God: No magic required

[lweisenthal]

Hi Max, Thank you indeed for the thoughtful comments. I don't want this to devolve to a tit for tat, point by point, series of rejoinders and counter rejoinders. I don't feel the need to challenge most of what you wrote; I stand by what I wrote previously, but I do understand your different points of view. Also, I do find your clarification of atheism (absence of proof, as opposed to absence of possibility) to be helpful.

I have a couple of specific replies, relating to the physics part of it. I think that we can have a useful dialog, if we treat this as a thought experiment, as opposed to an argument over core values.

You raise the issue of communication between different universes within the multiverse (this is relevant to my suggestion for two possibilities for the location of the higher level of consciousness which I refer to as God: to wit, within the dark energy/dark matter of our own universe -- 95% according to my sources and up to 99% according to yours -- versus an even more exotic form of organized energy in a different universe within the multiverse).

We now have some direct physical evidence suggesting physical "communication" with least one other universe -- the Planck project measuring background radiation, showing a "cold" area, putatively caused by the gravitational pull on our universe by another universe, mediated by the inter-universe equivalent of gravitrons, or whatever. Here's a great video by a University of North Carolina physicist, explaining it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAL1-vzMvmA

Now, the point is that is it possible for there to be communication between one universe and another, within the multiverse. I understand that you have a skeptical approach to such things; you are the type of scientist I'd refer to as an investigator, as opposed to a discover. Investigators are conservative and seldom make mistakes but never make breakthroughs. Discovers are enthusiasts and often make mistakes, but, when they are right, they create entirely new paradigms. The world of science needs both investigators and discoverers... but I digress.

Now, what's even more interesting is that I'm not only one who's considered the possibility that "free floating" energy in the universe could undergo spontaneous organization into sentient consciousness.

Google "Boltzmann Brains," or start with this popular culture explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/...reloaded=1

Perhaps we'll continue this conversation (I'm willing; you may find it tiresome and wish to move on). Perhaps not. I'm sure that I won't convince you that God exists; as I wrote, in my case, it's because I was impressed by clinical research data showing objective health and longevity advantages associated with theism and I had some behavioral issues refractory to conventional management. I first needed to establish plausibility (as opposed to proof, which is your higher bar prerequisite). Once I had plausibility, I then did a "Phase II Clinical Trial" (as opposed to a prospective, randomized, controlled Phase III clinical trial) to determine if it were possible to convert myself from an agnostic to a theist, as explained earlier. I did so. The trial was positive. And I have benefited unambiguously, in several ways.

So what, precisely, from your point of view is the problem that I did this and that I recommend consideration of what I did to others? Of course, religion can be misused. So can alcohol, automobiles, and the Internet. But the fact that religion has passed the test of time shows that it does meet a basic human need in many people and enriches (and perhaps prolongs) many lives.

What I don't like are gratuitous comparisons of religion to Santa Claus and astrology and palm reading and a seeming need to denigrate people who enjoy the personal benefits of religion in their lives. The health benefits of training for and competing in marathon runs remain controversial and unproven; yet for the many marathon runners, the rewards are obvious in real time. There are many such things in life.

If your problem with religion is that it is an intrusive influence on secular society (perhaps you don't like having "In God We Trust" on US currency; I'd agree with you, but I'd point out that there are far greater problems in public governance than such bland religious intrusion -- so called "legislative prayer" being another such intrusion).

It's hardly worth the fuss, and, in any event, one can be a fierce defender of separation of church and state and yet not feel compelled to attack the church which is important to so many. Likewise, religious people should grant atheists their right to disbelieve in the absence of the sort of physical proof they seem to require, as a prerequisite for being open to the possibility of faith.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

I like having discussions like this with people in different time zones. The conversations tend to be more slow motion and thoughtful, which is not how they are when they are real time/back and forth, where there is too much in the way of emotional reaction. I do thank the several of you who are continuing this discussion with me.

Firstly, let's dispense with the straw men.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, because he doesn't meet the test of plausibility. We have Google Earth images of the North Pole. No sign of human or reindeer habitation there. There is no evidence that mammals have ever had the ability to levitate and fly. And so on.

Right - but Santa lives in Lapland - you can even go there on holiday and meet him, see the elves and the reindeer - although obviously they won't be flying if it isn't Xmas eve and you can't go there on Xmas eve because Santa is busy that evening(!)

Now if that isn't enough to convince you I don't know what is - its far more proof of existence than anything you have for your Dark Matter God.

I also don't believe in physical miracles, including such things as faith healing of cancer. I don't reject the possibility completely; I'm an open-minded scientist (medical and research oncologist). I'm always open to reading the sorts of anecdotes which are used to support the canonization of Popes and what not. To date, I am not persuaded, but perhaps one day I shall be.

It appears that this is something you are looking forward to - I wonder why?

On the other hand, it is beyond challenge that prayers for beneficial alteration of sentient consciousness are routinely answered, for literally billions of people: courage, solace, liberation from substance abuse, companionship (yes, it's decidedly possible for a lonely person to experience a sense of companionship with a higher order of consciousness), perseverance, determination, improved ethics and morality, and so forth.

Actually nothing should be beyond challenge. All of the above benefits are not the sole preserve of religion, nor even one particular religion. Many people get much of the above, if not all of it, from astrology - does that mean we have to take that on board as a possibility as well? How about phrenology, palm reading....?

Now, I know that you'll bring up placebo effect, but that's a very high class problem to have. A believer experiences the myriad benefits of prayer, which are completely real to said believer (e.g. yours truly), but the precise mechanism of these benefits is elusive, from the standpoint of "proof."

I don't know why you claim the placebo effect is a high class problem to have. You are a Doctor, apparently. Surely you are aware that your most pressing instruction is simply to do no harm? Surely, for a general physician at least, you are aware that 90% of afflictions are self limiting so that as long as you are doing no harm you should achieve that success rate at least?

"...completely real to said believer..." Consider how important this statement is. Consider also that the basis of clinical trials in your own profession are exclusively designed to separate what actually works from what appears to work. Where there is no proof available, in medicine is the default position to assume it works or to assume it doesn't? Why should things be any different for matters of faith?

The reason that you guys can't convince believers to disbelieve, on the basis of the sorts of arguments you throw out, is that their (our) own personal experience trumps the arguments which you find to be so logical.

Yes, this is true and its a problem often shared with schizophrenics. Now is it more reasonable to argue that a proportion of the human race have, lets call them spiritual, experiences that are real whilst the rest do not, or, that delusion caused by mild mental issues are more common that we think?

Max gives me the courtesy of seriously considering my answer to the question of what interest God would have in us dull, uninteresting humans and states the following:

"What does a cat, dog, goldfish think? Well probably not alot (hungry, horny, tired, WALK etc.) and certainly nothing that would hold your interest for long. Surely that is the point. A universe creating deity would have less in common with us than does an ant.

"What's God doing if he's (!) not following us? OK - logical problem here - God is infinite. God existed for an infinite amount of time before he "invented" the universe. What was he doing then? Or, the universe is 13.72 billion years old - we are 200,000 years old. What was he doing for the 13.72 billion years prior to our arrival?"

My answer:

Well, firstly, this is another straw man. I don't know that God is infinite or that God existed for an infinite amount of time. For example, current theories from cosmological physics postulate the existence of an infinite number of universes in an infinite multiverse. Within our own universe, 95% of the physical reality is dark energy and dark matter. Human consciousness is simply organized biolectrical energy. Common matter is organized into very complex, sophisticated structures. We know that organized patterns of wired energy can produce sentience. None of you guys can begin to prove that organized patterns of wireless dark energy can't also produce sentience -- on an incalculable scale. Which is, parenthetically, why atheism is a "belief," while agnosticism is rational skepticism.

Not actually a strawman - merely an assumption that you have a more standard definition of God, rather than a unique position.

As it happens my figures for the combination of dark energy and dark matter are nearer 99% than 95 but it makes no odds.

"We know that organized patterns of wired energy can produce sentience. " True - but we also know that in the vast majority of cases it doesn't to any interesting degree (ants, dinosaurs, Pandas, republicans etc.)

You still haven't understood the burden of proof or what atheism is. Atheism is not the outright rejection of the possibility - it is the absence of belief due to the lack of proof.

Getting back to the current straw man:

The higher order sentience, existing in the dark energy/matter/higher dimensions of our universe would not necessarily have existed for an infinite amount of time. Our universe is postulated to have existed for less than 15 billion years. Therefore the "God" of our universe could have arisen from the coalescence of dark energy, in the same way that the stars originated from the coalescence of ordinary matter. The God whom I believe answers my own prayers may, therefore, be a product of spontaneous evolution of dark energy, who/which may or may not be a creator in his/its own right.

Or perhaps God arose from the exotic energy in another universe in our multiverse.

OK - forgive me for not guessing that your God isn't the standard, run of the mill, creator God. I'd drop the God that inhabits the multiverse bit altogether - unless you have specific explanations as to how he (?) leaps from one to another.

What did God do to occupy his time before the emergence of homo sapiens 200,000 years ago? There are 500 billion galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars and doubtless trillions of planets. That's only in our universe, one of possibly an infinite number of universes in the multiverse.

All of which really emphasises my original question of what possibly interest we might hold for such an entity with so much choice to entertain them. Actually it does go a bit further than that. What makes you think this intelligent Dark Matter God is even aware we exist? We are a thousand times harder to find than a needle in a haystack in terms of both space and time.

You don't care to believe in this; that's fine. But you can't begin to offer the beginning of any proof at all that it's not plausible, much less offer proof that it's not true. An agnostic would have the intellectual honesty to say that it's plausible, but doesn't rise to the level of believability, at the level of said agnostic. But an atheist has to assert that it's not only implausible, but actually impossible.

Like I said - you haven't understood what an atheist is. It might help to look at the Dawkins scale to get a better grip on things. That is a bit over-simplified but covers the basics (which are beyond your current understanding).

As I said originally, certitude is poison. I believe that God exists and that God answers prayers, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and that it's all placebo effect, albeit a powerful and very beneficial placebo. You guys have the certitude to believe that you have sufficient understanding of the nature of the multiverse to reject all possibility of God.

See above.

There was certainly a time when your ancestors would have felt they had sufficient understanding of the nature of the planet earth to reject all possibility of Skype.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

My atheist ancestors or my theist ancestors?