the ‘no-god’ delusion.

[_Z_]

the ‘no-god’ delusion.
i have been having fun with those of the dawkins faith [lol] at another forum, see what you think?
we have discussed the limits of logic and the peramiters of self many times before and i have heard no proof that ‘you’ don’t exist. for me ‘you’ are the most obvious truth of any existence and one that isn’t transient. we don’t even need to observe this truth as it is ever-present.
premise; if we can say that ‘you’ exist i.e. that we are not all puppets -a program within a program - if you will, then can we not go on to say that we must have an origin? must there not be;
a. an original self i.e. if ‘you’ are not purely physical, then we ‘exist’ before we come into this world - so to say [if we ever entirely go out of this world?], thus there must be an original state that transcends our transient forms.
b. as the universe cannot also be purely physical - as it emanates from that [whatever the given ‘it’ is] which is not of it, then must it too not also have an original and non transient state?
c. ‘that from which all things arise must contain the essence of what they are’, is there then a universal state of which both ‘you’ and the omniverse emanate? how may we distinguish between your essence and all others, by what may we draw the lines between being - the experiencer, observer, perspective viewer, and the general essence of all things - the infinitive. in other words there must be a universal essence of which all that both you and the rest of reality is composed.
what would this universal and original being be? = god; the ‘you’ entirety. perhaps not in the biblical sense of the term, but i am wondering if ‘creator’ comes into it or if the universe is self creating upon universal principles. it certainly would not be a male as it would embody all natures by the formula of finding universal natures; it = either neither and both of any dichotomy.

some arguments i have been having that you may be interested in...

when i said this; ‘if you exist, then you are not purely physical’ i was referring to the idea that there is no you according to atheists i.e.that we are programs within a program. i was merely cutting corners by excepting that you already made this argument, otherwise one tends to babble [in over explanation].
the trouble with matrix style perceptions of our existence is that it is hollow, there are no actual participants. this then is what i am saying when i talk about the user or ‘you’ - its the bit that makes the world full of life and love man.
if we could take that essence and explore it in a lab, then it would be understood and accepted as real, yet for some reason we don’t accept that our very foremost reality is indeed real.

Yeah, why not? My mind is made up of chemical reactions
Clearly, if a physical thing can affect my mind, my mind is physical

if you get in a car and it starts turning the wrong way and making wierd noises it doesn’t mean that you have gone wrong. similarly if you take mind [?] altering drugs it affects you bodily vehicle i.e. your human form and specifically your brain.

no need for more than the physical in the universe

1. and the universe exists within what? infinity perhaps.
2. what about parallel universes are they still physical... energy is conserved so it does not exist outside of the universe and that is why the arguments so far have stated that there is only the universe - so what are all the other universes, they cannot be physical as this is largely defined as being of an energy construct [the singularity] and hence within this physical universe.

Have you ever heared of a camera?

what kind of question is that? a camera doesn’t see. if a camera is linked to a computer, it does not see [there is no it seeing].

video analysis system which can recognize possible hazards and roadblocks much like our brain does

exactly, that is exactly what our brain and body does! it is a chemical robot if you like, but it is one that has an occupant!!!! don’t you see the emptiness of the machine without ‘you’ in it?

Programs within a program? Since when was the universe a computer for Atheists?

well they state with great regularity that the brain is a bio computer and that we don’t exist, we are merely products of that computer i.e.a program. the program that that is within would be the environment.

So basicly your theory is based on your need to have a purpose and that there be something more interesting for you to think about.

i don’t need a purpose. all of my post here have been exploring ideas, it is simply philosophical inquiry.

Thats not logic

may i point out that there are limits to logic!

Actualy I’m pretty sure the place around me is real, what makes you think that I don’t?

i didn’t say that you don’t think that what is around you is real, i am debating the idea that ‘you’ are not real as athiests seam to think i.e. that you are a chemical robot.

Your assumptions are as unfounded as ludicrous

i would appreciate it if you kept your insults to yourself. i believe that i am working on a reasoned perspective that i have endeavoured to explain as best i can. now what we are debating here is probably the hardest aspect of reality that there is to understand - i try!
Quote:

Electricity which runs along nerves. Our memory is formed by image connections, our thoughts by our brain sorting through these and associating them to the situation.

and this is you thinking is it - or is it the functionality thereof. you have a user and environmental input, to which the brain responds and computes [in the manner you said i presume] responses.

Yes... and? Your mind is in your brain, your brain operates your mind, thus mind-altering drugs work by affecting the brain.

similarly to the above statement, perhaps your brain does not operate your mind but vice versa or at least where necessary your mind operates the brain. consider how you and your brain interact, it seams to me that there is a certain amount of self determination coupled with environmental inputs.

What other universes?

perhaps not, yet what is there when the universe ends?

Thus there are many energy constructs (singuarities)

if energy is conserved it is limited, most likely to this universe only. hmm yes you could have many ‘singularities’, yet the cannot interact or that would interfere with the conservation of energy in each one. then there is the infinity paradox - that you cannot have an infinite ‘amount’ [think about that term comparative to the meaning ‘infinite’] of universes.

Sight is the capturing of light radiation. It is transferred along "wires" (nerves) into a computer (the brain) and processed into an understandable image there.

and what exactly is viewing it?

 

[Sunny C.]

premise; if we can say that ‘you’ exist i.e. that we are not all puppets -a program within a program - if you will, then can we not go on to say that we must have an origin? must there not be;
a. an original self i.e. if ‘you’ are not purely physical, then we ‘exist’ before we come into this world - so to say [if we ever entirely go out of this world?], thus there must be an original state that transcends our transient forms.
b. as the universe cannot also be purely physical - as it emanates from that [whatever the given ‘it’ is] which is not of it, then must it too not also have an original and non transient state?
c. ‘that from which all things arise must contain the essence of what they are’, is there then a universal state of which both ‘you’ and the omniverse emanate? how may we distinguish between your essence and all others, by what may we draw the lines between being - the experiencer, observer, perspective viewer, and the general essence of all things - the infinitive. in other words there must be a universal essence of which all that both you and the rest of reality is composed.
what would this universal and original being be? = god; the ‘you’ entirety. perhaps not in the biblical sense of the term, but i am wondering if ‘creator’ comes into it or if the universe is self creating upon universal principles. it certainly would not be a male as it would embody all natures by the formula of finding universal natures; it = either neither and both of any dichotomy.

The problem here is that you're jumping back and forth between non-correlative states- Newtonian and quantum. You are imposing the logic of one upon the other. It can't work like that. Quantum states are non-local. One can't speak of "self" in a quantum sense, so it is impossible to take the concept of self, combine it with non-local "reality", and then propose a correlative relationship which works logically in the Classical sense.

 

[_Z_]

sunny c, hi

i wasn’t talking of self in a quantum sense as this is what composes the physical - the ‘chemical robot’ or quantum machine if you will. i am saying that the physical realm is not entire and is seen only in parts [particles etc perhaps ultimately all being composed of higgs boson particles] or aspects of. the being or occupant of the human form is non physical and hence cannot be defined by descriptions of the physical.

i know how annoying it can be when people try to use an evasive defence, but as said in one of the replies, the matrix style worldview is hollow and lifeless, it seams apparent that as with the example of sight, the physical apparatus is there to serve ‘you’, by itself there is no ‘it’ observing/seeing/experiencing.

 

[ardenz]

Hi Z and Sunny C

nice to see someone having a go at the Dawkins "no God". I just finished the book and was on another forum caught between the Athiests and Chrisitans. Though some of this discussion does not quite make sense to me. Its true we only perceive so much with our physical body. Where is the observer?

cheers - Ardenz

 

[Sunny C.]

sunny c, hi

the being or occupant of the human form is non physical and hence cannot be defined by descriptions of the physical.

That's true, and I do understand what you're saying. But if we are going to consider what the "being" is of itself outside the physical realm, then we can't use language or descriptors which apply to the world of "things." So right there we have to abandon the idea of particular, individual "beings" which inhabit our physical bodies since there is no "this" as opposed to "that" in the non-physical realm. There is no observer except as a device of the essential duality within the physical.

i know how annoying it can be when people try to use an evasive defence, but as said in one of the replies, the matrix style worldview is hollow and lifeless, it seams apparent that as with the example of sight, the physical apparatus is there to serve ‘you’, by itself there is no ‘it’ observing/seeing/experiencing.

Yeah. I think we're essentially saying the same thing. The matrix should be seen as an analogy for self-referential relationships within the physical IMO.

 

[_Z_]

ardenz hi
this was born off of another thread that was about the book, and i too was caught between the two [atheists and xtians]. in that thread and another offshoot it was shown that logic has limits even in science, the atheists actually agreed with this and what is more put forwards some good arguments in favour of those limits.
the observer is the main issue, it is true that you can use a machine that can observe in terms of quantum computing, but that is to do with quantum decision making and switches n stuff. its the actual being that sees - the observer within the observation that matters.
it seams that we know so much these days that our non physical truth has become more and more apparent.
this argument came to me when i was looking at images that represented our complete visual apparatus, it immediately became apparent that there was something missing - the main thing, us. in one of the arguments above an atheist chap even said that we don’t actually see? how logical is that!

sunny c, hi

then we can’t use language or descriptors which apply to the world of "things."

agreed - i see what you were saying now. the trouble is we have no words to use other than self, you, the observer etc unless i go back to using terms like spirit and soul. this is what i have been specifically trying to avoid by using everyday and scientific terminology. people often consider the soul and spirit to be something that you attain after death, but if it isn’t the you sat there looking at this then how is it your afterlife being. secondly, atheists scowl at terms like soul and spirit. i just find them to be undescriptive and vague.

There is no observer except as a device of the essential duality within the physical

Cartesian duality, that is a widely used term - understandably of course. perhaps it is the way we perceive and describe reality which makes us think of it in this way. i think of the observer, the seer and perception to be interchangeable, we can even observe the observer itself, thence perceiving the observation of that observer. this is one reason why i see the mind as threefold. so yes there is the physical apparatus that makes the observation, but again within it is the magnificent mind, the faculties of which seam to be indistinct and have universal dextrosity. when we make the distinctions there is apparent duality, yet in there everyday workings there is none.

Yeah. I think we’re essentially saying the same thing. The matrix should be seen as an analogy for self-referential relationships within the physical IMO

absolutely - nice way to put it.

thanks for replies chaps.

 

[ardenz]

I'm going to read Christopher Hitchens next. I saw a video on youtube on his discussion with Rev. Sharpton. "God is Great".

Any good stuff out there on new theories on everything? I read something about the Zero Point Field a while back. and the superstring stuff.

I am just an armchair observer

ardenz

 

[_Z_]

another aspect to the theory, here connecting buddhism universalism and the creator.

the ultimate state is perhaps 'emptiness' yet this is not empty i.e. it is not a stateless nothing. for me it is the primary nature, then there are subtle natures, then the physical, its kind of obvious really that if you keep breaking things down you arrive at nothing - a blank sheet. but then this state doesn’t exist alone thence we have our universal ‘it’ of which all things are within. when the universe and physicality end then that universality will all exist if not only for a moment within the emptiness hence it is not empty but is a kind of everythingness i.e. all things as indistinct and in their/the original state.
a simple example:
01234567....
you begin with 0, then proceed to 1, but 1 exists within the 0 as indistinct, nothing can arise from nothing, it all has to be in their in terms of primary states.
‘you’ are an original/primary state. all you’s are the same original state = nirvana

Thence universal mind is the primary state of self X mind and the universal functionality thereof. just as you can make original ideas arrive in the mind so can the original self [god], the subtlety of it lies in the notion that to make/create a thought is to perform the same operations as to make an entity... an existence... to create!
thus god = the ultimate being that we and everything else are all part of, the physical is its body as it is ours, the mind is its mind as it is ours.

 

[Sunny C.]

Hey Z, could you use a bigger font? I'm straining to read the itty bitty print.

 

[_Z_]

ther u go - i was struggling with the save function after hitting edit - it just didnt stop saving.

 

[Sunny C.]

Thanks! I'm using a 22" monitor with really high resolution. I love it, but it makes text really small.

I'll get back to you on this.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I'm going to read Christopher Hitchens next. I saw a video on youtube on his discussion with Rev. Sharpton. "God is Great".

Any good stuff out there on new theories on everything? I read something about the Zero Point Field a while back. and the superstring stuff.

I am just an armchair observer

ardenz

I love Zero Point Feild theory!! Let me ride the quantum matrix!!!!

 

[ardenz]

I love Zero Point Feild theory!! Let me ride the quantum matrix!!!!

I'm not sure where the Zero Point Theory is at, at the moment . I read a book over a year ago called "The Field" by Lynn McTaggart and followed it up with some internet trawling.
Yes it is very interesting - making the connection with science and religion - conciousness.

from publishers weekly:
"Physicists have been aware of the likelihood of this field for years, McTaggart writes, but, constrained by orthodoxy, they have ignored its effects, which she likens to "subtracting out God" from their equations."

Recently I heard a radio interview with a physicist at Harvard who has been able to slow light down into matter. Link below

Q&A with Lene Hau - The Boston Globe

cheers,

Ardenz

 

[Sunny C.]

From what I understand, zero point is the theoretical ground point of energy at which all quantum mechanical systems operate. The basic charge of the universe. Big things like planets are charged, and the rest of "space" around them isn't so much, and that sets up a vacuum. At a point farthest away from all that planetary acion, if we took a reading on our hand charge-o-meter, it would theoretically register a smidgeon above zero. That's the ground state of the universe.

What can zero point energy be used for?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What can zero point energy be used for?

From what I have heard, not much. It is not a source of energy that we can tap into because, as you said, it is the "ground point". From our perspective, it's like an empty battery.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[_Z_]

apparently higgs boson particles - the theoretical heaviest particle of which all others are made - are of the zero point energy. frighteningly it was said that perhaps they can be used to make an a-bomb like thing, which would ripple across a vast area destroying entire solar systems. but i don’t get how that would work or if it was just some wild theory.

zero point energy would not however [if i may] be the basis of reality, it would be the basis of the singularity and hence the physical universe. but reality is greater than the universe as it encompasses it. for me there can only be one basis and that is infinity. it is not energy it is stateless yet holds ‘everythingness’ within it.

i am intrigued by the idea that there is always something ‘beyond the beyond’ and hence there must always be something other than what we can know. an interesting idea can be found, is in the way some people think of god seen in such phrases as ‘know that he is not in anything’. this would appear to be one way traffic, as if it is beyond all [weather that ‘it’ is god or whatever] then surely it cannot interact with anything? perhaps there is something within all existences that is beyond itself, which is an intriguing notion eh!