What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I listen to others POV's when it's open for opinion, isn't something that's since been proven, or they're properly questioning currently knowledge.

Iacchus breaks rule number 1, and 2, in almost every post.

As for a fundamentalist - probably. But he sure has shown he's fundamentality wacko.

The universe is alive! it's an organism! consciousness is the universe!I would like to propose that Gaspars arm is actually part of my body. It's a fact so don't try to disprove it, it's right cuzz my mind won't let me think otherwise!

Here it is you don't even know the first thing about me and yet, you come across with all these accusations about my character, while spouting off all this "empirical" mumbo jumbo baloney, as if you were the renown expert on the matter (mumbo jumbo no doubt), and yet you don't know what the heck you're talking about! If that isn't subjectivism -- or, "obnoxious bias" at the very least -- then I don't know what is? ...

For the sake of consistency then, I recommend you take heed of your own advice.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Iacchus...

Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

A state of being which tells you that you exist -- and hence "consciousness."


And, similar to what wuliheron so aptly put it in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2102", the ground of your being, which is absolute ...

Originally posted by wuliheron
Some materialists like to assert that all we have is human perception of existence, but when we perceive the ground of our own being it is absolute. The world may not be flat as once was thought common knowledge, but I exist and my knowledge of my existence and participation in existence is absolute and irrefutable. I can pretend otherwise, but it is just a pretense.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Define "God"...in 30 words or less.

Went to your book site: [?]

Here's my stab at a definition:

"God" is a mythical, extraneous being better replaced with a view of the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

Your turn.

I don't really try to explain what God is, in as much as it involves experiencing the ground of my "own being." In which respect I can't say I know Him personally, but rather know of Him through my own life's experience and hence the understanding of myself. I also focus on the fact that I have a soul -- that part of me which is cognizant -- and, the fact that other souls exist as well, "as spirits." Which, I come into contact on a fairly frequent basis ...

Having said that, the fact that I have a soul, and other people do as well and, that there's another dimension the soul enters upon death, then it's not much more difficult to conclude that God exists in the "spiritual sense" as well. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous references of this sort in the Bible, as well as in other related materials.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by THE MIND
Gaspar,

especially for you:

From http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar-cayce1.html


Throughout his life, Edgar Cayce claimed no special abilities nor did he ever consider himself to be some kind of twentieth-century prophet. The readings never offered a set of beliefs that had to be embraced, but instead focused on the fact that each person should test in his or her own life the principles presented. Though Cayce himself was a Christian and read the Bible from cover to cover every year of his life, his work was one that stressed the importance of comparative study among belief systems all over the world. The underlying principle of the readings is the oneness of all life, tolerance for all people, and a compassion and understanding for every major religion in the world.

Thank you for the brief biography of Edgar Casey. I'm guessing that you posted it because of my interest in consciousness and my proposition that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, through this interconnectedness, someone like Casey could see into the future, diagnose and cure illnesses, and communicate with disembodied spirits. And, although such phenomena have been "documented", you will find that many individuals who converse through the various threads of the Physics Forum will still be looking for "proof positive" at the end of the day.

My interest, however, is no so much on people like Casey who demonstrate "mind over matter"...but on the MECHANISM ITSELF.

Does INTENTION EFFECT RESULTS? Is the Universe CONSCIOUS? Is "God" a fanciful concept that stands in the way of our seeing the Universe ITSELF as a self-perpetuating and evolving Being?

While it may be commendable that Casey and others promote "tolerance, compassion and understanding for every major religion of the world" ...I believe it is ultimately more "useful" to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why bother stressing "the importance of the comparative study of belief systems" if not to select those that make sense from those that simply pander to the weaknesses of our species.

For instance, there was a time when people thought that "God wanted" them to sacrifice each other...or their goats! ...or fly airplanes into buildings!

At some point, perhaps, we will come to understand that the "sacrifices" we need to make have to do with CHOOSING TO ACT in ways that are contrary to our darker natures.

Maybe some day everyone will "get" that we're here to REDEEM OURSELVES through CONSCIOUS REMEDIAL ACTIONS, rather than be "saved" from suffering the consequences of our actions by somebody ELSE'S sacrifice!

But that's another thread, which I'm tempted to start right now: Salvation vs. Self-Dedemption: the Spiritual Nature of Personal Responsibility...or Let's Stop Playing with Somebody Else's Chips!

But I digress.

 

[Mohaamad]

If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14...). He cannot be contained.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mohaamad
If we could define "God," "God" would not be God. God is kind of like pie (3.14...). He cannot be contained.

And WE are a piece of the pie!

 

[akhenaten]

Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
Many people seem to see something quasi-mystical or at least significant about the fact that the value of Pi cannot be exactly determined. I think that an unlimited number of decimal places is a characteristic of an arbitrary value (like the Velocity of Light, or the Planck Length) not of a numerically significant one. If Pi had a value of exactly 3, wouldn't that be more puzzling and mysterious?

If I were you, I'd start a thread for the mathematically inclined.

 

[megashawn]

I thought pi was recently solved for using some supercomputer for a few years and printed like 500 some sheets of paper for the full length.

Then again I read so much stuff from so many sites, there's no telling.

Seems like it was FZ (again, could be wrong) that pi was wrong or something.


Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.


M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.



Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

I would like to hear your explanation of cannibalism. I would say that they are probably people who live in areas without much meat to eat, or maybe even food in general. Where is god for them? Why does god not stop this?

But an even better question is, how are we able to not be cannibals? Is it that, through evolution, we have developed from mere animal like mentalitys to a more reasonable mind? Is it your god? Or is it Survival of the fittest? Which is most observable?

But you insist that without your god, humanity would be like animals. Tell me then, how is it many past societys have formed, without the assistance of your god? Was it their god(s)?

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by megashawn
Anyhow, I think I stated my definition of god, which is similar to LA's and others, merely a figment of imagination.

While I do not like -- nor agree with -- the "common" conception of "God" ...I DO believe that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. I just don't believe that the Universe is "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" in that It can't "DO" anything OUTSIDE of the NATURAL PROCESSES of Its NATURAL SYSTEM ...AND...It DOESN'T KNOW how everything will "turn out" . (The whole "POINT" to Its existence, IMO, is to CREATE an EXPERIENCE for Itself...a very COMPLEX one that is DIFFERENT from all OTHER EXPERIENCES it has created during other INCARNATIONS.

But let's not call It "God". Let's call it the Universe. While we may ponder the existence of the former, we can feel at least a little more confident in the existence of the latter.

M.Gaspar, your ideas are an interesting read, but I've a few questions for ya.

I can't wait to answer ya...

I was under the understanding that the universe was expanding infinitetly and the "Big Cruch" idea was essentially ruled out. If this is so, what does this do to your idea of an eternally evolving universe creature?

Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

You say there is a spiritual plain within this being, and it seems you suggest that we are spirits inhabiting these physical parts (bodys) of the universe in order to have an expieriance. My question is, if this universe is aware of all its parts, then why is it we are not aware if your idea is 100% true?

First, I did not say there is a spiritual plane; I said I PREFER to believe that there is one. As to the second part of your question: I can be "aware" of my KNEE, but my knee might not be aware of ME. And YOUR knee is not aware of MY knee...tho, at some level, they MIGHT be.

Only the Universe ITSELF is "aware" of "everything"...which is not to say It CONTROLS everything ABSOLUTELY . The Universe is, IMO, a "product" of It's inherent FORCES, PROCESSES and INGREDIENTS...and nothing more.

And while you keep insisting your "Universe being" has been around forever in an infinite cycle, but this is no different then a christian responding to the "Where did god come from" with a simple "God has always been". So you don't really solve the problem, just attempt to step around it.

For ME, it is the "God scenario" that does not "solve the problem"...but seeing the Universe as an "eternally expanding and contracting entity of energy" allows one to IMAGINE the "life cycle" of something that we "KNOW" EXISTS!

Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by.

Actually, human beings have come up with some pretty LOUSY "standards" to live by IN THE NAME OF "GOD"! Human sacrifice! Airplanes into buildings! Holy wars.

IMO...little by little, via the PROCESS of REINCARNATION, we (and everything else?) learns COMPASSION (a "spiritual" quality?)..and then we come up with our OWN idea of what it takes to be our HIGHEST SELVES!

When we "get" that the only "stuggle" (the Jihad) is with our DARKER NATURES -- and that only WE can REDEEM OURSELVES -- that will be a step in the right direction with regard to the "spiritual evolution" of us...and the Universe at large (since we are It's creations and Its "agents").

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS,
God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."

Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTH

When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.

Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.

TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST

Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit

exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus32, you said that without god we would have no standards in which to live by ...

I'd say it is that humans, just like any other creature, want to continue living. This would be the basis for cannibalism, if a person or persons were hungry enough, and no other option. We, look for other ways and treasure our fellow man or woman more so then to think of them as a piece of stake.

I bring up cannibalism as it is an act of people who do not believe in christianity type religions, probably have never heard of it, but yet your all powerfull god has failed to get the message to them, Hey, you can eat the apples now.

And yet we all partake in the flesh and blood of Christ during Communion now don't we? Is this not the nature of sacrifice, human or otherwise? To lay down your life that others might live?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS,

God is an illusion embedded in human psychology. Such an illusion exists as a product of evolution. Humans having such an illusion have a better chance of survival than those who don’t. There are plenty more examples like the illusion of “self” etc. I can prove this if you want me to.

I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?

Are you a poet or something. Emotion does not go well with logic. I don’t rely on personal experiences. Our brain can be tricked easily by chemical and electrical anomalies inside our body(hallucination is an extreme example). That’s why scientists use artificial recording instruments to gather facts. What I mean is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE "is not the same as" TRUTH

And yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?

Yes they do exist. But it’s not unique is it? Also every organism has a different standard set up. I am an ant queen commanding a vast colony under Los Angeles. Prove to me that the standard on which we ants live is superior to yours. In case you don’t know about the social structure of ants please inform me. I shall give you general information. As far as the general feeling of superiority of human way of living goes it is more like the reaction of a child who feels his little poem is the best in the world though it has neither rhyme nor rhythm.

I've created another thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764" which goes into my ideas further in detail, if you would care to take a look? Thanks!

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Unfortunately, the current ideas about inflation are WRONG. Hopefully, YOU, Megashawn, are YOUNG ENOUGH to be here when the cosmologists finally figure out that the "Dark Energy" that is forcing the Universe OUTWARD will -- when the Universe begins to eventually cool as a RESULT of this expansion -- undergo a PHASE TRANSITION and will revert to "Dark MATTER" with its attendant all-encompassing GRAVITY. And, voila, La Crunch!

This belief is based on faith.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
TO GASPER
You have to produce evidence supporting your idea first before you can expect others to accept it. Anyway what’s wrong with an eternally existing but unconscious universe. What exactly does such a universe fail to explain that your conscious universe can. Anyway conscious and self are some of the illusions which like God has evolved through Darwinian selection in humans. That’s my feeling anyhow and I think I can show that such a scenario is more plausible than the one you say. Will elaborate if you wish.

Actually, I do not "expect others to accept" my speculations. What fun would THAT be? I will, however, be making my case on the "A Conscious Universe?" thread...after reading some well-conceived materials pointed to by fellow poster "Ahkenaten" (MY initial cap. because he DESERVES it!) on that thread.
But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

TO LOGICAL ATHEIST

exactly which of the statements you have made above IS LOGICAL. Is this how you convince others that your ideas are true? If you want to promote atheism by a logical dialogue with theists you have to do better than emotional ranting. This is unbecoming of the name you have chosen for yourself. Don’t mind this rebuke, just feel you are wasting your talents of critical thinking which you undoubtedly posses.

Actually, there are those who HAD their "doubts" because Logical Atheist" offered very little in actual theories, speculations or facts. He was more content to lambaste others as in your well-chosen example. And this is ALSO why he is being referred to here in the past tense : his "thinking" was not "critical" to the threads.

And the name is "Gaspar"

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS

I understand that your whole idea has been rationally deduced, but how do "you" really know?

I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

And yet the fact that we're human is really all we have to work with. Reality exists on both the left side (rational) and the right side (emotional) and is integrated in the middle. Why focus exclusively on the one side and forsake the other? Do you understand the meaning of neurosis?

NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill each other though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)
I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you don't understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
This belief is based on faith.

Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again !

 

[M. Gaspar]

Sage:

I don't have time (at the moment) to read and process your post...but I will...with a response.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not really.

Think about what causes certain phase transitions. Changes in temperature are among them.

And, isn't baryonic matter "simply" bound-up ENERGY resulting from the cool-down of the neonatal Universe?

True, I PREFER TO BELIEVE that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity is an ETERNAL CYCLE of expansion and contraction...because I PREFER TO BELIEVE that REINCARNATION is a NATURAL PROCESS of the Universe...

...but my thinking about how this might OCCUR -- especially in the face of current EXPANSION THEORIES -- has given rise, in my mind, to what I think is a viable POSSIBILITY.

Can't wait to get to those articles you recommended (all of which I saved, and two of which I've printed out) to see if anything therein supports this personal proposition.

And never accuse me of "having faith" again !

Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty weird idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
Of course you can believe what you want, but as soon as you start believing something because you prefer to, you obviously surrender impartiality and rationality. I'm seriously considering panpsychism because, although it is a pretty weird idea, it does seem to have the potential to explain what all other theories of mind have failed to do. As for reincarnation, I find it quite implausible and begs many questions. For a start it would require some sort of immortal soul, which is a problematic concept in itself.

When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation. Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".

What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

I, too, have "problems" with the "existence" of "God" -- that is, "God" as the commonly held concept. I DO "believe" in the "existence" of the Universe, however, and have "observed" "indications" that It is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts. Some of us will explore this -- theoretically or empirically, if possible -- and some will hold to other "beliefs".

Shall we agree that the "function" of this (and other) Forum(s) is to kick IDEAS around...but not each other (Super Fr33k excluded)? At what point -- in actually -- do we EVER "change our minds" anyway?

YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT.

Actually, you don't need "emotions" to "do the right thing". Sometimes -- if we are asking the question "What is our highest way of being?" -- we need to do just the OPPOSITE of what our emotions would direct us to do. For instance, if you fall in love with someone who is married, you're emotions might tell you to do one thing, but your "ethical/moral logic" can direct you to do another: but we must be willing to make the SACRIFICE of doing what's "right". The same with all other "temptations".

IMO, people need to know that they have the power to separate EMOTIONS from the ACTIONS they CHOOSE to take. Emotions alone make poor rudders.

TO GASPAR
SORRY FOR THE SPELLING MISTAKE. I wish you to elaborate on that vague reply.

Me? Vague? To what do you refer?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS

I don’t. AND NOBODY DOES. And that includes you. All we can do is to expound plausible theories which best fit the objectively observed facts. That’s all one could hope to do. New facts will necessarily emerge turning these theories on their heads. What do I mean by objective facts? Suppose you see a deer in a forest. How do I know that it exists and is not a hallucination of yours . Simple, take a photo. Now it’s existence becomes an observed fact. Does it mean an unphotographed deer does not exist? No , it means it is not possible to be sure that it does. Do you have dreams? It’s not real right? How do you know? You don’t; but there is no way to prove that it is. And others don’t see your dream though they may be with you in the same room. Same with those alleged metaphysical experiences. it seems real enough, but same thing is true for a dream. So if you think that a dream is not real, then you must conclude the same for such experiences. Back to the point, it seems that my logically derived hypothesis is the best fit for all objectively observed facts pertaining to this subject. If you conclude that god exists then you must show objectively observed facts supporting such a hypothesis. Otherwise I will logically conclude that the probability that your hypothesis is true is lesser than mine. GOT IT!

And yet the fact that we can acknowledge we don't know, becomes the very criteria by which we acknowledge we do know. Wouldn't it be possible to say, that we at least know this much? ... Hey it's a beginning, and indeed the very place to start.

NEUROSIS-a nervous disorder; emotional instability.
Emotional instability usually means extremes of emotion. Anger, sadness, despair etc. extreme emotion hampers judgment. Such people cannot be depended upon to do things one would logically expect one to do. So how does it counter my statements? It seems to bolster it. I do not neglect the importance of emotions. But its role is different. Logic helps us to arrive at the best possible line of thought, emotion helps us to act on that thought. Logic tells you that helping the poor helps consolidate the society and so is beneficial to you, but it is during Christmas that your emotions are conducive enough to actually do such a thing. YOU DON’T NEED EMOTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH, YOU NEED EMOTIONS TO ACT UPON THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT. If you use emotions to arrive at the truth, you will never get there. It is because emotions like hatred and greed clouds our logic that we still kill each other though logically mutual cooperation is the best way towards progress and such cooperation could be achieved by emotions like love, tolerance and kindness. (please neglect the last rhetoric logically minded ones as it contains undefendable logical fallacies:)!)

And what about the "lack of emotion?" Isn't that something that's deemed neurotic as well?

I have seen your how do I know thread. I have also posted a reply. I suspect it is a bit complicated, let me know if you don't understand. Anyway my question as the ant queen stands.

My reply is in waiting ...

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When I use the term "I prefer to believe..." I am simply putting my cards on the table. Most people say they "believe" something when, in fact, they just PREFER to believe it.

For instance, because you find the concept of an "immortal soul" "problematic" you "prefer to believe" that reincarnation is implausible. Others have no such problem with the "existence" of the "soul" ..and yet, among these, some do NOT "believe" in reincarnation.

No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Still others, like myself, find that the "soul" MAY be EXTRANEOUS to the equation...banking on CONSCIOUSNESS itself to "carry the ball".

You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What is your view of "eternity"? Do you "believe" the Universe is "eternal"? After you answer this, I will say more about reincarnation.

I have nothing on which to base such a belief. I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by akhenaten
No I don't accept the suggestion that all beliefs are a matter of preference and its implication that all views are equally justified, and reasonable. Only those beliefs based on reason and evidence are justifiable.

Most "theories" are preceded by "reason" then followed by "evidence"...sometimes after many, many moons of disbelief. My speculations are based on a series of thoughts that led me to the proposition that all things have an element of consciousness.

Then, much to my surprise, YOU, akhenaten, link me to articles from better minds than mine who have come to the same POSSIBILITY. I haven't gotten to these articles yet, but I have to assume they are making a better case than I am. In fact, I'm going to have to FORCE MYSELF to RECONSTRUCT my thinking if I want to invite others to follow my "logic".

You'll have to explain yourself here. I'm pretty cautious about this idea, but the only sense in which any sort of reincarnation is meaningful to me is IF and that's still a fairly big IF, the universe has inherent psychic qualities then we can all be regarded as fragments of a 'supermind' - in that sense we already are incarnated as all conscious entities that have ever lived - we just don't have the connectivity to experience it. Does that make any sense?

No, that's not the thread of my thinking on the topic of reincarnation...that we've already "incarnated as all conscious entities...(but) don't have the connectivity to experience it."

I think of consciousness both as a "property" and a "substance"...and AS a "substance" it has ACCRETED into dynamic, coherent systems...just like baryonic matter.

But, instead of "mass" it "accretes" into "networks" of "thought"...which, over time, gives us the "human mind"...and all other minds, as well. These "networks" are NOT CONFINED to physicality...and "survive" even after a "host body" "recycles" its atoms.

Let me dispense with stating my "preferences" and simply say the I BELIEVE that the whole "purpose" of the Universe is to HAVE AN EXPERIENCE...a real complex one, including the life experiences of everything that ever lived/lives/or will live (including the "experience" of ROCKS!).

These networks "grow" -- or "coallesce" -- via incarnations...and I am doing a lousy job of explaining what I mean.

However, I am not so much interested in our individual incarnations...but the PROCESS of REINCARNATION for the UNIVERSE at large. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be "in the mood" to say much more about this now.

I tend to go with whichever cosmological theory has the best evidence at the time.

IMO, the "inflationary model" of the Universe STINKS, making very poor use of eternity!

What is it about my "phase transition" proposition that doesn't make sense to you ...that "Dark Energy" will cool to "Dark Matter" and cause the Crunch?

Hope you're young enough to be around when cosmologists finally figure it out...and that you'll remember that M. Gaspar "got there first"!

 

[sage]

TO IACCHUS
It seems that our ways of thinking have diverged so much that we cannot understand what the other is saying. I confess that I do not understand a word of your reply, and from the little that I did understand, it seems you have missed my point entirely. So I think we should begin this debate from a more basic level. First let us state what we believe to be true. Then let us state why we believe what we do as clearly as possible. Then let us debate the strength and weaknesses of our beliefs. First my turn.
1)God-does not exist
2)soul-does not exist
3)consciousness-can be loosely defined as a set of interactions between the neurons of our brain that helps us to ‘ become aware’ of our surroundings and react to it suitably. This process of becoming aware has been explained in detail in the example of the cat. As you see the brain only needs to be programmed to memorize and making associations in order to ‘become aware’. This programming has been achieved through evolution. No supernatural explanation need to be sought here.(see thread HOW DO I KNOW? In philosophy forum)
4)mind-it is also the same as consciousness. Hence can be defined as a set of interactions between neurons in the brain.
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.
in short I believe that everything on this universe can be explained without invoking god, soul,spirituality etc. about which objective evidence is lacking. The world makes perfect sense without invoking an omnipotent creator. Humans do not require souls to explain their actions and motives .
next your turn to state your beliefs. Please be clear. After that I shall explain the basis of my belief.

TO GASPAR

But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

well, that was vague enough, don’t you think?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.

I am the summation of "all" of my experience. Have you checked my reply in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764&perpage=15&pagenumber=2"

 

[M. Gaspar]

To Sage:

Oh.

Later.

 

[sage]

JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

Great idea!

"God" -- as a commonly held concept -- is bogus. Apparently, we, as a species, has a deeply imbedded need for "hero worship" and a propensity for "ritual". We also love to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them!

I prefer to "believe in" the Universe Itself -- NOT as "God" -- but as a "living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts." And, additionally, as "an eternal Entity of ENERGY that's EVOLVING...with and through its "parts" (us included).

The Universe (unlike "God") is NOT "all-powerful" or "all-knowing": It must "work with" the inherent forces, processes and ingredients of Its own "body"...and It hasn't a "clue" what we -- or anything else -- is going to do next . Why would It WANT to: It's "out to have an Experience"...not "walk through a pre-determined play"!

It does know (is SELF-AWARE) of everything that's going on...but the element of INTENTION (of coherent sub-systems like ourselves) on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" keeps It from "knowing" the future.

It's "life cycle" is actually (ha, ha) a series of endless cycles twixt Big Bangs and Big Crunches...existing as a Singularity only "momentarilly" in between .

One does not have to "pray to" or "worship" the Universe. One may simply "communicate with" and "appreciate" our Source.