God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Universe_Man
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of God's existence, questioning whether traditional binary classifications of existence and nonexistence are adequate. Participants consider various philosophical perspectives on existence, including the implications of God's role as a creator and the potential for alternative categories of being beyond conventional definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that labeling God as existing or not existing may be meaningless, suggesting a potential grey area or new category beyond these definitions.
  • Others argue that limiting God to existing or nonexisting contradicts the nature of an omnipotent being.
  • A participant introduces the concept of ignosticism, asserting its validity in this context.
  • One viewpoint discusses the Stoic distinction between things that "exist" and those that "subsist," suggesting that abstract concepts may have a different status than physical entities.
  • Questions are raised about the existence of non-physical entities, such as gravity, colors, and numbers, and whether they can be said to exist in the same way as physical objects.
  • Some participants challenge the idea that existence can be clearly defined, suggesting that our understanding of existence itself is limited and potentially flawed.
  • A later reply questions the confidence in the existence of gravity and space, proposing that our definitions of existence may need reevaluation.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of perceiving existence through human cognition and whether this leads to confusion about what can be considered real.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of existence, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the inadequacy of binary classifications, while others maintain differing perspectives on the implications of these ideas.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited to exploring the philosophical implications of existence without reference to specific religious doctrines. Participants acknowledge the complexity and potential confusion surrounding the definitions and categories of existence.

  • #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
7K
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · 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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
718
Replies
2
Views
2K