God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is it about a rock that causes you to think it is conscious?

Note that it will have to be a measurable, repeatable, and objectively verifiable property.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

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.

I don't really understand what you mean by that, Wetness is actually an alternative name for liquid (isn't it? ) & that under suitable condition of tempreture and presure both Hydrogen & Oxygen can be liquified or in other words turn wet. Hence its the property of both.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

I actually can't find the answer to the following question;

How can there be a conscious being while its primary structure is made up of inconscious particels?

The answer to this question may clear the foggy sides of the thing.

 

[nannoh]

I actually can't find the answer to the following question;

How can there be a conscious being while its primary structure is made up of inconscious particels?

The answer to this question may clear the foggy sides of the thing.

Unconscous and unaware states only hold the potential to produce awareness. It is the combination of various states that can occur (over time and with evolution) that will produce the actualization of the potential for awareness.

Don't confuse potential with actualized potential.

Iron ore is not steel until certain conditions are met and certain states are combined. The same is true for awareness. Awareness cannot take place until certain conditions are met and specific combinations are brought together, which is what I wrote in one of my first contributions to this thread, (which has nothing to do with consciousness or awareness but has to do with something about "the existence of god".)

Another example is your poor spelling. Sometimes your spelling is very good. Sometimes it really isn't. You have the potential to be good at spelling but you are not.

Your potential for producing good spelling does not produce good spelling. Your potential to be aware of your spelling mistakes is only that, a potential. You have not actualized your potential to be aware of spelling mistakes and therefore your potential awareness is only a potential until actualized by combining specific criteria to do with awareness of spelling.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't really understand what you mean by that, Wetness is actually an alternative name for liquid (isn't it? ) & that under suitable condition of tempreture and presure both Hydrogen & Oxygen can be liquified or in other words turn wet. Hence its the property of both.

1] At room temperature? No. Surely you are not suggesting that water is composed of hydrogen as a liquid and oxygen as a liquid.

2] Water is a polar molecule, something that neither H nor O are in any form.

I actually can't find the answer to the following question;

How can there be a conscious being while its primary structure is made up of inconscious particels?

The answer to this question may clear the foggy sides of the thing.

Workin' on it...

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that there are phenomena that arise only from the combination of things, that none of the component parts have.


Wait, why are we going with something as ethereal as consciousness? What about life itself? By your logic, if complex collections of atoms can make plants and cows and people, that must mean the atoms themselves are alive. Are you suggesting atoms are living creatures?

 

[mubashirmansoor]

1] At room temperature? No. Surely you are not suggesting that water is composed of hydrogen as a liquid and oxygen as a liquid.

2] Water is a polar molecule, something that neither H nor O are in any form.




Workin' on it...

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that there are phenomena that arise only from the combination of things, that none of the component parts have.


Wait, why are we going with something as ethereal as consciousness? What about life itself? By your logic, if complex collections of atoms can make plants and cows and people, that must mean the atoms themselves are alive. Are you suggesting atoms are living creatures?

Not at all but hydrogen & oxygen have the potential to be liquid at really low tempretures.

For the polarity of water I had to go back and have a look at my chemistry books... Polarity can be described as the status in between ionic and neutral state of atom, hence large polarity is described as Ionic
So we may call polarity as a type of ion. Where both hydrogen and oxygen can be an ion as well.

& I'm not saying that combinations can't make something different from those of its primary particles, What I'm trying to say is that the outcome should have the properties of its primary particles say atoms. Not necessarily at the same environmental status. But a general property.

yes you are right this logic tells us that an atom has the property of being alive. But a vey very primary form of life.

So let's leave this aspect of conciousness at this point since you've realized what I mean by this whole logic.

After all How is it possible to answer this question;
How can there be something out of nothing?

 

[MajorComplex]

Personally I think god is a creation used to control population... I don't believe there is a god that made the universe in seven days. I do however believe in a higher life force.

 

[nannoh]

How can there be something out of nothing?

What is nothing?

You'll have to point it out because I don't see it anywhere.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Sure,
Lets say you are told to make a pie, & you are not allowed to use anything at all. Will you be able to make the pie?

 

[nannoh]

Sure,
Lets say you are told to make a pie, & you are not allowed to use anything at all. Will you be able to make the pie?

No. But, that doesn't explain anything, or nothing.

 

[fedorfan]

I don't know about atoms being alive or rocks being conscious, but we definitely came from somewhere. I don't know where we came from and I am not afraid to say I don't know, because, well, I really dont. We don't have much proof if any of an intelligent designer or evolution or both.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

No. But, that doesn't explain anything, or nothing.

Can't we define nothing as a nonexistent. Which doesn't exists at all?

 

[nannoh]

Can't we define nothing as a nonexistent. Which doesn't exists at all?

We can say anything we want. But that doesn't make what we say true. If there is more to the "concept of nothing" than just a "concept" then it cannot be defined since it does not exist. Sometimes we have to accept that there are "unknowable" conditions.

The concept of "zero" is Arabic

Arab contributions to mathematics and the introduction of the Zero
Regional, Science, 4/22/1998

Arab contributions to human civilization are noteworthy. In arithmetic the style of writing digits from right to left is an evidence of its Arab origin. For instance, the numeral for five hundred in English should be written as 005, not as 500 according to English's left-to-right reading style.

Another invention that revolutionized mathematics was the introduction of the number zero by Muhammad Bin Ahmad in 967 AD. Zero was introduced in the West as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century. Modern society takes the invention of the zero for granted, yet the Zero is a non-trivial concept, that allowed major mathematical breakthroughs.

Arab civilizations also made a great contribution to fractions and to the principle of errors, which is employed to solve Algebra problems arithmetically.

from
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html

I think what you are trying to qualify is the condition that may or may not have existed before the big bang. It is too speculative to suppose that there was "nothing" or "zero" before the big bang and it is too speculative to firmly acertain that there was a "big bang". There are only theories based on what we observe today with regard to these conditions and the theories apply, theoretically, to what happened 13.something billion years ago.

 

[PIT2]

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)

Are the electrons not already present in the hydrogen and oxygen molecules? If so, then what is the property that water has, but its molecules dont?

*Nevermind i see mubashirmansoor has already gone through this.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

We can say anything we want. But that doesn't make what we say true. If there is more to the "concept of nothing" than just a "concept" then it cannot be defined since it does not exist. Sometimes we have to accept that there are "unknowable" conditions.

Thats absoloutlty true, And as long as we don't have the reason for everything (atleast an idea) we'll have to believe in a superpower say God...

 

[Time is Unreal]

I will tell you this. I believe all things are "constant", and "present". In saying that, "all things" meaning matter, gravity, motion, energy, universe, anything you can fit in there. They and all things maybe, God exist in our present state. I think the whole perception of "time" throws us off when we are looking at how things came to be "present". I believe the only way is to stick with the facts. Deal with what is present, and try not too allow "time" to "confuse" us with what is real , and what is not. Perception of things plays a big part of what exists ,and what does not, and time could be looked at as just a mental measuring tool rather than actual one. Like a ruler for instance.
After saying that I will also give you my personal rather then scientific view is that, since you were throwing what if's; "What if" since all things are "present", and "constant" , and energy can not be created, nor destroyed then they always have been always will be, and thus is connected too eterninty meaning there is an association with God however your mind perceives him. If there is only a constant present it might be eternity, whether we can percieve in our mind or not. Long after this world is gone if ever, God forbid by the way, I think there will be a constant present no matter what type of life can, or cannot percieve the laws of physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well OK then.
10 char

 

[Time is Unreal]

Dave I know a lot of that sounds like babble but, I was throwing What if 's just to create some discussion about what we really do know. Maybe time as we know it is just another problem keeping us from the truth. If you have any physical proof of time and how it's can effect something like gravity other than using a clock hit the floor please explain, because I really would too understand the universe better. thx.

 

[heusdens]

Similiarly, we can ask if the set of all sets that contain themselves exist. Then we realize that we need a new set of axioms, because we've absolutely confused ourselves

You mean probably, wether the set of all sets that do not contain themselves exist, which is a famous paradox that lead to a revision of set theory to avoid these paradoxes.

 

[nannoh]

Thats absoloutlty true, And as long as we don't have the reason for everything (atleast an idea) we'll have to believe in a superpower say God...

I disagree.

As long as we don't have a reason for something we will be looking for one.

Some will fabricate the cause and some will investigate the cause. Fabricated reasoning will collapse on to its poorly fabricated support. Investigations will go on for centuries, with no assurances of finding a "reason' or cause.

 

[fedorfan]

I disagree.

As long as we don't have a reason for something we will be looking for one.

Some will fabricate the cause and some will investigate the cause. Fabricated reasoning will collapse on to its poorly fabricated support. Investigations will go on for centuries, with no assurances of finding a "reason' or cause.

Yeah, you arent really going to find a reason for anything. It all seems pretty pointless from our perspective, maybe when we die well have a new perspective and find out more things. Maybe.

 

[moe darklight]

why did god make creationists?

aha!

 

[nannoh]

It all seems pretty pointless from our perspective,

Actually, from our perspective the reason for everything is to support our progress. This, however, for the most part has been proven to be a correlative, egocentric delusion.

 

[moe_3_moe]

hey it is a great topic and i believe in the grey part not black or white ... i mean i can't say there is no god but i don't believe in religions ...

 

[nannoh]

i can't say there is no god

You just did.

 

[moe_3_moe]

ah yes ... goodpoint

 

[nannoh]

ah yes ... goodpoint

Any lightning strikes in your area round about now?!

 

[mubashirmansoor]

I disagree.

As long as we don't have a reason for something we will be looking for one.

Some will fabricate the cause and some will investigate the cause. Fabricated reasoning will collapse on to its poorly fabricated support. Investigations will go on for centuries, with no assurances of finding a "reason' or cause.

Well... But do you really mean that we can always find the reason for a specific problem... ?
I don't really want to opose your idea since it has been the same all the way upto this date, But its my personal opinion that at certain point we won't have the ability to go on anymore, to me it just sounds like "we can divide something into infinite pieces but we actually can't"

As I said, just my personal opinion...

 

[mosassam]

Did god create the universe or is he the universe? Why is it, if you don't know all the answers, then you must believe in something? What's the problem with just saying "I don't know"? Belief is possibly the most divisive and destructive force mankind has ever known. All wars and conflicts have belief at their core. Isn't belief in anything, including science, a way of handing over part of yourself to "something greater than yourself" - ie: not taking complete responsibility for your own life. How is this helpful?

 

[mubashirmansoor]

In that case are you actually saying that having theories is wrong since not yet proved?

 

[mosassam]

In that case are you actually saying that having theories is wrong since not yet proved?

Hi mubashirmansoor, I'm not sure if this is a response to my post or something earlier. Just in case it is to mine - I'm not saying anything is wrong.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Hello mosassam, It was actually a response to your post, sorry for not indicating...

In that case, the presence of god can called a theory... Not yet proved...

 

[mosassam]

A theory can be simply an opinion or something that is testable, something that can incorporate facts and make predictions. I'm not sure what you mean by theory but I find it hard to concieve how you can realistically test for god

 

[mubashirmansoor]

By somehow trying to capture the light emited from the Earth about 3000-5000 years back and to check out if mosses, jesus or Muhammad ever talk with their gods... :)

 

[mosassam]

I did write the word 'realistically' in bold type, and I'm not sure that your suggestion fits into that category.

 

[ray b]

is god dead?
could a god be mortal?

if you think there was a creator
why does such a being need to continue to exist
after the creation is done?

how would a dead creator be different from
one who got bored and no longer cares
or one who is busy on new different projects elsewhere
and has no time for finished work

BTW I don't believe in fairytales
but why must a god live forever

and or could a ''god'' be a random act
by a passing alien that creates life
without intent
like a bit of trash tossed out

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Lets not forget that the whole topic of god is man made and that we really can't prove its existence using any experiment... It's the logic which can prove if its yes or no...

So... yes you are right it was wrong to say theory, but hypothesis will go :)

 

[mosassam]

Wow Ray, that's so totally deep! Untold bro.

 

[mosassam]

It's the logic which can prove if its yes or no...

Logic can't actually prove anything, it's just a mechanism. Give it a premise, wind it up and let it go. And hypothesis is pretty much the same as wild guess. Here's a hypothesis for you - about 99.99% of people who believe in god do so because their parents do. If correct, what can this hypothesis tell us about programming/conditioning?

 

[mubashirmansoor]

is god dead?
could a god be mortal?

if you think there was a creator
why does such a being need to continue to exist
after the creation is done?

how would a dead creator be different from
one who got bored and no longer cares
or one who is busy on new different projects elsewhere
and has no time for finished work

BTW I don't believe in fairytales
but why must a god live forever

and or could a ''god'' be a random act
by a passing alien that creates life
without intent
like a bit of trash tossed out

I don't really believe in what you say about fairy tales...
As a reply I would like to qoute a sentence from Avvaiyar:

What we have learned is like handfull of earth;
What we have yet to learn is like the whole world

As a result from my point of view its too early to say what you said...