Does God really exist?

[talib-al-kalim]

I find the opposite surprising - that we live in a universe specifically designed to not just form or develop but also sustain and progress life, but we overlook this because the extraordinary has become the ordinary to us. Don't get lost in theistic ideas of what God or the Divine or Universal Consciousness might be - the moment anyone attempts to describe It they have failed. If you want a sneak peak, though, look at any image showing the network of galaxies and streams of gas we call the Cosmic Web - it is like literally looking at the brain of the universe.

My philosophical approach to the universe and the meaning of religion is somehow the other way around: the universe is there and the rules of it are everlasting. This is the everlasting Logos, God.
But the universe is not made specifically for us, rather, we are a part of it, and life has developed to fit in the small part of the universe which is the surface of the earth. Living in the Universal Logos is a life in accordance with all around us. A part of the wisdom to do so has come onto us by the ancient through prophecy or enlightenment.
We have also new challenges in preservation of the nature and the environment we are made for and on which we depend. We know that. But instead of facing the challenge, all nations, willingly or unwillingly, prepare for war.

 

[Thomas]

Interesting argument from mathematician John Lennox to be picked out here.

"I have lots of fun with my scientific friends. I sometimes ask them, "What do you do science with?"

(Bit convoluted here, but the point is the materialist belief in the brain and mind evolved through a somewhat random process of evolutionary naturalism.)

"And I smile at them and I say "And you trust it?"

"I say now tell me honestly... if you knew that it (brain/mind/consciousness) was the end product of a mindless unguided process would you trust it? Now here's the thing. I have spoken with dozens of leading scientists and pushed them on this and every single one has said 'no'."

"... you have a problem because you are giving me an argument that undermines rationality ... now this to my mind goes to the heart of the implication of the whole business and it's why I believe that there is an intelligence behind the universe. I'm a mathematician all mathematicians and scientists are people of faith, not necessarily in God, but they believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe ... and therefore what do they base that on? If you base that on a mindless unguided evolutionary process you're destroying rationality."

"Thomas Nagel, the philosopher of New York, says there's something wrong here, because if you follow evolutionary naturalism it undermines the very rationality you need to believe, not only in evolutionary naturalism, but in any theory at all. So my major problem in all of this is not the mathematics. I am engaged in a rational discipline of mathematics that all dissolves if the evolutionary naturalistic account is true... "

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I say now tell me honestly... if you knew that it (brain/mind/consciousness) was the end product of a mindless unguided process would you trust it? Now here's the thing. I have spoken with dozens of leading scientists and pushed them on this and every single one has said 'no'."

Evolution of the mind is not a mindless process. Animals have consciousness and logic. Wolves (dogs) have a associative logic from experience, "B often follows A, thus I expect B when I perceive A". They also have ethics; behaviours that are accepted and behaviours that are unacceptable.

Human mind is much more sophisticated, above all because of language which enables us to exchange our knowledge and our ethics.

But can we trust it? We cannot know of what we are unable to think. That's a minor problem. We probably needn't think what we can't think and we needn't know what we can't know.

Above all our ethics is poor. We do wrong although we even know that it is, we believe in lies and close our minds because we define ourselves as part of a group. How many serve evil rulers and do evil because they are paid for it and captured in their sin? Do we do what we know is necessary, beneficial, good?
I don't want to except myself from that, I am aware of it. At least, I am aware, but I am not perfect enough to point on others.

God is the truth. Our religion is there to close that gap between our evolutionary state and the truth.
Old Israel had many prophets who worked on this. The end of prophecy is not due to the fact that everything is all right or everything has been said, but rather because a true prophet would be chased and ignored.

I believe that, indeed, we are the product of a long evolution. I don't believe that evolution was based on the survival of the strongest, but on the survival of the fittest. The fittest is the one who fits best in All, which is the Ultimate Logos, God.

 

[TheLightWithin]

And I smile at them and I say "And you trust it?"

"I say now tell me honestly... if you knew that it (brain/mind/consciousness) was the end product of a mindless unguided process would you trust it? Now here's the thing. I have spoken with dozens of leading scientists and pushed them on this and every single one has said 'no'."

I'm not sure what they mean by this - also the smile in there sounded like he thought he was creating some kind of "gotcha" moment.

If they are talking about whether or not to trust science, or the scientific method, I think it makes more sense to recognize that we trust what works, and keep improving on it.

If it's about trusting the theory of evolution, I'm not sure where he's going with it or what the purpose of the question is. Is he saying revise the theory on some new evidence, beyond some logic puzzle of his?

If they are talking about whether or not to trust our brains? Is that what is being implied? Am I missing something?

Well, but our brains are what we use. We can't exactly not use them (though it does sometimes seem people do) - in reality, they're the tool we've got - what else? If someone said they didn't trust their brain because of some oddly worded question about evolution -- what then? What is the logical outcome of that?

Whatever the question actually was..
The process of evolution, guided or not, got us here. Brains and all.
Which we kinda need to go ahead and use, whatever we think of evolution or whatnot.

But the brain is what we have so...

I'm not sure what "trust" has do do with that? Esp if they are deciding whether to trust evolutionary theory? Or that should lead to not trusting the brain...? Therefore instead... you should do... I mean.. What? Maybe I do not understand the question?

 

[Thomas]

I'm not sure what they mean by this - also the smile in there sounded like he thought he was creating some kind of "gotcha" moment.

I don't think he's saying 'gotcha' – he's just asking the question that many overlook.

If they are talking about whether or not to trust science, or the scientific method ...

He's arguing from the standpoint of a mathematician. He is a scientist.

I suppose he, as a scientist, accepts the world is rational because their is a rationality that underpins its existence.

If, on the other hand, one argues there is no rational cause, then the question is why should anything be rational? What decides anything must be rational?

Maybe I do not understand the question?

I think that might be the case. Lennox is a scientist. A mathematician. I think he believes in the scientific method, and evolution.

It may well be that, purely by chance, nature produces a creature with a mind, who seeks rationality – understandable, as a survival instinct.

But that's a risky endeavour if the world is not rational – then we're trying to impose a reason on non-reason.

The trick bit is, the world is rational ... so what does that suggest?

 

[TheLightWithin]

The trick bit is, the world is rational ...

Is it?
Processes in the world or at least many can be said to be systematic and therefore somewhat predictable.
Is that what is meant?
Or is rationality a capacity we have developed to help us cope with said world?

so what does that suggest?

What?

 

[Ahanu]

Does God really exist?

Is this a simple yes or no question?

A human's reality might as well be non-existent from, say, a tree's perceptual frame.

So one can say God exists and doesn't exist . . . depending on the perceptual frame of reference . . .

 

[Thomas]

Is it?

If not then all science falls apart.

Is that what is meant?
Or is rationality a capacity we have developed to help us cope with said world?

That's the question.

Is the world rational because there is rationality behind it? Or
Does it only appear so, because we've come up with a way to make sense of it?

Mathematics is entirely a rational construct of the mind, yet the evidence that proves it is all around us ...

 

[talib-al-kalim]

If not then all science falls apart.


That's the question.

Is the world rational because there is rationality behind it? Or
Does it only appear so, because we've come up with a way to make sense of it?

Mathematics is entirely a rational construct of the mind, yet the evidence that proves it is all around us ...

I often stumble over people speaking of the "analogue" world in contrast to the digital "world".
Now, the term "analogue" is founded on a technology which measures some phenomena, for example sounds, and transforms it into an analogue quantity that allows it to reconstruct the original, for example voltage of the microphone, and when recorded, magnetism or the shape of the groove on a disk, then back to voltage and to sound through the loud speaker.
The analogue whatever-it-is is an image of the reality , although the word is used for the reality itself.

The same, rational thought is an image of the reality we produce in our head (I prefer not to say "mind" because people here different concepts about what this word means). But the world cannot be rational:

The world is neither analogue nor rational, it's real.

Our perception of the world may be rational, irrational, well-founded or manipulated, but it's always an image, which is not even analogue but condensed and contextualised by our intelligence.