50/50

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
50/50

This topic intents to measure the possibility for God's existence or at least to discuss that possibility.
Although it questions the science and scientific theories, the topic might not be accepted in the "Science" section of this forum.
I'll leave it to the moderators to find the right place for it.

The Universe

There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:

1) 1 There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent

2) 2 There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning

The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.

Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.

In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.

Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.

We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.

We don’t also notice something very illogical:

Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).

We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”

The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)

We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.

Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.

Let’s talk about this before we move forward.

 [Update by Truden] This entry is part of a concept which is to be found in the first four pages of the topic.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
If the crazy pinapple

If the crazy pinapple doesn't understand, what hope are we to have!? Eye-wink

I'd still like to restate my preference for one long post with the start to finish explaination of what exactly is trying to be said with premise and conclusions.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  Just a note:   Careful

 

Just a note:

 

Careful about being too critical of Truden's language. He is Bulgarian, and English is not his mother tongue. Unlike English speakers who are just lazy, he at least has an excuse.

So if you don't understand what he's saying, it would probably be more sensitive to ask him to try again rather than criticizing his communication skills.

However, we also can't be expected to decode all of his cryptic passages, so the sensitivity will have to go both ways. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

Just a note:

 

Careful about being too critical of Truden's language. He is Bulgarian, and English is not his mother tongue. Unlike English speakers who are just lazy, he at least has an excuse.

So if you don't understand what he's saying, it would probably be more sensitive to ask him to try again rather than criticizing his communication skills.

However, we also can't be expected to decode all of his cryptic passages, so the sensitivity will have to go both ways.

 

Fair enough, but he still has to make sense of what he is saying, so far I am completely lost on the point he is trying to make, and the evidence he is trying to show that the universe requires conciousness to exist. 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

 

Just a note:

 

Careful about being too critical of Truden's language. He is Bulgarian, and English is not his mother tongue. Unlike English speakers who are just lazy, he at least has an excuse.

So if you don't understand what he's saying, it would probably be more sensitive to ask him to try again rather than criticizing his communication skills.

However, we also can't be expected to decode all of his cryptic passages, so the sensitivity will have to go both ways.

 

Fair enough, but he still has to make sense of what he is saying, so far I am completely lost on the point he is trying to make, and the evidence he is trying to show that the universe requires conciousness to exist.

 

Oh of course. Understanding his language and understanding his point are two totally different things. I was just trying to give a heads up so that people weren't mean about his English. If you can't understand what's being said, that is nobody's fault. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: No, actually,

BMcD wrote:

No, actually, if the motion stops, the particles are still there. "Property" means an attribute of the object, ie: a descriptor that can be used to accurately convey information about the object. It is not the object.

OK, you can do a mind test.
Take an atom.
Start stopping the motion in all the known particles in the atom.

Tell me what you are left with.

For all: I'll write a second explanatory entry to make myself clear on some not well understood by you or not clearly presented by me points in this discussion.
Hope that you can understand the meaning of the above  (kidding) Laughing


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: OK, you can

Truden wrote:
OK, you can do a mind test.
Take an atom.
Start stopping the motion in all the known particles in the atom.

Tell me what you are left with.

 An atom, with particles in suspension.

Quote:

For all: I'll write a second explanatory entry to make myself clear on some not well understood by you or not clearly presented by me points in this discussion.
Hope that you can understand the meaning of the above (kidding) Laughing

 Thanks, that'd be appreciated. Now that I know you're ESL, it makes a good deal of the misusage of words more understandable. Didn't mean to jump on you with both feet. Been a stressful day, unfortunately.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Knowing

Truden wrote:



Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.

 Matter is motion? What? Matter is energy.

The laws of physics as we understand them kind of break down with singularities, so applying something like that to singularities may not be valid.

Truden wrote:

Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.

Strawman. Big bang theory does not claim that the universe came from nothing. 

Big bang theory does not make any claims about what occured before Planck time. At planck time, it is not a singularity, but the universe would have been incredible hot and dense.



Truden wrote:

We don’t also notice something very illogical:

I think the word you are looking for is "counter-intuitive".

 

Truden wrote:

Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?

The universe was very different back then. I'd recommend you read Hawking's "Universe in a Nutshell". 

 

Truden wrote:

We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it.

Non sequitur.

-Triften 


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden, I think perhaps the

Truden, I think perhaps the problem with your "consciousness" argument is in your conception of the idea. Consciousness isn't a tangible force. It is the name we give to a mental phenomenon.

For example, "wind" is not an entity. "Wind" is the term we apply to air in motion. "Consciousness" is not an entity. It is a name we give to a mental process.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
When I was in high school I

When I was in high school I got two points smaller mark on physics test for saying that a dual particle (wave/matter) can not behave as wave if it is observed as particle.

Today’s quantum physics question it the way I did.

In my opening of this topic I did not want to mention the “God” word and set you on that track.
I simply wanted to talk about the universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.

In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.

If you take a deep though you’ll probably come to the feeling that this Universe is more like a dream world which we inhabit.
That’s why I offered you to comment on the Big Bang and Guth’s theory and in the same time taking in account my questions about them.

Instead most of you jumped in assumptions and requested to clarify my understanding about God.
Why would you need that?
You should comment on the Universe, not on God.

I thanks to all who did comment on the subject.
I gave you an example how the limited by borders volume of the Universal mass creates unlimited Universal space in the modern Big Bang and Guth’s theories.

If we assume borders for the Universal mass in the Singularity we must assume that there was space out of the Universe, which can not be called Universal.

Why am I digging in to this?
Isn’t it easier to give supportive evidences for God’s existence?
This is what most of you want.

Based on what must I give my evidences?
Based on your believe about the nature of the Universe?

What evidence about the sound and the light can I give to a person who was born blind and deaf?

You think that this is not a serious argument?
Why?

But let’s talk about God.

The religions make it simple, because they put it on belief.
Every religion has a belief about God but all religions explain it as Spirit.
I’m not good with definitions, but I’m sure that all of you will agree that Spirit is consciousness in non material body.
Most religions put personality in God.

God which I’m presenting is not a personality but Spirit which has one only property – capability to observe.
I used few times the “consciousness” word and I found out that it is hard for you to imagine consciousness without intelligence.
As I said few times intelligence is knowledge created in the process of separating subjects and events.
Spirit or Pure Consciousness has no knowledge, but only awareness for itself – “I exist”.
That Spirit will create intelligence only when observes subject or event which must be separated from its own existence.

Hope that the above explanation is clear enough.

Now, let see what we have as evidence for our own existence.

We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.

Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and through which our body is controlled.

Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.

You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.

But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.

I have some more to say, but let’s leave to come with your comments and questions.


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: I simply

Truden wrote:
I simply wanted to talk about the universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.

 

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.

 

In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?

 

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? That depends greatly on your definition of a sound. It still creates the vibrations which we observe as sound. These will occur whether we observe them or not.

The same logic applies to the universe. Why should it function differently just because we do not observe it?

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:  If a

lieutenant24 wrote:

 If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? That depends greatly on your definition of a sound. It still creates the vibrations which we observe as sound. These will occur whether we observe them or not.

The same logic applies to the universe. Why should it function differently just because we do not observe it?

That question was given to me in the Facebook discussion and my answer was similar - our awareness defines certain vibrations as sound. There is no sound if no one perceives the vibrations as sound.
This example does not question occurrence of event, but the theoretical result of a hypothetical event.
It questions our knowledge. It is philosophical question.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: We are

Truden wrote:

We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.

Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and through which our body is controlled.

Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.

You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.

But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.

Except I get matter from direct observation and empirical evidence. My awareness tells me that matter exists without consciousness, but I have never seen any indiciations of consciousness without matter. If the existence of 'Spirit' were, in fact, self-evident, then it should be evident to everyone, and clearly, it is not. Until such time as empirical evidence for consciousness that is not dependant and reliant upon matter is produced, I see no reason to imagine such a thing where it does not exist.

Quote:

That question was given to me in the Facebook discussion and my answer was similar - our awareness defines certain vibrations as sound. There is no sound if no one perceives the vibrations as sound.
This example does not question occurrence of event, but the theoretical result of a hypothetical event.
It questions our knowledge. It is philosophical question.

Except that it's not just 'vibration', but also energy, and that energy affects the world around it in subtle ways, just like the old 'Butterfly effect' idea. And so, the world around us proves that the tree did fall, and it did release a certain amount of energy in the form of sound... even if we are not immediately capable of recognizing the evidence as such. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Matter is per se the substance which physical objects are made of, which does not include energy or any force fields (which contribute to the mass of an object)

Huh? I thought matter and energy are the same. Not too long ago my physics teacher said that. Besides, I have known that for years, since I was like 13.


Besides. What's the point of having a "pure consciousness" or "spirit" when Ockham's razor slices and dices it to shreds? There is no need for such supernatural entity in concious things. There is no proof that conciousness could exist without matter.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:

Truden wrote:


When I was in high school I got two points smaller mark on physics test for saying that a dual particle (wave/matter) can not behave as wave if it is observed as particle.

Today’s quantum physics question it the way I did.

In my opening of this topic I did not want to mention the “God” word and set you on that track.
I simply wanted to talk about the universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.


We need to differentiate between direct and indirect observation. We can observe a dual particle behaving as a wave or a particle depending on the type of observation. With direct observation we observe the subject itself. With indirect observation we observe the effects of the subject and by that infer the properties of the subject.

Quote:
In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.


By indirect observation we can 'know' by any meaningful definition of the concept of 'knowing'. We can see the effects of the universe that pre-existed consciousness in our direct observations of the present universe and thereby know that the universe preceded consciousness.

Quote:
If you take a deep though you’ll probably come to the feeling that this Universe is more like a dream world which we inhabit.


Not at all. If it weren't for my direct observations of what a 'dream' and a 'world' are I would have no basis by which to think the universe is a dream world.

If I try to infer from direct observation that the universe is a dream world then I call into doubt what I am directly observing and therefor cannot reasonably conclude that the universe is a dream world. If I simply assume that the universe is a dream world then I have nothing real in which to base my concept of 'dream' or 'world' and so I have no reasonable basis upon which to make such an assumption. Either way, the dream world thought experiment dies before it starts.


Quote:
That’s why I offered you to comment on the Big Bang and Guth’s theory and in the same time taking in account my questions about them.

Instead most of you jumped in assumptions and requested to clarify my understanding about God.
Why would you need that?
You should comment on the Universe, not on God.

I thanks to all who did comment on the subject.
I gave you an example how the limited by borders volume of the Universal mass creates unlimited Universal space in the modern Big Bang and Guth’s theories.

If we assume borders for the Universal mass in the Singularity we must assume that there was space out of the Universe, which can not be called Universal.


Why are you assuming borders for the Singularity? Of course if you assume that a singulatiy has borders then you assume that there is something beyond the borders of the Singularity. This is implied by the meaning of 'border'. But you should need to show how the concept of 'borders' applies to the singularity in order to claim it does. Simply saying the singularity has borders therefor there is something beyond the singularity is a conclusion founded on a naked assertion.

Quote:
Why am I digging in to this?
Isn’t it easier to give supportive evidences for God’s existence?
This is what most of you want.


I doubt its easier, but your welcome to try.

Quote:
Based on what must I give my evidences?
Based on your believe about the nature of the Universe?


Well, if you give evidences based on things I don't believe about the nature of the universe we probably won't get very far. Can I believe what I don't believe?

Quote:
What evidence about the sound and the light can I give to a person who was born blind and deaf?


Should the blind and deaf believe that there is sound and light if you can not give them evidence?

Through indirect observation the blind and deaf can come to reasonably conclude that there is sound and light. For instance, when you demonstrate the ability to predict them walking into a streetlamp you have demonstrated to them that light exists.
Quote:
But let’s talk about God.

The religions make it simple, because they put it on belief.
Every religion has a belief about God but all religions explain it as Spirit.
I’m not good with definitions, but I’m sure that all of you will agree that Spirit is consciousness in non material body.
Most religions put personality in God.


The problem is there is no direct or indirect observation that should reasonably lead me to believe that there is such a thing as spirit, or consciousness in a non-material body. By the way would you care to define 'non-material body'? As far as I know all bodies are material. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by 'non-material body'.

Quote:
God which I’m presenting is not a personality but Spirit which has one only property – capability to observe.


Demonstrate that there can be a capability to observe without a material body and the claim might be meaningful.


Quote:
I used few times the “consciousness” word and I found out that it is hard for you to imagine consciousness without intelligence.


Its becoming easier. Ha. Just kidding.

Quote:
As I said few times intelligence is knowledge created in the process of separating subjects and events.


Intelligence is not knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to reason.

Quote:
Spirit or Pure Consciousness has no knowledge, but only awareness for itself – “I exist”.


To be self aware one must employ reason. It requires intelligence.


Quote:
That Spirit will create intelligence only when observes subject or event which must be separated from its own existence.


We still haven't established the existence of spirit so I don't see that it can be said to create anything.

Quote:
Hope that the above explanation is clear enough.


Mostly clear, just flawed.

Quote:
Now, let see what we have as evidence for our own existence.

We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.


The evidence we have for our own existence is that if we did not exist we could not look forevidenceof our own existence. The moment we begin to question whether or not we exist we establish that we exist. That is all the evidence that is needed.


Quote:
Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and through which our body is controlled.


We are aware that our body needs a brain to be aware. If we had no brain we would not be aware of anything. We can demonstrate this by removing people's brains, though I don't condone such demonstrations.

Quote:
Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.

You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.


Not at all. You simply assert this. Evidence that the physical brain is responsible for awareness is that no one has ever demonstrated awareness without a brain. If there was a spirit responsible for awareness we should expect awareness to be demonstratable in the absence of a brain.

Quote:
But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.


What?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Except I get matter from direct observation and empirical evidence. My awareness tells me that matter exists without consciousness, but I have never seen any indiciations of consciousness without matter. If the existence of 'Spirit' were, in fact, self-evident, then it should be evident to everyone, and clearly, it is not. Until such time as empirical evidence for consciousness that is not dependant and reliant upon matter is produced, I see no reason to imagine such a thing where it does not exist.

You miss the fact that matter exist thanks to your conscious observation. The question is not whether non-conscious matter exists, but whether matter exists without being observed.

We can not claim existence without observing it.
In that regard Spirit (Pure Consciousness) exist because obviously we are aware of material existence.
The awareness that matter exists is evidence for existence of Spirit.

BMcD wrote:
Except that it's not just 'vibration', but also energy, and that energy affects the world around it in subtle ways, just like the old 'Butterfly effect' idea. And so, the world around us proves that the tree did fall, and it did release a certain amount of energy in the form of sound... even if we are not immediately capable of recognizing the evidence as such.

It doesn't matter what it is and what it affects. The question is: "Was there sound?"

No, there wasn't sound because whatever it was, it surely wasn't perceived as what we call sound.
It was emission of vibrations or energy release or whatever you prefer to call it.
Even if there was sound recorder, we can say that the place was silent and the apparatus recorded vibrations, which we will perceive as sound when the record is played.

 


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: You miss the

Truden wrote:

You miss the fact that matter exist thanks to your conscious observation. The question is not whether non-conscious matter exists, but whether matter exists without being observed.

We can not claim existence without observing it.
In that regard Spirit (Pure Consciousness) exist because obviously we are aware of material existence.
The awareness that matter exists is evidence for existence of Spirit.

It seems that you are creating a purely philosophical discussion. You seem to be saying that we exist in a sort of shared dream state. Whether this is true is not only untestable, but also of no consequence. It would not alter the way in which the universe functions, because the entire system is within this "consciouness," not interacting with it. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: You miss the

Truden wrote:

You miss the fact that matter exist thanks to your conscious observation. The question is not whether non-conscious matter exists, but whether matter exists without being observed.

We can not claim existence without observing it.
In that regard Spirit (Pure Consciousness) exist because obviously we are aware of material existence.
The awareness that matter exists is evidence for existence of Spirit.

You do realize, of course, that the end result of that chain of thought is actually a denial of any external deity, right? Because if you're taking (as you are) the view that matter only exists because it's observed, then everything outside of yourself exists only because you observe it. In other words, you create reality around you every moment. So then, your concept of an external deity becomes impossible.

In order to have anything exist outside of your own mind, you have to accept the validity (or at least, likely validity) of objective reality, which means accepting the existence of matter predating the existence of consciousness which arises from matter.

Otherwise, you're more or less arguing that in fact you are simply a delusion of God's, a construct of the divine mind attempting to both defend the existence of, while distancing itself from, itself. 

Quote:

It doesn't matter what it is and what it affects. The question is: "Was there sound?"

No, there wasn't sound because whatever it was, it surely wasn't perceived as what we call sound.
It was emission of vibrations or energy release or whatever you prefer to call it.
Even if there was sound recorder, we can say that the place was silent and the apparatus recorded vibrations, which we will perceive as sound when the record is played.

Once again, not so, because 'sound' is the released energy waveform, regardless of perception. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, I'm afraid that my

Vessel, I'm afraid that my answer will need at least of of the quoting you did.

First of all, no need to differentiate between direct and indirect observation.
Consciousness is needed for both of them.

The 'knowing' word is very important.
We can not discuss the Universe without knowing from observation that it exist.
Knowing the meaning of "existence" we can conclude that other existences are possible but possibility is not fact.
"Knowing" is not observation but result of observation.

I suppose that you are deceived by my words:

Quote:
In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.


Note that I don't say "before we to observe it (the Universe)"
I say "before to be observed".
And it is sure that we can not know.

This question has very good parallel with another one: Can you say that you had night-dream if you don’t remember having one.
The question about the Universe comes with the knowledge about the Universe which knowledge we have through observation. We wouldn’t ask such a question if we did not observe Universe and have the knowledge about it.
Same way we could not think about night-dreams if we never had one and there wouldn’t be assumption that we probably dream but we don’t know it. There wouldn’t be knowledge for such assumption.

You asking me, why do I assume borders for the Universe in Singularity.
Because matter has borders.
Why do you assume the opposite?

I have to quote here:

Vessel wrote:

Should the blind and deaf believe that there is sound and light if you can not give them evidence?

Through indirect observation the blind and deaf can come to reasonably conclude that there is sound and light. For instance, when you demonstrate the ability to predict them walking into a streetlamp you have demonstrated to them that light exists.


I'm afraid that I don't understand what are you saying.


Vessel wrote:
The problem is there is no direct or indirect observation that should reasonably lead me to believe that there is such a thing as spirit, or consciousness in a non-material body. By the way would you care to define 'non-material body'? As far as I know all bodies are material. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by 'non-material body'.


You should not argue that "there is no direct or indirect observation that should reasonably lead me to believe that there is such a thing as spirit" since I gave such evidence.
You can comment or argue the evidence or the way I presented the evidence.

I think that your question about "non-material-body" is time winning question.
I'm quite sure that most humans know the meaning of "Spirit".
Knoing that I'm Bulgarian you could easily assume "non-material-entity"
If you really have problem with the "Spirit" meaning I'm afraid that we have to end up our conversation.

Vessel wrote:
Demonstrate that there can be a capability to observe without a material body and the claim might be meaningful.

It is the same like to ask you to demonstrate that matter can exist without conscious observation of the presented evidence.
This is irrelevant request.
Remember that we are playing "50/50"

Vessel wrote:
Intelligence is not knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to reason.

It is matter of wording in the way of bringing meaning.
I hoped that the meaning I intended to bring is easier to be understood with the "intelligence" word.
Apparently it wasn't good enough for you.
Would it be wrong to say that "intelligence" is knowledge about the reasoning with information.
Isn't "ability" in this case dependent on knowledge?
It seams that English language can easily miss the meaning because of one word or synonym.
I promise to be more careful and hope that you will always point my mistakes and non-understandable meanings.

Vessel wrote:
To be self aware one must employ reason. It requires intelligence.

False.
Self awareness ("I exist&quotEye-wink does not need proof or evidence which employs intelligence.
In fact it does not need proof.

Vessel wrote:
We are aware that our body needs a brain to be aware.

Meaningless.

Are you saying that we are aware that our body needs to produce awareness in order we to be aware of our awareness and body?

No offense but I did not expect such a long answer to such simple statement.
Actually I did not expect arguments at all, but questions.
There is no point which can be argued. Each point of my expose is answered, sustained and defended by other point in it.

If any other is going to comment, please read carefully before do so.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote: Truden

lieutenant24 wrote:
Truden wrote:

You miss the fact that matter exist thanks to your conscious observation. The question is not whether non-conscious matter exists, but whether matter exists without being observed.

We can not claim existence without observing it.
In that regard Spirit (Pure Consciousness) exist because obviously we are aware of material existence.
The awareness that matter exists is evidence for existence of Spirit.

It seems that you are creating a purely philosophical discussion. You seem to be saying that we exist in a sort of shared dream state. Whether this is true is not only untestable, but also of no consequence. It would not alter the way in which the universe functions, because the entire system is within this "consciouness," not interacting with it. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

No philosophy involved here.
Science can not claim existence without observation.
Without observation science can claim prediction but not existence.

In my expose I do not involve "dream" except in one place where I said "feeling like in dream".
I'll restrain from using the "dream" word in this discussion and I'll expect no assumptions in that direction. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
It reads more like you're

It reads more like you're presenting ideas without any backing but rather just a lot of assumptions.  It's like Plato's Cave and Schrodinger's Cat kinda slapped together.

I still don't see where the 50/50 comes into play.  It's all unsubstantiated claims. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
 Eh. I was typing a reply,

 Eh. I was typing a reply, but thought better of it. I'll let you be. Have fun.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: You do realize,

BMcD wrote:
You do realize, of course, that the end result of that chain of thought is actually a denial of any external deity, right? Because if you're taking (as you are) the view that matter only exists because it's observed, then everything outside of yourself exists only because you observe it. In other words, you create reality around you every moment. So then, your concept of an external deity becomes impossible.


What would "external deity" mean if it observes internally the Universe?
Yes, I did not claim external deity.
Such entity does not concern our discussion at this point.

Why would you assume that the Universe exist ONLY because I observe it.
Obviously it is not only me who observes the Universe.
It exists because of the observation, not because of my particular observation.
I don't create anything but my personal knowledge obtained by my personal observation.

BMcD wrote:

In order to have anything exist outside of your own mind, you have to accept the validity (or at least, likely validity) of objective reality, which means accepting the existence of matter predating the existence of consciousness which arises from matter.

Otherwise, you're more or less arguing that in fact you are simply a delusion of God's, a construct of the divine mind attempting to both defend the existence of, while distancing itself from, itself.


I'm observer.
We all are.
We observe existences which are not us.
We don't have memory of anything created by us except for the things which we did created but even those things created by us are not us.
We are the awareness for ourselves ( "I exist" ) and the knowledge created through observation.

It is not creation.
It is appearance of motion in the awareness for self-existence.
Kind of: "I exist, but what is that moving thing?"
The "moving thing" is not created by the awareness but appeared in it.

From where?
Not for this discussion and does not concern its claim.
Ask the scientists where from the Universe came.

 

I axcepted validity of objective reality.
It is the Spirit in which the whole universe exists as observation.
If there is no such observer the universe wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to observe it through the Spirits "only property", ability to observe from the position of "I exist" (self-awareness) which (existence) is obvious in the material Universe.

No one can claim that consciousness arises from matter.
You can say that consciousness interrelates with matter.

"Sound" is word for your understanding about whatever it is which understanding derives from your observation.
Without your observation and understanding there is no such thing like "sound".
This is my last comment on "sound".


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: It reads

Tarpan wrote:

It reads more like you're presenting ideas without any backing but rather just a lot of assumptions. It's like Plato's Cave and Schrodinger's Cat kinda slapped together.

I still don't see where the 50/50 comes into play. It's all unsubstantiated claims.

Would you please show me where should I back up anything in my "idea" and how this "idea" of mine is weaker than yours. 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: I’m quite

Truden wrote:

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.

In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.


After reading through all your posts, and attempting to understand what you are intending to say, I find that what you have said sounds like a kind of Quantum-Berkeleyan-Cartesian-Scientific Idealism.

You seem to be positing a Spirit because universe could not exist unless it was being observed. Therefore, you argue that there must be a Spirit to observe everything in order for everything that exists to exist. This is the part that sounds like a bare (Spirit only) form of Berkeley's "God" (an omni-observer of all the ideas in the world). However, for you, instead of observing ideas, it seems that your Spirit observes all the possible events in the universe at a sub-atomic level. So far does this sound about right?

 

Quote:

You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.

This sounds Cartesian. Instead of the traditional, "I think, therefore I am" you posit "I am aware, therefore I exist." Unfortunately, the "self-awareness" of this proposition is not self-evident. Descartes tried to use the same form of argument without success. One of the problems with using this type of argument for existence, is that it presupposes existence by using the referent "I." So by saying, "I am aware, therefore I exist" you are referring to "I" as if it exists, before you've proved that it exists by saying "I am aware."

Furthermore, problems with self-identity make this type of argument even harder because when asked to give an account of what the "I" in "I am aware" is, one merely lists experiences of "such-and-such" as supposedly evidence for the existence of the "Self."

Quote:

But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.

By saying this, it seems that even if you establish that there is a Spirit observing the universe, it appears that you are making your "Spirit" quite unimportant and quite unnecessary. If all the Spirit does is observe, and nothing else, then it is essentially non-important. It is rendered helplessly observant in a completely non-important way. Which if this is the case, then I'm sure we'd all like to ask, "Why even suppose there is a Spirit?"

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Eh. I was

Vessel wrote:
Eh. I was typing a reply, but thought better of it. I'll let you be. Have fun.

Thanks, Vessel Smiling

I'll asume that you got my point, but don't dissapoint me if I'm wrong by saying it. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Vessel

Truden wrote:

Vessel wrote:
Eh. I was typing a reply, but thought better of it. I'll let you be. Have fun.

Thanks, Vessel Smiling

I'll asume that you got my point, but don't dissapoint me if I'm wrong by saying it.

Let's just say its not a conversation I care to devote time to at the moment. I may change my mind at a later time if things take a more substantive turn. Sorry if I disappoint. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Tarpan

Truden wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

It reads more like you're presenting ideas without any backing but rather just a lot of assumptions. It's like Plato's Cave and Schrodinger's Cat kinda slapped together.

I still don't see where the 50/50 comes into play. It's all unsubstantiated claims.

Would you please show me where should I back up anything in my "idea" and how this "idea" of mine is weaker than yours.

What is my "idea", and when did I apply conclusions to things that I have no evidence for?  I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I am just saying that what you are saying is essentially just an idea that you have no support for.

I am not as wise on some of these topics as a lot of people here, but I so far can conclude that your are arriving at a conclusion without any evidence for why you are arriving there.  It is a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and somehow trying to suggest that this string of uncertain guess-work leads to a 50/50 chance of anything? I don't suggest a 50/50 to anything if I have no substantial reason. 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: After reading

jread wrote:

After reading through all your posts, and attempting to understand what you are intending to say, I find that what you have said sounds like a kind of Quantum-Berkeleyan-Cartesian-Scientific Idealism.

You seem to be positing a Spirit because universe could not exist unless it was being observed. Therefore, you argue that there must be a Spirit to observe everything in order for everything that exists to exist. This is the part that sounds like a bare (Spirit only) form of Berkeley's "God" (an omni-observer of all the ideas in the world). However, for you, instead of observing ideas, it seems that your Spirit observes all the possible events in the universe at a sub-atomic level. So far does this sound about right?




I'll have to disappoint you - I have no clue who Berkeley is what Cartesian means and I don't have science degree.
I'm carpenter who does not read much.
If we as personalities are consist of the Spirit's property "capability to observe" then why it is imposible for the Spirit to observe on sub-atomic level through his capability in us.
And after all we are talking about observation of matter, not about observation of properties of the matter which involves behavior. The matter is present not because the spirit has the ability to observe but because the observation gives validity of the existence. Matter can exist without being present if there is no observation to make the presence valid. In that regard matter can exist without being present and when observation is done, then the existence is made valid and turns it to presence.
I said that we can not know whether the Universe was existent before to observe it.
The observation make it present and valid in existence which proofs that awareness is needed.
An object can not validate its own existence unless it is aware about it.

Are you assuming that the Spirit should observe the way we do, with five senses?

jread wrote:

This sounds Cartesian. Instead of the traditional, "I think, therefore I am" you posit "I am aware, therefore I exist." Unfortunately, the "self-awareness" of this proposition is not self-evident. Descartes tried to use the same form of argument without success. One of the problems with using this type of argument for existence, is that it presupposes existence by using the referent "I." So by saying, "I am aware, therefore I exist" you are referring to "I" as if it exists, before you've proved that it exists by saying "I am aware."

Furthermore, problems with self-identity make this type of argument even harder because when asked to give an account of what the "I" in "I am aware" is, one merely lists experiences of "such-and-such" as supposedly evidence for the existence of the "Self."



"I think therefore I am" is not self-awareness but attempt to define self-existence.
It involves knowledge.
Same applies for any attempt to define yourself.
Awareness does not work with words and meanings.
It does not question itself and does not need proof about itself.
Weren't you aware of your existence before learning the words and the meanings.
Do you think that an animal is not aware of its own existence because can not question it.
jread wrote:

Truden wrote:

But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.


By saying this, it seems that even if you establish that there is a Spirit observing the universe, it appears that you are making your "Spirit" quite unimportant and quite unnecessary. If all the Spirit does is observe, and nothing else, then it is essentially non-important. It is rendered helplessly observant in a completely non-important way. Which if this is the case, then I'm sure we'd all like to ask, "Why even suppose there is a Spirit?"

What importance should the Spirit have?
Isn't it important that it makes the Universe present?
Furthermore I have very important agenda put on its shoulders - achieving 50% possibility that God exist in face of the Spirit who gives life to the Universe.

And... for your and all theist comfort I promise the other half of God to be presented in other discussion.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
No problem, Tarpan. It is

No problem, Tarpan.

It is normal to doubt or not to agree but it makes the other side to take you not serious if only say "This is nonsense".
Say why and point to the weak point of the idea.
If you admit that you are not that wise, it would be in your favor not to say anything.

Any way, I like you and no offense taken by my side Smiling


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The matter is

Quote:
The matter is present not because the spirit has the ability to observe but because the observation gives validity of the existence. Matter can exist without being present if there is no observation to make the presence valid. In that regard matter can exist without being present and when observation is done, then the existence is made valid and turns it to presence.

First, explain what "validity to existence" means. Second, what do you mean by "presence"?

Truden, I would recommend that you read some books on this matter. Consider making a different thread, perhaps in the Science forum, explaining what interests you and if anyone knows of any books that they can recommend to you. The problem with your "theory" is that it doesn't have any grounding in previous scholarship. If your theory is completely "new" then you need to outline it better. As it stands, your "50/50 Theory" is quite incomprehensible and like everyone has been stressing, needs to have its terms defined.

Oh and even though I am a theist, I can't say that I find comfort in hearing "the other half" of your theory pointing to God.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


MacProudhon
MacProudhon's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Out of interest Truden I

Out of interest Truden I was wondering if you would mind answering a hypothetical question based on your theory? Suppose (hypothetically of course) a small pebble sized rock existed in the space in the hypothetical middle of nowhere. Suppose nobody ever observed it. Would it still exist, or not, or does this question itself run contrary to your theory?

 

Remember its a hypothetical question.  


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:

Truden wrote:

What would "external deity" mean if it observes internally the Universe?

Actually, I meant external to you, not external to the universe. In other words, there can, in the end, be no god except you, yourself.

If matter only exists because it is observed, then, combined with the simple fact that only thing you can ever be sure does exist to be observing is you, (All else could be a figment of your imagination.) then matter cannot exist unless you exist and observe it, which means you are God. Lemme break it down:

1)You exist. You know this because someone must exist to be observing. Beyond that, you cannot be sure. I know I exist. I can never be 100% sure you exist. You can't be sure I do, because it could all be delusion.

2)You assert that we cannot claim matter exists when it is not under observation.

3)The only observer you can know to exist is you.

Thus, matter can only be shown to exist when you observe it. If this is the case, then you create the universe through your observation, and thus, you are God.

You say you accept the validity of objective reality, but also say that the universe exists because of observation. If the universe requires observation to exist, then there must be an observer (which appears to be your point). But the only observer that can be proven to exist is the observer performing the proof.

Beyond that, all you have is 'because I said so'.

As for sound, regardless of if this was your last word:

What we call sound is energy that travels as percussive pressure waves through a medium. When these pressure waves impact our eardrums in a certain range of frequencies, we register that as 'sound'. Regardless of whether or not we notice them, these pressure waves still exist in their medium, and still have physical effects on everything they impact.

Your statement that 'sound' exists only when we observe it is demonstrably false, as many creatures are able to register pressure waves in a wider frequency range than we do. When someone blows a dog whistle, it is incorrect to say "there is no sound". Rather, "there is no sound that we can hear". Similarly, when a tree falls in the woods, there most certainly is sound: it pushes the air around it, but just like the butterfly half a world away, its effects on the air against our eardrums are cancelled out by interference and diffusion among the molecules of air and competing forces upon those molecules.

But it was still there, and it was still sound.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: Quote: The

jread wrote:

Quote:
The matter is present not because the spirit has the ability to observe but because the observation gives validity of the existence. Matter can exist without being present if there is no observation to make the presence valid. In that regard matter can exist without being present and when observation is done, then the existence is made valid and turns it to presence.

First, explain what "validity to existence" means. Second, what do you mean by "presence"?

Truden, I would recommend that you read some books on this matter. Consider making a different thread, perhaps in the Science forum, explaining what interests you and if anyone knows of any books that they can recommend to you. The problem with your "theory" is that it doesn't have any grounding in previous scholarship. If your theory is completely "new" then you need to outline it better. As it stands, your "50/50 Theory" is quite incomprehensible and like everyone has been stressing, needs to have its terms defined.

Oh and even though I am a theist, I can't say that I find comfort in hearing "the other half" of your theory pointing to God.

I don't know what to recommend for improving your capability to understand abstractions.
Non-valid existence is hypothetical existence.
We can assume existence and our assumption could reflect the truth, but it (the existence) is valid only through observation. Presence is valid existence, because nothing can be present to you without your observation (detection).

The problem with all religions is that they can not explain what they believe in, because they are seeking grounds in previous scholarship. Look at Jesus' words and find ground there, my friend.

Of course it is not comfortable for you to have truth other than your own belief.  


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
MacProudhon wrote: Out of

MacProudhon wrote:

Out of interest Truden I was wondering if you would mind answering a hypothetical question based on your theory? Suppose (hypothetically of course) a small pebble sized rock existed in the space in the hypothetical middle of nowhere. Suppose nobody ever observed it. Would it still exist, or not, or does this question itself run contrary to your theory?

 

Remember its a hypothetical question.

That was answered already.
You ask from your knowledge.
You wouldn't ask it if you didn't know anything about the subject in question.
Hypothetically an existence is possible if it can be thought but all existences are valid when observed.

A hypothetical existence does not concern our awareness.
If we do not apply existence to our awareness we would only be aware of ourselves.
Your question would not make any sense to such awareness.

In that regard it makes non sense except proving awareness about unresolved mind problem.

 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: Actually, I

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I meant external to you, not external to the universe. In other words, there can, in the end, be no god except you, yourself.

Absolutely right.
If you say that God exists, it can not exist out of yourself.

That applies to any self. 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: BMcD

Truden wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I meant external to you, not external to the universe. In other words, there can, in the end, be no god except you, yourself.

Absolutely right.
If you say that God exists, it can not exist out of yourself.

That applies to any self.

Well, if the creator doesn't exist outside of yourself, then you are embracing a solopsistic viewpoint, and that can only work for you, but nobody else can adopt your solopsism. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Non-valid existence is hypothetical existence.

 

Are you just making this up? Or are there actually scientists who actually refer to "non-valid existence"? Also, "non-valid existence" does not seem equatable to "hypothetical existence." Please tell me where you got this existence distinction.

 

Quote:
The problem with all religions is that they can not explain what they believe in, because they are seeking grounds in previous scholarship. Look at Jesus' words and find ground there, my friend.

Looking to Jesus' words would be just another form of scholarship. (Of course, this would be only for those who grant that Jesus existed.)

Quote:
Of course it is not comfortable for you to have truth other than your own belief.

Are you telling me that you are speaking truth? Please. You are so far from speaking "truth" at this point. Try eating a slice of humble pie and explaining yourself better so that people can actually understand this supposed theory that you have in store.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: Quote:

jread wrote:

Quote:
Non-valid existence is hypothetical existence.

 

Are you just making this up? Or are there actually scientists who actually refer to "non-valid existence"? Also, "non-valid existence" does not seem equatable to "hypothetical existence." Please tell me where you got this existence distinction.

 

Quote:
The problem with all religions is that they can not explain what they believe in, because they are seeking grounds in previous scholarship. Look at Jesus' words and find ground there, my friend.

Looking to Jesus' words would be just another form of scholarship. (Of course, this would be only for those who grant that Jesus existed.)

Quote:
Of course it is not comfortable for you to have truth other than your own belief.

Are you telling me that you are speaking truth? Please. You are so far from speaking "truth" at this point. Try eating a slice of humble pie and explaining yourself better so that people can actually understand this supposed theory that you have in store.

Who makes up words, meanings and conceptions?
Why am I not allowed to do it in order to explain my idea.
Every conscious expression deals with symbols.
You have to deal with symbols and ask me to explain them only if they make no sense.
In our case the explanation is quite understandable.

The way you put the scholarship leaves no place for discussion.

I don't tell you that I'm telling the truth, but you can not know whether it is or it is not the truth.
That is why we are talking about possibility of God's existence.
That possibility might not be questionable for me because I know the truth, but it is questionable for the rest.
The discussion is not about whether I know the truth and I am telling it, but whether it is possible to reflect the truth.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: Truden

BMcD wrote:
Truden wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I meant external to you, not external to the universe. In other words, there can, in the end, be no god except you, yourself.

Absolutely right.
If you say that God exists, it can not exist out of yourself.

That applies to any self.

Well, if the creator doesn't exist outside of yourself, then you are embracing a solopsistic viewpoint, and that can only work for you, but nobody else can adopt your solopsism.

The creator does not exist outside of any self. 

If Solipsism means denial of other minds then my idea is not solipsism.
I don't say that my mind is the only mind in the Universe.
I don't say that I (my mind) is the only thing which exist because obviously I observe existences.
I may not know the true nature of the existences but I observe it and it is obvious for my observation that other existences also have the capability to observe.

So it is not solipsism.

BTHW, I think that "existence" should not be used in plural. 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: The creator

Truden wrote:

The creator does not exist outside of any self.

If Solipsism means denial of other minds then my idea is not solipsism.
I don't say that my mind is the only mind in the Universe.
I don't say that I (my mind) is the only thing which exist because obviously I observe existences.
I may not know the true nature of the existences but I observe it and it is obvious for my observation that other existences also have the capability to observe.

So it is not solipsism.

BTHW, I think that "existence" should not be used in plural.

Then why do you use it in plural?

If it shouldn't be used in plural, then how can you say there exists more than one mind?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD, I enjoy very much the

BMcD, I enjoy very much the conversation with you.

Thanks for giving me this joy.

Now we have to move to the next point of this discussion.

Remember what I said? - The Spirit has one only property, the capability to observe.

Of course it has self-awareness (I exist).

Through observation the spirit creates knowledge: "I observe one object, and there is one more and they are moving closer to each other".

The knowledge "there is other existence except my existence" is created, and also the knowledge that "there are two objects which are moving closer in distance."

Meanings and conceptions are created. Later the words will be created to express the meanings and the conceptions.

All we (with small exceptions) share the same way of observation, the same meanings and conceptions.

We have the property of the spirit to observe and we create knowledge through it.

We have self-awareness.

Animals also have the same, but they don't question (at least we think so) their existence.

I think that the first intelligent human thought was to question an existence - sort of "What is this and where it comes from?".

Now, we observe that we are not the only observers, and the Universe is existent even when particular observation over it is ceased. That leads as to the conclusion that we are not the main observer.

Am I saning now that if the main observer stops its observation the Universe will disappear.

Yes.

How is that possible?

As part of the Spirit we share the Spirit’s properties.

If the ability of observation is withdrawn we will not be able to observe the Universe, therefore it will not be existent for us except trough the knowledge for its past or presumably present existence.

It actually happens in similar way and it is called "death".

The main point is the ability to observe thus creating meanings and conceptions.

Let's look in to that.

What is "existence"?

It is the state of observed object separated as different from the self-awareness.
(Do not look in the dictionaries. They suck.)

We observe objects and waves with our five senses.

We create meanings and conceptions.

The weak point in the "existence" meaning is that ones we created it we started to apply it to different objects by saying "it exists" or "possibility to exist".

We forget that existence is notion explaining presence of object in our observation.

We must not apply the "existence" word (and all words derived from it) to objects, because we speculate with it and deceive our understanding. Or at least we must be aware of the way we use it.

Is it possible the existence of rock in the middle of nowhere.

Yes it is possible and there are existing objects which we do not observe. The process of observation comes from the fact that there was existence which we were not aware off.

But we are also aware of the "existence" meaning and the question comes from that awareness.

The question wouldn't come if we did never observe anything but only be aware of our existence without having five senses.

So, the mind speculates with created meanings.

Again: the question "is it possible existence of...?" stays in the already possible meaning "existence".

The answer is: Yes existence is already possible because we KNOW the "existence" meaning.

From then on, everything which we already know as existent stands the possibility to exist in nowhere.

We don't make the rock existent with our observation, because it is already existent in our understanding.

When we observe it, we will simply observe known object - matter.

The parallel with the "sound in the forest" can explain something very important.

If there was no creature to observe the sound, there was no sound but vibrations with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz. The “sound” meaning applies only to creatures which have sense to perceive it and interpret it as… sound. Otherwise there is silence.

Let's play again with "existence" to make an explaining parallel.

We hypothetically assume that in our universe exists an entity which has no senses and has the capability to move through matter. This entity is aware of itself and the space which we call Universe. It keeps itself alive by moving through the space and matter. Actually the matter is giving (him) the energy required to keep its existence. That entity does not know that there is matter and that the matter is keeping (him) alive.

We do not exist for this hypothetic entity and the entity does not exist for us.

So, we exist and the entity exists but that existences do not interrelate and do not appear to each other.

What is the Universe?
Is it what we observe or what the hypothetical entity "observes".
Which Universe is existent, the entity Universe or our Universe?

Because we are made from the matter which we observe does that mean that all entities in the universe are made of matter and interrelate with it as we do?

The Universe is what we observe and our senses for observation are limited to five.
The Universe except everything includes us.
All evidences are based on observation (us)

We can not have evidence of what we can not observe and... for our awareness which is self evident.

Now, back to the Spirit (God, Main Observer).

The spirit gives us the possibility to be self-aware and to be aware of existence through observation.
The Spirit's properties are evident in us, which makes us part of the Spirit regarding its properties.

Our personalities are based on knowledge.
Our shared properties are based on the Spirit.

In that regard we are different personalities but one as part of the Spirit.
If there is God, it is in everybody as its shared properties – self-awareness and observation.


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden~ This is the first

Truden~

This is the first time you've actually said anything that made sense. Congratulations! Smile

I understand what you are proposing, with this idea of a sort of symbiotic relationship between "god" and matter/the universe.

I personally don't believe it, because I see no reason to believe in a supernatural entity. But you are entitled to your belief, and from a very abstract and philosophical point of view, your idea makes sense.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Who makes up words,

Quote:
Who makes up words, meanings and conceptions?
Why am I not allowed to do it in order to explain my idea.
Every conscious expression deals with symbols.
You have to deal with symbols and ask me to explain them only if they make no sense.
In our case the explanation is quite understandable.

I find it comical that you continue to insist that your "explanation is quite understandable." If it was so understandable, then why aren't more people involved in this discussion? Why aren't people lining up to hear your incredible theory? I suspect that it is because you fail to explain particular terms that your theory utilizes.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the reason why hardly anyone is on board with you, is because you are literally inventing your own terms and conceptions? It is not our responsibility to understand your theory using terms created by you. Instead, it is your responsibility to explain these personal terms that your theory so highly relies upon.

Quote:
I don't tell you that I'm telling the truth, but you can not know whether it is or it is not the truth.

Dubious.

Quote:
The discussion is not about whether I know the truth and I am telling it, but whether it is possible to reflect the truth.

This makes no sense. Is the "truth" somehow going to reflect itself without someone (you) saying it? So we should all literally be blinded by some truth, and you are merely trying to hold the "mirror" in a way that would result in our "seeing the light"?

Essentially, I find your replies becoming more and more frightening. You seem to be so convinced of your own correctness that any attempt to question it is immediately rejected on your behalf. If you have blinders on, then why are you even having a discussion? Is all this in order to bring some prophetic message of "truth" to the world wide web? Do you believe yourself to be some sort of prophet? It sure sounds like it.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


MacProudhon
MacProudhon's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
"I'm sorry Dave"...

"I'm sorry Dave"...


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Although Truden claims he

Although Truden claims he made this up on his own, the infamous VenomFangX appears to have a similar "proof" stating that god is outside matter, time, and space... have a look:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E2GJZwapJc&NR=1

There were also some video responses directed at this, so you can check those out as well... I kind of liked these two.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRwHL7HVjQ&feature=related 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRwHL7HVjQ&NR=1

 

Maybe this will help clarify things?


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Truden~

This is the first time you've actually said anything that made sense. Congratulations! Smile

I understand what you are proposing, with this idea of a sort of symbiotic relationship between "god" and matter/the universe.

I personally don't believe it, because I see no reason to believe in a supernatural entity. But you are entitled to your belief, and from a very abstract and philosophical point of view, your idea makes sense.

 It wouldn't make sense if I didn't say everything I said before. At lest not for most of you guys.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Although Truden claims he made this up on his own, the infamous VenomFangX appears to have a similar "proof" stating that god is outside matter, time, and space... have a look:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E2GJZwapJc&NR=1

There were also some video responses directed at this, so you can check those out as well... I kind of liked these two.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRwHL7HVjQ&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRwHL7HVjQ&NR=1

 

Maybe this will help clarify things?

 

I don't speak out of my belief, but it is not my intent to proof that I KNOW all this.
This is only "half of God" which I know.
The other half will be discussed in other topic if you guys show interest.

I'll check the links, but I assure you that my "theory" is not build on texts and other BELIEFS.
It can not be new, because there is nothing new in this world.
Everything is already said with different words and in different ways. 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jread, I'll restrain

jread, I'll restrain responding to you unless you comment on my words, not on my personality.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Dissapointing...Now I know

Dissapointing...Now I know how atheists feel when they try to talk to fundamentalists.


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
I believe you when you say

I believe you when you say that you invented your theory on your own.

 

I just posted the videos

a) to show that there are some similar ideas out there

b) to help explain to other people some of what you are trying to say, and 

c) to confirm that this is in fact what you are trying to say with part of your theory.

   It wasn't meant to be an attack. Just for the record.