God(s)

My friends of the Temple, I wish to spark a discussion on God in general... by whatever name you may call him (or her) I'd like your input on \"proof\" of his existance...

Here's why...

I was once an ordained christian minister... throughout my time being a christian I experienced many \"divine experiences\" including light growing brighter above me as I prayed, strange lights suddenly cast upon nearby trees as I prayed, and an unusual amount of time off work when I needed it most and prayed for it... my \"problem\" is... I have also experienced these things since (dare I say) becomming one with the force. Now if I can experience the exact same \"divine acts\" when devoted to God, as well as when biblically speaking opposed to God... is there really any God at all, OR is God a condition of mind where my thoughts made intense with desire create relaity? While I have made my own conclusions... I wish to know the thoughts of my peers in the force.
As I mentioned to Br. Jon, I have been a student of \"myself\" for many years and have researched many religions, even following some and becomming ordained in those as well all in hopes of discovering the truth about me, about God, and the power fo the mind. It has become my firm belief that God is in the mind, or more specifically God is the power fo the mind... therefore... The Force. So here I am! LOL

this post made with the utmost respect for those who do believe in God.

\"I seek neither your approval nor to influence you\"- Bruce Lee

still seeking truth....


Rick

You want me to believe that God exists. But everyone knows only matter and energy are real.
On the contrary. I think I can prove that things other than matter and energy are real.

Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder. Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy. For no matter or energy is exempted from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This should lead us to two realizations: First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random. There would be no thinking and nothing to think about. You and I wouldn't be talking here.
But that's not so. Some matter does impose order on other matter, like genes causing life to form in one way and not in another.
Genes do cause order in some matter and energy but they do so only because they are already ordered themselves. They didn't cause their own order, but got it from something else. Whatever little bits of order and of order causing matter there may be in the universe, still the universe as a whole cannot have brought about that order, and there must be a cause for it outside matter.
The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.

We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.
Okay, something other than matter and energy exists. But you can't really know anything about it. After all, statements only have meaning if they can be investigated for truth or falsehood by empirical means. I take the scientific approach: nothing is meaningful that can't be tested empirically.
Think for a moment about that statement. Can it be tested empirically? Definitely not. It is an overarching principle about empirical investigation, and cannot itself be tested by empirical means. If it is true, then it calls itself meaningless. Whatever is meaningless cannot be true, since truth depends on meaning. So, that principle cannot be true.
Nothing prevents our talking sensibly about non material things.

Fine. In principle I have to agree-it isn't meaningless to talk about non-material things. But you can't know anything about them.
Do you know that you can't know anything about them?
Yes.

Then you do know something about them! You know that you cannot know anything about them. But if that's true, then it's something you know about them. Your own statement condemns itself, you can and do know something about non-material things.

Fine. But you can't know anything more about them.
Except that, you can't know anything more about them? Every time you limit what may be known about non material things, you add something else you know about them. The only logical approach is to admit that you can know about non material things, and then see where the evidence leads to determine what you know about them.
Well, all right. Where does the evidence lead? What do you think we can know about non material things?
First, we know that they exist or that at least one non material thing exists. At least one non material thing must have made matter and energy

Okay, so we know the universe had a beginning. And we know there must be at least one non-material thing that created it. What else do we know about non-material things?
We know for instance that whatever created the universe has more power than all the power in the universe and that it is intelligent, capable of thinking on levels infinitely beyond our own abilities.

How do we know those things?
It's not difficult. We know that whatever force produces an effect must be sufficient to account for all the force within the effect; an effect cannot be greater than its cause. If an effect were greater than its cause, then there would be some part of the effect that was uncaused that would have come from nothing. But since nothing comes from nothing, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Now for intelligence. Matter and energy are not capable of ordering themselves. Left to themselves they tend toward maximum disorder. It takes intelligence to bring about order in our material world. When you see a powerful computer, you don't suppose it just happened by accident, you ask who designed it, who built all its parts, who put those parts together. When that computer functions, you don't assume it does that by accident, either; you ask who wrote the program that guides it.

The universe has much more design than any computer in it (the computer is, after all, part of the universe, and the part cannot be greater than the whole). Human brains are thousands of times more complex than any computer. The scientific mind will ask the same questions about the order in the universe that it asks about the computer: who designed It, who gave it the program by which it processes so much information, who built its parts? If it didn't design itself, then its designer must be non material and must have intelligence greater than that in the universe.

Okay, but that doesn't prove that God exists.
You're right. I believe much more about God than that He is more powerful and has more intelligence than the universe. But tell me-what would God have to do to prove to you that He(she) exists?

I don't really know what it would take to convince me that God exists. But I'm willing to listen to any reasons you have.

Awesome! Now, one more question: If God proved to you that He(She) exists, would you trust Him/Her?
I
'm not sure I'd be willing to trust God, but perhaps I would. You'd have to give me some good reasons to do it. How can we know that God exists?

There are three basic ways we know things: reason, experience, and authority-and I add a fourth, revelation, which is really another kind of authority.
Pure reason-logic and mathematics-affords absolute or 100% proof of things. Experience and authority only afford approximate proof. But we don't denigrate experience and authority simply because they don't give absolute proofs. We still trust them a great deal-sometimes we trust them 100% even though they don't give us 100% proof.

For instance, experience might tell you it's safe to cross the street. But you don't have absolute proof. Still when you cross the street you take 100% of yourself across; you trust yourself 100% to the answer experience gives to the question, \"Is it safe for me to cross the street now?” Every day we make decisions like that trusting ourselves 100% to things we cannot know with 100% certitude but that we can know with varying degrees of certitude.

Sometimes we trust ourselves completely to something even when there is a fairly high degree of certitude that the thing will turn out to fail us. If we can only see two options, and one of them will almost certainly bring us disaster and the other has even a very low degree of certainty of saving us, we might well trust ourselves—100%—to that highly uncertain option that could mean deliverance.

Imagine, for instance, that you are standing in a sixth floor room of a burning building. You're convinced that if you stay there you will burn to death. You're also pretty sure that if you jump, you'll break your leg or kill yourself, or at least knock yourself out and die when the building collapses on top of you and burns you. What will you do? Quite probably you will jump despite the danger, because you consider the slight chance of your survival by that means to be more attractive than the high chance of death if you stay in the building.

You would never have jumped had the building not been burning and had there been no other life-threatening situation leading you to make that decision. The stakes involved in a decision, then, can justify our trusting some things on little evidence that we would not ordinarily trust even on much greater evidence.

When we approach the question, \"How can you prove that God exists?\" we're dealing with a question that cannot be answered by pure reason alone-mathematics and logic. It must be answered by some combination of reason, experience, and authority. The evidence given must always fall short of absolute proof, but it is not insufficient for commitment. As with any other question of this sort, we must make our decisions based on degrees of probability. Naturally our decisions will be affected in part by the stakes in the matter.

All this is fine, and I can go along with it. But you still haven't given me any reasons to believe God exists. Are there any?

Yes, I think so. First, experience and reason have led us to believe that the universe was created/ I say that the Creator is God. Second, experience and reason have led man to believe that the universe must have been designed by some intelligent being; I say that the Designer is God. Third, I say believe God exists because He has told us so that's \"revelation,\" that special kind of authority I mentioned. Fourth, Christians believe God exists because we believe He appeared in human flesh, He became a man in Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute! Why should I believe all these things?!

You've already agreed to the first two. I'm just telling you that from the Christian point of view, when we say \"God\" we're referring to that non material Creator/Designer. After all, we might as well use some term to designate the Creator/Designer, and throughout history philosophers have used the term \"God.\"

Suppose the universe does have a creator. Where did that creator come from?

In any chain of cause and effect, there either is or is not a first cause a cause uncaused by any other cause. The chain of cause and effect cannot be circular, because then each effect would have to be both before and after its cause.
Nothing tells us that the universe's cause cannot itself be an effect-nothing in reason and experience alone, that is, though Christians believe God tells us so by revelation. But something does tell us that there must be some cause that is not an effect at all.

We're talking about the principle of contingency, i.e., that effects do not explain themselves, do not give the reasons for their own existence. If everything were contingent then nothing would be explained at all. But we know there must be a reason for the existence of the universe, since once it did not exist and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then something must not be contingent. Something must be uncaused.

No matter how many links we might think are in the chain of cause and effect, there either is a beginning to the chain, or there is no chain at all. But we believe there is a chain, so we must believe there is a beginning to it. This beginning is what the great philosophers, like Aristotle and Plato, called the \"uncaused Cause.\" When I speak of God, I mean the \"uncaused Cause\" though I mean much more than that: that the uncaused Cause is persona intelligent, loving, good, just, and other such things.

Okay, so there's an uncaused Cause that's powerful and intelligent. But what about your two other reasons for believing God exists?

At this point we're really asking not whether God exists, but what God is like. Fair enough?

Brother Tom, you're either too smart for your own good or a complete wack job! LOL

I wasnt asking anyone to believe anything nor Gods nature... I am simply asking how does \"YOU\" (the reader) if they believe in God justify that belief. I care nothing for feelings, visions, or whatever, only solid proof. Do I believe Jesus existed, yeah I think I do... Do I believe God himself sent Jesus to \"us\"... hhmmm, nope.


If God actually did show up and say to me \"hi I'm God\" ... yeah I'd believe then, would I trust him? Heck I dont know... maybe. But I have learned not to trust anyone but myself when it comes to faith and other matters of the heart. Guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

R.

Well Master Tom I think you would need to be God to understand that. Lol. To be quite honest I have enough problems in life without having to prove God`s existence. But listen to this....

\"It is the final proof of God`s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.\"
-Peter de Vries

and

\"The nature of God is a circle of which the centre is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.\"
-Unknown

tsukimaster, I believe that everything which exists is a window to God, a story talking about God. In fact I would like to turn the question around and say, show me something which is useless and I will stop believing in God. If we and indeed everything reflects the personification of life or potential then how could anything be useless. And to be quite honest tsukimaster, the very fact that we can choose to believe or not is for me a solid arguement that He exists.

I'm pretty sure roaches serve no real purpose. Atleast not one that couldn't be fixed with proper cleaning of an establishment.

I also could believe that spider man is real and lives a couple of houses down, but that is not a very good argument that he actually exists. He's still just a comic book hero.

Oh, and Rosie O'donnel is pretty damn useless too, I'm sure I could keep going with many useless things if need be.

DK

There once was a man who said \"God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.\"

Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd
I am always about in the quad And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God.

MIND, MATTER, AND REALITY

by Georges Dupenois

In which Georges Dupenois suggests it is not mind that creates matter, but consciousness that creates all. Space and time could not exist without it!

What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? No matter.

PUNCH Vol.29 p19 (1855)

The layman is usually content to accept without question that mind and matter (or objects) coexist independently of each other. But life is not so easy for psychologists and physiologists - or philosophers.

All feel duty-bound to answer questions such as whether mind gives rise to matter, or matter to mind, and just what is the relation between these seemingly disparate elements of perception. Yet merely asking these questions begs them, for by intellectually analyzing perception into two parts, we assume that there are, in reality, two such entities to reconcile. But are there? For the 'reductionist' view can be sustained only if it is realized that both the resulting parts, physical and mental, are of our own making. Faced with a dynamic and on-going continuum of awareness which it is not equipped to comprehend in its entirety, our intellect seeks to reduce this continuum to apprehensible pieces, selecting certain aspects on which to focus and arranging these according to formats of its own. Just as a seascape artist finds difficulty in capturing their fluid subject and is obliged to frame and arrest that which they seek to portray, so our intellect seeks to apprehend piecemeal that which is essentially whole and continuous. But a continuum cannot be so fragmented.

It is in this way that space and time, that which Kant called the forms of intuition, seemingly enable us to reduce what is on-going and dynamic to what, to all intents and purposes, is static, to convert what is essentially activity into the shapes and forms which we call the objects of perception. These objects, then, are partly of our own making, artificial creations construed from the reports of our senses and given form by the superimposition of the formats of space and time. Additionally, perception involves interpretation in accordance with our previous experience, with our expectations, and with our feelings and emotions. Only after the addition of these ingredients to the raw material of our senses may we rightly be said to perceive. So, can we say that mind creates objects and hence matter? And would such a conclusion vindicate the idealist as against the materialist point of view? I think not, for mind is no less an artificial creation than objects. Matter and mind are not two things but two aspects of the same activity, the activity of intellectually perceiving. Thus the basic 'material' of our phenomenal universe is neither mind nor matter but that of which these are aspects, that is to say, consciousness, which not only comprises intellectual awareness but also encompasses experience of any kind. Hence, we may conclude that mind no more creates matter than matter (which includes the brain) creates mind.

So why do we regard them as separate - as a physical universe external to us on the one hand, and a conscious entity which observes this universe on the other? Surely our mistake lies in thinking that the physical organs and brain alone are responsible for perception and that the brain is the seat of consciousness. Because perception is accompanied by physiological changes we assume a causal connection between it and them. But while our brain and physical organs register 'vibrations' (according to the physiologists) these are neither sensation nor perception. If, for instance, we are deeply engrossed in thought we may assume, or seek to have confirmed by encephalogram, that our brain continues to record vibrations and function normally, yet we may register no sensation at all.

Similarly, there are numerous accounts of servicemen wounded in battle who have felt no pain until after the engagement. In such cases the mind is 'elsewhere' as we sometimes quaintly say. Conversely, if we have an 'out-of-body' experience or even a dream, in particular a lucid dream, we may see and hear even though we believe our physical organs to be dormant.

Perhaps the reason for the belief that our physical organs are responsible for perception is that the main organ, our eyes, is located in our head and we imagine ourselves as peering out from the skull at an exterior world without realizing that the skull is actually part of that world. Another difficulty we have when trying to explain and define perception is that language is not adequate to express a dynamic world of activity (sensing, perceiving, intuiting and so on). To be able to do so successfully would require us to use verbs or verbal nouns where we now use nouns and pronouns, and this would be far too cumbersome.

Thus, instead of accepting that consciousness is an activity, materialists engage in a futile quest for an agent, an entity which observes and perceives, imagining it to be located in the head (the so-called ghost in the machine) as if our consciousness had its seat there. How could that which we believe to be non-spatial be located anywhere! If we must designate by a noun that which is properly left as an active verb, I would suggest 'frequencies of awareness' in place of perceiving. At least this term, as with physical frequencies, has no connotation of substantiality, and acknowledges that we do not merely observe that which assails our senses but that, if we are to perceive (as well as to 'transmit'), we are obliged to make a contribution, by tuning in.

But a further question needs to be addressed. Are there objects which exist independently of our being aware of them and which correspond to the shapes and forms of our consciousness? If they did, how could we ever be certain of a correspondence between that of which we were directly aware and that which we did not even apprehend? What construction can we put on 'existence' in this context, or in any context, for that matter? I can think of only two meaningful ways of describing existence , that of 'being in space and time', and that given by Bishop Berkeley: 'to perceive or to be perceived'. As regards the former; since it is we who impose the formats of space and time (albeit unwittingly), how could anything exist unbeknown to us or to an intelligence equal or superior to our own? And for Berkeley, existence is synonymous with perception, although, not necessarily 'our' perception. Objects, then, are artificially created 'parts' of an on-going consciousness and these are conceptual. What underlies, or is the condition of perception, is unknown to us except for a certain involuntariness which we experience. Unlike imaginary objects, perceived objects cannot be willed away.

The belief that objects have an existence independent of awareness (sometimes termed Realism) has led to two further misconceptions - that of a once-and-for-all created physical universe and that there is a subject which is aware of this universe. Yet, I suggest, if we examine the evidence, we find only activity - sensing, thinking, feeling and so on, wherein there is no 'thing' which can rightly be designated by a noun or pronoun. It is as Heracleitus said, two and a half thousand years ago, all is flux. In what sense, then, can we call objects of perception real and how should we define reality? Is all experience 'real' and, if so, why do we call some 'real' and some 'imaginary'? Is there a criterion to be applied other than that element of involuntariness already suggested? Let us ask those whose business it is to interpret the 'real' world, those arch-realists, the scientists, to tell us about matter and the material world which seems to be 'out there'.

In the last century when the atom was still intact and considered irreducible, one could still imagine a physical world composed of tiny solid pieces of matter having shape and existing in their own rights. This was so even after the atom's real nature was revealed to be not solid but consisting of energy - electrons, protons and so on. The old view, although illogical, persisted, at least amongst the general public. But with the advent of quantum mechanics in the first part of this century, the situation changed. Scientists discovered that they could no longer predetermine the position in space at a given time of certain subatomic particles since, until observed, these could exhibit either wave or particle characteristics. The idea that some 'thing' cannot be observed without interacting with it and thereby determining its nature, seemed the final nail in the coffin of materialism, even if, at least for the moment, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was acknowledged to apply only at subatomic level. Disconcerting as this principle may seem to confirmed materialists, they may even come to realise that the theory of quantum mechanics is not so bizarre as some of them imagine. Their observations require a certain input from themselves without which these cannot even be registered as observations, not only at microcosm level but also at the level of the macrocosm. In that the same principle obtains for both macrocosm and microcosm, it may even be a step in the search for the Grand Unified Theory which otherwise seems so elusive.

Physicists also have to account for the origin of our physical, phenomenal universe other than by the Big Bang theory. Leaving aside their difficulties in determining whether their Big Bang itself occurred in real time or is a singularity either in real or imaginary time. Might we not say, in any case, that without a witnessing intelligence, even that which immediately followed a Big Bang could not presumably have happened in space and time, since it is intelligence itself which imposes these formats on the unknown ground, or condition, of perception and hence of existence. The theory may therefore only be regarded as an attempt to accommodate the physicists' idea of space and time as substantial to a twentieth century phenomenal scenario, to infer a continuous phenomenal sequence from a Big Bang to the present day. But, to return to Bishop Berkeley, I argue that without that perceiving intelligence, phenomena do not exist, aside from, perhaps, the 'vibrations' of the scientific terminology, or the 'possibilities' of quantum mechanics. Indeed, unless we assume that God merely lit the touch paper to set off the Big Bang and then took no further part in the maintenance of our universe, the subjective idealist argument does not square with an idea of God as the One, the Infinite, the Changeless. For by becoming a witness to a world of space and time, God would also be in space and time and therefore subject to change, and definable.

Before Man (or beings of equal or superior intelligence) there were no events in space and time, since consciousness would have been too primitive to create these or any other concepts. Could we but become as plants or animals (at least as they are supposed simply to be!) we would realize what such a timeless, spaceless world was like - mere sensitivity in the case of the former, only sensation in the case of the latter; one without forms and shapes and, for some animals, colorless as well.

Berkeley argued that God, as creator of the universe, would have been the witnessing intelligence of that creation and of subsequent events, a position encapsulated in the following celebrated limericks:


There once was a man who said \"God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.\"
Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd
I am always about in the quad And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God.


My notion that space and time began only with the advent of an intelligence which could make use of them would pose considerable problems for palaeontologists and evolutionists. Regarding only the physical aspects of the natural world, they have constructed a universe going back millions and millions of years. By introducing into a present-day phenomenal, spatio-temporal scenario that which never was phenomenal, they have begged the question of which came first, matter or mind, by assuming that it was matter, that the physical universe was created first and that intelligence was a later development. But, as I have tried to demonstrate, the question itself is an improper one. Since matter and mind are aspects of one activity, neither has temporal priority over the other.

The philosophy outlined above requires from us a great leap of faith. Yet, in an age which has witnessed the creation of the hologram and cyberspace, is it easier to believe that in the beginning there was a pinpoint of matter so dense that, on exploding, it gave birth to the whole universe including ourselves and all life forms; or, alternatively, that our universe is a gradual evolution of consciousness, a response to the Unknown (or whatever other name we choose to give it - God, Nature, Life Force, Energy or ... ?) And are we merely discovering the secrets of a static once-and-for-all created universe or are we co-creating a dynamic, developing and perhaps holographic one?

As a philosophy it is a strongly anthropic since, whatever the underlying condition of its manifestation, our universe does not exist unless it is realized or made real by us. Each one of us creates, or rather, co-creates his or her own reality - a reality which we can do no more than assume is the same for all.

George Dupenois' Private Worlds

tsukimaster wrote:

Brother Tom, you're either too smart for your own good or a complete wack job! LOL

I wasnt asking anyone to believe anything nor Gods nature... I am simply asking how does \"YOU\" (the reader) if they believe in God justify that belief. I care nothing for feelings, visions, or whatever, only solid proof. Do I believe Jesus existed, yeah I think I do... Do I believe God himself sent Jesus to \"us\"... hhmmm, nope.


If God actually did show up and say to me \"hi I'm God\" ... yeah I'd believe then, would I trust him? Heck I dont know... maybe. But I have learned not to trust anyone but myself when it comes to faith and other matters of the heart. Guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

R.

Your exact words were \" I'd like your input on \"proof\" of his existance...\"

I offered my proof. nothing more...nothing less. this is why I believe...frankly physics really proves it for me...but hey...not everyone believes in Einstein or his work either...

Dhagon Krayt wrote:

I'm pretty sure roaches serve no real purpose. Atleast not one that couldn't be fixed with proper cleaning of an establishment.

I also could believe that spider man is real and lives a couple of houses down, but that is not a very good argument that he actually exists. He's still just a comic book hero.

Oh, and Rosie O'donnel is pretty damn useless too, I'm sure I could keep going with many useless things if need be.

DK

Well it doesn`t seem if roaches are so useless afterall....
> Can inspiration come from a cockroach? While most often viewed as having few redeeming qualities, this highly successful species has spawned the creation of more than just Raid[R] and Roach Motels[R] (and additional roaches). On the contrary, robotics researchers at universities, including Johns Hopkins and the University of California-Berkeley, have capitalized on the success of this small creature by outfitting their mechanical inventions with six jointed legs that can move rapidly over varied terrain, and antennae that allow for navigation through dark environments (Clark, et ...

Although this may be true, if the roach never existed, wouldn't they have just modeled thier robots after some other ,equally if not greater so, efficient insect. I've seen some fast moving insects, that are not roaches, and ones that can traverse rought terrain, all in the same bug. I personally think they should model them after either the ant, since it can lift 10+ times its body weight, or the dung beetle, because it rolls those enormous (compared to themsleves) balls of sh....poop around all over, and their name is funny.

DK