Yes, this is absolutely correct. The Big Bang Theory as it is understood today is indeed a pantheistic view in that the “agent” of the Big Bang is also the very substance of the resulting universe. That is to say, that by your definition given above; “we will limit the definition of god to being strictly an agent of the big bang” then the universe is indeed God, or at the very lest made of ‘god’. That is to say that the agent that “caused” the Big Bang itself “became” this universe. Although, it would be impossible to know how much of the agent that caused the Big Bang became the universe.

That is to say that the universe could be a pimple on God’s butt.

In others, all of the universe is made of God, but all of God was not necessarily required to create the universe. To put that another way in light of your definition of God above; The agent that gave birth to the universe became the universe. Everything that is in the universe if of the universe. There is nothing in the universe that is ‘separate’. Separation is an illusion.



Yes. This is absolutely what all of science is telling us with no question or doubt whatsoever. The idea of a God that created one thing, and saw that it was good, and then created something else, and saw that it was good, and so on, cannot fit into this model at all. This model is absolutely automated. It was pre-designed at birth so to speak. But not so much in detail, more like dice are designed with dots on 6-sided cubes. The form and information is all there and it’s all completely, but what number comes up still depends on the rolls. So in that regard, nothing specific was determined, only general possibilities were ‘designed’ into the mix. Human beings, for example, may or may not have come up. However, sentient begins were guaranteed to come up. Precisely what they might look like would be as open to probably as a roll on the cosmic dice.



Yes, agents were separated out at the extreme beginning. In fact, we were very ‘lucky’ in that this universe almost didn’t work! There are some things that almost went wrong with our universe. At least this is how it appears. However, it could very well be that it’s impossible for things to go completely wrong. When one things goes wrong something else seems to always come into play to save the day. It’s like it has safeguards upon safeguards to always get itself out of trouble and prevent itself from being a still born universe.

You may have heart of something called the “Anthropic Principle” that religious people often use to argue for ‘Intelligent Design’. The principle basically says that in order for the universe to be the way it is today it would have had to start out so perfectly correct that the probability that could have happened by chance is virtually non-existence, thus there must be a God.

Well, the most cutting edge theories of the Big Bang are starting to realize that there are many different scenarios that could have resulted in our universe. In fact, at one point the Big Bang theory was in deep trouble because it couldn’t account for the creation of the heavy elements during the Big Bang itself. The big bang could not have created elements heaver than helium. Yet we see many heavier elements, not the least of which is carbon and oxygen. Yet these elements could not have been created in our universe during the big bang.

However, as time when on we learned more about star formation and how stars work. It was then discovered that the heavy elements could be created within the stars. There was still a problem though. How then do you get that material splattered out into the universe to condense into planets. Well then they discovered Nova and Supernova and this answered that question.

Theoretically, other universe may have been born in which the heavy elements could have been generated during the Big Bang process. So we may actually be living in a universe that had to rely on a ‘failsafe’ device to keep it going.

Like I say, the universe always seems to come up with what it needs to keep going. Almost like as if safeguards had been built-in, or by it’s very nature it just can’t fail.

The real irony here is that the Anthropic Principle that people use as ‘proof’ that there must be an intelligent designer is irrelevant. Yet, the mere fact that it’s irrelevant only shows that the universe is even more clever than they thought.

It just goes to show how feeble so-called ‘proofs’ like that can be.

Another irony too is that the Anthropic Principle actually flies in the face of an intervening creator. Yet this is the principle that people appeal to, to support religious philosophies that demand that God can intervene at his whim.

The pantheistic view of God is not an intervening picture of God. Other than the fact that any sentient life that arises within the universe can indeed interment. We become the intervening God. We intervene in our own history, our own health, our own genetics and procreation habits, we even intervene when we teach our offspring how to view the world around them. We have become the intervening consciousness in this universe, at least in everything that we can obtain control over.



Yes. And the key idea here is indeed; “ It is the natural selection process that is inherently guided by the agents which are all of the same origin”

It’s random, but not happenstance.

The universe is an incredibly “consistent soup” of material. Surprisingly there are only just over 100 different kinds of atoms in this vast complex universe. I mere handful of different kinds of atoms! In fact, if you just look at the atoms that are required for things like planets and life, you can reduce the number needed to only about 20 or 30 different kinds of atoms! You can count these using your fingertips and toes, and maybe some knuckle joints for a third round of ten!

That’s an amazingly few components to work with, and they are spread throughout the entire universe as far as we can see in pretty much the same uniform distribution.

Here’s the thing; people focus on DNA as being the blueprint when they think about biological evolution. However, in the larger scale of things, the carbon atom is the real blueprint. The carbon atom (along with the rest of the soup of atoms) will naturally come together to form DNA when given the right environment, which just happens to be on a planet made of similar materials circling a star for its energy of warmth and light.

Well, it should come as no surprise that this would naturally happen. The atoms themselves are manufactured in the stars. The stars explode than the gas and dust that contains all those atoms re-condenses to forms a new star with planets that are made of just the right stuff.

It’s a really simple design actually, when you stop and think about it. The universe is incredibly simple as an automated ‘evolution machine’. This is exactly what it was ‘designed’ to do and this is precisely what it does. And it’s a very simple process actually. The real complexity is in the design of the atoms themselves. The blueprints for everything is in the atoms.

Here’s another thought for you to ponder on,…

As I’ve said there are only a mere hundred elements or so. Only about 30 of which are really important, and they are distributed in the correct proportions all throughout the universe because of how they are made.

So we have a mere 100 elements required for life. And all they need is a nice warm star to keep them warm and give them light. But they are created in stars and will naturally condense to form new solar systems so the probability that they will find a star is basically 100% - it’s a SURE THING!

Now the only question is, will the elements just accidentally condense to form a planet at just the right distance from their new star?

Well, think about this,…

There are 70 sextillion stars just in the observable part of the universe (the part that we can see).

That’s 70 thousand, million, million, million stars.

Or to put that another way,… that 70 thousand, million, million, million rolls of the dice to try to get a planet to accidentally land in the right orbit. The elements are already taken care of. The proportions of the elements are already taken care automatically. They just need to condense into the right spot.

That a hell of a lot of rolls to think that earth is the only planet out of 70 thousand million, million, million tries in the universe that the earth just happened to only one to condense out into the right orbit.

Moreover, it’s not entirely chance!

The is actually a higher probability that it will condense in the right spot than not. This is because of the weight of the atoms. The atoms that form earth-type planets are much more likely to condense out at the correct distance. Just look at our own solar system. The inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury all were likely candidates for life. All four of these condensed out close to the star. The material that is not favorable to life. The methane gases, all condensed out further away from the star to form Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.

So the very formation of solar systems has a built-in ‘cleansing’ mechanism (almost like the spin cycle on a washing machine)

The universe is definitely set-up to be on auto pilot. There’s no question about it. It simply doesn’t require an intervening God to create individual things and ‘see that they are good’. It wasn’t made that way.



If you’re still reading, let me address your last question “How does it work and what does that mean?”

It means that the universe is indeed on auto pilot and there is no need for an intervening or ‘baby-sitting’ God.

This also bring into light the idea of karma to take care of ‘behavior’. If the creator of this universe was wise enough to put it’s physics on autopilot, then wouldn’t it also be wise enough to put any ‘moral judgment systems’ on autopilot too?

What kind of a God would want to bother keeping track of the petty thoughts of every individual within the universe? If humans can dream up the idea of karma, you can bet your sweet bippy that God had already thought of that clever nugget of wisdom long before humans ever came to be.

The idea of a baby-sitting judgmental Godhead who keeps track of every single person’s little petty problems is ludicrous in light of what we know about how the universe actually works. If we have access to spiritual powers then we have access to them directly. Just like the universe is on autopilot, our access to our higher power is also on autopilot. We must learn to access that power. There are ways to access the power, and just like everything else in the universe, it’s most likely via some kind of built-in autopilot system.

Many religion believe that it can be accessed via meditation (quieting of the mind and becoming attuned to the spiritual nature of the universe). Some people feel it’s as simple as merely having a strong enough belief in something (the power of belief). Some people (I dare to put Jeanniebean in the category), believe that it is a matter of understanding and implementing a process, that includes thoughts, visualizations, emotional feelings of gratitude, etc, to make use of a natural law of attraction thus attracting to you the things or accomplishments that you desire.

The nice thing about the “Law of Attraction” is that it does require feelings of gratitude. That’s like a built-in autopilot safeguard to prevent the spiritual powers from being used by ungrateful people for ungrateful purposes. It’s all done via vibrations and if you don’t have [v]good vibrations it won’t work for you.

However, it’s not just vibrations alone. You must also, visualize what you want, think about what you want, really want what you want. It’s driven as much by emotion as it is by thought, but it requires all of that, including belief that it can and will come to pass, as well as exuding the emotion of gratitude!

That’s a lot of safeguards! But then we’re talking about a powerful force to safeguard.

This may seem to be getting a tad off-topic here at the end, but suggest otherwise,… you asked



Well, it means that the whole universe is on autopilot; evolution, karma, and the spiritual Law of Attraction. It’s all on autopilot and it’s yours for the asking. No money down, and no payments until fall of 6098.

Well, quite an interesting discussion was forming here, however, it took Abra to bring it back around to the intensions of the OP.

Abra


Your idea of karma might be an interesting topic. First of all, if we accept that evolution based on natural selection is how the universe maintains, expands and continues to change, then we have to fit karma into the laws of natural selection. First of all, we can’t consider karma the living of one life with an exchange at the end for another. The generally accepted ideas of karma would indicate we would have some control over those life experiences that we can not have in the face of natural selection.

Natural selection is a way of cleansing that which will not fit, or is not fit, to function within the parameters of the original universal agents. Therefore, humans are not any more than any other form within the universe. We are the rock, the dust, the metals, the elements that have been naturally selected to become the creature, human, with cognitive ability.

From that standpoint, karma then becomes the part of the “naturally occurring” selection process for which we as humans actually do have some control of. For example, obesity is not a naturally selective state. To become obese without regard for the natural state of the human body is to push the karma of natural selection. The actions taken to become and remain obese, that are handed down generation after generation, will eventually force the genetic alteration of DNA and sooner or later “karma” will win out as the DNA of that line of humans will die out.

So with respect to being responsible for our “future” even as far as many generations away, yes we are because if we don’t take care, we allow the forces of natural selection to cleanse our line from humanity.

Since you got off on the tangent, I took the challenge. Interesting isn’t it?

Without attempting to be offensive, I would like to say, that pantheism, as referred to in this thread, has no indication or inclination, what-so-ever, to the adoption of a personal god. Nor does it allow for the cognitions, that give an individual a sense of separate value, the intrinsic nature of being eternal within the confines of self-awareness, or awareness of any kind.



These are presuppositions and have no place in a scientific discussion, however, if you were to put this into a philosophical theory how would you do so? Remember that were philosophy is concerned (per the op) there is no god other than as related to a pantheistic view.



Just because our brains have been selected to the point of becoming self-aware and having the ability to see futuristically and to perform congnitions based of extreme abstracts, does not give us any more or less access to the universal oneness. That would be an oxymoron. We are all one or we are not. No one ‘something’ can be more or less a part of the whole and certainly not because they have advanced through some normal natural part of a selection process to become whatever we are.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have some kind of ability to access/touch or be aware at some internal level of the functions going on apart from our normal senses. However, if one studies the behavior of animals, we will see that they seem to be much more in touch with that outside vibration than we as humans have been selected to receive. Here is were we see the “gifts” of what natural selection bestows on what is developing.

With the idea of oneness, we have pantheism.

With the idea of individuality, we have separateness.

How does this work and how can we have both? I think the answer is that universes exist within other universes, and individuals exist within other individuals.

Consider that a single atom is an individual. It can spend a long time simply being part of a tree never moving from its spot. I don't think it is trapped there. I think it can exit from that tree at any time.

When you breathe in and out, many atoms come and go from your body. Atoms exist in the dead skin you sluff off on your bed sheets. Atoms make up your entire body.

Try splitting an atom and see what happens.

**********

As for having a personal "God" you would have to define "God."

If you yourself are not God or if you don't want to go around calling yourself God, then God would have to be an individual that is separate from you.

If God is an individual but not inside of you or you inside of it, then you are separate from God, and you are in the position to have to define or describe what God is apart from you.

I believe that God is both inside of me and I inside of it. I believe that I am an individual but that I am a part of that which we call God. That which is.

I, like the atom in the tree, at this point, have no desire to exit (leave) the body of God. That I exist within the body and am part of the body, means that I serve the body.

Hence, I serve God and I am part of God and I am God; for as I dwell in God, God also dwells in me.


JB

Well, again, that all depends on how you defined a 'personal god'. If you're imagining that God is an external intervening entity, the no, of course not. But if you're using your original definition that "God" is the agent of creation, then creation is directly made of God, and therefore everything in it is God. God is not an individual egotistical jealous judge, but rather God is the true essence of all that exists. Which is exactly what we are.

I think the very word 'karma' can be confusing. I'm not using here in the sense of re-incarnation, in that what you do in this life will affect your next life. Instead I'm using it in the direct sense that what you do in this life will affect you in this life.

We can actually see 'karma' in play on the example you gave of obesity. If we eat poorly and fail to exercise we will become obese. If we eat well and exercise (we're physical active) then we'll have healthy bodies. Of course, those are not absolutes either. There are many obese people who are obese due to their genetic make-up and through no fault of their own. In fact, I happen to be just the opposite. I can eat anything I want and as much as I want, and sit around and do nothing, and still not become obese. So obesity is probably not a great example.

However, it is true that if we work toward things will make them happen, where if we do work toward things we won't make them happen. In that sense, the idea of karma is very practical.

I like to think of karma in terms of relationships. If you are always in a bad mood and snapping at people and starting arguments and disagreements all the time, then people will get to know you as being like that and they will react to you accordingly. Pretty soon, from your point of view everyone has a bad attitude because they automatically go into a bad attitude as soon as they see you coming. In this way you are creating the world around you.

Of course, that was a negative example. They same thing is true the other way around. If you are nice to people and make them feel good then when they see you coming they are going to be beaming with pleasantries to embrace you with open arms. In this way, you create the world around you via the karma that you put out. So social interactions are probably the best example of how karma works. But it can also work physically as well.

The 'personal God' in pantheism is indeed your very own 'higher self'. It's your spiritual side so to speak. And that can even be viewed as a 'separate entity' in your mind. Don't we all talk to ourselves to some degree, especially when trying to make decisions? We ask ourselves, "Do I really want to do that?". Well, who's asking whom? And who's going to make the final decision?

God is your true spiritual self. The thing that you are arguing with is the illusion that you have created of yourself in your brain. You have a picture in your mind of who you think you are, and what you think you want. Anytime you find yourself questioning what you'd 'really' like to do, you are trying to decide how you want to continue to create yourself. The process of creation is never over.

People think the universe was 'created' and that was that. But that's not the way it is. It's a constant process of creation. You create your own reality ever minute of every day. And you evolve yourself based on what you think you were in your past. Wake someone up in the morning, ask them who they are and what they believe! Do they say that they haven't decided yet? No, not at all. They'll tell you who they are by describing what they didn't in the past (i.e. what kind they are into, what they've done, and what they have decided to believe). Yet, what has truly happened? They have become prisoners to their past. That's all. They think they have become what they were.



Well, even the 'pantheistic view' is malleable depending on how you want to think of it.

If you are a pure atheist who believes that only what you see is what you get, then you can actually be an atheistic pantheist. In other words, you say, "Ok we are this universe, however, the universe is just a bunch of atoms and nothing more". In a sense that's atheistic pantheism and there are atheistic pantheists.

However, you can also say, "I believe that there is a spiritual nature underlying all of this". Now you're believing that there is more to the universe than meets the eye. It's still pantheism, it's just spiritual pantheism in the simple belief that there is more to out true nature than we can detect using physical means.

After all, we don't even have science completely down pat. Science is no where near 'finished'. It may even be possible that science will indeed discover proof of the 'spiritual' nature of the universe. In other words, it may be possible that some day science will recognize how humans can control energy via just their thoughts and emotions. That's not entirely far-fetched. So what you might claim that today there is no 'evidence' for, tomorrow there may very well be evidence for it. Science isn't finished so why should we limit ourselves to only thinking in terms of what science knows?

I think of myself as a "one-way" scientist. I firmly believe in what science has shown to be true. But I don't denounce what science cannot yet rule out. In other words, I firmly believe in evolution and that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Those things have both been well established. However, science has never ruled out the possibility that humans can control power and energy via their thoughts. About the best that they have done thus far is show that a lot of people who claim to be able to do this are quacks. But that hardly proves that no one can do it. Maybe the people who are really good at it don't brag about it.

So when we have a 'scientific discussion' I don't think it's improper to talk about the 'supernatural or paranormal' within the realm of known science. In other words, we're not denying anything that science already knows, we're merely speculating on areas where it can't say one way or the other.



Absolutely. I'm in total agreement. I think the very term 'oneness' is confusing, especially when applied to our experience of individual consciousness. Clearly we are not of one mind. We cannot know read each other's minds. There are 'divisions' based on morphology. There's no question about that. It's pretty clear that you are not a rock and a rock is not you. In a morphological sense. Morphology is what creates individuality.

But again it come back to the Big Bang, the agent that gave rise to it, and the 'stuff' of which is it made of. The Big Bang was not an explosion of something made of a bunch of atoms. There were no atoms at the Big Bang. All that existed is what the farther of the Big Bang called 'ylem'. All is 'ylem'. It's a single individual 'substance' that morphed into the atoms that we see today. I personally prefer to think of 'ylem' as the "quantum field", because I think in terms of Quantum Field Theory.

In fact, if atoms were truly 'individual things' in their own right there'd probably be a whole lot more differnet kinds than just a mere handful of them (just over 100 different kinds of atoms altogether)

But they aren't 'individual things' they are all just manifestation of the single underlying media of the quantum field. It is in that way that we are all 'one' Redy. We are all made of the same underlying indivisible stuff. Just because it has morphed into different shapes doesn't mean that it is divided. In fact, Quantum Field Theory shows use mathematically that it's impossible to divide anything.

So, yes, we have our 'individual' morphologies. But that doesn't make us 'separate' from the clay that forms us.

I think there is a thin line between spiritual pantheism and atheist pantheism.

What exactly is that thin line?

Life after death? Continuation of the personality or individual or not after the death of the creature body?

To find that line I would like for Red to define self. Who are you? Are you the body and mind only? Or is there more to you than that? When you talk to yourself, who are you talking to?

For me, I see at least two aspects to my self. One is the ego, who owns the personality that I am in this life. Two, is the observer that seems to be with me watching and guiding. I don't sense this observer as a different person, I sense it as the real self.

Then of course there are all my other alternate psyche's inside of me who like to experience this life along with me. There is the artist me, the web designer me, the investigator me, the prude, the slut, the revolutionary, the party girl, the homebody, and many more flavors, each with their own changing opinions and attitudes. Then there is the almighty self righteous goddess of truth.

Perhaps one day in the future they will pop out as an individual soul and incarnate into some reality and begin their own journey through the expanding universe of of being.

... I got lost... where was I?

Oh never mind. Hit post reply.

I agree, there's certainly a lot of truth to that.

The very definition of "Atheism" is a personal thing. Semantics always ultimately comes down to personal understandings of things, particularly when speaking of things like 'spirituality', or 'god'.

For me, 'pure Atheism' is a belief that we are the form we take. We are our bodies. In other words, when our physical bodies die, that's it, lights out!

That's all she wrote.

However, many 'Atheists' don't hold that view. They take the term 'Atheism' to simply not believe in a 'deity-like Godhead'.

In other words, they can still be 'spiritual' without acknowledging an external godhead.

However, from my own point of view, the only meaningful concept of 'spirit' would be a non-physical form of existence. Meaning that if we are spirit, then the essence of what we are can carry on. We are ultimately eternal beings. Which probably means that we were also spirits before we were born as well.

One of the problems has to do with the idea of 'memory'

People will often say that if we can't remember previous lives then what's the point in claiming that we carry on? The whole new spirit that has lost it's memory is a whole new spirit and therefore nothing was actually "carried on". The 'self' was lost.

However, that implies that we are nothing more than our past experiences.

What about a person who gets amnesia? Has their spirit died and a new one taken over their body?

How would that be any different than losing memory through a reincarnation?

Loss of memory is loss of memory no matter how it's accomplished.

Does loss of memory constitute a loss of ulitimate self?

If when you die you are instantly born again as someone new would you not still experience that? Just because you forgot who you were in the previouse life, does that negate the true essence of what you are?

If you close your eyes right now, and reopen them to see a whole new would around you without any recollection of the your past, does that mean that you died?

I don't think so. Clearly you're still there experiening a whole new life and just don't remember the previous one.

It's an interesting thought.

Everyone would like to remember their past experience, their past life, the 'who' that they thought they were. But were they ever that illusion in the first place?

Perhaps not.

That's were the secret lies.

Sorry I’m trying to figure out where we’ve come off the track. I think the following is the issue.



NO, not exactly the way I was proposing it in the OP. More like the way Aristotle first explained it. An action caused a great disturbance which we have coined to be the Big Bank Theory. That action was caused by ???? If one wanted to attribute the universe to a creator, than the maker of the action which cause the disturbance can be defined as the creator.

Now, whatever was disturbed or morphed into existence from that disturbance IS separate from the original agent that caused the disturbance. However, the agents that morphed into existence and became the matrix (for lack of a better word) are all the laws that serve the selection and evolutionary process of this universe.

In that respect we are separate from the original creator, but not separate from the agents from which all things were morphed. So in that perspective I have used the idea of pantheism. However, I think both Abra and JB will agree this is not the idea of pantheism either of them has.

Sorry, my fault, I’m not as good as you two are at explaining.

With my explanation there is nothing spiritual about this view of pantheism.

JB says


Her view indicates that there might be “will” within even a single atom. Yet for will to be observed it must be seen in action, such action would only take place if there were motivation. What motivates an atom? What motivates an animal to action, a human to action or the wind to create a hurricane, is all action determined by motive? If not, then action is not necessarily taken of free will. Correct?

Very interesting Red. I have given this same thing some thought also. Instead of the "big bang" which to me suggests some sort of explosion which is destructive, I see it as a birth.

I see the universe being born, from apparently nothing, but probably from a black hole that leads to another universe.

Okay so our universe is born. It is like an embryo, very small, but containing all it needs to grow and expand.

Is it separate from what ever gave birth to it? I don't think so, any more than you are separate from your children in this universe. You appear to be separate individuals, but as we have agreed, we are all still connected. So this, our universe could still be connected to that which gave birth to it.

Call it the mother universe.




I think will exists within the entire universe and is accessible to each individual when it becomes necessary. Until then, atoms are used by programs that are automatic. The will is not realized until consciousness obtains enough information and programs to realize it and use it as an individual. I also think collective organisms sharing information (like aspen trees, or bees)can access will and consciousness only in the degree it is needed. Consciousness flows through all things as does will.

JB

sorry wrong thread

I would like to respond to your post JB but my time here today is done. I will try to get back tomorrow evening. If not it will be Saturday evening.

Sorry you have to wait.

No, actually that's not the idea behind Quantum Field Theory.

There's no need to an external 'disturbance'.

It's the very nature of the quantum field to naturally fluctuate.

It's the very nature of those fluctuations to arise into the universe we see.

Think of it like an ocean that can never come to rest. It's the nature of this ocean to give rise to waves. It can never come to rest. So the very idea of an "initial" disturbance is unnecessary.

That's the idea behind it.

The other thing that people are often confused about is the idea that we belong to 'this' universe.

Like if this universe would have been still born then we would have never 'come' into existence.

But that goes back to the atheistic idea that we are the form, rather than the thing taking the form.

The only reason we are 'in' this universe is because this universe works!

If this universe didn't work then we'd be in another universe experiencing that one.

The only way I can try to explain it to you is that this universe is like a wave on the quantum field (actually a whole symphony of waves, but that's irrelevant). The point is that we are the quantum field. The quantum field is the 'body' or substance of 'spirit'. We experience only that which is available to experience. If it's no available to experience then obviously, we can't experience it.

So would be no 'loss' in a dead universe anyway. It wouldn't represent lose of spirit, it would simply represent a loss of a playground.

But it would be just as insignificant and irrelevant as an empty lot is in this world. When you drive by a place where there is nothing but rubble, you don't think, "Oh what a loss". Or maybe you do. But the point is that it's just loss of space. It's not loss of spirit.

You would exist whether this universe ever came to be or not.

When I say, "We are the universe". I don't mean, "We are the physical universe".

I mean, we are all that exists! We are the universe of existence.

We are the thing that is dancing.

We are the thing that is singing.

We are it.

We are the spirit.

I just don't know how else to say it.

All the rest is smoke and mirrors. It's Jeanniebean's Holographic Matrix. Except it's more than just light, it's vibrations of all manner and 'matter'. Quantum Field Theory does not deny this picture or conflict with it in any way. I won't go as far as to say that it 'proves' it, but I will vehemently advocate that it is, at the very least, compatible with this view.

In other words, science cannot rule out the pantheistic view, and is in fact, completely compatible with it.

There's no need for any idea of initial "cause and effect" because in Quantum Field Theory (and more importantly in observations of the quantum behavior) the very idea of a 'cause and effect' breaks down and is no longer a meaningful concept. Cause and effect are properties of the resulting 'physical' universe, just like atoms are. There are no atoms in the quantum field. Atoms arise from vibrations of the quantum field. But the vibrations of the quantum field are eternal. (i.e. timeless). The very idea of 'before and after' has no meaning on the quantum level. So talking about an 'initial' disturbance is also meaningless. The very concept of 'before and after' belong to this universe, not to the quantum field.

So then there was no big bang, I.E. "initial disturbance?"

I agree that there was no single disturbance that created the universe. What happened... also is still happening. All is manifesting at once.

The only thing constant is change... movement.

JB

Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe

"For the sake of this discussion where the question of “Is there a God?” concerned, we will limit the definition of god to being strictly an agent of the big bang."

I have read the OP a few times. God said let there be light and a big bang happened and there was light. Okay that takes care of the first sentence. After that I am totally lost. Hey, I gave it a shot. Its not that I didn't try. What makes more sense to me is a creative energy or energy itself being sentient. But then wouldn't that be descriptive of God?

PRINCIPLES OF ARISTOTLE’S ONTOLOGY

Principle #1: Anything that is must be a substance or accident of substance.

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.

Yeah, but what is an accident of substance? I am still trying to figure that one out.

Some call it a burp but lets just say substance farted or worse. .... eeeewwwww...

Some call it a burp but lets just say substance farted or worse. .... eeeewwwww...


Sounds like substance abuse to me.