God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Universe_Man
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the philosophical implications of God's existence, questioning whether the binary of existence versus non-existence is adequate for understanding an omnipotent being. Participants explore concepts like ignosticism, which suggests that discussions about God's existence may be meaningless without a clear definition of existence itself. They reference philosophical ideas, such as those from Stoicism, that propose different categories of reality, including things that "subsist" rather than "exist." The conversation also touches on the nature of abstract concepts, like numbers and colors, and how they relate to existence.Some argue that the existence of God could transcend traditional definitions, suggesting a "grey area" in understanding reality. Others emphasize the importance of empirical evidence and the limitations of human perception in defining existence. The dialogue reflects a mix of skepticism and curiosity about the nature of reality, the universe, and the divine, ultimately highlighting the complexity of the question of God's existence and the human desire for understanding and meaning.
  • #181
baywax said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #183
baywax said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #184
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
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 :!)
 
  • #186
moe darklight said:
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.
 
  • #187
baywax said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
6K
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K