How does God exist?

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

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    GOD exists through our faith . It is this faith , which gives us strength . This faith is science ; though science is not faith .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You're suggesting that it is me who is doing the hand-waving? That's beyond ridiculous in view of your own entirely speculative assertions in this thread.

    Well, the force that keeps an electron in orbit around a nucleus is mediated by virtual photons. That's an easy one. Further, we've also detected W and Z bosons (weak force) using particle accelerators. How long do you think it will be before we have enough evidence to declare every force carrying particle a real physical phenomenon? It all kinda points in one direction, doesn't it? That even at the smallest scales, space is never void of physical activity.

    The only plausible explanation? Are you kidding? The idea that space itself is a manifestation of energy; a physical substance itself, is just as plausible, at the very least.

    Why not? String theory is a hell of a lot more impressive than any of the wild speculation you're engaging in here.

    So you've successfully dealt with the problem of causal interaction then? You've explained the mechanism involved in an interaction between a immaterial and material reality? I must have missed that.

    You can't provide a plausible explanation for the existence of something you can't define, because if you can't define it it's impossible to determine if any evidence, physical or otherwise, pertains to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Stop trying to kill my brain cells with contradictory and nonsensical statements. For the last time, if there is a physical effect, there is causality.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,205
    Before a person labels an idea as nonsense or absurd, it is expected that the idea is understood. Obviously you haven't taken the time to understand what I am suggesting. If you had, you would understand that I have no trouble with the idea of the quantum foam or the virtual particles of which it supposedly is composed, in fact, I consider them as supportive observations for the basic premise of my argument that space is discrete and not continuous. To avoid conflict with scientific observations, my argument describes a plausible way that objective reality is generated at the ground of reality. I borrow someone else's terminology to call what happens at the ground of reality, the implicate view, and what science describes at an experiential level as the explicate view. In describing reality from a dual viewpoint, I am able to present a plausible scheme for how God works while still keeping science's descriptions intact.

    Yes, I do believe that what science describes is plausible, in fact, I would concede that science's descriptions, because they are derived from our direct experience of reality, might be "more plausible" than the plausible scenario I propose happens at the deeper level of reality - one that is beyond our direct experience.

    I contend that discrete space is the substance from which all the matter and energy is derived; matter is nothing more than configurations of discrete points and energy is nothing more than the motion of such configurations (ponderable energy) or of vibrational motion of the discrete space itself (radiant energy). This idea then allows me to fill the gaps, that are inherent between the points of discrete discrete space, with continuous space, which is the spiritual component of reality.

    This dual structure of reality, allows me to describe a mechanism, which allows the spiritual to form the material and cause the motion that is manifested at the explicate level as energy and time. I will not bother to describe the mechanism in this forum because you apparently will not accept it as anything other than nonsense.

    I am not arguing science; this is a philosophy section/sub-forum and what I am presenting is metaphysical. Hence there should be no problem for an open-minded person to discuss the possibility of space being discrete and the consequent implications thereof.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2012
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    I beg to differ. Science is created out of faith to exist. Science will come to say faith is undoubtably the easiest way one person to exist with superior happiness than the general population, and in a socially efficient manner. Faith is as much a science as science is a faith.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Great for you, but why should anyone else believe that?
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    The whole thing about being reliably exploitable is nonsense.
    You don't even see that even in personalities occupying high wrung administrative positions, what to speak of god
     
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    You get humanity on the right track

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The problem is, Mind Over Matter, that you're always essentially evangelizing, and it's getting old. Don't even try to tell me that you don't strategize about how you might possibly bring people to a belief in God, and that your posts here aren't designed to try to do just that. So when I read one of your threads, I don't see it as an attempt to engage in open-minded philosophical discussion, I see it for what it really is. You have an agenda, and as such it is you who is ensuring that an honest and open-minded exploration of philosophical ideas cannot take place.

    I very often ponder upon the fundamental nature of reality myself, and it's common for me to find myself engaged in the construction of all manner of fantastic metaphysical structures that are well beyond anything science has to say. I'm quite certain that every single one of them is probably way off the mark, but I enjoy the process anyway. For me, metaphysics is the inevitable result of my enthusiasm for science. I want to know more than we currently know, so I naturally find myself imagining what that more might be.

    It might surprise you to know that I think about the concept of God all the time. I always have. In fact if you strip all the religious and anthropomorphic bullshit away from the idea, I become agnostic rather than atheistic with respect to it. So when I encounter someone who, like me, is interested in exploring such an idea in a purely philosophical sense, I'm happy to dive right into the deep end and entertain all manner of outlandish scenarios. But when I encounter someone like you, who is obligated by some preexisting faith to embrace only a very specific idea about what this unknown may be, and is therefore always going to be trying to guide the flow of the discussion to just one conclusion, I tend to adjust my own behaviour to counter it.

    I'm not the problem here, you are. But it's not just you, it's everyone who comes to these forums in the spirit of preaching truth instead of in the spirit of seeking it.
     
  13. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Seek the truth preached. We can't have God, but his virtues are clear.
     
  14. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You're infinitely worse, since you don't even ground yourself to the extent that is necessary for rational discussion to legitimately even begin.

    In fact I still see you as the perfect deep cover atheist, which should tell you all you need to know about how much good you're doing the theist cause around here.
     
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    What?
     
  16. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    If god is "real," he is nothing more than a super intelligent extraterrestrial that has technology so advanced that what it does appears to be "magic" to those who don't understand it.

    Kinda like bringing a laser pointer or computer to the dark ages through a time portal.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    exactly
     
  18. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Sorry if you feel that way. I didn't mean to hurt you and other atheists and agnostics.

    A meeting of minds, a truly rare event. Let's see if we can accomplish that. I am writing something, you have an open mind. Could you address my write up from the metaphysical point of view and give an informed opinion? I think maybe you can if you make an honest effort (open-minded) attempt at understanding what I am presenting. I do not require acceptance, merely understanding. Once you demonstrate that, you can if you so desire label it nonsense. I do not rule that out. I will believe in God in any event; there are other reasons for my doing so. I will also remain a devout Catholic for another different set of reasons. Nevertheless I welcome your informed opinion and I believe that my write ups can have some meaning for anyone that believes there is a spiritual component to reality.

    I am writing a list of assumptions, so if you're interested, stick with me as I present the main ideas contained in the write ups.

    I begin with the following essential ideas:

    My purpose in writing is to address HOW God might have created and is still involved in the universe is to provide we theists with a tool with which to counter the materialist's use of science as the arbiter of truth. The heart of such a write up is a model that explains how God makes the universe work. Since science has effectively described reality with a number of effective but diverse models, my model deliberately does not conflict with the scientific models. Avoiding conflict is made possible by recognizing that science describes reality at a different level (the explicate) than that at which God creates (the implicate). I constructed my model at the implicate level, the action of which is manifested at the explicate level. The elements (discrete space) and dynamics that appear at the implicate level are manifested at the explicate level as matter, energy, and time. The basic description of reality at the explicate level is the laws of physics; the basic explanation of reality at the implicate level is the holonomic mechanism. The laws of physics are primarily mathematical formulations; The holonomic mechanism is algorithmic in which the equations of physics are sub-routines.

    The materialist argues that the only basis for reality is matter, while the theist argues that reality has a dual nature. Since my model assumes the existence of God, it necessarily must include duality, i.e., it must include a spiritual component along with the material. In my model of dual reality (MDR) the spiritual component is introduced by treating the presence of "space" in both its modalities: discrete and continuous. Discrete space is the substance from which the material is formed, continuous space is the spiritual substance in which matter is immersed.

    Consigning science's view to the explicate level allows me to devise a model at a deeper level of understanding (the implicate level) that doesn't contradict science. On the other hand I contend that such a model of duality represents how God creates the explicate level.

    I know this may be repetitive, but I want to make sure that we are on the same page regarding certain essential ideas. So, the basic premise is: God exists! Metaphysically I treat it as an assumption, while "faithfully" I belief it is true. But let us stick with the metaphysical.

    The second idea presented above is the idea of an imlicate/ explicate level of reality. Simply: science describes at the explicate level what God creates at an implicate level.

    No one can know God's mind, but he gave us the tools to contemplate His presence, so my aim is not to unveil the truth, but merely to devise a plausible description of reality at an implicate level. Stick with it as long as you want and perhaps you will find something meaningful and useful to your own view of reality.

    Any comments? If not my next post will argue how duality arises from "space" to form a dual reality.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    so god to you is omni present then
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If you look at some Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the problems you are trying to work out (such as the problem of causation between the physical and the non-physical) are already given solutions in those scriptures.
     
  21. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Hurt? Are you being sarcastic? If you're not, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not hurt. At most I am irritated by the fact that you don't seem to understand that in any exchange between you and me, and other people like me, that it is you who is the closed minded one.

    I can see the picture you are trying to paint quite clearly. I mean, it's not as if you have introduced any ideas that are particularly philosophically sophisticated. This is primarily because you haven't even attempted to actually define what a 'spiritual substance' is, nor have you attempted to address the basic problem of causal interaction. In fact so far your 'spiritual substance' is effectively synonymous with nothingness in terms of the properties you've assigned to it (none).

    So, let's see. Physical reality, which is quantized, is 'immersed' in an unphysical reality, which is not, and physical reality is ultimately a different manifestation of unphysical reality. That's essentially what you're saying, and it's really nothing new. Who hasn't, at some point, considered the idea that physical reality 'emanates' from God somehow, or at least that it was at some point 'emanated'. The details might change, but such ideas seem to have been around since the beginning of recorded history, and no doubt long before.

    I could critique your particular 'model' in several ways, but I have a strong position in sticking with my original response, which is that there is no evidence that physical reality is 'immersed' in anything. You gave yourself away earlier when you focused on the question of what it is that exists between subatomic particles which tells me that, initially at least, you were thinking that that was where some sort of unphysical reality could be located. But since then you seem to have adjusted your position and now seem happy to concede that this is probably not the case. So in a way that is analogous to the manner in which the probable location of God has been pushed further and further into the unknown by science, you are now forced to try to situate this unphysical reality at even smaller scales. In fact I would imagine that even if you were to embrace something like string theory as a true description of the nature of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, you'd still be asking questions like "what reality are these tiny little oscillating quanta a energy oscillating within?" thereby ignoring the very real possibility that they are the very fabric of reality itself. I would further imagine that you might also suggest that there is still 'space' between strings, failing to realize that even though we can pin down the location of a string (if indeed a string is what a particle is), concepts like 'location' don't mean much when the quantum world is left to it's own devices, and that no-one is saying that they are spherical and therefore unable to completely fill 'space'.

    Further, there is also the possibility that the most fundamental component of reality is actually a field rather than a particle, and that particles are simply the excitation of fields, as described by quantum field theory in general. This would mean that the underlying structure of reality isn't actually necessarily quantized at all, but merely appears to be.

    My overarching point here is that science is not without voice when it comes to metaphysics. What you've done here, instead of being the result of trying to fix a legitimate flaw that you've discovered in existing theoretical models, is to posit the existence of an extraneous reality and then try to patch it in, thereby actually creating problems yourself in the process. I'm sorry, but I really wouldn't use the word 'plausible' to describe something like that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  22. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    GOD exists in the heart and not in the mind .
     
  23. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,345
    Maybe as a being that evolved in a way that differs with life as we know it.
     

Share This Page