Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[Mike2]

Are we sure a proof of god is not possible?

If there is a god, it would certainly be in god's power to allow proof, if it decided it was the time to do so.

It is not possible to prove what you cannot define. However, if you define God to be the Logic that makes all facts consistent with each other, then God is the starting premise of even thinking.

 

[christian_dude_27]

i believe that god definitely rules the universe. what I've been taught, and believe solely with every fabric of my mind and body, is that he can change any "law" of physics that we have observed, if god rules the universe, and if he created the universe, then why is there a reason that he can not change the way the universe acts? there isn't. god is god, and I'm pretty sure a creater can change aything he created.

 

[pelastration]

i believe that god definitely rules the universe. what I've been taught, and believe solely with every fabric of my mind and body, is that he can change any "law" of physics that we have observed, if god rules the universe, and if he created the universe, then why is there a reason that he can not change the way the universe acts? there isn't. god is god, and I'm pretty sure a creater can change aything he created.

Many people like you believe that God is a type of creator and a PARTICIPATOR, and involved with all what happens to his creations.
For others he is not that participator, but an observer.
For others God is an archetype of the founding energies of the universe(s), without an independent will. More a background energy.
For others God is simply a man-created concept.
It's all a question of your perception of reality.

 

[Gil Fuller]

The inclusion of God in TOE does not make it complete, it makes it incomprehensible. It no longer is a theory but a nonempirical statement of faith (dogma). The original "equation" : me= God=you is a strange combination of the empirical and the imaginary and hence is nonsensical.

 

[n0n]

Gil Fuller has it, "me=God=you" it makes since but so much so that; if all = all then all must be all, and that cannot explain anything, but all; if all = (some random thing) then all must be all, and that cannot explain anything, but all;. It becomes philosophical, and stay's forever as such. and yes god could "hypothetically" change such a concept but we would never notice the faultiness occur for logic is always logical and if logic changes logic it only happens in a logical way and so happens when humans discover such links, not through god but through generations of exiting being that was , and will be, like it has always been even through differing of species.

 

[Dayle Record]

My Take On This

I think that we, as ambulatory chemical fires, basically consume fuel, protect our physical selves and reproduce ourselves. Much as been speculated as to why we perform this simple set of acts in such a complex way. Our brains and bodies perceive energies at large in our environment, and perhaps on levels that we have not yet taken the time to measure. The complexity and variety of our capacities for thought and perception, lead me to think that we are a part of a much larger network, that as small subscribers, we cannot fully perceive. That does not make us subject, it is just where we inhabit a larger form. We act in so many ways that have no bearing on our survival, no rationale in the natural world, that the natural world needs a broader definition. I wonder if human brain tissue has been tested for response for every kind of energy at large, we can generate, or perceive?

As far as religion goes, and people programmed to believe; this is a multi billion dollar business on one hand, that relies on belief to continue; and on the other it represents our most profound aspirations. I tell you this, if someone arrived on Earth proclaiming to be God, and making aggressive, and destructive acts then we would need to deal with that entity in kind. On this world, we need to have the self respect, and knowledge that we are the owners here, and have rights to this property. On this issue we need to be of one mind. We do unto the other life forms on this planet, as we certainly would not like to be treated. What if we are just some livestock that wandered off, and our shepard really intends to eat us, after he and his family arrives?

The Sufis have a saying, "As above, so below."

Most primate groups have an order of dominance, we are unusual, in that we have projected that onto the Universe at large; as if what happens in primate society is the rule of law in the Universe. Therefore there must be a God, that has power over our power structures. We are very specific in response to our environment, the myriads of environments in the Universe at large, make for untold variety I would imagine. That is the other statement, I would imagine. I am very clear on the difference between imagination, and running into the furniture in my living room, on the way to work in the dark. I don't want Science to be ruled by the organized religious imaginings rampant in this world. That presents too many highly subjective variables for the equation.

 

[n0n]

I think their are 2 possibilities that the universe must reside in (means that the 'whole' universe are these 2 possibilities) 1: the infinite state 2: the finite state. now, in this universe it is a finite state and will die out, but due to the infiniteness of nothing becomes an infinite state of continuum to creation. God is only able to preceive itself through us, meaning that logic can have intelligence because we have intelligence, and therefore a new questions arises. Did logic ever make any choice that was not of an order pre ordained within the definitions of some event: ie. if god changed his mind would it be a completely logical change? and if it were, wouldn't it be seen as not a decision, but a realization?
how human is this, and I think the answer arises willingly. Its not bad to be godless, its not good to be god blessed. but this can be reversed 'its not bad to be god blessed, its not good to be godless', which proves only one thing, guess cause its all about TOE, to understand any concept even close to such a thing one must first realize that all is all but what defines all, and picking at the list and getting more technical at every moment.

 

[terra firma]

if god created time, space and everything in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?

 

[connect]

I am the eternal, I am Ra, I am that which created the word, I am the word.

The egyptians believed that before the Earth there was an abyss of unpolarised matter (primodial soup).

They also believed every sound had a corresponding form, when Ra created things he literally 'commanded' matter to take the form of his word.

I believe the universe is a body of space, this body can contain other bodies (spacial constructs). The motion of the space (at string level) is a rattle effect, creating the effect of time.

 

[Mike2]

if god created time, space and everything in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?

God is logic in the sense that Einstein used the word when he said, "God does not play dice with the world". There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.

 

[Erck]

There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.

Why can't the origins of the universe and of god too... be completely logical?