Neil D
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 06:06 pm
I'm curious about the thing in Theoretical Physics they refer to as the Superforce, and wondering if this could possibly be the beginning of a scientific description of God.

During the Singularity, when all the forces were combined into a single force, and before the beginning of time. Could this be some sort of description of God? And it initiated the big bang, and God actually became the Universe?

If this theory is agreeable to anyone, do you also think this God would have an awareness of some kind, maybe similar to what I experience? If not. How would you decribe it?

Neil
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,173 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 06:32 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;78356 wrote:
I'm curious about the thing in Theoretical Physics they refer to as the Superforce, and wondering if this could possibly be the beginning of a scientific description of God.

During the Singularity, when all the forces were combined into a single force, and before the beginning of time. Could this be some sort of description of God? And it initiated the big bang, and God actually became the Universe?
The only description, of anything, gained through the unification of the fundamental forces is the description of the unified field.

Science denies the supernatural. There is no room for the idea of god in science.
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 06:35 pm
@Neil D,
Hello Neil,
I suggest going to the videos portion of the forum and watching Nassim Haramein's CROSSING THE EVENT HORIZON. It's truly fascinating. It would be nice to hear what you think after viewing it.

William
Ares phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:31 am
@validity,
validity;78359 wrote:
The only description, of anything, gained through the unification of the fundamental forces is the description of the unified field.

Science denies the supernatural. There is no room for the idea of god in science.

Not necessarly... You're imagining a god of the Bible and of the Qu'ran and what have you, a supernatural god, one of magics and miracles. There may be no room in science for a god such as that, but just a creator god, pure and simple a god in its raw form... Why not? Denial of such a thing would be merely bias based and not scientific.

---------- Post added 07-20-2009 at 09:36 AM ----------

I googled Superforce to read up on it but all I found was an old cheezy television show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/SuperForcePromo.jpg

LOL. So do you have any links or sources I can read about it from?
salima
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 11:00 am
@validity,
validity;78359 wrote:
The only description, of anything, gained through the unification of the fundamental forces is the description of the unified field.

Science denies the supernatural. There is no room for the idea of god in science.


why cant the unified field be what people have given the name 'god' to? and Baal, Ram, Allah, Jupiter, all the others...there is a part of human nature that has been innately formed to seek the definition of this concept. even though most human beings have misinterpreted its nature. it is also being sought by science, though not all scientists would agree that it is. this tendency is not going to go away. it can be denied and rebelled against as a legitimate step in trying to find the truth, but the search never ends until the question is answered.

and why would the truth behind the concept have to be supernatural? the unified field is the most natural of all, that which cannot be reduced, and creation, though not necessarily an intent, could be a natural occurrence.

"If this theory is agreeable to anyone, do you also think this God would have an awareness of some kind, maybe similar to what I experience? If not. How would you decribe it?"....Neil

my thoughts are that this unified field would not have awareness of what goes on where we are except through our awareness-and i am not able to imagine any further than that. but i think we can have awareness of IT. i call this unified field simply Consciousness. but Unified Field is just as good a name as is Superforce.

how is it described in theoretical physics?
my guesses might be: it wouldnt be sentient-it would have no senses other than ours or any other parts of creation that have sensory faculties. i am not sure it could even think other than our thoughts. it wouldnt have emotions but it would seem to have to have a tendency towards evolving to a more complex condition, towards growth and away from destruction.
0 Replies
 
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:35 pm
@validity,
validity;78359 wrote:

The only description, of anything, gained through the unification of the fundamental forces is the description of the unified field.


I guess I need to read up a bit on the unified field, because at the moment, i am unclear if it is the same as the superforce, or something analogous to Diracs QED field, or something of the sort. Something that exists at the same time as the four forces, as opposed to a unique force that is formed by combining the four. I guess i could take your word for it.

validity;78359 wrote:

Science denies the supernatural. There is no room for the idea of god in science.

I guess this depends on what your idea of god is. Mine is definitely unique, and is derived from science and not religion.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:49 pm
@Neil D,
That's the great thing about the word 'god', you can define it to mean anything at all. Just the other day, I heard someone describe god as, "... you know, that thing that's really amazing, I dunno, hard to describe, but I believe in it".

I've decided to define my Cat as being god; and in so doing, be done with the issue Smile
0 Replies
 
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:00 pm
@William,
William;78360 wrote:

Hello Neil,
I suggest going to the videos portion of the forum and watching Nassim Haramein's CROSSING THE EVENT HORIZON. It's truly fascinating. It would be nice to hear what you think after viewing it.

William


Yeah, that was very interesting. Thank you. When i saw the video was almost two hours, i figured i would watch just a few minutes because it was getting late, but i had to watch it all. These are the kinds of things i stumble on to late at night, that deprive me of sleep. It was worth it.

Ive been hearing alot about fractals lately, first a friend brought them to my attention, then i was reading about the holographic paradigm, and there they were again. It seems that if you take a portion of a hologram, say of a rose, that you can reconstruct the entire rose from that portion, and it can be done off into infinity because the hologram is a fractal. And thirdly, your post led me right to a lengthy discusson on them, among other things.

Some of Nassim's theories are new to me, but its definitely something worth thinking about, maybe i can elaborate later...thanks again

Neil

---------- Post added 07-20-2009 at 03:12 PM ----------

Ares;78406 wrote:

I googled Superforce to read up on it but all I found was an old cheezy television show.


LOL. So do you have any links or sources I can read about it from?


Most times ive heard of it, it was on the physics shows that i watch on the discovery channel, and the science channel. Michio Kaku has brought it up a few times. Its usually mentioned in the context of M Theory, or superstring theory, and maybe other string theories as well...The theory of everything.

I think i remember that show Smile
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:39 pm
@Neil D,
In Hawkings TOE i believe a superforce exists in the singularity he speaks of. The original big bang theory? It seems most theories that involve singularities, also involve superforces.

This is interesting to me because no one knows what causes a singularity to start expanding into a universe. And the only other thing in existence at the time is the superforce. I dont completely understand the intricacy of the union between the two, perhaps only just that one represents matter, and the other energy. But although there is no proof, im wondering about the nature of this superforce, and if it could have initiated a "big bang" type of event. Maybe I am just captivated by the powerful name given to this original force, and the nature of such a force is somewhat of a mystery. But if it is somehow responsible for the beginning of everything, a cause, this it is definitely a god in my book.

I think it is a hobby of mine to look for god like attributes of things i discover in science/physics, theoretical or otherwise. Religion has never appealed to me, so i look to science mostly.

Neil
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:41 pm
@Ares phil,
Ares;78406 wrote:
Not necessarly... You're imagining a god of the Bible and of the Qu'ran and what have you, a supernatural god, one of magics and miracles. There may be no room in science for a god such as that, but just a creator god, pure and simple a god in its raw form... Why not? Denial of such a thing would be merely bias based and not scientific.
Science has no room for a creator god either.
Ares;78406 wrote:
LOL. So do you have any links or sources I can read about it from?
Unified field theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

salima;78437 wrote:
why cant the unified field be what people have given the name 'god' to? and Baal, Ram, Allah, Jupiter, all the others...
We should expect that they will. The idea of a unified field only demonstrates that there is no need for the idea of god.

Neil;78449 wrote:
I guess this depends on what your idea of god is. Mine is definitely unique, and is derived from science and not religion.
Why do you accept multiple definitions for the same thing? Are you not a little concerned that even among believers the definition of god can not be agreed upon.

Khethil;78451 wrote:
That's the great thing about the word 'god', you can define it to mean anything at all. Just the other day, I heard someone describe god as, "... you know, that thing that's really amazing, I dunno, hard to describe, but I believe in it".
There really needs to be a set definition or at least God Type A, God Type B etc. But I guess it is a defense mechanism i.e. I can not deny that which they do not define.
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:49 am
@validity,
validity;78499 wrote:

Science has no room for a creator god either.


Definition 1 of science by webster:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

You must be referring to physical science. That is not the only science.

validity;78499 wrote:

We should expect that they will. The idea of a unified field only demonstrates that there is no need for the idea of god.


Definition of God from Wikipedia:

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.

If the superforce is responsible for initiating the big bang, then it is God according to the most popular conception. Whether you like it or not. If we ever discover what is responsible for the creation of the universe, then most definitely that thing should bear the title of God.

validity;78499 wrote:

Why do you accept multiple definitions for the same thing? Are you not a little concerned that even among believers the definition of god can not be agreed upon.


I don't accept multiple definitions, but they do exist. I disregard any definition of God that is based on faith alone. I need scientific theories/phenomena that have God like attributes as a starting point from which to explore/ponder.

validity;78499 wrote:

There really needs to be a set definition or at least God Type A, God Type B etc. But I guess it is a defense mechanism i.e. I can not deny that which they do not define.


God type A:
God from science. Exploring the possibility of god through scientific phenomena/theories...etc. Trying to find actual evidence of God.

God type B:
The typical monotheistic God of the bible, or a god that is a product of any religion.

It is obvious what type i am inquiring.

Neil
Ares phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 12:48 pm
@validity,
validity;78499 wrote:
Science has no room for a creator god either. Unified field theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We should expect that they will. The idea of a unified field only demonstrates that there is no need for the idea of god.

Why do you accept multiple definitions for the same thing? Are you not a little concerned that even among believers the definition of god can not be agreed upon.

There really needs to be a set definition or at least God Type A, God Type B etc. But I guess it is a defense mechanism i.e. I can not deny that which they do not define.

Why not? I mean I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with science forming a theory, if they can, surrounding the ideas of god. We should look at every possibility and a creator god, is a possibility.
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:52 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;78633 wrote:
Definition 1 of science by webster:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

You must be referring to physical science. That is not the only science.
EDIT from your opening post it is you who are referring to physical science I'm curious about the thing in Theoretical Physics they refer to as the Superforce, and wondering if this could possibly be the beginning of a scientific description of God

Enough about your squirming, Not even the faithful know if a god exists.

Neil;78633 wrote:
Definition of God from Wikipedia:

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.
Why have you changed the source of your definitions ie from webster to wiki? It would be interesting to compare the definitions from both sources.

Neil;78633 wrote:
If the superforce is responsible for initiating the big bang, then it is God according to the most popular conception. Whether you like it or not. If we ever discover what is responsible for the creation of the universe, then most definitely that thing should bear the title of God.
According to your own definition you are wrong. A force is not supernatural it follows natural laws. You do not have to evoke supernatural agenices to control natural phenomena.

Ares;78651 wrote:
Why not? I mean I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with science forming a theory, if they can, surrounding the ideas of god. We should look at every possibility and a creator god, is a possibility.
Possibilities must be able to be eliminated if they are to be considered as science.
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 05:54 pm
@validity,
validity;78690 wrote:

Why have you changed the source of your definitions ie from webster to wiki? It would be interesting to compare the definitions from both sources.


:bigsmile: I didnt agree with websters definition.

validity;78690 wrote:

According to your own definition you are wrong. A force is not supernatural it follows natural laws. You do not have to evoke supernatural agenices to control natural phenomena.


Actually the superforce isnt a force, not in the way that the four fundamentals are. We dont know exactly what it is. Before the big bang and at the time of the singularity. The natural laws/Physics didnt exist, gravity didnt exist, atoms didnt exist. So technically, the superforce would in fact be supernatural.

validity;78690 wrote:

Possibilities must be able to be eliminated if they are to be considered as science.


For now the superforce is just a theory, some day it may be a scientific fact. In any event, I think it is an interesting concept.

Neil
validity
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:29 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;78882 wrote:
Actually the superforce isnt a force, not in the way that the four fundamentals are. We dont know exactly what it is. Before the big bang and at the time of the singularity. The natural laws/Physics didnt exist, gravity didnt exist, atoms didnt exist. So technically, the superforce would in fact be supernatural.

For now the superforce is just a theory, some day it may be a scientific fact. In any event, I think it is an interesting concept.

Neil
The superforce is a force and in the way of the other four forces. That is the principle behind the idea of unification. Of course gravity did not exist at this stage, becuase as you said and we are discussing, gravity under these conditions becomes unified with the other forces. Take for example the unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force. The resultant force has been experimentally observed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_theory Under the conditions of the Super Proton Synchrotron, electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force no exist but are unified. The same is for gravity at earlier stages of the universe.

It is generally accepted that there were physical laws, as you describe, 'before the big bang and at the time of the singularity' (even if it makes no sense to say these things). Just because there is no agreeance on what these laws are does not mean there were none. The unification of the four fundamental forces also require unification of the individual physical laws that describe the individual forces. It is for this reason that the unified laws are not know, because at present, gravity just wont unify with the other forces without creating nonsense.
0 Replies
 
lightbuster286
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 12:14 pm
@validity,
Yeah um I'd watch what you say if I were you yeah there is no proof that he exists but there isn't any proof that he DOESN'T exist either. If you ask me he and the universe work together like he creates something and lets everything else unfold on it's own accord. Plus my life was a living hell until I paid tithing and started praying. He does not answer to the scientists because he chooses not to I mean why should he? They are mere knowledge craving things compared to him. He doesn't answer to everyone just because they want him to ok? You catch my drift?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 04:58 pm
A number of points:
Laws not only did not exist before the Big Bang, they don't exist now in the sense of statutes with a law giver and law enforcer. "Laws" are merely regularities as we observe them. They are not "compliances"; they are what Nature does because it is its nature to do so.

Someone asked if God (or the "superforce") has consciousness. Of course it does; this is what you and I are manifesting right now. I agree that "God" senses itself by means of all the sensory systems in the universe, and that includes us.

Most importantly, you and I ARE the universe, and as such it is redundant for us to talk about It as if it were something other than us.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 10:59 pm
@JLNobody,
...Yes important to remind that Laws are not commandments...regularity's fits the bill nicely.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Superforce
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 07:11:10