substantivalism

Light isn't pure energy that's sort of a misnomer. substantivalism
Well, I disagree. Light is electromagnetic radiation in a particular range of frequencies. It is pure energy. For example, when matter and antimatter collide and totally annihilate each other converting all matter into energy, the only things that are produced are two photons of energy. Nothing else is produced. There is no contaminant. It is pure energy. Please explain why you think that light is not pure energy.

Here you're are using the word universe which I'm assuming you mean as what we can see through telescopes as the greater cosmos (existing stuff beyond our sight or disconnected from our spacetime) is not accessible to us and we have not reason to rule it out or in. substantivalism
One can never rule out what one does not know.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it unless you think that the intelligence we possess allows us to walk through walls. We can manipulate loosely the reality that surrounds us as well as makes us up but creating it extends this analogy so far that you would have to specify how you know an extremely intelligent being could do so. substantivalism
As I said, intelligence is essential to determine the exact conditions that will result in the universe self-assembling in a way that will produce life. As an analogy, imagine you have a totally automated car assembly factory and your job is to program all the robots to assemble the car without human interference. You would need to be very intelligent to write the correct programs. That does not mean that having that intelligence will suffice to build the assembly plant. Someone else built the robots and purchased all the needed parts. Intelligence alone does not generate matter from nothing. That is a separate issue. Suppose that some weird process devoid of any intelligence suddenly generated an enormous amount of energy, unless the proper rules of were also present, that energy could simply dissipate as it expanded and nothing world form…or only hydrogen would form…or whatever.

You also haven't defined god so we can't investigate whether it's or is not successful in better explaining our observations or in other terms better describing them. substantivalism
All one can deduce from our scientific knowledge is the existence of an intelligent being capable of generating a universe consisting of an amount of matter/energy equivalent to 10 to the power 24 stars…more or less. (including dark matter etc.). At the same time to generate space/time and to determine all the laws governing all the interactions. One can surmise that this being exist without space and time and is not composed of matter and energy. Does that help?
If my trash can, capped with a tight lid, is raided at night, I do not need to define what animal did that to know that the animal existed and did the deed. I might be able to estimate the strength of the animal and find other clues, but those are superfluous to the conclusion that the animal exists. The animal could have been a racoon, a human, a bigfoot…irrelevant.

Well matter is just an umbrella term for stuff which isn't a measure and the mass or inertia of objects isn't something that is conserved. Energy, even in our universe, due to general relativity isn't much conserved since energy requires time translation symmetry. substantivalism
Under the conditions in which the vast majority of processes take place in our universe, matter+energy is conserved. Name one significant process that has been observed to take place in which matter+energy is not conserved. By significant you can consider any process that affects this sum by at least 1 part in 10 to the power 20 of all the processes in the universe.

With regard to your comments about physics, they are trivial and do not consider the context in which I made the statements. Ok so E=mc^2 does not include the kinetic energy present in the motion of the particle in question. So what? That is not why I introduced that piece of information. Other assertions you make are actually opinions and/or selective interpretations. You are welcome to your point of view.

What do you mean by serious thinkers? — turkeyMan

This is an important question. What, after all, makes a serious thinker serious? A serious thinker, among other things, is a person who wants to comprehend reality even if that comprehension results in the total negation of their vital, positive belief structure. It comes down to truth over comfort.

:up:

Why can't God be made of energy?

:groan:

Marco you keep mixing science with philosophy in an attempt to win over people. First you describe the universe, then you say "how can this be without a God". The first part of your remarks have no bearing on the latter parrt, and this is because the world could have any shape, size, qualities, anything you can imagine but that doesn't give you the philosophical right to say without a God there would be just chaos. This is a.philosophy forum. Your argument is herrmaphrodic and I'm not into such things

It is important to see this because it's the psychological motivation behind our drive to prove their transcendence, and this motivation stops us from comprehending reality. — JerseyFlight

What, in your understanding, is this motivation?

To assert that art, music and literature are higher in any way than science and mathematics is merely a personal opinion to which anyone is entitled to have or not to have. As to primitive, I think archeology would indicate that art preceded mathematics and thus is more primitive based on the depictions on the walls of caves. — Marco Colombini

When I say primitive I don't mean historically or culturally primitive, I mean they are rudimentary. Atoms and numbers are rudimentary compared to the more sophisticated realms of consciousness. They are the nuts and bolts of existence. The 'music' of reality is on a more evolved and sophisticated realm.

The hydrogen atom is a physical image of energy. It is not an ultimate physical substance because there is no ultimate physical substance. All physical objects are images of energy. Likewise with physical music, art and religion. They are images or metaphors of something else. The question I am asking is what do these metaphors/images represent? Art and religion are images of the contents of our consciousness. So what is the reality behind the image?

All human, physical life is an image of something else. Science is concerned with the invisible order behind the physical world. Religion is concerned with the invisible order behind the image that human life is. In this respect science and religion are both attempts to grasp the 'world beyond the world'.

I think you are forgeting that established physics are nowhere near to explaining everything in and about our universe so using god to explain what is unknown is not a realistic explanation for his existence. Let me remind you that 2000 years ago, when we didnt know much about how planets and stars exist we explained them with god, when science gave and adequate explanation god moved to explain other unknown things and so on and so on... God will always be present as long as we have things we dont know about so basically forever. God is created out of human tendency to explain or give meaning to everything,

I see art, music, literature, and emotion as being soft, malleable, unreliable, and thus rather useless tools if one wants to know anything with any confidence. — Marco Colombini

The subtext here is that only 'provable' rudimentary truths are admissible; subjective things are open to debate, established science and mathematics are not. All that seems reasonable but the problem is provable, objective truths that can be agreed upon are rudimentary, primitive. They are almost useless.

Imagine a luxury ocean liner on a cruise. In the bowels of the ship you have the engineers tending to the engine and the basic running of the ship. But on the upper decks there is opera at night. This is an art exhibition. The passengers occupy themselves with discussions about higher things; art, philosophy, religion, creativity and so on.

Why would the people on the upper decks summon one of the engineers to comment on these things? Because he is an expert engineer and knows every nut and bolt of the engine? Why would this qualify him to make judgements on art and religion or music?

I'm not denigrating science or mathematics but in the modern age we have this fixation with the scientist because he knows weird stuff that intimidates regular folk. They are 'geniuses' and are held in awe. So we tend to think they are experts on all manner of things outside their area of expertise. But two minutes reflection will show that they are no more qualified in philosophical matters than anyone else. Indeed, there might be more truth in folk wisdom than there is in a library of science books.

In fact, scientists are often poor judges of matters concerning consciousness because they are scientists. This is because people can be 'hypnotized' or drunk on their own knowledge and expertise; they are blinded by it and are locked inside the consensus box. Very often it takes someone who is willing to think outside the box to break the spell. And 'spell' is the exact word here because academic excellence can cast a spell on the mind and prevent it from going outside the consensus. In this respect, scientists can often be very poor philosophers. How many times have you heard science writers parroting the consensus simply because it is the consensus rather than rigorously established science?

I think you are forgetting that established physics are nowhere near to explaining everything in and about our universe so using god to explain what is unknown is not a realistic explanation for his existence. — Leiton Baynes

I don't think god is simply invented to explain things. Belief is often based on intuition. Yes, people may use god to 'fill in the gaps' but even then they are not necessarily wrong because God really does move the planets. It is just that God's actions are more complex then we originally thought.

A serious thinker, among other things, is a person who wants to comprehend reality even if that comprehension results in the total negation of their vital, positive belief structure. It comes down to truth over comfort. — JerseyFlight

A serious thinker may eventually think their way to the realization that nothing made of thought can ever be the truth. Such a realization has proven itself uncomfortable to many a thinker. :-)

Science is concerned with the invisible order behind the physical world. Religion is concerned with the invisible order behind the image that human life is. In this respect science and religion are both attempts to grasp the 'world beyond the world'. — EnPassant

EnPassant, your posts are great, thanks. I'm going to quibble a bit, but just a bit.

Your description of science seems accurate to me, and I like the way it points to something, an order, that is very real, and yet does not exist.

While the purpose of science is to develop knowledge about reality, I think religion is better described as an effort to develop our relationship with reality. What confuses this issue is that religions often make claims about reality as part of the attempt to manage that relationship.

EnPassant

I actually agree with most of what you said. Outside of one's area of expertise one can be rather ordinary in skill and insight. One should never put anyone on a pedestal, accepting statements without making one's own judgement.
I don't particularly like opera, despite being Italian by birth. Given a choice, I'd much rather be tinkering with a mechanical device. A great deal of creativity goes into probing the mechanism of action of a novel cellular protein...exploring the unknown. This is not base or primitive. This is merely a part of a constellation of human interests and activities.

Light is not grace. We are asking for proof of a supernatural order. So you know what that means? — Gregory

Gregory!

I'm not sure you're thinking that through. The newbie contributor was positing that there is no 'higher eternal entity'. And so I replied with the fact that in nature light speed stops time; eternity, timelessness, etc. exists.

Here are a couple more bullet points for you regarding your comment about 'grace' (not sure where that concept even came from, maybe you could explain in your reply).

1. 'Grace' has no Darwinian survival advantages, so what is your point, is 'grace' some sort of metaphysical feature of human consciousness? Please explain what you mean by 'grace'?

2. The Holographic Principle in quantum theory posits consciousness can transmit information through space via Biophotons. Which in turn, has other intriguing implications regarding eternity/speed of light viz Einstein's relativity and black holes, etc..

Why can't God be made of energy? — Gregory

Good question, there's no reason why God couldn't be... .

you can't translate ancient texts. — Gregory

*sigh** Why have an interesting and provocative notion and then misstate it? Of course and obviously we can and do translate ancient texts. Give it a moment's thought and you will recognize that is all we can do with them. What I think you mean is that what was meant by the writer of the text and the meaning of the text itself can both be elusive. But there are whole sets of techniques for dealing with those problems.

As for meaning itself in any absolute terms, a whole other boatload of a topic.

I don't think god is simply invented to explain things. Belief is often based on intuition. Yes, people may use god to 'fill in the gaps' but even then they are not necessarily wrong because God really does move the planets. It is just that God's actions are more complex then we originally thought. — EnPassant

The following is a well worn path, but perhaps reminders will be helpful...

All discussions of God are contained in language, and thus become prisoner to the built in limitations of language. As example the noun God, like all nouns, presumes the existence of things, which in turn presumes the existence of boundaries between one thing and another thing.

And so it is extremely common to attempt to define God by saying God is this, God is that, God does this, God does that, just as we would do with any noun. Such attempts at explanation of God are built upon the assumption that God is a phenomena separate and unique from other phenomena, and thus subject to definition.

What if boundaries, things, division and separation are not a property of reality, but rather a pattern projected on to reality by the dualistic nature of the human mind?

As evidence we might consider space, that is, the overwhelming vast majority of reality. There are no divisions in space. The space of a far distant galaxy is an single unified unbroken undivided phenomena which extends down in to the very smallest scales of our own physical existence.

Point being, our attempts to define God would seem to be in rather substantial conflict with the vast majority of reality. All of our definitions presume that boundaries are real. Are they?

Well the celestial realm is supposed to be filled with God's light, which is grace. I don't see how you get from natural light, even if it's pure energy, to a superconsciousness people call God

the celestial realm is supposed to be filled with God's light, which is grace. I don't see how you get from natural light, even if it's pure energy, to a superconsciousness people call God — Gregory

Let me ask you again, what is grace?

Leiton Baynes

Your expressed opinion that God is used to explain away natural phenomena that are not yet understood, is a frequently held opinion. Yet, if one reads the Bible one does not see that at all. Nowhere does it try to explain natural phenomena by appealing to God. It is true that Genesis describes the beginning with acts of God but that story is a way of telling us that God created the universe but in a way that could be understood both by primitive peoples and more sophisticated ones. Note that the Bible says that light came before the Sun and the stars. That notion could be ridiculed up to about 100 years ago. Now we know that it is true. Separation of light from darkness is what we now believe happened early in the expansion of the universe...interesting. Otherwise, the Bible is a story about the relationship between God and man. It is not a science book.
As to our knowledge of the way the universe works from present-day Physics, yes, you are correct that there aspects that are not understood (dark matter, wave-particle duality). Given that, what is known and understood is truly amazing. Yes, it is limited to the material world which is probably not all that exists. I think one can say with confidence that based on what we know collectively, what we know to be quite solid science, certain events (e.g. beginning of the universe) are not possible based on the properties of the universe. Perhaps in 100 years that statement will prove false but I doubt it very much.

The

Grace is a substance of sorts that presents God to you. Natural light does no such thing as far as I can see. God might be an energy, rarified or whatever. Or he might be all the energy in the world as Spinoza and Teilhard might put it. Or maybe he never existed?

don't see how you get from natural light, even if it's pure energy, to a superconsciousness people call God — Gregory

Sorry for the piece meal, my internet is buggered up. Consider reading about the Holographic Principle and conscious energy/Biophotons first. Then, in Christianity, consider that God created consciousness through a Being known as Jesus who existed in history. Then, consider the many metaphysical question(s) about conscious existence.

Grace is a substance of sorts that presents God to you. Natural light does no such thing as far as I can see. God might be an energy, rarified or whatever. Or he might be all the energy in the world as Spinoza and Teilhard might put it. Or maybe he never existed? — Gregory

Interesting. You are suggesting grace is 'a substance of sorts that presents God to you'. What is your theory?

Gregory

"the world could have any shape, size, qualities, anything you can imagine" In fact, that is not true unless one does not care about the consequences. The restrictions are extremely tight if one wants to have a world that can support life. It that requirement is not necessary then yes, there are many possibilities but there are still restrictions. For example, it is impossible to make a coffee cup the size of Earth. Gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball-like structure. By the way, one can calculate the size of the largest living organism that could exist on the surface of the Earth just based of the strength of interaction between atoms. (I cannot do that but I've read the paper that reported the calculation).
On another subject, you asked, can God be made of energy? I would say no, at least energy as we know it. God cannot be made of anything created because He existed before creation.

I don't think god is simply invented to explain things. — EnPassant

Maybe not "simply" meaning only. But think about it: every god is an account of something. And what's missed in these discussions is that the idea of one god undergirds science in the sense - and opposed to polytheistic belief systems - that science can presuppose that what works here also applies there. That is, one god, one set of rules, v. many gods, many sets of different and differing rules, in which case science becomes impossible.

Part of the Christian revolution was recognition and acknowledgement of this benefit of one god. Greek and Roman culture had become moribund because Paganism leads to a dead end. How fully and explicitly conscious early Christian thinkers were on this, is more than I know. But they were manifestly aware of how different monotheism - their brand of it - was, and what its promises were.

The presupposition, then, of the existence of one god is a presupposition of modern science. I suspect, though, that most scientists would acknowledge this god as simply a modern variant of logos.

Moving science onto this platform, at the same time the movement from Aristotle to a new form of Platonism, is integral with the enlightenment, which is also to say that it took a long time.

Maybe gods get along even though they are not one substance? Maybe, since the holographic principle was mentioned, we should consider the Eleatic One instead of Aristotle's Prime Unmoved Mover?

Why can't energy as we know it be eternal in the form of God's body as Mormons say? Simple question. Btw I'm Italian too

Why can't energy as we know it be eternal in the form of God's body as Mormons say? — Gregory

Or as the forms of the bodies of purple flying hippopotami? Or a whole lot of other things?

Why not a form of panentheism like the Hare Krishna movement held (and George Harrison), an inbetween position between Hinduism and Aristotle?

Otherwise, the Bible is a story about the relationship between God and man. — Marco Colombini

The key word being relationship.

All the endless talk of theology and philosophy is not relationship with God (or if you prefer, reality) but is instead relationship with our thoughts about God (or reality).