"What IF " there is no God

[Saint]

IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existance of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

[Dissident Dan]

Can you do the same for the existence of god?

[Saint]

if there is a God like that in bible, i can't survive till now, he could have killed me already.

[DR OF DEATH]

how to explain the universe and exitence. please tell me you have heard of:
A)the big bang theory,
B)charles darwins "origin of the species"
C)evolution

if not go study,

also could you please give some concrete proof for the exitence of god, that does not require me to have blind faith[?]

thank you and kind regards

the DR of DEATH

[rocket art]

I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

[maximus]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

oh? care to elaborate?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Saint
IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existance of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

it is pretty much as drdeath said, with the addition of an understanding of probobility, and chemical compounds (especially those present in warm seas of our creation (i've forgotten the term used to describe it-- was it the something soup?). the "falling together" of these chemicals out of which the first life was formed was a very improboble event, but in a universe as big as ours it isn't so unlikely. we're just lucky that it happened to us. (see the Weak Anthropic Prinsiple for further ideas).

[Tiberius]

I know where this is going so let's just save a few pages of thread here...

We'll say, evolution, you say "but why?", we'll say star formation, you'll say "but why?", we'll say big bang, you'll say "but why?" and finally we'll say...

We have no idea why existence exists - and neither do you. Making up fairy tales to explain it so that you can pretend that you DO know doesn't get us anywhere. It could have very easily been some unexplainable mindless natural phenomenon that has "always been" and, in fact, the odds of this seem more likely to me than the odds of it being some powerful entity with a human-like personhood to it, or even a living entity at all.

The most mature thing would be to realize that none of us know such a fundamental thing - and it's very likely humanity itself will never know or be able to prove either way. That won't stop wishful thinkers from creating their own "gods of the moment" as centuries go by though.

But as for me, I don't question what the meaning of life is. I've already decided what the meaning of my life will be - the question has been answered, period. None of the above will change or affect that in the least, so at most, the god question is an entertaining but irrelevant subject.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Hmmm...having a problem seeing how that is possible. Would you care to expound?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Saint
IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existance of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and slendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Mentat
The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and slendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.


true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it? [:D]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by maximus
true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it? [:D]

I was actually using an infinite-space-with-local-expansion model, but, if I had been talking about a finite space model, you would be correct (except for the part about "there was nothing and then...", that's just nonsensical, since there was no time when there wasn't anything (IOW, there didn't "come to be" something, but it has always been).

[The Grimmus]

Originally posted by drdeath
how to explain the universe and exitence. please tell me you have heard of:
A)the big bang theory,


yes but can you exsplain where the energy and the big bang originated form or what was there before.

[DR OF DEATH]

we do not need to as far as i know it was something to do with either chaos theory, quantum theory, or the laws of probobility, maybe a mix of all three. who knows, who cares. you cant proove the exitence of god, we can prove almost all of the science involved.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
... but can you explain where the energy and the big bang originated from or what was there before?.

[a)] Yep.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
The probability of the Universe's coming into existence in all of it's current complexity and splendor, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is exactly 100%, provided you've got infinite time to do it in. Not much debate needed, when we realize that, given enough time, it is in fact impossible for this Universe not to have come about on it's own.
I should have saved that quote about how the internet proves that a million monkeys, given enough time, will NOT compose the Declaration of Independence.

Then I'm reminded of those miners who were trapped last year and were rescued by the arduous efforts of a hundred people. Then, when one of them was brought to the surface, he had the stupidity to say "Well, I guess it just wasn't my time to go."

I know there's a point here somewhere.

Finders keepers? (?)

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
true, but remember, before the universe there was not even time. it is pointless to describe what happened (or rather what didn't happen) before the universe in terms such as "there was nothing, and then there was something, as there was no time before the universe. it's almost paradoxial, isn't it? [:D]
Not if you accept the word "eternal" and see the Universe as same.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Say more.

[Royce]

Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.

Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.

M. Gaspar, me too.

[DR OF DEATH]

ooooh nice snappy reply there gasper nice going.

i'll let you have the joy of explaining it to the simpletons

chow

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by drdeath
ooooh nice snappy reply there gasper nice going.

i'll let you have the joy of explaining it to the simpletons

chow

Really? Which ones? (Which replies? Which simpletons?)

Please don't encourage my "snappy" side. It's off-putting to those
I care about the most.

[DR OF DEATH]

i actually replied to the post where you simply said "yes" but by the time i had typed my reply i was sundenly way to late.

hey snappy is good, its scary, and people tend to agree with you

[Mentat]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
yes but can you exsplain where the energy and the big bang originated form or what was there before.

Asking what was there, "before" the big bang, is asking what was there "before" the beginning of time, and thus has no merit.

As far as asking where the energy came from, the net energy of the Universe is equal to zero, so there needn't have been any energy at all - Quantum Fluctuations could have produced matter and gravitational fields (which cancel each other out, energy-wise), and the Big Bang could have started from there.

[plus]

Originally posted by rocket art
I have postulated that Consciousness is the source of gravity.

Care to formulate this using mathematics. i.e. relationship between force and level of consciousness?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.


One has objective evidence, the other does not. This has been brought up enough times to be obvious. It can never be proved that there is a God. And, while you can never prove that there isn't one, you can get along perfectly in Science without Him (as Science is, by nature, agnostic).


Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.


You are missing the fact that mathematics supports my claim. It is just a simple extrapolation of the nature of infinity - since, no matter how long the Universe goes on without conscious life (for example), it will always have an infinite amount of time left to produce it in, and thus the chance will always be 100%.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
Maxius, I agree almost completely with one slight exception.
Why is the pure speculation of religion a fairy tale and pure speculation of nonrelion, science, any more than a fairy tale.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter who tells it.


a fairy tale is a little more than a fairy tale if you have substancial evidence to support it, don't you think?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I should have saved that quote about how the internet proves that a million monkeys, given enough time, will NOT compose the Declaration of Independence.


I'm sorry, M. Gaspar, but you are wrong - since, given an infinite amount of time, it is mathematically impossible that they not compose the Declaration of Independence from random typings. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is a uniform, orderly, structured, piece of organized writing; while the Universe is messy, disorderly (and tending toward increase in entropy), and without much structure at all (that which isn't compromised by typical chaos is compromised by QM). So there really is no comparison.


Then I'm reminded of those miners who were trapped last year and were rescued by the arduous efforts of a hundred people. Then, when one of them was brought to the surface, he had the stupidity to say "Well, I guess it just wasn't my time to go."

I know there's a point here somewhere.

Finders keepers? (?)

Well, I don't see much point to the mention of the experience of the miners, but you probably had a reason...

[Mentat]

Originally posted by plus
Care to formulate this using mathematics. i.e. relationship between force and level of consciousness?

Somehow I get the feeling our wishes for an explanation are going to go unanswered...[:(].

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, If you are willing to believe that the probabily of a endless series of extremely improbable events happening in the right order at the right time to create the known universe is 100%, then why is the existence of a God/Creator any harder or more unlikely to believe. To me it is simply a matter of personal choice. You would rather believe that you are an improbable accident while I perfer to believe that I am an inevitable result of purpose and intent.

If I am correct, the position of Mentat and his ilk is that the Universe is a closed system with zero net energy which sprung into being due to fluctuations in that energy, and given enough time -- e.i., 15 billlion years and counting -- It organized itself, quite by chance, into a BIG SYSTEM of little sub-systems ...of which we, stars and atoms are examples.

According to Royce and his fellows (and fellowesses), the Universe was "created by" a "Great Outside Force" -- with intention/will/purpose (the content of which we can only guess at) -- which ("Who"?) continues to mediate what's going on.

My take, however, is a bit different. I see the Universe as an ORGANISM with NATURAL TENDENCIES which in each of Its INCARNATIONS "simply" [8)] "does Its thing" ...which is to say, reassembles Its parts in the physical, mental and (maybe) spiritual domains ...all of which are interconnected in "the end".

More to come.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]One has objective evidence, the other does not. This has been brought up enough times to be obvious. It can never be proved that there is a God. And, while you can never prove that there isn't one, you can get along perfectly in Science without Him (as Science is, by nature, agnostic).
But we can prove there's a Universe ..so let's give It It's props!

You are missing the fact that mathematics supports my claim. It is just a simple extrapolation of the nature of infinity - since, no matter how long the Universe goes on without conscious life (for example), it will always have an infinite amount of time left to produce it in, and thus the chance will always be 100%.
You don't have to "produce" what you already have! Didn't you see the "Wizard of Oz" and get the point of the quests of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion? Now there's a fairy tale we can sink our teeth into!!

Still more.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, M. Gaspar, but you are wrong - since, given an infinite amount of time, it is mathematically impossible that they not compose the Declaration of Independence from random typings. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is a uniform, orderly, structured, piece of organized writing; while the Universe is messy, disorderly (and tending toward increase in entropy), and without much structure at all (that which isn't compromised by typical chaos is compromised by QM). So there really is no comparison.
Them is fightin' words, Mentat!

First, let us send the monkeys on their way and focus on your statement regarding the Universe. I cannot see how YOU and all of your materialist brethren (and cisterns?) can continue to make the statement that the Universe is messy, disorderly and tending toward chaos.

Will ya LOOK at the sustained organization of sub-systems within the "body" of the Universe? Just look at the those exquisite little systems we call atoms. They're not just "cute"...they are dynamic, coherent systems that keep on going! And even tho they're dead as doorknobs in your estimation, they assemble into larger dynamic, coherent systems like you, me and the monkeys. Let us not forget the stars and their galaxies and EVERYTHING ELSE for that matter. It's all ORGANIZED -- tho ever-changing -- NOT CHAOTIC!!!

What makes something "chaotic" anyway...the fact that we -- the puny and myopic viewers -- can't predict what the components will do? Feh. And Entropy?! I'm working on it!!!

Well, I don't see much point to the mention of the experience of the miners, but you probably had a reason...
My point, dearest Mentat, is that the Universe goes through all Its arduous efforts to produce you and me, and all one of us can do is say "Serendipity! Whatta life!"

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My take, however, is a bit different. I see the Universe as an ORGANISM with NATURAL TENDENCIES which in each of Its INCARNATIONS "simply" [8)] "does Its thing" ...which is to say, reassembles Its parts in the physical, mental and (maybe) spiritual domains ...all of which are interconnected in "the end".This only implies that the Universe has a body, which could very well be correct, i.e., in terms of the processes related to the body, but where is "the mind" which governs these processes? Indeed that would make more sense, for you can't have order without a mind to maintain it. And for that matter, neither would you have a mind without a "spirit" (soul) to stir it. [;)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If I am correct, the position of Mentat and his ilk is that the Universe is a closed system with zero net energy which sprung into being due to fluctuations in that energy, and given enough time -- e.i., 15 billlion years and counting -- It organized itself, quite by chance, into a BIG SYSTEM of little sub-systems ...of which we, stars and atoms are examples.


You are rather wrong here; not because I wouldn't support the possibility of that theory, but because I don't have an "opinion", in the common sense. As my good buddy Royce knows full well, I am the true Devil's Advocate [;)].

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Them is fightin' words, Mentat!


Bring it on, Gaspar!


First, let us send the monkeys on their way and focus on your statement regarding the Universe. I cannot see how YOU and all of your materialist brethren (and cisterns?) can continue to make the statement that the Universe is messy, disorderly and tending toward chaos.

Will ya LOOK at the sustained organization of sub-systems within the "body" of the Universe? Just look at the those exquisite little systems we call atoms. They're not just "cute"...they are dynamic, coherent systems that keep on going! And even tho they're dead as doorknobs in your estimation, they assemble into larger dynamic, coherent systems like you, me and the monkeys. Let us not forget the stars and their galaxies and EVERYTHING ELSE for that matter. It's all ORGANIZED -- tho ever-changing -- NOT CHAOTIC!!!


M. Gaspar, let's look at the those cute little atoms for a second. Were you aware that every singler one of it's particles is indeterminate, and is in fact everywhere at the exact same time? How's that for chaotic?

Now let's go to "higher" systems, such as Galaxies. Not only do the same Quantum rules apply to the Galaxy, but it also has to contend with colliding stars, black holes, supernovae, and all other forms of "mess".

Also, remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Any closed system must either increase in entropy or remain the same, but it cannot decrease in entropy.

I could go on but you get the picture don't you?


What makes something "chaotic" anyway...the fact that we -- the puny and myopic viewers -- can't predict what the components will do? Feh. And Entropy?! I'm working on it!!!


Keep working on it, since it is increasing, whether we admit it or not.

Besides, it isn't about whether "puny myopic viewers" can predict it or not, the components are indeterminate in themselves, it's nothing to do with our inability to measure them.


My point, dearest Mentat, is that the Universe goes through all Its arduous efforts to produce you and me, and all one of us can do is say "Serendipity! Whatta life!"

But saying that the Universe went through some kind of effort is implying that it took a path of greater resistance, and that is against obvious observation (all things in the Universe (except some conscious beings) take the path of least resistance). After all, should we decide that the Universe is conscious and that it "tried" to make the it's inhabitants, we must find out where it got the extra energy from (and it can't be from outside of itself, since everything is "in the Universe").

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This only implies that the Universe has a body, which could very well be correct, i.e., in terms of the processes related to the body, but where is "the mind" which governs these processes? Indeed that would make more sense, for you can't have order without a mind to maintain it. And for that matter, neither would you have a mind without a "spirit" (soul) to stir it. [;)]
My friend, Iacchus:

If you have been following my posts at all, you will know that I believe that the Universe has a MIND ...and has had one from the git-go! I believe a kernal of consciousness exists as part of every particle of baryonic matter...however unimaginably simple this level of awareness might be. I also believe that all dynamic, coherent systems have their own consciousness ...which would include atoms, stars, galaxies, bugs, rocks, you name it, it's thinkin' ...too varying degrees.

As to soul, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is another "realm" of dynamic, coherent systems ..."souls" being systems that retain experience/info across lifetimes on the physical "plane".

As to what is "stirring the soup"? My guess is that it is the CONSCIOUSNESS of the SOUL ...more specifically, the INTENTION of the SOUL to manifest certain EXPERIENCES for the purpose/function of SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION...which, boiled down, would be the acquisition of COMPASSION.

With that, I must admit, that I -- as a reflection of my soul -- am not too highly evolved. [:(]

And, sometimes, I am. [:)]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Asking what was there, "before" the big bang, is asking what was there "before" the beginning of time, and thus has no merit.
Not really. I have an answer to what was before this particular Big Bang ...a prior incarnation of the Universe.

I will grant you, however, that a discussion about the "inception" or "commencement" or "Genesis" of an eternal Entity/Being/organism/machine/system is nonsensical if one accepts the "eternal" characterization.

As far as asking where the energy came from, the net energy of the Universe is equal to zero, so there needn't have been any energy at all - Quantum Fluctuations could have produced matter and gravitational fields (which cancel each other out, energy-wise), and the Big Bang could have started from there.
This is where I got the idea that you were taking a certain position ... which you now disavow (?) in a post that I will capture next.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are rather wrong here; not because I wouldn't support the possibility of that theory, but because I don't have an "opinion", in the common sense. As my good buddy Royce knows full well, I am the true Devil's Advocate [;)].
I will bypass the opening regarding you common sense and ask if you're saying that you don't have ANY opinions -- or positions -- or beliefs? What are you saying? PM.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Bring it on, Gaspar!



[QUOTE]M. Gaspar, let's look at the those cute little atoms for a second. Were you aware that every singler one of it's particles is indeterminate, and is in fact everywhere at the exact same time? How's that for chaotic?
I do not consider this chaotic, but perfectly ordered as a NATURAL CONDITION of the Universe. As I have said before, the Universe can be thought of as "Sea of Possibilities" upon which intention acts. The fact that from this SEEMING chaos ORDER PREVAILS is a testament to the tendency toward order in the midst of what only looks like chaos. But keep it comin'!

Now let's go to "higher" systems, such as Galaxies. Not only do the same Quantum rules apply to the Galaxy, but it also has to contend with colliding stars, black holes, supernovae, and all other forms of "mess".
Are we looking at the same Universe? If you call that a "mess"...you have high aesthetic standards, indeed.

Also, remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Any closed system must either increase in entropy or remain the same, but it cannot decrease in entropy.
I am presently conferring with a thermo expert who bringing me up to speed ...and when I get to 2nd gear, I'll be back. [s(]

I could go on but you get the picture don't you?
No. It's hard to focus when your head is spinning!!

Keep working on it, since it is increasing, whether we admit it or not.
[s(] [s(]

Besides, it isn't about whether "puny myopic viewers" can predict it or not, the components are indeterminate in themselves, it's nothing to do with our inability to measure them.
And I'm telling you that this is playing right into my theoretical hands!

But saying that the Universe went through some kind of effort is implying that it took a path of greater resistance, and that is against obvious observation (all things in the Universe (except some conscious beings) take the path of least resistance). After all, should we decide that the Universe is conscious and that it "tried" to make the it's inhabitants, we must find out where it got the extra energy from (and it can't be from outside of itself, since everything is "in the Universe").
Actually, I was being facetious with regard to the "arduous effort".
We -- and everything else -- evolved through natural processes...but not on a pre-determined path. There is no "extra energy" ... nor need there be. IMO: The Universe is a self-contained system that just doin' Its thing.

[Loren Booda]

SaintIF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existance of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

If we exist independently of/dependently on God, then so does our logic. Both of these assumptions rationalize as self-fulfilling for the set of all objective extensions of our logic, whether we label it "God" or not. Subjectively in faith, however, one can realize God as incorporating metalogic, which an objective observer cannot fully do.

[rocket art]

__________________________________________________ ____________________

from Mentat and other folks:
Hmmm...having a problem seeing how that is possible. Would you care to expound?
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Hi. I'm on a cafe because the phoneline at home was cut, so it takes time for me to visit the net (3rd world blues). and it took sometime to to find this thread, last time i'd been here it was 1page, now it's 3.

I once narrated my postulation on the old physicsforums. will try to dust the shelves to reproduce it again. maybe days from now. by the way, i think such postulation may be beyond counting, though it starts there.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by rocket art
[B]__________________________________________________ ____________________

from Mentat and other folks:
Hmmm...having a problem seeing how that is possible. Would you care to expound?
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Hi. I'm on a cafe because the phoneline at home was cut, so it takes time for me to visit the net (3rd world blues).
LOL!

and it took sometime to to find this thread, last time i'd been here it was 1page, now it's 3.
Yes, we do go on.

I once narrated my postulation on the old physicsforums. will try to dust the shelves to reproduce it again. maybe days from now. by the way, i think such postulation may be beyond counting, though it starts there.
I think I speak for each of us here that we are waiting with MUCH ANTICIPATION. But I must warn you: most of "us" are here to "bury you, not to praise you"....but not me: I'm a friendly panpsychist who will hang on every word. [;)]

[rocket art]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar


But I must warn you: most of "us" are here to "bury you, not to praise you"....but not me: I'm a friendly panpsychist who will hang on every word. [;)]

well oki, besides i'm not expecting much praises anyway (except if one claim to be god afterwards, but heck, i bet ET's claiming to be gods don't have a good day's rest for claiming that). however it would also be nice to consider that the otherwise scenario between the me and 'em could also be a probability.

but i agree, though i just consider myself as physics enthusiast and my endeavors are on another field, that science's way of meticulously deciphering things is a plus, just don't hide behind closemindedness...

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by rocket art
well oki, besides i'm not expecting much praises anyway (except if one claim to be god afterwards, but heck, i bet ET's claiming to be gods don't have a good day's rest for claiming that). however it would also be nice to consider that the otherwise scenario between the me and 'em could also be a probability.

but i agree, though i just consider myself as physics enthusiast and my endeavors are on another field, that science's way of meticulously deciphering things is a plus, just don't hide behind closemindedness...

So give it up, already! Tell us how "consciousness is a source of gravity."

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So give it up, already! Tell us how "consciousness is a source of gravity." Maybe it has something to do with being depressed? Hey you can't have frivolity without gravity! [;)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not really. I have an answer to what was before this particular Big Bang ...a prior incarnation of the Universe.


Remember, this prior incarnation would have had to occur at a certain point in time - and some models of the BB theory postulate that time itself began with the BB. However, there are other models, and we'll assume that there is infinite space and time, but different "incarnations" of the local Universe, if you want.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I will bypass the opening regarding you common sense and ask if you're saying that you don't have ANY opinions -- or positions -- or beliefs? What are you saying?

Yes, if it is at all possible in your minds, please conceive of me as having no "beliefs". Of course, this will quickly be shown false, if taken to the extreme (indeed, the concept of believing nothing is paradoxical in itself), but for most practical purposes I will not have any definite belief/position.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I do not consider this chaotic, but perfectly ordered as a NATURAL CONDITION of the Universe. As I have said before, the Universe can be thought of as "Sea of Possibilities" upon which intention acts.


If intention acts on it, then the intention itself must be physical, mustn't(sp?) it? If it is physical, than it too is indeterminate.


The fact that from this SEEMING chaos ORDER PREVAILS is a testament to the tendency toward order in the midst of what only looks like chaos. But keep it comin'!


Hahahahaha. This is usually a creationist's argument...

There is no "prevailing order". If there were, there would be no supernovae, which produce Black Holes, which destroy everything in their path... Most importanly, there would be no humans, who, because of their consciousness/sentience/intelligence, are capable of destroying everything they find, including themselves.


Are we looking at the same Universe? If you call that a "mess"...you have high aesthetic standards, indeed.


So you don't think it's messy that every single part of the Universe can disappear, and reappear somewhere else, thus (according to Chaos theory) stopping a HUGE range of phenomena from "going about there business as usual"? You don't find it messy that stars collide, and galaxies are destroyed (galaxies which could contain intelligent life)? Alrighty...WHERE is this order that you keep talking about?


I am presently conferring with a thermo expert who bringing me up to speed ...and when I get to 2nd gear, I'll be back. [s(]


See you then [:)].


No. It's hard to focus when your head is spinning!!


Oooo-taaay.


[s(] [s(]


Breath in, breath out...


And I'm telling you that this is playing right into my theoretical hands!


And I'm telling you you are boardering on ignoring what I'm saying. If the particles are indeterminate in themselves then no conscious being could possibly "order" them.

I'm sorry, I must go right now. I will continue response tomorrow (if possible).

[jammieg]

There is good in having some faith and in having some doubts as well.
Like Francis Bacon said in Novum Organum, it is more likely that there is an intelligent framework to all of this, but it's not good to presume we know for sure what it wants from us or that simply praying to get out of a mine alone is more effective than other intent people using improved safety and rescue techniques. I don't think people would practice prayer if it weren't effective either, it may be effective in ways that are not just about feeling better but maybe tap into imagination or visualization, people are more likely to fail if they believe they will fail, like selfhypnosis is a proven means to change behavior more so than most magic pills.

[rocket art]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So give it up, already! Tell us how "consciousness is a source of gravity."

[8)]
I have been contemplating whether putting the word 'please' could add up more gravity to this request.[:D]

Well it started about 2years ago in a physics chatroom, when somebody inquired about gravity. So I answered it's a curvature in space, but then that sounds like some chicken and egg dilemma because it doesn't really answer the why. That's when I suggested about E=mc^2 and that's how it started the weight going...

I have been thinking though whether to post another thread regarding this because it ain't about 'god', it's about 'consciousness'. Maybe just in time for me to recall and find that note somewhere (I'm really busy lately)...

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by rocket art
[8)]
I have been contemplating whether putting the word 'please' could add up more gravity to this request.[:D]

Well it started about 2years ago in a physics chatroom, when somebody inquired about gravity. So I answered it's a curvature in space, but then that sounds like some chicken and egg dilemma because it doesn't really answer the why. That's when I suggested about E=mc^2 and that's how it started the weight going...

I have been thinking though whether to post another thread regarding this because it ain't about 'god', it's about 'consciousness'. Maybe just in time for me to recall and find that note somewhere (I'm really busy lately)...

PLEASE favor us with a new thread re consciousness.

And, if interested, you could visit "A Conscious Universe?" thread if it's still on the menu to see if any cross-pollination might occur.

Sorry for the rude outburst ...but I was at the edge of my seat in anticipation. [;)]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
If intention acts on it, then the intention itself must be physical, mustn't(sp?) it? If it is physical, than it too is indeterminate.
Everything is part of the same System, thus different "configurations" of the SAME STUFF. E = MC2 (I was scooped!)

SO, the Universe is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME...IMO...interracting with itself, and, as energy does, it just keeps movin'!

Say more about "indeterminate" ...and I'll tell you why it doesn't matter.

Hahahahaha. This is usually a creationist's argument...

There is no "prevailing order". If there were, there would be no supernovae, which produce Black Holes, which destroy everything in their path... Most importanly, there would be no humans, who, because of their consciousness/sentience/intelligence, are capable of destroying everything they find, including themselves.

So you don't think it's messy that every single part of the Universe can disappear, and reappear somewhere else, thus (according to Chaos theory) stopping a HUGE range of phenomena from "going about there business as usual"? You don't find it messy that stars collide, and galaxies are destroyed (galaxies which could contain intelligent life)? Alrighty...WHERE is this order that you keep talking about?
Surely you're playing Devil's Advocate, here, Mentat ([;)]), 'cause you couldn't possibly BELIEVE what you have written:

You seem to be saying that "destruction" precludes a natural tendency toward order. Not at all. It's all part of a PROCESS where systems fall apart and come together (as "new" systems) via natural forces. Now, if they only "fell apart" and then nothing "came together" ...then you might have something there...but then you wouldn't BE "there" because the cells that are constantly dying in your body would not be being replaced.

See you then [:)].
My entropy coach is taking a break. . .(or did I break him?).

Oooo-taaay. ...can you see....?

Breath in, breath out...
My point exactly.

And I'm telling you you are boardering on ignoring what I'm saying. If the particles are indeterminate in themselves then no conscious being could possibly "order" them.
To what "conscious being" do you refer? I'm saying that it's the natural order of the System to disassemble and reassemble Its parts. And I say this is an eternal call to ORDER.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Everything is part of the same System, thus different "configurations" of the SAME STUFF. E = MC2 (I was scooped!)


Yes I know this, what does that have to do with price of eggs?


SO, the Universe is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME...IMO...interracting with itself, and, as energy does, it just keeps movin'!


Sure, that's pefectly sound reasoning. I still don't see how it helps your case at all, since energy interacting with other energy never shows any hint of conscious control.


Say more about "indeterminate" ...and I'll tell you why it doesn't matter.


I've been telling you that the signal (and that's what it must be, otherwise, how would a certain part of the Universe "know" what the Universe wanted) itself must also be indeterminate, since it is physical, and all physical things are indeterminate.

On top of this, the signal would have to travel at the speed of light (at most), and it would thus take many lightyears to reach certain parts of the Universe (of course, this raises the question of where the "center of consciousness" is in the Universe. I don't mean an actual "center" but rather a center like that of the center of consciousness for humans (the brain)).


Surely you're playing Devil's Advocate, here, Mentat ([;)]), 'cause you couldn't possibly BELIEVE what you have written:


I don't believe or disbelieve anything I write.


You seem to be saying that "destruction" precludes a natural tendency toward order. Not at all. It's all part of a PROCESS where systems fall apart and come together (as "new" systems) via natural forces. Now, if they only "fell apart" and then nothing "came together" ...then you might have something there...but then you wouldn't BE "there" because the cells that are constantly dying in your body would not be being replaced.


You are still missing my point, so I will follow your analogy (of cells) to it's actual conclusion: Cells need energy to replicate. They must take that energy from that part of their environment which they break down (that's why we eat food). In doing so, they increase the entropy of the whole system, while maintaining their own "person" order.

This is all precisely what I've been telling you about the formation of Solar Systems, planets, galaxies, etc.


My entropy coach is taking a break. . .(or did I break him?).


This also sounds like a bluff, but I wont bet my whole pot just yet...[:)].


...can you see....?


No compredo.


My point exactly.


How so?


To what "conscious being" do you refer? I'm saying that it's the natural order of the System to disassemble and reassemble Its parts. And I say this is an eternal call to ORDER.

And yet, in this "disassembling-and-reassembling" process, the entropy manages to increase...hmmmmm.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, that's pefectly sound reasoning. I still don't see how it helps your case at all, since energy interacting with other energy never shows any hint of conscious control.
[a)] And maybe you and your brainy brethren can't TAKE a hint!

Later.

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[a)] And maybe you and your brainy brethren can't TAKE a hint!

Later.

okay, let's calm down and look at this realistically, M. Gaspar. mentat's point is a good one. where do you feel that science has failed in this respect?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[a)] And maybe you and your brainy brethren can't TAKE a hint!

Later.

I think the real question is, have you seen such a hint as you're alluding to? If so, I'd like you to point it out for me, as it seems to have been entirely wasted on my teeny brain [:((].

[Mentat]

Originally posted by maximus
okay, let's calm down and look at this realistically, M. Gaspar. mentat's point is a good one. where do you feel that science has failed in this respect?

I thank you for your support, maximus...it was gettin' a little lonely on my side of the argument [:D].

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Yes I know this, what does that have to do with price of eggs?
Scroll back and see that you keep trying to make a distinction between that which is "physical" and that which is not. My point is that even something which we/you may deem as "non-physical" -- like consciousness or spirit -- may, in fact, be the "same stuff" and, hence, able to interract and EFFECT physical systems.

More later.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Scroll back and see that you keep trying to make a distinction between that which is "physical" and that which is not. My point is that even something which we/you may deem as "non-physical" -- like consciousness or spirit -- may, in fact, be the "same stuff" and, hence, able to interract and EFFECT physical systems.

More later.

Ah, I see. Well, E=mc2, or any other argument relating energy to matter, isn't going to help you because energy is physical...ain't I a stinka'? [6)]

[Ejderha]

Originally posted by Saint
IF there is no GOD/creator,
then how to explain the existance of life and this universe?

Can you explain scientifically and logically , how things/lives can exist independent of GOD.

Hello Saint!

From my eyes, after all this, till now and then, everything; anything we can imagine...

I would ask, What IF there is a god?

Ejderha

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
Okay, let's calm down and look at this realistically, M. Gaspar. Mentat's point is a good one. Where do you feel that science has failed in this respect?
Science has NOT failed. It's just not there yet.

The hints of consciousness within the Universe might be "hidden in plane sight" within Chaos Theory.

Now, I want you to look up at the high wire...that is ME tippy-toeing onto the thread ...but not this one.

I will be performing my act in Ring #3 ...better known as Royce's thread "Reasoning for the Existence of God as the Creator".

I will be performing without a net ...except for the one that some among you may be chasing me with.

But before I leave this thread, let me say to you, honorable Maximus: that I am perfectly calm and enjoying the good banter.

Not knowing me better, I can see how one might think my response to Mentat's admonition that "energy interacting with other energy never shows any hint of conscious control" seemed aggitated. But the fact is, I can't resist a straight line -- ya know, as in a J [:D] K E -- thus was compelled to reply that maybe he and his "brainy brethren can't TAKE a hint!"

It's all part of my "fancy footwork" designed to distract from my occasional lack of content. Now that's another joke, 'cause I'm LOADED with CONTENT ...which I'll be carrying across the wire on Royce's thread.

See you there?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
I think the real question is, have you seen such a hint as you're alluding to? If so, I'd like you to point it out for me, as it seems to have been entirely wasted on my teeny brain [:((].
Pearls before swine.

...in Ring #3.

[rocket art]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
PLEASE favor us with a new thread re consciousness.

And, if interested, you could visit "A Conscious Universe?" thread if it's still on the menu to see if any cross-pollination might occur.

Sorry for the rude outburst ...but I was at the edge of my seat in anticipation. [;)]

Hi again.[t)]

Well oki, I might post it on thread. I just found it on my files.

Actually I was out of town days before and had to chase time ( or flying with it).

I hope you folks also share your views and keep it going, it could be interesting seeing the concept from varying angles.