Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 10:32 PM
364 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,263 Year: 18,869/21,208 Month: 1,628/3,111 Week: 423/707 Day: 119/78 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 1 of 150 (689692)
02-02-2013 8:41 PM


When referring to God or gods most of the time we are referring to a historical idea of a supreme being usually supernatural in nature.

In the ID debate most understandings of the God Concept directly relate to the Mythological Construct of Canaanite Tribal Deities which was absorbed into the Judaism Pantheon. Like the Greeks and the Egyptians there were politically motivated movements to Dynasties or Kingdoms through the Monotheistic Concept. Wherein the idea of One God was not so much revealed as it was invented. And was not so much revealed as a spiritual undertaking but invented as a convenient political form of mind control.

By the time Christianity is well under way this is clearly indicated by the methods used. Such as absorbing the pagan ideas and then eliminating the competition through Inquisitions and Crusades etc. Also in hiding that Elohim means gods and so essentially hiding both the Pagan and Polytheistic origins of all the dominate Monotheistic Religions of today.

Deism and Gnosticism were split offs revealing the real nature of religion as an insincere branch of Metaphysics that follows none of the logic or even the honest inquiry of true Metaphysics.

So a God Hypothesis can not really be postulated from the Apologetics of some Theology when Theology itself is based on Mythological Constructs. Mythology itself is a creative process. But Mythological Constructs are plagiarism of god concepts and creation stories from other cultures to create the un natural and pseudo concepts needed for Monotheism based on A Trinity. The Trinity being the leftovers of trying to appease the Pagan Polytheist .

So what I am saying is this particular God Hypothesis is the one that Atheist can easily refute and is the reason why I refer to myself as an Atheist 90% of the time.

I think that The Discovery Institute includes The God Hypothesis
that states the Judaeo-Christian God Designed the Universe. In their God Hypothesis this "God" is a person. And this person has wants and needs and anger and jealousy. This person is described in their holy books. Their God Hypothesis is that of a Creator God that creates the Universe and Earth all at once as stated in Genesis.

Two problems are immediate. One Genesis is a clear plagiarism of Babylonian creation stories and two the word "Design" is a smokescreen for Creationism.

So to clarify to accept any God Hypothesis we would have to reject all the Mythological Constructs and all the Political motivations or goals of movements based on them. This would be essentially be rejecting the whole ID movements as it stands today.

Any God Hypothesis would have to redefine God outside of Mythological Constructs completely.

No self respecting Atheist is going to accept a Mythological Construct as an explanation to fill in the gaps of Evolution.If this is the essence of ID then ID is a dead fish.

First of all we must define what "God" could possibly describe by eliminating from The God Hypothesis all aspects of a Mythological Construct as I have made clear.

If God is inside our Universe like you and I are "inside" our Universe then this "God" can not be a creator of the Universe and any attempt to explain our Universe as "designed" would lead to a God Hypothesis that includes a "God that "designed" himself.

Which brings me to my next point. A God Hypothesis that carries any weight must not be one that describes "God" as a person.

If God is "outside" our Universe it must be established where or when such a Phenomena occurs. Is this a Spatial Temporal Being? If so how can we postulate such a being "Outside" our Universe when we do not know of anything in Physics that qualifies as "outside" our Universe?

If we live in a Multiverse this just further complicates the problem in a God Hypothesis.

Now you can stipulate that Aliens are the Architects of Design. But what did they design? The whole Universe as we know it? Or Just the Earth? Or did they just tinker with the process? By not clarifying whether the higher beings are "gods" or aliens you have a very weak argument for any form of ID.

First of all it is disingenuous or insincere at its core to even bring aliens into ID because most of the ID movement justifies all their agendas based on a moral imperative of eliminating Philosophic Materialism which is clearly not the case when postulating seeding or genetic tampering by alien races.

So why have a God Hypothesis at all? As an Atheist myself I can not tell you. But as you know most atheist are fairly agnostic when pressed with Einsteins God or God Hypothesis outside Mythological Constructs.

If any form of Pantheism is true then God is not "outside" the Universe or "inside" the Universe. But IS the Universe.

My God Hypothesis is that although the Atheist are right in asserting that if God IS the Universe then we do not necessarily need another word for Universe ...I still think that the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Measurement Problem in Quantum Physics are actually two sides of the same question which leave room for a God Hypothesis.

The missing variable not accounted for in both is "Awareness".

Not Intelligence but Awareness is The Source of all that is that we call our Universe and is what makes Consciousness possible. The Quantum Flux is the Ground of Our Being and the Source of Creativity that generates a Living Universe as opposed to dead objects just floating in space.

The reason life is possible and human beings as well as other sentient beings are possible which can both experience pain and love and are capable of creativity themselves is because we are God.

How can you scientifically prove such a Hypothesis?

Well although I can not "prove " my God Hypothesis I am willing to lay out the groundwork.

Starting with some observations.

An obvious observation is that I am an aware being and so are you and no amount of explaining can justify or establish consciousness of aware beings as an illusion. Our awareness is a self evident fact that comes from direct observation. I do not need "I think therefore I am" . I am well aware of my awareness independent of thoughts. Awareness is in no way dependent on thoughts or thinking.

Another observation is I am not the only aware being. Sorry Solipsist.
All living creatures on this Earth are self evidently aware.

Another observation is that it is the "boundaries" that we place on awareness that are "illusion" not the awareness itself. When I see myself as "separate" from you or "separate" from other life on Earth I am accepting artificial boundaries.

I have made great attempts in eliminating the automatic acceptance of these boundaries and have discovered it is possible to observe awareness without boundaries.

This is like becoming aware that you are not just the finger you cut as you slowly resolve the problem of pain. You treat the problem of the cut finger by becoming aware of external objects and acknowledging that you "have" a finger that is cut. You are "not" the finger itself thought it is "part" of you. Without this essential awareness of the nature of yourself as a whole body you could not begin to address the problem. You must use your other hand and also your entire body. You may even have to acknowledge other beings who also have whole bodies.

My point is here how do you know that you are just your body when it is obvious you are not just your finger. If you do not draw the line at the boundary of I am "my finger" why draw the line at I am "my body"?

Which leads into my next point.

From this experience it might occur to you that these other beings might be part of your being as well.

I could go on but I want to make clear where my God Hypothesis has come from and to differentiate my Hypothesis from Mythological Constructs.

With the Help of scientists such as Benjamin Libet Einstein and Fred Alan Wolf to name a few the observations necessary to validate this as a viable hypothesis are within reach. And yet I think science by itself is not enough. A Metaphysics would have to be developed and continually be refined.

If my Hypothesis could be developed at all and that is a big "If" it would go a long way to refuting completely the religion of bot Materialism and Theology as complete in themselves explanations of all that there is. If this is not possible I would love to hear of other God Hypothesis that do a better job.

Perhaps a God Hypothesis is not even necessary in any shape or form?
If this is the case I would love to hear the competing Hypothesis on the relation or lack there of between The Hard Problem of Consciousness and The Measurement Problem in QM. I also would be interested in better Hypothesis that address the other problems of Metaphysics.

An Atheist that puts their head in the sand claiming there are no problems or impasses between Metaphysics and Branches of Science are no better than the Theologians that claim there are no real Theological Problems of the God Concepts that imply their religion is based solely on Mythological Constructs.

Perhaps when we die we cease to have any meaningful existence beyond a biological machine. Or perhaps we all go to Hell because we can not correctly answer the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In either case pascals wager is moot.

But if there is any meaning in life beyond simply accepting suffering as a built in system to life that simply appeared for no further purpose then to survive..and then suffer and cause others to suffer ...while struggling... And all this only to die... claiming to know the answer... but then actually resolving nothing in the process seems to me the path of the Nihilist.

If we want to see if there might actually be an alternative then maybe ...we should examine other hypothesis with a little more discipline in honest inquiry that marks the true philosopher.

We may have nothing to gain but given that this is all assumed to be meaningless outside any subjective meaning we assign to life we certainly have nothing to lose.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 9:39 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:52 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 104 by kofh2u, posted 03-06-2013 3:54 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 123 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-10-2013 5:07 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 150 (689694)
02-03-2013 7:28 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The God Hypothesis thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 150 (689699)
02-03-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-02-2013 8:41 PM


Dualism
If I have understood your argument correctly it rests entirely upon the notion that awareness/experience/consciousness exist independently of the physical. Whether we are applying those terms to individual humans or the physical universe in it's entirety (AKA God in your 'hypothesis')

Is this correct?

If so how do you get over the rather significant problem of dualism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-02-2013 8:41 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 1:09 PM Straggler has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 4 of 150 (689700)
02-03-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Straggler
02-03-2013 9:39 AM


Re: Dualism
To me the only problem of Dualism in understanding reality is in accepting the Dualistic concept(s) of reality.

The problem is conceptual thinking itself. Conceptual thinking leads to paradox because paradox is the only way for dualistic mind to escape it's own trap of "the other" .

As long as paradox "fascinates" us paradox has a hold on you and creates the dualistic mind that sees everything as opposites.

This is why Zen states that any words I say to you to awaken you from the dualist perspective is like the finger pointing at the moon.

So it comes down to...

Are you interested in the problem of Dualism from the Metaphysical questions duality vs nonduality which is itself a form of dualism?

Or Are you trying to grasp Dualism from a Scientific Investigation into Consciousness (The Hard Problem) which includes the same problem in Quantum Physics also known as the Measurement problem?

Because either way you will only be attempting to escape the problem without making any attempt to actually resolve the problem.

Because escape is impossible and resolution is only possible when you become aware of your Nondual nature I am not sure I can do anything besides point at the moon. Where the moon represents the nature of reality we are trying to observe and my finger represents words or concepts that would help you become aware of this nature.

Since this Nondual nature is Awareness itself all I can do is point to it and hope you do not stare at my finger.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 9:39 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 1:56 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 71 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 12:58 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 5 of 150 (689701)
02-03-2013 1:33 PM


Is God A Taoist?
Taoism like Dzogchen in Buddhism is a Nondual philosophy and Raymond M. Smullyan demonstrates this very amusingly in his examination of what our relation to God might be. Here is an excerpt from his essay "Is God A Taoist" that I find very illuminating.

"Mortal:
Tell me, since we mortals seem to have such erroneous views about your real nature, why don't you enlighten us? Why don't you guide us the right way?

God:
What makes you think I'm not?

Mortal:
I mean, why don't you appear to our very senses and simply tell us that we are wrong?

GOD:
Are you really so naive as to believe that I am the sort of being which can appear to your senses? It would be more correct to say that I am your senses.

Mortal (astonished):
You are my senses?

God:
Not quite, I am more than that. But it comes closer to the truth than the idea that I am perceivable by the senses. I am not an object; like you, I am a subject, and a subject can perceive, but cannot be perceived. You can no more see me than you can see your own thoughts. You can see an apple, but the event of your seeing an apple is itself not seeable. And I am far more like the seeing of an apple than the apple itself.

Mortal:
If I can't see you, how do I know you exist?

God:
Good question! How in fact do you know I exist?

Mortal:
Well, I am talking to you, am I not?

God:
How do you know you are talking to me? Suppose you told a psychiatrist, "Yesterday I talked to God." What do you think he would say?

Mortal:
That might depend on the psychiatrist. Since most of them are atheistic, I guess most would tell me I had simply been talking to myself.

God:
And they would be right!

Mortal:
What? You mean you don't exist?

God:
You have the strangest faculty of drawing false conclusions! Just because you are talking to yourself, it follows that I don't exist?

Mortal:
Well, if I think I am talking to you, but I am really talking to myself, in what sense do you exist?

God:
Your question is based on two fallacies plus a confusion. The question of whether or not you are now talking to me and the question of whether or not I exist are totally separate. Even if you were not now talking to me (which obviously you are), it still would not mean that I don't exist.

Mortal:
Well, all right, of course! So instead of saying "if I am talking to myself, then you don't exist," I should rather have said, "if I am talking to myself, then I obviously am not talking to you."

God:
A very different statement indeed, but still false.

Mortal:
Oh, come now, if I am only talking to myself, then how can I be talking to you?

God:
Your use of the word "only" is quite misleading! I can suggest several logical possibilities under which your talking to yourself does not imply that you are not talking to me.

Mortal:
Suggest just one!

God:
Well, obviously one such possibility is that you and I are identical.

Mortal:
Such a blasphemous thought -- at least had I uttered it!

God:
According to some religions, yes. According to others, it is the plain, simple, immediately perceived truth.

Mortal:
So the only way out of my dilemma is to believe that you and I are identical?

God:
Not at all! This is only one way out. There are several others. For example, it may be that you are part of me, in which case you may be talking to that part of me which is you. Or I may be part of you, in which case you may be talking to that part of you which is me. Or again, you and I might partially overlap, in which case you may be talking to the intersection and hence talking both to you and to me. The only way your talking to yourself might seem to imply that you are not talking to me is if you and I were totally disjoint -- and even then, you could conceivably be talking to both of us.

Mortal:
So you claim you do exist.

God:
Not at all. Again you draw false conclusions! The question of my existence has not even come up. All I have said is that from the fact that you are talking to yourself one cannot possibly infer my nonexistence, let alone the weaker fact that you are not talking to me.

Mortal:
All right, I'll grant your point! But what I really want to know is do you exist?

God:
What a strange question!

Mortal:
Why? Men have been asking it for countless millennia.

God:
I know that! The question itself is not strange; what I mean is that it is a most strange question to ask of me!

Mortal:
Why?

God:
Because I am the very one whose existence you doubt! I perfectly well understand your anxiety. You are worried that your present experience with me is a mere hallucination. But how can you possibly expect to obtain reliable information from a being about his very existence when you suspect the nonexistence of the very same being?

Mortal:
So you won't tell me whether or not you exist?

God:
I am not being willful! I merely wish to point out that no answer I could give could possibly satisfy you. All right, suppose I said, "No, I don't exist." What would that prove? Absolutely nothing! Or if I said, "Yes, I exist." Would that convince you? Of course not!

Mortal:
Well, if you can't tell me whether or not you exist, then who possibly can?

God:
That is something which no one can tell you. It is something which only you can find out for yourself.

Mortal:
How do I go about finding this out for myself?

God:
That also no one can tell you. This is another thing you will have to find out for yourself.

Mortal:
So there is no way you can help me?

God:
I didn't say that. I said there is no way I can tell you. But that doesn't mean there is no way I can help you.

Mortal:
In what manner then can you help me?

God:
I suggest you leave that to me!..."

Einstein once said
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us "universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

You can see the Nondual Scientific movement inspired by this viewpoint on The Science and Nonduality website

http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/nonduality.shtml

I only give you that link because I found a lot of info on there about Nondual view point as a scientific investigation.

Personally I find exploring the Nondual as a scientific discipline a distraction. But I see that some will not be happy exploring any phenomena unless it is examined and quantified scientifically.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Missing word


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 150 (689702)
02-03-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Dualism
SA writes:

Are you interested in the problem of Dualism from the Metaphysical questions duality vs nonduality which is itself a form of dualism?

I'm interested in how you deal with the idea that the mind can cause the body to act.

I'm also interested in how you deal with the fact that physical changes can be demonstrated to have significant effects on things like personality and thoughts.

SA writes:

The problem is conceptual thinking itself. Conceptual thinking leads to paradox because paradox is the only way for dualistic mind to escape it's own trap of "the other".

You are advocating non-conceptual thinking? That doesn't sound very helpful....

SA writes:

Or Are you trying to grasp Dualism from a Scientific Investigation into Consciousness (The Hard Problem) which includes the same problem in Quantum Physics also known as the Measurement problem?

So yours is a god of the quantum gap? Why is that gap any more likely to require god as an answer than any of the other gaps humanity has previously seen fit to fill with various forms of teleological thinking?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 1:09 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 2:36 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 3:42 PM Straggler has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 7 of 150 (689703)
02-03-2013 2:31 PM


Was Jesus A Pantheist?
Below are a few post on my Blog about Jesus and Pantheism

You can read the whole blog at
http://spiritualanarchist.blogspot.com/...was-pantheist.html

If you read the whole blog on Jesus you may never see the term "Born Again" the same way again The term may be understood to mean something entirely different from the way most people have been told to see that truth. And the term "I AM" may be seen for the teaching of Pantheist that it actually is.

Not only does Jesus teach reincarnation
but Jesus also teaches Pantheism!

He admits that God's will is DIFFERENT than his own so he can only be claiming to be God in the Pantheist sense that we are ALL God!

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Then admits that only God's will decides who is saved Again Jesus has his own separate will.
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus can not make the decision because he is not God and he admit it.
John 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.

Over and over Jesus admits that his will/spirit/soul etc is DIFFERENT then God's will

John 7:17 If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. John 7:18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.

Jesus does not speak from his own authority because he is not God !

Jesus taught Pantheism.

At one point he is so frustrated trying to explain being one with God without claiming to be God that he points out Jewish teachings that point to pantheism saying all are gods/or part of God But regardless to say that God's will is different and separate from his own will and at the same time claim to be ONE with God IS Pantheism plain and simple!

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.

Of course when he claims pantheism he is misunderstood as claiming to be God so he clears that up just as I said .

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Of course they would respond that they only let the spirit of God IN them just as you claim.

Even though God is IN all of us when you become ONE with God your connection is deeper. So deep in fact that those who never achieve becoming ONE with God misunderstand anyone who claims Pantheism the way Jesus did.

Jesus claims after becoming ONE with God that he does only God's will but it is still DIFFERENT and SEPARATE from his own
John 10:38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

To say that God is IN me and I IN him IS Pantheism !
Otherwise Jesus would have said that God IS me or I AM him!

Jesus did say before Abraham was I AM but I AM is pantheism and he is also hinting at reincarnation which he explains in John when answering Nicodemus on how reincarnation is possible.

When ever someone becomes ONE with God they become God by letting go off all they think they are.

If you let go of things like "I am a man" or I have blond hair or anything else to do with the body. . Then let go of all of who you think of as "your personality Favorite colors music etc and then further let go of all your deepest desires and fears .. and all that you are as a person all that is left is your awareness or soul .

Since God IS awareness you become one with the source . You are no longer I am Matt or I am Brian . You just are.. You are IAM . God is in you and you are in God . There is NO separation because you give up your will. Of course I personally do not believe you give up your will . I believe your will is motivated by a higher and purer awareness. But to understand the nature of will or God or even your own soul you would have to become ONE with God.

This is very hard to do for a NON-Pantheist or for someone that HATES Pantheism. I(I am using your word hate ironically because you seem to think that anyone that disagrees with something that seems obvious and spiritual to you must hate what they disagree with)

A NON-Pantheist could become ONE with God by meditating but by doing so they would probably become a pantheist as soon as they achieved this awareness or at least they would be much more open to the idea.

Yeah Jesus made alot of people angry with his Pantheism and his teachings on the truth of Reincarnation threatened those in power. Socrates was killed for saying similar things and daring to challenge the accepted view of those in power. The Christians got rid of reincarnation from his teachings as well as his pantheism just like the Buddhist got rid of the soul from Buddha's teachings and for the same reason.

Without reincarnation religion keeps it's power and without a soul to reincarnate Buddhism is just another form of Atheism. Buddha refused to answer most people when asked about God because to do so would keep people from seeking to experience God directly without religion.

And Jesus never claimed to be God and admitted that he Incarnated just like everyone else and even tried to explain how reincarnation works. But most of his words and teachings were erased and replaced to create the churches we have today.

What we are left with is a world will people are mocked or killed for telling the truth and a Jealous Angry God that demands our fear and obedience and calls this love.

No religion knows or explains what God or Love or your Soul really is though they talk incessantly about these and build up myths and sacred symbols to hide the truth.

That is why Jesus taught to seek wiithin.

But nobody looks inside anymore

...and the few that CLAIM they are looking INSIDE themselves for answers and claim that they ask God to tell them what is true... always seem to find what religion has always taught and what they already believed before they even asked any questions.

Socrates (Who I believe was an Incarnation of Jesus) taught that an unexamined life is not worth living. But most people only examine life close enough to see that they were right all along and anybody that sees anything different must be wrong.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 02-03-2013 2:58 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 8 of 150 (689704)
02-03-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
02-03-2013 1:56 PM


Re: Dualism
A Quantum Gap? Still laughing. Ok let me read the rest of your post so I can reply. I know what you are saying. That I am using an appeal to ignorance. IE that if we can not know what Quantum Physics implies then you should accept whatever I say it implies. But that is not what I am saying. So hold on why I read the rest of your post to see what else you may be getting at. I am certainly not saying that God is in the gaps of Quantum Physics. If anything I am saying the opposite.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 1:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 2:49 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 150 (689705)
02-03-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 2:36 PM


Re: Dualism
You claim not to be a dualist whilst simultaneously making a dualistic distinction between aspects of reality that can be examined scientifically and aspects of reality that cannot.

SA writes:

A Quantum Gap?

Quantum theory is frequently used by those of a mystical disposition as a catchall justification for various forms of nonsense. No different in principle from any other god of the gaps position. Take something that is complex and not fully understood and then fill in the gaps we have in our knowledge with whatever unevidenced wishful thinking floats your boat.

It seems that this is what you are doing. But your posts are so long winded and jargonistic that frankly it's difficult to decipher what the key component of your 'god hypothesis' really is here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 2:36 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 02-03-2013 3:13 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 4:17 PM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 10 of 150 (689706)
02-03-2013 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Was Jesus A Pantheist?
Interesting thread. Thanks. Can you more clearly define what you mean by incarnation?. I looked through your blog and I'm afraid I still am very uncertain as to understand what you mean by it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 2:31 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4872
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(6)
Message 11 of 150 (689707)
02-03-2013 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
02-03-2013 2:49 PM


Re: Dualism
qs writes:

But your posts are so long winded and jargonistic that frankly it's difficult to decipher what the key component of your 'god hypothesis' really is here.

"Pile of shite" was the expression that sprang into my mind about 3 paragraphs in.
And when we were referenced to his blog, "pile of self-satified, self-promoting pseudo-intellectual shite" was the second.

Otherwise, fine.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 2:49 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 12 of 150 (689708)
02-03-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
02-03-2013 1:56 PM


Re: Dualism
Ok let me attempt to address your points one by one.

Straggler writes:

I'm interested in how you deal with the idea that the mind can cause the body to act.

I'm also interested in how you deal with the fact that physical changes can be demonstrated to have significant effects on things like personality and thoughts.

I guess if Dennett can have his Freewill and Determinism Compatiblism I can have a Nondual and Dualism Compatiblism. although I think he asserts Compatiblism for convenience. That it would be convenient in our society for Freewill to be Compatible with Determinism so let us accept the Appearance of Freewill as actual Reality so we can get the society we want. Talk about Pragmatism!

Well I propose in this case Duality is the Illusion and this Illusion is only based on perception. Quantum Physics is not what the average human being accepts or even understands as Reality. From the Dualistic perspective I am my body. This fails on the face of it because it must be narrowed down to I am my brain.

So the original assumption fails because if I am my brain then I can not also be my body.

So if I am not my body I still have a body. There begins my argument for Compatiblism. But what if I am not my brain but I have a brain?

This is where Dualism breaks down.

The Brain gets the body to act. If I am my body then this is nonsensical but if I am my brain Dualism is left intact.

The problem manifest in the second part of your question.

You both assume that I am my personality and also I am my thoughts.

So the poor Dualist must simultaneously assert that
1. I am my body
2. I am my brain
3. I am my personality
4. I am my thoughts

I have established the fact of if I am my brain then I can not be my body. Now I want to establish that I can not be both my personality and my thoughts. Again if I was my thoughts I certainly could not be my brain. I have thoughts just as I "have" a body. So now what is a personality?

Is a personality a brain? No ? Then I can not be my brain if I am my personality. I think personality is perceived as how we emotionally react to our thoughts and to other peoples thoughts or actions.

If I were to accept this definition am I accepting that I am my reactions or that I am my emotions? Either way I am no longer my thoughts. Without emotions my thoughts have no content.

Yet if you examine the emotional content of a thought you will not find me either.

The problem is we are discussing the behaviorist description of personality. When my thoughts interact with your thoughts this provokes emotional reaction which is perceived as a personality.

Personality is simply a convenient way of seeing a pattern between emotional interactions of two or more sentient beings.

But again dualism fails because it rest on the assumption of two separate beings.

If we are separate then why is my personality dependent on the emotional interaction of others?

It seems I am incapable of manifesting a "personality" independent of emotional interaction of others. I also can not form the language necessary for this interaction or even for thinking without this interaction with others.

If I am to take dualism seriously I would have to conclude that if I were not in a human society I wouldn't exist. So much for conceptual thinking.

And this brings us to your next point.

Straggler writes:

You are advocating non-conceptual thinking? That doesn't sound very helpful....

I am not sure that thinking is possible without concepts. But you can practice certain disciplines of the mind so as to become unattached to conceptual thinking. Not sure I am qualified to teach a course in nonattachment necessary to let go of conceptual thinking. Conceptual thinking is the only type of thinking I know. So when I think I do use concepts, But I try not to be attached to concepts. I know conceptual reality isn't really Reality as it IS

Which brings me to your final question

Straggler writes:

So yours is a god of the quantum gap? Why is that gap any more likely to require god as an answer than any of the other gaps humanity has previously seen fit to fill with various forms of teleological thinking?

I think I have answered this question in part but I would be interested in your response so far before digging any deeper into an obviously deep subject. I will only say for now that I do not argue for a God of the Gaps. And do not need Quantum Physics to prove God or Pantheism.

Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe. And I would be able to accept neither the Buddhist Description of our Universe or the Quantum Description of Reality if I had not already perceived the truth of the Buddhist description of our mind. And I was only able to do that because I perceived this directly prior to practicing and studying Buddhism.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 1:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2013 5:38 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 7:24 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 13 of 150 (689709)
02-03-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
02-03-2013 2:49 PM


Re: Dualism
Yes I did post my blog on here. Sorry but I am a writer. So I like to share my thoughts. I wrote a Blog because I want people to read it. I am not full of Shite as you say. But I can be long winded I admit. Not sure what you mean by Jargon though. I am I responding to 2 people right now? As for the gaps argument I am not sure that holds here.

The God of the Gaps argument is used in Evolution where as where ever Evolution has a gap in knowledge Theist fill in the Gap with "God did it" .

I do not even propose such a God.

The ID movement believe God "Designed" the Universe. And the Design is apparent in Irreducible Complexity.

Again I do not make that argument.

We are not even discussing Evolution here and I am definitely not proposing a theory of Intelligent Design let alone a God of the Gaps.

I am not looking for God in the Gaps of Quantum Physics but in what we actually know about Quantum Physics.

Scientist would like to conveniently ignore the metaphysical can of wormholes that QM opens up but that is because scientist are not uniquely qualified to practice Metaphysics.

Theologians often point to scientist and say to them your are out of your domain. Many ID proponents point to Dawkins as not being qualified to makes assertions about Theology.

To me Theology is Apologetics. They are essentially making apologies for why Theology is so inconsistent and incoherent while trying to claim a God of the Gaps in Evolution.

I am not a Theologian and I have no more respect for Theology than Dawkins does. But I do have a respect for Metaphysics which apparently you don't.

I guess you are a sort of Pantheist yourself? Do you think that Science is God instead of the Universe?

Now that I think about it since your God science is to be worshiped and anyone who questions this worship is ridiculed maybe Science is a Theology?

Just poking fun.

I do not use any terms that a basic course in philosophy wouldn't teach. For instance if I used the word Epistemology in reference to what we can know would you say that I was using "jargon"?

Anyway this is the first time I ever heard the God of the Gaps argument applied to Quantum Physics. Since that is obviously not what I am doing I would be interested in what is brought up next in this discussion.

Do people posting to this thread think I am attempting to "Prove" God exist?


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 2:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 7:50 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1110 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 14 of 150 (689716)
02-03-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Dualism
Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.

No, I can assure you that they have not.

However, I will agree that pop-science accounts of the quantum nature of the Universe have more in common with Buddism that they do any particular quantum theory, and there-in probably lies your confusion.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 3:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 6:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 15 of 150 (689717)
02-03-2013 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by cavediver
02-03-2013 5:38 PM


Re: Dualism
Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.

No, I can assure you that they have not.

Really ? On what basis ?
What are these "pop-science" accounts you are referring to?

What is pop science? Is this like pop psychology?

Making something popular doesn't make it untrue anymore than it would make it true.

Considering that The New Atheist have books out popularizing Materialism that are so popular they are now called The Four Horsemen of Science couldn't it be said that this could be called pop science?

Please contrast what you call pop science behind Quantum Physics with what the Real Science of Quantum Physics actually is.

Obviously you know the real scientific view of Quantum Physics. So please enlighten me.

I wouldn't want to be called a "denier" .

I think I have an idea of what you call pop science of QM but can you actually state what it is?

Also I would love to know how you think real science contradicts any Metaphysical implications of QM that may be interpreted to have spiritual implications... notice I didn't say "Mystical".

It is funny how when I use words with more than one syllable you call it "jargon" but you are perfectly comfortable in using these words yourself.

While you are at please tell me your solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Instead of debating me maybe you should be applying for the Noble Prize.

I mean you have solved the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in quantum physics and proved qm as just another branch of materialism.

Anyone that can out think Einstein and Bohr etc has my vote for the Noble Prize. Please enlighten me on how you draw your conclusions.

It is one thing to refer to "pop science" and call everything I say as jargon to demolish my case but I would like to hear you actually state your case for how QM really works according to real science that you claim to know so much about.

This debate started well before people like me or these so called Quantum Mystics.

"Mind Matters The controversy boils down to the age-old question of the nature of reality. As Einstein (a firm realist) once asked, does the moon exist only when looked at? Although such a viewpoint seems unlikely in our everyday lives, in quantum mechanics, physicists’ observations can sometimes affect what they’re observing on a quantum scale. As the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics argues, we cannot speak about an objective reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation. As Marin explains, the debate of consciousness in quantum theory began around 1927 when Einstein accused Neils Bohr of introducing a mysticism incompatible with science. Bohr denied the accusation and blamed it on Einstein misunderstanding him when he said that humans are both actors and observers in the world. Yet while Bohr believed that quantum processes occurred without the need for observers, he also sympathized with the idea that an extension of quantum theory might help in understanding consciousness."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news163670588.html#jCp

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Providing Context


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2013 5:38 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2013 5:29 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017