God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[navneet1990]

i kinda don't understand what you mean by smoke and dust
what do you mean by that??

 

[daveb]

I personally don't care what a person wishes to believe in as long as it doesn't hurt them or the people around them. As long as it doesn't seep into politics or medicine or anything that will affect the decisions I make in my life or my loved ones. Once you cross that line, it is no longer ok. Your god cannot tell my god how I should live. Got it?

While I would agree with this in principle (I also don't care what a person wishes to believe), in all practicality I find it a pointless position to take (not that I would deny your right to take that position). Whether a person believes in a god or not, or even denies the possiblity of the existence of one, almost all decisions and actions a person makes are clouded and guided by their beliefs (religious or otherwise) and ideologies. After all, what prompted me to respond to this thread was not so much a belief/non-belief in a god, but an ideology that seeks truth.
Plus, there is the entire problem of competing ideologies. If one ideology proclaims that all believers must <insert favorite dogma here that has a possibility of hurting others> or suffer some punishment, then, one way or another, somebody gets hurt by the proclamation "...as long as it doesn't seep into politics or medicine..." Plus, as far as I'm concerned, religion = politics, but that's a discussion for an entirely different thread.

 

[daveb]

Oh, and to answer the OP question, I would think that if there is a third option, at this point in human existence, we are incapble of perceiving that level of abstraction just as we are incaple of perceiving what a four (spatial)dimensional object would look like in four dimensions. Our brains just aren't wired that way. If there is an afterlife, maybe then we might find out. Then again, if there isn't then we won't find out because we would be incapable of finding out.

 

[navneet1990]

daveb to your last post
i think you have not done a thorough study of religion then
its more a western view to religion that religion is politics
religion forces people to do all kinds of stuff against their will and all

what you said does make sense
but that what your talking about isn't religion anymore

one principle of religion that i believe in is that
religion is a selfish affair
you can't pray in groups or worship god in groups
you can only do it alone
when done alone
that is religion according to me
because you are accepting other opinions and then interpreting them in your own way an that way your giving birth to your own views and that's science
but when yur in a group
you can't do that
you can't reach god in a group
nor can anyone lead you to him
there are different paths
and your alone
its you who has to choose what to do

so i don't feel religion equals politics and all
religion is a totally 100% selfish affair
its a one on one direct correspondence with god
not a via this or via that correspondence with god
hence i believe the whole meaning of religion has been giving another dimesion and infact a very unscientific and stupid one

 

[daveb]

Religion does not force anyone to do anything. People still have a free will to either choose or not choose to follow what some religious figure may dictate.
What you describe as religion I more describe as faith. When I say religion, I mean the organized set of dogma, ritual, tradition, etc. that defines a particular religion (be it Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, etc.) - in other words, what anthropologists usually define as a religion. Faith, on the other hand, is how one individual person praqctices or ignores aspects of any particluar religion. Many people incorporate aspects of many religions into their faiths

 

[navneet1990]

well in the so called religions having vedic root there is no word as such ever been mentioned which means religion
the word which has been used to describ such faiths is known as DHARMA
which has a very complex meaning

ill try to explain its meaning although it cannot be explained in other languages

"Dharma (Sanskrit: धर्म) or Dhamma (Pāli: धमा) (Natural Law) refers to the underlying order in Nature and human behaviour considered to be in accord with that order. Ethically, it means 'right way of living' or 'proper conduct,' especially in a religious sense. With respect to spirituality, dharma might be considered the Way of the Higher Truths. Dharma is a central concept in religions and philosophies originating in India. These religions and philosophies are called Dharmic religions. The principal ones are Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Buddhism (Buddhadharma), Jainism (Jain Dharma) and Sikhism, all of which emphasize Dharma (the correct understanding of Nature) in their teachings. In these traditions, beings that live in accordance with Dharma proceed more quickly toward Dharma Yukam, Moksha or Nirvana (personal liberation)."


if we go by this then i think the religion you and i are talking about are completely different
by that i mean that
we must be able to define religion properly in order to debate on it

 

[nannoh]

But God's the creator of existence.

¡yeeeeowh!

 

[navneet1990]

i don't understand whta you mean by existence
because if you say that god created everything like by saying
"let there be creation"
then that's senseless because you can't create something out of nothing

 

[mubashirmansoor]

A very interesting question, if god exists or not but trying to answer this using riligion won't be very easy from my point of view.

Going back to the first page of this thread and about the existence of things like gravity or numbers etc... I'd say there is just no way to prove that what we know about the nature and its laws (derived by man) are true...
An example is the approach to gravity; Newton described it as a force and got extreamly good answers for the available models (planets at that time). While G.R of Einstein is talking about gravity as the geometrical property of the universe... As a general view both models gave us excellent answers while the way that they define gravity is 180 degrees different.

Lets not forget that human science is created with respect to the observations. On the other hand we can't really see everything hiding behind the curtains. its just a shadow. So our laws and science are just limited to that shadow.

I hope It was clear enough

When returning to the main question, I do believe in god as the creator not because of my religion but because of this short question which I couldn't answer : "How can there be conscious being in an inconscious universe"

It was the same question which lead the ancient greeks to believe in god.
In other words every single unit of god exists in our nearby "conciousness"
how can inconscious particles come together to form a conscious being like human?
I didn't know about the dharma but it somehow makes sense in my brain.
The study of Nature is the study of God.

Hence everything is conscious even the stone on the ground because there exists human which is conscious so there was the conscious power before the first object in the universe.

I'd be glad for any further comments.

 

[DaveC426913]

...you can't create something out of nothing

What makes you think so?

 

[nannoh]

"How can there be conscious being in an inconscious universe"

It was the same question which lead the ancient greeks to believe in god.
In other words every single unit of god exists in our nearby "conciousness"
how can inconscious particles come together to form a conscious being like human?

As far as I've figured out its a specific collection of minerals that has given rise to self awareness (which could be interpreted as consciousness).

Awareness is a synergy that has unwittingly been constructed by these specific minerals being combined that has allowed for the condition of awareness.

Once specific minerals were combined by specific conditions this was the beginning of life. Then life began to evolve in response to its interaction with the environment.

One of the steps in this evolution was life developing an awareness of itself. This was achieved because of the evolutionary development of a nervous system in living organisms. Organisms are a specific combination of minerals which came about due to specific conditions in the environment and because of the specific minerals that happened to be in a specific environment under the specific conditions that combined the minerals that began life.

There are still minerals that are not classified as life. They are without a nervous system and without an awareness of anything. That is the nature of evolution. Somethings get left behind in terms of development while some things advance along the evolutionary chain of events. As evolved combinations of minerals humans are no different or better than the minerals they have evolved out of, they just make more noise.

 

[navneet1990]

i would to a certain extent disagree to the earlier post

"these minerals are without nervous systems and without an awareness of anything.that is the nature of evolution."

i believe that the knowledge of the macro is contained in the micro and vice versa.
every body ,ever particle in this universe is aware of the other.
the knowledge of the universe is itself contained in that one particle.

it is only the apllication of this knowledge that defines one's superiority and distinguishes them from the others.

 

[nannoh]

i believe that the knowledge of the macro is contained in the micro and vice versa.
every body ,ever particle in this universe is aware of the other.
the knowledge of the universe is itself contained in that one particle.

it is only the apllication of this knowledge that defines one's superiority and distinguishes them from the others.

What you believe and what is true can be two very different things. Our interpretation of nature is only that; an interpretation, and not necessarily correct.

Our interpretations are a function of our nervous system. They are a product of our adaptation to the environment and have assisted in our survival as a species.

Correct or not, robust interpretations remain in tact because they have served to maintain the species. However, this does not make our interpretations any more exact than a jellyfish mistakenly interpreting a plastic bag as a viable mate.

 

[navneet1990]

general observation of the universe has proved what i mean to say

and that is the basis for yoga
" the yoga is based on such theories. the ATMA and the PARAMATMA are though different but they are at the same time the same thing.
the info of the PARAMATMA is contained in the ATMA and vice versa.
it is to realize this info and gain the ultimate knowledge of the PARAMATMA that is the goal of the ATMA,for the PARAMATMA is indeed the supreme. to help the ATMA find the PARAMATMA [i.e liberation] yoga is practiced.
the ATMA is the micro and the PARAMATMA the macro. the two are always aware of each other and that is the reason the people believe in god ,the ultimate knowledge,the PARAMATMA.when the knowledge is unearthed and the PARAMATMA is realized nirvana is obtained and the ATMA gets liberated."

what I've said is just probably a shabby way of saying the whole thing. I've not proved the theories that give such results because i myself am at present unable to comprehend them.

 

[nannoh]

general observation of the universe has proved what i mean to say

That's what I was going to say.

 

[navneet1990]

so what do you want to say??

 

[nannoh]

so what do you want to say??

General observation of the universe has proven what I say.

 

[navneet1990]

so that means you agree to what i have to say or not?

 

[webtry]

I think existence/nonexistance are valid categories only for our known world. thus we cannot say god exists or don't exist, both would be wrong. We cannot say/know anything "really" "true" about god, unless we take "god" as a product of human brain.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

As far as I've figured out its a specific collection of minerals that has given rise to self awareness (which could be interpreted as consciousness).

Awareness is a synergy that has unwittingly been constructed by these specific minerals being combined that has allowed for the condition of awareness.

Once specific minerals were combined by specific conditions this was the beginning of life. Then life began to evolve in response to its interaction with the environment.

One of the steps in this evolution was life developing an awareness of itself. This was achieved because of the evolutionary development of a nervous system in living organisms. Organisms are a specific combination of minerals which came about due to specific conditions in the environment and because of the specific minerals that happened to be in a specific environment under the specific conditions that combined the minerals that began life.

There are still minerals that are not classified as life. They are without a nervous system and without an awareness of anything. That is the nature of evolution. Somethings get left behind in terms of development while some things advance along the evolutionary chain of events. As evolved combinations of minerals humans are no different or better than the minerals they have evolved out of, they just make more noise.

Thats right as long as we are talking about Conciousness as a property of living things only.

Why should a stone be considered as an Inconscious object. Can you prove that a stone is abseloutly inconcious? It can be an extreamly less consious one relative to human.

Its not neccesary for an object to have Nervous system to be conscious
take sponges or even any single celled organism as an example, They don't have any nervous system but can still perform the activities to be called living. And our science of biology states every living thing is concious. If not it couldn't have survived.

If we take awareness as a specific combination of minirals under certain environmental conditions as you sugest, What are those conditions and which combinations? Observations have shown that living things can adapt themselves to whatever the environmental conditions are... Let's not forget life is extreame and never sensetive. Wile as far as I know that's the definition of life, & not necesarily conciousness.

But I still don't find the answer to my former question " why should there be conciousness when there exists no unconscious primary particle? "

About the previous posts done; I give you nothing and you are not use anything, can you make a cocklate pie?

It's a very interesting subject and I'll be really thankfull for informing my mistake so I can have rebuilt my knowledge

 

[nannoh]

so that means you agree to what i have to say or not?

You can see by my response to the idea that all matter has the faculty of awareness that I disagree with the supposition based on my general observations of the universe.

Our interpretations are a function of our nervous system. They are a product of our adaptation to the environment and have assisted in our survival as a species.

Correct or not, robust interpretations remain in tact because they have served to maintain the species. However, this does not make our interpretations any more exact than a jellyfish mistakenly interpreting a plastic bag as a viable mate.

 

[nannoh]

Its not neccesary for an object to have Nervous system to be conscious
take sponges or even any single celled organism as an example, They don't have any nervous system but can still perform the activities to be called living. And our science of biology states every living thing is concious. If not it couldn't have survived.

Plants and the single celled animals have a system from which the nervous system evolved.

Plants have basic chemicals that trigger changes when light hits them.

A key player (among many) in this process is the phytochrome pigment system in the leaves discovered in the 1950s, which is apparently the molecular machinery that detects the light effective in photo-periodism of higher plants (ignoring bacteria and fungi).

The phytochrome is believed to be a plant pigment that consists of a compound that is, according to scientific literature, one of the most intensely colored pigments found in nature. Phytochrome in seeds can "sense" even the dim light present deep beneath the surface of the soil as well as allow leaves to "perceive" moonlight. Another function of phytochrome is to make plants "aware" of gravity, inducing shoots to grow up and roots to grow down into the soil.

There is a similar mechanism found in single celled animals the difference being that the chemicals are different. But they are still in the range of being photosensitive and gravitationally sensitive chemicals. We simply have more of them and they have been specifically organized by natural selection over time to act as a neurological system.

Those specific compounds in phytoplankton and zooplankton and their predecessors formed the precursory systems and conditions that gave rise to the evolution of our neuronal nervous system.

Sorry, way off topic. Have a happy new year.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Plants and the single celled animals have a system from which the nervous system evolved.

Thats exactly what I'm trying to say,
Because an Atom is itself a system, which is the particle from which single celled organisms or even nervous system is evolved.

Please correct me if I'm having a misconception,

& A very Merry christmas and a happy New year For every one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why should a stone be considered as an Inconscious object. Can you prove that a stone is abseloutly inconcious? It can be an extreamly less consious one relative to human.

...
And our science of biology states every living thing is concious. If not it couldn't have survived.

You have a personally unique definition of consciousness, with which I would lay money that no serious biologist shares.

Prove to me an black is not an white and I'll prove to you that a rock is not conscious.

 

[DaveC426913]

" why should there be conciousness when there exists no unconscious primary particle? "

Why should water be wet, when neither oxygen nor hydrogen is wet?

As water is to H and O, so is consciousness to a bunch of organic chemicals.

 

[PIT2]

Why should water be wet, when neither oxygen nor hydrogen is wet?

As water is to H and O, so is consciousness to a bunch of organic chemicals.

Water being 'wet' is caused by the interpretation of our minds, right? (meaning that in objective reality, wetness is reducible to the properties H and O)

If we apply the same logic to our consciousness, doesn't this lead to the conclusion that consciousness requires a prior consciousness to exist, just like wetness requires our interpretation to exist?

 

[fedorfan]

This thread is getting pretty good, I doubt you use that for consciousness though. I am not sure what to add on here and its pretty confusing. We have no proof of god whatsoever right now yet we have fossils which would lead some to believe in evolution. I am not sure what to believe and just think that you really can't know about a god or afterlife until you experience. That means you really can't disprove god. I just choose agnosticism and hope for the best when I die. I don't get why a lot of people say agnosticism is for lazies, maybe we just see no point in arguing over stuff that we know nothing at all about and maybe never will.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

You have a personally unique definition of consciousness, with which I would lay money that no serious biologist shares.

Prove to me an black is not an white and I'll prove to you that a rock is not conscious.

No need to lay money for that Your words are enough, & that's why its being discussed in philosophy forum.

Ok now you know what makes me think that even an atom is concious, But I don't know what makes you and all other experts to have a different approach to conciousness, & I really really like to know that...

I'll be thankfull.

Since the definition of conciousness can have a lot of impact on the pressence of God.

In my point of view, Just that we can't see a stone walk, talk, eat, etc... doesn't makes it inconcious. The difference between human & stone might be infinte, but still concious.

 

[DaveC426913]

Water being 'wet' is caused by the interpretation of our minds, right? (meaning that in objective reality, wetness is reducible to the properties H and O)

No. The whole point is that water has properties** that neither hydrogen nor oxygen alone have. The properties result only from the combination.

** objectively, scientifically-definable properties, at the top of the list, that it is a polar molecule (which, incidentally, when combined with a few other properties make it unique in the universe in that it makes all life possible)

 

[DaveC426913]

... we have fossils which would lead some to believe in evolution...

A bit of an understatement. Centuries of science in a dozen fields have produced an overwhelming landslide of evidence that would take just as long to try to refute.