God is not only possible but plausible

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
God is not only possible but plausible

In this essay, I am testing an idea about God, that I may use in other forums uses, and am running it by everyone to work out the details and get feedback. This is mainly my ideas from other topics condensed into one.

 

Since Einstien's famous E=mc^2 equation, modern physics has been turned upside down. This principle has opened up new doors in the pyramid of knowledge, and shown that matter is nothing but an illusion. What we percieve of a proton or electron is no more at high energies. In fact, in dealing with high energy particle physics, electron volts (ev) are used to denote the mass of the particle. One ev is 1.6x10^-17 Joules. This shows that matter and energy are interchangable in relation to it's constant of inertia (a.k.a mass). As you know energy (light for example) travels in waves. Well, an electron does the same thing, this is shown in electron diffraction:

(image from wikipedia).

 

Basically due to the Heinsenburg uncertainty principle, electrons travel in waves of probability known as De-Broglie waves. Like light, these waves can interact in either constructive or destructive interference. It is this basis that also allows quantum tunneling. That is for an electron to spontaniously tunnell through a barrier. This is the nail in the coffin of classical physics being applied to high energy/quantum problems. These quantum effects cannot be explained using the classical 'the electron is just a charged particle sphere' theory. Instead, it shows that matter is merely an illusion, that what we percieve as an electron is not quite a charged sphere of a defined magnetic spin or angular momentum. It is so much more.

However, these particles still obey the laws of physics. However, recent theories in physics reveal a whole new perspective. The multiverse theory holds that there may be an infinite number of other universes. Each with it's own laws of physics, each with it's own potiental. The multiverse is the ultimate poster child for infinite potiental. What is not possible in one universe is possible in another. Things that don't happen in our universe, happens in another. There is potiental for different forms of life, for higher technology that this universe could only dream of.

 

Speaking of life, the theory of evolution is taking dominance in the field of biology. Every crediable biologist is singing there praise for it and rushing to find out more, to make more discoveries. There is an incrediable amount of life on this planet. Countless number of species and sub-species, all are evolving into better life forms better suited for their enviroment. They are evolving to get the most out of their enviroment.

 

(image from wikipedia)

 

 

This is a bit odd isn't it? Particle physics, multiverse theory and evolution in an essay about God? Many people think that these principles condratict God, that no God is required to make these come to life. Why would God use evolution to put us here? Why the Bigbang? Why have an infinite number of universes, some may not even have life?

 

The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do. That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter. Much like a slide that is inserted into a projector, the brain limits the infinite consciousness into finite experience. Our brains may have infinite potiental, people have read books once and memorized them. The world record for the most digits of pi memorized is over 22,000!

 

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

But how can potiental be turned into experience? Imagine a projector. Turn it on and a white light will be on the screen. However, this white light alone is useless. Only potiental. Anybody who flashed white light through a prism knows that white light is many colours. This is the concept of 'creation from subtraction'. Now insert a slide, of say a red car. Now the white light turns the infinite potiental into the finitely real. The red car appears on the screen because it filters out the colours that are not red. It creates the red by subtracting the non-red.

 

So why would God, want to create us? If he is indeed infinite what's the point? Why create things?

 

As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory'


'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

The God Theory pages 15-16

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB

AtheistAviB wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Pineapple,

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

 

 

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

It's not an illusion as much as it is broken down into parts that make the way we visualize them an illusion. There is a major difference.
And, even if the way we perceive it is an illusion, then why would our perception of consciousness be any different?

 

I don't get what you mean by consciousness is an illusion. We use consciousness to percieve things.  


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sounds more like the Force than a god.

Funny you should say that, a lot of Lucas's story was influenced strongly bt the work of Joseph Campbell whose most notable achievements were in the field of comparitive religion and myth. Yoda, Luke and the Force, especially, were built up using Campbell analysis of archetypes.

 

Yah, exactly.

Campbell in turn was working off of Jung, who got his Gnostic and Alchemical ideas from, you guessed it, Paracelsus.  Each, in turn, both extended the ideas of his predecessor and acknowledged where they came from.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: How

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
How about if I put it like 'I see things differently than you do'? Would that be fair?

I think that would be fair and pretty obvious too.

Quote:
You are correct, that people have big pictures that need filling. That is why I am not an atheist. I see no reason why there couldn't be a big picture.

I don’t see a reason why there cannot be a big picture either, it just doesn’t automatically mean god to me. If that’s your reason for not being an atheist maybe you should reconsider.

But considering that need is nearly synonymous with weakness and deficiency it would be normal for me to think that I would not necessarily benefit from having more needs. And it would turn that concept on its head to say that a person lacks something by not having this need that you have. So I think this idea that theists look at the grand scale and we're atheist because we don't is just wrong.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche

Gauche wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
How about if I put it like 'I see things differently than you do'? Would that be fair?

I think that would be fair and pretty obvious too.

Quote:
You are correct, that people have big pictures that need filling. That is why I am not an atheist. I see no reason why there couldn't be a big picture.

I don’t see a reason why there cannot be a big picture either, it just doesn’t automatically mean god to me. If that’s your reason for not being an atheist maybe you should reconsider.

But considering that need is nearly synonymous with weakness and deficiency it would be normal for me to think that I would not necessarily benefit from having more needs. And it would turn that concept on its head to say that a person lacks something by not having this need that you have. So I think this idea that theists look at the grand scale and we're atheist because we don't is just wrong.

 

I think we are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. When I said 'missing the big picture', I didn't mean that atheists don't look at the grand scale, what I'm saying is the atheist inturpets the grand scale differently. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Vastet

Eloise wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sounds more like the Force than a god.

Funny you should say that, a lot of Lucas's story was influenced strongly bt the work of Joseph Campbell whose most notable achievements were in the field of comparitive religion and myth. Yoda, Luke and the Force, especially, were built up using Campbell analysis of archetypes.

Hope I didn't just spoil Star Wars for you. Really he (Lucas) was just trying to create a hero story with the memorable elements that made other hero stories special.  

Lucas actually took elements from ten or eleven different religions, and primarily hinduism, when creating the Jedi, the Force, the Sith, and Star Wars.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: ABx

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ABx wrote:
Quote:

Here, you say that I said that everyone was under an illusion and that's why they can't see God. I never made that claim.

Not explicitly, no, but you did so implicitly.

No, I do not think you are under an illusion if you can't see God. I simply think you are missing the big picture.

Yea, we are missing out on the "big picture" wonderfull ilusion you have built up in your own head. If we would only "understand" how your playdough works, we could be as just as peachy keen as you. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Eloise

Vastet wrote:
Eloise wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sounds more like the Force than a god.

Funny you should say that, a lot of Lucas's story was influenced strongly bt the work of Joseph Campbell whose most notable achievements were in the field of comparitive religion and myth. Yoda, Luke and the Force, especially, were built up using Campbell analysis of archetypes.

Hope I didn't just spoil Star Wars for you. Really he (Lucas) was just trying to create a hero story with the memorable elements that made other hero stories special.

Lucas actually took elements from ten or eleven different religions, and primarily hinduism, when creating the Jedi, the Force, the Sith, and Star Wars.

Yep indeed, which likens the Force to Brahman. In Hinduism Brahman is an expression of God that underlies all, what we seem to understand about what we see (matter) is an illusion, Maya, and Brahman is the true ground of life. All is Brahman and Brahman is advaita (things having distinctness but are not separate) or Dvaita (perfect). This all relates strongly to the gnostic thirteenth aeon or syzygy archetype of Godhead emissary (various authors: Jung, Campbell, Steiner etc) So even in Hindu terms it's basically the same concept which does bear unreasonable similarities to the many histories interpretation of the possible states wave function, ie it is a 'real' object. 

Coming around to the point it is that, in a nutshell, which connects the Pantheistic God with actual theological texts where such an entity is claimed to be revealed.  

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I think we are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. When I said 'missing the big picture', I didn't mean that atheists don't look at the grand scale, what I'm saying is the atheist inturpets the grand scale differently.

I think that when you are dealing with a concept as bizarre as god you find yourself entertaining all sorts of interpretations of the evidence. But unless you reject the idea of objective reality altogether you have to admit that some interpretations are more valid than others.

I was just trying to address the persistent need that people have to believe in this particular concept that is not necessarily coherent and never has been. Everyone tries to find meaning in life but not everyone finds it in an idea that let’s be honest doesn’t really make much sense in terms of what we know. But it does make sense in terms of what we think should be.

Of course there should be some magic thing somewhere that makes everything make sense, and makes everybody’s life not be a fuckin joke. That’s just a no brainer. But should in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

Hint: the shit hand fills up faster.

BTW did you guys see technology of star wars on the history channel?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Pineapple,

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

 

 

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

It's not an illusion as much as it is broken down into parts that make the way we visualize them an illusion. There is a major difference.
And, even if the way we perceive it is an illusion, then why would our perception of consciousness be any different?

 

I don't get what you mean by consciousness is an illusion. We use consciousness to percieve things.  

I mean you're asserting this consciousness, which is only available through the "illusion" that we perceiving, is not reliant upon said illusion.
Explain.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB wrote: I mean

AtheistAviB wrote:
I mean you're asserting this consciousness, which is only available through the "illusion" that we perceiving, is not reliant upon said illusion.
Explain.

 

Okay, the consciousness relies on the illusion to bring experiences.  What good is an illusion if there is no consciousness to percieve it?  What good is a consciousness if  there is no illusion to bring it experiences? They are both interlinked.

Does that clear it up? 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Okay,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Okay, the consciousness relies on the illusion to bring experiences. What good is an illusion if there is no consciousness to percieve it? What good is a consciousness if there is no illusion to bring it experiences? They are both interlinked.

Does that clear it up?

That's a major assumption with nothing you can prove to be factual to back it up. Again, you're using opinions and poorly translated, if you can even call it, scientific theories to denote the ideas of what is and isn't reality.

Whether or not it is an "illusion" doesn't matter. The fact that I can feel, touch, hear, smell,  and see the microphone stand in front of me doesn't mean that it isn't a microphone stand. Further more, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My senses can dictate what is and isn't part of my reality.

What you're proposing is sort of like "What if your blue is my green but because I was brought up calling it blue, it's blue... and everyones color perception is different!" Who cares? 


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
I mean you're asserting this consciousness, which is only available through the "illusion" that we perceiving, is not reliant upon said illusion.
Explain.

 

Okay, the consciousness relies on the illusion to bring experiences.  What good is an illusion if there is no consciousness to percieve it?  What good is a consciousness if  there is no illusion to bring it experiences? They are both interlinked.

Does that clear it up? 


Nope.
Are you implying the apparatus that we believe brings us consciousness does not?
Because, if you are, then why is there no evidence of conciousness, none at all, after the apparatus that provides us with it shuts down?
Furthermore, the tiny parts that the matter gets broken down into, are still matter. Since matter is equatable with energy, just in different parts and in different form, the energy itself is another part of your supposed "illusion" of reality. And, that would everything we perceive an illusion. Including, the perceptions themselves.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Okay, the consciousness relies on the illusion to bring experiences. What good is an illusion if there is no consciousness to percieve it? What good is a consciousness if there is no illusion to bring it experiences? They are both interlinked.

Does that clear it up?

That's a major assumption with nothing you can prove to be factual to back it up. Again, you're using opinions and poorly translated, if you can even call it, scientific theories to denote the ideas of what is and isn't reality.

Whether or not it is an "illusion" doesn't matter. The fact that I can feel, touch, hear, smell, and see the microphone stand in front of me doesn't mean that it isn't a microphone stand. Further more, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My senses can dictate what is and isn't part of my reality.

What you're proposing is sort of like "What if your blue is my green but because I was brought up calling it blue, it's blue... and everyones color perception is different!" Who cares?

 

The scientific theories are valid.  As I said before, at the classical level matter is still matter, but at the quantum level, it is not.  


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:

What you're proposing is sort of like "What if your blue is my green but because I was brought up calling it blue, it's blue... and everyones color perception is different!" Who cares?

The extent of that analogy's application is widely misunderstood, dare I say, underestimated.

The Pauli exclusion principle.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v35/i6/p579_1

 edit: the abstract should say enough.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The scientific theories are valid. As I said before, at the classical level matter is still matter, but at the quantum level, it is not.

So this microphone stand I'm looking at, tasting, smelling, seeing, and feeling (at the same time mind you) has the chance of being a bunn on a quantum level? Or are you saying that instead of it being mass, it's actually energy... in which case it's still the exact same thing and no matter how you slice the pie that microphone stand that is currently in my mouth can in no way shape or form be anything more or less than what my senses percieve?

Our percecption of reality doesn't change because matter, at a quantum level, is different than it is right now. That doesn't prove, or even hint at, the existance of a being that we can't percieve with our senses. All it states is that matter is different at a quantum level. No more, no less. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  Are you implying

Quote:

 Are you implying the apparatus that we believe brings us consciousness does not?

 

If you are talking about the brain, I do believe it brings us consciousness. It is the filter if you will, the vessel of consciousness.

 

Quote:

Because, if you are, then why is there no evidence of conciousness, none at all, after the apparatus that provides us with it shuts down?

 

Like I said, the brain is the filter. Once it shuts down, all the conciousness isn't lost. It is just transfered. Kinda of like taking a slide out of a projector.

 

Quote:

Furthermore, the tiny parts that the matter gets broken down into, are still matter. Since matter is equatable with energy, just in different parts and in different form, the energy itself is another part of your supposed "illusion" of reality. And, that would everything we perceive an illusion. Including, the perceptions themselves.

We percieve through our consciousness. Which is derived from the infinite consciousness. As I said before, consciousness is useless without the illusion.

 

 


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: We

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

We percieve through our consciousness. Which is derived from the infinite consciousness. As I said before, consciousness is useless without the illusion.

 

 


Infinite Consciousness.....
I'm gonna have to bluntly say you're overreeaching without a shred of evidence in doing so.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: CrimsonEdge

Eloise wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:

What you're proposing is sort of like "What if your blue is my green but because I was brought up calling it blue, it's blue... and everyones color perception is different!" Who cares?

The extent of that analogy's application is widely misunderstood, dare I say, underestimated.

The Pauli exclusion principle.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v35/i6/p579_1

edit: the abstract should say enough.

I think you misunderstood the point of the analogy. It was synonymous with no one really caring, that is to say, that it's such a pointless notion that it does and won't effect the way anyone would think about something.

"So what if you see blue when I see green? We both classify it as blue." 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB

AtheistAviB wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

We percieve through our consciousness. Which is derived from the infinite consciousness. As I said before, consciousness is useless without the illusion.

 

 


Infinite Consciousness.....
I'm gonna have to bluntly say you're overreeaching without a shred of evidence in doing so.

 

Yes, infinite consciousness. Our brains merely limit this consciousness to experience the finitely real. I citied examples of people doing amazing feats with the brain in my essay (reciting pi to 22,000 digits etc...) 


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
In the equation, E=mc^2, E

In the equation, E=mc^2,

E = physical energy in the physical universe;

NOT supernatural energy in the physical universe.

Theists really seem to have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that the energy discussed in Einstein's famous equation has nothing to do with the New Age supernatural energy that supposedly resides in crystals or is transmitted in faith healing.  The energy in E=mc^2 is actual real energy that could be detected as electromagnetic energy, kinetic energy, or some other forms.  There is no mystical spirit energy or pixie dust energy that has anything to do with E = mc^2. 


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

As for your last point you atheists wanted a coherent God, and I tried to give you one in this essay.

 

i'm an atheist, and i don't want a coherent god. i don't want any god. their useless, pointless, silly and irrelevant. there is absolutely nothing that a god can do for me that i can't do on my own and do 10 times better. like i've said a thousand times, before, it wouldn't matter if somone could prove beyond a doubt that god did exist, i still wouldn't want, need or worship him.

this essay is for yourself, not me.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: In the

doctoro wrote:

In the equation, E=mc^2,

E = physical energy in the physical universe;

NOT supernatural energy in the physical universe.

Theists really seem to have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that the energy discussed in Einstein's famous equation has nothing to do with the New Age supernatural energy that supposedly resides in crystals or is transmitted in faith healing. The energy in E=mc^2 is actual real energy that could be detected as electromagnetic energy, kinetic energy, or some other forms. There is no mystical spirit energy or pixie dust energy that has anything to do with E = mc^2.

 

I do recall saying in my essay that the energy will obey the universe's laws of physics.  If it obeys the laws of physics, then it is natural. 


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

We percieve through our consciousness. Which is derived from the infinite consciousness. As I said before, consciousness is useless without the illusion.

 

 


Infinite Consciousness.....
I'm gonna have to bluntly say you're overreeaching without a shred of evidence in doing so.

 

Yes, infinite consciousness. Our brains merely limit this consciousness to experience the finitely real. I citied examples of people doing amazing feats with the brain in my essay (reciting pi to 22,000 digits etc...) 


Wait, wait, wait...What? 
Amazing feats of mental ability = God? and some supreme consciousness....
Non-Sequitor...


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Eloise wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:

What you're proposing is sort of like "What if your blue is my green but because I was brought up calling it blue, it's blue... and everyones color perception is different!" Who cares?

The extent of that analogy's application is widely misunderstood, dare I say, underestimated.

The Pauli exclusion principle.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v35/i6/p579_1

edit: the abstract should say enough.

I think you misunderstood the point of the analogy. It was synonymous with no one really caring, that is to say, that it's such a pointless notion that it does and won't effect the way anyone would think about something.

"So what if you see blue when I see green? We both classify it as blue."

How can I misunderstand the point of something that came to my own mind, as it has many other people, several years ago? I would never have said what I was thinking out loud if not to effect the way we see reality, and same goes for most philosophical minds that have ever posed the question. In my opinion it is and has always been synonymous with the fundamental questions of Solipsistic philosphy. "Who cares" almost surely is the afterthought and not the original point of the analogy.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB wrote: Wait,

AtheistAviB wrote:

Wait, wait, wait...What?
Amazing feats of mental ability = God? and some supreme consciousness....
Non-Sequitor...

 

I citied the feats to show that the brain has lots of potiental.  

 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
You're looking way to

You're looking way to deeply into this. The analogy was a simple one.

Both things won't have an effect on your life. Very simple. In short, who cares.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: You're

CrimsonEdge wrote:

You're looking way to deeply into this. The analogy was a simple one.

Both things won't have an effect on your life. Very simple. In short, who cares.

I appreciate your point of view Crimsonedge and don't wish to condescend it at all. The concept of different truths between us masked by a common label goes directly to the heart of our classical axioms of objectivity. What objective universe exists if it is merely distinct objects which we label equivalently, the Pauli exclusion principle extends this question by asking what is objective if we ourselves can sense only that which is a non-combining quantum system which allows for our specific and distinct self and sensory experience to be. If we were all clones and ostensibly equal systems this would pose no threat whatsoever to classical objectivity, but we are unable to know that we consciousnesses are equal systems as provided by the blue/green analogy, among other things, and that provides us a spooky undermining of important axioms of physicalism. 

That is not to say there isn't an objective universe, preferrably one does exist that we can at least continue our sensible exploration of, but we are at odds for describing what goes to disrupting the very heart of our own logic. Does God provide the answer? Well you'd think if he really was God, he would, right? 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Does God

Eloise wrote:
Does God provide the answer? Well you'd think if he really was God, he would, right?

I usually don't like to just quote the little end bits to posts, especially ones that were expressed so well, although I had some trouble following it (not your fault, me being tired along with being below this level of vocabulary had me have to read it a few times), I THINK I understand what was said, although I'm probably wrong about it.

Anyway, yeah, I would suspect God would provide the answer, that is to say, if he spoke to us directly. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, if God really exists, it (God) hides himself, and that's simply lame.


serotonin_wraith
serotonin_wraith's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
serotonin_wraith wrote:
Perhaps it's an illusion of an illusion.

That doesn't make sense.

I recommend the film 'The Thirteenth Floor'.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
'reality' is subjective. Our portion of reality (our universe) is just a part of the infinite potiental. 

I understand you're saying the universe is subjective, but my question was- if that is so, are you saying the only true reality is god and our consciousness? I hesitate to add the last part in now, because it looks like you're saying our consciousness is just part of this god.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

 However, these particles still obey the laws of physics.

I'm not sure I'm going to debate what you've said here as a whole or not, but this statement is a pet peeve of mine.

Nature "obeys" no laws. Scientific laws are human descriptions of the universe around us distilled into fundamental concepts. To say that nature obeys these laws or descriptions, would be akin to saying that a reporter writing a story of a football game controlls the game's outcome by writing his or her account of the game.

What we call laws of nature are simply our best current distillation of knowledge about how the universe works. The universe will do whatever it is the universe does, with or without us and our descritptions of it - however accurate or flawed they may be.

 

Quote:
This is a bit odd isn't it? Particle physics, multiverse theory and evolution in an essay about God?

Not at all, if you're going where I think you're going. 

Quote:
Many people think that these principles condratict God, that no God is required to make these come to life. Why would God use evolution to put us here? Why the Bigbang? Why have an infinite number of universes, some may not even have life?

Why indeed, there is certianly no scientific basis for such.

Quote:
The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do. That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter. Much like a slide that is inserted into a projector, the brain limits the infinite consciousness into finite experience. Our brains may have infinite potiental, people have read books once and memorized them. The world record for the most digits of pi memorized is over 22,000!

IOW, you've simply anthropomorphised an unnecessary and undemonstratable creator that shares views much akin to yours. How surprising.

Quote:
The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness. 

A quaint idea that may give you comfort. It does noting for me.

Quote:
So why would God, want to create us? If he is indeed infinite what's the point? Why create things?

 As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory' 


'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

The God Theory pages 15-16

If I had a billion dollars, I'd do two chicks at the same time. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a billionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause chicks dig dudes with money. Therefore God exists.

Hey, at least God know's what's important.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt Apple piner fails to

Cpt Apple piner fails to understand that he is doing nothing differently than creationists or scientologists or paranormal "researchers". He has clung to a concept that he likes. He has been sucked into a supertstious belief just like the others, but thinks it is different.

"There is something out there".

Yea, ok, but stop trying to make it a "who", when simply calling it nature without a brain or cognition will do. 

There is no disimbodied brain of any kind. The universe is not a giant brain. It is not a giant unconcious or councious being. It is not human like so stop trying to assign it the same capabilities of the human brain.

This is just one more hokie claim you have baught because you like the idea of "something" having human charactaristics. If you are going to buy this tripe, you might as well believe the God of Jesus or Thor and might as well litterally believe that Superman is real. Its all the same. Dress it up all you want with ambigous psuedo science you want, I am not fooled. 

The only illusion in this thread is the one you baught. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt Pineapple, I think you

Cpt Pineapple,

I think you are a really cool person.  I like you.  

But this nonsense you are spewing is beyond frustrating.  It frustrates  me more than creationism because the creationist is simply adhering to something pre-scripted and defended by loonies and liers, while you are actually using your creative intelligence to come up with this and don't see the pure silliness of it.

I've been thinking of this issue about matter being an illusion for some time, and find that the phrase itself; 'matter is an illusion' to be based in an error that seems very obvious to me.  

Consciousness, experience, and awareness are all macro qualities of the universe that arise in things like brains.  they are processes that occur as a result of the behavior of complex molecules, cells, tissue, etc.  

Our awasreness or consciousness can only create concepts that it has experience with.  That is, the concepts we have are of things in the macrophysical world (what Dawkins calls the "middle world" in his recent work).   The concepts that we call 'quantum menchanics' and related ideas are all based on research that was not possible until certain tools could be created to detect them.  They are simply too small to be experienced because the thing that experiences--the brain--is made of stuff that is much larger than these quantum things.

 Matter is not an illusion so much as it is a different prespective.  Imagine an alien visiting Earth for the first time and watches the activity of one person.  Do you think that the alien could understand, easily, the concepts of culture, society, and the properties and behaviors of these entities by observing one person? I don't thinkso, and the reason is that culture and society exist ina different way than an individual, and it's often hard to predict how a culture will respond by looking a one person. 

The analogy is not very apt, I know.  The point is that matter is seen as solid, particle-like, etc because it behaves that way when looked at with processes that are themselves at the same level of behavior.  If our consciousness arose due to processes that occurred at the sub-atomic level, perhaps our experience would be much different, and we would have to abstract concepts such as solidity and so forth to understand the macrophysical world.  

This concept of consciousness as being a sort-of filter just does not fit the data.  Consciousness is a physical process that arises at the macrophyiscal level by things that have things like brains.  It is a simple consequence of a biological process that developed, over time, the ability to take it's physical surroundings in such a way to make a simulation of what other physical things are around them to better navigate, procreate, and ingest nutrients.  The reason these types of developments were selected is obvious.  

There is no reason to surmise a higher consciousness that experiences through us.  But you may be interested in what the process theologians have had to say about god.  Their view is that god learns and grows in complexity with the universe, as it is a sort of awareness of the universe that grows in complexity over time as well as the thing that initiated it's creation.  Writers such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, John Cobb, David Ray Griffin, etc.  The following is a quote indicative of process philosophy/theology;

David Ray Griffin wrote:
All things other than our own experience appear to be mere objects, rather than subjects, because by the time they can be prehended they are objects; their subjectivity has perished.... So, we are right to think that everything that we perceive is an object--in the ontological as well as epistemic sense of the term.  we are only wrong to think of them as mere objects.

and

David Ray Griffin wrote:
"However, this appearance of absolute opposition may be mere appearance, due to different modes of apprehension.  Through what is sometimes called our 'inner sense,' we know our minds as they are in themselves.  And what we know thereby is that they are something for themselves (which is the basis for the ethic of treating all other people as ends in themselves).  Through our 'outer senses,' however, we are knowing not ourselves but other things.  we are, therefore, not knowing them from within, by identity, but from without.  We are knowing them as they appear to us from without.  Not only that, we do not even know them from without directly, but indirectly, through a very complicated bodily sensory system....  Accordingly, we need not assume that our purely spatial and externalistic conceptions of these objects exhaust what they are in themselves.  In particular, we need not assume that they are devoid of internal duration"

I am not defending the process theologian position, just alerting you to it.  I read quite a bit about it in graduate school, including Alfred North Whitehead's seminal work Process and Reality.

Check some of it out. 

For everyone else, here's an interesting quote to ponder from Whitehead;

Whitehead wrote:
"The imperfection of the world is the theme of every religion which offers a way of escape, and of every sceptic who deplores the prevailing superstition."

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I also don't think the fact

I also don't think the fact that brains are capable of huge calculations is in any way indicative of our consciousness being connected to some infinite source. This could easily just be a property of the brains themselves. After all, we have many trillions more neural connections than the average computer, and computers could calculate Pi to that many decimal places in a couple seconds.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
The "having a billion

The "having a billion dollars" analogy is stupid.

A better analogy can be found in the question: If you already have everything, what's left to want?

 

There can be no motiviation for god to create anything OTHER THAN to ruin perfection. And why would god want to do that?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The scientific theories are valid. As I said before, at the classical level matter is still matter, but at the quantum level, it is not.

So this microphone stand I'm looking at, tasting, smelling, seeing, and feeling (at the same time mind you) has the chance of being a bunn on a quantum level? Or are you saying that instead of it being mass, it's actually energy... in which case it's still the exact same thing and no matter how you slice the pie that microphone stand that is currently in my mouth can in no way shape or form be anything more or less than what my senses percieve?

Our percecption of reality doesn't change because matter, at a quantum level, is different than it is right now. That doesn't prove, or even hint at, the existance of a being that we can't percieve with our senses. All it states is that matter is different at a quantum level. No more, no less.

 

The best analogy I can give is a photograph. Look closely at the photgraph and you will see little pixels. Little squares of different colours. Alone, these are useless, but put together, you see the picture in the photograph.

Another thing: The pixels are merely a mix of red, blue, and yellow, yet you can take a photograph of a person or a building. The red, blue and yellow will mix in different ways to form the pixels necessary to show the picture of the person or building.


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
I, personally, find it

I, personally, find it necessary to draw on the philosophical idea of a "zombie". I don't know if you are familiar with it, so forgive my explanation.

A zombie is a living, breathing person without consciousness. A zombie is indistinguishable in behavior from a normal human being. Your friends might be zombies. They would act like they had consciousness, but they would really be automatons, enslaved to the intricate web of connections between neurons in the brain. All of the world might be zombies , but you would have no way of knowing. It is impossible to consider "what it would be like" to be a zombie in the same way that it is silly to ask what it would be like to be a teddy bear; in each case we would be projecting our consciousness onto something that doesn't have it.

This is my question to you: can a zombie exist? If so, then "consciousness" is beyond explanation by physical means (a zombie is physically identical to a normal person) and can be equated to a soul. If not, then consciousness is simply the result of connections between neurons in the brain, and thus an "immaterial consciousness" as you seem to be suggesting (since matter is just an illusion) is an incoherent phrase.

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
person132 wrote: I,

person132 wrote:
I, personally, find it necessary to draw on the philosophical idea of a "zombie". I don't know if you are familiar with it, so forgive my explanation. A zombie is a living, breathing person without consciousness. A zombie is indistinguishable in behavior from a normal human being. Your friends might be zombies. They would act like they had consciousness, but they would really be automatons, enslaved to the intricate web of connections between neurons in the brain. All of the world might be zombies , but you would have no way of knowing. It is impossible to consider "what it would be like" to be a zombie in the same way that it is silly to ask what it would be like to be a teddy bear; in each case we would be projecting our consciousness onto something that doesn't have it. This is my question to you: can a zombie exist? If so, then "consciousness" is beyond explanation by physical means (a zombie is physically identical to a normal person) and can be equated to a soul. If not, then consciousness is simply the result of connections between neurons in the brain, and thus an "immaterial consciousness" as you seem to be suggesting (since matter is just an illusion) is an incoherent phrase.

If our non-locality fuzz is as literally distinct from our known personal self as classical logic dictates a table is to a chair, then the Chinese nation is a zombie. 

However, (I always have an 'however&#39Eye-wink entanglement has spooky information links which could say the quite the opposite and if that's the case then we have more of a Feng Shui universe and the chinese nation isn't a zombie at all when you look at the chinese nation you should see your personal you exactly as you know it, your own conscious consciousness, not distinct as a table is to a chair, but the same, perhaps in the sense that a table and a chair equals a place for a meal. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
If there is a multiverse,

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
person132 wrote: I,

person132 wrote:
I, personally, find it necessary to draw on the philosophical idea of a "zombie".  .

 

If you bring up 'qualia' next I'll have to hunt you down. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

LOL, no more than there ever was essentially, Todangst. But if he has a cool hand in the furthering of humanity's greatnes of experience through their discovery I'd be happy to love him.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: todangst

Eloise wrote:
todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

LOL, no more than there ever was essentially, Todangst.

Well, I'd agree. But my statement implies a distinction between there merely being our universe, and a multiverse. Standard theistic cosmological pleas usually hold that the problem of 'ultimate' beginnings' requires a theological solution, whereas multiverse theory holds that there is no beginning to the multiverse, ergo if one holds to the concept, I don't quite see room for a god. He'd be out of a job.

Quote:
 

 But if he has a cool hand in the furthering of humanity's greatnes of experience through their discovery I'd be happy to love him.

Why would a 'cool hand' improve things? Wouldn't ibe more more 'great' of humanity to discover the universe without a guiding hand? What real guidance can you claim has a supernatural origin (sic)?

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
serotonin_wraith

serotonin_wraith wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

'reality' is subjective. Our portion of reality (our universe) is just a part of the infinite potiental.

I understand you're saying the universe is subjective, but my question was- if that is so, are you saying the only true reality is god and our consciousness? I hesitate to add the last part in now, because it looks like you're saying our consciousness is just part of this god.

 

Well, I am saying that the consciousness percieves as reality is merely an illusion. So in essence, the only thing that truly exists is the consciousness, and it uses the illusion of the universe to bring it experiences. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Nature "obeys" no laws. Scientific laws are human descriptions of the universe around us distilled into fundamental concepts. To say that nature obeys these laws or descriptions, would be akin to saying that a reporter writing a story of a football game controlls the game's outcome by writing his or her account of the game.

 

 

I am saying the laws limit nature. I am not going to wake up under my bed because I quantum tunnelled through it while I was sleeping.

 

 

 

Quote:

What we call laws of nature are simply our best current distillation of knowledge about how the universe works. The universe will do whatever it is the universe does, with or without us and our descritptions of it - however accurate or flawed they may be.

I agree.

 

Quote:

Quote:
So why would God, want to create us? If he is indeed infinite what's the point? Why create things?

As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory'


'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

The God Theory pages 15-16

If I had a billion dollars, I'd do two chicks at the same time. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a billionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause chicks dig dudes with money. Therefore God exists.

 

Hey, at least God know's what's important.

 

I cannot tell if this is sarcasim or if you would indeed bang chicks. But the point was infinite potiental is useless without experiencing it.

 

[edit: had to take out the pictutre because for some reason it shows two of them and stretches the page] 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: Cpt

ShaunPhilly wrote:

Cpt Pineapple,

I think you are a really cool person. I like you.

But this nonsense you are spewing is beyond frustrating. It frustrates me more than creationism because the creationist is simply adhering to something pre-scripted and defended by loonies and liers, while you are actually using your creative intelligence to come up with this and don't see the pure silliness of it.

I've been thinking of this issue about matter being an illusion for some time, and find that the phrase itself; 'matter is an illusion' to be based in an error that seems very obvious to me.

Consciousness, experience, and awareness are all macro qualities of the universe that arise in things like brains. they are processes that occur as a result of the behavior of complex molecules, cells, tissue, etc.

 

 

This is known as reductionism.  Like saying one of Bach's musical works is nothing but vibrations of piano strings.

 

Quote:

Our awasreness or consciousness can only create concepts that it has experience with. That is, the concepts we have are of things in the macrophysical world (what Dawkins calls the "middle world" in his recent work). The concepts that we call 'quantum menchanics' and related ideas are all based on research that was not possible until certain tools could be created to detect them. They are simply too small to be experienced because the thing that experiences--the brain--is made of stuff that is much larger than these quantum things.

 

 

These quantum effects give use the ability to percieve our universe as realitiy. Refer to my previous photograph analogy where the pixels make up the picture, but we do not have to know the pixels are there to experience the picture.

 

 

Quote:

Matter is not an illusion so much as it is a different prespective. Imagine an alien visiting Earth for the first time and watches the activity of one person. Do you think that the alien could understand, easily, the concepts of culture, society, and the properties and behaviors of these entities by observing one person? I don't thinkso, and the reason is that culture and society exist ina different way than an individual, and it's often hard to predict how a culture will respond by looking a one person.

The analogy is not very apt, I know. The point is that matter is seen as solid, particle-like, etc because it behaves that way when looked at with processes that are themselves at the same level of behavior. If our consciousness arose due to processes that occurred at the sub-atomic level, perhaps our experience would be much different, and we would have to abstract concepts such as solidity and so forth to understand the macrophysical world.

 I am not sure what you mean by this, please explain.

 

 

 

Quote:
 

This concept of consciousness as being a sort-of filter just does not fit the data. Consciousness is a physical process that arises at the macrophyiscal level by things that have things like brains. It is a simple consequence of a biological process that developed, over time, the ability to take it's physical surroundings in such a way to make a simulation of what other physical things are around them to better navigate, procreate, and ingest nutrients. The reason these types of developments were selected is obvious.

 

Once again, reductionism.

 

I have not read David Ray Griffin, nor Alfred North Whitehead but I will have to remember to look into them in the future.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: If there

todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

 

That doesn't mean that a God cannot exist. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

 

That doesn't mean that a God cannot exist.

But it does mean that there is no role of 'creator' for a god to fill. What 'definition' are you left with? 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:
Eloise wrote:
todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

LOL, no more than there ever was essentially, Todangst.

Well, I'd agree. But my statement implies a distinction between there merely being our universe, and a multiverse. Standard theistic cosmological pleas usually hold that the problem of 'ultimate' beginnings' requires a theological solution, whereas multiverse theory holds that there is no beginning to the multiverse, ergo if one holds to the concept, I don't quite see room for a god. He'd be out of a job.

I'm not one for the causality argument and never really have been. The multiverse is technically the instigator of our universe which fits just nicely with everything I was ever encouraged to believe about creation. I always thought the 'causeless cause' was an incoherent attempt to say something more meaningful that the speaker could barely imagine, but was trying to anyway.

It's not the multiverse that kicks God off his pedestal but the reason one must exist which shuffles him back on. They must exist because our universe is built from dependent states in union. What is not here still has reality somewhere and what is here depends on that multiverse of not here's to exist. So we do exist because of something which is "not here" (but also here somehow), we are somewhat "fathered" by that giant entity of multiverse which is bigger than our universe, contains our universe, is in our universe, and most importantly sustains our very existence. The multiverse doesn't have to be 'God' in anyone's mind, I don't believe that matters at all, not to us and not to any possible god entity it could be. I just think it is cool that it does what God was claimed to have done.

 

Quote:
Quote:

But if he has a cool hand in the furthering of humanity's greatnes of experience through their discovery I'd be happy to love him.

Why would a 'cool hand' improve things? Wouldn't ibe more more 'great' of humanity to discover the universe without a guiding hand?

Absolutely, see above. Frankly I think that must necessarily be the only rational point of any loving God creating us anyway. Which is why I say a 'cool' hand as opposed to a direct one. It wouldn't at all be great if we were plucked up by our collars by some super-entity and have everything fixed for us. (see: rapture *rolls eyes* LOL) I think that would totally suck in all honesty, scuse the french. A cool hand would be necessarily be very cleverly placed so as not to be imposing on the actual process but a part of it anyway, something necessarily incoherent, or even ironic, existing merely to be looked at by the few.

 

[quote

What real guidance can you claim has a supernatural origin (sic)?

 

Meh, I'm not a supernatural believer either, my concept of this is more like Supra-natural or just-out-of-reach natural, but it's also a larger set than 'natural' so it's still supernatural in the sense that it's a whole reality existing outside our own understanding as opposed to a small part to complete the set we already have, the only difference essentially is that it's not not-natural in any broad definition of natural. Because I believe this the supernatural must therefore exist in the natural world and all that could prevail against it is our definitions of 'looking' and 'cognisance'.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: I'm not one

Eloise wrote:

I'm not one for the causality argument and never really have been. The multiverse is technically the instigator of our universe which fits just nicely with everything I was ever encouraged to believe about creation. I always thought the 'causeless cause' was an incoherent attempt to say something more meaningful that the speaker could barely imagine, but was trying to anyway.

Agreed.  A quantum tunneling event would satisfy the 'causeless cause' category anyway, and as it is more parsimonious than a 'god', it renders the cosmological argument moot.

Quote:
 

It's not the multiverse that kicks God off his pedestal but the reason one must exist which shuffles him back on.

I don't see this.A multiverse would have no beginning.  

 

Quote:

They must exist because our universe is built from dependent states in union.  What is not here still has reality somewhere and what is here depends on that multiverse of not here's to exist. So we do exist because of something which is "not here" (but also here somehow), we are somewhat "fathered" by that giant entity of multiverse which is bigger than our universe, contains our universe, is in our universe, and most importantly sustains our very existence. The multiverse doesn't have to be 'God' in anyone's mind, I don't believe that matters at all, not to us and not to any possible god entity it could be. I just think it is cool that it does what God was claimed to have done.

A multiverse would always exist, and it 'causal' influence on our universe would not require intent or purpose. It would simply be.

I don't see room for any 'god' here. 

 

Quote:

Why would a 'cool hand' improve things? Wouldn't it be more more 'great' of humanity to discover the universe without a guiding hand?

Quote:
 

Absolutely, see above. Frankly I think that must necessarily be the only rational point of any loving God creating us anyway. Which is why I say a 'cool' hand as opposed to a direct one. It wouldn't at all be great if we were plucked up by our collars by some super-entity and have everything fixed for us. (see: rapture *rolls eyes* LOL) I think that would totally suck in all honesty, scuse the french. A cool hand would be necessarily be very cleverly placed so as not to be imposing on the actual process but a part of it anyway, something necessarily incoherent, or even ironic, existing merely to be looked at by the few.

I really don't see how this differs from having no god at all. 

 

Quote:

What real guidance can you claim has a supernatural origin (sic)?

 

Quote:
 

Meh, I'm not a supernatural believer either

OK, good.  It's a broken concept anyway. 

Quote:
 

, my concept of this is more like Supra-natural or just-out-of-reach natural, but it's also a larger set than 'natural' so it's still supernatural in the sense that it's a whole reality existing outside our own understanding as opposed to a small part to complete the set we already have, the only difference essentially is that it's not not-natural in any broad definition of natural. Because I believe this the supernatural must therefore exist in the natural world and all that could prevail against it is our definitions of 'looking' and 'cognisance'.

This borders on Spinozian pantheism, at least to my eyes. It sounds like the least useful term in all of your discourse here is the term 'god'...  take it away, and very little actually changes.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

 

That doesn't mean that a God cannot exist.

But it does mean that there is no role of 'creator' for a god to fill. What 'definition' are you left with?

 

If a multiverse can create other universes why can't God?

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

If there is a multiverse, what need is there for a god?

 

 

That doesn't mean that a God cannot exist.

But it does mean that there is no role of 'creator' for a god to fill. What 'definition' are you left with?

 

If a multiverse can create other universes why can't God?

 


If there is a multiverse, then there is no need for an appeal to the supernatural to explain existence. Nor is there a need to appeal to the supernatural to explain the supposed dilemma contained in theistic cosmological arguments.

It follows that there is no need for a god.

So saying "why can't a god create universes too' strikes me as an odd response, seeing as a ramification of your own argument is that gods are now unnecessary.

However, I will address your question anyway:

"gods' are incoherent terms, and therefore meaningless. So there's a serious ontological problem to overcome. And, seeing as as "gods" are already rendered as moot in a multiverse, we should rule them out as per the law of parsimony.

So to review.

1) "gods' are unnecessary

2) "god" is a broken term, ontologically bankrupt, unless we steal from naturalism.

Which returns us to point 1!

So I again ask: What's the point of clinging to the term? Sounds to me that it remains solely as a sotorial device: i.e. a security blanket. We cling to our blankets because they bring us comfort as we leave infancy and enter the world, but at some point, we leave them behind. You sound close to making this step too.

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'