The day I realized there is no god.

[alanjh595]

If god exists, he/she/it will have gone to great ends to ensure that no human has ever found any evidence to support that existence.

That preposition assumes knowledge of motive. My preposition is that not being able to or have any understanding of God’s true nature or purpose, neither can we understand or presume to know God’s motive. The closest we have come to any understanding of what God might be by scientific method is mere hypothesis of what could be possible of It’s nature given new knowledge being discovered in the field of quantum physics.

There is no way to currently know the answer to that question. But just because a question exists, doesn't mean there is any reason to believe the question is worth thinking about.

That is your choice. However, many others, including many brilliant anthropologists, mathematicians, physicists, philosophers, researchers, spiritualists, and scientists are very intrigued by the question. Personally, I find the mathematical (quantum physics) and scientific exploration of these ideas quite fascinating, but that’s just me.

Without evidence that any of it is true, I must dismiss all of it.

Again, your choice ...

– but just imagine where we wouldn’t be if all the great explorers and thinkers of our time thought that way.

[ekir8]

As for those who discount the existence of God because bad things happen, that sounds like Disney movie tier reasoning to me.

It also assumes that we could somehow have some understanding of what the nature of God is and It’s purpose when, in fact, God is truly unknowable. Additionally, those who discount the existence of God because It’s existence or presence has not yet been proven by science should know science has not given up on the effort.

Is the soul truly immortal? Science may hold the answer

The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.

But first let's try to understand what is meant by soul. The word soul comes from the Latin anima, which is related to the Greek ànemos, meaning 'breath' or 'wind'. In many spiritual and religious traditions, the soul is the 'essence', 'spirit' or 'I' of personality.

In more recent times, however, the soul is understood to be that part of the thinking self, like the mind or consciousness, one of the greatest mysteries of the various branches of science. A few years ago, however, a new theory was developed in collaboration with a great physicist of our time, which should shed light on this matter.

The theory for researching consciousness and thus the soul is called 'Orch-OR' (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) and was developed in the 1990s by the physicists Roger Penrose (pictured) and Stuart Hameroff. It is based on the idea that consciousness arises within the neurons and not through interactions between them.

Before delving into this intriguing theory that could reveal more about our soul, it's worth remembering that Roger Penrose is a distinguished mathematician, physicist, and cosmologist who received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Penrose received one of the highest honors in science for his work on black holes. Among his contributions is the discovery that the formation of black holes is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Roger Penrose also worked for a long time at Cambridge with another great physicist who left us a few years ago, Stephen Hawking, with whom he developed some theories about black holes and the gravitational singularity.

Another author of the theory to tell us what the soul is and whether it is immortal is Stuart Hameroff, a Stutin anesthesiologist and lecturer at the University of Arizona in the United States.

It should be noted at this point that the 'Orch-OR' is currently only a theory but is believed to be testable and projects are underway to test and validate it.

Underlying the 'Orch-OR' theory developed by Penrose and Hameroff is the idea that the brain may not be controlled by algorithms, such that its physical properties are determined not by traditional mathematical formalisms but by the intriguing (and sometimes bizarre) principles of Quantum mechanics can be described.

The two authors of the theory have combined their knowledge: on the one hand we have Hameroff, who wants to study the biological component of consciousness. According to Hameroff, the main structure of consciousness is the microtubule cells in the brain. On the other hand we have the physicist Penrose who brings the quantum approach.

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, consciousness is a wave vibrating in the universe of subatomic particles (quantum physics is particle physics) and the microtubules act as true quantum computers, converting these vibrations into usable information.

A quantum computer works differently than a normal computer. A quantum computer processes information in the form of bits, zero or one, while a quantum computer processes qbits, which can be zero and one at the same time, creating quantum superposition, a paradox difficult for our classical mechanical minds to comprehend.

This superimposition of states could be the measurement or the observation, in this case of consciousness. Here's an example to better understand what we're talking about: according to some theoretical physicists, when a person decides to eat an apple or a pear, at the moment of the decision (e.g. for the apple), the decision to eat the apple separates the pear and it continues to exist separately in another world. (Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation).

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, on the other hand, the choice not made, that is, the pear, separates, but it is an unstable situation, so it collapses after a while. Two conclusions follow from this: According to proponents of Everett's many-worlds interpretation, there are many other worlds, but only one has consciousness (the world in which we are conscious), and that is a full one random fact. On the other hand, according to Penrose and Hameroff, we are the only reality, since alternative realities collapse because they are unstable.

This quantum thinking is then transferred to the brain, where consciousness has previously been thought of as a series of connections between neurons that function like a normal computer, but according to Hameoff, "It's an insult to the neuron itself when you think of the brain cell - the neuron - viewed as a switch that turns off or on".

Again, the US doctor says: "Imagine that a single cell like the paramecium swims, finds food and a mate, mates and can learn. If a simple paramecium can be so intelligent, then how can a neuron can be so stupid? Is it just a matter of turning it on or off? I think these scientists don't take into account what's going on inside the neuron."

But at this point the question is legitimate: How can the soul, i.e. consciousness, be immortal in this context? Here is the 'Orch-OR' theory answer.

According to this theory, in a pre-death state, microtubules lose their quantum state but retain the information they contain. According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "

Of course, this is just one of many interesting theories that try to explain what consciousness is and whether it can really store information from a lifetime, but one must not forget that this has not yet been proven by science.

I posted this in another thread but it seems to be more relevant here. I would agree that this discussion is a non-argument in the sense that the idea of God cannot be proven or disproved by either logic or science; something that Stephen Hawking recognized even as an atheist. Modern day philosophy concentrates on the argument of what is and what is not possible within the parameters of current scientific knowledge and people who think the idea of God existing can be dismissed because of science are mistaken.

When I was an economics student at SFU in the early eighties, in addition to electives in philosophy and science I also took a course in “Altered States of Consciousness”. During that course we reviewed an experiment that was conducted at MIT where a “supercomputer” (bear in mind this was forty years ago; long before the internet was around for public access and we used libraries) was programmed to generate millions of random binary (0 & 1) numbers at incredible speed. The purpose of the experiment was to test the statistical probability that two choices being randomly generated would consistently result in a 50/50 split as long as enough numbers were generated – and of course this turned out to be true.

What was really interesting though is that when they put a subject in a room next to the computer and told the subject what the computer was doing and to “think about it” the results started to skew. There was no prediction or causal effect claimed or noted, just that the results no longer came out at 50/50. The question that did come out of this (good science always creates more questions) was could consciousness exist outside of the body, and the even more fantastic question - if consciousness could exist outside of the body, could it exist without the body?

Our brain is composed of billions of neurons where each neuron connects to many other neurons in the brain. Whenever we perform cognitive activities, such as thinking, reasoning, perceiving, or decision-making, the corresponding group of neurons are lit up inside the brain; that is, electrical signals pass back and forth between them. When these neuron cells are active, they pass electric pulses back and forth and send messages to each other. The network of cells synchronizes their firing, and this becomes a repeating cycle known as the “brainwave”.

The point is this electrical activity within the brain is quite strong and can be scientifically measured by an instrument called EEG (electroencephalogram). In this technique, electrodes are placed on top of the scalp where they detect the electrical pulses with the help of EEG. These electrical pulses are further visually analyzed on a display monitor.

Beta brainwaves are predominant during the normal waking consciousness. When people are in the beginning phase of meditation, they transition from beta to alpha. As a result, they start experiencing more calm as the mind becomes quieter. Alpha brainwaves calm the overall nervous system and lower the heart rate. In the alpha state, the mind is clear of unwanted thoughts and the functioning of the senses (inputs) is minimized (experienced when we start practicing mindfulness).

Theta brainwaves are associated with deep meditation, and expert meditators are said to have experienced this state, which gives deep relaxation and dream-like imageries associated with daydreaming, enhanced learning, and creativity.

Delta brainwaves are the most mysterious of all brainwaves. During the delta cycle, we are in the deepest part of our sleep, so much so, that we don’t even experience any dream in this state. It’s hard to remain conscious in this state. Consciousness does not disappear in this state. It’s just that there is nothing to be aware of because our brain changes activities in the regions that correspond to sensory inputs.

Zen masters and monks are said to emit delta waves during deep meditative states. In this state, there is no awareness of what is happening, but the body goes through a period of healing and regeneration. Some experienced meditators are able to achieve this state of deep rest within a short time (within an hour or two), as compared to what regular people experience after a deep sleep of eight hours.

Another interesting observation has been that people who practice meditation alone and with groups have noted they can achieve the meditative state more quickly and more deeply when they are with a group as opposed to sitting alone (and this observation has also been confirmed by EEG) again raising some very interesting questions: can consciousness exist outside of the body, and is shared consciousness possible?

Readers might possibly also know that different light waves, radio waves, etc. can exist at the same place at the same time; and depending on whether the waves are a trough or a crest, the amplitudes of the waves either cancel each other out or amplify one other. What they might possibly not know is that while traditional physics states two physical objects cannot exist in the same place and time, quantum mechanics and astrophysics demonstrate the existence of multiple universes and an infinite number of realities all existing in the same place and time, but at different frequencies.

For each possible outcome to an action, our world splits into an exact replica of itself, a process known as decohesion. For instance, an objects wave function can be said to be of both particulate or of wave nature. Therefore, when a physicist measures the nature of this particle, the object can either be measured as a wave or a particle. To incorporate both of these possible outcomes, the universe splits into two. In one universe the physicist measures the object in wave form, while in the other universe; the object is measured in particulate form.

The point of all this (if anyone is still with me here) is that the more we discover through scientific exploration and investigation, the more questions we come up with to further explain our discoveries. For example, it is not at all far-fetched to consider the possibility of an infinite underlying (or over-encompassing) energy or force that is holding this all together. At this stage we really have no understanding and little appreciation of the nature or purpose of this energy or force (if it even has purpose), but there is evidence some people have successfully and consciously tapped into something outside of themselves through meditation (possibly prayer as well) and quantum mechanics has given us a whole new question of what infinite really means while we still struggle to come to grips with its existing description.

I’ve never described nor stated my own spiritual beliefs here and wouldn’t even start to do so with people still trying to dismiss the idea of the God concept with deflections to comparisons with mythical wood creatures. I am not religious; I do not pray to old men with long white beards and I completely understand that all of humankinds religious texts are ancient historical stories that were written by men. For me, God is simply a label to describe something that is currently far beyond any understanding of logic or science.


https://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/ ... 80116.html

https://mindfulnessquest.com/how-medita ... ain-waves/

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post.

[Ka-El]

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post.

A pleasure to be sure as I find the ideas that come up when exploring the existence of some infinite underlying universal force (I’ll call it God) to be very fascinating. Another one of my lower-level educational courses required for my degree was calculus. Math has never been my strongest subject and I was definitely appreciative that my brother (a business student at the time) was in the class with me, but despite my struggles in mastering the concepts (just able to pass) I was fascinated by the subject, particularly the theories surrounding infinity (like mathematical proof for the existence of alien intelligent life). We know, for example, that no matter how large a number we come up with we can and will always be able to come up with a larger one – infinitely. We also know that no matter how small a number we come up with we can and will always be able to come up with a smaller one – infinitely. It is also interesting to note that there are an infinite number of values between any two whole numbers, so between the numbers of 1 and 2, for example, there are an infinite number of other numbers as between any two values we can describe another value that will lie between them.

The relevance of this when it comes to quantum physics and the potential for an infinite number of universes all existing in the same place and time is that we can know mathematically that it is possible for an infinite number of frequencies to all exist in the same place and time. Imagine an infinite (never ending) universe existing in the same space and time as an infinite number of distinct (but by necessity somehow connected) infinite (never ending) universes all created when there was a fantastic explosion (the Big Bang) and expanding for millennia until falling back in on to themselves to explode again and do it all over on and on infinitely with somehow some indefinable incomprehensible infinite force holding it all together – a force that was here before time began, is here now and will always be here.

If there is a God, there is only one God (that is literally everywhere) but there are almost an infinite number of different ways of different people understanding or trying to understand what It is. I don’t personally worry myself with getting all caught up in that. I am in no way religious by any fashion, but I do have my own reasons for believing this force not only exists but that it’s presence can be tapped into, and I know that literally millions of people worldwide have their own personal reasons for believing the same. Buddhists, as another example, do not believe in a distinct Supreme Being, but they do believe in the soul and a universal force, and that everyone’s life has a purpose. I know of others who do not want to even go close to considering such ethereal ideas but can still find a way to get outside of themselves by just tuning in to nature and some of those people would tell you they are spiritual. The one thing I do know for sure is that there is so much more to this world and this universe than we can or will ever know but the more fantastic questions we ask the more open we are to learning about fantastic things the more fantastic things we will learn and discover.

[youjustcomplain]

If there is a God, there is only one God (that is literally everywhere) but there are almost an infinite number of different ways of different people understanding or trying to understand what It is. I don’t personally worry myself with getting all caught up in that. I am in no way religious by any fashion, but I do have my own reasons for believing this force not only exists but that it’s presence can be tapped into, and I know that literally millions of people worldwide have their own personal reasons for believing the same. Buddhists, as another example, do not believe in a distinct Supreme Being, but they do believe in the soul and a universal force, and that everyone’s life has a purpose. I know of others who do not want to even go close to considering such ethereal ideas but can still find a way to get outside of themselves by just tuning in to nature and some of those people would tell you they are spiritual. The one thing I do know for sure is that there is so much more to this world and this universe than we can or will ever know but the more fantastic questions we ask the more open we are to learning about fantastic things the more fantastic things we will learn and discover.

If there is a god, there may be more than one. If, somehow, it can ever be demonstrated that there IS a god, then there would be no reason to deduce that there could only be one. There are plenty of polytheistic religions out there that believed there were more than one.
If I don't see a mouse on my floor, I certainly can't make a statement that if there is a mouse, there can only be one.

Regardless of what, and by how many, people believe in different things, though interesting indeed, is not evidence of them being any closer to truth. It also doesn't mean they're any further from it. I could spend my life believing that unicorns are all around us, and you may think of me as being deluded; you'd be right. But when it comes to faith in some being we don't know anything about, it's interesting to me that it's a sacred and normalized delusion.

I think it's interesting that you state that you know that that we will never know much of the universe. Though you may be correct, how can you know what is currently unknowable?

[Ka-El]

If there is a god, there may be more than one. If, somehow, it can ever be demonstrated that there IS a god, then there would be no reason to deduce that there could only be one. There are plenty of polytheistic religions out there that believed there were more than one.

Polytheistic religions don’t account for a universe that is infinite, let alone an infinite number of infinite universes. You’re still describing God (or Gods) as some form of distinct entity (or entities). How could multiple Gods of this sort all exist everywhere at the same time and in the same place in multiple universes? Would their co-existence require self-awareness? That is not an assumption I am prepared to make. I leave assumptions of understanding like that for the religious among us.

[youjustcomplain]

Polytheistic religions don’t account for a universe that is infinite, let alone an infinite number of infinite universes. You’re still describing God (or Gods) as some form of distinct entity (or entities). How could multiple Gods of this sort all exist everywhere at the same time and in the same place in multiple universes? Would their co-existence require self-awareness? That is not an assumption I am prepared to make. I leave assumptions of understanding like that for the religious among us.

I don't understand why a polytheistic believe precludes the possibility that the universe is infinite.
How could multiple gods or a single one be everywhere at the same time and place in multiple universes? I, too, leave that for the religious among us. But just because I don't understand how a god or gods could be everywhere in every time, at the same time, doesn't mean that I could make a statement of knowledge on the subject. If god is infinite as believers tell me, then there is no reason for me to believe that there could only be the one of them.

I remember, years ago, that someone told me that their math professor had explained how there is no chance that life could exist off of Earth based on mathematical probabilities. I was far too young (15 or so) at the time to have much of an educated opinion on the subject, but knowing that it exists here, we'd have to find ourselves pretty special in order to arrive at a conclusion that the chemistry and biology that allowed live to exist on earth couldn't happen anywhere else. Hubris. Arrogance to think we know what we don't yet.

[Ka-El]

I don't understand why a polytheistic believe precludes the possibility that the universe is infinite.

It requires or suggests these are all distinct and separate beings, and while they do perhaps exist in an infinite universe this theory borders on the realm of belief in unicorns and lies nowhere close to theories provided by quantum physics. Now I do consider myself to be quite an open-minded guy but I still ground my beliefs in existing knowledge and scientific theory.

I remember, years ago, that someone told me that their math professor had explained how there is no chance that life could exist off of Earth based on mathematical probabilities.

He must have missed his calculus class then because dealing with infinity and probabilities tells us the exact opposite. As I’m sure you know probability can be expressed by a number between 0.0 (0% chance) and 1.0 (100% chance). In calculus we have a value known as x as it approaches infinity and that any number, no matter how small, multiplied by this value equals 1.0 (some calculators even have this function). This means that no matter how small the chance of intelligent life existing on another planet somewhere, if we assume the universe is infinite and multiply that very small probability by a value approaching infinity the probability of intelligent life existing on another planet becomes a certainty, 100%. Of course, if we don’t want to assume the universe is infinite then that raises a whole slew of other very interesting questions.

[Catsumi]

Such as, who or what put that wall there?

And what’s on the other side?

[Ka-El]

And what’s on the other side?

Especially that one

[youjustcomplain]

He must have missed his calculus class then because dealing with infinity and probabilities tells us the exact opposite. As I’m sure you know probability can be expressed by a number between 0.0 (0% chance) and 1.0 (100% chance). In calculus we have a value known as x as it approaches infinity and that any number, no matter how small, multiplied by this value equals 1.0 (some calculators even have this function). This means that no matter how small the chance of intelligent life existing on another planet somewhere, if we assume the universe is infinite and multiply that very small probability by a value approaching infinity the probability of intelligent life existing on another planet becomes a certainty, 100%. Of course, if we don’t want to assume the universe is infinite then that raises a whole slew of other very interesting questions.

Exactly how I see it.
If the universe isn't infinite, we are aware of many many systems with exoplanets. If the odds are so unlikely that life can exist anywhere, and we know it came to happen here, then though the odds of life on each planet may be very very low, the number of planets should lead us to believe that it's possible for life to have found a way, just as it did on earth, somewhere else.

If the universe is infinite with an infinite number of stars, exoplanets and moons, and the chance is super low that life could come to exist anywhere in the universe, then it behooves me to believe that life must have found a way an infinite number of times outside of our Earth.

None of this requires belief in a god or gods. None of this requires us to have a soul or to imagine that humans are special or are immortal. It also doesn't suggest that those things aren't true. It would take faith to believe in gods, souls and immortality. The evidence just isn't there. Which isn't to say that it will never be found, if it exists at all.

[Ka-El]

None of this requires belief in a god or gods. None of this requires us to have a soul or to imagine that humans are special or are immortal. It also doesn't suggest that those things aren't true. It would take faith to believe in gods, souls and immortality. The evidence just isn't there. Which isn't to say that it will never be found, if it exists at all.

It seems to me you’re hung up on some definition, description or explanation of God or Gods that precludes you from imaging other possibilities, possibilities that are consistent with and inspired by current mathematical and scientific exploration and theories falling from the fields of energy and quantum physics. It would take faith to believe in God or Gods if we limit ourselves to seeing It or Them as distinct entities but mathematicians and scientists currently exploring the idea are looking at it from an entirely different perspective and finding evidence to support their ideas. Evidence for conscious energy (souls?) has already been found, and our existing knowledge of energy already tells us this energy is immortal in that it does not end.

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. Our bodies are driven by electrical energy that is chemically produced by (transformed from) the transfer of potassium and sodium along nerve walls. There is also evidence that some kind of conscious energy exists in humans (it produces brain waves), and even some evidence that this energy can exist outside of the body. I would invite you to reconsider the following remarks and ideas from a previous post …

When I was an economics student at SFU in the early eighties, in addition to electives in philosophy and science I also took a course in “Altered States of Consciousness”. During that course we reviewed an experiment that was conducted at MIT where a “supercomputer” (bear in mind this was forty years ago; long before the internet was around for public access and we used libraries) was programmed to generate millions of random binary (0 & 1) numbers at incredible speed. The purpose of the experiment was to test the statistical probability that two choices being randomly generated would consistently result in a 50/50 split as long as enough numbers were generated – and of course this turned out to be true.

What was really interesting though is that when they put a subject in a room next to the computer and told the subject what the computer was doing and to “think about it” the results started to skew. There was no prediction or causal effect claimed or noted, just that the results no longer came out at 50/50. The question that did come out of this (good science always creates more questions) was could consciousness exist outside of the body, and the even more fantastic question - if consciousness could exist outside of the body, could it exist without the body?

Our brain is composed of billions of neurons where each neuron connects to many other neurons in the brain. Whenever we perform cognitive activities, such as thinking, reasoning, perceiving, or decision-making, the corresponding group of neurons are lit up inside the brain; that is, electrical signals pass back and forth between them. When these neuron cells are active, they pass electric pulses back and forth and send messages to each other. The network of cells synchronizes their firing, and this becomes a repeating cycle known as the “brainwave”.

The point is this electrical activity within the brain is quite strong and can be scientifically measured by an instrument called EEG (electroencephalogram). In this technique, electrodes are placed on top of the scalp where they detect the electrical pulses with the help of EEG. These electrical pulses are further visually analyzed on a display monitor.

Beta brainwaves are predominant during the normal waking consciousness. When people are in the beginning phase of meditation, they transition from beta to alpha. As a result, they start experiencing more calm as the mind becomes quieter. Alpha brainwaves calm the overall nervous system and lower the heart rate. In the alpha state, the mind is clear of unwanted thoughts and the functioning of the senses (inputs) is minimized (experienced when we start practicing mindfulness).

Theta brainwaves are associated with deep meditation, and expert meditators are said to have experienced this state, which gives deep relaxation and dream-like imageries associated with daydreaming, enhanced learning, and creativity.

Delta brainwaves are the most mysterious of all brainwaves. During the delta cycle, we are in the deepest part of our sleep, so much so, that we don’t even experience any dream in this state. It’s hard to remain conscious in this state. Consciousness does not disappear in this state. It’s just that there is nothing to be aware of because our brain changes activities in the regions that correspond to sensory inputs.

Zen masters and monks are said to emit delta waves during deep meditative states. In this state, there is no awareness of what is happening, but the body goes through a period of healing and regeneration. Some experienced meditators are able to achieve this state of deep rest within a short time (within an hour or two), as compared to what regular people experience after a deep sleep of eight hours.

Another interesting observation has been that people who practice meditation alone and with groups have noted they can achieve the meditative state more quickly and more deeply when they are with a group as opposed to sitting alone (and this observation has also been confirmed by EEG) again raising some very interesting questions: can consciousness exist outside of the body, and is shared consciousness possible?

Readers might possibly also know that different light waves, radio waves, etc. can exist at the same place at the same time; and depending on whether the waves are a trough or a crest, the amplitudes of the waves either cancel each other out or amplify one other. What they might possibly not know is that while traditional physics states two physical objects cannot exist in the same place and time, quantum mechanics and astrophysics demonstrate the existence of multiple universes and an infinite number of realities all existing in the same place and time, but at different frequencies.

The point of all this (if anyone is still with me here) is that the more we discover through scientific exploration and investigation, the more questions we come up with to further explain our discoveries. For example, it is not at all far-fetched to consider the possibility of an infinite underlying (or over-encompassing) energy or force that is holding this all together. At this stage we really have no understanding and little appreciation of the nature or purpose of this energy or force (if it even has purpose), but there is evidence some people have successfully and consciously tapped into something outside of themselves through meditation (possibly prayer as well) and quantum mechanics has given us a whole new question of what infinite really means while we still struggle to come to grips with its existing description.

Consciousness? Is this part of our soul? Is our soul then comprised of energy? The interesting thing that we know about energy is that it is infinite. It cannot be destroyed; it can only be changed. Granted, that can mean that consciousness and self-awareness could be changed to non-consciousness and non self-awareness, but (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics) something will persist to carry on. If we start to think about God as a form of energy or force instead of an identity or some form of being and accept the label “God” as just that, a label to describe something that cannot currently be adequately described (we could call it “Mork” if that feels better – or “The Force”, for Star Wars fans), it changes the argument and opens the dialogue up to more possibilities. Shutting the door on exploration of these possibilities only shuts the door on potential discovery and new knowledge.

[The Straken]

Evidence for conscious energy (souls?) has already been found, and our existing knowledge of energy already tells us this energy is immortal in that it does not end.

While energy may be immortal and constant it is quite possible that in an infinite time / space that energy could become so diluted as not to exist.

[youjustcomplain]

It seems to me you’re hung up on some definition, description or explanation of God or Gods that precludes you from imaging other possibilities, possibilities that are consistent with and inspired by current mathematical and scientific exploration and theories falling from the fields of energy and quantum physics. It would take faith to believe in God or Gods if we limit ourselves to seeing It or Them as distinct entities but mathematicians and scientists currently exploring the idea are looking at it from an entirely different perspective and finding evidence to support their ideas. Evidence for conscious energy (souls?) has already been found, and our existing knowledge of energy already tells us this energy is immortal in that it does not end.

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. Our bodies are driven by electrical energy that is chemically produced by (transformed from) the transfer of potassium and sodium along nerve walls. There is also evidence that some kind of conscious energy exists in humans (it produces brain waves), and even some evidence that this energy can exist outside of the body. I would invite you to reconsider the following remarks and ideas from a previous post …

Of the 7 billion people on earth, I'd hazard a guess that most people old enough to imagine what god might be, have an idea of what god is, and it's not the same for everyone. So yes, when people talk about god, I find myself wondering what they're talking about, but it's not consistent. Not consistent among people who share their faith, and not consistent with anything I've ever experienced or observed. Using the word "god" in any context is confusing at best but it generally seems to imply some puppet master, entity or force ruling the universe. Something that people can, and do, actively pray to and many claim they get responses back. This is not the kind of god I believe you're referring to, but never the less, it's hard to distinguish what is being talked about when the word "god" is cited.

Thermodynamics seems rather irrelevant. Either there is a god, gods or no god. The concept of god can't be proved or disproved by science, so using science in any form to justify the belief is nonsense. This isn't be burying my head in the sand. This is just logical. Energy changing forms and never being destroyed or created really doesn't support or conflict with the potential of humans having a soul. We either do or we don't. In fact, generally speaking, the only people I hear citing the laws of thermodynamics are people of faith looking to borrow science to justify their belief.

Consciousness? Is this part of our soul? Is our soul then comprised of energy? The interesting thing that we know about energy is that it is infinite. It cannot be destroyed; it can only be changed. Granted, that can mean that consciousness and self-awareness could be changed to non-consciousness and non self-awareness, but (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics) something will persist to carry on. If we start to think about God as a form of energy or force instead of an identity or some form of being and accept the label “God” as just that, a label to describe something that cannot currently be adequately described (we could call it “Mork” if that feels better – or “The Force”, for Star Wars fans), it changes the argument and opens the dialogue up to more possibilities. Shutting the door on exploration of these possibilities only shuts the door on potential discovery and new knowledge.

Energy is infinite. Ok. I'm not questioning or doubting this principle.
Is god a form of energy? If so, then it needs a new name as that one is already taken and to most people around the world, it if a proper noun, worthy of a capital first letter. To many, god is a he and had a child, etc...

And to be clear, I have not shut the door on exploration. This is the second time you've said this with regards to my responses to your comments. We can disagree without one of us being ignorant. Disagreement can spur conversation without one party assuming they're the enlightened one. My atheism doesn't mean I believe there is no god and by default, I must believe there is no soul and must fight against the concept. My atheism just means I don't believe in any gods. My thoughts on a soul are that I don't hear the term used outside of faith groups. Those same faith groups that lay claim to know god on a personal level are also the ones who tell us that we have souls but only that humans have them. Then they cite laws of thermodynamics to try to sound scientific and hoodwink us into thinking they're right. They'll name drop groups of highly intelligent people and even use Einstein when it suits them, but continue to dismiss all the rest of the science that is in direct conflict with their idea's.

[youjustcomplain]

Evidence for conscious energy (souls?) has already been found, and our existing knowledge of energy already tells us this energy is immortal in that it does not end.

Immortal implies the opposite of being mortal. Mortality is generally reserved for living things. Energy is not alive. Using terms like Immortal to describe a soul first implies that the soul is alive.

I'm far more interested in whether a soul exists in the first place, than trying to determine if it is alive or being told that these are unique to humans because we were made in gods image.

[Ka-El]

Yes, it definitely seems to me you’re hung up on some definition, description or explanation of God or Gods that precludes you from imagining other possibilities. Other people can and do see God as some form of energy or "force" that is infinite and exists everywhere (across an infinite number of universes even). If all you want to be is "right" then you shouldn't waste any more of your time considering the ideas of others.