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, 03:53 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1316

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
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.
But this by its very definition rules out any god that is claimed to be the ultimate source of reality. Which is kind of my point. A large swath of Abrahamic theology and panentheism violate this claim, by positing that there is everything, and that somehow at least a portion of god extends beyond that. It seems based on this logic, the best you can do is Pantheism, or reality as god. This is possible, but then the question becomes what do we see about reality itself that would indicate it is a god. I would tend to think we would want some evidence of mind or will, and even then if the entirety of reality was a sentient being, and we were essentially cells within it, does that make it a god, or just a really complex thing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
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.

I will throw this out there, just for discussion . I have a problem including the things we speculate (string theory, m theory, multiverses, etc...) in "nature" until we have some solid evidence for their existence. I don't think scientists should stop speculating ,or stop trying to stretch human understanding, but sometimes I think we tend to latch on to scientific speculations, hypotheses that are not yet testable, too quickly.

That being said, I think it makes perfect sense that our definitions of natural have expanded as out knowledge of the reality around us expands. I tend to agree with you that "Natural" boils down to "real" as evaluated by repeatable science that produces useful predictions. I also agree that were a definition of a god to be provided such that is could be nailed down by the same methodologies we use for every other area of science, then that would demonstrate that it is "real". I just happen to think, based on my observations and experiences, that any definition of god that could be evaluated that way would either get thrown out ("That is an incorrect definition of God! God is really like this!") or belief in that particular god as a god would be abandoned. The removal of the mysticism, the magical nature of a god is really like pulling the curtain away from the Wizard of Oz. Once we understand that, to quote They Might Be Giants, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace..." we not longer revere it as Apollo's chariot. If you wish to continue worshiping the Sun, you have to invoke some supernatural component not in evidence, or use is at a metaphor for some other abstract thing...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2014, 04:47 PM
 
40,100 posts, read 26,767,323 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
But this by its very definition rules out any god that is claimed to be the ultimate source of reality. Which is kind of my point. A large swath of Abrahamic theology and panentheism violate this claim, by positing that there is everything, and that somehow at least a portion of god extends beyond that. It seems based on this logic, the best you can do is Pantheism, or reality as god. This is possible, but then the question becomes what do we see about reality itself that would indicate it is a god. I would tend to think we would want some evidence of mind or will, and even then if the entirety of reality was a sentient being, and we were essentially cells within it, does that make it a god, or just a really complex thing?
To interject. The unified field as a consciousness field (God's consciousness) would place our reality in a similar position to the content of our dreams. It could simply be a creative dream in God's consciousness. The content of our dreams (as creative and real as they can seem) is entirely subject to and part of us (as their God) . . . but we are also something more . . . are we not?
Quote:
That being said, I think it makes perfect sense that our definitions of natural have expanded as out knowledge of the reality around us expands. I tend to agree with you that "Natural" boils down to "real" as evaluated by repeatable science that produces useful predictions. I also agree that were a definition of a god to be provided such that is could be nailed down by the same methodologies we use for every other area of science, then that would demonstrate that it is "real". I just happen to think, based on my observations and experiences, that any definition of god that could be evaluated that way would either get thrown out ("That is an incorrect definition of God! God is really like this!") or belief in that particular god as a god would be abandoned. The removal of the mysticism, the magical nature of a god is really like pulling the curtain away from the Wizard of Oz. Once we understand that, to quote They Might Be Giants, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace..." we not longer revere it as Apollo's chariot. If you wish to continue worshiping the Sun, you have to invoke some supernatural component not in evidence, or use is at a metaphor for some other abstract thing...
-NoCapo
This is an unfortunate outgrowth (and intellectual nod) to the ancient ignorance of our ancestors and their conceptions of God. There is no supernatural and no need to invoke it ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 05:08 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
To interject. The unified field as a consciousness field (God's consciousness) would place our reality in a similar position to the content of our dreams. It could simply be a creative dream in God's consciousness. The content of our dreams (as creative and real as they can seem) is entirely subject to and part of us (as their God) . . . but we are also something more . . . are we not?
But this just pushes the question back one layer, it doesn't provide an answer. You are saying that "reality" is not really everything, but is instead some product of an even greater reality. This is no different than the multiverse sort of argument. What we want to examine is the reality that consists of all that is, a phrase you have used before. In this case that reality would include this "God" who is dreaming us. A reality that he is apart of, whose laws he is subject to, which he is not the originator of.

So excluding the fact that nothing we can observe points to us being figments of some being's imagination, or characters in a storybook or screenplay it has written, what would classify this entity as a god worthy of worship or veneration? How would we even know anything about it? Based on this idea, "God" could be the equivalent of a poorly behaved snotty nosed alien kid...


As an aside, I do think that this is one of the few ways I can see that you can sort of contrive of something utterly outside of our reality still being real. But, just like the brain in a jar scenario, it seems to me that it is actually irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate the outside reality "poking" its way into our "dream".

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 05:31 PM
 
40,100 posts, read 26,767,323 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
To interject. The unified field as a consciousness field (God's consciousness) would place our reality in a similar position to the content of our dreams. It could simply be a creative dream in God's consciousness. The content of our dreams (as creative and real as they can seem) is entirely subject to and part of us (as their God) . . . but we are also something more . . . are we not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
But this just pushes the question back one layer, it doesn't provide an answer. You are saying that "reality" is not really everything, but is instead some product of an even greater reality. This is no different than the multiverse sort of argument. What we want to examine is the reality that consists of all that is, a phrase you have used before. In this case that reality would include this "God" who is dreaming us. A reality that he is apart of, whose laws he is subject to, which he is not the originator of.
Let me restate this more accurately. Reality consists of all that is. A reality that is God and whose laws exist because God EXISTS . . . not because God WILLS them. We exist as part of God's existence and have a role to play in God's existence . . . namely propagate God's consciousness.
Quote:
So excluding the fact that nothing we can observe points to us being figments of some being's imagination, or characters in a storybook or screenplay it has written, what would classify this entity as a god worthy of worship or veneration? How would we even know anything about it? Based on this idea, "God" could be the equivalent of a poorly behaved snotty nosed alien kid...
As an aside, I do think that this is one of the few ways I can see that you can sort of contrive of something utterly outside of our reality still being real. But, just like the brain in a jar scenario, it seems to me that it is actually irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate the outside reality "poking" its way into our "dream".
-NoCapo
I used the dream metaphor to illustrate how what you saw as impossible could in fact be possible . . . that's all. I see our ability to dream as evidence of a sort . . . especially in light of the mythology that we are in God's "image (imagination?) and likeness (having the same imagination?)."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 06:32 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,732,234 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
But this by its very definition rules out any god that is claimed to be the ultimate source of reality.
He could be the source of all reality except himself. He couldn't be the source of himself. But he could be the entirety of reality until he created more.



Quote:
I will throw this out there, just for discussion . I have a problem including the things we speculate (string theory, m theory, multiverses, etc...) in "nature" until we have some solid evidence for their existence. I don't think scientists should stop speculating ,or stop trying to stretch human understanding, but sometimes I think we tend to latch on to scientific speculations, hypotheses that are not yet testable, too quickly.
I just think the distinction between nature and not nature isn't important. it either does or does not exist.

But I agree with you that String Theory isn't really a scientific theory. It's protoscience. As "God of the gaps" is to Christians, String Theory is to physicist. It's a non-falsifiable theory that they hope to find annecdotal evidence to support someday. It only exists because they can't otherwise explain a gap in knowledge and accordingly they are forced to stick other dimensions of reality in the hole to make the maths work.

But that doesn't mean it's not true. It's just not anything Popper would call science.

Quote:
That being said, I think it makes perfect sense that our definitions of natural have expanded as out knowledge of the reality around us expands. I tend to agree with you that "Natural" boils down to "real" as evaluated by repeatable science that produces useful predictions. I also agree that were a definition of a god to be provided such that is could be nailed down by the same methodologies we use for every other area of science, then that would demonstrate that it is "real". I just happen to think, based on my observations and experiences, that any definition of god that could be evaluated that way would either get thrown out ("That is an incorrect definition of God! God is really like this!") or belief in that particular god as a god would be abandoned. The removal of the mysticism, the magical nature of a god is really like pulling the curtain away from the Wizard of Oz. Once we understand that, to quote They Might Be Giants, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace..." we not longer revere it as Apollo's chariot. If you wish to continue worshiping the Sun, you have to invoke some supernatural component not in evidence, or use is at a metaphor for some other abstract thing...

-NoCapo
I think it makes more sense to abandon the term "supernatural" altogether. I don't think it serves any purpose. We would be better served just to say we think some things are real and some aren't.

If one believes a god exists, it doesn't matter whether we call it natural or supernatural. You are making a claim that it is real. That implies that it exist within our reality. It may have created all other reality (but itself,) but it exist within our reality now by definition of the word reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 07:27 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,915,965 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
The removal of the mysticism, the magical nature of a god is really like pulling the curtain away from the Wizard of Oz. Once we understand that, to quote They Might Be Giants, "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace..." we not longer revere it as Apollo's chariot. If you wish to continue worshiping the Sun, you have to invoke some supernatural component not in evidence, or use is at a metaphor for some other abstract thing...

-NoCapo
You do need to get the new lyrics right, -NoCapo

The sun is a miasma Of incandescent plasma The sun's not simply made out of gas No, no, no The sun is a quagmire It's not made of fire Forget what you've been told in the past

(Plasma!) Electrons are free (Plasma!) A fourth state of matter Not gas, not liquid, not solid Ooh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 09:33 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
You do need to get the new lyrics right, -NoCapo

The sun is a miasma Of incandescent plasma The sun's not simply made out of gas No, no, no The sun is a quagmire It's not made of fire Forget what you've been told in the past

(Plasma!) Electrons are free (Plasma!) A fourth state of matter Not gas, not liquid, not solid Ooh!
Ha! I don't have the revised version
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:50 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,700,377 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The science I use, Arq is pretty standard knowledge.
Some of it is - but some of it is simply made up or wrong. As Morbert has shown for example in many posts. However a lot of the science you use you actually "misuse". Sometimes - it would seem - quite intentionally. I do not think you use science so much as you use the language of science - in a kind of Deepak Chopra way where you simply trot out streams of sciency sounding words - massively misused - in order to lend a sciencey sounding feel to what you say. It is a bamboozlement technique targetted at people who do not know the science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The fact that our brain senses EM fields is only indicative of the ability of the brain to be sensitive to fields.
The brain runs on electricity. This is not mystical or magical. Electrical systems create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields in turn affect electrical systems. Again nothing magical - nothing mystical. The effects you observe in a brain when you subject it to such fields therefore is simply a demonstration of this - and in no way supports the idea there is a god to be sensed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The interpretations of whatever the brain senses is indicative of what the brain is supposed to interpret.
Not in the case where you feed it false data by subjecting it to unnatural electro-magnetic stimulus. You are not showing something it is "supposed to interpret" - but are feeding it nonsense which it then _attempts_ to interpret as if it were normal data coming from normal senses. You are TRICKING the brain and are then trying to TRICK everyone else into thinking this allows you to make claims about what there is to be sensed out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You know that my odyssey has been one of confirming my personal experiences . . . so your "fishing around" comments are just disingenuous disparagement.
Not at all - they are perfectly accurate and necessary disparagement because what you are engaged in is not confirmation of personal experiences - but confirmation bias of your preferred and nonsense interpretation of claimed personal experiences. That is to say - you experienced (you claim) something - decided that that something was god based on nothing at all - and have since misrepresented science and the language of science in a desperate and ongoing attempt to not only confirm this choice to yourself - but to dupe anyone who will fall for it into believing it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
A reality that is God and whose laws exist because God EXISTS
So you have reverted once again to outright assertion then? Change the record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 06:05 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,941,099 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do not see life or consciousness ever arising from non-life or non-existent consciousness.
That is because you assume there's an all-pervading life and consciousness God-thingy that is the universe and the "Source" of everything. Seems circular to me - assume a magical consciousness is everywhere, use that to "prove" that this omnipresent consciousness leads to our consciousness, conclude that magical consciousness must exist. Great for rationalizing your faith, bad at actually proving anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 06:07 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,941,099 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
To interject. The unified field as a consciousness field (God's consciousness) would place our reality in a similar position to the content of our dreams. It could simply be a creative dream in God's consciousness.
It could be, or maybe it couldn't be. That's the great part about dreaming up stuff about magical gods - we can go wherever our imagination takes us.
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