God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[fedorfan]

I meant that we know nothing about god and all. We most likely never will.

 

[heusdens]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

What if we say, this question or discussion is meaningless?

 

[baywax]

What if we say, this question or discussion is meaningless?

This discussion is only meaningful to the person asking the question and to those people who wish to discuss it.

If I start the thread "The existence of Leprechauns..." it is only going to appeal to those people interested in leprechauns.

I guess this thread has lasted as long as it has on the PF because it is a philosphical question in the philosophy section.

But, a discussion on "The Existence of Texture..." might generate as much interest given the nature of this overall forum.

 

[heusdens]

I meant that we know nothing about god and all. We most likely never will.

That's not true. We know that god are constructions of the mind, and don't exist outside of that, ie. god is manmade.

 

[Anttech]

That's not true. We know that god are constructions of the mind, and don't exist outside of that, ie. god is manmade.

How do we know that? You are basing your argument on an assumption that God doesn't exist.

 

[heusdens]

How do we know that?

Well I would think that is pretty obvious. Do you know of any form of religion outside of human religions?

You are basing your argument on an assumption that God doesn't exist.

No, I do not. I could reflect on your statement, that it is your assumption, God could exist. As I reasoned out, that is not a valid assumption.

God only manifests itself in the human mind, as the absolute idea, and has no objective existence, ie. God is not part of nature.

 

[baywax]

God is not part of nature.

If brain activity is part of nature, the thought of god is part of nature.

The electromagnetic wave signature that is the result of any brain activity concerning god requires the laws and properties of nature to exist.

The nature of thought is cyclical in that once you have produced a thought it becomes an external force. It is not confined to the regions of the brain but actually impinges upon the outside environment.

A thought can do so either by motivating actions in the body where the thought began or by motivating actions in other organisms and/or inanimate objects.

We often reflect our thoughts in our actions and even in our appearance.

This is may explain why someone once wrote that we are made in the likeness of (our thoughts) god.

 

[heusdens]

If brain activity is part of nature, the thought of god is part of nature.

I don't think I agree, although I could agree to the point where we say that the experience of there being a God, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic (and for that reason perhapsd also an evolutionary) reason to exist.

A brain sensation (religious or mystical experience) is beyond all doubt true, and there is nothing which I disagree on that as an established (scientific) fact that one can have that experience.

I would however not conclude from this well established fact that there is (objectively) a God, since that is something quite different and altogether impossible.

This is because the only thing we experience about is a state of our brain, it is as though we look through a different mind - the mind of God somehow - on reality, in which our self is dissolved into a united reality (no differentiation between self and not-self, or subjectivity and objectivity), but then we do realize that this is just our own self experiencing that (the brain experiencing itself it's own undivided brain state).

I can tell you a little trick how to mentally experience such a state. It will take perhaps some 10-20 minutes.
All you have to do is sit back and think about anything in reality that exists and/or that could exists, and then try to think in your mind that that didn't exist. This in order to establish a state in our own mind which has 'got rid' of anything outside itself, any connection or concept of a real existing world.

You will probably experience first some difficulty of getting rid of anything that either exists or could exist, so you have to take a stepwise approach first, and anything that digs up in your mind that is existent or could exist, and try to get rid of that in your mind.
So when your for example think of elephants as existing, then think of the world without elephants, and so on.
Since this will go quite slow (because there are so many things that exist, or could exist), try to increase your steps by thinking about a broader category, for instance animals, that either exist or could exist (on all different planets, and all different universes, etc.).

Just continue to think about anything that exists or can exist, and then what comes on in your mind, try to get rid of that in your mind, in order to 'empty' your mind. It takes some concentrated devotion to do this, and sometimes, even after you have 'removed' some existing things from thought, they can come back. Like for example, after having get rid of all animals or animal alike species, on any planet in any galaxy in any universe, but then you realize for example that you didn't get rid of for example dogs or frogs, or insects, or whatever. In that case perhaps your steps are too big at once, and you should take some smaller steps. Take your steps as you seem fit, but be sure that in last instance, you need to get rid of everything that either exists or can exist, whatever it may be.

After having get rid of all the people you know of, all of humanity, all living things, and all living things everywhere else, all stars, planets and other celestial bodies, and all dust and matter that exists in the universe or other universes, or anything that is physically there, ultimately you will arrive at some point in which your mind is almost completely free of anything existent, and all you can imagine in mind is just total blackness and emptiness. So the only thing which still exists in your mind then is the existence of space (and or time) extending infinitely. Try to take the next step and get rid of that from mind.

What is still there? Well you have arrived then at a state in which the only thing you still experiencing is - you thinking that. So that is the only thing that then still exists, your experiencing this, your thinking and imagining this.

Then the ultimate step: try to get rid of this.

What you will experience then is that, while every other step you took was succesfull, you can in no way get rid of this, your (self)experience persists to exist, and there is no possible way in which you could get rid of this (and neither would you want to).
(the reason for that is of course, although you removed everything in thought that reflects on the outside world, you are still experiencing - that is your brain will still keep functioning, which is, you will still think something -, and the only experience you still have is your self-experience - you thinking that).

This experience can come with some fundamental insights, for example that you experience that you care about yourself, and that you feel some intimate connection with the rest of the cosmos, unlimited in time and space. And also this is the experience that in no possible way the cosmos, the world, could not be there, cause ultimately that would also mean that you would not be there, which, for obvious reasons, you would not want to be the case. And perhaps you could feel like you were (united with) some kind of 'worldspirit' looking out over the cosmos through all space and time and extending infinitly. In some ways it feels like our own mind dissolved itself and resolves itself as some general idea of mind or 'worldspirit' looking out over reality : we are no longer an individual mind with a body, but have some spiritial form.

The conclusion of this is that we could in no possible way think of a nonexistent world (since no matter how much of the world we could get rid of in mind, in the ultimate sense our own thinking persists to exist). We can in no way imagine within our mind the complete nonexistence of the world.

This is altogether something different as thinking about a world as it exists, but without ourselves existing in it, for example if we try to form a picture in imagination of the world at a time before we were born, or of a time after we died. A world in which we would not be there, we could imagine, it just would entail looking at the world from some(one's) other perspective. It would just be like imagining we would be born as someone else.

Although we can think about this experience in many different ways, I think it just shows us some basic facts about reality and about our minds, in which we experience some unified reality in which the distinction between self and the world around oneself have been completely dissolved.

This kind of experience is different then our normal daily life experience, in which we see ourselves as an individual in a human form with a human body, and in which we differentiate between ourselves and the rest of our world, or formulated differently, in which the world divides between our inner experience and the experience of the outside world itself, which exists indepent of ourself.

What to conclude from this? Are we experiencing something like the mind of God, or does it proof the existence of God? Or should we conclude more basically that this is just some inner experience, and for whatever (evolutionary) reason, our brains are wired in a way that enables us to experience this?

To me, although I can certainly think that some people would reflect on this in that way, this would not be some ultimate proof of the 'objective existence' of God, since we are just experiencing some mindly state, and not experience some ultimately different mind, but only experience our own mind.
Although, in the experience itself, our own individual state completely dissolves itself into the general idea of mind. There is no distinction in this state between our mind and any other mind, we just feel like one mind experiencing this, or perhaps even more, we completely unite with the whole infinite cosmos.

The feeling/experience itself only resides inside our own mind, so this means, it is an inner feeling/experience and therefore a subjective experience or feeling. It doesn't come with sensory perception of something outside our own brain or anything like that. And perhaps, when our brain is being monitored, it can be shown which part of our brain is actively involved in this experience.

 

[fedorfan]

I see what you mean and totally agree heusdens.

 

[heusdens]

I see what you mean and totally agree heusdens.

Well thanks.

I think it is usefull to explain that even if such mental experience does exist (which we can even proof when monitoring the brain), there is no need to deduce from it anything that would contradict the materialist view of reality, in which matter is primary and basically the only thing that exist, and all (including our mind) is deduced from it.

It is even clear that within this (materialistic) point of view, one is not dispermitted to call this unknown cause that caused this universe/world to exist (the totality of theoretically infinite causes prior to the big bang) something like God (having infinite potentially, stretching infinite in space and time) and attribute to it some human properties, since whatever this exact cause was, it has caused the existence of us human beings into what we are, and since we evaluate our existence as positive (which we describe as self-care, love, or whatever), we attribute that to this entity.

And nowhere down the line we are in contradiction with scientific/materialistic reality.

However it is the case that there is nothing we can know absolutely about this entity (we don't have absolute knowledge), and all base for some absolute religious statements about how to interpret this, are merely subjective.

So, any real knowledge still has to be deduced from experiment and scientific methods, based on the materialistic pre-supposition. It is a framework that does work, and provides us (approximately correct) knowledge about the world and not some unified a priori knowledge, as comes from mythical/mystical or religious experience.

 

[baywax]

I don't think I agree, although I could agree to the point where we say that the experience of there being a God, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic (and for that reason perhapsd also an evolutionary) reason to exist.

A brain sensation (religious or mystical experience) is beyond all doubt true, and there is nothing which I disagree on that as an established (scientific) fact that one can have that experience.

I would however not conclude from this well established fact that there is (objectively) a God, since that is something quite different and altogether impossible.

This is because the only thing we experience about is a state of our brain, it is as though we look through a different mind - the mind of God somehow - on reality, in which our self is dissolved into a united reality (no differentiation between self and not-self, or subjectivity and objectivity), but then we do realize that this is just our own self experiencing that (the brain experiencing itself it's own undivided brain state).

I can tell you a little trick how to mentally experience such a state. It will take perhaps some 10-20 minutes.
All you have to do is sit back and think about anything in reality that exists and/or that could exists, and then try to think in your mind that that didn't exist. This in order to establish a state in our own mind which has 'got rid' of anything outside itself, any connection or concept of a real existing world.

You will probably experience first some difficulty of getting rid of anything that either exists or could exist, so you have to take a stepwise approach first, and anything that digs up in your mind that is existent or could exist, and try to get rid of that in your mind.
So when your for example think of elephants as existing, then think of the world without elephants, and so on.
Since this will go quite slow (because there are so many things that exist, or could exist), try to increase your steps by thinking about a broader category, for instance animals, that either exist or could exist (on all different planets, and all different universes, etc.).

Just continue to think about anything that exists or can exist, and then what comes on in your mind, try to get rid of that in your mind, in order to 'empty' your mind. It takes some concentrated devotion to do this, and sometimes, even after you have 'removed' some existing things from thought, they can come back. Like for example, after having get rid of all animals or animal alike species, on any planet in any galaxy in any universe, but then you realize for example that you didn't get rid of for example dogs or frogs, or insects, or whatever. In that case perhaps your steps are too big at once, and you should take some smaller steps. Take your steps as you seem fit, but be sure that in last instance, you need to get rid of everything that either exists or can exist, whatever it may be.

After having get rid of all the people you know of, all of humanity, all living things, and all living things everywhere else, all stars, planets and other celestial bodies, and all dust and matter that exists in the universe or other universes, or anything that is physically there, ultimately you will arrive at some point in which your mind is almost completely free of anything existent, and all you can imagine in mind is just total blackness and emptiness. So the only thing which still exists in your mind then is the existence of space (and or time) extending infinitely. Try to take the next step and get rid of that from mind.

What is still there? Well you have arrived then at a state in which the only thing you still experiencing is - you thinking that. So that is the only thing that then still exists, your experiencing this, your thinking and imagining this.

Then the ultimate step: try to get rid of this.

What you will experience then is that, while every other step you took was succesfull, you can in no way get rid of this, your (self)experience persists to exist, and there is no possible way in which you could get rid of this (and neither would you want to).
(the reason for that is of course, although you removed everything in thought that reflects on the outside world, you are still experiencing - that is your brain will still keep functioning, which is, you will still think something -, and the only experience you still have is your self-experience - you thinking that).

This experience can come with some fundamental insights, for example that you experience that you care about yourself, and that you feel some intimate connection with the rest of the cosmos, unlimited in time and space. And also this is the experience that in no possible way the cosmos, the world, could not be there, cause ultimately that would also mean that you would not be there, which, for obvious reasons, you would not want to be the case. And perhaps you could feel like you were (united with) some kind of 'worldspirit' looking out over the cosmos through all space and time and extending infinitly. In some ways it feels like our own mind dissolved itself and resolves itself as some general idea of mind or 'worldspirit' looking out over reality : we are no longer an individual mind with a body, but have some spiritial form.

The conclusion of this is that we could in no possible way think of a nonexistent world (since no matter how much of the world we could get rid of in mind, in the ultimate sense our own thinking persists to exist). We can in no way imagine within our mind the complete nonexistence of the world.

This is altogether something different as thinking about a world as it exists, but without ourselves existing in it, for example if we try to form a picture in imagination of the world at a time before we were born, or of a time after we died. A world in which we would not be there, we could imagine, it just would entail looking at the world from some(one's) other perspective. It would just be like imagining we would be born as someone else.

Although we can think about this experience in many different ways, I think it just shows us some basic facts about reality and about our minds, in which we experience some unified reality in which the distinction between self and the world around oneself have been completely dissolved.

This kind of experience is different then our normal daily life experience, in which we see ourselves as an individual in a human form with a human body, and in which we differentiate between ourselves and the rest of our world, or formulated differently, in which the world divides between our inner experience and the experience of the outside world itself, which exists indepent of ourself.

What to conclude from this? Are we experiencing something like the mind of God, or does it proof the existence of God? Or should we conclude more basically that this is just some inner experience, and for whatever (evolutionary) reason, our brains are wired in a way that enables us to experience this?

To me, although I can certainly think that some people would reflect on this in that way, this would not be some ultimate proof of the 'objective existence' of God, since we are just experiencing some mindly state, and not experience some ultimately different mind, but only experience our own mind.
Although, in the experience itself, our own individual state completely dissolves itself into the general idea of mind. There is no distinction in this state between our mind and any other mind, we just feel like one mind experiencing this, or perhaps even more, we completely unite with the whole infinite cosmos.

The feeling/experience itself only resides inside our own mind, so this means, it is an inner feeling/experience and therefore a subjective experience or feeling. It doesn't come with sensory perception of something outside our own brain or anything like that. And perhaps, when our brain is being monitored, it can be shown which part of our brain is actively involved in this experience.

Well, what I was pointing out was that when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse.

So, in that sense, the neuronal impulse (that is in the electrochemomagnetic signature representing the idea of a god) actually exists.

But then, so does a neuronal impulse that represents a leprechaun.

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

So we can say that for the "existence of god" to take place we have to have neuronal transmitters and receivers just as there must be these physical elements for us to say that "anything exists" or for us to "experience anything".

 

[heusdens]

Well, what I was pointing out was that when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse.

So, in that sense, the neuronal impulse (that is in the electrochemomagnetic signature representing the idea of a god) actually exists.

But then, so does a neuronal impulse that represents a leprechaun.

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

So we can say that for the "existence of god" to take place we have to have neuronal transmitters and receivers just as there must be these physical elements for us to say that "anything exists" or for us to "experience anything".

Right. But then it is only an inner experience, like one can experience different things based on drugs, etc. It is a subjective experience.

 

[baywax]

Right. But then it is only an inner experience, like one can experience different things based on drugs, etc. It is a subjective experience.

Experience (in humans) requires the physiology of a nervous system. Each individual's nervous system will process an event differently and that's what makes the interpretation of the event "subjective".

Maybe that's why so many people say "may your god go with you". Because there are as many "god experiences" as there are people.

 

[heusdens]

Experience (in humans) requires the physiology of a nervous system. Each individual's nervous system will process an event differently and that's what makes the interpretation of the event "subjective".

Maybe that's why so many people say "may your god go with you". Because there are as many "god experiences" as there are people.

The way the nervous centre interprets outside stimuli, like for example seeing a colour or hearing a sound, would for the same reason also be "subjective", although we have every reason to say that there is an objective cause for this.

 

[baywax]

The way the nervous centre interprets outside stimuli, like for example seeing a colour or hearing a sound, would for the same reason also be "subjective", although we have every reason to say that there is an objective cause for this.

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

To begin with we use crossreferences between observers and then back those observations up with readings from instruments. But, there remains the subjectivity of our observations of these readings and of other people's observations. These are all interpretations of stimuli.

Mars was once populated with "canals" and there was no dispute about that until much later. It appears that conclusions should remain tentative and that they should leave room for future discovery and understanding.

 

[heusdens]

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

That is not what I said, I said there is an objective cause for them.
The light emitted or sound emitted.

To begin with we use crossreferences between observers and then back those observations up with readings from instruments. But, there remains the subjectivity of our observations of these readings and of other people's observations. These are all interpretations of stimuli.

That is some speculation. You mean our thoughts are "forever" unknowable, except for the mind thinking them?
I hold the position that is not the case.

Mars was once populated with "canals" and there was no dispute about that until much later. It appears that conclusions should remain tentative and that they should leave room for future discovery and understanding.

That is correct. Our understanding of the world is never complete.

 

[mosassam]

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

The stimuli can be objective, not the interpretation.
In the last few posts there has been the assumption that mind is a product of brain. If it can be demonstrated that brain may be a product of mind, would this not qualify as an indicator of the existence of god?
Baywax -"...when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse". Conversely, the neuronal impulse could be a manifestation of god's existence.
Heusdens -"...the experience of there being a god, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic reason to exist". Conversely, our brains could be physical manifestations of god's existence.
This line of thinking derives from Bohm's implicate/explicate order, where the known, physical universe (explicate order) is an extension, or product of, an implicate order.
I put this forward simply as an alternative way of looking at things.

 

[mosassam]

That is some speculation. You mean our thoughts are "forever" unknowable, except for the mind thinking them?

I hold the position that is not the case.

Thoughts can be communicated in a variety of ways but, for you or anyone else, my experience of my thoughts is "forever" unknowable, until we can physically demonstrate otherwise (I think...?)

 

[mosassam]

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

Why do you say that at this point there is no god? Surely when we have stripped away all thought, including "I", "us", "them" etc., the remainder can be considered to be god, can it not?

 

[baywax]

Surely when we have stripped away all thought, including "I", "us", "them" etc., the remainder can be considered to be god, can it not?

There won't be any consideration of the remainder because "consideration" requires a nervous system.

 

[heusdens]

Thoughts can be communicated in a variety of ways but, for you or anyone else, my experience of my thoughts is "forever" unknowable, until we can physically demonstrate otherwise (I think...?)

Thoughts exist in the physical sense as brain electrical/chemical activity, so they are not outside knowledge, I assume.

 

[baywax]

Thoughts exist in the physical sense as brain electrical/chemical activity, so they are not outside knowledge, I assume.

I wanted to address some of your earlier comments but this one helps to show what I'm trying to say.

Like I said in an earlier post the internal brain activity (thoughts) we have also act as stimulus on other parts of the same brain. So do the communicated thoughts of other people. So, we will pick up this idea of a god by word of mouth or by written word. The idea acts as a stimulus upon our nervous system. There is a continuous building of the idea of a god and it takes on a "life" of its own. Pretty soon we're attributing all creation to this stimulus that started as the repeated, subjective opinion of other people and the repeated responses of specificly signatured neurons in our nervous system.

These neurons are "signatured" in such a way that their behavior has been modified to react by identifying certain features in the environment as "god". This may be the whole environment and may be a toasted cheese sandwich. It may be the way the wind blows or the clouds form and it may be the way one's hormones make one feel at a certain time.

I think what drives this need to create a god or an ultimate creator - controller is fear of the unknown.

We'd rather make up some grand illusion of an omnipotent being that takes care of all our business; we'd rather do that than allow our lives to be at the mercy of the unknown. In doing so, nature is even more obscured by the constraints of our dogma and nature becomes an even greater unknown (if possible) than before we had "god".

 

[baywax]

That is not what I said, I said there is an objective cause for them.
The light emitted or sound emitted.

Sorry, yes, there is an objective cause for light or sound being emitted. But, how do we arrive at this conclusion? With subjective analysis.

That is some speculation. You mean our thoughts are "forever" unknowable, except for the mind thinking them?
I hold the position that is not the case.

I'm not going to that extreme. I'm just saying that, like a snowflake, each thought is different and therefore should be subjected to scrutiny when compiled as part of a poll or a study. This is where the threads on ontology are fascinating. There needs to be a central Ontological site where the wording of every study is carefully scrutinized for flaws and/or subjective uses.

Our understanding of the world is never complete.

This is a good thing by my estimation. The unknown allows for maximum potential. 100%. Any alternative is a trap and rather boring.

 

[imaplanck]

I wanted to address some of your earlier comments but this one helps to show what I'm trying to say.

Like I said in an earlier post the internal brain activity (thoughts) we have also act as stimulus on other parts of the same brain. So do the communicated thoughts of other people. So, we will pick up this idea of a god by word of mouth or by written word. The idea acts as a stimulus upon our nervous system. There is a continuous building of the idea of a god and it takes on a "life" of its own. Pretty soon we're attributing all creation to this stimulus that started as the repeated, subjective opinion of other people and the repeated responses of specificly signatured neurons in our nervous system.

These neurons are "signatured" in such a way that their behavior has been modified to react by identifying certain features in the environment as "god". This may be the whole environment and may be a toasted cheese sandwich. It may be the way the wind blows or the clouds form and it may be the way one's hormones make one feel at a certain time.

I think what drives this need to create a god or an ultimate creator - controller is fear of the unknown.

We'd rather make up some grand illusion of an omnipotent being that takes care of all our business; we'd rather do that than allow our lives to be at the mercy of the unknown. In doing so, nature is even more obscured by the constraints of our dogma and nature becomes an even greater unknown (if possible) than before we had "god".

I totally agree. I'm just wondering why you expect the described mindset(itself) to comprehend this?

 

[mosassam]

There won't be any consideration of the remainder because "consideration" requires a nervous system

?
Does not compute.

 

[mosassam]

Thoughts exist in the physical sense as brain electrical/chemical activity,

Thoughts do not exist as electrical/chemical activity, that's like saying a ship exists as its wake. A thought is a thought. Electrical/chemical activity is electrical/chemical activity.

 

[mosassam]

I think what drives this need to create a god or an ultimate creator - controller is fear of the unknown.

Your need to have god neatly explained also seems to be driven by fear of the unknown. I'm sure you have a far more noble explanation but I imagine that if you look closely you will see that this may indeed be the case.

 

[baywax]

?
Does not compute.

The "remainder" implies that there would exist no semblance of a nervous system to consider the "remainder". So, how can the remainder be considered "god" if there is no remaining nervous system to conceive of this?

Your need to have god neatly explained also seems to be driven by fear of the unknown. I'm sure you have a far more noble explanation but I imagine that if you look closely you will see that this may indeed be the case.

I seek to explain why there is the concept of a god. I am not attempting to explain the concept itself other than to say that it is a product of a nervous system constructing a hedge against the natural occurrence of the fear of the unknown. There is no other explanation, in my opinion.

 

[fedorfan]

I seek to explain why there is the concept of a god. I am not attempting to explain the concept itself other than to say that it is a product of a nervous system constructing a hedge against the natural occurrence of the fear of the unknown. There is no other explanation, in my opinion.

End of thread. As far as we know god is simply an idea started to explain the unknown and get peoples` hopes up about what happens after we die. Basically we have no idea what happens after death and it is complete oblivion to us right now.

 

[mosassam]

The "remainder" implies that there would exist no semblance of a nervous system to consider the "remainder". So, how can the remainder be considered "god" if there is no remaining nervous system to conceive of this?

In my post I basically asked "If all thought is stripped away, including any form of Identity, could what remains be considered god?". The 'considering' should be done by yourself (or whoever may be interested in the post), not by the subject stripped of all thought. What I mean by god in this sense relates to the Buddhist/Taoist state of 'universal awareness' that some claim occurs once this thought-free state has been achieved. I would agree, from personal experience, that the less one thinks, the more aware/attentive one can be. To be stripped of thought does not mean 'to disappear', on the contrary, I would say it means 'to reappear'.
I do not understand the statement about there being 'no semblance of a nervous system' simply because thought no longer exists. Doesn't simple awareness require a nervous system?

I seek to explain why there is the concept of a god. I am not attempting to explain the concept itself other than to say that it is a product of a nervous system constructing a hedge against the natural occurrence of the fear of the unknown. There is no other explanation, in my opinion.

It seems obvious (maybe I am wrong) that you begin all your thoughts on this subject with the assumption that 'god is a concept'. I would neither agree nor disagree. And you conclude "there is no other explanation", in your opinion. For the sake of exploration I would tentatively like to put forward the possibility of another explanation.
In trying to explain the (experimentally proven) phenomena of non-local correlations that exist in quantum theory, thanks to Bell's Theorem, David Bohm posited implicate order. In his model, the known universe, space-time, matter, energy, etc. he refers to as explicate order. Every aspect of explicate order can be viewed as an extension or manifestation of implicate order. Non-spatio-temporal implicate order permeates everything, and all the physical laws of the universe can be seen as explicate manifestations of implicate order. In this scenario everything gets turned around. The evolution that has led to the brain and nervous system (as well as everything else) has been specifically guided by implicate order (this would also appear to be an explanation for, not only nonlocal correlations, but the Anthropic Principle).
The possibility now emerges that (to use a snappy slogan) brain did not create mind, mind created brain.
Perhaps