Existence of god
- Thread starter shivansh
- Start date
cosmictotem,
It's a ''contradiction'' because you choose to see it as such. The big bang theory postulates that the universe came into being (with time and space) at some point. Logically something cannot come from nothing (both states in their extreme), meaning something was there prior to the singularity. That something could not have been ''physical reality'' because such a state had not come into being as yet.
Science and it's explanations are a great way of understanding the physical world, but it is useless regarding essential spiritual nature, and it is very silly (to say the least) that such a concept does not exist because ''science'' cannot explain it.
There is no need to postulate God (gods are traditionally created beings) as an explanation for the physical world, simply because it doesn't matter, it's just not important. The people for whom it is important, the people who continuously try to decry the idea of God, either by ridicule or explanation, and the religionists who try to force their ideals on people (whether they like it or not), also through ridicule and/or explanation, are the ones who keep this thing going.
It really doesn't matter how this world came to be, and believing in God isn't about finding explanations for how it came to be. People just believe in God because for the most part we have an innate understanding that we are essentially part of something greater than our selves, but like ourselves. We know the physical body will be destroyed at some point in time, but for some of us we can see that the physical body only represents what we are, in the same way that if you wear a policeman uniform, I can understand that you are a policeman, but a policeman is not who you are.
The actuality of ''who'' we are is the part of us that can connect with God.
Here's a challenge for you. Can you speak about God without reference to ''the explanation of the universe''?
We don't invoke God. You do!
There are some things we're just never, ever, going to know for certain. Get over it!
jan.
It's a ''contradiction'' because you choose to see it as such. The big bang theory postulates that the universe came into being (with time and space) at some point. Logically something cannot come from nothing (both states in their extreme), meaning something was there prior to the singularity. That something could not have been ''physical reality'' because such a state had not come into being as yet.
Science and it's explanations are a great way of understanding the physical world, but it is useless regarding essential spiritual nature, and it is very silly (to say the least) that such a concept does not exist because ''science'' cannot explain it.
There is no need to postulate God (gods are traditionally created beings) as an explanation for the physical world, simply because it doesn't matter, it's just not important. The people for whom it is important, the people who continuously try to decry the idea of God, either by ridicule or explanation, and the religionists who try to force their ideals on people (whether they like it or not), also through ridicule and/or explanation, are the ones who keep this thing going.
It really doesn't matter how this world came to be, and believing in God isn't about finding explanations for how it came to be. People just believe in God because for the most part we have an innate understanding that we are essentially part of something greater than our selves, but like ourselves. We know the physical body will be destroyed at some point in time, but for some of us we can see that the physical body only represents what we are, in the same way that if you wear a policeman uniform, I can understand that you are a policeman, but a policeman is not who you are.
The actuality of ''who'' we are is the part of us that can connect with God.
Here's a challenge for you. Can you speak about God without reference to ''the explanation of the universe''?
We don't invoke God. You do!
There are some things we're just never, ever, going to know for certain. Get over it!
jan.
Why would you need to be convinced to believe in something?
If you don't believe, then you don't believe.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But the concept of a motivated causal God is not the logical explanation for the condition present "At the time of the Big Bang".
IMO, a better definition (abstractly as well as practically), for the condition present "Before the Big Bang" is the term Potential (a latent excellence which may become reality). The Big Bang sprang from a potential, the Implication of that which was to become reality.
wiki
Very few people pay attention to the profound concepts contained in the definitions of "potential". Strangely the word Potential can replace the word God in all respects, except our ego prevents us from contemplation of an ending when there is no longer sufficient Potential to form an Implicate of reality.
I agree in principle, however from the viewpoint of a person who has been subject to religious persecution, I would caution against validating a concept of a universal power which is speculative at best and for which no universal constants can be applied. Gods have their own rules and if they are created by humans then it is the humans who set God's rules and we have evidence what tragedy that can lead to.
I will never attack anyone for believing in a greater wholeness, but when belief in this greater wholeness becomes coercive or judgmental of other beliefs, I will not stay quiet. As a boy of 6, I had proudly announced that "people are made of atoms" and was thoroughly beaten by several older classmates, as they were shrieking their hatred for me for that evil blasphemy in the face of god.
I have noticed, instead of a school playground, this is very much going on a Global Scale today and when you invent a god, you also invent a devil. There is no escape. The one zero value neutral condition before any reality can only be Potential from which the Implicate is expressed in reality as the Explicate.
As long as the term "religious war" is used, the practice of religion cannot be solved with logic. I trust the "Science of the Universe more than I do the "Religion of the Universe".
Religion makes use of the right side of the brain, which is more holistic. Science is more left brain which is more differential. Below is a diagram that compares the functionality of each side of the brain. One can see science is better defined by the more definitive left brain, while religion is better defined by the more intuitive right brain.
We can only consciously use one side of the brain at a time, with religion and science education and propensity biasing humans toward opposite sides of the brain; for the needed functionality. Specialization into one brain side makes it harder for science and religion to fully see the other. One needs to use both sides of the brain, consciously/alternately, to understand both are parts of the whole. In the land of half brainers the left hand fights the right hand not knowing both hands belong to you.
Although we can use only one side of the brain, in a conscious way, at one time, the other side of the brain is still functional, but will be under the control of the unconscious mind. If you look at the first contrast verbal versus nonverbal you can't talk and not talk at the same time or be rational and emotional at the same time with clarity. The unconscious will control the opposite. The unconscious side will have filters based on the nature of one's level of unconsciousness. This unconsciousness has an impact on how religion views science and how science views religion, when it tries to empathize but can't in a pure way.
The Agnostic is someone who tries to use both sides of the brain, in better balance, but might lack the clarity of 1/2 brain specialization. The value of science is exercising the left brain. The value of religion is exercise of the right brain. While Agnostics helps develop the corpus callosum which is the part of the brain that connects the two side of the brain.
The next step heads toward the core to take advantage of Thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. If you headed to the core without having both sides of the brain under conscious control, with science your sword and religion your shield, it can be overwhelming. This is where evolution will be naturally heading, since it increases human functionality by making more of the brain conscious. God was be connected to the thalamus core; most wired part of the brain.
We can only consciously use one side of the brain at a time, with religion and science education and propensity biasing humans toward opposite sides of the brain; for the needed functionality. Specialization into one brain side makes it harder for science and religion to fully see the other. One needs to use both sides of the brain, consciously/alternately, to understand both are parts of the whole. In the land of half brainers the left hand fights the right hand not knowing both hands belong to you.
Although we can use only one side of the brain, in a conscious way, at one time, the other side of the brain is still functional, but will be under the control of the unconscious mind. If you look at the first contrast verbal versus nonverbal you can't talk and not talk at the same time or be rational and emotional at the same time with clarity. The unconscious will control the opposite. The unconscious side will have filters based on the nature of one's level of unconsciousness. This unconsciousness has an impact on how religion views science and how science views religion, when it tries to empathize but can't in a pure way.
The Agnostic is someone who tries to use both sides of the brain, in better balance, but might lack the clarity of 1/2 brain specialization. The value of science is exercising the left brain. The value of religion is exercise of the right brain. While Agnostics helps develop the corpus callosum which is the part of the brain that connects the two side of the brain.
The next step heads toward the core to take advantage of Thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. If you headed to the core without having both sides of the brain under conscious control, with science your sword and religion your shield, it can be overwhelming. This is where evolution will be naturally heading, since it increases human functionality by making more of the brain conscious. God was be connected to the thalamus core; most wired part of the brain.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
I'm getting off on a tangent here but, one of my arguments in other threads has been both something and nothing can exist at the same time, depending on the observer/interactor. So I'm not adverse to contradictions regarding existence, as long as we're still talking about an actual existent. But when you get into talking about "spirit" as an existent apart from a physical host as some kind valid argument, I have to ask, where is an example of "spirit" or mind or whatever ephemeral "existent" you're proposing existing independent of a physical host?
The rest of the things you wrote I have less of an issue with.
While I disagree with them, there are quite a lot of Neopagans that believe exactly that. A lot of the people that got the ball rolling for it in the 1960s, surprisingly, hold that view. They were more or less atheistic intellectuals with a flair for the spiritual and theatrical. They believe(d) that the gods were created by humans, existing as archetypes and thoughtforms in the collective unconscious. Our minds give them power and make them "real"--insomuch as reality is a mental construction.
Like I said, I disagree with them. But the concept has some merit.
Female and Male( basic biodiversty )
Experiments make clear that when asked the same set of questions, women have more lateral action taking place between the hemi-spheres than do men.
Woman( Xx ) is more complex than man( Xy ) and this should be self-evident to most.
Woman has a womb, man has a prostrate. Which one do you think is more complex?
There exist a species of Gecko that reproduce without males ergo they make exact clone copies of themselves.
There is some very early on speculation that Komoto dragons do some version of this self-cloning also.
Somewhere I have some studies that show that when and where the testosrone chromosomes appeared and if I recall correctly they inferred or implied that it was derived from the X. I dunno for sure and would have to find that old link to a Chicago University.
The first breath we take( inhale ) is IN-spirited.
The last breath we exhale is OUT-spirited.
Spirit( 2) = physical/energy I.e fermions, bosons and any combination thereof. imho
Spirit( 1 ) = metaphysical intention via mind'inteligence ergo mental constructs and abstract concepts.
Soul( 2 ) = biological
Soul( 1 ) = pattern/shape if not integrity as pattern/shape.
r6
Experiments make clear that when asked the same set of questions, women have more lateral action taking place between the hemi-spheres than do men.
Woman( Xx ) is more complex than man( Xy ) and this should be self-evident to most.
Woman has a womb, man has a prostrate. Which one do you think is more complex?
There exist a species of Gecko that reproduce without males ergo they make exact clone copies of themselves.
There is some very early on speculation that Komoto dragons do some version of this self-cloning also.
Somewhere I have some studies that show that when and where the testosrone chromosomes appeared and if I recall correctly they inferred or implied that it was derived from the X. I dunno for sure and would have to find that old link to a Chicago University.
The first breath we take( inhale ) is IN-spirited.
The last breath we exhale is OUT-spirited.
Spirit( 2) = physical/energy I.e fermions, bosons and any combination thereof. imho
Spirit( 1 ) = metaphysical intention via mind'inteligence ergo mental constructs and abstract concepts.
Soul( 2 ) = biological
Soul( 1 ) = pattern/shape if not integrity as pattern/shape.
r6
Yeah I can prove it!
Narcissism exists therefor there is no reason to explain my belief or that of others. =D
Can you prove that the sky is blue?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There exists a One. Therefore, He exists as One.
One what?
Write4U,
Why?
How would this ''potential'' arise?
''God'' or ''potential'', I don't see how it matters as it all points to a transcendant cause. We can work out the details later.
We have even more damning evidence of what occurs when the concept of God is removed from the picture.
For me, and others, God is the best explanation for the original cause.
I sympathise with you on your treatment, but you should not attribute that to God. Religion and religious belief does not necessarily mean worship of God although it may appear to be such. Where I'm from people get their head kicked in for much less on a weekly basis because they have too much to drink, and these folks do not want to know anything about God (I wonder what would happen if the dj decided to play devotional music over the pa system?).
I don't think ''God'' (supreme being) was invented. At least there is no record of any time where such a concept was not there.
There is a difference between ''religion'' and ''God'', you may want to look into that.
I don't know what ''the religion of the universe'' is, but what I do know is that you and I won't be here for very long, and if knowledge and understanding is to be attained, we have to prioritise the one that is most useful to us.
jan.
Why?
How would this ''potential'' arise?
''God'' or ''potential'', I don't see how it matters as it all points to a transcendant cause. We can work out the details later.
We have even more damning evidence of what occurs when the concept of God is removed from the picture.
For me, and others, God is the best explanation for the original cause.
I sympathise with you on your treatment, but you should not attribute that to God. Religion and religious belief does not necessarily mean worship of God although it may appear to be such. Where I'm from people get their head kicked in for much less on a weekly basis because they have too much to drink, and these folks do not want to know anything about God (I wonder what would happen if the dj decided to play devotional music over the pa system?).
I don't think ''God'' (supreme being) was invented. At least there is no record of any time where such a concept was not there.
There is a difference between ''religion'' and ''God'', you may want to look into that.
I don't know what ''the religion of the universe'' is, but what I do know is that you and I won't be here for very long, and if knowledge and understanding is to be attained, we have to prioritise the one that is most useful to us.
jan.
cosmictotem,
Yeah, ''nothing'' only relates to ''something''. But can something come from nothing? Good luck trying to explain that.
I propose that pure consciousness transcends matter, as it acts completely different. I don't know of anything in nature that we can say possess consciousness (apart from living beings), or on the way to it. It's the one thing that can contradict, harness, and to some degree, control nature. I believe that consciousness is symptomatic of sipirit.
jan.
Yeah, ''nothing'' only relates to ''something''. But can something come from nothing? Good luck trying to explain that.
I propose that pure consciousness transcends matter, as it acts completely different. I don't know of anything in nature that we can say possess consciousness (apart from living beings), or on the way to it. It's the one thing that can contradict, harness, and to some degree, control nature. I believe that consciousness is symptomatic of sipirit.
jan.
Last edited:
Is there any evidence of consciousness in anything other than a physical creature? Good luck trying to explain that.