I like hearing theories of the universe and beyond and before, for the sheer enormity of it all, for the fact that there is so much still unexplained and mysterious and conflicting, and for getting away from the trials and tribulations of petty daily life.
What I wonder (as someone who doesn't believe in God) what people here who do believe and who also study and appreciate science think God consists of, is made of?

Science is merely the understanding of how things work. The problem with humanity trying to understand God and even to a lesser extent the spiritual world, is that our idea of the scientific method simply does not apply because that plane of existence is OUTSIDE of our physical realm. Things like what God consists of is something I believe we really have no possible way to answer.

Of course, it's always fun to speculate!

If God is not matter, anti-matter, dark matter, energy, SOMETHING, then doesn't anyone in the physics world wonder if he interferes with the laws of physics? I know Einstein believed in God. I've watched Douglas Hofstadter talk about his wife's consciousness 'out there' after her death, and others talk about an afterlife of 'information' from our being.

Oh yes, I'm in no way saying it's not interesting. And I love thinking about the subject... but in the end I think it is something that is beyond us. We don't even really know what spirit is. But we know that God is spirit and essentially so are human beings. What is that? It's not matter, that's out bodies. It really hurts my brain to think about. Yet, as a spirit, we are still a fully functioning being. In fact, the Bible even describes what we will become as a glorified body... so there is still as aspect of "matter" than may be involved. Who knows... I'm sure it'll be great no matter what it is.

So how do we come that we believe if we cannot find proves of his existence since we cannot explain anything about him?

But what proof do we have that we have a spirit and so is god - after all to belief requires some reasoning as well

A basic tenet of believing in God and a spirit is faith. Faith isn't based on reasoning; it is belief without proof.
That's why I ask the physicists if they can explain what God is 'made of' and if they don't want to try, how they manage to separate yet reconcile faith and reason.

I simply work on the only theory that comes from revelation and not from science. God created. Science has offered us no explanations, just facts about details which may, or may not, be the correct version of events. The reality is we haven't been told and we don't need to know, at least, not at this stage of our development. What have we gained by knowing that the universe might be 13 billion or some year old, nothing but questions and the certain knowledge that nothing we have observed exists today. It is a wonder and nothing more than that. The latest theory is that four billion years ago about all the matter that ever existed existed then, well whoop=de=doo, another useless fact or theory, according to what you believe. Black holes are now having to justify themselves, the arrogance of science.

What I know is this, God exists, how or why I don't know

Hi Joy,

That's a difficult question to answer in a few posts. Perhaps, for a start we could change a few definitions you have used. This may help.

Actually, our Western society has a strong history of explaining faith with reason. History of theology and philosophy has a strong tradition of demonstrating the existence of God through reasoning. This is quite different to scientific reasoning and I will try to demonstrate why as we go on.

Reasoning in a theological way can actually mean a lot of things, but generally speaking it is said that the existence of God can be demonstrated through logic.

To give you a very poor example, that I have just made up (only for the purposes of this demonstration) of a logical argument for the existence of God:

"It is inconceivable to imagine a superior being that cannot, not exist"

The important point is that my argument for God's existence is based solely on the terms of the sentence I have used. In other words, anyone can see the truth of this sentence, even if they never move out of their armchair. All they have to do is read the sentence. Another way of saying this is that it is self-evidently true.

The reasoning used by science is also self-evidently true. Mathematics, for example can be said to be self- evidently true. Naturally, mathematics is an important part of science. We can also see the truth of mathematical propositions by sitting in our armchairs.

The important point is that we can never do science sitting in our armchairs. Science can only be achieved by getting out of our armchairs and conducting some observations.

In the end we can never test by way of observation the truth of my statement:

"It is inconceivable to imagine a superior being that cannot not exist"

No telescope, or any other scientific instrument can ever hope to reveal a superior being that would prove my sentence true BY WAY OF OBSERVATION.

Science makes the observations using the instruments and then formulates a theory to explain what they are actually seeing. For the purposes of this argument we might say that the radiation left over from the Big Bang tends to be fainter the further we go out into space, but stronger the closer we are to earth. This is not actually true, but let us imagine it is true.

This observation might suggest that at an earlier time in history there was a strong concentration of radiation in the one spot and it seems as though there was some type of explosion that resulted in a spreading out of this radiation.

This seems like a reasonable theory based on the observations but we need to back it up with some 'reasoning' The reasoning in this case would be the mathematics that might explain some of the observations.

In light of what I have just said I will try and answer your question that stated:

"That's why I asked the physicist if they can explain what God is 'made of' and if they don't want to try, how they manage to reconcile faith and reason"

A physicist would be happy to acknowledge the existence of God if he/she could actually make the observations. If such observations were possible then he/she could use mathematics ( a type of reasoning) combined with the observations to determine what type of substance God is made of. Obviously this is not possible.

So its not a case of not wanting to try, but more of a case of there is nothing to observe in terms of physical things. On this basis it is also the case that there is no conflict between faith and reason on the part of the scientist because reasoning in science ( for the purpose of this exercise) is a different type of reasoning.


I don't know if this is much of an explanation, but it is the best I can come up with.

Tut

So the idea of cycling universes is not accepted ?

Not at the moment.

Brian Schmidt won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2011 for his discovery that the universe is actually accelerating at an ever increasing rate. This is probably because of the dominance of dark energy over dark matter.

If the acceleration rate continues and there is no reversal then we will end up being one galaxy in an empty universe. More correctly, this will be the way it seems to us- as it will to every other inhabitant of other galaxies ( assuming there is intelligent life in other galaxies). Everyone on every other galaxy will believe they are the only galaxy in the entire universe because no light from anywhere else will reach them or us.

It seems we are destined to eventually live in a cold dark universe that will keep on expanding.

Tut

One possible starting point would be to try and logically prove that spirit, consciousness is a non-physical substance. It has been tried many time in the past in one way or another without much success. This hasn't stopped some fairly good recent attempts to formulate arguments in favour of dualism. Physical body and a non-physical mind.

Tut

Why is there no theory that our big bang created just one universe out of many that have their own time agenda in an infinite space?

Still if many universes were created it still counts the theory that someone must have created and caused BIg Band

What I want to know is if someone who doesn't believe asks me how can you believe in the spirit?
In order to do this I make use of the argument that if a wrong spirit may take control of a person (a person becomes possessed) then a person may have a good spirit as well. We have proves that persons become possessed.

Proof of someone being possessed? I'm outahere.

I think you both are alluding to some type of first cause argument. In other words, if we trace a cause back far enough we will eventually get to the Big Bang. The next logical step in the causal chain is to ask who caused the Big Bang.

Sometimes this better know as a cosmological argument. As I said earlier, this is a logical, or metaphysical argument. So strictly speaking it is not a theory, but an argument for an uncaused cause.

Many people see this as a very good argument, but as far as science is concerned it is still a metaphysical argument because we have no way of tracing causes backward to the beginning. Science doesn't acknowledge metaphysical arguments.


Tut

Tut

You want to prove God by observation, this is not hard to do. There are many inexplicable events, God in action. The greater question is why does he bother?

Einstein once said "I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details".

Just as we cannot see the wood for the trees, so we are unable to see God for the details, we are busy trying to explain the details

A psychologist would probably say that this person is suffering from some type of psychosis.

If you want to try and convince someone that humans have something 'extra' that is of a non-physical nature then ask them if it is possible for them to create a computer programme that builds in consciousness. In other words, can anyone create for me a computer that is conscious in the same way humans are conscious?

However, keep in mind is very difficult to prove the existence of something that is non-physical. Not impossible but difficult.

Tut

I didn't ask a metaphysical question. It was plain and simple physics.