I said that it is akin to the Heisenberg principle, or maybe better stated, the observer effect, not the same as the Heisenberg principle. Sorry for my confusion.
I’m still not seeing the parallels. If you observe a particle then it comes into being within the distribution described by its wavefunction. We seem to be talking about the opposite which is the lack of an observation of a particle. In effect, atheists are told that we can’t observe God like we do particles.
The basis for experimental science is the concept that the researcher is an observer outside the system. This assumption breaks down at the personal, atomic and subatomic levels because the researcher is a significant part of these systems. Being part of the system means he cannot observe everything. In the special case of Heisenberg, it is “because of the interaction between the measuring photon(any detecting particle) and the particle itself.” [1]
In the case of interactions with God and His spiritual world, the observer looking for evidence is interacting with the spiritual world through their thoughts, values and virtues/vices, thus influencing the interaction.
I hope that makes sense.
That has nothing to do with the observer effect. I would reread the article you linked.
I would agree that none of us are omniscient, but that has nothing to do with the observer effect.
That’s fine, but I don’t think quantum mechanics is the analogy you are looking for. What you are describing sounds like the macro-, non-quantum world. If I swing my arm through the air I influence the air in the room. Nothing quantum about it.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation and responses.
Mark, I know where you are coming from, but, as impossible as it sounds, I believe the Creator of this immense universe cares ‘personally’ for each of us, including me. Earlier on this Forum I have shared some ‘miraculous’ experiences that have led to this ‘unintellectual’ belief–the first of which was (in WWII) surviving a grenade blow that broke a 3" hole in my skull without rendering me unconscious, making it possible for me to climb a mile up an icy hill back to our lines unaided??? The M.D. who treated me said I was hallucinating.
So, it was against all odds. But why believe it was some Higher Power working a miracle?? Much more recently I had another experience which went beyond the odds of a billion to one–an experience I related on the Forum as “The Miracle of the Panel Truck”. Were these odds-defying experiences just “nothing but thoughts in my head.” Possibly. Yet they have changed the last 50Yrs. of my life.
The G.I. Bill enabled me to get a PhD in physical organic chemistry (U. of Chicago) in 1952, but the shrapnel wound prevented me from being accepted for research at Eli Lilly (first choice) or Shell Development. So I took a job at a family-owned business in Chicago in product development of stabilizers (colloids) for the ice cream industry. After some success in this capacity, I moved into management and became President/CEO.
Meanwhile, each summer I visited my old alma mater, Pomona College, and learned that my former mentor, Dr. Corwin Hansch, was pioneering a new field called CADD (computer-aided drug design), and had an NIH grant to analyze the test results of various chemicals as prospects for curing leukemia in mice. This was just after a beloved nephew lost a two year battle with that disease.
So I had to ask myself: “Is this the answer to the question I’ve been asking myself 'Why was I spared in WWII? Is there some purpose in life that I should fulfill?” I was successful in running a business that I helped build. But success was measured by making a better Popsicle. Was that all there is to Life? “What’s it all about, Alfie?”
So I hired someone to run the business (National Pectin Products), we sold our house in which we raised our kids, and I took a post-doc position with Dr. Hansch’s NIH Grant (which might not be renewed after 3 yrs.).
I guess that everyone on this earth can believe that their life has followed some sort of destiny, either heavenly or star-crossed. The series of events and decisions that have guided my 94 yrs. may have been the result of pure coincidence, but I believe otherwise.
wishing you the best,
Al Leo
3 Likes
Always a pleasure, Albert. But the only part of that which I doubt is whether the mystery which is God had anything to do with creating the cosmos. I do think the prevalence and long history of god belief in one form or another deserves to be explained. My hunch is that the consciousness which gives rise to our sense of self as one of its products can create others too. It could be that our conscious minds serve utilitarian purposes including strategic planning. In order to provide our conscious minds with the independence to consider hypotheticals, the other products might have functions which keep our species grounded. Of course since we experience ourselves to be our conscious minds and not the totality of consciousness we conceptualize the other products of consciousness as gods. With God placed on-board rather than projected out into the cosmos, of course God cares about us and knows us intimately.
Just so you know, I have no interest in pulling anyone’s chain. It isn’t my intention to trivialize what others place so much stock in. But in wondering where god belief comes from this is what I’ve come up with. I think it explains a lot but of course it is pretty hard to justify adequately let alone ‘prove’. But I actually do believe something like this is true. So I guess you could say I believe on faith. It also grounds a number of other religious concepts such as soul and the sacred.
Are you saying that we do no have a neutral perspective when dealing with God so we either see or do not see, according to our perspective rather than reality?
Richard
1 Like
Dear Richard,
Yes, but it not limited to our relationship with the spiritual world. When a doctor prescribes a treatment, the nature of the doctor has an influence on the outcome. Just as the nature os a person influences which spiritual entities will talk interest in them.
I think I have a problem with that. Most religions today agree that there is but one God. The “enlightened” among us will decide that it is actually the same God approached according to tradition and culture, rather than a myriad of gods, each with their own following and disciplines.
Richard
This is an excerpt from my blog, mentiscopia, relevant to this discussion. It provides a slightly different viewpoint from Dale’s assertion that if we had proof of God, we would flee from Him, which may or may not be closer to the truth than this proposal.
There are three steps to understanding why there is no proof for God.
First, choice is absolutely critical to God’s Plan. This choice is not the ability to choose, it is the existence of two poles to choose from: God, or no god.
Second, the choice must not be a foregone conclusion. For reasons to be discussed, below, God provides evidence for His existence, but never proof .
Third, the Gift of God (Eph 2:6-7) plays a major role in choosing correctly. “You have been saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, lest any man should boast.” To make it easier to visualize, let’s break the process captured in these verses into the chronological steps they reveal.
Salvation comes as follows (where “x → y” can be read as, “x leads to y” and “x-(a)→ y” can be read as, “x leads through a to y.” ):
Evidence for God → willingness to be open to the gift of God → discovering further evidence for God → the point where the weight of the evidence prepares you to be ready to receive the gift of God -(gift of God)→ faith that God exists -(that faith)→ God’s grace → salvation.
Through this process, God has given you the gift of faith that enables you to choose God over “no god,” that is, God’s Goodness over the lack thereof, evil. In short, faith to believe in God is a gift of God that leads to salvation by grace.
If we had irrefutable proof of God without the need for faith, we would logically have no choice, and that would circumvent the intermediate steps in the above pathway, which subsequently would reduce to: Proof of God → salvation.
Everyone would be saved. Salvation for all would mean that each of us could boast that we saw the proof and demand our salvation. Our salvation would be based upon proof and not upon God’s replacing our sin nature with His Holiness. As a consequence, Heaven would be filled with people who are still dead in their sin (Ephesians 2:1)–not a lovely place.
2 Likes
Dear Richard,
Enlightenment is not a binary function. The most enlightened will tell how little they know, as Socrates did.
In my enlightened read of the Bible and history, it is clear that there are many gods, hiding in pain sight. The god of the dead (Mark 12:27) has been masquerading as the Father, causing conflict and diluting the Word that Jesus brought.
I do believe there is something which engenders and supports god belief in people, and I think it is something valuable but also mysterious. To call it God shapes how we view that mystery. For a community of people who value the gift of -whatever we call it- who wish to create a culture which makes its veneration central, a shared conception of the mystery is probably helpful. But I feel like I’m in good company here when I say I want the truth more than I want lots of company believing what may or may not be true. At least I often hear that sentiment expressed here. I imagine that many use the shared conventions to speak about the mystery while recognizing them as such. Perhaps that is as it should be but I’ve decided to treat others as peers and that means speaking up for the truth as I see it without regard to the conventions. I guess I don’t hold out much hope of one community which works for all which revolves around shared conventions without acknowledging them as such. I’d like to think we could get to a place where we could acknowledge the mystery for what it is (a mystery!) without relying on authoritative sources which interpret miraculous historical events to promote authoritative guidelines for how to comport oneself with each other and the mystery.
Dear Mark,
You use the mystery too much for my liking. You will not find that word in the vocabulary of the early Christian scholars who searched for understanding. Mystery is the word that came in after the illogical, manmade doctrines were introduced. Logic was removed from belief, and I am of the firm belief that it is time for it to return.
I used the term generally rather than some sort of finite notion. Perhaps a Buddhist would give you a more definitive definition, but I doubt that I would agree with it.
I am sorry but I think you are misreading / misunderstanding the words of Christ. He was not claiming that there is a specific “God of the Dead” as opposed to God the father. There is only one God. That is the belief.
Richard
I am not sure what else we could call He/She/it?
In truth many Christians are guilty of trying to name God and / or tie Him down. I think that is unwise at best. God is beyond human understanding so to try and box Him up is, IMHO futile. But to deny Him altogether? I am sorry, but I cannot do that. I have seen too much to shake my faith in God.
Richard
2 Likes
If that is true, then why does the first commandment say the opposite: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And why does Jesus say that He is not the king of this world? (John 18:36) Doesn’t that mean there is a king of this world - Satan who is worshiped as a god?
I’d like think that means to place no ones conception of God before that which you experience directly, the one you meet in conscience.
That does not claim that the other gods exist, only that they are declared or worshipped. People have made gods out of fire, the moon, Pop stars Idols. All may be termed gods (small g) but they are not in the same league as the One true God. Baal was worshipped as a god, but proved false on Mt Carmel. Satan is the word for Opposer or the antithesis of God.
Whether there is a being that epitomises evil or not, He is not god as such, but probably has godly powers which us mere humans can only spire to (with the help of the Holy Spirit).
Forgive me, but the Bible is not as simple to understand as many believe. It is very easy to get the wrong ideas.
Richard
How about “that which is”, the “Thou” which makes possible our “I”?
Nor I but neither will I place that which the priests or tradition says above my own best efforts to hear what He/She/It would lead me to believe directly. Doubting as I do any personal continuance beyond life, it is too urgent and important to leave to experts. I would like to know what I can or at least as much as it would have me know of what really matters in this life. If there was an accounting I wouldn’t want to admit I did as others did or as those who purported to speak on your behalf.
Although I am sure, from Scripture that death of this life is not the end I do not dwell on it. What will be, will be. If it was down to my achievements alone then I am doomed, but, my faith tells me that it is about God’s grace, not my works. But that is not an excuse for misbehaviour or not trying to live the best that I can. I have aligned myself with what I perceive is goodness and as such that is how I live. Not for reward or fear of punishment, but because that is what I have aspired to.
There seem to be many who spend too much time “worrying” about what is to come and not living what is now.
It does seem that the definition of most religions involves specific actions, rituals or behaviour. As far as I can see Christianity does away with that. The Bible would seem to suggest that God is not so much interested in ritual or oblations as he is in trying to live correctly. Praise and thanksgiving come because they are part of my life, not because they are demanded or obeyed.
Richard
2 Likes