Is there a God, and if so, who is it?

[dirtylover]

Science can explain the how, but not the why (Dawkins).

re Coincidences - you could say that it's amazing that all the events that ocurred up to our existence did happen; or that we do exist, in this dimension, and those coincidences would not have ocurred elsewhere in the multiverse, and thus did not give rise to sentinent beings...But, I agree - life in the universe takes my breath away, whenever I have an epiphany...

Personally, I skirt the issue of there being a creator, and the question of his arrival on the scene, by imagining that the multiverse itself, and all its connections, is God. Not necessarily a conscious being, in my mind. I guess you could say I was a moderate.

We are within God
God is within us
I am within you
and you are here, in me

Energy as love, as thoughts, as feelings
Beyond the current scribes of Physics

A slice of moonlight from the past
echos through my mind
I forget the beat of my cosmic dance
Darkness yawns around me
Until I remember the cherry tree
and float off in unreality...

dl

 

[cloudy]

Science can explain the how, but not the why (Dawkins).

re Coincidences - you could say that it's amazing that all the events that ocurred up to our existence did happen; or that we do exist, in this dimension, and those coincidences would not have ocurred elsewhere in the multiverse, and thus did not give rise to sentinent beings...But, I agree - life in the universe takes my breath away, whenever I have an epiphany...

Personally, I skirt the issue of there being a creator, and the question of his arrival on the scene, by imagining that the multiverse itself, and all its connections, is God. Not necessarily a conscious being, in my mind. I guess you could say I was a moderate.

We are within God
God is within us
I am within you
and you are here, in me

Energy as love, as thoughts, as feelings
Beyond the current scribes of Physics

A slice of moonlight from the past
echos through my mind
I forget the beat of my cosmic dance
Darkness yawns around me
Until I remember the cherry tree
and float off in unreality...

dl

Hijacking your thread for just a sec, and then you can have it back......

Thanks for being a good sport about the Olympics thing.

I have big plans for you

Done. Carry on.

 

[dirtylover]

Only at lit could I one minute be philosophising about the nature of God, and the next minute be part of a sporting event cum pornathon

No worries Alabama Slammer

 

[snooper]

...
Darkness yawns around me
Until I remember the cherry tree
and float off in unreality...

They are chopping down the trees in the cherry orchard.
(Ibsen)

 

[dirtylover]

He looked out across the gardens from his upstairs bedroom. There was a young woman relaxing with her friends; he recognised her, but knew they’d never share a conversation. He was not the kind to share things easily. And it really wasn’t easy to meet people when you were a big, purple monster.

Sometimes he wished he were a butterfly, fluttering over the gardens, then settling down inconspicuously next to the young woman.

In the darkness of the night hours, he sat alone. Fogginess of mind and tiredness of body left him feeling slopsided. Not quite ready to bed, but bedded enough to be facultless; no possession of faculties at all, in fact. The green spots on his side bore testimony to more than just monster-hood, had more meaning than love carried upon butterflies’ wings; yet still he sat behind half-drawn curtains.

In a world such as this one it is easy for the more wayward of minds to open onto plains too wide, where the sky holds you in its upturned bowl; you, the cowboy with the silken underwear. It feels good inside the warm soup of your alter-conscience, the thrilling abyss of your sexual theme-park…riding away into the lonesome night

I watched you. It is funny that, now you are mine, I no longer bother to look. The claustrophobia sends me running, stretching the elasticised web the refuses to set me free, connected to my heart I fear. Pluck it out! Pluck it like a cherry – show the whole world, for this tree has snapped – and I can’t abide the monster-hunter, unreality wrecker, sucked down the plughole, back to this quagmire they call life…

 

[fifty5]

IMHO...

Things that you don't understand are - inevitably - 'wonderous'.

That has nothing at all to say about whether they can be understood, so that they can become, to those who do understand, merely mundane.

To date, everything that's been studied has fallen into one of the two categories: 'don't understand that yet' or 'Ah! That makes sense' (if only to the few that do understand).

In early times, so much fell into the first category that superstition, or the supernatural were the only way to make sense of 'everything'.

Progress, however, has moved so much from the first category to the second that it seems that the most significant point for the first category is the, 'yet'.

During that process, nothing whatever has been discovered to depend in fact upon supernatural 'magic' (and though some things have been 'proved' to be unprovable/unknowable, the proofs in question are themselves neither unprovable nor unknowable).

'Awesome' does seem a valid term to apply to the self-consistency of things, but 'I don't understand that' is no longer a valid basis for the claim that 'this is beyond understanding'.

f5

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Re: Re: No.

I understand that the candle and the atoms in it do not cease to exist. What ceases to exist is the flame. It is a particular state of some of the molecules in the candle and that state ceases to exist as the molecules stop burning. Likewise the mind is a particular state of the components of the brain. As those components cease to operate, that state no longer exists.

There's some school of Tibetan buddhism that has a concept of mind that I think is pretty cool. They believe that the brain is not the organ from which thought arises, but is actually a sense organ, like our eyes or ears, existing in a continuum of all possibilities. What you think and what you feel during your life are actually your own perceptions of this continuum. Each brain is a little different, so each of us experiences this continuum in our own way. But everything you know and think has always existed and will exist even after you've stopped perceiving it: i.e. are dead. Our ideas of ourselves as spearate entities is illusion. We are all of us seeing different facets of the same thing.

This turns the idea of life after death into a kind of interesting question. If everything of your life still exists but you're not there to perceive it, are you alive or dead? Were you ever really 'alive' in the first place? Can you say that you were ever really an individual ego?

---dr.M.

 

[snooper]

Dr. M.-
The Tibetan concept seems to be, as you explain it, the complete antithesis of solipsism, or do I not understand you (or it) properly?

The rest of you-
Where, in all the supposed majestic order in the universe which is evidence of the existence of a benevolent (sic) God who created it all, does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle fit?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Dr. M.-
The Tibetan concept seems to be, as you explain it, the complete antithesis of solipsism, or do I not understand you (or it) properly?

The rest of you-
Where, in all the supposed majestic order in the universe which is evidence of the existence of a benevolent (sic) God who created it all, does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle fit?

Yeah, I would say so. Solipsism says that nothing exists but what an individual perceives. This school of Buddhism (and I've totally lost their name and the reference where I first read this) says that everything exists and it's our perception of ourself as an individual ego that's the illusion.

I like their version because it's just so totally foreign to the way we usually think about the mind. We just assume that the brain produces thought like the liver produces bile, but this version has all sorts of weird implications. It kind of makes reincarnation inevitable, but also impossible to detect.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's a lot of misunderstanding about quantum physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle floating around, and I've read books by people who should have known better that make all sorts of silly claims based on a misunderstanding of what they say.

For instance, there's a common misinterpretation of the electron wave/particle duality experiement that says that the observer can influence the outcome of an experment, and that idea is then used to 'prove' that psychic powers exists, or that we influence reality by the mere fact of our existence. The idea is that the electron somehow 'knows' it's being looked at and can flip from being a wave to being a particle depending on what the observer's looking for.

But that's not what the experiment proved at all. It merely showed that electrons have wavelike properties and particle-like properties, and what you'll see depends on the kind of experiment you do. We might be uncomfortable with the idea of the elctron as showing properties of both waves and particles, but the electron surely isn't bothered by it.

Likewise, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (which is more accurately called his indeterminacy priciple) is often misunderstood to mean that down on the subatomic level all bets are off and anything might happen. But this isn't what it says. Heisenberg demonstrated that it's not possible to know both the position of, say, an electron and its momentum at the same time. That's because the act of observing them requires that we perturb the system, and in perturbing it we screw around with it and change those very things that we're trying to observe. What he said is that there are limits to what we can know. That doesn't mean that the electron itself doesn't 'know' what it's doing, only that we can't measure it.

A lot of people--even people with a lot of letters after their names--misinterpret Heisenberg and quantum mechanics as providing a kind of carte blanche to prove that all sorts of things are possible and that physics and science have failed us and are basically full of crap. This just isn't true. It's true that the closest we can come to describing the position and momentum of an electron is to give the probabilities, but, as I say, this doesn't mean that the electron is acting randomly. Nature knows what it's doing.

---dr.M.

 

[fifty5]

There's a lot of misunderstanding about quantum physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle floating around <snip>
We might be uncomfortable with the idea of the elctron as showing properties of both waves and particles, but the electron surely isn't bothered by it.

Likewise, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle <snip>
What he said is that there are limits to what we can know. That doesn't mean that the electron itself doesn't 'know' what it's doing, only that we can't measure it. <snip>
It's true that the closest we can come to describing the position and momentum of an electron is to give the probabilities, but, as I say, this doesn't mean that the electron is acting randomly. Nature knows what it's doing.

---dr.M.

Right on, Dr. M - and the same sort of thing applies to Goedel, Russell and chaos theory: that people can understand the principles - which are coherent and logical - even when individual data and so on are 'indeterminate', 'unprovable', etc.

The natural world does follow rules - and doesn't allow supernatural intervention - yet that doesn't make everuthing pre-determined, so free will (or at least, it's perception) can exist, even given universally knowable principles...

....

In contrast, I can't quite get my head round the buddhist thing:

Our ideas of ourselves as separate entities is illusion. We are all of us seeing different facets of the same thing.

I don't see why that implies that the sense of separate identity must be an illusion. If different entities (different people) experience the same continuum from different viewpoints, or at different times, then isn't it to be expected that (in general) their perceptions would be different? I don't see why the unitary identity of the continuum precludes that. At a very mundane level, I look different from the back and the front, so somone in front of me will see 'me' differently from someone behind me...

f5

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In contrast, I can't quite get my head round the buddhist thing:
I don't see why that implies that the sense of separate identity must be an illusion. If different entities (different people) experience the same continuum from different viewpoints, or at different times, then isn't it to be expected that (in general) their perceptions would be different? I don't see why the unitary identity of the continuum precludes that. At a very mundane level, I look different from the back and the front, so somone in front of me will see 'me' differently from someone behind me...

f5

Well, I don't know either. *L*. I can feel what I mean, but I don't know if I can explain it. I guess it comes down to: are you more than just perception? Or are you anything without perception?

I also guess they might say that ego is a perception, and is therefore something out there in the continuum.

It's funny, but in the Castenada books, the Yaqui Indian sorcerer Don Juan gives a similar explanation of the world. He calls what's 'out there' the Nagual, which is like an unknowable continuum, and says that as human beings we assemble our being and the world we know out of selected perceptions of this vast unknown. When we die, we lose our 'assemblage point', which is the energy that holds our view of the world together and it kind of falls apart. He says that, to a sorcerer, seeing a man die is like watching him dissolve back into the Nagual.

That always struck me as a surprisingly Buddhist or Eastern explanation coming from an uneducated Mexican-American Indian. It's probably beyond proof or demonstration, but it's great to think about.

---dr.M.

 

[fifty5]

Well, I don't know either. *L*. I can feel what I mean, but I don't know if I can explain it. I guess it comes down to: are you more than just perception? Or are you anything without perception?

I also guess they might say that ego is a perception, and is therefore something out there in the continuum.

My first reaction is that that ties in closely to "I think, therefore I am" - in so far as if one didn't percieve anything, there'd be nothing to think about...

It's funny, but in the Castenada books, the Yaqui Indian sorcerer Don Juan gives a similar explanation of the world. He calls what's 'out there' the Nagual, which is like an unknowable continuum, and says that as human beings we assemble our being and the world we know out of selected perceptions of this vast unknown. When we die, we lose our 'assemblage point', which is the energy that holds our view of the world together and it kind of falls apart. He says that, to a sorcerer, seeing a man die is like watching him dissolve back into the Nagual.

That always struck me as a surprisingly Buddhist or Eastern explanation coming from an uneducated Mexican-American Indian. It's probably beyond proof or demonstration, but it's great to think about.

---dr.M.

It seems to me that this view is self-evidently accurate as far as the physical goes: molecules and, even more so, atoms, go back into the whole when a body dies.  Viewing it as applying also to 'the soul' seems to follow quite reasonably - that the individual soul ceases to exist as a separate, sentient entity when the physical self dies and rots (or burns) into the environment.

In fact I quite like that idea - personal extinction, but the parts going back into a super-personal whole.

I still want to get my leg over before that happens! <grin>

f5

 

[amicus]

Prehistorians postulate that even before the Neaderthals were stuggling among the glaciers, man looked up into the sky and wondered from whence came he. That same man, at different times and places mourned over a dead child or other loved one and wondered, "Is this all there is?"

It is fully understandable that man in all his many varieties, invented answers to those primal questions: "What am I, where did I come from and where do I go."

We still seek answers...or so it appears on the previous 8 pages of this thread.

"There being no evidence to support the existence of a God, any God, therefore, there is no God."

I use quotation marks because that is not an original statement, but, I have read it in many places.

That statement embraces logic and epistemology, e.g. 'the origin, nature, methodology and limits of human knowledge...'

One can accept a 'theory' or a 'faith' in the truth and existence of a thing, but to 'know' it and to add that information to a functioning mind so that it may continue to learn without contradiction, one must have, 'evidence' rational, logical evidence, supporting the existence of whatever it is one seeks knowledge of.

So, logically, there is no God.

Secondly, Secular Humanism, a clusterfuck of relativism, long discarded, is a poor second to a serious consideration of human ethics. Ethics: 'a body of moral principles...'

There is a rational path to knowledge concerning human moral principles, and it is not all that difficult to comprehend: "That which benefits human life is, 'good'; that which does not benefit human life, is not.

I realize the brevity of that statement leaves it unguarded.

There is a third thing apparent in this thread: many see a discusson of the existence of God as meaningless and a waste of time. Far from it.

To allow even one bit of unproven information into your mind, to accept any tenet on faith or belief, is to attack the structure and the function of a healthy brain. Contradictions and unproved assertions lead to a mind that functions less and less effectively and eventually that mind will rebel, hence, insanity.

I have enjoyed this thread, thanks to the many who contributed, it is comforting to know there is a place on can visit where people think.

regards...amicus

 

[mismused]

To allow even one bit of unproven information into your mind, to accept any tenet on faith or belief, is to attack the structure and the function of a healthy brain. Contradictions and unproved assertions lead to a mind that functions less and less effectively and eventually that mind will rebel, hence, insanity.


regards...amicus

==========================

amicus,

Did you perhaps state that somewhat in error? The reason I ask, is what about intuition, inspiration, or insight?

There is that which may allow us to use this in an as yet unknown way, sort of as a way of generalizing.

It goes back to that we don't really know much about ourselves, therefore: cognitive scientists, psychologists, etc. What really makes us tick is unknown to us, as well as who, or what we are.

Is it possible that any, and most everything about us is like a part of a puzzle that we can use to advance our knowledge of ourselves?

Did you perhaps mean that <I>unquestioned</I> beliefs, contradictions, etc., might be dangerous to us?

Intuition, insight, inspiration are all of the vague, nebulous items that have all led to many discoveries that have later been proven (and they also, like thoughts, though not necessarily the same as, in the way we look at thoughts, of the same stuff, yet of no stuff at all).

I, too, have continued to follow this thread, and am impressed with much of the inquisitiveness of the many.

Dr. M: You earlier questioned a Buddhist way of thought that you couldn't remember the name of. Might it have been mahamudra? Just wondered if that might ring a bell.

mismused

 

[Pure]

"That which benefits human life is, 'good'

add 'for humans.'

that which does not benefit human life, is not.

I want to register an objection on behalf of my dog, and esp. my recently terminated chicken 'broiler'.

 

[amicus]

Intuitition, insight, inspiration...even love...if one can define that, yes all good things and truly a part of the human experience, and emotions also...those that arise from previously made value judgements...

One can hold in abeyance an idea, an inspiration, until it can be confirmed...a good thing....but to accept as 'truth' or fact...something that cannot be proven so...than can be damaging to the thought process..

It was not I questioning the Budhist comment of Dr. Mab, but thank you...

regards...amicus

 

[snooper]

... I guess it comes down to: are you more than just perception? Or are you anything without perception? ...

Bishop Berkeley lives!

 

[mismused]

Intuitition, insight, inspiration...even love...if one can define that, yes all good things and truly a part of the human experience, and emotions also...those that arise from previously made value judgements...

One can hold in abeyance an idea, an inspiration, until it can be confirmed...a good thing....but to accept as 'truth' or fact...something that cannot be proven so...than can be damaging to the thought process..

It was not I questioning the Budhist comment of Dr. Mab, but thank you...

regards...amicus

===========================

amicus,

Thanks. Wasn't sure I was clear on my question.

The question of our fate, who we are, who, or if God is, is a prickly one.

There are so many things we depend on that have no physicality, and without which we'd never even be, like consciousness itself.

If we can't know ourselves, how can we possibly know God, or if there is a God.

Many have given their opinions, like the Buddhists that Dr. M speaks of. Often, they speak of "emptiness," as if it is our hold on life itself. Some Hindus speak of a higher way, of "reason," or others of a "super mind."

Mostly, we come up with much that is nebulous, vague, and, uh, empty? Seems like it.

Physicists delve deeper and deeper, and come up with more unanswerables like quantum mechanics, and now someone has come up with quantum evolution too. It isn't as far fetched as it might seem, as is the wondering that others have done on speciies "jumps," and that we will someday jump again.

Will welcome any thoughts on this perplexing situation. I kind of have to wonder what I'll be doing after I'm gone anyway, so I might as well be in training now.

mismused

 

[amicus]

Mismused..hello..and thank you..a nice post...


Disregard the Quantum Theory people, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles...Heinlien, in fiction, poked holes in them 40 years ago.

Mathematicians and Physicists, are smart no doubt, in their fields, but, dorks otherwise...

There is no answer that mankind will ever discover as to the origins of the Universe.

We will never know.

It is not important.

What is of the ultimate importance, is to 'know' that life, your life, exists and has value, the ultimate value.

The meaning of life..is life itself. There is nothing beyond or before the existence of man, that is of importance, in terms of our life.

To understand that life..to understand who we are, here on Sol three, and how we came to be and what we are, is to find a home and to find a meaning.

Undertake a study of the sciences of the history of man, follow the studies of our ancestors...from 60,000 years back, immerse yourself in the pre history of man, and revel in what we have achieved.

As Carl Sagan said, 'billions and billions', and Jodie Foster, in, "Contact" it would be an 'awful' waste of space, if mankind were the only life in the Universe..but...lacking evidence, that is what we must assume for the time being.

We are truly, 'alone' and must define ourselves.


regards..amicus

 

[Pure]

There is nothing beyond or before the existence of man, that is of importance, in terms of our life.

'man' is important to man! woo hoo!

the maggots that will eat you have far more importance in the great scheme of things.

 

[mismused]

Yes, bu-but

Mismused..hello..and thank you..a nice post...


Disregard the Quantum Theory people, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles...Heinlien, in fiction, poked holes in them 40 years ago.

Mathematicians and Physicists, are smart no doubt, in their fields, but, dorks otherwise...

There is no answer that mankind will ever discover as to the origins of the Universe.

We will never know.

It is not important.

What is of the ultimate importance, is to 'know' that life, your life, exists and has value, the ultimate value.

The meaning of life..is life itself. There is nothing beyond or before the existence of man, that is of importance, in terms of our life.

To understand that life..to understand who we are, here on Sol three, and how we came to be and what we are, is to find a home and to find a meaning.

Undertake a study of the sciences of the history of man, follow the studies of our ancestors...from 60,000 years back, immerse yourself in the pre history of man, and revel in what we have achieved.

As Carl Sagan said, 'billions and billions', and Jodie Foster, in, "Contact" it would be an 'awful' waste of space, if mankind were the only life in the Universe..but...lacking evidence, that is what we must assume for the time being.

We are truly, 'alone' and must define ourselves.


regards..amicus

=========================

Good morning,

What a way to wake up.

May I be a bit truculent in a nice way?

If I surrendered as you suggest, wouldn't I be like the guy who said some years back that "physics" knows all that is to be known?

Our minds (whatever they are) are questioning rascals, and creative. To not wonder about the fate of the universe, or to say that I (humankind) am the only life there will ever be, is to limit what I may use what begs to be used -- my curiosity, my wondering -- and yes, my creativity.

Besides that, I don't want to stop learning, or wondering !

Time for more coffee.

mismused

 

[Pure]

A simple question

Amicus: "That which benefits human life is, 'good'
that which does not benefit human life, is not.

Since ethics is so clear to you, please answer one simple question:

Is 'artificial'** birth control (e.g. the pill) [used by] by married couples right or wrong?

(Variant, substitute 'adult unmarried persons' for 'married couples')

{added for the picky folks}
**This word 'artificial' is meant to include the methods other than 'rhythm,' abstinence, anal sex, tight men's underwear, and breast feeding. I.e., 'artificial' refers to mechanical, 'barrier' methods and pharmaceutical substances that are ingested or applied: condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, estrogen/progesterone pills, the 'shot' and so on. In a word, the artificial methods are the ones NOT approved by the Vatican.

 

[snooper]

Re: A simple question

Amicus: "That which benefits human life is, 'good'
that which does not benefit human life, is not.

Since ethics is so clear to you, please answer one simple question:

Is 'artificial' birth control (e.g. the pill) by married couples right or wrong?

(Variant, substitute 'adult unmarried persons' for 'married couples')

Oh dear. I thought every ethics class in every school taught two basic beliefs:

1 Defining words (as Amicus does with "good") in new and different ways only causes confusion.
2 What is can never define what ought to be.

From this it follows that the availability of quote 'artificial' birth control unquote does not, of itself, have a right-or-wrong/good-or-bad value. Each individual makes up her(his) own mind in each case with due consideration of their own personal prejudices and, possibly, the facts of the case. For most people their personal delusion system (aka God) "tells" them what is right or wrong.

 

[Pure]

Hi Snooper.

I think my question was pretty clear, though i added a couple words to make it entirely obvious: 'birth control by married couple' means birth control used by married couple.

I don't see any substance to either of your points. I don't see any redefining of words, though i've defined 'artificial', in case it was unclear to anyone.

In particular:

Snooper 2 What is can never define what ought to be.

From this it follows that the availability of quote 'artificial' birth control unquote does not, of itself, have a right-or-wrong/good-or-bad value. Each individual makes up her(his) own mind in each case with due consideration of their own personal prejudices and, possibly, the facts of the case. For most people their personal delusion system (aka God) "tells" them what is right or wrong.

The question contains no 'is/ought' issues, since it clearly is not talking about 'availability of birth control'.

Is 'artificial' birth control (e.g. the pill) by married couples right or wrong?

It said 'birth control by married couples.' And my reference to the pill, did NOT refer to the pill in and of itself, or its existence.

I've inserted the words 'used by', however.

As far as your second statement, I'm not sure if it's meant to be descriptive or normative. You might be claiming that 'right and wrong' 'good and bad' are entirely subjective.

Maybe that's true, maybe not, but the question was posed to Amicus, since he believe moral issues are pretty clearcut.

Likely he is a disappearance period; when the flak gets too intense, that seems to happen.