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.
I'm not an expert on the details, but I get the impression that the physics we study may not be as constant or consistent as we had previously thought. The immutable rules we have may only apply at this time, in this place, at this scale. The amount we don't know is humbling.
Very well said. This is a good place for one of my favorite quotes...
Quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein.
Fitting, coming from one of humankind's most famous physicists.
The unified field exists . . . our consciousness fields exist . . . but until we can directly measure the content of consciousness the answer would be "Yes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
So, consciousness can be studied by science, and fields can be studied by science (EM fields, gravitational fields, the Higgs field etc.). I might add that these fields ARE considered physical by science. Why does this supposed "god field" get special dispensation? The above statement also suggests that "the content of consciousness" could be measured. But I'd guess you believe it can never be measured as it is "non-physical", leaving us totally at a faith proposition, which is pretty much the same state as all other god beliefs. But then again, you're idea of physical is simply the state the "god field" assumes to become material, while the remainder is in a non-material "field" state. When in fact, the "god field" and its material manifestations are equivalent, only structurally different.
Also, you've claimed that it is "unmeasurable". And yet, you seem to be quantifying it in this statement.
Are you saying the "god field" constitutes more than 95 percent of nature (our reality)? For that matter, do you even consider the "god field" natural? I'd suppose you'd must, as it is what is producing nature.I have many more questions about your belief, but this discussion about what the "god" is, is more interesting at the moment. When discussing gods with theists we rarely get to address its substance. I must say however, I still can't make logical sense of your belief. You seem to be saying "A" is "A" and not "A", at the same time.
You are asking questions but obviously not parsing the answers very well. You are conflating and confusing issues. Measurement is a problem of our current technological capabilities, period. The unmeasurable part of our reality is currently 95+%. That leaves science constrained to the less than 5% that IS measurable. That is a separate issue entirely from the composition of our reality. The fields that science CAN measure are currently all within the less than 5%. But 100% of our reality is entirely established by a unified field. Only 95+% of it is NOT measurable that would include our consciousness.
Quote:
Edit: One more thing occurred to me; I'd almost forgot. You claim the "god field" is "unmeasuralbe". But you don't obviously believe it's undetectable. If it's detectable by the human brain, a physical mechanism with this nebulous "consciousness field" attached, why can't we construct another physical detector? If this conscious "god field" IS the source of everything, certainly it could be included in a non-biological detector.
Its effects are indirectly detectable (as in dark energy, dark matter. and our consciousness). IF as the AI enthusiasts believe . . . we are ever able to create an artificial consciousness . . . you might be right. But I do NOT believe that artificial consciousness is possible . . . it can only be mimicked.
Thank you! So would you now care to tackle my quandary and obvious confusion about the physical or not physical nature of this "god field"?
Your confusion probably stems from a common sense use of the term "physical" and the philosophically correct use of the term. Philosophically. the unified field and EVERY manifestation within it is "physical" or material" . . . but not necessarily measurable or perceptible as the commonly experienced ones within the less than 5%.
you can't seem to separate the existence issue from the myriad beliefs ABOUT God.
You keep trotting that line out and ignoring when people tell you that the idea that god exists is a believe "about" god. And a belief you simply assert and have not once even tried to back up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Reality exists . . . God is one Source. I have never really understood what the other possible Sources are.
That would appear to be a good explanation for why you have god belief. You simply do not understand any alternative - and rather than address that lack of understanding with education and research you instead grasp onto the one explantion that does make any sense to you - irregardless of how little support there is for that explanation - which is none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Existence is sufficient of itself without positing a creator . . .
Then why do you posit one - especially without a basis to ground such postulations? Oh yes - as I just said - you do so merely because it is easy for you to understand and you want it to be true for no other reason than you think you can understand it.
I have answered this in another thread . . . but I will reiterate it since you and your cohort seem unable to see the important distinction between these "unknowables." There is no actual existing thing that tooth fairies or Santa would be explanations FOR.
Sure there are, at least as much as your god. Go ahead, tell us how "Santa brings the spirit of Christmas" is any less of an explanation than "god somehow magically created everything".
Quote:
That is not true about God. There IS an actual existing thing (our reality) that God would be an explanation FOR because we don't know (or it may be unknowable).
You need to make up your mind here. Either something is unknowable or we might be able to know that god(s) are an explanation for it. But it can't be both. So which is it?
Quote:
You PREFER no explanation. Fine . . . but it cannot be a default or you would be making a positive assertion that there is "No God."
It's not an assertion, it is a working conclusion based on a number of factors. The main one being "don't make up nonsense for no reason". That's an approach you seem fine with for the tooth fairy or Santa, but somehow the rules magically change when your religious faith comes into question.
Again you misunderstand. It is BECAUSE my view is consistent with science that it is therefore equally reasonable to yours
The fact that two claims are consistent with science doesn't make each equally reasonable. Compare "things fall" with "there are magical underwear gnomes which can perform miracles which appear to be completely natural events". Both are equally consistent with science, but I doubt anyone would say that they are equally reasonable.
Ther can be no materialist default without positive proof for your positive claim about the state of reality.
Yep, let's compare all of the products of assuming naturalism against the results from assuming magic. I'll start with modern medicine on the side of naturalism. Your turn.
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.
