|
Beginning and end of the universe, and God (continuation)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Alccode |
Since there is a pretty large discussion going on in the "What is the best country to live in" thread on this topic, which is quite ridiculous, I've opened a new thread where those interested can continue.
| quote: | trancaholic
If, however, by "being wary" you mean "reject", I fail to see why this should be so. After all, we accept tautologies as being solid theories, even if their validity seemingly cannot be disproved and is grounded in pure logic - one of the most abstract non-empirical lines of reasoning known to man. I do have Sagan's book lying around somewhere (bought it the last time you mentioned it, but never had the time to read it), and it might be a revelation, although right now I cannot see any justification for *rejecting* a theory based on the fact that no one has thought of a test which can disprove it.
|
There really isn't any justification. Scientists have generally agreed that if something cannot be disproven, then it is an irrelevant thing and cannot exist. If it did exist, then it could be measured, poked, and mutilated, no? The reason for this agreement among scientists is because the focus of science is proposing theories then proving them with measurable evidence, so as to build a view of the "world." If you think on this, you will see that this kind of reasoning is flawed.
Let's take the subject of a different thread here, Consciousness. According to science, the fact that I am conscious cannot be proved. If you define someone being conscious by the fact that their eyes are open, then if you look at a dead person with open eyes, would you say he or she is conscious? No. How about someone who has no eyes? Is that person then never conscious? No. If you define someone being conscious as the fact that they are breathing, then when they are sleeping (and yet breathing), are they conscious? No.
Basically, there is NO way to prove consciousness objectively, which means "scientifically." Thus, according to Science, my consciousness is irrelevant and even might not exist. Which, of course, is ridiculous to me. Every other single person in the entire world might believe that I Am Not Conscious, but I know, I KNOW, that I am. So just because (6 billion - 1) believe I am not conscious, and I do believe it, does that mean that I am "wrong"?
Similarly, there is no way to prove objectively, according to Science, that God exists. Does this mean that he or it does not exist? No. What this *does* mean, however, is that the question of the existence of God is useless to argue. If you can't prove or disprove it, why are you arguing it? Unless you are trying to do something else, like show that you are "right" and the other person is "wrong."
If you want to know God, look for Him/Her/It yourself. If you find him/her/it, and many have, then that is your own treasure. Science cannot "prove" that you have Realized or "disprove" it. But then, it doesn't matter, no? |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
good topic started here.
About consciousness, I don't fully agree with you. As you may know, sleep is a controlled state of unconsciousness, therefore when you are awake it cannot be denied that you are conscious unless you are a vegetable as a result of a stroke, heart failure, etc. I think that the point ou brought forth about consciousness cannot be argued. It is not only establsihed fact, but it has been proven. Also, so far, there is nothing to refute it.
To say, though, that you have to find God to believe in Him is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, some peopole think that there is an omnisceint being (i.e. God [nothing to refute that]), but they are not religiously rooted. Some people, tho, even if they have a strong sense of religion have not truly found God yet.
I hope my ramblings were easy enough to understand.:D |
|
|
| Alccode |
Thanks for your reply, DrummeRaver86.
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
good topic started here.
About consciousness, I don't fully agree with you. As you may know, sleep is a controlled state of unconsciousness, therefore when you are awake it cannot be denied that you are conscious unless you are a vegetable as a result of a stroke, heart failure, etc. I think that the point ou brought forth about consciousness cannot be argued. It is not only establsihed fact, but it has been proven.
|
Really? How? Consciousness certainly cannot be measured. Can you touch it? Can you bring me a piece of Consciousness on a plate? I don't think, then, that it can be said that you can "prove" its existence as something concrete.
In cognitive science, including psychology and the like, the question of consciousness is a big question and one of the hottest ones at the moment. I.e., what is consciousness? Is there such a thing as consciousness? If there is, where does it reside in the brain?
I certainly do not believe that it has been "proven."
| quote: |
To say, though, that you have to find God to believe in Him is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, some peopole think that there is an omnisceint being (i.e. God [nothing to refute that]), but they are not religiously rooted. Some people, tho, even if they have a strong sense of religion have not truly found God yet.
|
Good point there -- I myself do not believe in the existence of a being called God that has a flowing beard. I don't even exist in a "being" that is all-pervading and is present everywhere and at all times. But when I say "God" I mean that there is something, some realization, that is outside of our everyday lives.
It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that we are not really "complete." We don't know what life is for. Why are we alive? What is the point? What am I, really? These are questions that can only be individually answered for oneself. In fact, no rocket scientist could ever answer it for you.
This is what I was trying to say about "god." |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alccode
Good point there -- I myself do not believe in the existence of being called God with a flowing beard. I don't even exist in a "being" that is all-pervading and is present everywhere and at all times. But when I say "God" I mean that there is something, some Realization, that is outside of our everyday lives.
It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that we are not really "complete." We don't know what life is for. Why are we alive? What is the point? What am I, really? These are questions that can only be individually answered for oneself. In fact, no rocket scientist could answer it for you.
This is what I was trying to say about "god." |
well, you got me on the consciousness thing, i haven't studied enough to really know about it.
But as far as the 'why we ARE', you could just say we 'are' because of the mixing of amino acids in the primordial pools. It could just be that. The again, one may ask who or what put those amions there. What made the mixture?
If you ask me, at the present, the human brain is rather incapable of really answering these questions. We do not possess the ability to reason with the unknown. |
|
|
| fuct4less |
quite an interesting subject here. guess i spill my two cents on this subject.
God and consciousness alike are intangable objects. some may deny it others believe it to be fact. can we prove these things exist? and if we could, would it change your current beliefs?
i believe that we cannot know of these things by using scientific knowlege, or by reading manuals, but rather by deep meditation and conditioned thought can we achive an understanding of God. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Who's to say that God or "consciousness" cannot be measured? We are making assumptions that science has reached the apex of its realm of understanding. Scientific understanding in the ancient times could not prove that Earht was round ... or that there was anything beyond the sky. Who knows ... perhaps in time we could measure the existence of consciousness or "God". Despite the fact that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, I think some would use logic to postulate its existence. If the laws of entropy adhere, there must be some kind of original source for expendable energy. The theory that a being transcends normal laws of physics provide for an explanation of an origin. Oh well ... who knows? Not us in our limited understanding. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Not us in our limited understanding. |
I wonder what it would take for us to truly grasp the meaning of God. |
|
|
| nic01445 |
i read one time that human conciousness is "located" in certain microtubuals in the brain. this conciousness is, from what i understand, simply a energy that is responsible for human percetion of environment.
@drumraver
i also read that the idea of infinity and the idea of nothingness are too difficult for the adult human mind to grasp. children, though, who do not fully understand the idea of infinity or nothingness, have much less trouble imagining the scenario.
don't quote me on any of that. i'm not sure how much of that is accurate, because i really have no means of providing you with the actual documentation. just thought i would throw that out there. :) |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nic01445
@drumraver
i also read that the idea of infinity and the idea of nothingness are too difficult for the adult human mind to grasp. children, though, who do not fully understand the idea of infinity or nothingness, have much less trouble imagining the scenario.
don't quote me on any of that. i'm not sure how much of that is accurate, because i really have no means of providing you with the actual documentation. just thought i would throw that out there. :) |
but that's the thing. Children can imagine what it would be like. I'm 16 right now, and I can still imgaine what the concept of infinity and the borders of the universe are. But i can only imagine. The truly interesting thing would be if someone could actually reason about it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Consciousness is only impossible to prove or disprove because you have failed to give it an objective definition from which to analyze it. Anything which one does not define cannot be analyzed by logic.
Similarly, even if one could prove "God" to exist, the information would be entirely useless on its own. What are its powers? Does God have "consciousness"? Does God have desires? Does God care how we behave, and, if so, how so?
When we begin to define what we mean by "God" however we find much more success in proving or disproving its existence.
For example, if we define God as a being capable of producing any result, we can be certain of God's nonexistence, as it would be contradictory (God could not produce the result of a being existing that is capable of producing results God could not produce).
Ultimately the belief in God in itself is a meaningless belief. The belief in a God with specific properties is almost universally irrational, although not always disprovable.
One must remember you must have a reason to believe in something, not a reason to not believe. You do not believe in anything that you have never conceived of, therefore disbelief is the logical default. |
|
|
| Alccode |
| quote: | occrider
Who's to say that God or "consciousness" cannot be measured? We are making assumptions that science has reached the apex of its realm of understanding. Scientific understanding in the ancient times could not prove that Earht was round ... or that there was anything beyond the sky. Who knows ... perhaps in time we could measure the existence of consciousness or "God".
|
Indeed there are many theories that attempt to "quantify consciousness." Most of them, it seems to me, rely on quantum mechanics, to varying degrees. Some central ideas revolve around phenomena such as the observer, which I think most of us are familiar with. I suggest taking a look through "The physics of consciousness" by Evan Harris Walker, an interesting read. There is one of the "consciousness theories" -- you may or may not agree with his final conclusions. In any case it is definitely worth your time.
| quote: | Arbiter
Consciousness is only impossible to prove or disprove because you have failed to give it an objective definition from which to analyze it. Anything which one does not define cannot be analyzed by logic.
|
I have tried to define it in my first post in this thread:
| quote: |
If you define someone being conscious by the fact that their eyes are open, then if you look at a dead person with open eyes, would you say he or she is conscious? No. How about someone who has no eyes? Is that person then never conscious? No. If you define someone being conscious as the fact that they are breathing, then when they are sleeping (and yet breathing), are they conscious? No.
|
My conclusion was that there was no way to objectively define consciousness and, therefore, no way to objectively prove it. But I certainly know it exists.
Defining consciousness subjectively, however, is not hard at all. We know when we are conscious. It is the feeling of I AM. It is the feeling of I EXIST. But it is not really a feeling -- not an emotion, but rather a being (the verb, not the noun). It is an existential thing that lives in the present. You can't be "conscious" of the future, but you can be conscious of the now. It has a quality of existence, "is-ness."
So, I guess you could use logic subjectively, for yourself, and try to reach some conclusions -- "personal logic"? :toothless But you certainly cannot reason about someone else's consciousness, as you can't define it nor grasp it in any way.
| quote: |
Similarly, even if one could prove "God" to exist, the information would be entirely useless on its own. What are its powers? Does God have "consciousness"? Does God have desires? Does God care how we behave, and, if so, how so?
When we begin to define what we mean by "God" however we find much more success in proving or disproving its existence.
For example, if we define God as a being capable of producing any result, we can be certain of God's nonexistence, as it would be contradictory (God could not produce the result of a being existing that is capable of producing results God could not produce).
Ultimately the belief in God in itself is a meaningless belief. The belief in a God with specific properties is almost universally irrational, although not always disprovable.
One must remember you must have a reason to believe in something, not a reason to not believe. You do not believe in anything that you have never conceived of, therefore disbelief is the logical default.
|
Very well said. :cool: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
The Existance of God and everything around it, infinity and the universe, its creation and how, all that is something that we cant measured or cant explain, is too much and difficult for a human to understand, to deep or who knows. "GOD" is a scientists, the perfect scientist, for everything he created, did, he used science.. I wont go deeper with things because Im not capable, nor you, nor a scientists to explain or udnerstand. If I think about the beginning, where god came from, and whats after life, its scary. But for those that study the manuals in any religion, that might be a lead or a pathway for answers to come. Like afterlife, interesting stuff. Scientists will try to figure many things out, where many are actually impossible to capture. BUt I think that everything is based in faith, and, for some, the guidance of The Bible which has many parabolas, and hidden answers, while it also explains why are we here and what to do to be in presence of god and not evil. This is a very good topic, complicated, and something that ones to be thoughtful off.
My belief is, that after death, all our questions will be answered, and if we passed the TEST that god has given us in earth, we will be able to be capable of understanding the many questions. We will become masters as well, and live for eternity. Living forever and ever, thats the scariest thing that evers come to mind. |
|
|
|
|
