U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:22 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,730,245 times
Reputation: 1770

Advertisements

I'll go a bit further - there can logically be only one reality.

Reality means "all that is real." There can not logically be two "all that is real" that are different. If it was real in one, but not in the other, than it wouldn't be "all" that is real, it would be only some of what is real.

According, be definition of the word, there can only be one reality. Either there is a god in that reality, or there isn't. A god by definition can not exist outside of this reality, because this reality includes all that is real, and thus any putative god would exist therein if at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:30 PM
 
40,086 posts, read 26,750,404 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The science I use, Arq is pretty standard knowledge. The hypotheses I extrapolate from it is admittedly on the frontier of our current knowledge. The fact that our brain senses EM fields is only indicative of the ability of the brain to be sensitive to fields. The interpretations of whatever the brain senses is indicative of what the brain is supposed to interpret. When you put the sensitivity to fields together with the types of interpretations that the brain makes (even though the stimulus is artificial) . . . that suggests something relevant about what the brain is supposed to sense where fields are concerned. The fact that there are fields OTHER than the measurable EM fields gives credence to my hypotheses about the 95+% unmeasurable fields involving dark energy, dark matter and consciousness. You know that my odyssey has been one of confirming my personal experiences . . . so your "fishing around" comments are just disingenuous disparagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I don't think that they are. I may be wrong, but it looks to me as though you had your Mystical experience, became convinced of a Christian type-god and built up your very original hypothesis to explain it in scientific terms. I am inclined to think that you looked around at what science had to offer and how it could be fitted into what you believed. Thus latching onto dark matter as the vehicle that best fitted as the material of cosmic consciousness.
You have the sequence wrong, Arq. I encountered the reality of God and spent decades trying to explain it to myself using science and every other source available. Once I had my hypotheses . . . I used the characteristics of the consciousness I encounter to try to identify someone in the "spiritual fossil record" who fit. Buddha was close but even he predicted 500 years before Christ that a more perfect one would come after him . . . that more perfect one was Jesus the Christ.
Quote:
I agree that research into the workings of human consciousness and exactly what are these religious feelings we get areinan early stage. So far though, the idea that these feelings are a genuine connection with a Cosmic consciousness is as likely to be wrong as right; in fact I think indications so far indicate it being wrong.
I would obviously disagree mightily, Arq.
Quote:
That is why I have said all along that your theory is ingenious and original but speculative,and I don't argue with it as theory, but only when presented as pretty evident fact.
I accept that as perfectly reasonable until you are called.
Quote:
I have also said that I don't mind the idea of a cosmic consciousness. I just don't buy that it is what we actually have. As you know (or so I hope you have picked up) I suggest that our consciousness has evolved from physical reactions that can hardly be called 'consciousness', just as life (it is suggested) evolved from the (non-life) molecular reactions of biochemicals.
I do understand . . . but I consider it unsupportable. I do not see life or consciousness ever arising from non-life or non-existent consciousness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:33 PM
 
40,086 posts, read 26,750,404 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I'll go a bit further - there can logically be only one reality.
Reality means "all that is real." There can not logically be two "all that is real" that are different. If it was real in one, but not in the other, than it wouldn't be "all" that is real, it would be only some of what is real.
According, be definition of the word, there can only be one reality. Either there is a god in that reality, or there isn't. A god by definition can not exist outside of this reality, because this reality includes all that is real, and thus any putative god would exist therein if at all.
I would agree with this clarification, Box . . . the God simply IS the reality . . . not something existing within it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:37 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,251,388 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I would argue that it is logically impossible to violate the laws of physics.
Physics is describing what the laws are, not enforcing or constraining actions to comply with it's laws.

If a god "violated the laws of physics" all it would mean is that we had the laws of physics wrong. An accurate reading of the laws of physics would have perfectly predicted that what occurred was in fact possible, under certain circumstances.

If physics describes what can really happen, and an event really happened, then a law of physics should have noted that the event was possible.
I agree with you on this. If we can observe a god, it becomes part of the natural world, and we can treat it like any other part of our natural reality, we can observe it, test it, theorize about it, etc... The Sun has ceased to be a god, because we see it as a part of our natural world, likewise the planets are no longer seen as manifestations of the god, most of us no longer believe the stars determine our fates. If we were able to meet YHWH, discuss ethics with him, understand what exactly he created, and what constraints he was under, he would just be a guy, you know? Sure, extremely powerful, maybe dangerous, but the mystery of being outside of reality ( being imaginary ) is what makes him more than a powerful thing like the Sun.

This leads me to believe that the thing that makes gods into gods, and keeps them distinct from the rest of reality is actually being human inventions . I begin to think there can be no such thing as a real god, since being "real" diminishes their divinity.

Anyway, this has been a fun discussion, and really makes the brain work...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,087,623 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I would argue that it is logically impossible to violate the laws of physics.
Physics is describing what the laws are, not enforcing or constraining actions to comply with it's laws.

If a god "violated the laws of physics" all it would mean is that we had the laws of physics wrong. An accurate reading of the laws of physics would have perfectly predicted that what occurred was in fact possible, under certain circumstances.

If physics describes what can really happen, and an event really happened, then a law of physics should have noted that the event was possible.
A theist would argue that as the author of natural laws a god could bend, suspend or otherwise manipulate them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:46 PM
 
9,665 posts, read 8,661,850 times
Reputation: 3225
I am a clueless mortal, can't be confident about anything...


...thus agnosticism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,730,245 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
A theist would argue that as the author of natural laws a god could bend, suspend or otherwise manipulate them.
Sure, but that then would be the law of nature (and physics) - that god could change the laws of nature.

So in that instance one law of nature would be that all of the laws of nature would be subject to change at the whim of god.

Laws of nature (and physics) only describe what is possible, not make things possible. If it was indeed possible for a god to change the laws, that would be part of the description.

It seems a little crazy until you start thinking about how all of the other laws of physics are coming to be seen as mutable in certain circumstances. At the beginning of the universe, there was perhaps no time. Did that violate the laws of physics? No, it just gets incorporated into the description of what is real in the laws of physics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 01:45 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,251,388 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Sure, but that then would be the law of nature (and physics) - that god could change the laws of nature.

So in that instance one law of nature would be that all of the laws of nature would be subject to change at the whim of god.

Laws of nature (and physics) only describe what is possible, not make things possible. If it was indeed possible for a god to change the laws, that would be part of the description.

It seems a little crazy until you start thinking about how all of the other laws of physics are coming to be seen as mutable in certain circumstances. At the beginning of the universe, there was perhaps no time. Did that violate the laws of physics? No, it just gets incorporated into the description of what is real in the laws of physics.
It kind of makes my head hurt. If you have a god that created all of reality, including the laws or the "way that it is", that implies it is only bound by them by its own volition as it can change any of the at any time, including the ones that describe it. It becomes something that exists beyond all possible description, characterization, or evaluation because we only have empriical observations of natural laws, and their mathematical representations and rational conclusions we can draw from these. If a god exists beyond all those things, such they every possible law, principle of description (including this one) is mutable at its discretion, it essentially is beyond reality itself. Either it must exist beyond reality ( and be unreal) or it cannot be absolutely sovereign. There must be some immutable law, even if it is only that it has no limitations governing it, thus rendering it not the source of ALL natural law.

As far as physics, yes we are learning that our useful approximations only hold together to a certain scale, and after that things get wierder that we could have imagined, but as you say it gets incorporated into 'natural'. Once God get's incorporated into 'natural' it seems that it sort of diminishes its deity... Espescially if you are dealing with an Omni-max sort of deity...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 01:55 PM
 
39,146 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You have the sequence wrong, Arq. I encountered the reality of God and spent decades trying to explain it to myself using science and every other source available. Once I had my hypotheses . . . I used the characteristics of the consciousness I encounter to try to identify someone in the "spiritual fossil record" who fit. Buddha was close but even he predicted 500 years before Christ that a more perfect one would come after him . . . that more perfect one was Jesus the Christ.
It sounded to me like you were confirming my supposed sequence of events. You had the experience, took it to be 'God' and then fitted the science to it. How is that different to what you and I both said? - Oh... I accept that you came to the Christ -figure fairly late in the process. The hypothesis doesn't really require any particular mangod figure, but I can see why you settled on Jesus.

Quote:
I would obviously disagree mightily, Arq.
Of course.

Quote:
I accept that as perfectly reasonable until you are called.I do understand . . . but I consider it unsupportable. I do not see life or consciousness ever arising from non-life or non-existent consciousness.
Now I have to ask you the question I ask evolution - deniers who use lack of proof of abogenesis as their reason. What reason do you have to claim as not in any way possible the emergence of life or consciousness from the atomic molecular,chemical and biochemical actions and reactions that I say are as feasible as a theory of their origin as a goddunnit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 02:53 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,730,245 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
It kind of makes my head hurt. If you have a god that created all of reality, including the laws or the "way that it is", that implies it is only bound by them by its own volition as it can change any of the at any time, including the ones that describe it. It becomes something that exists beyond all possible description, characterization, or evaluation because we only have empriical observations of natural laws, and their mathematical representations and rational conclusions we can draw from these. If a god exists beyond all those things, such they every possible law, principle of description (including this one) is mutable at its discretion, it essentially is beyond reality itself. Either it must exist beyond reality ( and be unreal) or it cannot be absolutely sovereign. There must be some immutable law, even if it is only that it has no limitations governing it, thus rendering it not the source of ALL natural law.

As far as physics, yes we are learning that our useful approximations only hold together to a certain scale, and after that things get wierder that we could have imagined, but as you say it gets incorporated into 'natural'. Once God get's incorporated into 'natural' it seems that it sort of diminishes its deity... Espescially if you are dealing with an Omni-max sort of deity...

-NoCapo
Indeed.

By definition there can not be a claim that a thing is real if it is not also a claim that the thing is part of our reality. There can not be a claim that a god is real if it is also not a claim that the god is part of our reality.

And there can not be a claim that a thing is real if it is not also a claim that the thing is natural, since we've decided to include things like other dimensions, times before times, and inconsistent universal constants in our definition of what is natural. Natural now has become a substitute for things that are real.

Of course it didn't have to be this way. We could have kept our laws of nature unchanged, and any discovery that contradicted the laws of nature could have been called supernatural.

1. All that exist is X
2. Y is not x
3. Y is discovered to exist

We could have declared that proposition 1 is incorrect, and now we know X and Y both exist. But instead we continually redefine X to include every Y we encounter and continue on saying only X exists.

For example: Naturalism used to mean: All that exists is matter, and all phenomena are caused by the interaction of matter. But then we found things that weren't made of matter. Did we decide these non-baryon particles are supernatural and declare proposition one incorrect? Nope, we add matter and non-matter to the things that are natural. So then Naturalism meant: All the things in the observable universe. Then we began to speculate that there were things outside of our observable universe. (String Theory). Did we declare String Theory a supernatural claim? Nope, we just keep changing our definition to include anything and everything we think is real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top