Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

An explanation of God.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Dark Matter » December 31st, 2017, 5:28 pm

This is from The Urantia Book. Whatever you think of the book, the excerpt is consistent with modern physics.
The time unit of immaturity concentrates meaning-value into the present moment in such a way as to divorce the present of its true relationship to the not-present — the past-future. The time unit of maturity is proportioned so to reveal the co-ordinate relationship of past-present-future that the self begins to gain insight into the wholeness of events, begins to view the landscape of time from the panoramic perspective of broadened horizons, begins perhaps to suspect the nonbeginning, nonending eternal continuum, the fragments of which are called time.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Greta » December 31st, 2017, 6:35 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 2:25 pm
I'm still unclear about it myself, and seeing apparently contradictory explanations doesn't help. I've seen it described as a mathematical trick to get around the idea that the universe had a beginning to being more real than normal time. As I understand it, imaginary time is another dimension crossing the "now" at a right angle. Unlike normal time that has a beginning and an end, imaginary time does not: going back to its beginning is like going north of the North Pole. You'd keep going straight but along a new trajectory.

What I'm trying to say is that we cannot view past and future as anything definite. What we think of as normal time is a useful tool, a way of getting our bearings and organizing our world, but otherwise it does not exist.

Time is poorly understood. “Emergence” and the “slow life complexity of geology” are tools for our understanding, but time is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
I agree that time is probably key to many mysteries of existence. It's probably some damn fractal thing :)

The notion of this imaginary time reminds me of (but is not the same as) what was called "holographic time" on the Through the Wormhole episode, 'Will Eternity End?" (season 3, episode 9), with theoretical physicist, Andrew Strominger, which blew my mind at the time and I think you may enjoy. If you can't manage to see the episode, the script is here: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s03e09 and the relevant piece can be found with a word search for "Strominger".

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Spectrum » December 31st, 2017, 9:00 pm

Wesgtr wrote:
December 28th, 2017, 4:25 pm
So, God is somehow impossible, and there are no need for proofs.
Well, many brilliant men have came up with philosophical proofs for such a God. What do you think accounts for brilliant men (perhaps even women) creating proofs for God?
-Wes
There are many attempted proofs of God [empirically and rationally] but none has been convincing at all to prove God is real, really-real.
Show me the proofs that are convincing.

If I want to prove 'you' as a living person or anything exists, all I need is to bring 'you' to a large enough observers to verify your existence with credible testing, rationally and philosophically.
Can you do that with a God to prove its existence?

OTOH I can prove the idea of God is most likely to arise from psychological impulses of human beings. I have given such evidences in various posts.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Dark Matter » December 31st, 2017, 9:33 pm

Greta wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 6:35 pm

I agree that time is probably key to many mysteries of existence. It's probably some damn fractal thing :)

The notion of this imaginary time reminds me of (but is not the same as) what was called "holographic time" on the Through the Wormhole episode, 'Will Eternity End?" (season 3, episode 9), with theoretical physicist, Andrew Strominger, which blew my mind at the time and I think you may enjoy. If you can't manage to see the episode, the script is here: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s03e09 and the relevant piece can be found with a word search for "Strominger".
There’s no doubt that, being a self-referring process, fractals are important to our understanding.

I think it was David Bohm who called the universe a “holomovement” through time. I wonder how that fits?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Greta » January 1st, 2018, 5:45 pm

Thanks, I'd not heard of the homomovement concept. Based on a quick Wiki scan, it seems to overlap with a number of other ideas I've been exposed to. The part that does me in, and I've been batting around with Hereandnow on the Do You Think You Are a Philosopher thread, is trying to work out what is going on in such a way that the answer isn't "42", like most notions - descriptions of reality's patterning without a link between impassive patterns and the dramatic theatre of the mind.

I wonder if it comes down to sensitivity towards the nature of patterns - what the patterns mean? For example, a square represents solidity, a torus represents the notion of inside-out, a sphere is extreme reduction and compression, etc.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Dark Matter » January 1st, 2018, 6:52 pm

Biologist J.B.S. Haldane is supposed to have said, "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we CAN suppose." I think he was right.

IMO, the most difficult thing for people to grasp is the implications of the death of materialism and dualism. With 300 years of being indoctrinated with the idea that matter is primary, it's easy to understand why even now, a hundred years after their demise, many scientists still cling to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter rather than the other way around. "Consciousness," they argue, "is a brain-state."

If they wanted to be logically consistent as far as physics is concerned, they'd say that, at bottom, consciousness is a quantum state. But in all honesty, it's not difficult to see the problems this creates for those heavily invested in antiquated ideas; i.e., the belief that things are more fundamental than relations. It would mean that consciousness is a non-local phenomenon and that human self-consciousness is in essence a communal consciousness. It could then be said that God is explained -- and that is something many people simply cannot tolerate.

Here's an excerpt from Holophany: The Loop of Creation. (It can be downloaded free here.)
Anything becomes meaningful only through relating or being related to.
Anything becomes only through relations. Whatever state of being we
perceive, whether that is our self or someone or something else, this is
but a momentary average of its constituent relations.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Greta » January 1st, 2018, 8:58 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 6:52 pm
Biologist J.B.S. Haldane is supposed to have said, "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we CAN suppose." I think he was right.

IMO, the most difficult thing for people to grasp is the implications of the death of materialism and dualism. With 300 years of being indoctrinated with the idea that matter is primary, it's easy to understand why even now, a hundred years after their demise, many scientists still cling to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter rather than the other way around. "Consciousness," they argue, "is a brain-state."

If they wanted to be logically consistent as far as physics is concerned, they'd say that, at bottom, consciousness is a quantum state. But in all honesty, it's not difficult to see the problems this creates for those heavily invested in antiquated ideas; i.e., the belief that things are more fundamental than relations. It would mean that consciousness is a non-local phenomenon and that human self-consciousness is in essence a communal consciousness. It could then be said that God is explained -- and that is something many people simply cannot tolerate.

Here's an excerpt from Holophany: The Loop of Creation. (It can be downloaded free here.)
Anything becomes meaningful only through relating or being related to.
Anything becomes only through relations. Whatever state of being we
perceive, whether that is our self or someone or something else, this is
but a momentary average of its constituent relations.
I always liked that Haldane quote.

The argument of matter-first or consciousness-first is an old one, and it remains unresolved, no matter the opinions of theists and logical positivists. Roger Penrose is at least one scientist who sees consciousness as most likely to be a dynamic quantum state.

A thought experiment brought me to the idea that our consciousness is much more collective and less individual than it seems. I wondered how much of "me", as known today, would be present if I was raised by wolves, dogs or monkeys (as per rare reported cases). It struck me that almost everything we are in life comes from society at large. If I was raised by other animals I would simply not be the same person, and dealing with a feral me would be entirely a different to dealing with me as I am. Even our most seemingly individual peccadilloes turn out to be not unique, just uncommon. The uniqueness only comes in our particular configuration and web of relationships.

This begs the question as how humanity is basically the most systematised subset of biosphere, which is the most systematised part of the geosphere, which is the most systematised portion of the solar system, and so on, which recalls the idea of fractals (and also suggest that AI may become the most complexly systematised part of humanity). So, perhaps on very large scales things are operating consciously but, as per Lieniz's mill, at our scale that would look like mechanical systems. And they are essentially mechanical systems, which is why they appear to be so. By the same token, at the cellular scale a human does not appear to be sentient or intelligent - just microscopic life.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Dark Matter » January 2nd, 2018, 12:06 am

Greta wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 8:58 pm

I always liked that Haldane quote.

The argument of matter-first or consciousness-first is an old one, and it remains unresolved, no matter the opinions of theists and logical positivists. Roger Penrose is at least one scientist who sees consciousness as most likely to be a dynamic quantum state.
I don't think it will be fully resolved in my lifetime, but the pendulum seems to be swinging in the direction of consciousness being primary.
A thought experiment brought me to the idea that our consciousness is much more collective and less individual than it seems. I wondered how much of "me", as known today, would be present if I was raised by wolves, dogs or monkeys (as per rare reported cases). It struck me that almost everything we are in life comes from society at large. If I was raised by other animals I would simply not be the same person, and dealing with a feral me would be entirely a different to dealing with me as I am. Even our most seemingly individual peccadilloes turn out to be not unique, just uncommon. The uniqueness only comes in our particular configuration and web of relationships.
Been there. 8) What really brought it home to me was the The Book of Not Knowing. (Okay, okay! So I do a lot of reading! I'm retired and just marginally more sociable than Sheldon Cooper so I have a lot of time on my hands.)
This begs the question as how humanity is basically the most systematised subset of biosphere, which is the most systematised part of the geosphere, which is the most systematised portion of the solar system, and so on, which recalls the idea of fractals (and also suggest that AI may become the most complexly systematised part of humanity). So, perhaps on very large scales things are operating consciously but, as per Lieniz's mill, at our scale that would look like mechanical systems. And they are essentially mechanical systems, which is why they appear to be so. By the same token, at the cellular scale a human does not appear to be sentient or intelligent - just microscopic life.
Gads. I didn't expect you to leave me with an opening that screams for another quote from the UB that says the same thing:
Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.

Jklint
Posts: 1250
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Jklint » January 2nd, 2018, 12:35 am

Dark Matter wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 6:52 pm
Biologist J.B.S. Haldane is supposed to have said, "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we CAN suppose." I think he was right.
The statement is easily reversed. It may be the “queerness of our theories or what we sense as queer which self reflects on the universe as queer...a view virtually endorsed by at least this part of the quote given:
Anything becomes meaningful only through relating or being related to.

Dark Matter wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 6:52 pm
Here's an excerpt from Holophany: The Loop of Creation. (It can be downloaded free here.)

Anything becomes only through relations. Whatever state of being we
perceive, whether that is our self or someone or something else, this is
but a momentary average of its constituent relations.
Hardly insightful. You can create an average out of almost any statistic leading to what?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Greta » January 2nd, 2018, 1:29 am

Dark Matter wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 12:06 am
A thought experiment brought me to the idea that our consciousness is much more collective and less individual than it seems. I wondered how much of "me", as known today, would be present if I was raised by wolves, dogs or monkeys (as per rare reported cases). It struck me that almost everything we are in life comes from society at large. If I was raised by other animals I would simply not be the same person, and dealing with a feral me would be entirely a different to dealing with me as I am. Even our most seemingly individual peccadilloes turn out to be not unique, just uncommon. The uniqueness only comes in our particular configuration and web of relationships.
Been there. 8) What really brought it home to me was the The Book of Not Knowing. (Okay, okay! So I do a lot of reading! I'm retired and just marginally more sociable than Sheldon Cooper so I have a lot of time on my hands.)
:lol: I personally found Leonard's mother to be an inspiration.
Dark Matter wrote:
This begs the question as how humanity is basically the most systematised subset of biosphere, which is the most systematised part of the geosphere, which is the most systematised portion of the solar system, and so on, which recalls the idea of fractals (and also suggest that AI may become the most complexly systematised part of humanity). So, perhaps on very large scales things are operating consciously but, as per Lieniz's mill, at our scale that would look like mechanical systems. And they are essentially mechanical systems, which is why they appear to be so. By the same token, at the cellular scale a human does not appear to be sentient or intelligent - just microscopic life.
Gads. I didn't expect you to leave me with an opening that screams for another quote from the UB that says the same thing:
Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.
Hehe, I can be pretty darn cosmic myself, you know!

No doubt that we consider and respond to our larger containing systems in terms of ourselves and our own experience. By the same token, our cells respond to their surrounds in their own terms too, in relation to their own blind and reflexive chemical interactions. I used to think Lovelock's Gaia concept to be idealistic but I do believe that the Earth is actually alive, and the solar system for that matter. Worlds simply have a different kind of life to that of little biology. As such, it's no great stretch for me to think of the universe as most likely alive in its own way, and one can't help wondering what it could ultimately evolve into.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1342
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Dark Matter » January 2nd, 2018, 2:44 am

Greta wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 1:29 am

No doubt that we consider and respond to our larger containing systems in terms of ourselves and our own experience. By the same token, our cells respond to their surrounds in their own terms too, in relation to their own blind and reflexive chemical interactions. I used to think Lovelock's Gaia concept to be idealistic but I do believe that the Earth is actually alive, and the solar system for that matter. Worlds simply have a different kind of life to that of little biology. As such, it's no great stretch for me to think of the universe as most likely alive in its own way, and one can't help wondering what it could ultimately evolve into.
IMV, quantum weirdness can be seen as the transitional phase between Wholeness (absolute unity) and diversity. Accordingly, I'm of the mind that the universe is a vast hierarchy of interpenetrating fields, processes and systems and that there are qualitative variations of wholeness that we can't begin to imagine. A human being is just one such qualitative variation, a localized region of dominant characteristics unapart* from the whole.

There is, I believe, movement from the bottom up (evolution) and from the top down (involution), but how this all works out is something to explore.

* "Unapart" is not really a word as far as I can tell, but it works better than "not apart")

User avatar
Wesgtr
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: December 28th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Wesgtr » January 3rd, 2018, 7:42 pm

Spectrum wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 9:00 pm
Wesgtr wrote:
December 28th, 2017, 4:25 pm
So, God is somehow impossible, and there are no need for proofs.
Well, many brilliant men have came up with philosophical proofs for such a God. What do you think accounts for brilliant men (perhaps even women) creating proofs for God?
-Wes
There are many attempted proofs of God [empirically and rationally] but none has been convincing at all to prove God is real, really-real.
Show me the proofs that are convincing.

If I want to prove 'you' as a living person or anything exists, all I need is to bring 'you' to a large enough observers to verify your existence with credible testing, rationally and philosophically.
Can you do that with a God to prove its existence?

OTOH I can prove the idea of God is most likely to arise from psychological impulses of human beings. I have given such evidences in various posts.
The very fact that people create proofs, regardless of their validity to the entire human race, means that there are people to whom God has been proven. If the entire human race believed that would go against the very religion of Christianity and Judaism included. I am talking about the Judeo-Christian God. If we all believed in God, it would go against the nature of the religions that support Him. But, proofs that convince a great many, who come to believe is enough for me.

I didn't originally come on here to discuss God, but that is what I have done thusfar.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Wayne92587 » February 1st, 2018, 2:57 pm

In scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.
The motion of God, being a pure Act is immeasurable, Infinite, an innate inner motion having no direct material cause, that exists without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction; the seed of all living things, is God's Passion. the spark of Life.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Wayne92587 » February 4th, 2018, 3:30 pm

Spectrum;
Show me the proofs that are convincing.


Comprehension;

Spectrum; Show me the proofs that are convincing.


I can not, nor do I even want to; in fact I do not want to prove the non-existence of God.

No doubt believers have committed great atrocities in the Name of God, this however is not God's Fault; Believers, at least in modern times, do a great deal of good.

The Man Beast's lack of enlightenment is the cause of all that is Evil; Evil being caused by thinly clad shadowy figures lurking in the Darkest corners of the Mind.

Enlightenment is not consciousness, the meaning of the term, word, consciousness being totally misunderstood, an abomination.

The subject, of consciousness, wisdom, knowledge, Enlightenment, is the ability to comprehend Priori Knowledge.

The problem being that Man's understanding of Priori Knowledge is just another abomination.

Anyone that attempts to speak of this subject matter, give a name to, define these terms will be committing Blasphemy, being that these terms are Secret, Hidden, Sacred, since they can not be experienced, are not material, an Empirical Reality, have no Mass.

Show me the proofs that are convincing.

Enlightenment, Wisdom, Consciousness; deal with the ability to comprehend the Knowledge of Realities that can not be experienced, priori Knowledge, the problem being that Priori Knowledge is Sacred, it being Forbidden to be spoken of, simply because as understood, is a Lie, Duplicitous.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7429
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An explanation of God.

Post by Greta » February 4th, 2018, 8:13 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 2:44 am
Greta wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 1:29 am
No doubt that we consider and respond to our larger containing systems in terms of ourselves and our own experience. By the same token, our cells respond to their surrounds in their own terms too, in relation to their own blind and reflexive chemical interactions. I used to think Lovelock's Gaia concept to be idealistic but I do believe that the Earth is actually alive, and the solar system for that matter. Worlds simply have a different kind of life to that of little biology. As such, it's no great stretch for me to think of the universe as most likely alive in its own way, and one can't help wondering what it could ultimately evolve into.
IMV, quantum weirdness can be seen as the transitional phase between Wholeness (absolute unity) and diversity. Accordingly, I'm of the mind that the universe is a vast hierarchy of interpenetrating fields, processes and systems and that there are qualitative variations of wholeness that we can't begin to imagine. A human being is just one such qualitative variation, a localized region of dominant characteristics unapart* from the whole.
Re: QM. You appear to be referring to the finest granulation of reality known. It is possible that reality breaks down further to Planck scale strings (or other entities), in which case the dynamics at that scale would be the source of quantum strangeness. As you suggest, the quantum realm seems to be on the "shoreline" of the relativistic realm and shorelines and fringes tend to be more energetic, chaotic and turbulent than surrounding areas, eg. beaches between land and sea, waves between the depths and atmosphere, the surface and atmosphere of the Earth between the planet and space, the Sun's corona is the hot and especially chaotic fringe between the star and space.

No argument re: fields of interpenetrating (and usually interacting) fields, and these fields are becoming more complex as they grow additional fractal layers over time. Really, no matter which model one prefers, the end result is an idea of the universe as a circular event. It starts out in a particular state, then it there is sudden chaos followed by the slow evolution back to the original state. This works whether one sees that initial state as nothingness, God or something else.
Dark Matter wrote:There is, I believe, movement from the bottom up (evolution) and from the top down (involution), but how this all works out is something to explore.

* "Unapart" is not really a word as far as I can tell, but it works better than "not apart")
We are thinking similarly. As you know, I see all existence as a process or inversion and eversion - from the universe to stars and planets (who seem to often undergo incomplete eversion), zygotes, all life spans, even rocks, just that they take a long time to turn inside out compared with us, but they too finally surrender their inner contents to the environment.

I would have used "connected" rather than "unapart" (which reminds me too much of NewSpeak in 1984) but, as per that famed line in The Castle, it's the vibe of thing :)

Post Reply