God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[Universe_Man]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

What if anything? If all you have is what ifs, that doesn't amount to much. If you have an actual idea for a condition that transcends existence/nonexistence lest's hear it.

 

[DaveC426913]

But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance?

Sounds to me like you're limiting God to exisiting...

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless?

Ignosticism is very valid.

 

[Lren Zvsm]

Although it is self-contradictory to ascribe existence and non-existence to X at the same given point in time, it might be interesting to talk about whether our yes-or-no concept of existence is adequate for describing reality.

For example, according to an article in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, ("Intentionality in Ancient Philosophy"), a Stoic named Chrysippus proposed that bodies which can act or be acted upon "exist" while things that can't act or be acted (as far as the Stoics knew) like
space, time, and abstract concepts "subsist." Things that subsist are not non-existent--the contents of the mind are real. So we have at least two categories of reality.

Conservative Christians think that God exists--he can act and be acted upon. As far as God having no body, neither does gravity, so the idea of bodiless agency is not a big problem for theism AFAICT.

Some liberal Christians, like Jung, believe that God is part of the psyche. God subsists rather than exists. This doesn't mean that God isn't real. God under this account is as real as the psyche.

 

[ModernBaroque]

Does gravity "exist"? What about the red color? Space? The number 5?

If we posit that in order for something to exist it must be part of the universe, can we say that the universe exists?

God certainly does not exist in any way we can conceive of things existing, because we don't really understand what existence is. To be fair, we cannot properly conceive of anything existing. We have no way to prove that anything exists at all, which shows how little we know about what exists and what doesn't.

 

[Loren Booda]

God is that without limits; lesser beings require "limits" to define "God."

 

[Evo]

Let's just remember that this discussion is limited to discussing the "possibility that something or things might have "x" qualities". Do not bring up specific religions, we do not allow religious discussion.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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

 

[Lren Zvsm]

in reply to Modern Baroque: Yes, gravity almost certainly exists. Its existence is inferred, rather than directly perceived, but the large range of real, tangible phenomena explained by this force/curvature of space justifies the near certainty about its existence.

The color red is an artifact of human categorical perception; our brains impose nice neat categories on continuous gradations of frequencies of sound and light, so we see distinct colors and hear distinct notes. However, since there is a range of frequencies that prompts the perception of a given color, and in any case, "red" exists phenomenologically, we can say that "red" exists.

We be confident about the existence of space for the same reasons that we are confident about the existence of gravity: modern physics theories, IIRC, ascribe properties to space that are empirically measurable, at least in principle.

Does the number 5 exist? Yes, but how it exists is darned hard to figure out. On one hand, the abstract concept "5" exists as information stored in human brains. On the other hand, in a universe that seems describable by rigorous mathematical models, how can quantities not be an objective part of the universe?

Speaking of the universe, there is some physical evidence for its existence, inasmuch as there is physical evidence for the Big Bang.

As for God not existing in any way that we can conceive of things existing *because* we don't know what existence is, this is a non-sequitor. If we have no concept of existence, it doesn't make sense to make a judgment about whether God exists or not.

As for the idea that "we have no way to prove whether anything exists or
not," I disagree. For instance, I think that the non-existence of philostigon, the ether, and mechanisms for Lamarkian evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists in the relevant fields.

This satisfaction falls short of absolute metaphysical certitude, but I submit that there are justified degrees of confidence in one's knowledge that lie between said certitude, which is not really needed for useful human inquiry, and epistemological nihilism, which anyone can arrive at by
insisting on arbitrarily stringent criteria for counting claims among those that we have a right to be reasonably sure about.

Lren

 

[ModernBaroque]

Yes, gravity almost certainly exists. Its existence is inferred, rather than directly perceived, but the large range of real, tangible phenomena explained by this force/curvature of space justifies the near certainty about its existence.

I agree with all that, except I think you have overlooked your own statement. You said gravity "almost certainly" exists. Why "almost"?

The color red is an artifact of human categorical perception

So are the people in our dreams. Do they exist?

our brains impose nice neat categories on continuous gradations of frequencies of sound and light, so we see distinct colors and hear distinct notes. However, since there is a range of frequencies that prompts the perception of a given color, and in any case, "red" exists phenomenologically, we can say that "red" exists.

Following that line of reasoning, we can establish that anything we can think of exists. Doesn't seem right to me.

We be confident about the existence of space for the same reasons that we are confident about the existence of gravity: modern physics theories, IIRC, ascribe properties to space that are empirically measurable, at least in principle.

You don't need physics theories to measure space, a ruler will do just fine. The question is, does space exist? Mind you, many people think space is made of "nothing". How can something made of nothing exist?

Does the number 5 exist? Yes, but how it exists is darned hard to figure out. On one hand, the abstract concept "5" exists as information stored in human brains. On the other hand, in a universe that seems describable by rigorous mathematical models, how can quantities not be an objective part of the universe?

Sure, but here is exactly where the problem is. We start out by thinking that only objects can exist. As we further explore the meaning of the word "exist", we find we are forced to accept that many things exist which we previously thought did not exist. There is a name for that situation, it's called confusion.

Speaking of the universe, there is some physical evidence for its existence, inasmuch as there is physical evidence for the Big Bang.

Most people think the universe is what it contains. It isn't. The word "universe" means something like "the collection of all things that exist". The universe is not a thing, it is a collection, and a collection is an abstract concept. It's quite possible that the universe does not exist, even though stars and planets do.

As for God not existing in any way that we can conceive of things existing *because* we don't know what existence is, this is a non-sequitor.

It's not a non-sequitur. If you don't know the exact meaning of a word, you can't establish the truth of a statement in which that word is used.

If we have no concept of existence, it doesn't make sense to make a judgment about whether God exists or not.

We have a concept of existence but it is a vague concept. Many people claim that God is a simplistic notion that stands for something beyond our ability to comprehend. If that is really what the word God means, then it does not really matter much whether God exists or not, because any assertion about God is ambiguous.

As for the idea that "we have no way to prove whether anything exists or not," I disagree. For instance, I think that the non-existence of philostigon, the ether, and mechanisms for Lamarkian evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists in the relevant fields.

I am quite confident those things, and many others, do not exist. But that is not what I'm talking about.

This satisfaction falls short of absolute metaphysical certitude, but I submit that there are justified degrees of confidence in one's knowledge that lie between said certitude, which is not really needed for useful human inquiry...

Agreed, except I don't think anyone here is concerned with useful human inquiry.

...and epistemological nihilism, which anyone can arrive at by insisting on arbitrarily stringent criteria for counting claims among those that we have a right to be reasonably sure about.

There are degrees to that. To question the existence of stones is not the same thing as questioning the existence of the number 5. You can be practical about the former but not about the latter. You can be perfectly justified dismissing people who don't believe in the existence of stones as lunatics, but you can't say the same about skeptics of the existence of numbers.

Going back to the original question, asserting or denying the existence of God is far from being a simple question that can be answered in a practical way.

 

[Lren Zvsm]

the existence of God

ModernBaroque’s quote: “I agree with all that, except I think you have overlooked your own statement. You said gravity "almost certainly" exists. Why ‘almost’?“

Because I think that human beings are too finite and fallible to reach absolutely indubitable conclusions.

Lren’s quote: ”The color red is an artifact of human categorical perception.”

ModernBaroque’s response: “So are the people in our dreams. Do they exist?”

Well, the people in our dreams aren’t artifacts of categorical perception. Categorical perception is the brain’s tendency to impose categorical structure onto perceptions of wave forms—sound or light. Sound frequency varies continuously, yet we hear distinct pitches. The frequencies of light from a rainbow vary continuously, yet our brains impose categories on them, so that we stripes of a small number of colors.

This is unrelated to the issue of how we characterize, ontologically, the occurrence of people-images in our dreams.

ModernBaroque quote: “Following that line of reasoning, we can establish that anything we can think of exists. Doesn’t seem right to me.
Mental events must exist in some sense; otherwise, it would be meaningless to claim that people experience mental events but doorknobs don’t. But it is important to distinguish concepts or imaginings that represent knowledge of actual physical entities and concepts or imaginings that do not.

ModernBaroque quote: “You don't need physics theories to measure space, a ruler will do just fine. The question is, does space exist? Mind you, many people think space is made of ‘nothing’. How can something made of nothing exist?”

Space isn’t nothingness. It has properties: curvature & virtual particles to name two. You do need modern physics to know that “space” is a thing and does have properties, and that most people are mistaken to believe otherwise. But even if space were a Newtonian void, it would still have properties, namely its dimensions (all three of them) and its extent (finite? infinite?).

ModernBaroque quote: “Sure, but here is exactly where the problem is. We start out by thinking that only objects can exist. As we further explore the meaning of the word "exist", we find we are forced to accept that many things exist which we previously thought did not exist. There is a name for that situation, it's called confusion.”

I will gladly concede to the fact that philosophy has not solved all of its problems. Sorry I can’t reply more intelligently, but I’d need to do a hell of a lot of research on metaphysics before I could.

ModernBaroque quote: “Most people think the universe is what it contains. It isn't. The word "universe" means something like "the collection of all things that exist". The universe is not a thing, it is a collection, and a collection is an abstract concept. It's quite possible that the universe does not exist, even though stars and planets do.”

I believe that you are mistaken. What I’ve heard about modern cosmology strongly suggests that the universe is a thing; that it had an initial state of zero space and infinite density; that it has since expanded and cooled; that it has anywhere from four to eleven dimensions, and that it may be spatially/temporally finite. Some interpretations of quantum theory suggest that there may be limitless numbers of them. Although there would not be a universe if there were no things in it, this does not change the fact that physical properties can be ascribed to the whole of it. Yes, we should attend to what physicists say about the universe when we explore its nature philosophically.

Yes, it’s possible to ignore physics and conceive of the universe as the name of a set of things. It is also possible to conceive of things as artificial divisions of a Great Continuity called the universe.
(I concede your point that we can’t tell whether God exists if we don’t have a clear concept of existence.)

ModernBaroque quote: “I don't think anyone here is concerned with useful human inquiry.”

I don’t think that anyone here is concerned with practical inquiry, but I count philosophy as a useful inquiry. If our thoughts are permeated with ideas about what is real, knowable, right, beautiful, etc., then a tradition that clarifies and elaborates on such important concepts—or at least identifies the mysteries that the said concepts suggest—is useful in my book.

ModernBaroque quote: “There are degrees to that. To question the existence of stones is not the same thing as questioning the existence of the number 5. You can be practical about the former but not about the latter. You can be perfectly justified dismissing people who don't believe in the existence of stones as lunatics, but you can't say the same about skeptics of the existence of numbers.”

In our modern world, belief in the number five is just as practical as the belief in stones. The belief is implicit in our school-day studies of mathematics, and in our everyday use of Arabic numerals, which denote numbers. What is more, the belief that stones don’t really exist is not considered irrational in certain philosophical and religious contexts. More than one religion includes that doctrine that the physical world (which includes stones) is illusory, and a young Bertrand Russell was not dismissed as a lunatic when he proposed that objects (including stones) were logical fictions, and that all that really existed were sense data. (He later abandoned Logical Atomism, but not for psychiatric reasons.)

IMO, it’s more accurate to say that, in a philosophy in which physics and metaphysics are considered to be more or less the same activity, the nature of the existence of numbers is more problematic than the nature of the existence of objects like stones.

ModernBaroque quote: “Going back to the original question, asserting or denying the existence of God is far from being a simple question that can be answered in a practical way.”

That may depend on whose God you believe in.

For example, suppose you believe in the personal God of evangelical Christianity (let’s call him God E). Asserting his existence is not that problematic: God E is the being who created the Earth in six days, did all the other things that the Bible said he did, and whose loving, all-powerful, and all-wise presence is evident to those who pray for his help. There’s nothing complicated about denying the existence of God E. One can even explain the denial by arguing that the Bible is not an accurate record and that putative perceptions of the presence of God are really imaginings. So too with other versions of God that allegedly leave cosmological, historical, and intra-psychic trails.

For the existence of God to be as problematic as the existence of numbers, the God in question must, like numbers, constitute or be manifest in very abstract properties of reality, such as the purpose of the universe, etc.

Lren

 

[Rade]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

The mathematic theory of the "grey" area you search for is found within a philosophy called "neutrosophy"--see here:http://www.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/404/burks/foldoc/86/79.htm . So, it may not be meaningless, IMO, to hold that "god exists and does not exist" is a truth statement.

 

[fedorfan]

There may be, heck there may be a grey area inside of a grey area. Theres so much we can ponder about the universe yet so little we can figure out. Everything is so weird if you really really think deep about what I am talking about. Yes, weed does help, very much so, I like philosophizing high because it generates deeper thought and let's you look at everything. Mostly everything is pretty meaningless when you go all the way back to it. I hope there's a god or atleast something in the afterlife, just anything. I hope we don't just die off and it goes back to nothingness after we die. I like beleiving in god though because it gives you something to look forward to. For right now I just have to rely on altering my reality as much as possible.

 

[1016]

well, such as esthetician would like to demonstrate the god in mankind (honestly, i like esthetics..)
however, actually god is nothing shape or which is to say nothing we could see..
dont you really think that u r belief in god then one day u can see/meet the god face? that ridiculous, god created everything mysterously and won't tell us anyway. hence, it is abstract.

in fact, what i say is based on my own religious ( just including my study range..)
likes other religion, the one who people believe most, admire most is the God.
but, what i think about the God is the Natural in this world and universe
God creates most of the elements which they are related everythings.

first of all, God creates lifes, life as a biology.
Life exist is to proof everything are valuable in this world. it is everything for us.
secondly, God create the emotion. chemistry as emotion.
everything that will react each other despite only lives we are noticeable.
thirdly, a behaviour or motion. as a physics.
you may realize nobody like a thing that won't chg at all, so God create motion. for example, time.
lastly, mathematics as a language. this is a God language that could deliver any meaning of geometrize on this universe.
and we using this language to communicate or decode what the hell that God wrote in this world.

After God created everything, he left us behind;
God has not teach or mention anything;
But, mother giving us a very special gift;
The power to find about the God creation;
That's right, our humans are trying to approach the God;
We discoveries anything we can to find the God;
That's why nobody is going to admire the God and we want to to become a godlike!
What I want, is to hunt up the burrow of the God with this brains as my scout;
Just as Newtonians did long ago;
Then one day if we found a new god, and on its soil to create a shining future.

 

[vadslram]

Whether God exists/not exists/is other then existence, From whence di it become?
Is God an amalgam of several lesser entities or the spawn of a previous?

 

[Ki Man]

I actually was in a debate about this earlier today at school, and i acted kind of like the third party moderator.

i think the problem with this question is that many when many people hear the question of 'is there a god' instead of bothering to really listen to what the other has to say in his perspective, they bust out their trenching shovel and dig in deep with their M4 handy, not taking into consideration anything that the other has to say. the problem is that everybody beleives there has must be a god or they strongly believe there is no god. there is no middle in this debate and that is why i think in most cases it is a pointless one.

The true question shouldn't be whether he is real, we should be questioning why we ask that to begin with.

 

[Evo]

The true question shouldn't be whether he is real, we should be questioning why we ask that to begin with.

That's actually quite easy if you study ancient history. Those that claimed the ability to talk to the invisible "gods' that controlled lightning, and wind and storms, floods, death, and life, these people obviously were superior to those that couldn't speak to the gods. Of course these were fakes, but they had enough theatrics to fool the common man, most of the time.

All through history, the majority of people needed to be lead, needed to be told what to do. It's no different now from 10,000 years ago, sad to say. A lot of people NEED this, they really can't deal with day to day life without being told what to think. They need leadership, they are followers.

Unfortunately, the greedy and manipulative discover this quite quickly and take advantage of these poor people. Some are outright evil, other's are just mentally ill, or dillusional. A few might even be sane, but believe in the mystical, those are ok, they're not hurting anyone intentionally.

There are some that are just truly good people that want to help others and aren't wanting a reward in return.

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?

 

[Chronos]

Unfortunately, even if we do nothing, some people will suffer from our inaction. Good people must voice their concerns when the greedy and power hungry players attempt to impose their will upon others. I will someday die, but not in vain. People have the right to choose their destiny based on facts, not the fantasies of madmen and ghouls. I reserve the right to stomp my foot on the ground every time some pompous ass tries to swindle ordinary people into worshiping his/her wisdom.

 

[fedorfan]

I don't necassarily believ in a god, I just hope there's some sort of afterlife though I am doubting it, I am agnostic as far as my views go. I really don't know what's after death and neither does anyone else. Sure we have NDE`s but those arent truly far after death. I am actually a little anxious to see what's in store but not in any rush, for I have the rest of eternity.

 

[Ki Man]

the only time we can prove there is or isn't a god is when we actually meet him so until then, let's not ignorantly argue amongst ourselves.

 

[fedorfan]

the only time we can prove there is or isn't a god is when we actually meet him so until then, let's not ignorantly argue amongst ourselves.

Exactly what I am thinking. Who knows? Who cares? Maybe hell be there when we die, maybe he wont, maybe he isn't real.

 

[DaveC426913]

the only time we can prove there is or isn't a god is when we actually meet him so until then, let's not ignorantly argue amongst ourselves.

This is the definition of agnosticism. We can't know until we die.

 

[1016]

so, if God exist.. how does it looks like? can we see it with our own eyes?
and universe as long as our Earth always been transmutation itself... sometime repeating sometime new things occurs? what makes all this?
therefore, if we adapted the term "God" to "natural". Then people will more understand the "nature" than "god", right?
Hence, actually, God = Natural \\which means it is abstract, as well as u understand nature. that why we study natural science.

if people would like to think about nature is nature, god is god.. where they believe "the god will save us, etc" ... in fact, If God save peoples, he won't let you die, and won't let reproduction happens. Thats' why it is not nature at all, it is fictionalized this world and themself. Weaken peoples afraid to die and self-fish, everyday expect something can save them, iff human only the worthy exist and god has preference oblige to take care of us.

how could we explain when someone die where they going?
first of all, we have to waiting scientist to prove whether "soul" exist or not?
in hypothesis, soul actually involves charges, it might attracts to other new life before born. Sounds like everything repeating itself to gains balancing in nature, huh?

 

[fedorfan]

Hmm, not really sure what you just said 1016, but we`re all gone die sooner or later so who gives a crap. Have a lot of fun in this life and then we`ll see what happens in the next one, that's if there is a next one.

 

[AsianSensationK]

The premise of this thread is a weird one. To summarize the original post...

"Why must there only be two choices? Existence or non-existence?"

I have a simple yet thoughtful response. Is there any reason to believe there's a third choice?

 

[Loren Booda]

A third choice? Neither existence nor non-existence. A set including only its premise?

 

[fedorfan]

I doubt there's a soul from what science tells us. Most likely were probably just alive and living cells. Life is a crazy adventure, miraculous experience, and a very difficult thing to explain. The experience is unimagineable from something in another state. The experiences that have in life are even more unimagineable than that. Oh, and who knows what premise god sits in, for all we know there could be 1000 premises and god isn't in any of them. Dont worry about the devil or hell or anything either is what Id advise, if youre scared get saved and ask forgiveness before you die but other than that I wouldn't get worked up over something that we have no proof of whatsoever and something that may not even happen.

 

[navneet1990]

The premise of this thread is a weird one. To summarize the original post...

"Why must there only be two choices? Existence or non-existence?"

I have a simple yet thoughtful response. Is there any reason to believe there's a third choice?

actually that's a very valid point to which many of the thinkers of vedanta philosophy and hindu philosophy will agree too
see
the points not whether there is a god or not
its that can there be an "in between"??

and why cant??

see the problem can be broken into simpler stuff -

imagine a kid whose just learned how to add
a very small kid.
now you tell the kid about Heisenberg principle and atoms and gluons and GR and SR and all
you show him some mathematical equations and all
he'll not understand a word
for the kid all this is bull ****
the kid doesn't believe it
[now here we come to the point]
see he couldn't have come across or had the urge to see and know about stuff like this could he
all he knows is that 2+2 = 4
and that's all that makes up his world
his physics or whatever you want to call it is limited to that is limited to that

but he is fascinated by it for somedays but then slowly forgets it and then thinks that all the elders are just trying to fool him to show that they are greater and better than him

now you can't prove all these theories using the limited knowledge the child has can you?
no you cant
hence if theories cannot be proven then they must be false
so this is where is make my point

{ the kid is us humans}

we have just learned to add
some chaps [our elders]
have shown us certain theories
we were fascinated and some believe
but since with these theories [ existence of god,duality of god etc.]
cannot be proved by the knowledge we possesses presently we feel that its not possible
we do not want to listen to the elders like stubborn kids
so there will be a time which will come when we would grow up and when we would learn more things like multiplication [ in the wider sense] etc.
thats when we would be able to understand god
that understanding is god

 

[DaveC426913]

{ the kid is us humans}

we have just learned to add
some chaps [our elders]
have shown us certain theories
we were fascinated and some believe
but since with these theories [ existence of god,duality of god etc.]
cannot be proved by the knowledge we possesses presently we feel that its not possible
we do not want to listen to the elders like stubborn kids
so there will be a time which will come when we would grow up and when we would learn more things like multiplication [ in the wider sense] etc.
thats when we would be able to understand god
that understanding is god

The difference is that, as adults with educated, critical minds, we do not consider ourselves incapable of grasping concepts. Show us the evidence, show us the "higher-order math" and we can learn it. But show us smoke and mirrors and we are sophisticated enough to see through it and have reason to distrust our "elders".

 

[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