Defining "God"... [Archive]

dock

Mar21-03, 01:53 PM

when Moses asked GOD what are you?, GOD said:"I AM THAT I AM"

your definition of GOD?...so when tallking on "GOD/Religion" subject we will know how to translate our ideas to the others.

here are my definitions:

(1) charge, mass, position in space are physical qualities.
(2) matter is physical something that has nonzero(charge and mass) somewhere in space.
(3) vacuum is physical something that has zero(charge and mass) somewhere in space.
(4) the set of all the matter is universe.
(5) universe union all the vacuum is GOD

implications:

(1) God is undestructable cause if you destroy the matter you'll generate vacuum and if you destroy the vacuum you'll generate matter. the vacuum into matter conversion is given with the following equation dM=(k/w)(q/m)dQ where k and w are constants, q/m is charge-mass ratio of one particle, dQ/dM is the ratio of the changes of the charge and mass of the other particle. if (M=Q=0 b4) and (M<>0 and Q<>0 after) then matter is being made from vacuum.
(2) we are all, separately, subsets of GOD.
(3) God is every where all the time.
(4) God will be cause God is. God is cause God was. God was cause God will be.
(*)...........you name it.

Iacchus32

Mar22-03, 12:26 PM

There is only one sun in the sky, which in the spiritual sense can only suggest one thing, "One God." Not all is lost though (for those with varying views), for a whole diversitly of life has evolved on this planet about this one idea. And yet each has developed its own unique interpretation as to what that means.

kyleb

Mar22-03, 02:11 PM

so you are saying that if we lived in a binary solar system, the only logical conclusion would be that there are two gods?

Iacchus32

Mar22-03, 03:00 PM

so you are saying that if we lived in a binary solar system, the only logical conclusion would be that there are two gods?

Actually I'm saying you can have as many Gods as you want, just so long as you understand it's derived from the "same source."

kyleb

Mar22-03, 07:04 PM

Iacchus32, but why do you arbitrary base that concusion on the center of our solar system?

also Sensei, you are deniying your nature as a human by thinking such things. inorder to have all information you must be all that exists, so even if you could it sure would be boreing because you would be all alone and with nothing to learn. [;)]

Iacchus32

Mar22-03, 08:08 PM

Iacchus32, but why do you arbitrary base that concusion on the center of our solar system?

Because like God, the sun is a primary source of existence. This is why in the spiritual sense (in heaven if you will), God is seen and experienced as the sun.

This is not my original conclusion by the way (I have reference materials), although it is something I have experienced for myself.

kyleb

Mar22-03, 08:25 PM

Iacchus32

Mar22-03, 11:26 PM

but the sun is not the primary source of existence. also, i know that it is not your original idea, i just don't understand why you are perpetuating such ideology. most of us gave up worshiping Ra a long time ago.[;)]

Just as you and I are human beings, and have a soul which reflects this, our sun -- which, to the natural world is most like God -- has its spiritual counterpart as well, and it too "governs" so to speak in the spiritual world.

The mistake here is that we don't take that which is natural, be it you, I, the sun, a nation, etc., and bow down and worship it, because this is idolitry. Therefore when we approach God it should be done in essence (spiritually), rather than as some material manifestation, otherwise we'll lose sight of the fact that we're "spiritual beings."

quantumcarl

Mar23-03, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
In this thread, I would like to know what your definition of "God" is, if it is a being, a force, if it is equivalent to Mother Nature, to science, etc...

My answer with regard to this question, Kerry, can be simple or could breach the number of characters allowed by the Lords of the PhysicsForums!

So, I'll keep it brief, if that's ok!

My assessment of the use of the word God is seen below...it is in general terms and is arrived at by-way of a non-epidemiological analysis... in other words... in my opinion.

The pronoun/noun/verb/adverb/adjective/discriptive adjective, etc,,, "God", is a layperson's term for the Quantum/Synergistic/Relativistic and Symbiotic nature of the universe with which we have always found ourselves existing, simultaniously and relatively harmoniously.

The layperson sees it written that God is everything, everywhere all the time... no two ways about it. There is no separation from God... God is omnipotent. God is the Creator. God is the "uninstaller"... etc...

Having said this, the conclusion which should naturally come out of this layperson's definition is that the layman is god... and that there are no worries... because that means the layman is the creator... the "uninstaller" the omnipotent and all giving power in charge of the said layperson's life.

Having defined God as such we can continue and denote that all other singular, physical and conceptual units, suchas the layperson, are God as well.

For instance: Nature is god. Artificiallity is god. Science is god. Religion is god. Dirt is god. All thoughts are god. Love is god. Even hatred is god at work.

That is my opinion for the moment. Thank you!

kyleb

Mar23-03, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by quantumcarl
For instance: Nature is god. Artificiallity is god. Science is god. Religion is god. Dirt is god. All thoughts are god. Love is god. Even hatred is god at work.

monk: what is Buddha?
Unmon: a dried ****-stick!

[:D]

Sourire

Mar24-03, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Phobos
I would define God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

I would have to add that He is the Creator of the universe.. all you need to do is look around and see..

quantumcarl

Mar25-03, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Sourire
I would have to add that He is the Creator of the universe.. all you need to do is look around and see..

Dear Sourire

What do you see, when you look around, that proves the universe exists because of a "He" or a "Creator"? Just asking.

To this valley of the Sun
Rain has come, rain has come,
Falling on everyone

Satoru

MacTech

Mar26-03, 02:28 AM

GOD = Globle Orbital Defence, a SDI project that relatest to the starwars inititive of the 70s and 80.. jk...

If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. -Voltaire.

Define god?

a being that holds power to all.

Siv

Mar31-03, 05:25 AM

If I had to choose, I'd go in for the Deistic version.
The sum total of the patterns/order in the universe.

- S.

Iacchus32

Mar31-03, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The whole concept of 'God' doesn't even fit into my brain. No offense to anyone, but I can't see it as being a meaningful term. Something that is invisible, doesn;t interact, and is everywhere and nowhere at once? I think it is an invention of people who didn't know any better.
Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

Iacchus32

Mar31-03, 07:52 AM

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
God is not just a concept, but a reality which is to be experienced.

Proving the reality of the concept, or having direct experience of that concept, is something else altogether. The thread is about "defining" God - not proving that God exists. I'm merely making the point that the human-mind is quite capable of grasping the existence of the concept without having had direct experience or proof of that concept's actual existence. For example, everyone more-or-less understands what 'infinity' and 'nothing' are; but no human mind has ever grasped these concepts within their experience. The concepts are intangible. The concepts are merely understood by the mind. By reason.

Therefore it requires the use of your imagination as well.

I disagree. I believe it takes faith & trust in knowing that the reasoned-concept (God) has a reality unto itself. Imagination is only required to formulate a subjective-God (a limited God). Reason, however, understands that the concept of God is boundless (non-finite). Thus, imagination is actually meaningless in relation to this attribute (boundlessness); for it is meaningless to formulate a imagined-opinion of God if one understands the boundlessness that is intrinsic to that concept.

Iacchus32

Mar31-03, 11:46 AM

Proving the reality of the concept, or having direct experience of that concept, is something else altogether. The thread is about "defining" God - not proving that God exists. I'm merely making the point that the human-mind is quite capable of grasping the existence of the concept without having had direct experience or proof of that concept's actual existence. For example, everyone more-or-less understands what 'infinity' and 'nothing' are; but no human mind has ever grasped these concepts within their experience. The concepts are intangible. The concepts are merely understood by the mind. By reason.
What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

This is what the whole of Christendom seems to suggest (I'm referring to the New Testament here), that you come to except Him personally, and actually "know" that He exists. And, while I may doubt the validity of many who claim they do (primarily those who subscribe to organized religion), it still doesn't discount the possibility that it happens.

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack ... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck. [;)]

I disagree. I believe it takes faith & trust in knowing that the reasoned-concept (God) has a reality unto itself. Imagination is only required to formulate a subjective-God (a limited God). Reason, however, understands that the concept of God is boundless (non-finite). Thus, imagination is actually meaningless in relation to this attribute (boundlessness); for it is meaningless to formulate a imagined-opinion of God if one understands the boundlessness that is intrinsic to that concept.
I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love.

Lifegazer

Mar31-03, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

You can only "know" something via one of two ways:- 1. Reason.
2. Experience.

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack

If you do not understand the meaning of the Divine concept, then how can you come to "know" God? Surely, your knowledge of God is dependent upon what you think that 'God' is. A person must have an understanding of what God is before he/she can come to know 'it'.
Hence, an understanding of 'God the concept' is essential if you ever want to pursue a meaningful relationship with that God.

... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck. [;)]

Like I said, anything finite does not fulfil the reasoned criteria for a 'God'. For all things finite are limited. Apollo is not a God of reason.

I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love. [/B]
Me too. But I don't like to kid myself that any warm feelings that I experience might be emanating from God.
Did you say you were a Christian?

Iacchus32

Mar31-03, 03:46 PM

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

Do you see my new Avatar? If you go to the thread "The Advent of Color" (God & Religion Forum) I explain what it means. This is just one of many things I've used to validate my experience. And yes, it all has to do with validating things for yourself.

Did you say you were a Christian?
This is only a label, for what otherwise can be understood through "common sense." So in this respect I'm not like most "practicing Christians." Whereas I'm pretty general in my views and try to remain down to earth.

Also, you may want to check out my book by following the link below. Lots of interesting parallels between Dionysus, the Greek of wine, and the inception of Christianity.

Kerrie

Mar31-03, 09:14 PM

Lifegazer~
My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real. But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...

Lifegazer

Apr1-03, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
Lifegazer~

i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...
Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all.

N_Quire

Apr3-03, 05:27 PM

Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

M. Gaspar

Apr3-03, 10:44 PM

The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

It wasn't "created" by an "outside force" that we call "God", but is, in fact, a Being whose life cycle(s) spans the time between each "Big Bang" and a subsequent "Big Crunch".

It is an Entity of Energy, whose natural forces give rise to everything that is, has been, and will be...including us. The Universe has NO PLAN...only an INTENTION...It's PRIMARY WILL, which is: to have another Experience, albeit a very complex one consisting of that of each life experience of each being that has lived, is living, and will every live within THIS incarnation of the Universe.

If It had a "Primary Question" it would be: What can I create THIS time? Because we are extensions of the Creative Being that is the Universe, our question should also be: What can I create THIS time?

"God" a nickname for a primitive idea that has "Him" (or even "Her") as an external force that "created" Everything That Is, when, in fact (loosely speaking, of course, as ALL IS THEORY!), Everything That Is is the living/conscious Universe that pulses on!

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.
True. It comes across like that. But this topic is about defining God - not proving that 'it' exists. However, most of the regulars here know that my ~belief~ of God emanates from a reason which, for me at least, enables me to know the existence of God
without having to rely on "blind faith".

Iacchus32

Apr4-03, 06:30 AM

What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?

Iacchus32

Apr4-03, 06:32 AM

From the thread, The Mystery Within ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?
Exactly. We need to define that concept before we can discuss the possible existence of that concept. That is the point.

M. Gaspar

Apr4-03, 11:56 AM

LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc....

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!

Lifegazer

Apr4-03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc....

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!
Make a post in the philosophy forum. Let 'them' find you. I look forward to hearing your views. Welcome.

N_Quire

Apr6-03, 07:10 PM

Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason. However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions, you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

You should first grasp what you mean, and what others mean, by such seemingly simple words and concepts as reason, ultimate, fundamental, truth, absolute, reality, etc, etc. You cannot simply ascribe to these terms a Lifegazer meaning and then use those meanings to arrive at more and more ludicrous conclusions.

It has been pointed out time and time again that you have not fully understood materialism, nor that there is more to science and philosophy science than materialism. Your notion of The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.

M. Gaspar

Apr6-03, 08:04 PM

I believe, N Quire, that you're addressing ME with your derision.
It is MY speculations -- not Lifegazer's -- that propose that the Universe might be a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts...etc.

I especially loved your saying that my ideas are not products of reason just because I dreamt them up. You made me smile.

...although I don't remember using such words as "fundamental truth" or "absolute reality," I will say that I do believe the Universe at least EXISTS (or what are the physicists studying?) and that there is CONSCIOUSNESS "in" the Universe (or what would they be studying WITH?).

So let me add this: Any theory of cosmology that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.

I'm sure you'll agree (still smiling).

Iacchus32

Apr6-03, 08:14 PM

God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

Lifegazer

Apr6-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason.

Why?

However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions,

I don't mind criticism. I just don't like unsupported criticism.

you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

I reasoned them up. I wasn't asleep when I became aware of my ideas.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy

That's a fact. I'm not a physicist nor an expert in philosophical-figures (and their thoughts) of the past. I have openly-admitted this to anybody who has ever asked.
But I consider reason to be the source of all knowledge. Not history. Reason precedes any historical experience. That's why I serve reason as opposed to history (knowledge). I just use knowledge (when/where I have it) for the creation of further reasoned-fact.

will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

That's probably correct. But that's due to our class-structure, as much as anything else. Gimme a BSc. if you will - would my argument now become more credible?

It has been pointed out time and time again...

That's what the church said to Darwin.

The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.
Your mind seems beyond advancement. It's closed.

N_Quire

Apr7-03, 12:10 AM

M.Gaspar, My comments cannot have been aimed at you because I haven't read a word you've written. I addressed Lifegazer. S/he and I are in the habit of exchanging friendly banter from time to time.

heusdens

Apr9-03, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

Using all reason I can possible find, I can just conclude that God fails to exist..... An omnipotent creature that fails to exist, has fundamental deficits, if you ask me. There is not a time, and there is not a place, where God exists.

Instead of this, the world does not fail to exist, that is why I and my mind do exist also! The world never fails to exist, and is present everywhere!

I do not have to wonder about that, or ask for proof. Weather I reason about it or not, the world simply does not fail to exist, and has existence of it's own! The world has omnipresence (wherever and whenever one can be, or something can be, the world IS) and has omnipotence (whatever can exist, will become existent).

Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

Kerrie

Apr9-03, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

heusdens

Apr9-03, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

I was reacting to a definition of someone else (Lifegazer), and on basis of that definition was explaining what God in that context would or would not be, and how meaningfull such a concept could be.

I myself don't have a definition of God, cause I don't think it is a meaningfull concept, at least not in relation to explaining reality.

M. Gaspar

Apr9-03, 05:02 PM

Or do we have to PROVE that, too?

So if we can say that the UNIVERSE exists...and if we can define the Universe as "Everything That Is" (which would INCLUDE "GOD")

...or, better yet, if we wanted to view the Universe as a living, conscious Entity NOT created by an outisde force ("God") but, rather, an an "Eternal Entity of Energy" ITSELF...

...then, loosely speaking, we could call the Universe ITSELF "God"

...hence "proving" the "existence of God" since the existence of the Universe ITSELF is a "given".

Anyone interested in entertaining the thought that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

Kerrie

Apr9-03, 07:25 PM

i somewhat agree with you M Gaspar, but i would go further to say that the *ability* for life to exist, think, learn, grow, love, feel, fight, intuit, understand, etc is the essence of *god*...without these abilities, there would be nothing...

M. Gaspar

Apr9-03, 08:02 PM

All the "abilities" (as you call them) to think, learn, grow, love, feel, intuit, understand...might all be natural functions of the living Entity that is the Universe.

Are these the "essense" of the Universe...or just part of the package? I don't know. However, I cannot agree that without these particular -- or similar -- functions, "there would be nothing."

I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them.

Kerrie

Apr9-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them. [/B]

i think the will of the universe is to express these abilities, without them, the universe would simply cease to exist...i think these abilities are necessary-in even the smallest form-to happen...

M. Gaspar

Apr9-03, 10:54 PM

I don't think It would "cease to exist".

I just think It would be VERY BORED.

In fact, It wouldn't even be THAT because it would be MINDLESS.

BoulderHead

Apr9-03, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Tom
*Mustering up best Russian accent*

Kerry, god(s), Santa Clauses, Zeuses, Ras do not exist, by definition. Whole nature (=math) would be mess with god (heizenberg uncertainty, Shred equation, etc).

What you mean 'being'? It is 99.99999% certain that no beings exist outside Earth.

Impossible.

Force is F=dp/dt. Does that spell "god"?

Nature already got name (=universe). Science too (=math). Why you need another one?

Thank you. Very funny stuff here. I've been missing out having not looked inside this thread until tonight.

Remember; More knowledge = Fewer Santa Clauses. [:D]

pelastration

Apr15-03, 07:12 AM

God is often refered as behind the VOID.
Now the void itself can be seen as an unbreakable membrane.
That membrane can be folded by a special universal manifold in such as way that the membrane is still in EVERY subdivision.

It seems a paradox but I show this very simple manifold on my website: http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology. (16 pages)

Once you understand it you will know that we are all tuned ... and that we are linked to the original force (the VOID is in you!).

pelastration

Apr15-03, 07:52 AM

No problem ... avoid me ... ;-)
It's significant because your signature is " You are what you DO".
[:))]
My suggestion: Do something! LOL

M. Gaspar

Apr15-03, 08:06 PM

...may be "tuned" a bit "too tight." [8)]

heusdens

Apr17-03, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by STAii
Zero, existance cannot be explained without the existance of (a) 'God'.

Then let us state there was no God. Your conclusion would then be, there is no world either. But then....what does exist then? A mere nothingness can not be said to exist (existence must be, cause inexistence cannot be). Ergo... there must always be something that has existence, and existence itself (the totallity of everything there is) has no beginning in time (only particular forms of existence). It is that what we call the universe.

heusdens

Apr17-03, 10:31 PM

What would God be defined like?

Some questions:

1. Does God exist in time and space?

2. If so, is God finite in size, or infinite?

3. Is God able of changing?

4. If the universe had always existed and is infinite in size/extend, where would that place God?

5. Is God inside or outside of the universe (the whole of totality)

6. If it is assumed that time had a definite beginning, then what happened before that time?

M. Gaspar

Apr17-03, 11:06 PM

Perhaps it is our species' infantile addiction to "story" that keeps so many of us stuck in "the one about the Great Outsider who 'created' Everything That Is."

You CAN eliminate this personified "God" from the equation and "simply" see the Universe ITSELF as an "eternal and evolving Entity of Energy" ...a living, conscious Being unto Itself.

A Being that is connected - and responsive - to all of Its part.

I do NOT think that this being is "all powerful" or "all knowing": It must "live" according to the natural functions of Its own "body"; and It doesn't know everything that's going to happen.

It is a Creature of infinite POTENTIALITIES". It has NO PLAN -- only INTENTION -- which acts upon the inherent function of randomness that is part of Its system.

This Being -- being "eternal" -- was not "created by" ANYTHING! It gives "birth" to Itself via endless cycles of RE-creation.

Instead of "worshipping" a "Great Outsider", I prefer to APPRECIATE Everything That Is...while contributing to Its self-understanding and evolution.

amp

Apr23-03, 12:48 PM

'God' can be described as a being in the absolute sense of the word. Contrary to what Zero said it is everywhere at once exclude nowhere at once because its everywhere. The article about the multiverse in Sciam is interesting in the idea it proposes of infinite space with a large number(~infinite)of universes. I think of this infinite space as being an attribute of 'God'(everywhere at once)[I wonder if dark matter fills this entire infinite space] Dark matter is invisible.{could it be spirit?}BTW, Kerrie and Tom, speaking of Alexander - he could be vindicated by the article in what Ted says about the level IV multiverse[g)]. So I'll be the first, Alex you may be right Math structures could determune the universe, sorry[:D].

M. Gaspar

Apr23-03, 01:43 PM

Let me rephrase your questions:

Does the UNIVERSE exist in time and space?

Is the UNIVERSE finite in size, or infinite?

Is the UNIVERSE capable of changing?

If the UNIVERSE always existed and is infinite insize, where would one place the UNIVERSE.

Is the UNIVERSE inside or outside of the UNIVERSE???

What happened before the UNIVERSE "began"?

You see, you can eliminate the "Great Outsider" many call "God" and simply see the Universe as a rather complex Entity...an "eternal entity of energy" that rebirths Itself, over and over again. That's what makes it ETERNAL.

So, let me repeat: Perhaps it's our infantile attachment to stories that keeps us stuck on "the one about the Great Outsider who created the Universe."

amp

Apr23-03, 02:50 PM

1. Does God exist in time and space?

Short answer yes and no, God is thruout time and space and beyond.

2. If so, is God finite in size, or infinite?

See above, size seems inapplicable- 'God' is from < than planck length to beyond the extent of space.Everywhere in between.

3. Is God able of changing?

No, if that were possible the answers to 1& 2 above would not be true.

4. If the universe had always existed and is infinite in size/extend, where would that place God?

If that where so then they would be one.

5. Is God inside or outside of the universe (the whole of totality)

As the whole of totality 'God' is both. Another way to see it is the universe is inside 'God'.

6. If it is assumed that time had a definite beginning, then what happened before that time?

There was only 'God'.

O'tay.

M. Gaspar

Apr23-03, 10:42 PM

Do you honestly believe your response to Heusden's questions...especially #3...that "God" is not capable of changing?

Even if the standard "personified God" were true, can you think of anything more BORING to an "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" "God" to STAY THE SAME FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN???

The Universe, in my opinion, is not "within God"...the Universe IS "God"...only better.

amp

Apr24-03, 12:51 PM

my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amount of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.

M. Gaspar

Apr24-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by amp
my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amout of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.

OK.

Alexander

Apr30-03, 04:25 PM

Basicly, god is anything you want because god only exist in your head (= has no equivalent in nature).

Thus, any definition of god is equally acceptable (as long as it does not contradict facts).

pelastration

May1-03, 02:33 AM

Most of the threads on these forums are about the same question: the degree (or density) of existence (reality, consciousness, nothingness, God, paradoxes, truth,...), it's interrelationship(s). When you see the discussions from a distance you will see that we are trapped in semantic frames with paradoxical implications.

When we just use words we will not come out.

THE NEED FOR OVERVIEW

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.
When we have such a mechanism then everyone can call that after his own believe system: GOD, Maya, nothingness, Logos, Jamjam, ....

Starting from pure logic - based on only one postulate (there is one unbreakable membrane) - such an mechanism can be imagined. This unbreakable membrane can manifold itself creating that way new layers which will separate (make isolated islands) but still will stay connected too to previous islands, and are still connected to the original starting 'something'. This means that the 'form' which contains 'essential movement' creates diversity.

DUALISM

This universal manifold (probably described by alpha: coupling constant) will create already on the second level the separation between basic ENERGY (3+) and basic MATTER (3-), which are in fact differently layered. From there the combinations are higher than traditional squared or factored.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism. The various explanations of the paradoxical Origin brought humanity : religious fanatics, Inquisition(s), wars and (auto) believes in superior races ('chosen' by GOD). So it's time to de-mystify!!!!

From the monkey view we see 'islands of reality'.
We live on such an island. (this is my Universe).
Our body is such an island. (this is my Island).
But from the Eye of Ra we will say: an island is just an PART of the earth surface (that is higher than the other surrounding earth surface) that is surrounded by water. And we can see that all islands are connected by earth but on another level separated by water.

LIFE.

The further this process of division (by adding new layers) goes the more complexity starts and conditions for 'life' appear on their level(s). Level dependent self-organizing will create collective and individual consciousness on several relevant levels.

This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems.

Humans are thus each an individual universe with billions of combinations of internal isolated islands (fundamental particles which are 'boxed' in atoms, atoms which are 'boxed' in molecules, molecules which are 'boxed' in DNA, ... finally creating Jim, Alan, Mary, ...; but on down-levels they still are connected on common (collective) starting islands.
Inside they are still connected with the original movement, and internally there is still the original membrane between each layer.

The paradox of life (the connection of a physical body with spiritual body) can be analyzed and solved in the same way. The connection (starting life) happens with tiny white holes and de-connection (death) with tiny black holes.

MEMBRANE is GRAVITATION.

Trapped inside the human monkey view is the idea of gravitation. What we call gravity (fundamental connectivity) is only the result of the infolded membrane in every fundamental particle, subsequential atom, subsequential molecule, ...

The question of GOD is thus the ability to see with the Eye of Ra. ;-)

If you want to see a solution on the paradox of Trinity click on below image.

Alexander

May2-03, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by pelastration

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.

That is almost exactly what scientists do for living. But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

Science does not use senses in investigating nature. Senses are useless for this purpose. Indeed, to someone a mountainn seems tall, but to someone else it seems small. So nstead, science uses independent on human senses tools: a kilogram, a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, a thermometer, etc. Then mountain is same 1.5 km +/- 0.2 km for everyone: dino, alien, robot, etc.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism.

If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical difference between them - they are both one and same object with slightly different parameters.

pelastration

May4-03, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Alexander
But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.

Alexander check my thread on the maths forum (posted April 15 - 44 views - no reply).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=14203

Can you do the maths? [:D]
I don't believe you can[;)]

Alexander

May6-03, 05:21 PM

Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.

Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?

Cartesio

May7-03, 03:27 AM

In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?

pelastration

May7-03, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Alexander [/i]
Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.
Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?
Pathetic. [zz)]
Simplicity has merits and makes life easy.

Michio Kaku: "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping. "

Source: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml

That's what Einstein said ... but Alexander knows better.

Is mathematics everything? So if you believe that: God is mathematics just tell us that. We will respect that vision.

If you believe my manifold is not based on logic (including numbers) you should check my website ... .

And answer to my answer in the thread: Everything came from Nothing.- Speed of gravity.

pelastration

May7-03, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Cartesio
In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?
For sure humans want to "explain". This is called in psychology: a rationalization. Thus find with limited rational elements an explaination for an event. We do that every day.

On that paradox: this reasoning show that humans like to see "God" reasoning as humans.

Alexander

May7-03, 11:47 AM

Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?

pelastration

May7-03, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Alexander
Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?
Pelastration concept shows how mass and thus matter is created (just by two parameters: motion and form. Thus pure kinetics.).
By restructering of the membrane all fundamental particles are created + they include already gravity (= the membrane).
Fundamental particles = the basis of the physical world.

This happens by adding layers (by a manifold that restructures the previous levels).

Adding a layer = extra dimension.

The creation: a new white hole (combination of two different hyperspaces) -> joint in new unity = pressure between those layers + friction between layers = internal motion.

Decay: black hole + dejoint back into two separate hyperspaces again .

Second law of thermodynamics is valid in complete system. There is only one system with billions of subdivisions. Each sub-division keeps his 'historical " layer structure. (some call that a HOLON).

Alexander

May8-03, 05:22 PM

But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.

Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right?

pelastration

May8-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Alexander
But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.
I draw a plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

Originally posted by Alexander
Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right? [/B]
Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.
To apply on specific particles the combinations will be extracted from the experimental data from CERN, FermiLab, etc. I am not capable to do that. If I would be able to that ... I have other priorities.

Don't know if you even checked my full website, but since you like maths check the webpage where I analyzed some basic numbers. It shows that by pelastration there are two 3's, five 4's and fourtheen 5's, each with another layering. Just count them (the basic math's!). That's basic logic. And Alexander this is not just theory, as an inventor I have already real applications under patent-applications for this approach. And I designed and applied for patent already new toys based on the manifold. So I apply it in the REALITY.
http://hollywood.org/cosmology/numbers.html

heusdens

May8-03, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by CJames
I would define God as a creator of the universe, as that seems to be a very commong trend. Did Zues create the universe? Or his dad or whatever? Can't remember. I would call other godlike entities, supernatural beings. I believe in none of them.

This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?

M. Gaspar

May9-03, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?

What would exist if there were no "God"? ...the living, conscious Entity that is the Universe.

If this Entity is truly "eternal" ...then there is no need for a "creator".

Otherwise, why not ask the question: Who created God?

Shouldn't extraneous factors be reduced OUT of any equation?

Royce

May9-03, 02:13 PM

God is.

Are you?

If yoiu prove your existance; you have proved God's existance. Look in the mirror you will see his handiwork.
Shut down you mouth and mind and you will hear him talking to you. Most of us are shouting "I am" so loadly that we can't here God saying "I am."

PS
Don't blame me. It's all wuliherons fault. He turned me back onto Tao.

BoulderHead

May9-03, 02:22 PM

Some say that you must listen carefully to hear the word of God. It's unfortunate that theists can't hear the word of atheism over the voices in their heads.
-Michael Pain

Alexander

May9-03, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by pelastration

Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.

Ok. How F=GMm/R2 (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?

pelastration

May10-03, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok. How F=GMm/R2 (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?
I draw the plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

For your information:

Quote : In 1912, Einstein had another profound insight: If all accelerated frames of reference were equivalent then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them. That is, the geometry of space is not necessarily Euclidean.
Einstein did not know the mathematics he needed to turn his idea into a physical theory so he turned to his friend Marcel Grossmann who directed Einstein to the works of Riemann, Ricci and Levi-Civita on differential geometry.
... In 1915, Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which provided a radical explanation of free fall motion and therefore of gravity. The free fall motion of objects depends on the geometry of the space through which they move. Objects in free fall move the same way simply because they experience the same spatial geometry Moreover, the geometry of space and time is determined by matter and energy.

If you really go inside the P-manifold approach you will see that the non-commonsense behavior of light in a inertia frame is not strange at all. Since the membrane is inside the inertia frame ... the same membrane stress is applicable. So light has it's standard speed in the inertia frame.

I repeat: If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths.

Royce

May11-03, 11:38 AM

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a begining and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream.

M. Gaspar

May11-03, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Royce
That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a begining and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gibberish.

THE MIND

May11-03, 08:01 PM

Hello! Hiiiii.

I am THE MIND.
Nice to be here.

[:D]

Tom Mattson

May11-03, 08:02 PM

LOL I guess that settles it, then. That's always what I thought you'd look like!

FZ+

May11-03, 08:10 PM

"Proof for the existence of God", the revenge?

BoulderHead

May11-03, 08:28 PM

When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly! [:D]

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty![t)]
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

M. Gaspar

May11-03, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly! [:D]

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty![t)]
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.

LogicalAtheist

May11-03, 10:43 PM

Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?

BoulderHead

May11-03, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons. Come on, man, lighten up!

BoulderHead

May11-03, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Make sense? Would that sorta be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?

LogicalAtheist

May11-03, 10:54 PM

Boulder, not sure if you're asking me something serious or jokingly? If serious, explain a bit more so I can respond with a good answer. thanks!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Would that sorta be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?

M. Gaspar

May11-03, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?

Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!

BoulderHead

May11-03, 11:01 PM

Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.

LogicalAtheist

May11-03, 11:14 PM

Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!

LogicalAtheist

May11-03, 11:17 PM

I get you boulder. When I see (or saw) Bush heading things and impossing so many things into the rest of the world, it reminds me of Hitler, and I see what you mean indeed.

The stock I hold in mythology is that it's just that. It was always just that, and at some point a given mythology was passed on to a generation, and the elders forgot to mention it wasn't really true.

Ever play operator? There's the cause of religion. Along of course, eventually with so MANY emotional humanitarian concepts that were bundled into each respective religion like perhaps flies collecting on a fly zapper.

Thus we have the wiry akward and unfitting religions of the world today. So large that they infact each contain their own enemy. But, for me that's a good thing!

Love this forum, been signe dup for 4 hours and already so much to talk about and listen to!
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...

I asked the question because your definition of "God" was that of a mythological entity with supreme powers.

My point is that we can eliminate the extraneous entity that many call "God" or "Allah" or whatever and simply focus on the Universe.

HOWEVER, I speculate that the Universe is NOT "God-like" but rather an Entity that is EVOLVING ...NOT "all-powerful" but simply "well-connected" ...and NOT "all-knowing" in that, although It may "know" what's "going on" in the moment, It does NOT know how everything will turn out.

I would be very happy to eliminate the word "God" from every conversation and just see the Universe as a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

As to "appreciating" it, my point really rested in the first part of the sentense...that It doesn't need to be "worshipped" in the "ooga-booga" sense of the word. But for some reason, our species can't seem to help itself from FIXATING on PERSONALITIES and coming up with RITUALS of ADULATION

In other words, we just love our "heros" and the STORIES we tell ourselves about them! Apparently (to me), it keeps MOST of "us" entertained, distracted and "saved"... from ABSTRACT THOUGHT!

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 12:19 AM

Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.

Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 12:37 AM

Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existance of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existance of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?

Per the above, I don't believe we are (thinking) along the same lines, as you put it.

Also, it's GaspAr.

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 01:38 AM

I didn't mean about that part, I meant the other stuff.

GASPAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 09:30 PM

There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?

To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

In other words, you might as well say the Earth is flat. You doing just as well.

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

I was wondering what that was hogging the TV!

Meanwhile, what would said "evidence" look like? An equation? A well-reasoned case? The predicted results of an experiment?

What would satisfy a logical atheist?

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 11:14 PM

I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, lemme know what you think of it.

M. Gaspar

May12-03, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, lemme know what you think of it.

The above applies only to "things" that are detectable and measureable. Consciousness: what shall we do?

LogicalAtheist

May12-03, 11:50 PM

Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to eachother.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

DOes that make sense?

M. Gaspar

May13-03, 12:20 AM

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 12:28 AM

Gaspar - I have never heard consciousness described or assumed to be anything other than a state of being, or something along those lines. So with that said, and not being mean here, to me your statement sounds the same as saying "What if cows were not just an animal, but were actually a form of space nebulas which stick to the surface of the earth, and form a similiar shape to animals which justifies our mistake."

So, in other words from my POV you're taking the term "consciousness" so far outside anything I've ever heard it be, that you might as well be doing the same with a cow!

So perhaps you can bridge that gap for me?[g)]

PS: I'm enjoying speaking with you about this!

Iacchus32

May13-03, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to each other.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

Does that make sense?

__________________
1. The Subjectivist Fallacy is the most common error of the human species.

2. Do not superimpose mythology onto reality.
Let me ask you something here? How is it possible to be objective "outside" of what it means to be human? How can you possibly make a claim to such a thing if in fact you were subject to the same criteria? Do you have some sort of special "knowing" that we all don't share? You can refer to all the studies and "documented proof" that you like, but where does "the witness" to that proof actually lie? Could it be the same human beings who, out of their own sense of "subjective cognizance," that set up the experiments in the first place? If so, then that would be tantamount to saying "the truth" is virtually unobtainable ... and yet, here we are trying to sort things out and make sense of it all? ... How strange?

Of course there might be one possible solution to our dilemma here, that in fact we do have a soul which, in conjunction with a Greater Entity (God), does stand outside of time and space -- i.e., in a "truly obective" sense. Or else how is it possible to be obective? And how could we even conceive of its possiblity?

From the thread, The Basis of Order (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2000&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd. Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... And believe it or not that is transcendent!

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."

Actually... I don't think so.

Rather, it is the nature of awareness that creates time - not the reverse. The universe doesn't move around us, but we move linearly through time. And yet the moment is. Which is existence itself. Only "the observer," which is cognizant, can recognize this.

You see this is what makes us unique.

The moment is... what?

And really... that's what makes us unique? Where did that come from?

Huh?[?] Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couldn't do so out side of it.Perhaps I could have been a little more clear in my explanation here, but I think you'll catch my drift ...

M. Gaspar

May13-03, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I have never heard consciousness described or assumed to be anything other than a state of being, or something along those lines. So with that said, and not being mean here, to me your statement sounds the same as saying "What if cows were not just an animal, but were actually a form of space nebulas which stick to the surface of the earth, and form a similiar shape to animals which justifies our mistake."

So, in other words from my POV you're taking the term "consciousness" so far outside anything I've ever heard it be, that you might as well be doing the same with a cow!

So perhaps you can bridge that gap for me?[g)]

PS: I'm enjoying speaking with you about this!

Might not someone -- with certain insights -- propose that cows are actually a form of space nebula...then make a case that supports the proposal?

And if the case made (1) suggests "answers" to certain cosmological questions, and (2) leads others to think about the possibility, and (3) compels still others to seek ways to "test" the proposition, and (4) if said tests yeild convincing results...might it not be worthwhile to look at cows in a whole new way?

What's your take on experiments investigating the influence of intention on random events?

And, if "mind" could effect "matter"...what might THAT suggest with regard to any "interconnecting medium" between ALL "THINGS"...and the POSSIBILITY that the Universe is a conscious Entity that's responsive to all of It's parts?

M. Gaspar

May13-03, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let me ask you something here? How is it possible to be objective "outside" of what it means to be human? How can you possibly make a claim to such a thing if in fact you were subject to the same criteria? Do you have some sort of special "knowing" that we all don't share? You can refer to all the studies and "documented proof" that you like, but where does "the witness" to that proof actually lie?

Of course there might be one possible solution to our dilemma here, that in fact we do have a soul which, in conjunction with a Greater Entity (God), does stand outside of time and space -- i.e., in a "truly obective" sense. Or else how is it possible to be obective? And how could we even conceive of its possiblity?

What I am proposing, Iacchus, is that there is NOT a "Greater Entity (God)...that stands outside of time and space...but that the Universe ITSELF is an Eternal Entity of Energy that's Evolving...which E-liminates the need for a "Creator" or for a "Great Ringmaster in the Sky".

BoulderHead

May13-03, 04:47 PM

Might not someone -- with certain insights -- propose that cows are actually a form of space nebula...then make a case that supports the proposal?Of course, they do it every day. But how should we reconcile the differences between those who reject the supports presented as inconclusive or even false, and those who insist they must be true?

Whether it divorces itself from ‘Truth’ or not, there is also a practical side of this which states that if it dependable and reliably presents itself as cow, indeed if it looks and acts and smells and tastes just like a cow, then isn’t that close enough??

Or, to read a story;

"Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener.... So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds... But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"
[Anthony Flew]

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 05:01 PM

Boulder - the ol' Dragon in the Garage as Carl sagan put it.

As I said in a previous post. I generally require empirical recorded evidence that can be retested etc etc......

Iacchus32

May14-03, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I am proposing, Iacchus, is that there is NOT a "Greater Entity (God)...that stands outside of time and space...but that the Universe ITSELF is an Eternal Entity of Energy that's Evolving...which E-liminates the need for a "Creator" or for a "Great Ringmaster in the Sky".
I understand that. This is just not what I've come to accept. Sorry. And what do you mean by standing outside of time and space? The fact that there is no spiritual dimension? For as I understand the notion of time and space does not exist here, but rather "changes in state." Where something may appear "immediate" due to its instensity, and further away to the degree that it's unrelated. Where those who are in "similar states" are close, and those who are in dissimilar states are further away.

Clearly this can be construed as something that exists outside of time and space couldn't it? And if spirits can do this, why couldn't the same thing apply to a "God" that exists within the same realm?

I also have a problem with some of your references, like the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky," which makes it sound like a big joke, and difficult to reply to your posts.

M. Gaspar

May14-03, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I understand that. This is just not what I've come to accept. Sorry. And what do you mean by standing outside of time and space? The fact that there is no spiritual dimension? For as I understand the notion of time and space does not exist here, but rather "changes in state." Where something may appear "immediate" due to its instensity, and further away to the degree that it's unrelated. Where those who are in "similar states" are close, and those who are in dissimilar states are further away.

Clearly this can be construed as something that exists outside of time and space couldn't it? And if spirits can do this, why couldn't the same thing apply to a "God" that exists within the same realm?

I also have a problem with some of your references, like the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky," which makes it sound like a big joke, and difficult to reply to your posts.

First of all, it is not MY notion that "God" exists "outside of time and space." This was YOUR phraseology from a prior post which I was DISPUTING!

It is becoming clear to me that, once a person is "hooked" on the idea that "God" is an entity OUTSIDE of the Universe, they find it close to impossible to even consider another paradigm.

Thus, my proposal that "The Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts" falls on deaf ears...to materialists and idealists alike.

Still, I maintain, that if this Entity (the Universe), is truly ETERNAL, then no outside "Creator" would be required. (Otherwise, why aren't we asking "Who created God?")

Now let me be VERY CLEAR: I am NOT saying that the Universe is "God". I am saying that the concept of "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation. And that the Universe is a BEING that's EVOLVING with and through Everything It gives rise to via natural processes.

As to my reference to the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky"...forgive me, as I was indulging my distain for the view that some "Great Outsider" is "running the show" by whim or wisdom.

I believe that NATURAL FORCES "run the show"...and that INTENTION may be one of those forces...with a sort of "gravity" of its own.

LogicalAtheist

May14-03, 10:43 PM

Let me end this:

A respective God is a character of a respective mythology.

That is the only definition of God that has any evidence whatsoever.

You can call God what you will, but that's the only REALISTIC conclusion.

I cannot understand why people believe otherwise. And no, you cannot "think" otherwise, because there's no logical thought process which would bring you to another conlusion.

M. Gaspar

May14-03, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Of course, they do it every day. But how should we reconcile the differences between those who reject the supports presented as inconclusive or even false, and those who insist they must be true?

Whether it divorces itself from ‘Truth’ or not, there is also a practical side of this which states that if it dependable and reliably presents itself as cow, indeed if it looks and acts and smells and tastes just like a cow, then isn’t that close enough??

Or, to read a story;

"Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener.... So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds... But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"
[Anthony Flew]

What I am saying is the THE WIRE MOVES and the BLOODHOUNDS CRY!!!

If the Universe is conscious -- not just "parts" of It, but the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious ENTITY -- this will only be "proved" by observing (and measuring?) EFFECTS.

Now I am at the VERY BEGINNING of thinking about what EFFECTS we might be able to chart to "prove" that the Universe is conscious and responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, I cannot point to any "evidence" at the moment. But I'm working on it.

Meanwhile, I am NOT "insisting" my proposal "must be true"...as you put it. I am simply saying that a "thing" may present like a cow...and may, in fact, BE a cow...but that we may NOT BE FULLY AWARE of all that "a cow" may be.

And while I DO see the difficulty in giving serious consideration to every hair-brained theory about "cows" -- especially given that many on our planet believe that cows house the spirits of their ancesters -- there may be those who resonate with a novel speculation and offer suggestions on how it might be "proved".

M. Gaspar

May14-03, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Let me end this:

A respective God is a character of a respective mythology.

That is the only definition of God that has any evidence whatsoever.

You can call God what you will, but that's the only REALISTIC conclusion.

I cannot understand why people believe otherwise. And no, you cannot "think" otherwise, because there's no logical thought process which would bring you to another conlusion.

I know the above is not meant for me, because I have NOT been making a case for the existence of "God". Quite the opposite.

I "believe" in the existence of the Universe. Don't you?

The question is: what characteristics might the Universe have that have not, as yet, been detected...or conjectured?

That's the game I'm in...if it's OK with you.

THE END?

Iacchus32

May15-03, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
First of all, it is not MY notion that "God" exists "outside of time and space." This was YOUR phraseology from a prior post which I was DISPUTING!Pehaps the part about time and space (I guess?), but gathered from some of your posts to others, when you refer to the "Great Outsider," I assumed it was just a general "come on."

It is becoming clear to me that, once a person is "hooked" on the idea that "God" is an entity OUTSIDE of the Universe, they find it close to impossible to even consider another paradigm.When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.

Thus, my proposal that "The Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts" falls on deaf ears...to materialists and idealists alike.I think it could be, if you want to consider what you're talking about "is" God. And yet, to describe who that God is and what it entails, is an entirely different story? ... I don't claim to have all the answers here.

Still, I maintain, that if this Entity (the Universe), is truly ETERNAL, then no outside "Creator" would be required. (Otherwise, why aren't we asking "Who created God?")Although I am not a church going person (to say the least), I have read the Bible and I do deem it a credible resource, especially the New Testament.

Now let me be VERY CLEAR: I am NOT saying that the Universe is "God". I am saying that the concept of "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation. And that the Universe is a BEING that's EVOLVING with and through Everything It gives rise to via natural processes.However you wish to describe God, He is not extraneous to our existence, Period.

As to my reference to the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky"...forgive me, as I was indulging my distain for the view that some "Great Outsider" is "running the show" by whim or wisdom.Without God we would have no standards, so yes, He does exist, and yes, He is running the show.

I believe that NATURAL FORCES "run the show"...and that INTENTION may be one of those forces...with a sort of "gravity" of its own. The material universe is only "the form," of which the spiritual universe is "the essence," meaning there is a distinction to be made, because the two are not on the "same plane" of existence ...

LogicalAtheist

May15-03, 01:10 AM

Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."

Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit.

Iacchus32

May15-03, 01:20 AM

M. Gaspar:

To clarify my views on God a bit, I think they're closer to the excerpt below, which describes God more in terms of being "neutral" but nonetheless effective. I also see how it could apply just as easily to your views, as well as to mine ...

Excerpt from Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts ...

Philosophically, we do not think of God as having the peculiar personal characteristics of a tribal patriarch, nor yet of an Oriental despot of uncertain temper and undoubted power, whose every whim is law and before whom all must grovel in the dust. Even when this awesome creature is endowed with a sense of perfect justice and mercy, he does not fit our philosophic conception, because he is still very much of a man -- ridiculous in that he takes himself too seriously. Nearer to our intellectual idea of God is the type of emperor envisaged by Lao-tzu, who advised the would-be ruler to be like the Tao, governing his sujects without letting them know that they were being governed ...

The great Tao pervades everywhere, both on the left and on the right.

By it all things come into being, and it does not reject them. Merits accomplished, it does not possess them (or, lay claim to them).

It loves and nourishes all things but does not dominate over them....

Because it never assumes greatness, therefore it can accomplish greatness.

Therefore the Sage (as ruler), in order to be above the people, must in words keep below them;

In order to be ahead of the people, he must in person keep behind them.

Thus when he is above, the people do not feel his burden; When he is ahead, the people do not feel his hindrance. Therefore all the world is pleased to hold him in high esteem and never get tired of him.

Because he does not compete, no one competes with him.

Iacchus32

May15-03, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."

Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit. Now now! You musn't let your feelings get in the way. Oh the disdain! ... Oh the disdain!

BoulderHead

May15-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I am saying is the THE WIRE MOVES and the BLOODHOUNDS CRY!!!

If the Universe is conscious -- not just "parts" of It, but the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious ENTITY -- this will only be "proved" by observing (and measuring?) EFFECTS.

Now I am at the VERY BEGINNING of thinking about what EFFECTS we might be able to chart to "prove" that the Universe is conscious and responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, I cannot point to any "evidence" at the moment. But I'm working on it.

Meanwhile, I am NOT "insisting" my proposal "must be true"...as you put it. I am simply saying that a "thing" may present like a cow...and may, in fact, BE a cow...but that we may NOT BE FULLY AWARE of all that "a cow" may be.

And while I DO see the difficulty in giving serious consideration to every hair-brained theory about "cows" -- especially given that many on our planet believe that cows house the spirits of their ancesters -- there may be those who resonate with a novel speculation and offer suggestions on how it might be "proved". I thought you had enabled some function on your PF control panel to cause all BoulderHead posts to not appear on your monitor??
If we are still on speaking terms let me think about what you have said and I will get back to you with what I hope will seem to you as an intelligent reply.

LogicalAtheist

May15-03, 10:50 PM

PS: That's a joke for those unsure.

Boulder, you aren't religious are you? If you are, you better watch it cuzz I'll rip your faith apart faster than sinead o-conner can rip up the pope on SNL, hahahaha!!![:D]

M. Gaspar

May15-03, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Pehaps the part about time and space (I guess?), but gathered from some of your posts to others, when you refer to the "Great Outsider," I assumed it was just a general "come on."

When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.

I think it could be, if you want to consider what you're talking about "is" God. And yet, to describe who that God is and what it entails, is an entirely different story? ... I don't claim to have all the answers here.

Although I am not a church going person (to say the least), I have read the Bible and I do deem it a credible resource, especially the New Testament.

However you wish to describe God, He is not extraneous to our existence, Period.

Without God we would have no standards, so yes, He does exist, and yes, He is running the show.

The material universe is only "the form," of which the spiritual universe is "the essence," meaning there is a distinction to be made, because the two are not on the "same plane" of existence ...

How might the term "Great Outsider" be a "come on"?? The term is simply my way of characterizing the paradigm where "God" reigns OUTSIDE the Universe...and is It's "Creator".

For me this view of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity that exists OUTSIDE the Universe is much like the view that some hold that the Great Pyramids were built by aliens !

Let's give the Universe It's props!!!

And my saying that "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation does not preclude the Universe ITSELF from having "standards of behavior" toward which It is EVOLVING...with and through beings such as us.

For instance, if "cooperation" is a more effective way of being than, say, "reflexive thwarting"...then "cooperation" would be a "higher" mode of behavior according to what might be called the "spiritual realm" of the Universe.

My proposal suggests that EVERY coherent system -- from elementary particles to galaxies -- that each coherent system has the elements of physicality, consciousness and spirit "in" it. Thus, an EXTERNAL SPIRIT is unnecessary.

Anything does NOT go. This is a Cause & Effect Universe...on the physical plane ...on the mental plane ...and on the spiritual plane. Everything we do counts. Everything we DON'T do counts!! Through the NATURAL FORCES of the Universe, every ACTION (and non-action) has consequences. Over time, we (and other sentient beings) learn not to put our hands in the fire ...nor "evil" do.

The Universe is not "running the show". It is EXPERIENCING the show!!!

I believe that, in each incarnation of the Universe, NATURAL FORCES cause baryonic matter to condense out of the primal energy, thereby, in each incarnation, preparing a "stage" upon which EVOLVING SPIRITS can feel, think, act and learn.

Our mental/spiritual evolution is "merely" PART of the mental/spiritual evolution of the Universe.

And see? No "God" need apply.

LogicalAtheist

May15-03, 11:10 PM

GASPAR - I got a sad experiment for you.

(don't take this to literally)

Take a big peice of wood. a tall and wide one, ten feet tall, 5 feet wide. you stand on one side, and set a microphone on the other. Also, on the side of the mic, put a speaker. Set the speaker to say outloud iacchus'es POV.
You stand on your side and say your point of view.

Once done, stop the recording and listen to what was heard on the mic side.

You'll hear nothing but iacchus's rambling.

You take your stab at what the wood represents. emotionality, stuborn idiocy, anumber of things.

That's the saddest experiment. You could put the truth on one side, and perhaps 5 billion people of earth on the other, and they'd hear nothing but the sound of their own voice.

M. Gaspar

May15-03, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."

Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit.

Does the above not seem a bit unkind toward Iacchus...his being "in the pits" etc? These are YOUR words, are they not...and what does Boulder have to do with them?

Anyway, I've lost interest in "protecting" Iacchus...having come to the conclusion (in the last 10 minutes) that we can EACH take care of OURSELVES!!

More on next post...after capturing more gems from YOU.

M. Gaspar

May15-03, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
M. Gaspar:

To clarify my views on God a bit, I think they're closer to the excerpt below, which describes God more in terms of being "neutral" but nonetheless effective. I also see how it could apply just as easily to your views, as well as to mine ...

Excerpt from Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts ...

Close...but no cigar.

LogicalAtheist

May15-03, 11:35 PM

I listen to others POV's when it's open for opinion, isn't something thats since been proven, or they're properly questioning currently knowledge.

Iacchus breaks rule number 1, and 2, in almost every post.

As for a fundamentalist - probably. But he sure has shown he's fundamentality wacko.

The universe is alive!! it's an organism!!!! consciousness is the universe!I would like to propose that Gaspars arm is actually part of my body. It's a fact so don't try to disprove it, it's right cuzz my mind won't let me think otherwise!

M. Gaspar

May15-03, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Ouch! [:D]
Who, me?
I’d like for you must take the time to find and read my posts in Religion. I’d like to know how I’m seen by others.

I think M. Gaspar was responding to Iacchus, not me. I don’t know if he can see my posts, but he did respond to one of them. He doesn’t seem to be responding at the moment to either you or me. This thread is making me feel like I’m in the twilight zone, I’m getting the hell out of here…

Please refer me to a thread that contains your views on Religion...even though I'm more interested in SPIRITUALITY than Religion...and more interested in CONSCIOUSENESS than spirituality (at the moment).

You'll be back...

See?!

M. Gaspar

May15-03, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

The universe is alive!! it's an organism!!!! consciousness is the universe!I would like to propose that Gaspars arm is actually part of my body. It's a fact so don't try to disprove it, it's right cuzz my mind won't let me think otherwise!

If my arm were part of your body, you'd be in a choke hold that wouldn't quit!

Here's a bumper sticker for you, LA:

The evolution of new ideas:

First, they are rediculed.

Second, they are strenuously fought.

Third, they are accepted as self-evident.

Is it my mind -- or YOURS -- that won't allow someone to "think otherwise"?

BoulderHead

May15-03, 11:53 PM

Ah, to heck with it, I’ve nothing better to do…
What I am saying is the THE WIRE MOVES and the BLOODHOUNDS CRY!!!Ok [:D]

If the Universe is conscious -- not just "parts" of It, but the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious ENTITY -- this will only be "proved" by observing (and measuring?) EFFECTS.Would this be like studying the cells in someone’s arm and coming up with the idea that because the cells are live they must be part of a living human being?

Now I am at the VERY BEGINNING of thinking about what EFFECTS we might be able to chart to "prove" that the Universe is conscious and responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, I cannot point to any "evidence" at the moment. But I'm working on it.An idea; how about if we ‘poke’ Uranus and see if the universe jumps?

Meanwhile, I am NOT "insisting" my proposal "must be true"...as you put it.Ok, thanks for clearing that up as I wasn’t really sure of your position. I’ve turned my alert lights from red to yellow. [:D]

I am simply saying that a "thing" may present like a cow...and may, in fact, BE a cow...but that we may NOT BE FULLY AWARE of all that "a cow" may be.No problem by me with this.

And while I DO see the difficulty in giving serious consideration to every hair-brained theory about "cows" -- especially given that many on our planet believe that cows house the spirits of their ancesters -- there may be those who resonate with a novel speculation and offer suggestions on how it might be "proved".But is a living, conscious universe in fact such a novel speculation??

Iacchus32

May16-03, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Close...but no cigar.
No cigar? ... But close enough. A rose by any other name?

M. Gaspar

May16-03, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Ah, to heck with it, I’ve nothing better to do…
Ok [:D]

Would this be like studying the cells in someone’s arm and coming up with the idea that because the cells are live they must be part of a living human being?

An idea; how about if we ‘poke’ Uranus and see if the universe jumps?

Ok, thanks for clearing that up as I wasn’t really sure of your position. I’ve turned my alert lights from red to yellow. [:D]

No problem by me with this.

But is a living, conscious universe in fact such a novel speculation??

I have to think about the "cells in someone's arm" anology...but, by all means, poke ur-anus!

Yes, I know I've been "scooped" in the cosmic consciousness arena...but I have a few new concepts that might be of value...especially with regard to the nature and evolution of consciousness.

Will say more (if you BEG me)...but not tonight.

M. Gaspar

May16-03, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Was that thunder outside or you jumping? [:D]

I didn't feel a thing.

You should have used LA's 5' x 10' piece of wood!

BoulderHead

May16-03, 12:37 AM

I shouldn't have tried it with just a finger. [:D] [:D]

Anyway, I would like to hear some of your concepts...

M. Gaspar

May16-03, 12:53 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BoulderHead
[B]I shouldn't have tried it with just a finger. [:D] [:D]

...or a thumb, as usual [:D] [:D] [8)]

Meanwhile, I'm too tired to fill you in regarding my cosmological ideas.

Perhaps we'll meet again.

Goodnight.

Iacchus32

May16-03, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I listen to others POV's when it's open for opinion, isn't something thats since been proven, or they're properly questioning currently knowledge.

Iacchus breaks rule number 1, and 2, in almost every post.

As for a fundamentalist - probably. But he sure has shown he's fundamentality wacko.

The universe is alive!! it's an organism!!!! consciousness is the universe!I would like to propose that Gaspars arm is actually part of my body. It's a fact so don't try to disprove it, it's right cuzz my mind won't let me think otherwise! Here it is you don't even know the first thing about me and yet, you come across with all these accusations about my character, while spouting off all this "empirical" mumbo jumbo baloney, as if you were the renown expert on the matter (mumbo jumbo no doubt), and yet you don't know what the heck you're talking about! If that isn't subjectivism -- or, "obnoxious bias" at the very least -- then I don't know what is? ...

For the sake of consistency then, I recommend you take heed of your own advice.

M. Gaspar

May16-03, 07:31 AM

Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

Iacchus32

May16-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn. A state of being which tells you that you exist -- and hence "consciousness."

And, similar to what wuliheron so aptly put it in the thread, Cognizance (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2102), the ground of your being, which is absolute ...

Originally posted by wuliheron
Some materialists like to assert that all we have is human perception of existence, but when we perceive the ground of our own being it is absolute. The world may not be flat as once was thought common knowledge, but I exist and my knowledge of my existence and participation in existence is absolute and irrefutable. I can pretend otherwise, but it is just a pretense.

Iacchus32

May16-03, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.
I don't really try to explain what God is, in as much as it involves experiencing the ground of my "own being." In which respect I can't say I know Him personally, but rather know of Him through my own life's experience and hence the understanding of myself. I also focus on the fact that I have a soul -- that part of me which is cognizant -- and, the fact that other souls exist as well, "as spirits." Which, I come into contact on a fairly frequent basis ...

Having said that, the fact that I have a soul, and other people do as well and, that there's another dimension the soul enters upon death, then it's not much more difficult to conclude that God exists in the "spiritual sense" as well. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous references of this sort in the Bible, as well as in other related materials.

M. Gaspar

May16-03, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by THE MIND
Gaspar,

especially for you:

From http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar-cayce1.html

Throughout his life, Edgar Cayce claimed no special abilities nor did he ever consider himself to be some kind of twentieth-century prophet. The readings never offered a set of beliefs that had to be embraced, but instead focused on the fact that each person should test in his or her own life the principles presented. Though Cayce himself was a Christian and read the Bible from cover to cover every year of his life, his work was one that stressed the importance of comparative study among belief systems all over the world. The underlying principle of the readings is the oneness of all life, tolerance for all people, and a compassion and understanding for every major religion in the world.

Thank you for the brief biography of Edgar Casey. I'm guessing that you posted it because of my interest in consciousness and my proposition that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, through this interconnectedness, someone like Casey could see into the future, diagnose and cure illnesses, and communicate with disembodied spirits. And, although such phenomena have been "documented", you will find that many individuals who converse through the various threads of the Physics Forum will still be looking for "proof positive" at the end of the day.

My interest, however, is no so much on people like Casey who demonstrate "mind over matter"...but on the MECHANISM ITSELF.

Does INTENTION EFFECT RESULTS? Is the Universe CONSCIOUS? Is "God" a fanciful concept that stands in the way of our seeing the Universe ITSELF as a self-perpetuating and evolving Being?

While it may be commendable that Casey and others promote "tolerance, compassion and understanding for every major religion of the world" ...I believe it is ultimately more "useful" to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why bother stressing "the importance of the comparative study of belief systems" if not to select those that make sense from those that simply pander to the weaknesses of our species.

For instance, there was a time when people thought that "God wanted" them to sacrifice each other...or their goats! ...or fly airplanes into buildings!

At some point, perhaps, we will come to understand that the "sacrifices" we need to make have to do with CHOOSING TO ACT in ways that are contrary to our darker natures.

Maybe some day everyone will "get" that we're here to REDEEM OURSELVES through CONSCIOUS REMEDIAL ACTIONS, rather than be "saved" from suffering the consequences of our actions by somebody ELSE'S sacrifice!!!

But that's another thread, which I'm tempted to start right now: Salvation vs. Self-Dedemption: the Spiritual Nature of Personal Responsibility...or Let's Stop Playing with Somebody Else's Chips!

But I digress.

Mohaamad

May22-03, 12:35 PM

If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14.......). He cannot be contained.

M. Gaspar

May22-03, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Mohaamad
If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14.......). He cannot be contained.

And WE are a piece of the pie! [;)]

akhenaten

Jun3-03, 03:05 PM

Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

M. Gaspar

Jun3-03, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by akhenaten
Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

If I were you, I'd start a thread for the mathematically inclined.

megashawn

Jun4-03, 07:56 PM

I thought pi was recently solved for using some supercomputer for a few years and printed like 500 some sheets of paper for the full length.

Then again I read so much stuff from so many sites, theres no telling.

Seems like it was FZ (again, could be wrong) that pi was wrong or something.

Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.

M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.

Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

I would like to hear your explanation of cannibalism. I would say that they are probably people who live in areas without much meat to eat, or maybe even food in general. Where is god for them? Why does god not stop this?

But an even better question is, how are we able to not be cannibals? Is it that, through evolution, we have developed from mere animal like mentalitys to a more reasonable mind? Is it your god? Or is it Survival of the fittest? Which is most observable?

But you insist that without your god, humanity would be like animals. Tell me then, how is it many past societys have formed, without the assistance of your god? Was it thier god(s)?

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.

M. Gaspar

Jun4-03, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
[B]Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.

While I do not like -- nor agree with -- the "common" conception of "God" ...I DO believe that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. I just don't believe that the Universe is "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" in that It can't "DO" anything OUTSIDE of the NATURAL PROCESSES of Its NATURAL SYSTEM ...AND...It DOESN'T KNOW how everything will "turn out" . (The whole "POINT" to Its existence, IMO, is to CREATE an EXPERIENCE for Itself...a very COMPLEX one that is DIFFERENT from all OTHER EXPERIENCES it has created during other INCARNATIONS.

But let's not call It "God". Let's call it the Universe. While we may ponder the existence of the former, we can feel at least a little more confident in the existence of the latter.

M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.
I can't wait to answer ya...

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?
Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?
First, I did not say there is a spiritual plane; I said I PREFER to believe that there is one. As to the second part of your question: I can be "aware" of my KNEE, but my knee might not be aware of ME. And YOUR knee is not aware of MY knee...tho, at some level, they MIGHT be.

Only the Universe ITSELF is "aware" of "everything"...which is not to say It CONTROLS everything ABSOLUTELY . The Universe is, IMO, a "product" of It's inherent FORCES, PROCESSES and INGREDIENTS...and nothing more.

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.
For ME, it is the "God scenario" that does not "solve the problem"...but seeing the Universe as an "eternally expanding and contracting entity of energy" allows one to IMAGINE the "life cycle" of something that we "KNOW" EXISTS!

Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

Actually, human beings have come up with some pretty LOUSY "standards" to live by IN THE NAME OF "GOD"! Human sacrifice! Airplanes into buildings! Holy wars.

IMO...little by little, via the PROCESS of REINCARNATION, we (and everything else?) learns COMPASSION (a "spiritual" quality?)..and then we come up with our OWN idea of what it takes to be our HIGHEST SELVES!

When we "get" that the only "stuggle" (the Jihad) is with our DARKER NATURES -- and that only WE can REDEEM OURSELVES -- that will be a step in the right direction with regard to the "spiritual evolution" of us...and the Universe at large (since we are It's creations and Its "agents").

sage

Jun6-03, 02:06 AM

TO IACCHUS,
God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."
Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTH
When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.
Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.

TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST
Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit
exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

Iacchus32

Jun6-03, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by ...

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.And yet we all partake in the flesh and blood of Christ during Communion now don't we? Is this not the nature of sacrifice, human or otherwise? To lay down your life that others might live?

Iacchus32

Jun6-03, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS,

God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?

Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTHAnd yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?

Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.I've created another thread, How Do I Know? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764) which goes into my ideas further in detail, if you would care to take a look? Thanks!

akhenaten

Jun6-03, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

This belief is based on faith.

M. Gaspar

Jun6-03, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by sage
TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.
Actually, I do not "expect others to accept" my speculations. What fun would THAT be? I will, however, be making my case on the "A Conscious Universe?" thread...after reading some well-conceived materials pointed to by fellow poster "Ahkenaten" (MY initial cap. because he DESERVES it!!!) on that thread.
But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST

exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

Actually, there are those who HAD their "doubts" because Logical Atheist" offered very little in actual theories, speculations or facts. He was more content to lambaste others as in your well-chosen example. And this is ALSO why he is being referred to here in the past tense : his "thinking" was not "critical" to the threads.

And the name is "Gaspar"

sage

Jun7-03, 12:54 PM

TO IACCHUS
I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?
I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

And yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?
NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill eachother though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)
I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you donot understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

M. Gaspar

Jun7-03, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by akhenaten
This belief is based on faith.

Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again[s(] !

[;)]

M. Gaspar

Jun7-03, 02:35 PM

Sage:

I don't have time (at the moment) to read and process your post...but I will...with a response.

akhenaten

Jun7-03, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again[s(] !

[;)]

Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty wierd idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

M. Gaspar

Jun7-03, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by akhenaten
Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty wierd idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation. Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".

What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.

M. Gaspar

Jun7-03, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

I, too, have "problems" with the "existence" of "God" -- that is, "God" as the commonly held concept. I DO "believe" in the "existence" of the Universe, however, and have "observed" "indications" that It is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Some of us will explore this -- theoretically or empirically, if possible -- and some will hold to other "beliefs".

Shall we agree that the "function" of this (and other) Forum(s) is to kick IDEAS around...but not each other (Super Fr33k excluded)? At what point -- in actually -- do we EVER "change our minds" anyway???

YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT.
Actually, you don't need "emotions" to "do the right thing". Sometimes -- if we are asking the question "What is our highest way of being?" -- we need to do just the OPPOSITE of what our emotions would direct us to do. For instance, if you fall in love with someone who is married, you're emotions might tell you to do one thing, but your "ethical/moral logic" can direct you to do another: but we must be willing to make the SACRIFICE of doing what's "right". The same with all other "temptations".

IMO, people need to know that they have the power to separate EMOTIONS from the ACTIONS they CHOOSE to take. Emotions alone make poor rudders.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

Me? Vague? To what do you refer?

Iacchus32

Jun7-03, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS

I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!And yet the fact that we can acknowledge we don't know, becomes the very criteria by which we acknowledge we do know. Wouldn't it be possible to say, that we at least know this much? ... Hey it's a beginning, and indeed the very place to start.

NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill eachother though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)And what about the "lack of emotion?" Isn't that something that's deemed neurotic as well?

I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you donot understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.My reply is in waiting ...

akhenaten

Jun7-03, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it.

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation.

No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".
You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.
I have nothing on which to base such a belief. I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.

M. Gaspar

Jun7-03, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by akhenaten
No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.
Most "theories" are preceded by "reason" then followed by "evidence"...sometimes after many, many moons of disbelief. My speculations are based on a series of thoughts that led me to the proposition that all things have an element of consciousness.

Then, much to my surprise, YOU, akhenaten, link me to articles from better minds than mine who have come to the same POSSIBILITY. I haven't gotten to these articles yet, but I have to assume they are making a better case than I am. In fact, I'm going to have to FORCE MYSELF to RECONSTRUCT my thinking if I want to invite others to follow my "logic".

You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?
No, that's not the thread of my thinking on the topic of reincarnation...that we've already "incarnated as all conscious entities...(but) don't have the connectivity to experience it."

I think of consciousness both as a "property" and a "substance"...and AS a "substance" it has ACCRETED into dynamic, coherent systems...just like baryonic matter.

But, instead of "mass" it "accretes" into "networks" of "thought"...which, over time, gives us the "human mind"...and all other minds, as well. These "networks" are NOT CONFINED to physicality...and "survive" even after a "host body" "recycles" its atoms.

Let me dispense with stating my "preferences" and simply say the I BELIEVE that the whole "purpose" of the Universe is to HAVE AN EXPERIENCE...a real complex one, including the life experiences of everything that ever lived/lives/or will live (including the "experience" of ROCKS!).

These networks "grow" -- or "coallesce" -- via incarnations....and I am doing a lousy job of explaining what I mean.

However, I am not so much interested in our individual incarnations...but the PROCESS of REINCARNATION for the UNIVERSE at large. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be "in the mood" to say much more about this now.

I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.
IMO, the "inflationary model" of the Universe STINKS, making very poor use of eternity!

What is it about my "phase transition" proposition that doesn't make sense to you ...that "Dark Energy" will cool to "Dark Matter" and cause the Crunch?

Hope you're young enough to be around when cosmologists finally figure it out...and that you'll remember that M. Gaspar "got there first"! [;)]

sage

Jun8-03, 01:07 PM

TO IACCHUS
It seems that our ways of thinking have diverged so much that we cannot understand what the other is saying. I confess that I do not understand a word of your reply, and from the little that I did understand, it seems you have missed my point entirely. So I think we should begin this debate from a more basic level. First let us state what we believe to be true. Then let us state why we believe what we do as clearly as possible. Then let us debate the strength and weaknesses of our beliefs. First my turn.
1)God-does not exist
2)soul-does not exist
3)consciousness-can be loosely defined as a set of interactions between the neurons of our brain that helps us to ‘ become aware’ of our surroundings and react to it suitably. This process of becoming aware has been explained in detail in the example of the cat. As you see the brain only needs to be programmed to memorize and making associations in order to ‘become aware’. This programming has been achieved through evolution. No supernatural explanation need to be sought here.(see thread HOW DO I KNOW? In philosophy forum)
4)mind-it is also the same as consciousness. Hence can be defined as a set of interactions between neurons in the brain.
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.
in short I believe that everything on this universe can be explained without invoking god, soul,spirituality etc. about which objective evidence is lacking. The world makes perfect sense without invoking an omnipotent creator. Humans do not require souls to explain their actions and motives .
next your turn to state your beliefs. Please be clear. After that I shall explain the basis of my belief.

TO GASPAR
But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

well, that was vague enough, don’t you think?

Iacchus32

Jun8-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.I am the summation of "all" of my experience. Have you checked my reply in How Do I Know? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

M. Gaspar

Jun8-03, 01:30 PM

To Sage:

Oh.[a)]

Later.

sage

Jun9-03, 07:11 AM

JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

M. Gaspar

Jun9-03, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by sage
JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

Great idea!

"God" -- as a commonly held concept -- is bogus. Apparently, we, as a species, has a deeply imbedded need for "hero worship" and a propensity for "ritual". We also love to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them!

I prefer to "believe in" the Universe Itself -- NOT as "God" -- but as a "living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts." And, additionally, as "an eternal Entity of ENERGY that's EVOLVING...with and through its "parts" (us included).

The Universe (unlike "God") is NOT "all-powerful" or "all-knowing": It must "work with" the inherent forces, processes and ingredients of Its own "body"...and It hasn't a "clue" what we -- or anything else -- is going to do next . Why would It WANT to: It's "out to have an Experience"...not "walk through a pre-determined play"!

It does know (is SELF-AWARE) of everything that's going on...but the element of INTENTION (of coherent sub-systems like ourselves) on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" keeps It from "knowing" the future.

It's "life cycle" is actually (ha, ha) a series of endless cycles twixt Big Bangs and Big Crunches...existing as a Singularity only "momentarilly" in between .

One does not have to "pray to" or "worship" the Universe. One may simply "communicate with" and "appreciate" our Source.

Ace-of-Spades

Jul7-03, 12:47 PM

I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

maximus

Jul7-03, 01:07 PM

radagast

Jul7-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

Perhaps you're stating your beliefs, but your prejudices and lack of knowledge of most atheists are showing. No insult intended.

The vast majority of people in jail (in the US) are christian. This is not an aspersion against christianity, only a reflection of the population. It is, however, a demonstration that many people can believe in god, yet be quite amoral. Thus, rejecting a belief in god is hardly needed to be amoral.

The vast majority of atheists I know, became such because they saw not reason to conclude there was a deity and their character would not allow them to live a lie by acting as if there were. The fact that they are seriously derided because of this belief, yet stuck to their convictions, is some evidence to their character. The vast majority of atheist have a strong moral code, it's just not one given to them by the bible. The large majority of rules they live under are probably identical to yours, minus the worshipping the lord and not cussing on sundays. To claim they are atheist because they want to be amoral is both a cheap shot and is, intellectually, quite lazy.

I have studied science and religion. The criteria I use to consider what's true is such that I cannot say I believe in a god. I am sure you're experiences lead you to believe in a god, but mine are at least as strong in the opposite direction. One thing you may not be taking into account it that all your observations are colored by your belief in a deity (as mine, perhaps, in the opposite direction).

I have seen nothing, whatsoever, that would lead me to conclude there is a deity. If you have evidence, by all means, I am open to a discussion of the topic, keeping in mine that it needs to be evidence we both consider valid. Biblical quotes would be less the worthless in convincing me of anything.

Ace-of-Spades

Jul7-03, 02:42 PM

[8)] There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!!!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occuring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would beleive that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

Sure I beleive in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I beleive the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot beleive that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time [:)]

Ace-of-Spades

Jul7-03, 02:48 PM

Sorry It appears we posted at the same time, so I didn't see your post before I made mine!

I'm really sorry If Ive insulted you in anything Ive said, I didn't intend to. (Maybe I shouldn't have expressed my views in such a harsh manner)

I'm not suggesting that this is proof that there must be a God,
I'm only saying that with all this before us, I battle to beleive otherwise.

Thanx for replying though
I look forward to continuing
this discussion with you! [:D]

radagast

Jul7-03, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
[8)] There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

With regards to the post that followed - no offense taken.

This assumes a number of things, but I'll address the crux right off.
Probability.

To win the lottery is much less likely than getting hit by lightning, but people still win. The problem with probabilities, is it says nothing about a single instance, once that instance is there, unless the instance is impossible. One more example, If I ask you to pick a number between 0 and a google, and you do so at random, the chances of you picking that number are 1 in a google - but you still picked that number, irrespective of the probabilities. It may be that our universe is improbable, but we don't know that we didn't occur anyway. We also don't know if innumerable other universes are and have been created with all sorts of properties, ours with the properties allowing life, such that in this universe we can wonder how we came about, while in the others no life is available to ponder it in that universe.

The second question that arises concerns an implicit assumption - that many of the characteristics/laws/constants of this universe were independent of the creation event, therefore the values are obtained randomly. This, I need point out, is an assumption. Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!!!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occuring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would beleive that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

This too suffers from the same problems with probabilies mentioned earlier. Also, there is the fact that the universe has vast numbers of 'chances' to form life, so the idea we arose isn't as improbable as you make it sound. An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.

It also is a 'god of the gaps' argument.

Sure I beleive in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I beleive the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot beleive that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

Given common ancestors, I'd be surprised if we didn't have many common features.

On a general note, it seems that there is the underlying "argument by design" in what you're saying. Argument by design has an incredible flaw, no matter how much it seems that the universe must have been designed, the proposition of a designer would make the designer suffers from this even more. It has traditionally been answered by the copout - god has always existed, but this is hardly an acceptable answer, being it circumvents the rebuttal rather than addressing the fact that the same concerns would be raised by the designer - hence the invocation of Occam and his nasty razor... [:)]

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time [:)]

Good idea, gives me time to squeeze some work in occasionally. [;)]

Ace-of-Spades

Jul7-03, 04:44 PM

Man... I'm sorry I wrote such a huge post okay???
Doesn't mean you have to get back at me by
writing a huge one in return!!! [:D] (lol)

- [:D] Just give me a few years while I read
through this alright?

Ace-of-Spades

Jul7-03, 04:54 PM

Okay here's some of my reply....

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god. [:)]
I for myself beleive in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)[8)]

I know that scientifically
I will never be able to prove the existence of a God, simply
because science was designed to explain the world around us,
without having to pin things up on the supernatural, and other
unexplained events like they did a few 100 years ago.

An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.
I don't think you realise just how low these probabilties are???
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occuring by a small number once again.

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to beleive there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't) [;)]

maximus

Jul7-03, 09:48 PM

radagast

Jul8-03, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Okay here's some of my reply....

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god. [:)]
I for myself beleive in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

This disregards any probabilities that are needed to explain god.
Re: Argument by design

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)[8)]

I wasn't trying to go for the largest named number, merely trying to prove a point about always getting someplace, no matter that any one of them had a low probability.

I don't think you realise just how low these probabilties are???
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

[this response is restricted to discussions of probabilities of life, not the universe - that is handled in the next paragraph]

This all depends on which set of assumptions you make and accept. Fifteen years ago, the probabilities of life, not just intelligent life were given at a distinct level. With todays assumptions they have fallen. These assumptions have changed just in the last few years, so the idea they will change again, when our knowledge is greater, is high.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occuring by a small number once again.

You seem to be mixing the probabilities of life, with the universe as given, and that of the universe existing as it does (with the given constants). The former I addressed in the prev paragraph.

The argument over the current universe existing with it existing constants is based on assumptions over how the constants were arrived
at. This is a seriously flawed assumption. We have seen, in the past, many times where apparently independent variables were found to be dependent on each other. To assume they are independent here is a large leap. Any argument based on this is an argument with a foundation of sand (to borrow a biblical metaphor [:)]).

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to beleive there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

I realize you are not going for a proof, but I also disagree that they give us good reason to believe so. I see no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god, so without compelling evidence I have no belief. But if you really accept that you are looking at the evidence open-mindedly, with no preconceptions interfereing with your accepted truths, let's look a little deeper. Unless I'm mistaken, your beliefs include more than simply a god that existed and created the universe. I would guess you also believe in a god exists now, has rules we are to follow, and occasionally interacts with us. None of these things have any of the remotest unequivocal evidence to support it, yet you accept them as true. Your beliefs are yours, and I am not trying to change them, but I do think that it's given you accept these, they are very likely to color how you interpret many of the current conditions in the universe to support you belief in a god.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

With your view of god, and for most [sane] people I know, this is quite true. There are a number of fundamentalist views of god that can be disproved, by the same mechnisms that allow us to prove there are no spherical cubes, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to change your accepted truths, in any way except concerning beliefs, that a non-believer, from his/her POV, can rationally see the existence of a god or gods as having extremely little evidence. [My high school english teacher would have had a coronary over that last sentence]

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't) [;)] [/B]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've not taken any courses in philosophy, though I am quite familiar with the rules of informal logic.

For a much better rendition of the problems inherent in the Argument For Design, go to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design.

Owl

Aug17-03, 01:05 AM

Define God: God is everything. Me, you, them, that and those. We are made up of the cows, pigs, chicken and the animals or other means of food we eat. The animals we eat are made up of the grass, insects and other animals they eat. That leads to the grass and fruits that are made up of the ground and water of this earth. The cycle just keeps getting deeper. In my head it makes much sense but i am not one who explains in great detail to help others understand my views.

We are all one as a life force. A force that is in all particles. So once we no longer produce enough energy to stay in our living form our life force will be released back into the earth. Although in my beliefs there is no utopia or heavens when we die it does not mean that the void of no longer being able to think or feel is all that bad.

Who created us? My answer would be there was no creation. The life force has always existed. You can probaly see my point by my eairler examples of that we are made up of ground and water. heh.. the bible was close to the theory of first humans being clay. So with conversion of the paricles and the universe making up our existance there should be no question of creation.

carla

Aug25-03, 08:15 AM

I have a growing admiration for Yahweh or YHWH (?) which, as I understand it, is exactly that...a ? which can not be reduced to a mere human model, concept, idea, understanding

which always leaves things open and room for improvement

:)

amp

Aug29-03, 04:16 PM

By the way howdy everybody, been away for awhile(ONLY HAVE ACCESS AT MY YOB and was locked out the web) God, is just a title to describe a concept of existence thats inexpressible. I once heard Yahweh literally means 'causes to be' an attribute of this entity. By way of definition, this entity is most difficult of comprehension not withstanding explaination. Consider though, if there is a being of such manifold ability then it at least stands to reason it would make an attempt to communicate. There is evidence that there have been a few attempts at just that. Unfortunately, these directed exchanges were modified by people with an agenda toward selfish gain. I suppose knowing this would happen this entity communicated at various times in mankinds history, to refresh the info - so to speak. Perhaps, we are about due for another revalation. Peace. Amp

mikelus

Nov8-03, 03:42 AM

god is acually everything the thoughts you run from and the reasons why. God is the grass that your feet tread upon outside. god the reason why we pass on and also the reason why were born. god is the answer to the unanswered question.

Shyam

Nov11-03, 10:50 AM

I think that the term "god" is a belief more than anything. U can explain that the earth and planets were created by the BIg bang but can you explain how was the first ever particle was created. That is beyond the dimensions of physics.

This has got to do with the mindset of people and the general acceptance that god is a supreme being. Assertions cant be made as to what physics has to do with god.

This is my personal opinion...

hamlet69

Nov13-03, 08:02 AM

is everything and nothing , maybe a constant state of a qutam universe a particle here then not!

maybe just a belief in a god so we can justife to ourselfs that the devil does evil things 9when we actual do) and GOD would put it right

but whatever god is or was because he/she/it could have died the thought of this is still with us to this day

ThOrNe

Nov13-03, 10:24 PM

I think that god is just a scapegoat for the causes of unexplainable events in the universe. We just don't understand everything (and those of us alive now never will). There used to be gods of nearly everything but as we realized the true reason for these events/objects then we generally stopped believing. I'm fairly sure that eventually whatever god you may worship now will eventually be debunked as mere ignorance or just forgotten. However there is one aspect of god that may never be forgotten...we may never know what caused this universe to begin it's existance(/the cause of the big bang or w/e you prefer), and whatever that cause is, is what i believe is truly god.

Loren Booda

Nov13-03, 10:45 PM

Maybe God is the being who is undefinable (i. e., unconfinable), despite our attempts.

selfAdjoint

Nov13-03, 11:12 PM

The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

radagast

Nov17-03, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

Well, I do understand his ways. He said he wouldn't take offense as long as I didn't tell anyone else.

MasterKung

Nov19-03, 06:38 PM

i beleive in God, hes defined as omnipotent, oniscient...whatever. thats come across so many times, it will be easier if i just said i agree with the people who already said it. (omni-words are hard to spell[:D] )
really what i want to say is that its fun asking intelligent people religious questions, i didnt read all the posts because, well, there are a lot of them, but for the most part i like what i hear. in case you didnt figure it out im new to this forum, and im amazed, theres discussion about religion without heated debate and childish name calling.
Have you ever asked a fully religious person about what he believes in, he regurgitates what hes been told, or what hes learned, when you ask a man of science about God he tells you things that actually make you want to believe, and then supports himself with whatever idea would be most effective. Its great.
Ok, im done ranting, i just think an internet forum like this, empty of imbeciles, is refreshing.

amp

Nov20-03, 06:24 PM

I feel the need to add that though 'God' is all those Omni-words there are things that it won't do and at least one thing it can't do which creates a paradox of sorts since the omni thing posits nothing being impossible for 'God'. "God' has volition and does its own will as far as that goes and it limits itself in the moral sense to only being good in a way we still don't get. It cannot be less than what it is-the impossibility. Yet,it creates and sustains and cannot diminish.

himanshu121

Jan8-04, 02:15 PM

Jesus once took a little boy beside him and said: If anyone should cause even one little child to lose faith in the Almighty, you shall have to pay for it. Do not let even one of these get lost. If a man has a hundred sheep and one gets lost, he leaves ninety-nine sheep and goes in search of the lost one. Similarly, not even one of these little ones is to leave the chosen path.

I believe those who don't believe GOD should try meditating and try to be one with the supreme being . You guys will definitely find the difference b/w the tranquility thus achieved.

Rader

Feb7-04, 04:57 AM

God is wisdom, which we do not have, otherwise we would be the God.
[8)]

UltraPi1

Feb17-04, 10:54 PM

ONE

Loren Booda

Feb17-04, 11:15 PM

NEO

Danae Legrow

Feb19-04, 03:32 PM

God is the lover of our souls, and he will love you forever. He will never let you down and will always be your friend. He loves you on days you hate the world, on days you get an F on a test or midterm, he loves you when your happy, angry, sad, he loves you always. he will forgive you if you ask him. he is our creator. [:)]

KALI

Feb27-04, 11:36 AM

Hi, I see god as a process, a way to relate our spiritual selves, not a devine being overseeing our conduct. Whatever gods or godesses one needs to identify with this I'm all for.
Ingat ka,

Canute

Apr3-04, 06:47 AM

Perhaps God is just a muddled externalisation of what we really are.

Janitor

Apr3-04, 01:15 PM

Your insistence that God loves all humans is probably a majority view among Christians. As a youth I spent many thousands of hours in a church that taught that way.

Your post above doesn't identify your denomination. But I wonder, what are your thoughts on Calvinism, which has it that God loves only the "elect," and that he passes by those who were not predestined to salvation?

Danae Legrow

Apr3-04, 03:10 PM

i really do not have a specific denomination. i go to a non-denominational church, and yes, i do believe that God loves everyone. And no, i do not believe he loves only the elect. this is how i see it- God gave us a free will correct? Well, we can use that to choose wether or not to follow God. If you choose to reject God, that does not change his love for you. We can aregue Armenianism and Calvinism from here until the ned of time, but greater thinkers than I have still not solved the difference between the two. (armenianism being (in it's most simplistic form) total free will, and Calvinism being (in it's most simplistic form) you have no decision if you are on of the elect.) Yet i have not read into calvinism all that much. i am only 16. Yet my parents have discussed it (and argued) about it quite a bit. my mother helped me with explaining this. my mother leans more toward clavinism than my father does. My father looks at it this way: he looks at salvation like someone giving you an amazing gift. You have the choice, or the free will, to take this gift. God knows if you will take this gift or not. So you have the free will to choose, yet God knows in the end who is going to choose this "gift." This is how i feel. God does not elect people. that would make him seem like a dictator. with the little knowledge i have on this topic, i believe what my father believes. you have a choice. to accept or decline. God knows what your decision will be.

Janitor

Apr3-04, 03:48 PM

On another issue, one of our presidents did an act which, from the point of mainstream Christianity, would be considered sinful. (I had better not mention the name of the president, since Zero already probably considers me a right-wing blue-collar fundamentalist Republican :rolleyes:) I remember hearing discussions stemming from that news story on the issue of whether a Christian, once saved, is saved for the rest of his or her life, regardless of how he or she behaves. An editorial I read at that time speculated that this particular president believed that this was the case, so that he was "safe" (in the afterlife sense) in doing whatever brought him pleasure.

Danae Legrow

Apr3-04, 04:15 PM

"An editorial I read at that time speculated that this particular president believed that this was the case, so that he was "safe" (in the afterlife sense) in doing whatever brought him pleasure."

my mom wants to put in her two cents....

A true conversion experience changes a person. One's daily sin(s) become more and more obvious to the truly converted individual. One does not wish to sin because of the realization that sin hurts not only one's own soul, but it affects (and hurts) all of those people that one comes into contact with everyday. Not only did this president selfishly pursue his own pleasures, he wounded his wife, his child, his cabinet, his political party, and our country. Does this sound like the behavior of a truly converted person? While the phrase, "Once saved, always saved," may be true, (and I stress the "may" part of my statement), I would say that his behavior demonstrates that he did not have a true conversion experience. But better thinkers than I have been debating this issue for centuries . . . We should work out our own faith with fear and trembling.

Janitor

Apr3-04, 04:29 PM

The church I attended as a kid very definitely believed in the possibility that a saved person could "backslide" right into an unsaved state. I can remember a sermon preached there (decades ago!) on the topic of a gospel songwriter named D.O. Teasley (spelling?). The minister maintained that though Teasley was truly Christian during the part of his life when he was writing gospel songs, he backslid toward the end of his life and became a street bum, and died in a gutter, unsaved.

Danae Legrow

Apr3-04, 04:54 PM

You said, "The minister maintained that though Teasley was truly Christian during the part of his life when he was writing gospel songs, he backslid toward the end of his life and became a street bum, and died in a gutter, unsaved." I would say that all that minister ever really knew for sure was that this Teasley person died a street bum in a gutter. I would say that only God knows the true state of one's soul at any time in one's life. The gospel of Luke talks about the thief who was crucified with Jesus being saved in the final hours of his (the thief's) life. When this thief died, he was done in in the single, worst, most embarrassing way possible. Anyone watching would have "known" that there was an individual who was going to spend the rest of eternity separated from God, yet Jesus said that this particular thief was going to Heaven (Paradise - Greek for Heaven).

As far as being one of " the elect" goes, I heard it best described like this: I would ask someone, "Do you want to be saved?" If they answer yes, then they are one of the elect. If they answer no, then they are not one of the elect. They have no recourse for argument because if they wish to be saved, they may be and they then become one of the elect. God loves everyone and wants a personal relationship with each of us, but He will not force you to spend eternity in Heaven with Him after you pass away. If you spend your life diligently showing Him that you want nothing to do with Him, He will honor that decision after you die

Rader

Apr3-04, 05:11 PM

The traditional teaching of Roman Catholics, from the time of Christ until the Second Vatican Council 1966, was that, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This was the dogmatic teaching until Ecumenism and liberalism changed this viewpoint. The words of Christ were changed from the orginal translation from him saying at the "Last Supper" that his blood was shed for "many" the new word was "all" to accomodate Ecumenism .

In case anyone does not know what Ecumenism means, it is the intent to unify all religions.

These were Jesus Christ origanal words at the "last Supper" translated from Hebreo to Latin.

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ATERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

PRO MULTIS mean for many.

Not necessary Kerrie. I will just lock my tongue. I was just defining a point that maybe you do not understand about Catholicism, which difines to Catholics what God is.

Janitor

Apr3-04, 10:28 PM

I would say that only God knows the true state of one's soul at any time in one's life.

I believe that idea was also preached in the church that I attended. There was quite a high turnover rate of pastors there, for reasons I won't go into, and there was a range of styles among the pastors, from fire & brimstone to more laid back preaching. Theoretically, the ministers and Sunday school teachers should have all been basing their teaching on the same doctrinal principles, but it didn't necessarily work out that way in practice.

Kerrie

Apr4-04, 12:39 AM

i would hate to lock this topic over religious discussion...the intent of this sticky is have everyone share their own concept of what god is, not to discuss religous ideas.

Janitor

Apr4-04, 02:43 PM

own concept of what god is

If I were to grant that there really does exist a personal God, one puzzling and hurtful aspect of Him/Her/It is that God is not a reliable answerer of petitionary prayers to reduce human suffering. For instance, no matter how many believers in any particular deity pray to that deity: "Please cause all babies born from this day forward to be born without an appendix, so that they will never be stricken by acute appendicitis, which can lead to peritonitis, a painful and sometimes fatal medical problem," there will be only stony silence from God in response.

StarThrower

Apr5-04, 08:51 PM

In this thread, I would like to know what your definition of "God" is, if it is a being, a force, if it is equivalent to Mother Nature, to science, etc...

There is no god.

Hence a definition of god is correct, only when the assumption of the existence of god leads to an infinite number of contradictions.

Kind regards,

StarThrower

Danae Legrow

Apr5-04, 09:13 PM

starthrower... prove to me that there is no god.

Canute

Apr6-04, 07:07 AM

There is no god.

Hence a definition of god is correct, only when the assumption of the existence of god leads to an infinite number of contradictions.

Kind regards,

StarThrower
You can't say that God doesn't exist without defining Him and then say that there is possibly a correct definition of Him, it isn't logical. However I agree that most definitions are illogical.

Bear in mind though that a large proportion of scientists are theists, and they manage to define God in such a way that He does not contradict science at least. Not all concepts of Gods are as unsubtle as the Sunday School Christian version, even for many Christians. Try Spinoza or Meister Eckhart for instance.

I suppose an anlogy would be atoms. We once conceived of them as little solar systems. Clearly those sort of atoms were a product of our imagination. However we do not now say they don't exist. We have reconceptualised and redefined them in line with our observations and deductions.

Canute

Apr6-04, 07:22 AM

i would hate to lock this topic over religious discussion...the intent of this sticky is have everyone share their own concept of what god is, not to discuss religous ideas.
Point taken. Mind you it's difficult to separate the different issues.

Personally I don't believe that there is anything that can sensibly be called 'God'. However if I had to pick a definition that makes sense I'd go for Spinoza's or that of the Christian Gnostics.

For Spinoza 'Nothing exists external to God, and certainly not man's understanding of him'. Also "God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe." I also go along with Jesus on this one, the Kingdom of Heaven is within, there is not some external God 'out there'. We are it. But as Plato said we tend to forget this and become trapped in our cave of perceptions and conceptions.

Moonbear

Apr7-04, 12:04 AM

Loren Booda

Apr7-04, 01:44 AM

:biggrin:

Moonbear,

Your definition of God might well apply to a T. O. E. (Theory of Everything).

Oh! Great Big TOE!

Canute

Apr7-04, 07:42 AM

God is a term used to explain things people cannot understand when they refuse to accept that not everything about our physical world can be understood all at once. Just because we don't know an answer to something now doesn't mean we won't find an answer. We laugh now at the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks with their numerous mythological gods to explain things we now know are perfectly explainable, yet still want to hang onto our own mythology to explain many things still remaining to be answered.
You miss the real point here. Science is not going to answer metaphysical questions ever. Not in a billion years. This is just a fact, nothing to do with my opinion. I suspect one day we'll look back the current scientific view much as you do the Roman pantheon of Gods. Either that or we'll have to stay ignorant forever. If we stick to the scientific method of explaining the world then people will be arguing about the existence of God until the universe ends.

StarThrower

Apr7-04, 01:52 PM

starthrower... prove to me that there is no god.

You wouldn't understand the proof, it is too complex for your mind to follow.

Regards,

Star

Moonbear

Apr8-04, 12:24 AM

You miss the real point here. Science is not going to answer metaphysical questions ever. Not in a billion years. This is just a fact, nothing to do with my opinion. I suspect one day we'll look back the current scientific view much as you do the Roman pantheon of Gods. Either that or we'll have to stay ignorant forever. If we stick to the scientific method of explaining the world then people will be arguing about the existence of God until the universe ends.

Metaphysical is on a sliding scale. Something only appears to be metaphysical until a physical explanation is found. Different people are comfortable with different degrees of uncertainty. I'm comfortable with knowing there are a lot of things I don't know, can't explain, and don't understand. I'm also comfortable with knowing there are many things nobody knows, nobody can explain and nobody understands. And I'm also comfortable knowing that many of these things will not be explained in my lifetime. However, that is not sufficient for me to believe there are no answers to those questions within the physical world. Other people cannot fathom there can be an explanation for these things, or that there are things that happen according to the laws of nature and not for a greater purpose. Those people are not comfortable with uncertainty, so need to believe in a god to explain the things they don't understand. If that is what they need to believe to get through life, that's fine. I'm not arguing against people who believe in god, in fact, I wasn't arguing anything, just stating my own personal view of what god is, according to the topic of the thread. So, quite frankly, I didn't miss any point because there was no point to begin with.

Canute

Apr8-04, 07:48 AM

Metaphysical is on a sliding scale. Something only appears to be metaphysical until a physical explanation is found.
This is a misunderstanding of what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is where science puts unanswerable questions, not questions it's going to answer later.

Different people are comfortable with different degrees of uncertainty. I'm comfortable with knowing there are a lot of things I don't know, can't explain, and don't understand. I'm also comfortable with knowing there are many things nobody knows, nobody can explain and nobody understands.
Ok, but you speak for yourself.

And I'm also comfortable knowing that many of these things will not be explained in my lifetime. However, that is not sufficient for me to believe there are no answers to those questions within the physical world.
But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science.

Those people are not comfortable with uncertainty, so need to believe in a god to explain the things they don't understand.
I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.

If that is what they need to believe to get through life, that's fine.
What matters is what's true. It's just as easy to say what you say here about people who hold the scientific view.

I'm not arguing against people who believe in god, in fact, I wasn't arguing anything,
You said God was a crutch for the weak. That sounds like an argument to me.

Danae Legrow

Apr8-04, 02:27 PM

You wouldn't understand the proof, it is too complex for your mind to follow.

Regards,

Star

try me... :cool:

sage

Apr12-04, 01:45 PM

Canute

Apr13-04, 07:49 AM

canute said
But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science. examples please.
All metaphysical questions are examples, since they are defined as beyond science's ability to answer. For instances would include the questions of why there is something rather than nothing, what is 'essence', what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, whether freewill exists, whether consciousness is causal etc.

A specific example would be the in principle inability of science to explain what matter is. In his autobiography ‘The Making of a Philosopher’ Roger McGinn simply and clearly outlines a number of the problems caused by the presence of unanswerable questions within the Western tradition of philosophy.

He describes how he was baffled in his youth by the ancient ‘problem of attributes’, and relates his attempt to reduce an old fashioned red letterbox, somewhere in Brighton if I remember rightly, to its essence by taking away all of its peceivable aspects and conceivable attributes one by one.

His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything.

The problem is a metaphysical one, not solvable scientifically even though it concerns the nature of matter.

Moonbear

Apr13-04, 11:48 PM

This is a misunderstanding of what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is where science puts unanswerable questions, not questions it's going to answer later.

But how do you know a question is unanswerable? My contention is that there are no unanswerable questions, just ones that we do not yet know how to answer.

Ok, but you speak for yourself.
Exactly! I was speaking for myself, my own opinions. That's all the poll asked. It didn't ask for us to judge the opinions of others.

But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science.

It's not a contentious issue within science because scientists agree that there is a physical explanation to all observable phenomena, even if that explanation remains to be determined.

You said God was a crutch for the weak. That sounds like an argument to me.
Those are your words, not mine. I never argued any such thing.

Canute

Apr14-04, 07:42 AM

But how do you know a question is unanswerable? My contention is that there are no unanswerable questions, just ones that we do not yet know how to answer.
This is not the case unfortunately. Metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science in principle. Such questions are defined as being beyond science, which is why there is such a thing a 'metaphysics' in the first place.

Exactly! I was speaking for myself, my own opinions. That's all the poll asked. It didn't ask for us to judge the opinions of others.
Quite right. I was just noting that what you said may not be true.

It's not a contentious issue within science because scientists agree that there is a physical explanation to all observable phenomena, even if that explanation remains to be determined.
Strange as it may seem scientists who think about philosophy conclude the science cannot explain everything. Consider this, if everything observable has a scientific explanation then where does the explanation start and end? It cannot be with a physical sunstance because then that substance would need explaining and so on ad infinitum. This is why science cannot go all the way back to t=0 or explain what matter's made of etc.

sage

Apr14-04, 10:28 AM

why there is something rather than nothing?
define the terms something and nothing.
what is 'essence'? i have never heard of the term before. please elaborate.
what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, ?
perhaps big bang was created when an eleven dimensional brane interacted with another of its kind. maybe the question is meaningless as time can only be defined in the context of the big bang.quite possible as it seems time maybe only an approximation of some time independant quantum effects on the planck scale, just as notions of space are. these answeres maybe wrong.but that does not mean the question can never be answered by science in future.
what matter is?
i shall add a few more questions.
what is time?
what is space?
what is force?
what is charge?...
what kind of an explanation do you need. personally i believe these are names given to some observable phenomena of our universe. then the properties that they have under various circumstances should constitute an answer . thus charge becomes a property of a group of entities by virtue of which their motions interact with each other in a certain manner(attract or repel). similarly one can in principle answer the other questions. that such an answer to "what matter is" have not yet been totally elucidated does not mean it cannot be answered in future. it is a valid SCIENTIFIC QUESTION REQUIRING A VALID SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.
whether freewill exists?
you shall have do define what do you mean by free will. the brain(yourself) has at any momment a wide no. of choices from which it(you) chooses that which seems to it(you) the most suitable one given its(yours) past experiances.whether you think this is freewill is ultimately upto you.
quotation-"His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything"

very very very very very vague logic with an equally vague and meaningless conclusion.i have nothing against philosophy but i HAVE COMPLETELY LOST THE PLOT HERE.

Rader

Apr14-04, 10:30 AM

It is my assumption, and it is a great big one, that the very reason why we attempt to answer and do answer questions, is to find the cause of it all. What sense does it make to try and answer questions, with no reason for them being placed, for us to find.

Moonbear

Apr14-04, 11:40 AM

This is not the case unfortunately. Metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science in principle. Such questions are defined as being beyond science, which is why there is such a thing a 'metaphysics' in the first place.

You can define the term metaphysics any way you want. The challenge is to demonstrate that the questions you are assigning into that categorical definition actually belong there. You're imposing the limitations of our current knowledge of the physical world upon predictions of what limitations will exist in the future. This talk of "essences" actually sounds more like you're imposing the limitations of centuries ago, when the 4 elements were defined as earth, wind, fire and water and our bodies were made up of essences.

Quite right. I was just noting that what you said may not be true.
But it was true. The only truth I claimed in my original statement was that it was my opinion. Do you intend to suggest I do not know my own opinion?

Strange as it may seem scientists who think about philosophy conclude the science cannot explain everything. Consider this, if everything observable has a scientific explanation then where does the explanation start and end? It cannot be with a physical sunstance because then that substance would need explaining and so on ad infinitum. This is why science cannot go all the way back to t=0 or explain what matter's made of etc.

Actually, scientists who think about philosophy conclude that philosophers either 1) ask imprecise questions, or 2) don't know enough about science to support their arguments, or 3) start every argument with a set of assumptions that may or may not be true, which are selected only for the convenience of making their argument possible.

Where does the explanation start and end? I don't know yet, we haven't gotten there. It doesn't mean there won't be a discovery that provides the key to explaining everything. You say that science cannot explain what matter is made of. The problem in asking what matter is made of is that the definition of matter is very broad, so the question really is too imprecise. Perhaps you're more interested in what makes up a neutrino? What gives them their properties? Centuries ago, even the idea of discovering the atom was unfathomable. To suggest that seemingly solid and unmoving objects are made up of lots of smaller, constantly moving components probably would have gotten someone burned at the stake for heresy. For a very long time, science seemed content that the atom was the smallest physical structure, the most basic component of all matter. Then electrons, protons and neutrons were discovered. Now even smaller components have been discovered, such as neutrinos. Indeed, how can you predict that someone in a lab somewhere won't have a mishap and accidentally discover a way for new matter to arise de novo. I would avoid the terms something and nothing because they are incredibly imprecise and may be misleading. Afterall, they have been defined according to one another. Nothing is the absence of something. However, in the process of discovery, "nothing" may very well be found to be something.

Canute

Apr15-04, 07:23 AM

why there is something rather than nothing?
define the terms something and nothing.
what is 'essence'? i have never heard of the term before. please elaborate.
what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, ?
perhaps big bang was created when an eleven dimensional brane interacted with another of its kind. maybe the question is meaningless as time can only be defined in the context of the big bang.quite possible as it seems time maybe only an approximation of some time independant quantum effects on the planck scale, just as notions of space are. these answeres maybe wrong.but that does not mean the question can never be answered by science in future.
These are not scientific questions. Questions of ultimate orgins and the nature of essence are metaphysical questions (according to scientists).

... that such an answer to "what matter is" have not yet been totally elucidated does not mean it cannot be answered in future. it is a valid SCIENTIFIC QUESTION REQUIRING A VALID SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.
'What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes.

whether freewill exists? you shall have do define what do you mean by free will.
Science declares that freewill is an illusion. In fact there is no scientific evidence either way. It's a metaphysical question, defined as such by science (not by me). Similarly with materialism for instance, which is another metaphysical theory untestable by science.

quotation-"His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything"

very very very very very vague logic with an equally vague and meaningless conclusion.i have nothing against philosophy but i HAVE COMPLETELY LOST THE PLOT HERE.
It's worth reading the book, McGinn is one of the clearest writers around on these topics.

Canute

Apr15-04, 07:44 AM

You can define the term metaphysics any way you want.
I disagree, only confusion would result. The normal definition makes it the study of what lies beyond or after science, usually including the nature of reality, being and knowing.

The challenge is to demonstrate that the questions you are assigning into that categorical definition actually belong there. You're imposing the limitations of our current knowledge of the physical world upon predictions of what limitations will exist in the future. This talk of "essences" actually sounds more like you're imposing the limitations of centuries ago, when the 4 elements were defined as earth, wind, fire and water and our bodies were made up of essences.
I'm not imposing anything, honest. The question of essence is a metaphysical question and it always will be. I couldn't alter this fact if I wanted to.

But it was true. The only truth I claimed in my original statement was that it was my opinion. Do you intend to suggest I do not know my own opinion?
But is it your own opinion, or is it true? Here you say it's both.

Actually, scientists who think about philosophy conclude that philosophers either 1) ask imprecise questions, or 2) don't know enough about science to support their arguments, or 3) start every argument with a set of assumptions that may or may not be true, which are selected only for the convenience of making their argument possible.
Scientists who do not think about philosophy think this. Philsophy is not some optional discipline that can be avoided. It isn't possible to do science without philosophising, or vice versa.

Where does the explanation start and end? I don't know yet, we haven't gotten there. It doesn't mean there won't be a discovery that provides the key to explaining everything. You say that science cannot explain what matter is made of. The problem in asking what matter is made of is that the definition of matter is very broad, so the question really is too imprecise.
I don't see why. Also, I thought you were saying that it could be answered.

Perhaps you're more interested in what makes up a neutrino? What gives them their properties? Centuries ago, even the idea of discovering the atom was unfathomable. To suggest that seemingly solid and unmoving objects are made up of lots of smaller, constantly moving components probably would have gotten someone burned at the stake for heresy.
I think it was obvious from the start, certainly from the Greeks onwards.

For a very long time, science seemed content that the atom was the smallest physical structure, the most basic component of all matter. Then electrons, protons and neutrons were discovered. Now even smaller components have been discovered, such as neutrinos. Indeed, how can you predict that someone in a lab somewhere won't have a mishap and accidentally discover a way for new matter to arise de novo.
Atoms, neutrinos, quarks, superstrings, vibrating branes in 28 dimensions, it's turtles all the way, as Terry Pratchett would say, either that or ex nihilo creation. If you try to explain matter by reduction then you get an infinite regression and no end to the explanation. This is the problem.

deda

Apr15-04, 07:57 AM

God is nothing.
I mean nothing as if it was a thing.
Every thing comes from nothing and returns to nothing.
Nothing is all together.

God is all; All is nothing; Nothing is God!

Nothing got nothing to change, because and therefore, nothing is constant!

sage

Apr19-04, 03:46 AM

canute said
"Atoms, neutrinos, quarks, superstrings, vibrating branes in 28
dimensions, it's turtles all the way, as Terry Pratchett would say,
either that or ex nihilo creation. If you try to explain matter by
reduction then you get an infinite regression and no end to the
explanation. This is the problem."

the turtles end at planck length.it has to for obvious reasons. what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).

canute said
"
These are not scientific questions. Questions of ultimate orgins and
the nature of essence are metaphysical questions (according to
scientists). "

once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is
wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?
which theory says that science cannot answer them? i do not care if some
scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is
whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between
scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions
cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific.
so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.

canute said
"In fact there is no
scientific evidence either way. It's a metaphysical question,
defined as such by science (not by me)."

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific
books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim
that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what
so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgable
about this.

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you
have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.

Canute

Apr19-04, 02:28 PM

canute said ...snip

the turtles end at planck length.it has to for obvious reasons.
What do you mean by obvious reasons?

what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics
A fact that I take to slightly support my suggestion that science has to turn to metaphysics at some point in explaining matter.

and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).
I think you'll find it's not easy to imagine a complete scientific explanation of matter. As soon as you say that it's made out of 'x' you can ask what 'x' is made out of.

I sort of agree about metaphysical questions but not completely. It seems clear that such questions have incorrect assumptions built into them, as a logical positivist would argue, and that this is why thay are unanswerable. However the question then becomes one of which of these assumptions are false, which amounts to an equivalent metaphysical question.

For instance the question of idealism/materialism is undecidable. The question is not obviously meaningless so it must therefore embody a false assumption. But where is it?

once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?
Essence is what things are made out of, the 'ultimate substrate' of everything. It is beyond scientific investigation and thus is deemed a 'metaphysical substance'. Kant called it the 'noumenal', the 'thing in itself', others call it the 'absolute' or 'ultimate reality' etc. Plato said it was what lay outside his allegorical cave.

which theory says that science cannot answer them?
There's no theory, it is simply entailed by the (modern) definition of science that metaphysics exists, and that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science.

i do not care if some scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific. so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.
I'm only agreeing with nearly everyone else. Perhaps 'Objectivists' deny the existence of metaphysics, but I'm not sure even they do.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.
You'd be better reading a decent general book on philosophy, but in a nutshell - if idealism is unfalsifiable then we cannot prove that matter is fundamental. We therefore cannot complete any scientific 'ontological' explanation of it. The problem of attributes is slightly different. It entails that whatever matter is made of, in the final reductionist analysis, it must be something with no external attributes. Such a substance is clearly beyond scientific investigation. Both problems are the really the same. (This relates to the scientific 'problem of consciousness' and the 'hard problem', but I won't go there).

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgable about this.
Science hasn't declared it beyond science, and I don't suppose it ever will. However there are logical reasons for supposing it is. Some of them are here:

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/montreal.html

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.
It's really an autobiography focsusing on his intellectual development, so does not go into anything deeply. However its simplicity is what makes it worth reading. Some writers have the knack of simplifying (unlike yours truly).