What is a God?

[Alf]

Thanks for pointing out that I am behind in my philosophy, but Has there been some other proof that we exist other than our ability to think? Maybe the proof is that you can make logical arguments to show Descartes wrong. You couldn't do that unless you exist. Actuall, you didn't make any argument at all, just assertions that you could if you wanted to. I don't see that it would matter though, the ability to think would still be required, thus it remains a viable proof of your existence, I would say the only proof.

Well no. You cannot prove that you exist. It is inherently impossible. However, there are several arguments why it is reasonable to think you exist. The fact that you wrote that post is one.

The point is that you can generally and safely take it as given that "I" exist and also that there is a world out there that is separate from this "I". I.e. there is an objective world out there that can be sensed by you and which in part can be influenced by you but which is separate from you. I.e. solipsism is wrong.

The best evidence that solipsism is wrong is the fact that there are so many weird and wacko ideas out there. There is no way that I can only be imagining them. If I were to imagine things, people would generally live in peace and harmony and be sensible and reasonable people. The fact that they aren't indicates that there are people out there who is not under my control and is therefore not simply a product of my imagination.

However, this is not a PROOF. However, you don't really want proof of these things. What would you base that proof on?

Take it as given and move on from there. That is what the rest of us does - including modern philosophers.

The point is that Descartes is wrong in that he essentially states: "Assuming I exist and that I can think, then I can conclude I exist". The point is that you put what you want to conclude as a premise. The "I think" includes "I exist" as a premise since if you did not exist you could not think either.

The problem with the statement is that it isn't proof of anything, nor is it useful as a "basic assumption" since there are more basic assumptions. In fact "I exist" is a basic assumption and not a conclusion.

Alf

[Alf]

Merely saying, the universe is the totality of all that exists is meaningless; it just tells you that something exists but not what it is. The key is language, as you have alluded to here. By showing the correlation between language, symbols, emotions, ideas and the universe, you show that it is not merely something that exists, but a meaningful language that exists. The universe is itself a language. Why use the word god to express this, because a language cannot exist in a state of isolated something-ness; it must have a mind in order to exist. If the universe is a language then god is a mind. In this case, we could more meaningfuly say, mind is the totality of all that exists. It is agreed that god is a confusing word, but can there be any doubt about the meaning of mind. It is the one thing that all have in common, regardless of ideology or beliefs.

The problem is that I think you are wrong. The universe is not only limited to language. You have to differentiate between material things, relations of material things, properties of material things and concepts and ideas.

We can say they all exist but the word "exist" mean a slightly different thing for each of them. For ideas, concepts, poetry, music etc you can say that they do not exist unless there is someone somewhere who think them. For example did Beethoven's 9th exist prior to him writing it? No. Even if someone somewhere wrote it independently of Beethoven we simply wouldn't call it Beethoven's 9th even if it was identical to it note for note.

If Shakespare never existed and some other John Doe wrote something he called "Hamlet" and it was word for word identical to "Hamlet" as we know it, it simply wouldn't be "Shakespare's Hamlet". So Shakespare's Hamlet and Beethoven's 9th symphony and ideas, concepts, music, art, poetry etc are all things that doesn't exist unless there is someone who think them.

Material things is a different story. The earth existed long before man existed. We know that because even none of us where around to witness it, we can see evidence that it has been around long before we entered the scene.

Therefore the totality of all that exist is NOT limited to language. Language is part of it and things do not exist if you cannot describe them in any way but material things can exist before the language that descrtibe them exists.

Let's say scientists discover a new thing in the universe which we never knew about before. Surely, they can then describe this thing and so it exist. They even could possibly describe it before they discovered it but as they had no data to base that description of it wouldn't be meaningful. However, the fact is that they can describe it and that is why it possibly can exist.

This does not mean that everything we can describe exists. I can describe unicorns but I don't know of any unicorns that actually exists in the real world. However, if I could not describe something then it is a safe bet that it is meaningless to ponder over whether that thing exists or not.

For example if you say "Something exist but it is inherently impossible to describe it, it transcends description" then 1) Keep in mind that you have just described it so you are contradicting yourself and 2) If it really was true that it is impossible to describe it, we can safely say it does not exist.

That is why we can safely ignore christians when they talk about "God transcends existence" or "God exists outside of space and time".


As you point out, "If you cannot express an idea in language it does not exist." This seems to imply that the universe is a language, because if it is not, then it does not exist.

Wrong, because the universe is not made up of ideas alone. Material things can exist without anyone around to actually describe them. However, one can safely say that all things you can ponder over if they exist or not are such that they can be described by language. If you cannot describe them by language we don't have to worry about their existence.


And this statement, "Yes, this might not be language per se as in words. A baby hasn't learned to talk yet and he still manages to think. Thinking in images also works and is a form of language too." How about thinking in matter/energy, as in the physical universe; does this qualify as a form of language? It does fit the definition of language, (see my post above).

No, it does not fit language as I see. Descriptions of it fit language, but that is a different issue.

Alf

[Alf]

By that rationale, "God can't create a rock it can't lift" is not self-contradictory, it's just not a statement which can be classified as true or false.

Wrong, the statement is true as most theologians will tell you. God cannot do things that are logically impossible.

Since it is logically impossible to create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift, it is true that "God can't create a rock it can't lift"


Still, in binary logic, a statement meaning "this statement is false", produced by Tarski's Self-Reference Lemma, exists and implies that truth is undefinable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Statements can still be true false or neither just that truth is undefinable. Looking in a dictionary will just be an exercise in finding circularity.

In binary logic the sentence "this statement is false" is not a statement. In binary logic a "statement" is something which per def is either true or false. Since it is neither it is nto a statement.

Alf

[Alf]

"There is not "this universe" and "a helium only universe." "There is only one universe." - that one. Just back it (I sure hope we've got "it" down) up for now. How do you know this - religious experience, revelation, something else?

Perhaps I should try to help him - not sure how much help it is though.

If you define "the universe" as "the totality of all that exists" then there is necessarily only one universe. If there are two universes then there would be things that exist but are not in both universes and that is a contradiction. If you say universe A and B and you pick an object X that exist in A but not in B then that object X would exist but it would not be in the unvierse B which is supposed to be the totality of all that exist so it should include X also. Thus, all objects in A must also be in B and by symmetry all objects in B must also be in A and so A and B are the same universe and there is only one universe. QED.

Alf

[Chaupoline]

I only know I have this life I live right now. I don't know of any other life and that is what I will base my actions on and how I value actions people do towards me and others.

Basic your life on reincarnation is as silly as basing your life on an imaginary afterlife in heaven.

Yes, you know only this life. But how do you interpret reality? Is your life inconsequential? Does anything that you do matter? What is the purpose of your life? These are all basic philosophical questions.

The belief in God constitutes a purpose beyond our own desires and experiences. The traditional view of the Abrhamics is that they have one life and that only the faithful are saved. Either you are with us, or you are fucked. This is the flaw with the one life perspective. The reason that the early church adopted the one life and either heaven or hell view, is because it is easier to control people through fear. The Catholic church then proposed the belief that they were the ones who defined whether someone got into heaven. This would then further give them even more power over their congregation.

Reincarnation makes us responsible for the state of humanity as it is. It also ties us all together. Our grandchildren will not be the ones that suffer because of our mistakes. We will be the ones that suffer, because of our mistakes. The proliferation of AIDS in Africa is not just their problem it is everyones problem. If I grew up rich and exploit the poor, I will experience a Jubilee when I die because I may be reborn poor and in the same predicament as those that I once exploited.

The problem with "the end result" approach is that we have christians on this board who has stated in public that if one day they would find proof that God does not exist they would sleep with as many women as they could and cheat taxes and steal and do all sorts of things that they today feel they are constrained form doing because they believe there is a God who does not condone such actions.

Thus, I think their morality is on very shaky ground and is actually quite dangerous.

Hopefully, not all christians are bastards like that.
The one life, and then there is nothing view states that you have one life and the consequences of your actions are meaningless when you die. The only loyalties that you have are to yourself. Not believing in God will not make you a horrible person though. I am sure that you are very honorable in your dealings with other people. But why do you bother? How do you even know that they are real? If there aren’t any real consequences for your actions then why would you even care. But, this is an entirely different debate.

My point was that heaven, as described in the bible and by christians, looks very much similar to those totalitarian societies. It is not a communist only thing. I could have said Hitler's Germany also - same thing. Heaven looks very similar to Nazi Germany with God in the role of Adolph. The similarly is scary.

Yes, this is why I believed that they are wrong. Life is only meaningful if there is a challenge. A land of bliss would have no challenge, as would a land of pain.

So some were lucky to enter here at early times while others had to wait for several thousand years before they could enter the loop? How many more are still waiting without ever being able to live on earth? Where are they waiting? What kind of life are they living while they are waiting? Do you have ANY evidence of this whatsoever?

Lucky? Some people believe that there are more people alive today on the planet than all the people that have died. A better question would have been what happens when all the Aeons (souls) have bodies? The Aztecs believed that this would lead to the end of the Age, and would be an appropriate time for the Christian Judgement Day.

That is not how I interpret it and I don't think it is how the church interprets it either. What it means is that they express the wish that God's will must come true on earth as in heaven. It has as such little with OUR goals at all. Of course, an omnipotent god doesn't NEED our wish to enforce his will on earth but that is another issue.

This isn’t how the church interprets the Bible, this is how I interpret the Bible. Their interpretation is pleading to God to make the world good for them. My interpretation states that God’s will for us is that we will make the world better.

It is important to notice that the traditional afterlife view of land of dead was one where everyone end up in the same place. However, if you had been a good person you would be rewarded and live like a prince in that land but if you had been an evil person you would become a slave or beggar or other low status in that afterlife. All in all, they viewed the afterlife much like the current life and as such you might talk about reincarnation but it wasn't and also in judaism there was a debate at some point about reincarnation but it was rejected. So, yes, reincarnation was debated. However, the conclusion they generally reached was that it was contrary to christian thinking.

Reincarnation fits perfect with this interpretation of the afterlife. I think that it was rejected because of the Abrahamic bias for control over the people. Jesus spoke out about the corruption of the Samhedrin and systems of dependency from the church. This is the focus of the Three Temptations of Christ.

Also, as christianity did accept the idea of heaven/hell - Jesus supposedly talked a lot about that subject if one is to believe the gospels - they also entered a debate of whether you get to heaven because you are a good person - do good things - or because you believe. Is it faith or works? This debate is not that easy to resolve since the bible essentially says both things. It is obvious that different writers had different agenda and different views on this issue and they both got their hand in the bible. Modern theologians usually resolve the issue by saying "if you believe you will automatically also do good" but that is plainly not true - many believers have done things that are not good and they also recognize that "we are all sinners" so it is obviously false but it is one way to "resolve" the issue. Since it is false it doesn't actually resolve it though - which is why the debate is still going on among christians.

I believe that the ends justify the means, but the means define the ends. Works and faith are like this. Works define whether this planet will be a heaven or a hell. Faith helps you with your attitude, which will inspire your works.

So yes, there has been debate about this and other issues. However, I think one can definitely say that reincarnation is contrary to christianity. You may say you believe in reincarnation but then you are not a christian.

Then I am guessing that Martin Luther was not a Christian either because Christianity at his time was defined by the Catholic Church, which he disagreed with.

It's really that simple. Why is it so important for you to get the label "christian" attached to you and thereby make people think you believe in things you do not believe in and also make people think you do not believe in things you actually believe in such as reincarnation?

I believe in Christ but not the churches interpretation of Christ.

[RexT]

The problem is that I think you are wrong. The universe is not only limited to language. You have to differentiate between material things, relations of material things, properties of material things and concepts and ideas.

Yes, differentiation between subject and object is the primal basis of language. The relationship of material things is sometimes described as communication. For example, the interaction between a photon and an atom is characteristic of the machine language used by computers. Whereas, the computer speaks in terms of bits (1,0) atoms speak in terms of quanta of energy. Atoms are input/output machines that only allow the input of photons having a certain required frequency. Atoms therefore, differentiate between quanta, as computers differentiate between bits, thus is a form of language. If you would reject this fact, then your rejection is based on some belief and not based on a comparison of languages.

We can say they all exist but the word "exist" mean a slightly different thing for each of them. For ideas, concepts, poetry, music etc you can say that they do not exist unless there is someone somewhere who think them. For example did Beethoven's 9th exist prior to him writing it? No. Even if someone somewhere wrote it independently of Beethoven we simply wouldn't call it Beethoven's 9th even if it was identical to it note for note.

Let us make a distinction here. Music is a language based on vibrations, but is not itself the vibrations. If this were not true, then any random vibrations would qualify as music. Instead, it is the particular arrangement of vibrations that rises to the level of being music. As you have said, “music etc you can say that they do not exist unless there is someone somewhere who think them�. Likewise, energy/matter is nothing but vibrations. It is the particular arrangement of these vibrations that rises to the level of coherent matter. Again, we have a one to one comparison between matter/energy and language that is independent of anyone’s interpretation of either.

If Shakespare never existed and some other John Doe wrote something he called "Hamlet" and it was word for word identical to "Hamlet" as we know it, it simply wouldn't be "Shakespare's Hamlet". So Shakespare's Hamlet and Beethoven's 9th symphony and ideas, concepts, music, art, poetry etc are all things that doesn't exist unless there is someone who think them.

Precisely why the universe too needs someone to think it into being; this someone might be god or it might be you and I.

Material things is a different story. The earth existed long before man existed. We know that because even none of us where around to witness it, we can see evidence that it has been around long before we entered the scene.

Well, that eliminates you and I as the one who thought the universe into being. I guess that leaves god.

Therefore the totality of all that exist is NOT limited to language. Language is part of it and things do not exist if you cannot describe them in any way but material things can exist before the language that descrtibe them exists.

What a splendid batch of double speak you offer here. The first line you say that something “can� exist without language to describe it. The second line you say that things "do not" exist without a language to describe it, and you end by reassuring us that material things are exempt from this contradiction. The problem is the chicken/egg problem. Which came first; the material world or the laws that prescribe its exact nature and behavior. It seems that they are inseparable and indeed they are. The laws of physics can certainly be described as a formal language that dictates the behavior of matter/energy, but we see them as immanent and not external to matter/energy, as well we should; the language-laws that prescribe energy and energy itself are indistinguishable, thus are the same thing. Whether we call this energy the universe or call it a language would be a matter of indifference if it were not for the implication that if it is a language, then we would necessarily concede that it arises from a mind.

Let's say scientists discover a new thing in the universe which we never knew about before. Surely, they can then describe this thing and so it exist. They even could possibly describe it before they discovered it but as they had no data to base that description of it wouldn't be meaningful. However, the fact is that they can describe it and that is why it possibly can exist.

This does not mean that everything we can describe exists. I can describe unicorns but I don't know of any unicorns that actually exists in the real world. However, if I could not describe something then it is a safe bet that it is meaningless to ponder over whether that thing exists or not.

For example if you say "Something exist but it is inherently impossible to describe it, it transcends description" then 1) Keep in mind that you have just described it so you are contradicting yourself and 2) If it really was true that it is impossible to describe it, we can safely say it does not exist.

That is why we can safely ignore christians when they talk about "God transcends existence" or "God exists outside of space and time".

Then using language, describe pure bliss. When I was about 4 or 5 years old, I had an experience of pure bliss. Unfortunately, the experience has never recurred. Now I offer some words to describe this experience like, happiness, contentment, fulfillment, ect., but none of these words describe the actual experience. Are you telling me that my experience was not real? I’m telling you that it was the most real experience of my 48 years, though I have no way to convey this or convince others.

Wrong, because the universe is not made up of ideas alone. Material things can exist without anyone around to actually describe them. However, one can safely say that all things you can ponder over if they exist or not are such that they can be described by language. If you cannot describe them by language we don't have to worry about their existence.

Then I can safely discard my experience of bliss without worrying that it actually happened. Nonsense, it is not something I worry about, it is something that I know about existence that apparently you do not.

No, it does not fit language as I see. Descriptions of it fit language, but that is a different issue.

Then get a new pair of glasses to look through. I think your old pair is covered with a heavy layer of belief-ism. The relationship between matter/energy and language is unmistakable. Yet, when I say this I realize that it may sound like an insult. I can assure you Alf that I have no desire to insult you. It is unfair really, because if you have not had some experience that is indescribable, then you cannot understand what I'm talking about.

Alf[/QUOTE]

[alienward]

Perhaps I should try to help him - not sure how much help it is though.

If you define "the universe" as "the totality of all that exists" then there is necessarily only one universe. If there are two universes then there would be things that exist but are not in both universes and that is a contradiction. If you say universe A and B and you pick an object X that exist in A but not in B then that object X would exist but it would not be in the unvierse B which is supposed to be the totality of all that exist so it should include X also. Thus, all objects in A must also be in B and by symmetry all objects in B must also be in A and so A and B are the same universe and there is only one universe. QED.
I don’t see why “the totality of all that exists� can’t be everything that exists in this universe and everything that exists in another helium only universe, and any other universe. It could be the theist is changing the meaning of the word universe (not surprising) and using it to mean this universe and every other conceivable universe. Where some cosmologists say maybe there’s a megaverse and the observable universe could be one of many universes, some theists think maybe there’s a universe and the observable universe is really just a miniverse…

[RexT]

Well no. You cannot prove that you exist. It is inherently impossible. However, there are several arguments why it is reasonable to think you exist. The fact that you wrote that post is one.

The point is that you can generally and safely take it as given that "I" exist and also that there is a world out there that is separate from this "I". I.e. there is an objective world out there that can be sensed by you and which in part can be influenced by you but which is separate from you. I.e. solipsism is wrong.

The best evidence that solipsism is wrong is the fact that there are so many weird and wacko ideas out there. There is no way that I can only be imagining them. If I were to imagine things, people would generally live in peace and harmony and be sensible and reasonable people. The fact that they aren't indicates that there are people out there who is not under my control and is therefore not simply a product of my imagination.

However, this is not a PROOF. However, you don't really want proof of these things. What would you base that proof on?

Take it as given and move on from there. That is what the rest of us does - including modern philosophers.

The point is that Descartes is wrong in that he essentially states: "Assuming I exist and that I can think, then I can conclude I exist". The point is that you put what you want to conclude as a premise. The "I think" includes "I exist" as a premise since if you did not exist you could not think either.

The problem with the statement is that it isn't proof of anything, nor is it useful as a "basic assumption" since there are more basic assumptions. In fact "I exist" is a basic assumption and not a conclusion.

Alf
Thank you Alf for this explanation; it is something I should have though of myself, but then it is hard to know everything. What you say here is reasonable and satisfying.

Then you would agree that our existence is inherently a matter of self-reference and not a matter of PROOF. That is, we cannot refer to anything external that improves our certainty that we exist. External reference may only indicate that I am not the only thinker, or it may indicate that mine is not the only way to see reality. Solipsism then, is unsatisfying given the evidence, yet each must ultimately arrive at his/her own conclusion. Still, we cannot escape at least one aspect of solipsism, that “I� is an unavoidable self-reference to which everything else must be compared. I think that this is precisely the reason that no two us ever completely agree. Actually, I agree with almost nothing Descartes proclaimed as truth, but then this would apply to nearly everyone else as well. Few have I ever met with a like mind and still I cherish this as much as it troubles me. You have helped me to realize something that until now I only sensed as being true. Namely, that reality is unsolvable or irresolvable by definitions. Though these have a definite utilitarian value, we are finally left alone, each of us to search within for what we are. You have a great knowledge of things that I have yet to acquire, or perhaps I never will, but I am at least willing to learn.

-RexT

[phoenixthoth]

I don’t see why “the totality of all that exists� can’t be everything that exists in this universe and everything that exists in another helium only universe, and any other universe. It could be the theist is changing the meaning of the word universe (not surprising) and using it to mean this universe and every other conceivable universe. Where some cosmologists say maybe there’s a megaverse and the observable universe could be one of many universes, some theists think maybe there’s a universe and the observable universe is really just a miniverse…
There is no "other universe." What you're calling the megaverse is what I'm calling the universe. The universe may contain subuniverses like the cosmologists suggest.

Again, there is a sharp difference between something and its contents. The totality of all that exists is not "everything that exists."

[RexT]

There is no "other universe." What you're calling the megaverse is what I'm calling the universe. The universe may contain subuniverses like the cosmologists suggest.

Again, there is a sharp difference between something and its contents. The totality of all that exists is not "everything that exists."
The totality of all that exists would also include things that no longer exist except in memory and things that are yet to exist (potentiality). Neither of these can be exactly located or considered as being in this universe. This would seem to support your idea of a sharp difference between something and its contents.

[RexT]

I'm not sure what your dissertation has to do with physics or language. Maybe it has something to do with the paranormal. Just give the refferences to support your claims about the properties of matter, please.
The assertion of ambiguity is taken from Stephen Hawking’s two books, A Brief History in Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. There he talks about The Heisenberg uncertainty principal, quantum vacuum fluctuations, and the wave/particle duality.

The uncertainty principal states that a particle’s position and velocity cannot be known at the same time. The more accurately its position is known the less accurately its velocity is know and vise versa. This effectively put and end to LaPlace’s idea that matter was determinate. It can now only be determined by what is called a wave function. The function is based merely on probability.

(Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell p. 107)
“We now realize that the wave function is all that can be well defined. We cannot even suppose that the particle has a position and velocity that are known to God, but are hidden to us… Even God is bound by the uncertainty principal and cannot know the position and velocity; He can only know the wave function.�

Do particles even exist? Well that depends on the way you set the experiment. Sometimes they do behave, as you would expect a particle to behave; sometimes they behave, as you would expect a wave to behave. Ergo, matter is ambiguous. This is called the wave/particle duality of matter.

The assertion of self-reference is based on the holographic or fractal nature of matter/energy, first proposed by physicist David Bohm and later utilized in the work of neurosurgeon and research professor Karl Pribram.

(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980)

Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain "could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one." (Quoted in Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe, HarperCollins, New York, 1991, p. 271.)

As to the assertion that god is both being and nonbeing, I acquiesce, it may not provide any useful context for building the assertion that the universe is a language. In this sense, it is likely not even necessary, so I am content to eliminate it for now.

-RexT

[alienward]

As to the assertion that god is both being and nonbeing, I acquiesce, it may not provide any useful context for building the assertion that the universe is a language. In this sense, it is likely not even necessary, so I am content to eliminate it for now.
Ok, so those are not exactly the properties of matter. But is is claiming a god is each one of those not exactly properties of matter supposed to be consistent with a claim a god is the totality of all that exists?

[alienward]

There is no "other universe." What you're calling the megaverse is what I'm calling the universe. The universe may contain subuniverses like the cosmologists suggest.

Again, there is a sharp difference between something and its contents. The totality of all that exists is not "everything that exists."
If you would stop trying to claim word mean something other than the meaning understood by the rest of us, then you wouldn't trap yourself. You are saying cosmologists think a megaverse might contain a universe like the one we are presently occupying.

[RexT]

Ok, so those are not exactly the properties of matter. But is is claiming a god is each one of those not exactly properties of matter supposed to be consistent with a claim a god is the totality of all that exists?
That is not what I said. Those actually are the properties of matter. If you disagree, then take that up with the physicists. I'm not a physicist, I can only go by what they tell us about matter. I simply withdrew the first assertion to reduce confusion, as it is not needed in order to show that the universe is a language. That God is both being and nonbeing, thus becoming; this is a philosophical concept that does describe reality, but I though that it might cause more confusion than clairity. I see that I was right.

Its like the old saying, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...
Its pretty simeple as I see it. Either the universe is a language of some kind or it has nothing to do with language. If it is a language, then the argument will come down to whether language can occur naturally or whether it requires a mind for language to occur. If it is the latter, then we can dispense with all the confusion about the word God. We could just say that mind is the totality of all that exists. Everyone knows what is meant by the word mind, even if no one knows exactly what it is.

[Alf]

Yes, you know only this life. But how do you interpret reality? Is your life inconsequential? Does anything that you do matter? What is the purpose of your life? These are all basic philosophical questions.

Of course it matters. If I give you a smile and make you feel happy I have made you happy. If instead, I pick up a gun and shoot you in the head you die. Obviously, what I do matters to people I meet and so it matters.

Only a solipsist or other moron will claim that nothing matters.


The belief in God constitutes a purpose beyond our own desires and experiences.

The point is that I don't share that belief in God. I don't think there is any purpose to my life beyond what I assign to it. I can give my life purpose because I can plan ahead and whenever I do things I do them with intentions. There is a reason why I do what I do, therefore there is also a purpose behind my actions.

Howver, there is no purpose in the universe by itself - it just exists. It is we who give our lives purpose. However, that purpose is good enough for me and enough to give my life all the purpose I need to go on living.


The traditional view of the Abrhamics is that they have one life and that only the faithful are saved. Either you are with us, or you are fucked. This is the flaw with the one life perspective.

No, it is a flaw with the abrahamic religions. I believe there is only this life but I still don't suffer from the flaw as you describe it.


The reason that the early church adopted the one life and either heaven or hell view, is because it is easier to control people through fear. The Catholic church then proposed the belief that they were the ones who defined whether someone got into heaven. This would then further give them even more power over their congregation.

Very possibly true.


Reincarnation makes us responsible for the state of humanity as it is.

It also lead to some form of fatalism. Accept your lot in life, you were born poor because you were a bad boy or girl in previous life. Accept that I am richer and wealther than you because I was a good boy or girl in previous life and in next life our roles might get reversed so just accept your life as it is. Just bend over and reach your toes and let me screw you from behind and accept life as it comes to you without complaint.

This is the negative side of reincarnation.

In addition there is no evidence to suggest that reincarnation has any factual basis.


It also ties us all together. Our grandchildren will not be the ones that suffer because of our mistakes. We will be the ones that suffer, because of our mistakes.

This might be a beneficial side of believing in reincarnation. However, many people who believe in reincarnation will still contribute to polluting the world etc. They simply don't see that their contribution combined with everyone else's is the cause of the problems or if they see it, they don't care.


The proliferation of AIDS in Africa is not just their problem it is everyones problem. If I grew up rich and exploit the poor, I will experience a Jubilee when I die because I may be reborn poor and in the same predicament as those that I once exploited.

Yep. See above though. It also have a darker side which you are not touching into. For example in India the caste system is generally justified by reincarnation by saying that in next generation you will be reborn in a higher caste if you behaved nicely in this life. Thus, it contributes to cement a social structure that is unfair and inherently evil.


The one life, and then there is nothing view states that you have one life and the consequences of your actions are meaningless when you die.

Hold your horses. You are moving way too fast. Who says that the consequences of my actions are meaningless when I die? True, they might be but they don't have to be. We have numerous examples of people who's consequences are still valid today even though they were born more than 2000 years ago. For example, every day you look at the calendar you can send a little thought to Julius Caesar. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have that calendar as we have it today - yeah, we might even have a better one but that is another issue. The point is that the calendar reform he made was a vast improvement of the calendar they had before him and it is the calendar we still use today more or less. The only change since then was to reduce the number of leap years in a 400 year period so that the calendar have 3 leap years less in 400 years compared to the calendar proposed by Julius Caesar. The calendar from year to year is identical and unchanged since he proposed it.

We are now almost 2050 years since he decreed its use in the roman empire. You can hardly claim that his actions and the consequences of those are meaningless after he died?

What about Elvis? Every time you listen to a CD with Elvis' music on it you are making use of the actions and the consequences of those actions that Elvis did while he lived. Is he still alive? No? Is it meaningless? No? You're proven wrong case closed.

I could mention a ton of other people but I am sure you get the idea.

Even people who aren't famous had consequences of their actions that are significant after they die. When grandpa tells his grandson a story and the grandson remembers that story, it is evidence of an action that a person did that will stay on after he dies - assuming the grandson dies long after the grandpa dies.

Even an old person who live by herself with no relatives around have actions that give consequences after she dies. If she goes to the park in the morning every saturday to feed the birds and one day she die and she is no longer there the birds will not be fed that day until some other old person come and take the place.

Get my point?

You are so wrong in this claim it's not even funny.


The only loyalties that you have are to yourself.

Bullshit. What makes you think this is even remotely close to the truth? As explained above, what actions you do and what actions you could have done but didn't do - they all have consequences that goes far beyond your self just like ripples in a pond when you drop a stone in it. Even when the stone is gone, the ripples are still there.


Not believing in God will not make you a horrible person though.

Good. At least you realize that much.


I am sure that you are very honorable in your dealings with other people. But why do you bother? How do you even know that they are real?

Because I know there is a real world out there. I know there is a real world because it is so filled with all sorts of ideas - smart and stupid - that I would never be able to come up with on my own. If I was the only real person in the world, where do all those wacko ideas come from? Where do all the smart and genius wisdom come from that I could never think up on my own? Obviously, there is a world out there and it is independent of my existence and yet I can interact with it and influence it in some ways and it will also interact and influence me in some ways.


If there aren’t any real consequences for your actions then why would you even care.

See above about the consequences. All actions - good or bad - have consequences and the consequences usually linger on long after you are dead and gone.


But, this is an entirely different debate.

Sort of but you triggered something in me. I think you are way off.


Yes, this is why I believed that they are wrong. Life is only meaningful if there is a challenge. A land of bliss would have no challenge, as would a land of pain.

"Challenge" doesn't have to mean suffering and certainly not real suffering and death.

For example if you play a computer game it is more fun if there is some challenge right? However, if you die in a computer game you do not really die. You can get up and play again. If you get hit by someone else while playing the game you don't really get hit. There is a number called "hitpoints" that go down but you do not really feel pain as a result of it.

Thus, it is VERY POSSIBLE to come up with a world that has challlenge without suffering and death. It appears that man can make it as in computer games but god cannot? What is this?

Your claim is false.


Lucky? Some people believe that there are more people alive today on the planet than all the people that have died. A better question would have been what happens when all the Aeons (souls) have bodies? The Aztecs believed that this would lead to the end of the Age, and would be an appropriate time for the Christian Judgement Day.

Another and more reasonable approach is to label it all "idle speculation" and ignore it.
Show me evidence that there at all is a "soul" then show me that at least one such "soul" has existed in another body earlier and that it is indeed the same "soul". For example if the person can remember and know things he or she could not possibly know but which are true and it cannot be explained by "coincidence" or "vague explanation that fit everything" etc.

If you can do that then you might actually have a point. Until then you don't.


This isn’t how the church interprets the Bible, this is how I interpret the Bible. Their interpretation is pleading to God to make the world good for them. My interpretation states that God’s will for us is that we will make the world better.

Debate that with a christian. I see that you disagree with regular christian theology on this issue as on other issues and I just find it odd that you then want to insist to be considered a christian given that you disagree with them so much.


Reincarnation fits perfect with this interpretation of the afterlife. I think that it was rejected because of the Abrahamic bias for control over the people. Jesus spoke out about the corruption of the Samhedrin and systems of dependency from the church. This is the focus of the Three Temptations of Christ.

It is YOUR interpretation of that particular story. True, other people may also share that interpretation but the church does not and that is the important point.


I believe that the ends justify the means, but the means define the ends. Works and faith are like this. Works define whether this planet will be a heaven or a hell. Faith helps you with your attitude, which will inspire your works.

Ok. I believe that the ends can never justify the means. The "ends justify the means" is to me a hall-mark of thinking that might have good intentions but which will ultimately lead to something bad happening. You can pick any evil tyrant or other mean person you want and you will find that they invariably had the attitude that the ends justified the means.

I would therefore suggest you stop thinking along those lines. The ends NEVER justifies the means. The means must be justifiable in and of themselves without pointing to your intended end. This is obvious because it might very well happen that your intended end could be achieved by some other way or that your intended end did not become realized even if you did the means with that intention. Therefore you should NEVER justify your means by pointing to your intended goals.

True, we do things because we want to achieve a goal and so when we do things our purpose is to fullfill that goal and so we do the means because we have an end in mind. However, as shown above if your reasoning lead you to accept killing an innocent so that you can give many people much happiness later on, it doesn't matter how noble is your end - it is ultimately corrupted by your means of killing and murder.

Therefore all means - all actions - must be justifiable in and of themselves before you use them to achieve a goal.


Then I am guessing that Martin Luther was not a Christian either because Christianity at his time was defined by the Catholic Church, which he disagreed with.

If you mean by "catholic christian" then yes, he was not. In fact he founded the protestant church.

He was also a superstitious jew hater and a lot of other bad things which most protestants today doesn't like to be reminded of but that is besides the point.


I believe in Christ but not the churches interpretation of Christ.

Ok. The problem is that christ never say anything that is explicitely in favor of reincarnation. At best you can claim that a certain interpretation of the gospels is compatible with reincarnation. However, this is a very weak claim since the gospels are so open that anyone from die hard fundie to liberal christian can find an interpretation that fit their understanding of the gospels.

Also, it would help a lot if you did find some - until now unheard of - gospel that did provide evidence that Jesus talked positively about reincarnation. If so then you could claim that Jesus did support the idea it is just that the church did not accept it and so they suppressed it. Howveer, given that no such gospel has been found such a claim appear speculative.

It is easy to claim that you believe in christ and that christ agrees with your ideas. Many people of diverse ideas has made that claim. It is easy because christ is no longer with us and cannot defend himself and say "I agree with A but not with B and C and I think D might have a good idea which I never thought of but E is completely wrong" Since Jesus is not around to make such corrective statements it is easy for anyone to claim they believe in christ and that christ actually said something to the effect that he agrees with what I claim.

Anyone from right wing nazi/white supremacists to communists and anywhere in between has made such statements. This fact also weaken the claim and makes it very speculative and make it appear bogus unless you really can provide some evidence for it - for example several gospel quotes that shows that your interpretation is correct and that other people's interpretation of the gospels must be wrong.

Alf

[Alf]

Yes, differentiation between subject and object is the primal basis of language. The relationship of material things is sometimes described as communication. For example, the interaction between a photon and an atom is characteristic of the machine language used by computers. Whereas, the computer speaks in terms of bits (1,0) atoms speak in terms of quanta of energy. Atoms are input/output machines that only allow the input of photons having a certain required frequency. Atoms therefore, differentiate between quanta, as computers differentiate between bits, thus is a form of language. If you would reject this fact, then your rejection is based on some belief and not based on a comparison of languages.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say.


Let us make a distinction here. Music is a language based on vibrations, but is not itself the vibrations. If this were not true, then any random vibrations would qualify as music. Instead, it is the particular arrangement of vibrations that rises to the level of being music. As you have said, “music etc you can say that they do not exist unless there is someone somewhere who think them�.

This is wrong. The "music" is not the "arrangement of vibrations". The arrangement of vibrations is what we normally call "sound".

"music" is our awareness of that sound - our interpretation of that sound. As such, music doesn't exist unless someone hears it. Sound as "simply movement of air" might exist even though there is noone around to hear it but sound as "signals in the brain to make me aware of that movement of air" is something that requires me to be around to hear the sound before it actually exist.

Thus, the question "If a tree fall in the forrest and noone is around to see it, does it make a sound?" Can be answered as such: "It depends on what you mean by sound. If you by 'sound mean the simple vibrations of air, then yes, it does make a sound. If you by sound mean our awareness of that vibration of air, then no, it doesn't make a sound."


Likewise, energy/matter is nothing but vibrations.

That is debatable. I don't think we currently know what matter "really is".


It is the particular arrangement of these vibrations that rises to the level of coherent matter. Again, we have a one to one comparison between matter/energy and language that is independent of anyone’s interpretation of either.

Not quite sure what you are aiming at here but I have a hunch that in so far as it is correct it is irrelevant and in so far as it is relevant it is not correct.


Precisely why the universe too needs someone to think it into being; this someone might be god or it might be you and I.

Here you confuse the "universe" with "my awareness of the universe". Of course, I cannot be "aware of the universe" unless I exist and am in fact aware of the universe. However, the unvierse itself has happily existed - ok, maybe not happily - for billions of years before I existed. We don't need need anyone to be present in the very early universe in order to see evidence that it did indeed exist at a time before anyone of us existed.

No god is necessary.


Well, that eliminates you and I as the one who thought the universe into being. I guess that leaves god.

No. I just stated that material things can exist independently of my awareness of them.

This is a thing material things has that sets them apart from ideas, music, poetry etc.


What a splendid batch of double speak you offer here. The first line you say that something “can� exist without language to describe it. The second line you say that things "do not" exist without a language to describe it, and you end by reassuring us that material things are exempt from this contradiction.

First off, there is no contradiction. Perhaps you perceive it as a contradiction but that imply a flaw in your understanding.

Keep things spearate here.

1. Material things can exist independently of our awareness of them.
2. thoughts, Ideas, concepts, poetry, music, etc can not exist before someone thinks them or make them up. Gandalf in middle-earth didn't exist until Tolkien wrote the story where he appear.

3. Our language can describe everything that exist in the world. It can obviously describe all thoughts but it can also describe all material things. In fact, if something cannot be described by language we can safely assume it does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word "exist".

Where exactly is the contradiction?


The problem is the chicken/egg problem. Which came first; the material world or the laws that prescribe its exact nature and behavior.

Don't be silly. The material world exist and the "laws" as described by us has only been around as long as we have been around and many of those laws were faulty at first and only in recent years (since Gallileo approx) have been accurate enough to make any serious predictions about how the world is supposed to behave and why it behaves that way. The "laws" as innate properties of the matter has of course existed as long as matter has been around and is an inante property of that matter and there is no chicken/egg problem.


It seems that they are inseparable and indeed they are. The laws of physics can certainly be described as a formal language that dictates the behavior of matter/energy, but we see them as immanent and not external to matter/energy,

Exactly.


as well we should; the language-laws that prescribe energy and energy itself are indistinguishable,

Oh no. Here you are moving ahead of yourself.

Energy is one thing. Our description and knowledge of energy is another. The laws that we have written down that describe how energy behaves is a third and the innate properties of energy that makes it behave that way is a fourth.

Energy has been around long before we humans discovered it. The innate properties of energy has been around just as long since it is inante properties of energy.

Our descrition of energy - our idea of energy - has only been around since we discovered the idea in physics and our laws that describe how that energy behaves and which is our understanding of the innate properties of energy has also only been around since we discovered them and they keep changing as we improve our understanding.


thus are the same thing.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.


Whether we call this energy the universe or call it a language would be a matter of indifference if it were not for the implication that if it is a language, then we would necessarily concede that it arises from a mind.

Complete non-sense. Take your crackpot theory somewhere else.


Then using language, describe pure bliss. When I was about 4 or 5 years old, I had an experience of pure bliss. Unfortunately, the experience has never recurred. Now I offer some words to describe this experience like, happiness, contentment, fulfillment, ect., but none of these words describe the actual experience. Are you telling me that my experience was not real?

No. I would say your oral language - the language formed by words etc - is not rich enough to express the experience as you felt it. Obviously, your brain having its own language was able to express it - otherwise you wouldn't have felt it.


I’m telling you that it was the most real experience of my 48 years, though I have no way to convey this or convince others.

Good for you. However, completely irrelevant for this discussion.


Then I can safely discard my experience of bliss without worrying that it actually happened. Nonsense, it is not something I worry about, it is something that I know about existence that apparently you do not.

Wrong. See above why it is wrong. (Hint: Your brain obviously could express it to you when you were kid, so you are mistaken when you say that it could not be expressed in language). Perhaps even you COULD express it in language now too - you just have to find the right word. Perhaps if you found other people like yourself that had the same state and spoke with them you could come up with a word to describe it. Then you could describe it even using regular plain english!


Then get a new pair of glasses to look through. I think your old pair is covered with a heavy layer of belief-ism. The relationship between matter/energy and language is unmistakable. Yet, when I say this I realize that it may sound like an insult. I can assure you Alf that I have no desire to insult you. It is unfair really, because if you have not had some experience that is indescribable, then you cannot understand what I'm talking about.
]

See immediately above why this is wrong. I repeat again: If it is inherently impossible to describe it, then it does not exist. However, the fact that you experienced it means that you CAN describe it - at a minimum to yourself - you can even describe it to me as "the experience I had when I was 4 years old" - see, that IS a description. It is not a very accurate description since you probably had many experiences at that age but it is a good enough as a start :-)

Alf

[Alf]

I don’t see why “the totality of all that exists� can’t be everything that exists in this universe and everything that exists in another helium only universe, and any other universe. It could be the theist is changing the meaning of the word universe (not surprising) and using it to mean this universe and every other conceivable universe. Where some cosmologists say maybe there’s a megaverse and the observable universe could be one of many universes, some theists think maybe there’s a universe and the observable universe is really just a miniverse…

Obviously, if you say that this is only one universe among many then you do not define the unvierse as "the totality of all that exist".

Alf

[Alf]

The totality of all that exists would also include things that no longer exist except in memory and things that are yet to exist (potentiality). Neither of these can be exactly located or considered as being in this universe. This would seem to support your idea of a sharp difference between something and its contents.

Not necesarily. You can say "the totality of all that exist" only cont things that exist "now" at the moment. I.e. it includes memory of things that were in so far as someone still remmebers them and it also includes evidence of things that were in so far as that evidence is still around but other than that it only contain things that exist at the moment and specifically it does not include things that does not yet exist - because they do not exist yet.

It is a matter of definition though but as "universe" the most useful definition would be as I indicate it above and it does not include future things. Those things will thus appear in the universe when they appear but will not exist prior to that point and things that are forgotten will vanish from it and as such the "totality of all that exist" = "the universe" is a dynamic thing that changes over time.

Alf

[Alf]

The assertion of ambiguity is taken from Stephen Hawking’s two books, A Brief History in Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. There he talks about The Heisenberg uncertainty principal, quantum vacuum fluctuations, and the wave/particle duality.

Yup. They are very good books for laypeople to give some insight into modern physics.

However, if you really want to look into the matter you should take a proper class in modern physics at a local universe near you :-) Or perhaps look up some info on the internet or buy a more thorough book or something.

It is not that he say anything wrong in those books. It is more a problem that he deliberately put things in a language so that it is understandable for laypeople but that at a cost of not being very accurate. Thus it can easily be misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, many religious people tend to misinterpret his statements so that they fit with their religion.

It is also a problem that modern physics has made great progress since he wrote those books and that is of course not reflected in the books.


The uncertainty principal states that a particle’s position and velocity cannot be known at the same time. The more accurately its position is known the less accurately its velocity is know and vise versa. This effectively put and end to LaPlace’s idea that matter was determinate. It can now only be determined by what is called a wave function. The function is based merely on probability.

Yep. The uncertainty principle is a very important property of the universe. Just like the Pauli principle and other important findings about the universe.

The uncertainty principle is not limited to momentum vs. position but is also between energy vs time for example.

Also, there is another connection between the measurements combined in the uncertainty principle.

You know perhaps that if you do an experiment in London and you do the same experiment in New York you generally expect to get the same result, right? I.e. if you move the co-ordinate to some other location you don't expect the equations and the laws of physics to suddenly have to be rewritten because London and New York have different laws of physics. I.e. the laws of physics is invariant during translation or change of position.

We also have a law stating that momentum is conserved in any experiment and it can be seen that the law of conservation of momentum is a result of the invariance during translation. I.e. we have conservation of momentum BECAUSE we have invariance of position.

Keep in mind that momentum and position are the two components that makes up the uncertainty principle as stated by you.

Now, look at energy vs time. The uncertainty principle states that energy and time is uncertain in exactly the same way as momentum and position. True enough, if you do an experiment today you expect it gives you roughly the same results as if you did it yesterday. You do not expect the laws of physics to change over time. I.e. physical laws are invariant during change in time. Now, remember I said that they were invariant during change in position and that lead to a conservation law. Guess what? There is also a conservation law concerning energy. The amount of energy does not change during any physical experiment. It is constant. And just as for the conservation of momentum we see that this conservation of energy is BECAUSE we have invariance in time.

Now - did I give you something to ponder about?

Oh, there are other invariance laws. For example if you rotate things 90 degrees you don't expect the laws of physics to change. Yup, we also have conservation of angular momentum. Yup, the heisenberg's uncertainty principle between rotation and angular momentum is also there.

In fact ALL the "conservation laws" we have in physics (there are many of them) is a result of some "invariance law" and the two measurable properties also combine in uncertainty principles. It is a universal principle and a fact of life and is a deep fact of the universe we live in.


(Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell p. 107)
“We now realize that the wave function is all that can be well defined. We cannot even suppose that the particle has a position and velocity that are known to God, but are hidden to us… Even God is bound by the uncertainty principal and cannot know the position and velocity; He can only know the wave function.�

This means that God cannot have infallible foreknowledge and implies that God is bound by time. I.e. there is a "now" and "here" for God just as it is for us. Wave goodbye to omnipresence.


Do particles even exist? Well that depends on the way you set the experiment. Sometimes they do behave, as you would expect a particle to behave; sometimes they behave, as you would expect a wave to behave. Ergo, matter is ambiguous. This is called the wave/particle duality of matter.

Ah, this is sort of a backwards way of looking at it. I would say that deepest in the nature of things particles are neither particles nor waves. We have many types of "particles", photons, electrons, protons etc and they are all described by wave functions and they are all essentially "wave particles" or "wave packets" and are neither "particle" (i.e. solid object) nor "wave" but rather something that we can perceive as being either depending on how we conduct our experiment. It is not "true wave" and "true particle" but rather "neither". Of course at macro world the wave properties of particles become less appearant, so although there is a wave equation to describe where you are, it is such that there is a probability very close to 1 that you are exaclty where you are and very close to 0 that you are anywhere else. However, for small particles such as electrons and photons it isn't so simple and so they appear less solid.


The assertion of self-reference is based on the holographic or fractal nature of matter/energy, first proposed by physicist David Bohm and later utilized in the work of neurosurgeon and research professor Karl Pribram.

(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980)

You probably mean self-inference. Yes, it proves that electrons are wave packets and not solid objects. In short, it proves that QM is right and classic physics wrong.


Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain "could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one." (Quoted in Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe, HarperCollins, New York, 1991, p. 271.)

Now you are moving away from physics and into Bohm's religion. Some evidence would be proper to provide here before we buy his theories in this realm.


As to the assertion that god is both being and nonbeing, I acquiesce, it may not provide any useful context for building the assertion that the universe is a language. In this sense, it is likely not even necessary, so I am content to eliminate it for now.

-RexT
Fair enough.

Alf

[Chaupoline]

It also lead to some form of fatalism. Accept your lot in life, you were born poor because you were a bad boy or girl in previous life. Accept that I am richer and wealther than you because I was a good boy or girl in previous life and in next life our roles might get reversed so just accept your life as it is. Just bend over and reach your toes and let me screw you from behind and accept life as it comes to you without complaint.

I never said that your life is status in life is dependent on your past lives. I think that it would be random. However, the state of the planet is dependent on the actions of humanity.

Yep. See above though. It also have a darker side which you are not touching into. For example in India the caste system is generally justified by reincarnation by saying that in next generation you will be reborn in a higher caste if you behaved nicely in this life. Thus, it contributes to cement a social structure that is unfair and inherently evil.

Yes, but it is random. My version of reinacarnation doesn't promote the status quo it inspires us to want to pursue change in the status quo.

Hold your horses. You are moving way too fast. Who says that the consequences of my actions are meaningless when I die? True, they might be but they don't have to be. We have numerous examples of people who's consequences are still valid today even though they were born more than 2000 years ago. For example, every day you look at the calendar you can send a little thought to Julius Caesar. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have that calendar as we have it today - yeah, we might even have a better one but that is another issue. The point is that the calendar reform he made was a vast improvement of the calendar they had before him and it is the calendar we still use today more or less. The only change since then was to reduce the number of leap years in a 400 year period so that the calendar have 3 leap years less in 400 years compared to the calendar proposed by Julius Caesar. The calendar from year to year is identical and unchanged since he proposed it.

If Julius Caesar was never reborn, his contributions are meaningless to himself. They are not meaningless to the world though. This is why I said that we are responsible for the state for the state of the world.

"Challenge" doesn't have to mean suffering and certainly not real suffering and death.

For example if you play a computer game it is more fun if there is some challenge right? However, if you die in a computer game you do not really die. You can get up and play again. If you get hit by someone else while playing the game you don't really get hit. There is a number called "hitpoints" that go down but you do not really feel pain as a result of it.

Thus, it is VERY POSSIBLE to come up with a world that has challlenge without suffering and death. It appears that man can make it as in computer games but god cannot? What is this?

If all you knew was the computer simulation, you would believe that death in the game matters. The reason why you believe the video game is nothing is because you are an outside observer from the game. Suffering and death in this life is inconsequential because you have many lives in the game. The soul is the player in the game and your body is the character in the game.

[RexT]

RexT: Yes, differentiation between subject and object is the primal basis of language. The relationship of material things is sometimes described as communication. For example, the interaction between a photon and an atom is characteristic of the machine language used by computers. Whereas, the computer speaks in terms of bits (1,0) atoms speak in terms of quanta of energy. Atoms are input/output machines that only allow the input of photons having a certain required frequency. Atoms therefore, differentiate between quanta, as computers differentiate between bits, thus is a form of language. If you would reject this fact, then your rejection is based on some belief and not based on a comparison of languages.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say.

Perhaps I did misunderstand, but you made no attempt to address my comparison with machine languages.

RexT: Let us make a distinction here. Music is a language based on vibrations, but is not itself the vibrations. If this were not true, then any random vibrations would qualify as music. Instead, it is the particular arrangement of vibrations that rises to the level of being music. As you have said, “music etc you can say that they do not exist unless there is someone somewhere who think them�.

This is wrong. The "music" is not the "arrangement of vibrations". The arrangement of vibrations is what we normally call "sound".

"music" is our awareness of that sound - our interpretation of that sound. As such, music doesn't exist unless someone hears it. Sound as "simply movement of air" might exist even though there is noone around to hear it but sound as "signals in the brain to make me aware of that movement of air" is something that requires me to be around to hear the sound before it actually exist.
If you are saying that your perception of sound does not exist before you perceive the sound. Then I agree.

Thus, the question "If a tree fall in the forrest and noone is around to see it, does it make a sound?" Can be answered as such: "It depends on what you mean by sound. If you by 'sound mean the simple vibrations of air, then yes, it does make a sound. If you by sound mean our awareness of that vibration of air, then no, it doesn't make a sound."

Yes, I agree with all of this; it depends on the definition of sound, but you miss my point. Now that we are in agreement about perception and sound, consider my original point. It is not just any random sound that rises to the level of music. Music is the “intentional� arrangement of sounds. i.e., music never happens as an accident. Music is a “language� and as such requires both a mind to compose it and a mind to hear it. Now, your point is that, “Beethoven's 9th symphony and ideas, concepts, music, art, poetry etc are all things that doesn't exist unless there is someone who think them.� It seems like we are in agreement here too.

Now, you are trying to differentiate between music and the sound waves that carry the music. Well music can also be written on paper or stored on a CD. The point is that music is not the medium that carries it; music is the “specified information� that does not change when a different medium is used to carry it. Yes, I would say that sound waves in the air might exist without anyone to hear it, but would you say the same thing if those sound waves carried specified information; music? That is, would the specified information exist without anyone to here it? The answer is again yes and no. For there to be music there has to be both the sender and the receiver. Thus, without the receiver to hear it the answer would be no, but this does not take into account the sender.

RexT: Likewise, energy/matter is nothing but vibrations.

That is debatable. I don't think we currently know what matter "really is".

What matter “is� does not concern me here; what concerns me is how it behaves. Physicists describe the relationship between photons and electrons of the atom such that one can construe the atom as being an input/output devise. Now, if it were the case, that any old photon could interact with any old atom, then there would be no concern. However, this is not the case at all. Every type of atom is precisely tuned to accept only photons of a very precise frequency (analogous to a radio channel). Why is this peculiar property of the atom important to the concept of language? Well, it turns out that it allows us to receive a great deal of information about distant stars for example. I’m not going to explain how this works because you already know all of this. This then, allows us to know exactly what kind of atoms a star is made of. Thus, matter behaves as a transmitter/receiver and it allows us to gather useful information because of this. Information exchange is the purpose of language.

RexT: It is the particular arrangement of these vibrations that rises to the level of coherent matter. Again, we have a one to one comparison between matter/energy and language that is independent of anyone’s interpretation of either.

Not quite sure what you are aiming at here but I have a hunch that in so far as it is correct it is irrelevant and in so far as it is relevant it is not correct.

The one to one relationship follows form the first law of language, which I stated in my post above. Law# 1. It must have a speaker and listener. This is true for music and it is true for atoms.

RexT: Precisely why the universe too needs someone to think it into being; this someone might be god or it might be you and I.

Here you confuse the "universe" with "my awareness of the universe". Of course, I cannot be "aware of the universe" unless I exist and am in fact aware of the universe. However, the unvierse itself has happily existed - ok, maybe not happily - for billions of years before I existed. We don't need need anyone to be present in the very early universe in order to see evidence that it did indeed exist at a time before anyone of us existed.

No god is necessary.

Wrong, the universe is the expression of some kind of language. If not god, then something else, but it cannot exist without some kind of awareness.

Here, we are almost in agreement, yet you insist on believing that there is a logical disconnect between perceiver and perceived. Yes, you can differentiate by saying subject/object, transmitter/receiver, speaker/listener, but both are necessary, inseparable, and whole; your error is in believing that one of these can exist without the other. You would say, “I perceive the universe�, yet you fail to recognize the sender of that which you are the receiver. You fail to recognize that you are only one-half of this grand conversation – the receiver half.

If you can so proudly express to us the knowledge that this universe has given you, why do you not acknowledge that which gives you this knowledge. It has been your mentor and teacher. You take its knowledge which it has given you freely without reserve, but you fail to respond. Is that your knowledge that you have there Alf, or does it belong to this universe? Obviously, it belongs to the universe because you and I will pass, but the knowledge will remain.

RexT: Well, that eliminates you and I as the one who thought the universe into being. I guess that leaves god.

No. I just stated that material things can exist independently of my awareness of them.
Oh yeah, can you prove this wild assertion. Of course I’m being facetious, this assertion doesn’t even have any meaning.

This is a thing material things has that sets them apart from ideas, music, poetry etc.

No, what sets them apart is that we construe one as being subject and the other object – sender and receiver – get it? It is a conversation, life is a conversation and it could be none other. Even if something could exist without awareness of it; this would only beg the question – what does “exist� mean?

RexT: What a splendid batch of double speak you offer here. The first line you say that something “can� exist without language to describe it. The second line you say that things "do not" exist without a language to describe it, and you end by reassuring us that material things are exempt from this contradiction.

First off, there is no contradiction. Perhaps you perceive it as a contradiction but that imply a flaw in your understanding.

Keep things spearate here.

1. Material things can exist independently of our awareness of them.
2. thoughts, Ideas, concepts, poetry, music, etc can not exist before someone thinks them or make them up. Gandalf in middle-earth didn't exist until Tolkien wrote the story where he appear.

3. Our language can describe everything that exist in the world. It can obviously describe all thoughts but it can also describe all material things. In fact, if something cannot be described by language we can safely assume it does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word "exist".

Where exactly is the contradiction?

As I have explained above, there must be both the subject and object for there to be an existence. if you insist that object can exist without subject – then you are lost because we know that this assertion has no meaning. It has no informational value, it cannot be falsified or tested, it does not lead to useful discoveries. The contradiction is exposed when you attempt to separate subject and object then try in vain to give each a meaningful existence. You might as well say that the negative and positive polls on a battery can have some meaning apart from each other. Or that a coin can be only one-sided and still have meaning. You might as well talk without some one to hear you and call it a conversation. My understanding is flawed in many ways, you are right about this, but I know a conversation when I see one. This is where you and almost everyone else is yet to understand life, the universe, god and what we are here for. Reality is a conversation.

RexT: The problem is the chicken/egg problem. Which came first; the material world or the laws that prescribe its exact nature and behavior.

Don't be silly. The material world exist and the "laws" as described by us has only been around as long as we have been around and many of those laws were faulty at first and only in recent years (since Gallileo approx) have been accurate enough to make any serious predictions about how the world is supposed to behave and why it behaves that way. The "laws" as innate properties of the matter has of course existed as long as matter has been around and is an inante property of that matter and there is no chicken/egg problem.
RexT: It seems that they are inseparable and indeed they are. The laws of physics can certainly be described as a formal language that dictates the behavior of matter/energy, but we see them as immanent and not external to matter/energy,
Exactly.
RexT: as well we should; the language-laws that prescribe energy and energy itself are indistinguishable,

Oh no. Here you are moving ahead of yourself.

Energy is one thing. Our description and knowledge of energy is another. The laws that we have written down that describe how energy behaves is a third and the innate properties of energy that makes it behave that way is a fourth.

Energy has been around long before we humans discovered it. The innate properties of energy has been around just as long since it is inante properties of energy.

Our descrition of energy - our idea of energy - has only been around since we discovered the idea in physics and our laws that describe how that energy behaves and which is our understanding of the innate properties of energy has also only been around since we discovered them and they keep changing as we improve our understanding.
I agree with all of this.

RexT: thus are the same thing.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
When I say that they are one thing, (read above) I mean that they cannot be separated and still have any meaning. Again, we are dealing with the concept of subject and object. The laws of physics are immanent, but they represent the subjective nature of energy, while the physical forces of energy represent the objective nature of energy; in this sense, they are one. Now I know that you are going to claim that the properties of energy are immutable or something like that, and as such, are not to be considered as subjective, but think more deeply about the relationship between these two aspects of energy and you will realize the truth in what I say.

RexT: Whether we call this energy the universe or call it a language would be a matter of indifference if it were not for the implication that if it is a language, then we would necessarily concede that it arises from a mind.

Complete non-sense. Take your crackpot theory somewhere else.
It is only a crackpot theory if it can be falsified. You have not done that and I know that you cannot do it because it is the truth. You cannot defeat the truth with a neutered concept of reality. You have made the claim that the object can exist without involving a subject, thus you have effectively neutered your mind so that your entire reality depends on this claim being true. Yet if you could manage to provide a single example of an object existing without involvement of the subject, I will concede. Just saying that the universe existed before we did is inept. This would still leave God or some mind as subject. I am not a crackpot Alf. I am sincere and earnestly seeking to know the truth of my existence. I have found one truth; the universe is a conversation, and I am willing to share it with any who will hear it.

RexT: Then using language, describe pure bliss. When I was about 4 or 5 years old, I had an experience of pure bliss. Unfortunately, the experience has never recurred. Now I offer some words to describe this experience like, happiness, contentment, fulfillment, ect., but none of these words describe the actual experience. Are you telling me that my experience was not real?

No. I would say your oral language - the language formed by words etc - is not rich enough to express the experience as you felt it. Obviously, your brain having its own language was able to express it - otherwise you wouldn't have felt it.
Yes, you are correct that our ability to communicate is immature.

RexT: I’m telling you that it was the most real experience of my 48 years, though I have no way to convey this or convince others.

Good for you. However, completely irrelevant for this discussion.
Not true. It deals directly with the relationship between experience and language. As we both agreed above, language is incapable to express certain experiences. Yet, does this mean that there will never be a way to express such emotions/ideas? I don’t know, but I think there will came a day when this is possible.

RexT: Then I can safely discard my experience of bliss without worrying that it actually happened. Nonsense, it is not something I worry about, it is something that I know about existence that apparently you do not.

Wrong. See above why it is wrong. (Hint: Your brain obviously could express it to you when you were kid, so you are mistaken when you say that it could not be expressed in language). Perhaps even you COULD express it in language now too - you just have to find the right word. Perhaps if you found other people like yourself that had the same state and spoke with them you could come up with a word to describe it. Then you could describe it even using regular plain english!

RexT: Then get a new pair of glasses to look through. I think your old pair is covered with a heavy layer of belief-ism. The relationship between matter/energy and language is unmistakable. Yet, when I say this I realize that it may sound like an insult. I can assure you Alf that I have no desire to insult you. It is unfair really, because if you have not had some experience that is indescribable, then you cannot understand what I'm talking about.

See immediately above why this is wrong. I repeat again: If it is inherently impossible to describe it, then it does not exist. However, the fact that you experienced it means that you CAN describe it - at a minimum to yourself - you can even describe it to me as "the experience I had when I was 4 years old" - see, that IS a description. It is not a very accurate description since you probably had many experiences at that age but it is a good enough as a start :-)

Alf

It is inherently impossible to describe because you and I lack the language skills to convey such experiences; it does not mean that it does not exist.

Nevertheless, if I saw the world through your eyes I would agree with this. You see only the physical and mental aspect of reality as having any value. You do not realize the great power in the emotional, spiritual and transcendental aspects to shape and define reality. Your worldview stems from the belief that everything can be explained and understood by way of reason alone, and thus, you have neutered you mind by your insistence that these other aspects of your mind be repressed, no, not repressed, you have declared that they do not exist. Some ideas can only be expressed emoyionally while others can only be expressed spiritually. Do you see the problem here - we have not learned to use the emotional and spiritual languages as they are meant to be used.

-RexT

[RexT]

Yup. They are very good books for laypeople to give some insight into modern physics.

However, if you really want to look into the matter you should take a proper class in modern physics at a local universe near you :-) Or perhaps look up some info on the internet or buy a more thorough book or something.

It is not that he say anything wrong in those books. It is more a problem that he deliberately put things in a language so that it is understandable for laypeople but that at a cost of not being very accurate. Thus it can easily be misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, many religious people tend to misinterpret his statements so that they fit with their religion.

It is also a problem that modern physics has made great progress since he wrote those books and that is of course not reflected in the books.


Yep. The uncertainty principle is a very important property of the universe. Just like the Pauli principle and other important findings about the universe.

The uncertainty principle is not limited to momentum vs. position but is also between energy vs time for example.

Also, there is another connection between the measurements combined in the uncertainty principle.

You know perhaps that if you do an experiment in London and you do the same experiment in New York you generally expect to get the same result, right? I.e. if you move the co-ordinate to some other location you don't expect the equations and the laws of physics to suddenly have to be rewritten because London and New York have different laws of physics. I.e. the laws of physics is invariant during translation or change of position.

We also have a law stating that momentum is conserved in any experiment and it can be seen that the law of conservation of momentum is a result of the invariance during translation. I.e. we have conservation of momentum BECAUSE we have invariance of position.

Keep in mind that momentum and position are the two components that makes up the uncertainty principle as stated by you.

Now, look at energy vs time. The uncertainty principle states that energy and time is uncertain in exactly the same way as momentum and position. True enough, if you do an experiment today you expect it gives you roughly the same results as if you did it yesterday. You do not expect the laws of physics to change over time. I.e. physical laws are invariant during change in time. Now, remember I said that they were invariant during change in position and that lead to a conservation law. Guess what? There is also a conservation law concerning energy. The amount of energy does not change during any physical experiment. It is constant. And just as for the conservation of momentum we see that this conservation of energy is BECAUSE we have invariance in time.

Now - did I give you something to ponder about?

Yes, and thanks for the science lesson Alf, if I keep talking to you I might just learn something. But hey, my assertion was simply that there is something inherently abiguous about nature; if you disagree, then just say so. It would help if you would stop pointing out that I am a LAYMAN. You undoubtably possess more knowledge than I, but whether you are more intelligent remains to be seen. I think, as a layperson, and based on my laymans view of physics, that Hawking, and you seem to agree, the property of matter is such that it leads to ambiguities. Notice that there are several different interpretations of QM. This in itself should be enough to prove the point. QM is AMBIGUOUS- Yes or no?

Oh, there are other invariance laws. For example if you rotate things 90 degrees you don't expect the laws of physics to change. Yup, we also have conservation of angular momentum. Yup, the heisenberg's uncertainty principle between rotation and angular momentum is also there.

In fact ALL the "conservation laws" we have in physics (there are many of them) is a result of some "invariance law" and the two measurable properties also combine in uncertainty principles. It is a universal principle and a fact of life and is a deep fact of the universe we live in.


This means that God cannot have infallible foreknowledge and implies that God is bound by time. I.e. there is a "now" and "here" for God just as it is for us. Wave goodbye to omnipresence.
I don't recall mentioning omni-anything.

Ah, this is sort of a backwards way of looking at it. I would say that deepest in the nature of things particles are neither particles nor waves. We have many types of "particles", photons, electrons, protons etc and they are all described by wave functions and they are all essentially "wave particles" or "wave packets" and are neither "particle" (i.e. solid object) nor "wave" but rather something that we can perceive as being either depending on how we conduct our experiment. It is not "true wave" and "true particle" but rather "neither". Of course at macro world the wave properties of particles become less appearant, so although there is a wave equation to describe where you are, it is such that there is a probability very close to 1 that you are exaclty where you are and very close to 0 that you are anywhere else. However, for small particles such as electrons and photons it isn't so simple and so they appear less solid.

Maybe I'm a backwards sort, but all this "neither" talk sure sounds like true ambiguity to me.

From Encarta,
a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended.
an expression or statement that has more than one meaning.

You probably mean self-inference. Yes, it proves that electrons are wave packets and not solid objects. In short, it proves that QM is right and classic physics wrong.


Now you are moving away from physics and into Bohm's religion. Some evidence would be proper to provide here before we buy his theories in this realm.

Well, you may have a point about Bohm's religion, we all have some form of religion or beliefs after all. Its an aspect of humanity that I have tried to free myself from, but alas its not so easy is it?

Anyway, getting back to the assertion of self-reference, self-inference, self-defined, self-awareness etc., I speak as a layperson; these imply that there is nothing beyond existence, as though there were some external reference by which to measure self. "I" can only be measured by "I". This doesn't mean that "I" can't look around and see other "I"s. But then find no other "I" except "I". Now suppose that god is this "I". Would not this same situation apply? Yes of course, and so situated god asks the same question of "I" that every "I" is asking. Namely, who am I? Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if this were the case, then we should expect that the universe would reveal this situation in all of its various aspects. And you know what; it certainly seems to do just that.

The universe is more like a fractal or hologram than like a hierarchy. But from our limited perspective, we only see its hierarchical aspect. The universe is more like a question than like an answer. Yes, it is both a question and an answer; it is cyclical in this way that for every answer there are more questions. Something like Questions > Answers, I'm not sure how you would write it mathematically. Bohm has merely recognized this and by way of analogy to the hologram, has redefined reality to reflect this deeper aspect of nature. Maybe the fractal would be a better discription i'm not sure.

-RexT

[Alf]

I never said that your life is status in life is dependent on your past lives. I think that it would be random. However, the state of the planet is dependent on the actions of humanity.

Good.


Yes, but it is random. My version of reinacarnation doesn't promote the status quo it inspires us to want to pursue change in the status quo.

Good.


If Julius Caesar was never reborn, his contributions are meaningless to himself. They are not meaningless to the world though. This is why I said that we are responsible for the state for the state of the world.

They were obviously meaningful to him while he lived. Why shouldn't that be enough?

If someone asks you to come join them to a circus or movie or theatre will you tell them that "nah, 20 years from now I won't remember the details of the event so why bother?" or would you rather think "Yes, this is a perfect chance to have a wonderful time with my friends, who cares that the details of the event will be forgotten tomorrow, I am having fun right now"

According to you, you would pick the first and never enjoy anything in life. Better to just lie down and wait to die immediately. Why bother? You will forget all details by tomorrow already and 20 years from now you will have forgottem most of what you did today anyway, right?

Get my point?

Don't dismiss the moment just because it is fleeting. Every moment is a moment, a chance to decide for yourself which path your life will follow. Every moment counts and every moment is important in itself and for its own reason. It doesn't need any other moment to justify itself.


If all you knew was the computer simulation, you would believe that death in the game matters. The reason why you believe the video game is nothing is because you are an outside observer from the game. Suffering and death in this life is inconsequential because you have many lives in the game. The soul is the player in the game and your body is the character in the game.

No. I never said it was inconsequential. Of course, you usually pay a price of some kind if you die. You lose points, you lose time etc etc. All games are made such that if you lose or "die" you pay some form of price. It is not without consequences. However - and this is the important thing - the consequences are not serious to you. They do not make you really hurt if you get hit, you do not really die if you die etc.

Appearantly, you therefore do not have to pay such a heavy price just to have consequences and free will etc etc. So, it seems that man is able to create something that God cannot do. Isn't he smart enough? Perhaps we should teach him how to create the universe? He obviously did a very poor job at it.

Alf

[Chaupoline]

The ends NEVER justifies the means.

The means must be justifiable in and of themselves without pointing to your intended end. This is obvious because it might very well happen that your intended end could be achieved by some other way or that your intended end did not become realized even if you did the means with that intention.

Hence, the means define the ends.

If you mean by "catholic christian" then yes, he was not. In fact he founded the protestant church.

The label Christian means nothing, it just means an association with Christ.

[Chaupoline]

They were obviously meaningful to him while he lived. Why shouldn't that be enough?

This is going with the view that your enjoyment is of paramount importance. So why would it matter if you treat someone else with respect?

If someone asks you to come join them to a circus or movie or theatre will you tell them that "nah, 20 years from now I won't remember the details of the event so why bother?" or would you rather think "Yes, this is a perfect chance to have a wonderful time with my friends, who cares that the details of the event will be forgotten tomorrow, I am having fun right now"

Yes, why care if my actions have a negative impact on anyone else. My enjoyment right now is of paramount importance.

Don't dismiss the moment just because it is fleeting. Every moment is a moment, a chance to decide for yourself which path your life will follow. Every moment counts and every moment is important in itself and for its own reason. It doesn't need any other moment to justify itself.

Yes rape is great, because I enjoy the control and the joy that it brings me. My enjoyment of the moment is what matters.

No. I never said it was inconsequential. Of course, you usually pay a price of some kind if you die. You lose points, you lose time etc etc. All games are made such that if you lose or "die" you pay some form of price. It is not without consequences. However - and this is the important thing - the consequences are not serious to you. They do not make you really hurt if you get hit, you do not really die if you die etc.

The consequences of your death in this life are not serious to you. You soul lives on. You will get another life anyways.

Appearantly, you therefore do not have to pay such a heavy price just to have consequences and free will etc etc. So, it seems that man is able to create something that God cannot do. Isn't he smart enough? Perhaps we should teach him how to create the universe? He obviously did a very poor job at it.

Nope, you just refuse to accept that your life as you know it is not real.

[Alf]

This is going with the view that your enjoyment is of paramount importance. So why would it matter if you treat someone else with respect?

Because what you do have consequences and what you do matters.

Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you just want anything as long as you can get away with stealing it. Well, chances are some day you will get caught and then you won't have that happy life any more.

Perhaps you do realize that other people's happiness is also important to yourself. Perhaps you feel an inner joy when you see that other person becomes happy.

We have this thing called "empathy" and we also have this thing "compassion". I cannot answer for you but I know I have those things. Therefore, what happens to other people also matters to me to some extent. Yes. what is of paramount importance to me is what happens to me and so I worry about my own happiness first. However, there is no contradiction between worry about one's own happiness and also worry about other people's happiness. In fact, not only are they not contradictory but they are actually connected the other way. If I make another person happy, then I too feel happy, so I improve my own happiness by making other people happy.

Yes, you can then say that I only do that to make myself happy. When I give money to charity I only do it to make myself feel better, I do not really care for those people who receive help from that charity. Well, for one thing, how do you know what I care and not and another thing is that it is possible to do both. I can BOTH tend to my own happiness by making other people happy AND also make those other people happy at the same time. To me that is a win-win situation.


Yes, why care if my actions have a negative impact on anyone else. My enjoyment right now is of paramount importance.

That isn't exactly what I said. Also, you neglect the point that if my actions have negative impact on someone else that might impact on my own enjoyment of the situation.


Yes rape is great, because I enjoy the control and the joy that it brings me. My enjoyment of the moment is what matters.

I have never seen the point in raping someone. I don't find enjoyment in having control over other people. I know that I would get upset if someone were trying to control me and so I assume other people will get upset if osmeone will try to control them too. I therefore never seek to do such things.


The consequences of your death in this life are not serious to you. You soul lives on. You will get another life anyways.

Where is the evidence for this "soul" you speak of?


Nope, you just refuse to accept that your life as you know it is not real.

No, my life as I know it is very real. We do not live in a matrix.

Alf

[Yahzi]

you just refuse to accept that your life as you know it is not real.
There is a name for this condition. It is called "sanity."

[Chaupoline]

Because what you do have consequences and what you do matters.

My actions have consequences for other people, but it is easier for me to diregard those consequences. We only have one life, so morality is subjective to fulfilling my desires.

Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you just want anything as long as you can get away with stealing it. Well, chances are some day you will get caught and then you won't have that happy life any more.

Who cares. When I die it will end all of my pain. The consequences of my actions are insignifigant to the reality that with my death there will be nothing.

Perhaps you do realize that other people's happiness is also important to yourself. Perhaps you feel an inner joy when you see that other person becomes happy.

What evidence is there for this statement? My happiness is not dependent on the effect that it has on others.

We have this thing called "empathy" and we also have this thing "compassion". I cannot answer for you but I know I have those things. Therefore, what happens to other people also matters to me to some extent. Yes. what is of paramount importance to me is what happens to me and so I worry about my own happiness first. However, there is no contradiction between worry about one's own happiness and also worry about other people's happiness. In fact, not only are they not contradictory but they are actually connected the other way. If I make another person happy, then I too feel happy, so I improve my own happiness by making other people happy.

Again, just because someone says it doesn't mean that it is true. You are just speculating about reality. There is no such thing as empathy and compassion. They are man made constructs to try to get people to do what their leaders tell them to do. Caring for others goes against Natural Selection. Animals do what they do to survive. You should always look out for Number One. Many mothers who kill their children prove this. Infantcide is prevalent throughout nature. The Abortion lobby in America is powerful, because our main concern is naturally for what makes me happy. Europe is very secular progressive, perhaps even more than the United States. They live the reality that the only thing that matters in this life is me.

Yes, you can then say that I only do that to make myself happy. When I give money to charity I only do it to make myself feel better, I do not really care for those people who receive help from that charity. Well, for one thing, how do you know what I care and not and another thing is that it is possible to do both. I can BOTH tend to my own happiness by making other people happy AND also make those other people happy at the same time. To me that is a win-win situation.

Your are only doing that to make yourself feel happy. I know that you are selfish because science tells us this. The evidence is there. I know what I feel, but I do not know what you feel. This shows that empathy is not real. It is a delusional belief, like God, souls, reincarnation, and heaven. You can argue all day long but there is no evidence to support your claims and speculations. There is no evidence to support beauty either. You may think a sunset is beautiful, but that is a delusional reaction too. Beauty does not exist. There is no evidence to support that claim either.

[Yahzi]

Yes rape is great, because I enjoy the control and the joy that it brings me. My enjoyment of the moment is what matters.
There is a name for this condition. It is called "insanity."

Humans are supposed to be social animals. If you define enjoyment at the expense of others - particularly at the expense of those you are being intimate with - there is something wrong with you.

[Chaupoline]

There is a name for this condition. It is called "insanity."

Humans are supposed to be social animals. If you define enjoyment at the expense of others - particularly at the expense of those you are being intimate with - there is something wrong with you.

There are social humans, but how can you say that they are supposed to be social animals? Why is there something wrong with you if you define enjoyment at the expense of others? Everyone else is inconsequential to your pleasure. You have one life to live and when you die, there is nothing. How could you really believe that the world around you continues after you die? You are the primary observer of reality. If you cease to exist, the world ceases to exist. If you do not believe me, then what am I observing right now?

[RexT]

This OP began with a simple question that seems to have no simple answer.

So here is my challange: Define a God.

One obvious problem is that the question itself needs to be defined; does it seek to reach an ontological consensus between known god types, a mystical elucidation, scientific evidence or is it asking for a more useful metaphor by which to define God.


Many arguments have been put forth and yet nothing coherent has emerged. As to be expected, this has been a conglomerate of mismatched attempts at answering an undefined question; It really leads nowhere.

I have, in this regard, attempted to offer an original concept of God, as far as I know, which has tryed to form an amalgamation of ideas about God. This proposal is centered around the unifying concept of language. Language should be the key, as it is through or by language that any definition of God must come. Yet, it has either been rejected out of hand or else been misunderstood. In short, it has not been given the opportunity to play out in a fair debate. Try as I might to find some way to express this concept, my attempts have apparently failed. Therefore, I will try another approach, which might help to set a better foundation for discussing such a concept. I propose a simple question:

If we assumed God to actually exist, how would this God express its existence?

The question is aimed at determining whether such expression would be unmistakable or ambiguous.

If this approach also fails, then the failure is due to my own ineptitude and not the failure of the concept I propose; at least not until it is understood and rejected on its own merits.

-RexT

[Alf]

My actions have consequences for other people, but it is easier for me to diregard those consequences. We only have one life, so morality is subjective to fulfilling my desires.

What makes you think it is easier to disregard those consequences?

If you have a truck coming your way will you just think it is easier to disregard the consequences of the truck coming towards you and stand there? I think not, hypocrite.


Who cares. When I die it will end all of my pain. The consequences of my actions are insignifigant to the reality that with my death there will be nothing.

Utter bull. If you are dead and gone you won't feel any more pain. That is true. However, neither will you feel any enjoyment of that lack of pain so that afterlife state is truly insignificant and worthless. Life is so much more valuable.

I will rather have 1 second of enjoyment in life than an eternity of being dead. True, when you die that pain will subside but so will any enjoyment and appreciation of that fact.


What evidence is there for this statement? My happiness is not dependent on the effect that it has on others.

Yes. I know that when I make other people happy, I also become happy. It is a condition we have evolved as a social species.


Again, just because someone says it doesn't mean that it is true. You are just speculating about reality. There is no such thing as empathy and compassion.

Any evidence for this claim?


They are man made constructs to try to get people to do what their leaders tell them to do. Caring for others goes against Natural Selection.

Any evidence for this claim? In fact, I dare say that a tribe with compassion is superior to a tribe where everyone is just looking after themselves and eventually that latter tribe will go extinct.

As evidence for this claim I point to all social animals that have some form of empathy towards their tribe members. All social animals - except for insects and other animals with very simple brains that are dominated by instincts - have developed some form of empathy. The reason is obviously that it is beneficial for their own survival.


Animals do what they do to survive. You should always look out for Number One.

There is no conflict between looking out for number one and looking out for others. You can do both.


Many mothers who kill their children prove this.

And this is common among mammals?


Infantcide is prevalent throughout nature.

Where?


The Abortion lobby in America is powerful,

That is a completely different issue. I don't see mothers go on rabid abortion spree any time soon.

There is a fundamental difference between having the right to get abortion and the act of actually getting one. I think all women should have the right to get one, that doesn't mean that all women actually will make use of that right. It just means that when the conditions are such that they want to or need to do it, you cannot prevent them.

The number of abortions is fairly low compared to the number of births. So these two issues are completely unrelated.


because our main concern is naturally for what makes me happy.

Because you are a selfish bastard?


Europe is very secular progressive, perhaps even more than the United States. They live the reality that the only thing that matters in this life is me.

You'd be surprised.

If what you said were true I would never give money to charity. Nor would I bother be nice to my wife. I would absolutely not bother with following rules and laws if I had a chance to get away from it when I break them.

Unfortunately for you none of that describe me very well, nor most other europeans.


Your are only doing that to make yourself feel happy. I know that you are selfish because science tells us this.

No, it doesn't. Science can not tell you what my personality is like. It can only tell you various personality types you can find among people, it cannot tell you exactly which personality I am unless you first make an observational study of my personality. Besides, I don't think you are qualified to do that - it takes some special education in behavioral psychology to do that.

In short: You are wrong.


The evidence is there. I know what I feel, but I do not know what you feel.

You are very right about that. You have no idea what I feel.


This shows that empathy is not real.

No, it shows that you don't have a clue.


It is a delusional belief, like God, souls, reincarnation, and heaven.

Wrong. Delutional beliefs like God, souls, reincarnation and heaven is a completley different types of things.

Real things such as empathy, compassion, happiness and joy is a completely different thing. We have evidence for them - unlike the gods, souls etc.

You are right that Gods, souls, reincarnation and heaven are delutional beliefs though.


You can argue all day long but there is no evidence to support your claims and speculations.

Actually, you are wrong. I do have evidence. Whether you will accept that evidence I don't know, but it is of a kind that most rational people accept them as evidence.

Essentially only solipsists and stubborn theists are the only type who doesn't accept that evidence. Solipsists because they don't accept any evidence and stubborn theists because they insist those things come from God and cannot possibly develop without refernece to god. So they accept the evidence per se, they just don't accept it is evidence of empathy without god. Instead they take it as evidence for God.

Of course, since it is quite possible to accept the evidence without reference to any deity that makes it impossible to accept the evidence as evidence for God but theists don't get that. That's not my fault.


There is no evidence to support beauty either.

Think I just stated earlier that beauty is something we declare something to be. So beauty exist whenever someone declares something as beautiful. I.e if you declare a rose to be beautiful then beauty exists for you in that rose.

However, since beauty is a subjective thing it does not exist in the objective world. That is a different matter. However, also as it is a subjective thing it doesn't need evidence other than subjective evidence. In other words: If you think that rose is beautiful then that is all the evidence you need to satisfy yourself that beauty exists.

Some theists also claim that that is all the evidence needed to satisfy themselves that God exist. If they "sense" God or they have a "personal experience" with God then that is all the evidence they need. However, this is a gross error unless you claim that God is a subjective experience. However, in that case God cannot exist outside of yourself and certainly couldn't have created the universe. In fact that God is necessarily younger than yourself since he did not exist prior to you having that "personal experience".

If you claim that God is objective then the "personal experience" is not valid evidence for God's existence and therein lies the gross error in their logic.


You may think a sunset is beautiful,

As I said, if you look at a sunset and you think it is beautiful, then that is all the evidence you need to conclude that it really is beautiful. This is unlike objective properties such as "the sunset took place in Oslo at 7pm yesterday". The timing of the sunset is an objective property which can be measured using instruments and we can all agree upon it no matter our background. The beauty of it is subjective and while one person may think it is beautiful it doesn't mean everyone else must necessarily agree with that.


but that is a delusional reaction too. Beauty does not exist. There is no evidence to support that claim either.
As I said there is evidence. Since it is a subjective property, all you need is subjective evidence. The moment you think something is beautiful it IS beautiful. It's really that simple.

Alf

[Alf]

There are social humans, but how can you say that they are supposed to be social animals? Why is there something wrong with you if you define enjoyment at the expense of others? Everyone else is inconsequential to your pleasure. You have one life to live and when you die, there is nothing. How could you really believe that the world around you continues after you die? You are the primary observer of reality. If you cease to exist, the world ceases to exist. If you do not believe me, then what am I observing right now?

Ah, this is perhaps a bit complicated argument but let's see how it goes.

1. I observe that other pepole around me dies and life goes on.

2. I have empathy so naturally I can put myself in other people's shoes and if they observe me die, their life will go on just as it goes on for me when people around me die.

3. Consequently, life goes on after I die.

This rationale was perhaps a bit too complicated for you, but give it a try :-)

If you object to this empathy thing, don't worry. You might lack it and if so we will probably lock you up in some loonie bin. Don't worry and be happy :-)

The rest of us have it as a general rule. We have evolved as a social species and empathy is a natural product of that.

Alf

[Chaupoline]

If you have a truck coming your way will you just think it is easier to disregard the consequences of the truck coming towards you and stand there? I think not, hypocrite.

Disregarding reality is not what I am proposing. Disregarding the consequences of my action because of the impact they have on others is what I am stating. If everyone is out for their own needs, why would you think that standing in front of a truck would be relevant?

Utter bull. If you are dead and gone you won't feel any more pain. That is true. However, neither will you feel any enjoyment of that lack of pain so that afterlife state is truly insignificant and worthless. Life is so much more valuable.

There is no afterlife. There is nothing. Insignifigant and worthless are not even touching the surface for death. You are not going to sit around and wish that you were alive, anymore than being brain dead and wishing that you could think up a good joke at the time.

Yes. I know that when I make other people happy, I also become happy. It is a condition we have evolved as a social species.

Sounds like you are inventing a purpose in a purposeless existance.

Again, just because someone says it doesn't mean that it is true. You are just speculating about reality. There is no such thing as empathy and compassion.

Any evidence for this claim?

That is funny, I was going to ask you the same thing about your belief that beauty, empathy and compassion are anything but man made concepts. Empathy and compassion are subjective traits, it requires faith. You need to want to believe that they are real, for it to be real.

They are man made constructs to try to get people to do what their leaders tell them to do. Caring for others goes against Natural Selection.

Any evidence for this claim? In fact, I dare say that a tribe with compassion is superior to a tribe where everyone is just looking after themselves and eventually that latter tribe will go extinct.

Compassion is subjective to the observer. Nazis could be stated as being compassionate to their own people, but not to others outside of their group. They worked together to make their group or tribe stronger than other groups in their area, so that they could kill and dominate over the other groups. Enthnocentrism is a common trait in humanity. Is this compassion? The compassion for the other members of your tribe is beneficial for you because with the support of others you can accomplish more. However, this is the lie of leaders to their respective tribes. Be compassionate and work together helps the leader of the tribe (Hitler) to effect change that would at most benefit himself. You also see this not just in Fascist nations, but also in Monarchies, Democracies and every other form of human government.

The next big lie is that there is a purpose to life greater than yourself. I know you believe in it but in a world without an afterlife this is a stupid view. The reason that you believe the second lie is because your views descended from an initial belief in an afterlife.

Your are only doing that to make yourself feel happy. I know that you are selfish because science tells us this.

No, it doesn't. Science can not tell you what my personality is like. It can only tell you various personality types you can find among people, it cannot tell you exactly which personality I am unless you first make an observational study of my personality. Besides, I don't think you are qualified to do that - it takes some special education in behavioral psychology to do that.


But I was under the impression that everything about you is defined by your genetics. If there is no evidence for something then it does not exist. If there is something that makes you more than just your genetics, what is it? A soul?

[Yahzi]

There are social humans, but how can you say that they are supposed to be social animals?
The same way I can say birds are supposed to be flying animals and fish are supposed to be swimming animals: biology.

Why is there something wrong with you if you define enjoyment at the expense of others?
The same way there is something wrong with you if you can't guess what other people are thinking in ordinary social situations.

Everyone else is inconsequential to your pleasure.
The greatest pleasures in life come from your interactions with everyone else.

How could you really believe that the world around you continues after you die? You are the primary observer of reality. If you cease to exist, the world ceases to exist.
Recognizing that objects that persist when you are not looking at them is an insight most people derive by age 4 or so.

I concede that a person with abnormal psychology would not find these observations to be commonplace or self-evident; but I don't think that failure is a valid logical argument.

[Yahzi]

But I was under the impression that everything about you is defined by your genetics.
That's just wrong. Just as your computer is not entirely defined by its hardware, but also by the software installed on it. Your computer is unique becuase of your software choices even though its hardware is identical to thousands of other machines.

[phoenixthoth]

Since you haven;t proven that Jesus didn't exist, nor have you proven how the world was created, then it is you my friend, who has no evidence for your beliefs. They are therefore, strictly imaginary because they aren't based on any facts. :)
I agree that supernatural doesn't exist. I don't think God is supernatural. I thought that athiesm was just lack in belief in God, not a set of beliefs. I would like to point out that Genesis does not prove how the universe was created, or even if it was created at all.

[BlessNot]

I agree that supernatural doesn't exist. I don't think God is supernatural. I thought that athiesm was just lack in belief in God, not a set of beliefs. I would like to point out that Genesis does not prove how the universe was created, or even if it was created at all.

Genesis is based on nothing more than just a wild guess.

[Yahzi]

I thought that athiesm was just lack in belief in God, not a set of beliefs.
That is correct. Most of the atheists on this board are metaphysical naturalists; they reject the supernatural, and because of that they also reject supernatural gods.

However, there are atheists who believe in the supernatural.

[Chris Weimer]

Derailment sent here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=154619).

[K]

Alf:

Any evidence for this claim? In fact, I dare say that a tribe with compassion is superior to a tribe where everyone is just looking after themselves and eventually that latter tribe will go extinct.

I'd go even further and say that there is no such thing as a tribe where eveyone was just looking after themselves. A group of people looking out only for themselves is simply a random selection of individuals.

An individual human is not much. With no claws, sharp teeth, strong muscles, or even fur for protection from the elements, a grown human individual would stand little chance of surviving. This is even ignoring the fact that the survival of a new born human is utterly dependent on others for the first dozen or so years of its life.

On the other hand, a tribe of humans working together is a force to be reckoned with.