This was in response to Bebelinas post that God existed in our imagination. Sway us from what. It is a fact that we have to qualify where something exist. Unicorns exist in our imagination so they exist, but they do not exist in the real world. Since God exists outside of the universe, where does he exist if at all?
Fantasy gods.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Okinrus,
If the term "universe" means everything then I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about something outside of everything. One might say that an alleged supernatural is distinct from the physical universe, but then that seems to be limiting the definition of the universe. If anything becomes an observable or detectable phenomenon then it must exist within the universe. If the supernatural can react with anything then it must be part of the universe.
If God and/or the supernatural is outside of everything then isn’t that just another way to say that such things do not exist?
I largely agree although if we are not sure if God exists can we then make a statement that he exists outside the universe?
If the term "universe" means everything then I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about something outside of everything. One might say that an alleged supernatural is distinct from the physical universe, but then that seems to be limiting the definition of the universe. If anything becomes an observable or detectable phenomenon then it must exist within the universe. If the supernatural can react with anything then it must be part of the universe.
If God and/or the supernatural is outside of everything then isn’t that just another way to say that such things do not exist?
Yes, the word universe means all that is and should therefore include whatever there might be, gods, unicorns, you name it. There is no outside of the universe, when you reach the outside, there's nothing, maybe an on-off button just to point out the obvious.
So all that is labeled supernatural is within the universe. If it is physically detective is another issue, maybe in time when we have invented the right instruments, or maybe when our brains has evolved so that everybody can perceive what only a few can do now, but even then the perception of whatever there might be is purely individual.
Some say that the individual can tap into the consciousness of the universe, since it's a part of it, but unless we experience that for ourselves it becomes only an intellectual caramel, like this debate.
So all that is labeled supernatural is within the universe. If it is physically detective is another issue, maybe in time when we have invented the right instruments, or maybe when our brains has evolved so that everybody can perceive what only a few can do now, but even then the perception of whatever there might be is purely individual.
Some say that the individual can tap into the consciousness of the universe, since it's a part of it, but unless we experience that for ourselves it becomes only an intellectual caramel, like this debate.
If there is a God then the universe must be created by him.
I thought the universe only defined this particular world. I've also heard many theories of multiple universes. If there is a God then the universe must be created by him. Also the universe is expanding into empty space, but is the empty space part of the universe?
Okinrus,
That was the thinking of the bible authors and why most of what they wrote is of little value to us now.
Current theory from physics describes multiple universes as bubbles within a single universe. I.e. the material and energy that forms from a big bang would be one such bubble, which most people think of as an entire universe. The theory includes the possibility of a potentially infinite number of bubbles co-existing and at different stages of evolution, all within a single universe.
Science fiction also includes the concept of parallel universes where the current universe is repeated and phase-shifted and/or time-shifted through an infinite number of minute variations. There are many versions of these themes including the concept of effective time-travel where the universes are all identical but time-shifted from each other – so to travel through time one simply travels horizontally through the parallel universes.
However, if you are using the sentence as an attempt at logic then it is invalid and/or ambiguous.
If the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning, then a creator god could never exist. This does not rule out the existence of a god but it would have to be defined differently.
We could also consider the universe as infinite in size, in which case there is nowhere for it to expand, but I’m sure you are thinking only of the single big bang perspective. But this would solve the expansion into empty space problem. However, the theory of multiple bubbles also considers the possibility that each bubble might be formed with slightly different rules of physics. It is not clear what would happen if two such dissimilar bubbles collided. Current thinking is that the distance between them would be so great that they would expand and dissipate before they ever met.
You didn’t really think that did you?
That was the thinking of the bible authors and why most of what they wrote is of little value to us now.
These tend to be miss-uses of the term since they depend on a limited popular concept of what is meant by universe.
Current theory from physics describes multiple universes as bubbles within a single universe. I.e. the material and energy that forms from a big bang would be one such bubble, which most people think of as an entire universe. The theory includes the possibility of a potentially infinite number of bubbles co-existing and at different stages of evolution, all within a single universe.
Science fiction also includes the concept of parallel universes where the current universe is repeated and phase-shifted and/or time-shifted through an infinite number of minute variations. There are many versions of these themes including the concept of effective time-travel where the universes are all identical but time-shifted from each other – so to travel through time one simply travels horizontally through the parallel universes.
God with an upper case G is the name given to the god of Christianity, although Islam and Judaism use the same name. Such a god is defined as a creator of the universe, so I agree if such a god existed then it must have created the universe.
However, if you are using the sentence as an attempt at logic then it is invalid and/or ambiguous.
If the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning, then a creator god could never exist. This does not rule out the existence of a god but it would have to be defined differently.
That is a somewhat simplistic view of the universe. If empty space can be said to exist then it would be part of the universe. If your view of the universe is a single big bang bubble then it would be more accurate to say that the universe is expanding. There is no need to say it is expanding into something. However, I understand it is intuitive to think of it that way.
We could also consider the universe as infinite in size, in which case there is nowhere for it to expand, but I’m sure you are thinking only of the single big bang perspective. But this would solve the expansion into empty space problem. However, the theory of multiple bubbles also considers the possibility that each bubble might be formed with slightly different rules of physics. It is not clear what would happen if two such dissimilar bubbles collided. Current thinking is that the distance between them would be so great that they would expand and dissipate before they ever met.
On your Religion
"Throughout the dervish literature you will find us saying repeatedly that we are not concerned with your religion or even your lack of it, how can this be reconciled with the fact that believers consider themselves the elect?
Man's refinement is the goal, and the inner teaching of all the faiths aims at this.In order to accomplish it there is always a tradition handed down by a living chain of adepts, who select candidates to whom to impart this knowledge.
Among men of all kinds this teaching has been handed down. Because of our dedication to the essence, we have, in the Dervish Path, collected those people who are less concerned about externals, and thus kept pure, in secret, our capacity to continue the succession. In the dogmatic religions of the Jews, the Christians,the Zoroastrians,the Hindus & literalist Islam this precious thing has been lost.
We return this vital principle to all these religions & this is why you will see so many Jews, Christians & others among my follwers. The Jews say that we are the real Jews,the Christians, Christians.
It is only when you know the Higher Factor that you will know the true situation of the present religions & of unbelief itself. And unbelief itself is a religion with its own form of belief" - Sufi Ahmad Yasavi
This may ofcourse not appeal to some but the entire book, "The Way of the Sufis" - Idries Shah would have to be read , somewhere in that book is this too - this knowledge is like a pearl, you have to immerse yourself in the water to obtain it, it cannot be given, even further - 'those who know cannot tell', but on the way if the means become an end there is no arriving.
"Throughout the dervish literature you will find us saying repeatedly that we are not concerned with your religion or even your lack of it, how can this be reconciled with the fact that believers consider themselves the elect?
Man's refinement is the goal, and the inner teaching of all the faiths aims at this.In order to accomplish it there is always a tradition handed down by a living chain of adepts, who select candidates to whom to impart this knowledge.
Among men of all kinds this teaching has been handed down. Because of our dedication to the essence, we have, in the Dervish Path, collected those people who are less concerned about externals, and thus kept pure, in secret, our capacity to continue the succession. In the dogmatic religions of the Jews, the Christians,the Zoroastrians,the Hindus & literalist Islam this precious thing has been lost.
We return this vital principle to all these religions & this is why you will see so many Jews, Christians & others among my follwers. The Jews say that we are the real Jews,the Christians, Christians.
It is only when you know the Higher Factor that you will know the true situation of the present religions & of unbelief itself. And unbelief itself is a religion with its own form of belief" - Sufi Ahmad Yasavi
This may ofcourse not appeal to some but the entire book, "The Way of the Sufis" - Idries Shah would have to be read , somewhere in that book is this too - this knowledge is like a pearl, you have to immerse yourself in the water to obtain it, it cannot be given, even further - 'those who know cannot tell', but on the way if the means become an end there is no arriving.
Well, a personal god is kind of unbelieveable. But there could be a non-personal god, all science is based on physical things (5 senses, just electrical signals), god could be non-physical. How can proof be gathered since science is based on the physical? Perhaps, I'm wrong, perhaps I'm right, but no proof can be gathered beyond our 5 senses........
It seems that one's perception of God manifests in their sixth sense. They know he's there, but they just can't explain him. I prefer "it" to "him." Sense we don't know a lot about the workings of the sixth sense at this point in time, perhaps in time we can scientifically produce God. I don't know. I tend to think of God as a force of positive energy which CAN be explained. Everything in creation has different degrees of energy. Creative energy? Those who tend to think of God as an individual being, well this is just too far-fetched. Energy can live in everything as far as I know.
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Without a mind to perceive it, there is no universe.
What could possibly make you think it would be otherwise?
What exactly determines the quality of a soul? Don't deeds in the physical world do this?
If so, the soul is very much a part of the physical world. It is a reflection of one's physical state, just like the mind.
A
and2000x
Guest
Incorrrect. Please read: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html
Reality Is Absolute:
The Primacy of Existence
Francis Bacon knew that in order to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.
The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exists). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence, and that there is no consciousness without existence.
Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity (to be identified) without existing. The fact that something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. Thus there is no consciousness without existence.
Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist in order to do the identifying. Along the lines of Descartes cogito, to be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place.
Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.
All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false. Also, the assertion that existence somehow requires consciousness, sometimes called the Interdependence Theory, is arbitrary at best without objective basis.
This is all wrong. That's like saying everything in a dream is real, and exists. And I guess when you hallucinate what you see is also real. The Brain stem sends signals to the brain, and the brain tries to make sense of them - thats all reality is. All reality is subjective, and depends on the observer. Like reality to a bat isn't the same as to a human. Even Quantum Physics says that a material object cannot exist without an observer. No observers, no material objects - not the other way around. Without consciousness, there is no reality. Your brain (consciousness) creates the reality, not the other way around. I mean, if everyone were deaf, blind , and paralyzed reality would be completely different.
Last edited:
<i><b>No observers, no material objects - not the other way around. Without consciousness, there is no reality. Your brain (consciousness) creates the reality, not the other way around. I mean, if everyone were deaf, blind , and paralyzed reality would be completely different.</b></i>
If there is no observer then there is <i>effectively</i> no existance; that is, something could exist but if unobserved, we could treat it as non-existant. This presumes the non-existance of a God who observes everything.
If there is no observer then there is <i>effectively</i> no existance; that is, something could exist but if unobserved, we could treat it as non-existant. This presumes the non-existance of a God who observes everything.
No, not directly at least. The deeds within the physical world is only a manifestation of our "yes" to God within us. Mary and Paul knew this well.
Well there's a link between the physical and the spirtual world. Someone may percieve that as an extra-dimension or something else. We also don't know how narrow the interface is. For all we know, the soul may only control one electron of the brain. However, I suspect it's a group, and even then, these electrons may be under laws of nature until the soul freely chooses something.
i believe we have gone through it in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29338 . But the question you pose depends entirely on one's definition of "god". So if you donot want your subjective realization of what a god is, then sure, I will go through the motions again.
Lets see if the thread starter replies in kind.
A
and2000x
Guest
This is from an objectivist website, therefore you didn't understand the premise.
I'm getting the feeling that many of you here don't beleive in anything outside of your own mind, therefore a debate is impossible.
Close. If we're speaking of the Creator of the universe, "God" would be a natural life force of positive energy. All other "gods" would by definition would be what you cited above.