God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[baywax]

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?


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

I'd suggest that the answer to the dilema is that you can't arrive at the idea of a brain without one of its products _ the mind.
And you can't arrive at the idea of a mind without the physiological features offered by the brain. These conditions support one another simultaneously and thus appear similar to quantum theory. Paralleling neruophysiology with quantum physics probably still has a long way to go before proving to be educational.

 

[mosassam]

I'd suggest that the answer to the dilema is that you can't arrive at the idea of a brain without one of its products _ the mind.

1) Dilemma? What dilemma?
2) My post doesn't seek an answer, I simply offered a possible alternative to your own view.
3) Your own view being firmly that mind is a product of brain - "the idea of a brain without one of its products _ the mind."
I do agree that you can't have the idea of a mind without a mind.

 

[baywax]

1) Dilemma? What dilemma?

The dilemma is contained in the question "what came first the mind or the brain?"

I do agree that you can't have the idea of a mind without a mind.

You're leaving out the rest of my answer.

"And you can't arrive at the idea of a mind without the physiological features offered by the brain."

So, what came first?

Well, let's look at the evolution of the nervous system in mammals because I think that is where we'll find the answer. Mind seems to only become a product of the nervous system with the evolutionary development of the primates.

We could speculate that Ceteceans also have produced a condition not dissimilar to the "mind" (with their very large brains) but proving this idea is difficult. I wonder if whales and dolphins have concocted the idea of a god out of fear of the unknown?

Its doubtful.

 

[mosassam]

Well, let's look at the evolution of the nervous system in mammals because I think that is where we'll find the answer. Mind seems to only become a product of the nervous system with the evolutionary development of the primates.

Would you agree that evolution can be seen, in a general sense, as the gradual emergence of ever increasing systems of complexity?
In the 'orthodox' view of evolution a system builds on a previous one, incorporating it but also adding to it and in the process, transforming it.
Would you agree that this 'orthodox' view can be seen, again in a very simplistic way, as adding to basic building blocks over an immense period of time until the profound complexity of the human nervous system has been achieved?
In this model it could be said that evolution is 'driven from behind' or 'built from the ground up'. In this model it would appear that the mind is a product of the nervous system, in that only when the requisite complexity of matter is achieved (ie: the creation of a suitably sophisticated nervous system) can mind come into being.
If you agree, disagree or would like to modify this simple model please let me know and I will try to develop an alternative model that offers the possibility that mind creates the brain.
(I need the breathing space to gather my thoughts)

 

[baywax]

Would you agree that evolution can be seen, in a general sense, as the gradual emergence of ever increasing systems of complexity?
In the 'orthodox' view of evolution a system builds on a previous one, incorporating it but also adding to it and in the process, transforming it.
Would you agree that this 'orthodox' view can be seen, again in a very simplistic way, as adding to basic building blocks over an immense period of time until the profound complexity of the human nervous system has been achieved?
In this model it could be said that evolution is 'driven from behind' or 'built from the ground up'. In this model it would appear that the mind is a product of the nervous system, in that only when the requisite complexity of matter is achieved (ie: the creation of a suitably sophisticated nervous system) can mind come into being.
If you agree, disagree or would like to modify this simple model please let me know and I will try to develop an alternative model that offers the possibility that mind creates the brain.
(I need the breathing space to gather my thoughts)

I'd agree in so far as to say that there are evolutionary pre-cursors to the nervous system that we have in mammals today. The pre-cursors have been improved upon through natural selection.

Complexity, on the other hand, is a topic for a different thread.

So if you are going to present a model that shows:

how thoughts may have created the brain

then I'll ask that you also show how:

filtration produces livers and kidneys.

hunger produces the stomach

vision produces the eyes

music has produced ears

typing has produced fingers

the concept of a god produced a universe

and how

a former democratic vice-president invented the internet

 

[Moridin]

Strictly from a scientific viewpoint, the brain came before the mind as in allowing organisms to act on their environment, not just react.

 

[mosassam]

So if you are going to present a model that shows:

how thoughts may have created the brain

then I'll ask that you also show how:

filtration produces livers and kidneys.

hunger produces the stomach

vision produces the eyes

music has produced ears

typing has produced fingers

the concept of a god produced a universe

and how

a former democratic vice-president invented the internet

Hmmm.
How, indeed, did typing produce fingers? I will have to think about that one for a long time. I hadn't even considered it. I now see the foolishness of my ways.
PS: I don't recall at any time trying to offer the alternative possibility that thoughts create the brain!

 

[mosassam]

Strictly from a scientific viewpoint, the brain came before the mind as in allowing organisms to act on their environment, not just react.

I'm not disagreeing, but David Bohm offers a possible alternative in his work on Implicate Order. I do feel it important not to discount all other possibilities as the road to dogma leads that way. A person should accoept what they find most plausible but there must be flexibility otherwise growth has no opportunity.
Possibly.

 

[baywax]

Hmmm.
How, indeed, did typing produce fingers? I will have to think about that one for a long time. I hadn't even considered it. I now see the foolishness of my ways.
PS: I don't recall at any time trying to offer the alternative possibility that thoughts create the brain!

Hi again. I don't mean to say your ideas are foolish.

In fact it can be construed that air produced lungs and light produced eyes and perhaps that chemoelectromagnetic activity actually produced the first photo sensitive chemicals and ganglia which are precursors to nerve cells.

This is because those elements in nature (air, fire, etc) are the elements that demanded adaptation to by a living organism. In this sense these basic elements are the cause of these survival mechanisms being in place in all living organisms.

The mind, on the other hand, is a product of one of the survival mechanisms, the brain. I am at a loss to explain how the thoughts, which are the constituents of the mind, can have been in place before the physiological construct of the brain.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

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

This is sure a natural outcome of the technique you had posted before. I 100% agree that god is manmade, but what makes this property to make god a myth or a nonexistent? Let's take the colour blue, The colour blue is manmade and has no precise definition or state of existence but its used to indicate a property of a real existent object, In other words a way to manifest something. As a result all manmade items are not necessarily nonexistent... Now god can be just another one of those manmade items.
Don't you think so?

 

[mosassam]

The mind, on the other hand, is a product of one of the survival mechanisms, the brain. I am at a loss to explain how the thoughts, which are the constituents of the mind, can have been in place before the physiological construct of the brain.

Once again you begin with the flat assertion that mind is a product of brain. I totally understand what you mean and I also understand why looking at it a different way can be incredibly difficult. On every single subject I have learned not to have a hard and fast 'conclusion' for two reasons:
1) I don't know the complete truth about anything and never will.
2) I've found that having a conclusion about something stops me thinking about it.
I must stress that I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. In the last few posts I've been trying to offer a possible alternative, nothing more and certainly not the right alternative.
My thinking on this particular subject has two main influences - "The Web of Life", by Fritjof Capra and David Bohm's model of Implicate Order. In The Web, Capra brings together strands of cutting edge science to demonstrate three components of living systems - Structure, Pattern, Process. (the science comes from Ilya Prigogine - Dissipative Structures, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Verala - Autopoiesis, Hermann Haken - Laser Theory and others)
Basically he demonstrates that Structure (the components of a living system) appear to be secondary to Pattern (the total configuration of all relationships that exist between the components). The most difficult aspect of this to grasp is that Pattern not only exists independently of Structure (see work on feedback loops) but "guides" it. Evolving Structures reach into existence in ever complex ways to "fulfill" (wrong word but I'm stuck) a pre-existent Pattern. Similarly, David Bohm posits Implicate Order. The universe we see (including the nervous system that does the seeing), all matter, energy, spacetime etc. he refers to as Explicate Order. Implicate Order (ie: the set of all physical laws known and unknown) creates, guides and moulds all Explicate Order. His model explains nonlocal correlations and the Anthropic Principle.
Note, models = models. The science behind both of these models seems as valid as anything else and so can be viewed as a possible alternative.
From these sources I find it possible to view the evolution of matter as being a product of the universal laws that govern everything. The laws do not depend on the matter, but the matter certainly depends on the laws. Or maybe it's god.

 

[baywax]

Once again you begin with the flat assertion that mind is a product of brain. I totally understand what you mean and I also understand why looking at it a different way can be incredibly difficult. On every single subject I have learned not to have a hard and fast 'conclusion' for two reasons:
1) I don't know the complete truth about anything and never will.
2) I've found that having a conclusion about something stops me thinking about it.
I must stress that I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. In the last few posts I've been trying to offer a possible alternative, nothing more and certainly not the right alternative.
My thinking on this particular subject has two main influences - "The Web of Life", by Fritjof Capra and David Bohm's model of Implicate Order. In The Web, Capra brings together strands of cutting edge science to demonstrate three components of living systems - Structure, Pattern, Process. (the science comes from Ilya Prigogine - Dissipative Structures, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Verala - Autopoiesis, Hermann Haken - Laser Theory and others)
Basically he demonstrates that Structure (the components of a living system) appear to be secondary to Pattern (the total configuration of all relationships that exist between the components). The most difficult aspect of this to grasp is that Pattern not only exists independently of Structure (see work on feedback loops) but "guides" it. Evolving Structures reach into existence in ever complex ways to "fulfill" (wrong word but I'm stuck) a pre-existent Pattern. Similarly, David Bohm posits Implicate Order. The universe we see (including the nervous system that does the seeing), all matter, energy, spacetime etc. he refers to as Explicate Order. Implicate Order (ie: the set of all physical laws known and unknown) creates, guides and moulds all Explicate Order. His model explains nonlocal correlations and the Anthropic Principle.
Note, models = models. The science behind both of these models seems as valid as anything else and so can be viewed as a possible alternative.
From these sources I find it possible to view the evolution of matter as being a product of the universal laws that govern everything. The laws do not depend on the matter, but the matter certainly depends on the laws. Or maybe it's god.

Maybe it's the laws of nature, known, partially known and totally unknown.

You may be referring to fractal patterns that are so prevalent in nature or at least, we see it that way, how matter follows the patterns that are found in nature.

But, here we again rely upon our perception of nature ie: we can project a pattern onto how nature performs. We tend to see patterns and then, mathematically, justify them. This is no guarantee that what we perceive to be going on is actually going on. As Niels Henrik David Bohr said

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. "

 

[mosassam]

This is no guarantee that what we perceive to be going on is actually going on.

Wise words indeed. As you say, we can project patterns onto nature or maybe we percieve that patterns exist independently of matter. At the moment this, for me at least, seems like an interesting issue and one I will certainly be trying to understand more deeply.

 

[baywax]

Wise words indeed.

As you say, we can project patterns onto nature or maybe we percieve that patterns exist independently of matter. At the moment this, for me at least, seems like an interesting issue and one I will certainly be trying to understand more deeply​

.

I think we can attribute Niels Henrik David Bohr with the wisdom and me with the partial ability to use google and a keyboard.

 

[baywax]

Couple years ago I found the Truth:

I am creating God;
God is creating me.

What is god in your own words?

 

[heusdens]

This is sure a natural outcome of the technique you had posted before. I 100% agree that god is manmade, but what makes this property to make god a myth or a nonexistent? Let's take the colour blue, The colour blue is manmade and has no precise definition or state of existence but its used to indicate a property of a real existent object, In other words a way to manifest something. As a result all manmade items are not necessarily nonexistent... Now god can be just another one of those manmade items.
Don't you think so?

Yes, it sure is. And for that same reason (since god is then purely and solely a manmade conception) there can't be a god that supposedly created nature and man.

Outside of the idea of god, there is no god.

 

[mosassam]

Outside of the idea of god, there is no god.

I have been told that the onus of proof rests on those who make the assertions.

 

[baywax]

Outside of the idea of god, there is no god.

That's like saying "outside of the idea of law, there is no law". Law is purely defined by relative perception. But the effects of this idea extend into the farthest reaches of society and are now highly influencial and considered "real". Similarily with the idea of god. Similarily with the idea of "wealth". Similarily with most ideas that have become accepted as real functioning parts of society. Does this diminish their significance in relation to human function and malfunction?

I think the question could be

"what vestigial remains of ideas from our considerably long past can we discard of without harming society?" (ie: "god")

 

[moe darklight]

In the beginning there was Man. Then, Man, in all his wisdom, created God, who created man.

 

[mosassam]

I'm not sure if anyone has bothered defining God. How about "the universe, everything in it, including all interactions"? It may then be possible to argue that God created itself (how could the universe create itself without using that which "is" itself). Or, it can be viewed as a total consciousness, the contents of which may be energy/matter. Maybe God can be defined as a "Supreme State of Being" as opposed to a "Supreme Being". God would be unaware of itself as it "is" Awareness, it would not think as it "is" Thought, in a way it would not even exist as it "is" Existence. Or maybe God is an old bearded dude with a crap sense of humour. Whatever the case, some people on this thread seem very hasty in denouncing the existence of God without bothering to define what it is they are denouncing. This smacks of dodgy methodology. Unfortunately, it may be the case that the best you can do is to qualify everything by saying "In my opinion ..." rather than "this is the case."

 

[heusdens]

I'm not sure if anyone has bothered defining God. How about "the universe, everything in it, including all interactions"? It may then be possible to argue that God created itself (how could the universe create itself without using that which "is" itself). Or, it can be viewed as a total consciousness, the contents of which may be energy/matter. Maybe God can be defined as a "Supreme State of Being" as opposed to a "Supreme Being". God would be unaware of itself as it "is" Awareness, it would not think as it "is" Thought, in a way it would not even exist as it "is" Existence. Or maybe God is an old bearded dude with a crap sense of humour. Whatever the case, some people on this thread seem very hasty in denouncing the existence of God without bothering to define what it is they are denouncing. This smacks of dodgy methodology. Unfortunately, it may be the case that the best you can do is to qualify everything by saying "In my opinion ..." rather than "this is the case."

Definitions of God vary from one religion to another.

Defining God as all being (the universe) is problematic in the sense that the universe is not a consciouss being.
[ (please consider : of what can the universe be consciouss off? ]

 

[baywax]

please consider : of what can the universe be consciouss off? ]

Itself. If humans are part of the universe then the universe has consciousness.

 

[Moridin]

Itself. If humans are part of the universe then the universe has consciousness.

That depends on if you define the Universe as an independent entity or not.

 

[baywax]

That depends on if you define the Universe as an independent entity or not.

By definition (Oxford Dictionary):

universe |?yo?n??v?rs| noun ( the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the big bang about 13 billion years ago.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French universe or Latin universum, neuter of universus ‘combined into one, whole,’ from uni- ‘one’ + versus ‘turned’ (past participle of vertere).

universe noun 1 the physical universe cosmos, macrocosm, totality; infinity, all existence, Creation; space, outer space, firmament.

This should clear up any discrepancy.

It is an indisputable fact that the universe has evolved an awareness of itself.

 

[heusdens]

That depends on if you define the Universe as an independent entity or not.

independent of what?

 

[heusdens]

universe |?yo?n??v?rs| noun ( the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the big bang about 13 billion years ago.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French universe or Latin universum, neuter of universus ‘combined into one, whole,’ from uni- ‘one’ + versus ‘turned’ (past participle of vertere).

universe noun 1 the physical universe cosmos, macrocosm, totality; infinity, all existence, Creation; space, outer space, firmament.

The part I accented bold is really not a scientific truth at all, but a very persistent and very popular misconception.

The universe is not 'created' in the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is only about the notion that the universe was denser, hotter and smaller in the past, and does not claim that the universe started from a singularity.

General Relativity predicts it's own break down at the singularity and is known to be incomplete, since quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account.

 

[baywax]

The part I accented bold is really not a scientific truth at all, but a very persistent and very popular misconception.

The universe is not 'created' in the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is only about the notion that the universe was denser, hotter and smaller in the past, and does not claim that the universe started from a singularity.

General Relativity predicts it's own break down at the singularity and is known to be incomplete, since quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account.

I suggest you contact the publishers and writers of the Oxford Dictionary and either alert them to your opinion or become one of the Oxford Dictionary researchers/writers.

I will have to amend one of my own earlier statements however

rather than accepting the idea of "evolution" as a fact (considering the contraditions found between QM and GR) my statement should read

"It is an indisputable fact that the universe has an awareness of itself".

PS. note: nothing to do with the vestigial concept of a god. Relative to the topic I'd say the concept of a god could be replaced with the concept of "the universe".

 

[mubashirmansoor]

okey... Now after reading this long thread, after all those contributions, I'm confident that the existence of god is something weird. I'm not saying that god doesn't exists but taking it as our little knowledge about this whole universe.

But after all the idea of existence of a higher being isn't that bad from my point of view; it gives many people a psycological relief and can act as a very good reason for being good, Its not the matter of being good when deeply talking. It's the matter of being more than a number of atoms arranged in a specific way which makes us what we are, & the whole process being nothing more than a chance or a set of probabilities. God may or maynot exist, I really don't think that the existence of god from in depth philosophical or scientific points of view is necessary.

When we look at the phenomena of god from psycological point of view, its just perfect (I'm not taking the religious ideas into account, just the idea of god), Someone/Something perfect taking care of you, in your lonliest days when there is no one who you can count on... always with you, a perfect friend etc... This is not bad from psycological point of view. It will certainly stop many people from going crazy at some points.

I guess you all got what I mean, I'll be delighted to know your comments :)

 

[heusdens]

Itself. If humans are part of the universe then the universe has consciousness.

Nonsense!

Is the Earth aware of itself because humans live on it?

 

[Evo]

I calculated:
1 in 1300 people can have a real "connection" with God.
That's why God is the most difficult "subject".

Please explain what you mean and how you came up with those numbers. As it stands, it has no meaning.

 

[Evo]

It is an indisputable fact that the universe has evolved an awareness of itself.

No it's not an indisputable fact. Prove it

In other words don't make nonsense claims like this unless you have the ability to prove it.

 

[baywax]

No it's not an indisputable fact. Prove it

In other words don't make nonsense claims like this unless you have the ability to prove it.

Philosophically and objectively the proof is in the fact that humans have an awareness of the universe and humans are one component of the entire universe.

When a person demonstrates an awareness of their self they do so with one single component of their entire body which is their brain. This is where I can say that the universe has developed an awareness of itself through one of its components which is the human species.

Now, there may be others with this ability but for now we humans are only aware of our own awareness of the universe.

 

[moe darklight]

Philosophically and objectively the proof is in the fact that humans have an awareness of the universe and humans are one component of the entire universe.

We may be aware of the universe, but we are not self-aware of the universe (and its processes), that is: we are aware of the universe in the same way that I am aware of you; I know you exist and know some things about you and the way you function, but I am not self-aware of you -- not in the same sense that your brain is aware of yourself.

so all you have proven is that the universe has developed awareness, not self-awareness.

 

[moe darklight]

Please explain what you mean and how you came up with those numbers. As it stands, it has no meaning.

How I explain it?
We have another “part of the body” in the 5th dimension (but not a Kaluza-Klein dimension).
This means the Superstrings theory is not correct.

yes, you have indeed disproved string theory with that one sentence:

e=mc^2 means that the energy that makes up our bodies and solar winds (?) somehow interact in a fifth dimension where space-time has a diameter of roughly 10-33 CM, giving us telekinetic abilities!

the only thing worse than religion, is religious science.

 

[light_bulb]

so are you saying you can't have both faith and logic but it's ok to have faith in logic?


p.s. you guys (girls too) are great :!)

 

[baywax]

We may be aware of the universe, but we are not self-aware of the universe (and its processes), that is: we are aware of the universe in the same way that I am aware of you; I know you exist and know some things about you and the way you function, but I am not self-aware of you -- not in the same sense that your brain is aware of yourself.

so all you have proven is that the universe has developed awareness, not self-awareness.

I'll admit that the idea of "self" is an anthropocentric concept and may not apply to the universe. If you're brain has a conscious awareness of every function in your body then you are truly self aware. But, I really doubt its true. This is why many functions in our bodies are deemed "autonomic". They are automatic functions that we are blissfully unaware of.

 

[moe darklight]

I'll admit that the idea of "self" is an anthropocentric concept and may not apply to the universe. If you're brain has a conscious awareness of every function in your body then you are truly self aware. But, I really doubt its true. This is why many functions in our bodies are deemed "autonomic". They are automatic functions that we are blissfully unaware of.

the conscious part of you brain is unaware of them, but the brain (or, rather, nervous system) is aware of almost everything that goes on in your body...

it's weird, but your brain knows more than what it tells you it knows. what you consider "self," is just the information that your brain is putting out at this point in time that it thinks is in need of more elaborate thinking... but millions of other things are going on in the background that the brain as a whole is aware of, but not the conscious parts of the brain (the parts that say "I am me"). ... there is no use in constantly having to think about breathing, swallowing, your endocrine system, blood-sugar levels, etc., it's best to keep those things in the background, and use our intellect for dealing with external stimulation or problem-solving situations -- so our brain has evolved to "keep those things to itself."

your brain may not be aware of what goes on a sub-cellular level, but it has a pretty good idea of what is happing throughout your body in each organ.
what is the hydra cluster doing right now? ... if we were self-aware of the universe as the brain is self-aware of us, my question wouldn't seem ridiculous.