will succeed. We can't predict this completely.

We see this in culture as well with apes and humans. If a few people in the group solve a problem one way and yet a few others solve it a different way, eventually the group will conform to one way. Everything tends to become homogeneous.

But, to me, this seems to be a fault on our part. We don't see all the variables. If we had all the variables, it seems it would be predictable. There are also causes, though we may not see all of them. So, I'm not really convinced of the use of randomness in biology.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our - memory- fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. From chaos into order. From heterogeneous into homogenous. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

So, I would have to disagree with biologists when they say purposeless or directionless or without guide or without a goal. 

Firstly, the direction and guidance takes place when the natural law take effect. This is the guide, this is the direction.

Secondly, terms such as purpose and goal do not mean anything to an innate thing. If you are investigating a marble, something that is not conscious or aware, how will you find concepts that only reside in conscious things?  (Though it could be arguable that nature and the universe is all conscious on some level -but let us just stick to the non-conscious view for now).

Thirdly, Nature has its own way of doing things, whether we understand them or not. Nature  does have a direction. Energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. Death and life is a constant circle. Additionally, everything goes from random to non random and simple to complex and chaotic to ordered. This is a direction. 

This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a direction. This is a purpose. This is a goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one, an innate one. Just something nature does.

Fourthly, A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy of understanding than ourselves.

Even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. While energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

Without proving a "God", nature does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" or other intelligence is behind it.

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and resort to the analysis of things that most people would consider unconscious to begin with and say, "see, it has no purpose or goal" and therefore nothing in the broader connotation of the word has any purpose or goal. But of course a particle doesn't have a goal as we have a goal. We are a consciousness, a particle is not. 

I can look at a marble all day long and see no consciousness and therefore no purpose or goal there. But then it is interesting that the marble bothered to exist at all (I'd say that is its purpose, to exist) and that it can exist, and follow its internal direction/guide. Further, I'm not looking at spiritual or higher intelligence such as aliens or "God". So, why would I find any of those inside a marble?

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.

Why? Because the spirit is immaterial and where we find its influence is with the immaterial things. 

However- God might USE the immaterial consciousness for fulfilling His benefits or USE the natural laws for fulfilling His purposes. But, He doesn't break the natural laws in my view. So, what people call a miracle is simply the natural laws being used for His purposes in my opinion. 

Often when science sees an accident, it may very well be the breath or word of God--but then words and breath of the spiritual are not visible/measurable things and therefore would not be seen.  

Nature, Compassion, Bonobos, and the Brain

Bonobos are very amazing apes because they are the closet, in my opinion, to humans. The way they behave and learn is fascinating. Now,  they are considered one of the most compassionate of all animals, with exception to ourselves. We can see that nature is evolving the ability to be compassionate, that the hard wiring necessary for the brain to even exhibit compassion is being evolved in animals, in us. 

However- does this mean religion has nothing to do with compassion? 

In my view, I see nature as providing the tools to be compassionate, the ability to exhibit compassion...but I would not suggest that nature in itself nurtures this.  Nature itself can be very brutal and in fact discourage this quality, though you may have the capacity for it. Religion on the other hand offers for many a sense of fellowship, song, music, companionship, hope, love, faith for even the impossible to occur in their lives, for emotional support, and sometimes financial support, for a listening ear and many times friends for life. All of these aspects help to foster a sense of care for your fellow man and to act in kindness or compassion. Most religions teach this from Buddhism, to Christianity, and even Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. 

I tend to think that the practice of compassion helps to develop it more so in your own brain and then pass it along to others as well. This giving of compassion becomes contagious and helps to develop a world in which we live where more compassion is shown. 

I also tend to think this act effects our genes and epigenetic directly and is also passed onto our children through our genes. So, when you are compassionate, you are changing your brain wiring but also your epigenetics which will effect your genes and will effect your future children directly. 

What we do matters. How we act matter. Both have a direct impact on ourselves, others, and the world. 

So, in this sense religion has played an important role and I have to wonder if religion did not exist at all if our sense of compassion would have developed to be the highest of all animals, or if we would have digressed to become even lesser than the Bonobos.



We have seven sure intelligences according to Gardner. Mathematical, Spacial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Linguistic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal. I'm an educator and so these intelligence's are taught to us as teachers to better educate our students. 

SO, it is interesting we can find all those SKILLS in nature as well.

Our brain came from nature, so it is a reflection of nature. It should be able to give us clues into what nature is.

Our brains are wired to perceived random and non random processes. It is not that one side is creative and the other is logical. Both sides can be either. This is shown in recent studies. The difference is in how they approach the problems and perceive the world.

We also know nature is both random and non random. We can see in genetics and in mathematics, in biology, and in physics that nature has random aspects but also non-random aspects too. It seems things go from random to non-random.

Nature is also very mathematical! Is this a coincidence? Of course not. Our brains came from nature so of course our brain would be perceiving what nature is!

Let us look at the seven main intelligences.

Nature is mathematical. Our brains are wired for maths. Nature has space and dimension. Our brains are wired for spacial intelligence. Nature has sounds and our brains our wired for music/sound and patterns. Nature moves and our brains our wired Kinesthetically.

When we look at a particle spinning beautifully it has a kind of kinesthetic intelligence. When we see a dancer circle beautifully she exemplifies this same ability. Particles are also always moving. Movement is essential for nature to function.

When we look at how the universe is arranged we can sum it up mathematically and then we also have people who are mathematically gifted.

When we look at nature we see a universe of space and dimensions and everything around us occupies space and dimension and there are people who are very specially inclined and who can visualize spaces inside their mind perfectly.

When we look at nature we can hear sounds permeating from objects hitting each other or from the friction of something or spin of something and there are also people who are musically inclined to hear patterns of sounds well.

Is it any wonder that our human intelligence also posses these qualities?

What about linguistic, interpersonal and interpersonal qualities of nature?

We can see linguistics on a fundamental level in nature too when we look at the communication of bacteria or when we put a heartbeat next to another heartbeat and they conform to each other or how we have a quark and the majority of virtual particles that pop in are quarks (though some might be photons or gluons). There seems to be a communication on a fundamental level.

While humans use language, we can see all of nature has a basic form of communication from physics to genetics and chemistry.

We can see interpersonal skills in nature when we look at physics and particles having to interact with fields and when we look into genetics and see how the interactions have to interact with each other. Nature does have many inter-relationships on a fundamental level.

Humans have relationships with the outside world, and nature fundamentally has interactions with other parts of nature all the time.

Even with interpersonal skills we see in nature that genes duplicate themselves and even with virtual particles, because the majority of virtual particles pop in according to whatever is there -it seems it conforms-- there is a kind of duplication there as well.

While humans might have a good interaction with themselves, nature also fundamentally keeps a good relationship with itself by duplicating itself.


So, I just thought these correlations were interesting and wanted to share them.

It is also interesting that all animals have various intelligences and all these intelligences are reflections of what nature is as well, in my opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/one-of-many-animals_b_1836537.html



The next question is Memory. We see memory is our conscious minds, in the conscious minds of animals and even of bacteria. We find memory in cellular memory in the duplication of DNA/RNA. Do particles, electrons, and virtual particles possess a certain memory as well?

Does memory exist on a fundamental level? This is important because how are our experiences retained if a Spirit exists? Memory or experience, if retained, on a particle level would be a very interesting finding. 


Further, when we reach the most fundamental form of energy that we are aware of today which are virtual particles, we find probability equations. Perhaps not actual space or time or a physical things, But a probability.

It is kind of like an idea in a mind. I have an idea and it has a probability of coming to fruition or not, of surviving or not. Perhaps when we say the Mind of God, it is a lot like the probability distribution of the virtual particle in some ways. I would say not in all ways, but in some ways.

Side Note:

Mathematics is ahead of science, because science is limited by what we can see, hear, taste, touch, smell —basically measure and so science is limited by our own consciousness, our own minds.

BUT Maths is not. Maths is not limited by experience or experiment which are limited by our own conscious experience and ability to measure.

MATHS shows us what reality is though we cannot use an experiment to show us this is a fact. But the maths must come back to us time and time again as yielding us the correct results, then we rely on them. In this sense, maths does it job for showing virtual particles exist; however briefly, out of the nothingness, the void.

In this sense, we can understand everything better when we realize maths is like our own intuitions. Our correct intuitions can tell us a reality. Someone I loved has just been hurt, killed. This guy or this situation feels really bad. Or I completely saw that coming. While we may not be able to justify our intuition with a real experiment or scientific method…our intuitions can very well be right —showing us an aspect of reality beyond physical measurable means.

So, should it surprise us that maths do the same thing?

Some aspect of reality simply cannot be measured by observation or justified by science. Some aspects of reality simply have to be derived in other ways, 

Is God Real?

I don't agree that "God" is complex as many Atheists (Krauss and Dawkins lectures) propose and so this complicates things and makes its existence highly unlikely. They use the argument that things go from simple to complex and so if God existed, how would this highly complex entity exist as the first source per se...

But they are not viewing this correctly. 

This is only true if "God" has a consciousness like our own, with thoughts and emotions like our own, inside of a brain like our own. Yes, that would be complex and highly limiting. 

Further how do we know evolution is how nature works all the time everywhere in every galaxy and universe? Is it possible nature could work differently somewhere else? That energy could work differently somewhere else, that a kind of "mind" could work differently somewhere else? 

We know from countless scriptures across the globe about "God", that "God" would be higher than us, with thoughts and ways higher than us. 

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality. A Spirit is essentially Nothing or No Thing. 

Complexity adds limits-

Simplicity brings limitlessness-

We see this with empty space, virtual particles, electrons. All the fundamentals we know of so far.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something seemingly eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful and limitless (virtual particles)....Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, and is the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Nothing is very powerful in function, because it has no structure. 

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons, quarks, virtual particles are all very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is in quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

What about Characteristics?

I can’t prove to you God is loving or caring, but I tend to think so. I know love exists. I know care exists and I can’t prove those to you either. 

But I do know our brains are a reflection of nature itself. Our brains perceive random and non-randomness and our brains are mathematical. Nature is those three things as well.

So, how did consciousness evolve? how did language? how did love? 

You can say it is an accident or planned, either way it doesn’t matter for this purpose, because the point is those qualities now exist and how does something without the innate capability of forming such qualities-form those qualities?

If the universe does not possess consciousness but we do, then are we superior to the universe, to nature? Are only conscious beings able to see, reflect and understand nature and nature itself will never be able to? That is strange to think about because once all consciousness is gone what will nature be then?

It does beg the question whether there is an aspect to this fundamental energy, this fundamental reality, that possess qualities such as these. 

But love and care come in a package of living things. We’ve never seen a non-living thing have those qualities, and so we would think then that those qualities would have to exist in a consciousness inside a brain of a living thing at least, if not living in the same form as ourselves.

What about consciousness? Intelligence? 

We find these two qualities in highly complex begins, humans as the example. We find humans with intelligence and consciousness; however, it took a lot of time for them to acquire this and we have no examples of either existing without space or time or a physical body that developed into something complex. 

But I would argue that our consciousness and intelligence is very limited and in fact is limited because our physical bodies our bound by our space-time. However, HOW do electrons know what other electrons they are entangled with are doing? Because they are not bound by Time. They are not physical like we are, but are on a more simple energy form. So, God's "consciousness" would act like the quantum universe...perhaps in a very mathematical way, so much higher than our our understanding, that we fail to conceive of it entirely and understand it fully. 

Electrons seem timeless. They jump from one shell to another or travel across space and time instantly. 

So, if electrons can be timeless and do this, why couldn't a spiritual energy also know things in a way unfamiliar to us? Exist timelessly? Perhaps a spiritual energy is the most simple and fundamental form of energy. Or another aspect of it. 

In a sense this could be called a consciousness, but that would also limit what it actually is because in fact our ideas of consciousness are limited to our very understanding of it which exist in our minds which have limits because it exists inside of a brain in a body in space-time. 

This is the same with intelligence. When we say this is intelligent. What does that mean? Does this mean God has an IQ of 200? It is very limiting and in fact our own understanding of intelligence is very limited by our own experiences.

So- God's intelligence and consciousness would work like nothing we know. It would be boundless consciousness and intelligence. Limitless. Quantum. 

Because of this, it would also come in a simple form. I propose this simplest form is Spiritual energy. 

However- we could use an argument that is more of a physical (measurable) form. 

The main question is does consciousness or can consciousness exist as a simple, fundamental form of reality? or can it only exist as a side effect of a more complex living thing?

Well, we know from the above God could not be complex. So, whatever this consciousness is it would have to be on the scale of simple and fundamental. We do see the quantum nature of things showing us this possibility. So, God would have to fall toward the quantum sphere. 

Does consciousness have to exist in a living thing. Are computers living? I would say no, because they are not born naturally and while they do die and do need energy as food, they don’t grow. Although, a self learning computer could be argued to be growing. But they still were not born naturally, they were made by man. So, by scientific current definitions of living I would say they are not living. 

Yet, perhaps on another planet there are beings that are fully silicon based and live as “computer people” or hybrids of half-silicon and half-carbon. So, there may actually be examples out there that we don’t have of computer type of entities that are living because they were born. 

However living things are not only born, they die, need food, and grow. 

God would do none of those things (except possibly grow)

In fact, you could argue the energy of the entire universe is like one big quantum computer that at some fundamental level was born, will die and eats other energy to grow. But then does it ever really change since it always remains fundamentally the same stuff?  

Could that entity possess consciousness?

If computers are found to be able to have consciousness I would argue that for sure a God could have consciousness and in fact it could be like the consciousness of a quantum computer. 

This is how consciousness exists without being a living thing as we are used to seeing consciousness appear. 

HOWEVER, By definition God is infinite and so how would God die? If God couldn’t die, then God is not living by standard definitions either. God doesn’t eat and God doesn’t grow. (Or does he?) 

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a consciousness. This simply means by our definitions of what qualifies a living thing, in order to be living you must also be able to die and if you can’t then you are not living. Our Computers then are not truly living either, because they were made, not born. However, one day they may be shown to acquire consciousness.  

I’m not sure if our computers can have a true consciousness —following in the work of Hameroff and Penrose— which makes this job much more difficult, but the argument for a consciousness in a computer is sometimes compelling and when looking at the quantum level of nature and the possibilities of quantum computers, one has to wonder if these dreams will one day prove to become reality. 

Then, I’d have to really wonder if the quantum universe truly is conscious on some level. Because if quantum computers can acquire consciousness that does leave the spooky door open for the possibility of our quantum universe itself. 

So- we’ve determined the basic characteristics of God as possible..such as infinite, illimitable, eternal, knowing all, everywhere. This is possible because we see this in the nature of the quantum world. This is possible, not just an idea written about...whether a god exists and can do this is not shown yet, but nature does provide us with the knowledge now that these characteristic are possible.

We’ve determined consciousness could be possible without a “living thing” and since this consciousness would exist in a quantum level ,this consciousness is not complex either, it is as simple as you get —limitless quantum consciousness so to speak.

But can consciousness exist in a simple —not complex- living thing? Well, by our current definitions of living, no. But then God wouldn’t eat and metabolize and God wasn’t born and won’t die- but if the universe is another aspect of god then in a sense that could be true.

So, the important part here isn’t whether God would be living by our scientific current definitions, but whether God would have consciousness?  

And what if the real definition of being alive was truly broader? What if being alive didn’t have to include the scientific current understanding of “living thing”. What if being alive just meant a conscious entity. This would definitely include our computers—because being born would not be a hang-up. 

In fact, the quantum universe is kinda acting like a mother, giving birth to all kinds of non-living and living things. Except, is this universe alive and conscious?

I would propose that true reality is that which we don’t see, hidden or unseen. I would propose it is in this where energy is alive and acts like a conscious quantum computer. And the moment it is seen by us or by nature, it behaves in accordance to our natural laws.  

Consciousness can do all kinds of things from what we’ve seen in nature and in ourselves. It can communicate. It can understand spacial concepts, mathematical concepts, randomness, non randomness, it can have relationships with other non-living things and living things and even with itself. It enjoys music and create sounds. 

So God would be a simple infinite illimitable eternal quantum conscious spirit so to speak. But then I'd also argue every definition we impose on God , limits God and God is limitless...so the definition would not truly suit either. 

But it is also possible this consciousness is not derived from the quantum aspects, but derived from the spirit itself and that the quantum nature of the universe simply facilitates this spiritual consciousness. 

God-originator, sustainer, and evil?

God-Originator-Sustainer, and Evil?

God as sustainer and I had mentioned it is like saying, "can the Earth exist without the universe?" To further this inquiry:

To me God is casting a shadow. We can measure this shadow, see this shadow, measure its angel in relation to the sun and the sidewalk it sits on. We can experience this shadow. God casts this shadow. Without God, the shadow would not be there. If God moved, the shadow would move. If God vanished, the shadow would vanish. God casts this shadow and so in a sense God is this shadow. However, the shadow is not God. We can see this shadow and scientists can learn about it, however we cannot see God and measure God in the same scientific manner. God is everything, but everything is not God.

When the sun dies out and the sidewalk eventually erodes away, the shadow will cease to be as well. But God will still remain.

In this sense, the shadow is temporary, the shadow is not real, the shadow is an illusion of what really is. The energy that is forming this shadow is simply a reflection of the absolute energy which is God. Energy takes many forms. Sometimes it looks like a tree, sometimes like the sky, sometimes like an atom. But it is the most fundamental form of this energy which is real, which is spirit to me. All other forms of this energy are not eternal and therefore not real in a sense, because they fade away, they are always changing, they are not permanent. 

What is real is that which is permanent, eternal and everlasting. What is real is this spirit of God. The spiritual energy. 

This is how God is the sustainer to me. This is why the world/physical/material is an illusion. 

So, how is God the sustainer? Because without God breathing, everything would cease. 

Now, God as originator, to me, is like this:

God, the spirit, exists everywhere and every when and is in fact is No Thing. This is why the spirit to me is very much synonymous with nothing. Nothing does not really mean non existence. Non existence does not really exist. 

Science kinda shows this now as well, that true non existence does not exist. What nothing is is simply the place where No Thing exists. Nothing measurable, nothing physical, nothing material. But something is always happening with nothing. It is constantly moving in a sense. 

To me, this is the spirit, God. One might also think of this as another form of energy, where energy takes the form of No Thing, or nothing.  Energy can also take the form of something, or anything, and in fact seems to want to do that all the time. 

Now, before anything was, only Nothing was. Everywhere. Every when. I would say this nothing means where the spirit of God is, however one could look at it as simply meaning the absence of everything measurable that we would call things/physical/material. 

Now for myself, this No Thing, or Spirit, must close itself in order to allow something to be born. It becomes unstable and In doing so, the vacuum from which Big Bang arose was born.  The vacuum is a place devoid of everything. Then this No Thing began to expand, began to pop inside of this vacuum, or "breath" and everything started to take affect. The space-time began to expand and gravity took hold, pulling virtual particles out of the nothing and into the something so that they became real particles. 

As gravity began to do this, particles began to behave in their environment of space-time --conforming and fitting into their environment (fighting for survival in a sense--to persist to exist), because they could not return to the nothing since gravity holds them...and dark energy kept pulling the space time further and further  and as this took place the particles began to not only interact with their new environment, but with each other, establishing "forces' and eventually all this behavior would come to be called what we see as the natural laws. 

 So, how is God the originator? Because without God's closing and subsequent breath, nothing would  still exist. 

   

And Evil?

I wouldn't view a God as "watching" as many Atheists seem to say. "Watching evil."

I think a God would be in everything. So, where is this God, when the girl is raped? I would say right there with her and maybe the only strength she has at the time. 

I guess the main question is why doesn't this good God intervene and stop all the evil? I would think nothing could even move or even happen if that occurred. 

You would walk out of your house and most everything would be frozen in time, because there would be no more freedom of movement, freedom of choice. 

But I really like this woman and man team (An atheist show) and she asked a very good question-

If you are not moral, how do you know this God is moral? Well, for myself I know what evil looks like and I know what good looks like because I can see both evil and good. I would't know what the one looks like without the other. If I only knew evil and saw evil in the world...how would I know what good even was? or vice versa?

So, I know what evil is and what good is....but what I choose to do is the problem. I might not always choose to do good, because lets be honest we are all selfish sometimes. 

I think science tells us what is God and life experience and philosophical and mystical and spiritual inquiry leads us to understanding who is God. 

Basically - Why didn’t just God create everything perfect? Because to do that he’d have to duplicate himself, and he didn’t want just duplications of himself. He wanted children. This is the best analogy our human minds can have to understand —though it is not exactly like this surely— but something like this.

In order to create children he needed to provide space for them, so he had to remove himself from space- this created a vacuum …some of himself fell into the vacuum (deliberately?) and various universes popped up and out of existence-some interconnecting-until one, our own, through big bang formed fully.

This creation would suffer and frustrate. But in the suffering and frustrating, this creation would grow —evolve— and the spirit would become more like God with each step , closer to becoming one with God —the infinite,  illimitable, eternal conscious source. 

I don’t think this God interferes with the natural process or even intervenes to change the course of history…I think God speaks to us through life experience, music, prayer, meditation, other people, certain events, nature itself, dreams, feelings, intuitions.  This speaking can influence people and change them from inside and change their lives, but then they are taking active participation in this change.

A participation is essential. God is not a tyrant or a dictator or a controller. In a way he wants to guide, but can only do so through the spirit. Nature is set as a self-sustaining system created at the very beginning. It wasn't created such that it would need constant maintenance.

In fact the systems of nature are amazing, not wasteful, resourceful, cyclic, and better than any human systems that could ever be formed. 

So, Im a deist in that I believe in a God of first cause and a theist because I believe this Gods speaks. But I don’t think this God interferes or interrupts or as some call intervenes on the natural processes or the natural course of life or order of things.

I believe God is everything and nothing and that both nothing and everything are the same thing just in different forms, that God is in the plants, the bacteria, all the animals, in you and me, the universe itself. I believe this God has an conscious and creative aspect, I believe this God is infinite and illimitable, and much of its secrets would be found in nature itself —which importantly includes the human —and all animals—minds, the intellect and the intelligence and abilities.

But God is not just all these things. There is much more to this energy which we do not see. 

Th fact that humans and other animals are capable of caring for one another shows me that care/compassion/love must exist within nature itself in order to give rise to it? How can these qualities emerge from something that does not possess these qualities? And if they do not come from nature than from where?

All animals have consciousness, which tells me nature itself has an aspect of consciousness. All animals have thought and emotion which tells me nature itself has an aspect of thought and emotion.

MORALITY-

Many atheists like to say that we don't need the Bible to be moral beings. While I can be a moral person without my parents, I like to have their advice, guidance, experiences, inspiration and encouragement. This is the same with the Bible and God. Yes, we are humans, we make choices and we should exercise morality, but the Bible and God for most people is simply a source of faith, encouragement, inspiration, hope, love and guidance and companionship. It is this relationship which you cannot dissect under a microscope or analyze on a super computer with computations.

I can dissect your brain and learn how big it is and what parts it is made of and this will tell me nothing of how many languages you spoke, your favorite animals, your character or personality, if you lied a lot or who your best friends were. This will tell me nothing of your ability for maths or architectural design. There is a lot that can only be learned through a relationship, a connection and observation of without you are limited in what you can see and learn. Such is it with nature. If you don't have a constant connection with it, a relationship with it or observe it enough then how do you expect to understand it more fully? God is like this for many.