How does God exist?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Jan 3, 2012.

  1. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    I DO believe in God . . . . . my goal is not to speak with God . . . but to listen to Him . . . . BTW#1, He and I have a great relationship! . . . BTW#2, IMO most of our theosophical, philosophical, and myriad other issues arise from our (human) propensity to 'create God in OUR image'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Thanks for your thoughts.

    The space that permeates the "empty" places (in between physical and material stuff, in between protons and neutrons, in between electrons and nuclei) is the spiritual component of reality. Teilhard called such "space" the "within" of things — as opposed to the "without" of things, the stuff we observe (or experience) as matter and energy.

    I postulate that actuality consists of two kinds of space: continuous and discrete. I argue that all matter (fermions) and all forces (bosons) are nothing more than configurations of "discrete" space that are immersed in and permeated by continuous space. Thus discrete space becomes the substance that forms objective reality and continuous space is the spiritual substance in which it is immersed. This duality can be explained mathematically based on Cantor's set theory of transfinite numbers.

    It is argued that matter is nothing but space when we consider that the atom is made up of electrons ("point" particles) and a nucleus; the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons; and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, which are also "point particles". Consequently, matter is made up of nothing but "points".

    I envision the universe as a single whole configuration of discrete points that define what we call objective reality immersed in a background of continuous space of infinite extent, a spiritual substance, the Mind of God.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It is quite vague, too.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    If you can actually locate a region of space, no matter how small, that is not essentially a foam of physical quantum activity, then perhaps what you're suggesting would not be completely absurd. But you can't. No-one can.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Dreams, for example, are best observed from the inside and not the outside. If I told you about a dream, this will never fully recreate all the nuances that occurred in my dream, which made it significant enough for me to want to discuss it. Direct dream experience is the best way to get all the data, which you remember and record.

    The scientific method would need to involve the scientist also becoming the source of the experiment. The scientists needs to self observe direct brain data, since no external perspective will give you the same thorough data. External observation wil have significant data loss, with the consensus theory which results lacking. The result is like developing a theory with selective data. This is why science of the mind is not considered fully rational (second hand data). Dah!

    Although another scientist we not be able to verify my exact dream, in terms of content, they can still collect data and verify their own dream. With a lot of data collected from different scientists/experiments, we would then look for common themes. Jung called these the archetypes. Collecting first hand data is different that just reading about it in the second person.

    God type output can also appear in dreams. This is associated with certain central or core aspects of the psyche and brain. It is not clear if this data is due to the brain acting as the generator or receiver/ transmittor. The trick would be to figure out how to induce this and then measure it from the outside to see how the brain reacts.

    Those who look for dreams outside them, in the closet, will not find them there. They may infer dreams do not exist. Unfortunately if the leaders do this, then the entire herd is led astray due to incompetence in the scientific method. You do not collect data for fire under the water and say fire does not exist. You need to go where the data is likely to be generated.
     
  9. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    WW: Good read . . . . . I guess I was trying contextually to point-out that dreams are similar to beliefs that have not (or cannot) be 'proven' externally. Everyone 'dreams' . . . they are a mixture of past physical (and mental)experiences, anticipation, and the subconcious . . . all of this 'mix' is reflected in dreams that attempt to put-it-all-together in some semblance of reality.

    In that respect, dreams are like believing in God and attempting to prove that belief is true to other (external) persons - IMO. It is easier to have 'faith' that, e.g., the sun will rise each day, because it (sun rising) is based on repetitive physical observations by most everyone (observations that we can all agree on). Also, IMO, faith (in whatever) is integral to the human condition and some aspects of reality (e.g., God, dreams, etc.) are not necessarily 'provable', but they are 'believable'.
     
  10. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    You are correct to say that the gap between s-points cannot be located, but that doesn't mean that they are not there. In the abstract the gaps exist mathematically, and in those gaps resides continuous space (the spiritual substance). In my model of dual reality, the stuff called the "foam of quantum activity" is a manifestation of action of discrete space. I contend that all that science observes is a manifestation of discrete space, whereas you seem to imply that "space" is continuously (no gaps, however small) a "foam of quantum activity". Your statement is as completely absurd as my statement that there are gaps is the space that forms the structure of the "physical" universe. I cannot prove my statement and you cannot disprove it, so we are back at square one, a philosophical conundrum.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    god is an extraterrestrial
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Well, the first thing you to do is understand God is a Woman. You're never going to listen to Her if you waste your time trying to hear a non-existent Him.

    :shrug:
     
  13. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Do athiests dream? Are you serious?
    No, they don't dream, and don't require food and water either. They are a special breed of human that should be studied in test tubes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Nonsense. My statement is consistent with observation, yours isn't.

    I don't see this philosophical conundrum of yours. Instead it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that space is a physical fabric of sorts. Even if I was to embrace one particular theoretical model, such as that proposed by string theory where space itself is actually a fabric of oscillating 'strings' of energy, I'd still have a much more tenable position than you do.

    In the end the fundamental issue with proposing that there is an unphysical component to reality is the problem of causal interaction. That's your conundrum, not mine. Good luck with it.
     
  15. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    I don't think vagueness can operate in the non-physical realm there are no obscured specifications. If you're looking for an entity that's categorically physically unquantifiable or unspecifiable you're heading in the right direction.



    The non-physical is not a state in the sense that goes through any kind of physical change at all. The non-physical is not causally linked to any physical phenomena but can interact with the physical phenomena.



    I'm well aware that the mind is part of the physical phenomena "since the mind is what the brain does among other things". The non-physical is not categorically synonymous with absolute nothingness however it's probably absolutely undetectable because it's categorically physically unquantifiable.
     
  16. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Seriously, did you even think about what you just wrote? If there is interaction there is causality...

    ...and if you are proposing a causal relationship between a material and non-material reality (which you clearly are) then you have to address the problem of causal interaction.

    Go on. Try it.
     
  17. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Just because there are causal interactions between physical phenomena does not mean there are causal interactions between the physical and non-physical.




    There's no causal relationship between the physical and non-physical entity that does not mean the non-physical cannot influence the physical, physical causality can simply be the way of the non-physical entity correlating one physical phenomenon to another and if the non-physical entity is behind that correlation that would mean the non-physical entity interacts with physical phenomena.
     
  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Again, if there is interaction there is causality. How do you not understand that?
     
  19. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    I'm not talking of any physical interaction at all.
     
  20. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    If you're not talking about physical interactions then you can't be legitimately talking about physical effects either. In other words, the position you are taking leaves your god sitting out there in some imaginary realm unable to interact with the universe.
     
  21. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Sure the non-physical entity does not have any physical effects but that's because the non-physical entity is categorically without physical causality. I'm not talking of physical effects either, one can view this as physical effects are what occurs only in physical phenomena but there are still influences on the physical phenomena from the non-physical entity. The non-physical entity does not have any physical effects at all, one may think that means the non-physical entity absolutely cannot influence any physical phenomena and would be right but there's one other assumption there which is if a physical entity is completely blocked off somehow from influencing physical phenomena the same should be true for the non-physical entity. Yet the non-physical isn't physical in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2012
  22. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    You see, your ""completely absurd" and "nonsense" comments could be valuable to me if you could take the time to explain to me exactly why they are absurd and nonsensical. Unless you can offer a "why" you are merely hand-waving. I can only presume that you wrote those comments because my arguemnts are not "consistent with observations" as you imply that the "foam of quantum action" is. Please enlighten me, what observations have verified the "foam" is scientifically real and not mere speculation?

    I believe that "the foam of quantum action" is a "plausible explanation" for what current physics observes. My point is that the only plausible explanation for the "nature" of the quantum foam is that it is a manifestation of a deeper nature of space, namely that the space that is the substance of objective reality is discrete. That may not be acceptable science, but it just might be the truth.

    Well, then, you should have no problem at all explaining it. I can wait.

    You might start with explaining what that stuff is that separates an electron from other electrons, and from the nucleus, of an atom. One-dimensional strings, perhaps?

    It's not a conundrum to me, I have a complete plausible explanation on how reality has a spiritual component.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  23. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Care to specify on the last paragraph? Perhaps throw in an example or two.

    If you were writing for a research journal, I don't think 'leaders' and 'herd' would be acceptable terms... :shrug:
     

Share This Page