"nor do scientific conclusions necessarily lead to the conclusion that everything is one"
I'm not a scientist, nor can I say that I even understand the simplest of quantum mechanical theory, but this is one concept I read about that supports what I'm saying:
In an experiment, scientists fired protons (or some type of small matter, what type is irrelevant) through a single slit in a sheet of metal. There was a second sheet on which the fired protons made a pattern when they splattered into it. They then fired protons through a metal sheet with two slits. The pattern changed. Both of these steps were recorded with video camera and the protons were viewable as they flew threw the slits.
In the second trial, they repeated both steps WITHOUT video-recording the experiment. The two resulting patterns were the same this time around.
The conclusion in the article I read was that particles behave differently while under observation than they do without an observer present.
This conclusion leads to a secondary conclusion that human observation changes reality.
Our perception of reality is not the actual reality, in other words. The human mind takes information from the external world and processes it in a way that it can comprehend, most importantly translating the data into a 3-Dimensional physical environment and a 4th dimensional progression through time.
Without being absurd or fictional in anyway, it truly is the concept of the matrix movie, except that our brains are the computers creating the simulations, not the other way around...
Is it not feasible that all matter and energy is infinitely singular, as it is in a black hole, and that we are beings outside the physical matrix of our brain-computers? When people say that they've "seen the light" or "talked to god" they aren't crazy. Perhaps they've somehow transcended their computational limits, if only briefly.
I like my theory because it takes the spiritual out of the realm of the supernatural and places it firmly within the clutches of quantifiable science.
All in all though, it is only my personal explanation, and I will always accept new information with open arms (and open mind).
---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 07:22 PM ----------
"most conceptions of deity place it outside of the natural universe"
What I am conceiving here is not the notion of a deity. Deity implies a character present. A being with personality, or at the very least, intentions and choices to make of some sort. My conception of god is purely conceptual, in that I don't think god exists at all except as a notion. I don't believe there is "a" god, but that the notion of "god" exists in the light of all things being infinitely singular. That is what we're talking about when we speak of "god". Not a deity, which would indeed be separate.
---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 07:29 PM ----------
Also, I have an additional unrelated (or possible related, I don't really know) question. Why did my thread get categorized as Evangelical? I don't recall posting in the Evangelical subcategory of philosophy of religion...
Did an administrator relocate my thread here for some reason?
I know nothing of Evangelicalism, so perhaps the content of my post is appropriate here. I don't know.
My gut feeling is telling me, however, that it's in the wrong place. I consider the content of my philosophy to be founded in existentialism.
If anyone has the answer I'm looking for, I would appreciate it.