You're not Mike? Sorry, somehow I must have overlapped who I was talking too. My spatial analogy of time gives the sense that past present and future are relative concepts. Just as a meter ruler can have a very definite length when viewed one way, that definition changes with perspective. I'm not giving any real definition of time here, just trying to illustrate an example.
Time as a dimension of space seems to be the truest model I can see. Well, its the one I like the most anyway. Time slows in gravity and accelerates in non-gravity. Is that right? There is a lot of fun to be had linking time to matter to wrinkles in space. Is there a contradiction you can see?

Mike,
We are getting into religion rather than God, but what the hay, this is fun. When I hold a meter ruler level with my eye, I do not see the length. It is only when I turn it to 90 degrees that the dimension of 1 meter materializes. It's relative. I don't have to adjust my beliefs about a meter ruler to accept both ideas as true, do I?

What we really need is a good definition of God, would you agree? Once we have defined what God is, then we can look for evidence of it? And once we look for evidence of our definition then we are bound to find it, as we controlled the initial conditions of the definition. So, I think it is very easy to prove the existence of a God, so long as we can define it. It seems like such an easy fix.

Hey Wayfarer, good to get your input. It seems that Lemaitre had a problem with where the discovery led. If he was petitioning the Pope not to drag his theory into religion his beliefs may not have been as solid as they first appeared.

The Big Bang theory is really just as flimsy as a God theory. Both call for something that cannot be proven in its initial state, and the support for a Big Bang theory seems a little too high given some major problems with it.

Talking about muddying the waters, I see that religion is being brought into play. I have my own opinions on religion and it's ways throughout history, but I want to stick to the idea of God as a scientific theory that the scientific community refuses to accept or investigate. In fact that they deny.

Mike, in terms of Einsteins present, obviously there is one, we are in it right now and now and now, but I think the point he was making was that time can be viewed linearly, as it is, but rather than travelling from one end of this linear string to the other, the entire string may be moving in one motion sideways instead so that the past present and future of the string occur at once.

But Mike, saying that science doesn't need to directly observe the thing conjectured, merely observe its effects, sounds an awful lot like a God theory to me.

Based on the premise that science relies on proof, can science prove that the universe is infinite? Surely they would need to go to the point of infinity to prove that.. but hang on... that can't be proved so surely science must reject the notion of infinity not only of the universe, but in all its connotations? Does that serve as a reasonable comparison for this argument?

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your input. You've taken a very safe position: which is OK. I will counter by saying that in science there are laws and theories and most scientists don't have too much of a problem in accepting and defending the theories, even though the evidence is often pretty thin, but the God theory seems to be not only shunned, but disdained.

Take the Big Bang theory: it's so thin it's almost transparent. Surely a God theory can be mapped out to rival it. Why doesn't the scientific community at large try and do that, I wonder? Why do they instead stand back and demonise it, treat it as the enemy, take a them or us approach to it? That's a very unscientific way to go about the discussion. No wonder they can't find any evidence of it. They refuse to look.

In a way, God was the first attempt of critical thinking people to explain their universe. Why not try to build on this idea within science and look for evidence to support it?

Hi Mad Fool, I like how you're trying to algebraically reason it out, but the logic breaks down at step 3 for me. Perhaps beef up your initial conditions for omnipotent beings and then set the logic into motion? Keep at it though, I look forward to your next post. It's a worthwhile topic.

Thanks for your ideas John,
Part of the assertion I am making is that Evolutionary theory is seriously flawed. I can accept the random combination of atoms forming molecules, some of them molecules being enzymatic in function, perhaps even replicative in function, and I can even accept the evolution of molecular systems where A hits B hits C hits A, but I just can't accept that this process is able to create organisms that possess a higher sense of their environment then their apparent senses allow.

And when we begin to introduce the concept I have termed 'masks' revealing a driving force behind us and other animals that makes us do one thing for one reason when another reason is the real motivation, we introduce at the very least a notion of dualism: of a puppet and puppet master, programmer and programmed...and this can easily flow into a creator and created debate, but I will not go there today.

And I do agree that there is a very good reason for these masks... the perpetuation of the species... but my question was, who decided that was important anyway? Saying it is a Golden Rule is true, but why is it the Golden Rule? Saying it is for the same reason we don't jump off buildings is true, but again, my question is why? Why are all lifeforms battling it out for survival? Why run from a bear why kill to survive? Why are those urges so strong? Is there a pot of gold at the end of time?

The cyclical argument that we survive because survival was selected for by evolution is also interesting and a little illuminating if we let it shed a new light on time itself. Because what we really mean is that Time was selected for by evolution. Survival is, of course, survival through time.

You could postulate a resource super rich cauldron where molecules are battling it out, destroying and building each other in an endless cycle that is so chaotic it does not allow the building of complex systems, and then suddenly like falling sideways through a plaster wall molecules crash sideways into time and suddenly the arms race is on in a whole new dimension. They are building upon previous advances and moving away from the cut throat cauldron chaos.

I don't have the answers John, but I do have the questions. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Jake you are right. I guess I am wondering if there is a way to internally change the atomic energy configuration of a stationary object so that it suddenly acquires velocity or acceleration. I mean, the falling baseball is in an energy field created by gravity, but what has that energy field done to the ball to cause it to move? Has it dragged the own energy fields of the atoms in the ball assymetrically, thus giving directionality to the atoms and creating movement?

Good answer.

Hi Bitter Crank, thanks for your response. Just a quick note on your comments of apoptosis, you are right that the organism will shed those parts of itself it doesn't need. I've heard it said that without apoptosis a baby would be twice the size of the moon by the time it was born given the rapid growth phase it goes through.
But this doesn't really cruel the idea of sentience. Even though it is the cell that is dying, it is an example of the organism controlling its own growth and survivability rather than the cell. It's part of the package the cell signed up for when it became multicellular (much like a State may rid itself of a killer). When the apoptotic signals don't work, cancer thrives.
It does also usher in the conversation on altruism to a degree if you want to go there, as altruism has fascinated many throughout history simply because it appears to go against the principles of self-preservation and survival - although I will grant that the mechanism of apoptosis is very much a lock-step mechanical process.
I'm a little unclear of the point of your second post, so I can't offer comment. Thanks for reading though.

Jake, you are right. "Want to" is a very leading term (or misleading term if you like) as it sneakily puts sentience into the sentence without thorough argument and therefore biases the reader. I understand your argument that complex reactions give rise to more complex reactions, and that a reaction set that has the offspin of increasing survivability therefore survives and that of those that do it, the ones that do it better survive better.

This idea is very hard to counter because it is logical, but it's only logical on this level. You don't need to invoke sentience to explain it, but that doesn't mean its not there. My counter to this argument is through the necessary probability combinations that are required beyond this level (or even at this level) for the success of an organism through time.

Take the parasite that affects the snail. You can YouTube Zombie Snails if you want to learn more. That a parasite can infect a snail I can accept, but that through Natural Selection of this parasite it has randomly fluked a take over of the physiology and behaviour of the snail that causes it's probability of being eaten by the bird to increase markedly just seems far fetched to me. And when we multiply this out through all the observable interactions such as between plants and insects (and even plants and animals) etc it becomes even more far fetched.

People are so God shy these days that anything that even smells of the metaphysical is quickly dispelled as non-scientific, and yet suggesting the tree or insect or parasite has a sentience, an awareness of what is happening around it in a way that we cannot explain at the moment is much more logical than random luck and honestly does open up the door on the God question. But don't worry, I'm not using that Get of Jail Free Card, it's just an interesting observation.

I hope that addresses what you were saying squarely and I didn't go off on too much of a tangent.

Thanks for your comments guys. Like you guys, I love to debate too. So let's get into it. Galuchat, my first response to your comment about reductionism

Again, it is reductionist to apply lower level explanations to emergent phenomena. — Galuchat

Maybe I didn't quite understand what you were saying, but the fact that there are emergent phenomenon suggests a lower level explanation does it not? After all, what is it emerging out of? I don't buy that it comes out of nothing. I think you trace the curve back towards the infinitely small until it becomes immeasurable. At that point people say, there's nothing there.
I will grant that sentience, which I will define as an awareness of self contrasted against ones environment that is greater than what we currently know of the sum of the parts of that organism (which is kind of like you were saying when you said it was psychological rather than physiological), will look very different at different levels of investigation, but should share the same characteristics of self-preservation so as to survive through time.
So, I don't think it's a category error to apply sentience to big business, societies or atoms, what I am saying is that the category exists there and with investigation we should be able to find it. As a loose example, the world bemoans huge corporations that seem to tread on the rights and freedoms of ordinary people, ripping them off left right and centre (take banks), and yet they are nothing more than entities created by people. They consume each other, merge with each other, battle for survival through time against each other - a category operating almost independently of the very individuals that are creating it yet with the same base instincts. Just as we create the society, are we not in turn created by cells with the same base instincts as ourselves? This is an example of three consecutive level categories with different MOs but the same characteristics of sentience and survival instincts. It has to keep going back along the curve, which implies molecules and atoms and so on.