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.
Here you are giving religion a special dispensation that you do not grant anything else that you don't necessarily believe in.
There are many things that a rational adult does not believe in, like the tooth fairy. Despite this, we COULD argue theoretically that a tooth fairy might exist out there in the cosmos somewhere. After all, we don't know everything that might be out there, right? And we COULD argue that we're just "waiting" for a rational argument for a tooth fairy, any tooth fairy.
The special dispensation arises because it addresses a state of reality itself (NOT what is in it) that DOES exist but that we do not know about. We cannot assert a state of reality that is unknown. The Source of reality itself is unknown. The other puerile examples do NOT exist to begin with.
Quote:
But DO we really think that way? No. So why would we think that way about gods?
Why, when it comes to gods, do people suddenly put on the brakes of their disbelief and say, "Weeelllll, I guess MAYBE there's a god out there. I just don't know! Therefore, I'm an agnostic. Because I'm waiting for a rational argument."
That isn't really the question, Shirina. It is NOT . . .
is there a God "out there" . . . but is the Source of "out there" (and "in here") God?
Quote:
But why would you be "waiting" for a rational argument? That presupposes that there IS one and you just haven't heard it yet.
I suspect it is a belief that the Source of what is "out there" (and "in here") is NOT irrational. It must be rational.
Quote:
The atheist position is simply that no gods exist until evidence can be provided that one does exist. And since I doubt you're agnostic when it comes to other far fetched claims such as leprechauns and fairies, why would you be agnostic about gods?
That is not simple . . . it is simplistic, Shirina. We are talking about what DOES exist (reality) . . . not something that might exist within reality. No one can make a positive claim about the state of reality itself without substantiating it. That is why NEITHER the theist nor the atheist can claim the default. We just don't know.
Quote:
It just seems to me that the ONLY reason for being agnostic about gods is because some part of religion and deity worship has insinuated itself into your thinking so that you can't quite bring yourself into patently rejecting the existence of gods the way you can patently reject the existence of Santa.
Actually it seems to be the religions that have insinuated themselves into your thinking, Shirina . . . so you can't seem to separate the existence issue from the myriad beliefs ABOUT God. You can find many ways to eject the often absurd belief ABOUT God so you transfer those rejections to the existence of God. But if everyone has wrong beliefs ABOUT God . . . that would not in any way undermine or illuminate the issue of the existence of God. Reality exists . . . God is one Source. I have never really understood what the other possible Sources are. Let's not do the infinite regress nonsense predicated on the Creation paradigm. Existence is sufficient of itself without positing a creator . . . just a Source (which could be ever-existing for all we know).
I'm not calling the source of our reality anything actually nor did I make any positive claims; membranes are purely hypothetical, as I stated. What I'm doing is asking you if you'd consider an unthinking, unintentional material source a god, which you did not respond to?
This involves consciousness . . . and I am loathe to accept that an unconscious reality could somehow produce a phenomenon as wonderful and as uncharacteristic of a dead and lifeless material reality. So . . . no to the unthinking. However we exist as both thinking and unthinking material components and very little of our functioning involves our thinking and intent . . . so the other attributes are encompassed in my view of the Source.
Quote:
I'd also like to know if you'd consider a material source a god? In other words, something that is composed of matter/energy?
This is inescapable . . . since our reality is entirely vibratory field manifestations of energy/mass . . . SOME of which (less than 5%) IS material.
This is simply a fact finding mission to discover what you believe this god thing is. Nothing more.[/quote]
This involves consciousness . . . and I am loathe to accept that an unconscious reality could somehow produce a phenomenon as wonderful and as uncharacteristic of a dead and lifeless material reality. So . . . no to the unthinking. However we exist as both thinking and unthinking material components and very little of our functioning involves our thinking and intent . . . so the other attributes are encompassed in my view of the Source. This is inescapable . . . since our reality is entirely vibratory field manifestations of energy/mass . . . SOME of which (less than 5%) IS material.
Excellent, thank you. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this thing you call "God" or "the Source" is a field that is somehow conscious and is composed, at least partly, of material. Although, I'm pretty confident that fields are considered to be entirely physical and are completely dependent on particles/matter, not partially. At any rate...
Also, if it was shown to a high degree of probability, if the cause or source of our reality was proven to be an unthinking process, you would not call that thing a god.
So, a conscious, physical field(s) is what you're calling "God"? This violates my third prerequisite that a god can not be composed of matter or energy, thus I can not call this thing a god. You of course are free to call it whatever you like, even though calling it a god would seem to obfuscate. Also, I find it highly unlikely fields in general are actually conscious. I'm also not sure that fields should be considered the ultimate source of our reality. They're probably more like a "part" of our reality. I'm also not sure there is actually a "source" of our reality. Our reality may just be.
At any rate, feel free to correct how I'm understanding your response.
This involves consciousness . . . and I am loathe to accept that an unconscious reality could somehow produce a phenomenon as wonderful and as uncharacteristic of a dead and lifeless material reality. So . . . no to the unthinking. However we exist as both thinking and unthinking material components and very little of our functioning involves our thinking and intent . . . so the other attributes are encompassed in my view of the Source. This is inescapable . . . since our reality is entirely vibratory field manifestations of energy/mass . . . SOME of which (less than 5%) IS material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
Excellent, thank you. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this thing you call "God" or "the Source" is a field that is somehow conscious and is composed, at least partly, of material. Although, I'm pretty confident that fields are considered to be entirely physical and are completely dependent on particles/matter, not partially. At any rate...
You may be confident . . . but you are wrong. Energy/mass equivalence and quantum field theory completely belies any notion of "particles." Everything is composed of various vibratory field manifestations or events that are measured as energy/mass. As British physicist and mathematician Sir James Jeans said . . . "the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine."
Quote:
Also, if it was shown to a high degree of probability, if the cause or source of our reality was proven to be an unthinking process, you would not call that thing a god.
It would rule out the God I believe in . . . but it would still be a god relative to us puny creatures by its sheer ubiquity, scope, power and control over reality. In essence . . . it would be a different version of a god with vastly different attributes . . . but no less a god in status.
Quote:
So, a conscious, physical field(s) is what you're calling "God"? This violates my third prerequisite that a god can not be composed of matter or energy, thus I can not call this thing a god.
Why do you think this? There is nothing that exists that is NOT composed of vibratory energy/mass manifestations of the unified field that establishes our reality. Your use of the word physical with regards to consciousness is also odd. There is nothing manifestly physical (in the normal sense of the word) about consciousness.
Quote:
You of course are free to call it whatever you like, even though calling it a god would seem to obfuscate. Also, I find it highly unlikely fields in general are actually conscious.
It IS a preference. But our consciousness IS a resonant neural field.
Quote:
I'm also not sure that fields should be considered the ultimate source of our reality. They're probably more like a "part" of our reality. I'm also not sure there is actually a "source" of our reality. Our reality may just be.
Those are non-sequiturs. Our reality is entirely established by the unified field . . . your lack of certainty notwithstanding. A Source merely needs to BE. It need not be caused or cause itself (or cause anything else). Everything that comprises the Source would be necessary to its continued existence, period. The duration of its existence is irrelevant.
You may be confident . . . but you are wrong. Energy/mass equivalence and quantum field theory completely belies any notion of "particles." Everything is composed of various vibratory field manifestations or events that are measured as energy/mass. As British physicist and mathematician Sir James Jeans said . . . "the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine."
I do not pretend to understand QFT, even many physicists have problems with it.
This is what wiki has to say about QFT...
Quote:
In QFT, quantum mechanical interactions between particles are described by interaction terms between the corresponding underlying fields. QFT interaction terms are similar in spirit to those between charges with electric and magnetic fields in Maxwell's equations. However, unlike the classical fields of Maxwell's theory, fields in QFT generally exist in quantum superpositions of states and are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.
"corresponding underlying fields" seems to indicate there's in intimate relation between the field and the particles, and that neither exist without the other.
Don't have much time atm, but have enough to quickly address this.
Quote:
It IS a preference. But our consciousness IS a resonant neural field.
Just because "our" consciousness can be described by field theory, does not an any way mean ALL fields are conscious. It also does not infer that the bulk of fields are conscious.
This is what you are asserting, correct? That all fields are conscious?
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-14-2014 at 05:06 PM..
I do not pretend to understand QFT, even many physicists have problems with it.
This is what wiki has to say about QFT...
"corresponding underlying fields" seems to indicate there's in intimate relation between the field and the particles, and that neither exist without the other.
Neither exists without the other because "particles" are measured manifestations of field as energy events.
So where does physicality enter the picture if everything is a field? Either the physical does not exist, or the field is also physical.
Physicality is a vibratory manifestation of the unified field at the macro-level, period. The physical interactions are based on resonance/dissonance of the various manifestation events. You and I are events . . . but relatively perpetuating composite standing wave events.
Physicality is a vibratory manifestation of the unified field at the macro-level, period. The physical interactions are based on resonance/dissonance of the various manifestation events. You and I are events . . . but relatively perpetuating composite standing wave events.
So if we are "vibratory manifestations of the unified field" and are physical, then either the field is also physical or there is some sort of demarcation between the field and the physical? How can there be a demarcation between the physical and the field if everything IS the field? Also, if the field is not physical, how can it possibly manifest something that is. That makes no logical sense.
So if we are "vibratory manifestations of the unified field" and are physical, then either the field is also physical or there is some sort of demarcation between the field and the physical? How can there be a demarcation between the physical and the field if everything IS the field? Also, if the field is not physical, how can it possibly manifest something that is. That makes no logical sense.
I agree . . . but I am accommodating the typical common sense understanding of a physical reality based on the undeniable experiences we have. IOW . . . what we have come to understand and experience as "physical" is what defines physicality for most people. What philosophers and physicists would consider physical encompasses the entire panoply that constitutes the basis for our reality. That is the unified field comprising everything we experience as "physical" (in common parlance) and everything we do not.
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.
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.
