Evidently. I said so early on. I do not have access, and you may forgive me for saying I do not desire access, to your inner motivations — Vera Mont

I absolutely accept this. No qualms here. Its not for everyone for sure. And I dare not impose such ideas as definitive, un-arguable nor fact.

I simply enjoy pushing the proverbial boat out and seeing what people make of it. And I think the term "God" has such a quality of being inherently contentious, challenging and in need of rebuttal in all its forms.

Even if my methods are most unconventional/unorthodox or take the path least tread.

The gap between theological belief and skepticism is one I would ideally like to close or at least reduce. By finding commonality between the two. I would love a theory that satisfies all pursuits and dogmas of the various disciplines we have committed to the pursuit of knowledge, meaning and origin.

I think the only way of unifying such a concept/motivation is to take all roads in equal esteem and focus on the similarities between them rather than the differences that push them apart.

If we apply that human awareness, we can say they were briefly humanly aware (a wave) , but does that mean when they die (return to flat ocean) all awareness is lost? Or is there a fundamental consciousness ocean they return to? — Benj96

Universal Entropy, would be the most convincing evidence for me, that the stages of existence are 'comes into', 'IS', and 'IS no more'. I also accept the conservation of energy law as true, but I see no compelling evidence that energy, in any fundamental form/state it is proposed to have, is self-aware/conscious.

Your OP was about capitalism and the money trick. Such often invokes responses, that cite poor human morality, as the foundational reasons why such vile systems are able to exist, within human society. This leads to the currently claimed sources of human morality being brought up. This leads to theism Vs secular humanism and this often leads to science Vs theism/theosophism.
I think that's how your OP 'travelled.' I am fine with that but I know the moderators and some of the more 'nippy' TPF members, want to strictly stay with the OP boundaries and not allow every thread, to end up with members back to arguing about science Vs theism/theosophism.

Where do we draw the line? In what specific state of arrangement is energy and matter conscious, or are they always some form of conscious? Is it an innate property that they possess?

Just as solipsism suggests only one mind possesses awareness and panpsychism suggests that all matter and energy is conscious. The true emergence of it can be anywhere within in this polarity/dichotomy. — Benj96

Energy and mass are different states but they are also equivalences. There is no mass proposed within the big bang singularity, only very hot, very dense energy. This is the only 'state,' imo, when the notion of solipsism has any value and not even then, because you have to claim that some property of the energy contained in that original hot, dense singularity, is the source of consciousness.
I don't think that proposal has any value and the first manifestation of anything that could be called consciousness, came into existence, some time after abiogenesis.

Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?
— universeness

Depends if you're colour blind or not. — Benj96

No, it doesn't, borders created via monochromatic shades of light and dark, are just as real as borders created by colour difference.

The universe is not itemised. It is a seamless transition of interactions between space, matter, energy, time etc. Humans itemise. We are the discriminators, the categorisers, based on human perceived differences between things, and thus we developed language simultaneously applying different words to different categories to describe their relationships and build a knowledge of the universes content and workings. — Benj96

As we have typed many times. We are OF the universe and We itemise, because all the galaxies don't merge seemlessy. I have no problem with perceiving everything in the universe as 'connected' by the notion of an underlying 'fabric' called spacetime or as one big set of quantum field excitations, but I think it's also valid to talk about 'free particles,' and independent objects. I remain bemused, regarding why you choose to use any of the points you have made in this thread, to justify your declaration that you are a theist and by doing so, think that you have any chance of finding common ground between theism and atheism. You just get rejected by both sides.

Anyway. Yeah, capitalism and the money trick, needs to be diluted in human society, to the level of 1 part oil slick in 8 billion parts water, whereby the water dominates, and not the tiny presence of the oil slick.

but I see no compelling evidence that energy, in any fundamental form/state it is proposed to have, is self-aware/conscious. — universeness

What would be compelling evidence for you?

I see objectivity and subjectivity as an axis with 2 poles. Subjects perceive objects from their subjective end, and objects don't perceive objects on the other end (because of lack of subjectivity).

That's fine but the middle of such an axis is what confuses me. At some point in the transition from object to subject (from food, water and oxygen) into babies brain there is the emergence of awareness or sense of self.

And also in living systems as you said somehwere along from abiogenesis.

I just wonder, could this axis between object and subject not be one of decreasing entropy/ increasing organisation?
For me this seems less arbitrary than randomly selecting a point in our ancenstry or in the gestating foetus where consciousness "All or nothing" suddenly switches on or off.

If its based on orders of complexity, then consciousness may not have even began after abiogenesis. The systems preceding the first cell would have still had to be pretty complex.

The issue with associating consciousness with complexity or negative entropy, is that the most organised and lowest state of entropy was the singularity. And entropy (disorder) has been increasing ever since. If consciousness is based on order/complexity and the decreasing entropy of life systems, then it's not a huge irrationality to think that perhaps the low entropy of the singularity is also conscious

As for proof or compelling evidence? I doubt we would have anything more than reasoning and choice of beliefs or rationalisations at our disposable.

No, it doesn't, borders created via monochromatic shades of light and dark, are just as real as borders created by colour difference. — universeness

Yes I agree theor borders are real too. What I was saying is 2 separate distinct colours can appear as the same "grey" on a monochromatic scale if they are both of the same light/lux value, regardless of their hue/tone or chroma. There's 3 aspects to colour. Brightness is only one of them.

In that sense if a yellow and red of the same brightness is put into monochromacy. They will both be the same indistinguishable grey. They will however be discernible from black or white.

I remain bemused, regarding why you choose to use any of the points you have made in this thread, to justify your declaration that you are a theist and by doing so, think that you have any chance of finding common ground between theism and atheism. You just get rejected by both sides. — universeness

I'm glad it amuses you. It doesn't however upset me that my approach may not firmly be classifiable into that of heavily dogmatic and arbitrary religious views, nor into the stringent "repeatability as provability" paradigm of objective science in a world with variable degrees of constancy (repeatability).

If they both laugh me out /reject inclusion thats fine. As far as I know though, theism doesn't have any criteria for what a god ought to be in order to be included as theistic in nature. You just need to use the G term instead of the term universe or any other.
If I called myself a objectivity-subjectivity or material-immaterial dualist the content of our convo would have remained the same.
I like the term because of the moralistic translation of "balance" we see in nature.

Equilibrium. The design/structure of the it seems both rational and ethical (not by human standards - babies dying of cancer) but by mother nature's ones.
I don't think my "God" theistic view is very human centric, it doesn't favour our human biased perceptions of injustice as absolute /universal injustice.

I've now given several reasons why I like the term God. I can't possibly go on explaining more. I just made a personal choice and more importantly one that I'm not enforcing or insisting anyone else adopt. I don't see any issue with that

What would be compelling evidence for you? — Benj96

Direct communication, scientifically scrutinised.

I just wonder, could this axis between object and subject not be one of decreasing entropy/ increasing organisation? — Benj96

No, because increasing, LOCALISED organisation/complexity/birth etc, does not slow increasing universal entropy. The universe on it's largest scale is moving from low to high entropy.

then it's not a huge irrationality to think that perhaps the low entropy of the singularity is also conscious — Benj96

It's a faith based jump, and that has proven quite pernicious to the human race, as it spawned all religions and theosophism and that has caused a lot more evil imo, than it has good.

In that sense if a yellow and red of the same brightness is put into monochromacy. They will both be the same indistinguishable grey. — Benj96

No, there are differences in the monochromatic shade they produce, the hue of yellow and the hue of red are different so they would not produce the exact same shade of grey, even though the difference may nor be so clear to the human eye.

From technopedia:
The hue of a colour pixel is one of the very fundamental concepts in digital image processing. Along with saturation and brightness (brilliance), hue makes up the three basic aspects of any color. A color is far more complex than its name because of the variety of shades available in each color. In digital image processing, pixels with slightly different colours have slightly different RGB code (value). This is because of slightly different dominant wavelengths of that colour which constitute the hue. A pure hue is completely saturated, meaning no white light is added.

I'm glad it amuses you. — Benj96

I typed 'bemused,' not 'amused.'
bemused: Adjective meaning puzzled, confused, or bewildered.

I've now given several reasons why I like the term God. I can't possibly go on explaining more. I just made a personal choice and more importantly one that I'm not enforcing or insisting anyone else adopt. I don't see any issue with that — Benj96

I accept your reasons, but disagree with them, as I think your use of the term god and your declaration of yourself as a theist, does not help combat the pernicious affect of both, in the human society we both live in at present. That's all I mean Ben, you give sustenance to pernicious concepts that we need to rid ourselves of. But yes, that's just my personal opinion.

No, because increasing, LOCALISED organisation/complexity/birth etc, does not slow increasing universal entropy. — universeness

How do we ever make that comparison? What quantity of life or "consciousness maybe" offsets 16 jumbled up galaxies?

If I dream for 1 hour last night did the level of complexity of information exchange offset 100 years of an asteroid breaking up as it hurtles through the void.

Of course this is very far fetched and I don't neccesarily give it much credence myself but am suggesting it more for sh*ts n giggles.

But anyways, gravity pulls shit toghether, energy pushes them apart. Is gravity working with entropy? Or against it?

For it seems like it's tidying things up and keeping them in regular predictable and orderly orbits. How then does that increase the entropy?

Perhaps this is the yin yang equivalence of energy and matter. Energy disperses, and as it does so precipitates mass into solidity and then contracts towards itself into solar systems.

For now it seems like entropy probably still dominates as a whole. I leave a small bit of room for possible states that might see the opposite and balance the books. A neat equation.

How do we ever make that comparison? What quantity of life or "consciousness maybe" offsets 16 jumbled up galaxies? — Benj96

I have no idea what logic you are trying apply here? The expansion of the universe is increasing and 'stuff' falls into black holes, and wont come out again until the black holes evaporate over an immensity of time. This is the basis of the eventual heat death of the universe, as most of the current content of the universe will end up inside black holes, star reproduction will end and it will not be possible to concentrate enough energy into the localised creation of new combinatorials.

But anyways, gravity pulls shit toghether, energy pushes them apart. Is gravity working with entropy? Or against it? — Benj96

Gravity is an attractive force/consequence of the presence of matter/energy.
All forces involve a transfer of energy. Force and energy are therefore strongly related concepts.
Your second question is bizarre in that it suggests the bizarre notion of 'entropy' and 'gravity' existing as entities that might be perceived as 'working together' or not. Gravity exists due to the presence of 'excitations' and combinatorials, within spacetime. Very large concentrations of combinatorials such as galaxies are gravitationally bound and will not dissipate due to increasing expansion but most of the content of galaxies will end up inside black holes and the distance between all galaxies will continue to increase so gravitational effects will continue to decrease over time.
Entropy ensures the heat death of our universe. No immediate concern however as the heat death will take a very large immensity of time.

Here is an interesting summary from a science based website:

If the universe continues expanding for a very long time, eventually galactic superclusters will rip apart, followed by local clusters, galaxies themselves and eventually individual stars and atoms. If humanity's descendants are clever about which arrangements of matter they use to instantiate and power themselves, however, they can prolong their existence almost indefinitely. For example, even black holes produce some power through Hawking radiation, which life could cluster around and use to its advantage even if stars have burnt out. Living indefinitely in a continuously expanding universe would be no picnic, but is probably preferable to living in a closed one that collapses back in on itself in a fiery Big Crunch.