Is God an Intellectual Conundrum or a Necessary Truth for Moral Temperance?

  • Thread starter mrmason
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation centers around the difficulty of discussing the existence of God without being labeled as a zealot, atheist, or agnostic. The concept of God is also seen as an unknown amidst the sea of equations and is often perceived differently by different individuals. Some believe in God as the ultimate reality, while others see God as a product of human thought. The idea of God as the first cause is also discussed, but ultimately it is concluded that the universe and causality have no beginning or end. The conversation also touches on the limitations of science in understanding the concept of God.
  • #36
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Look ...if I say the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's having a very complex Experience...isn't that the start of the Being's "identity"?
And yet a machine can accomplish just as much as you require here, without having to be conscious. This is no better an answer than science would require.


Consciousness is -- IMO -- awareness of self, of others, of context, of experience, of meaning. Only the Universe Itself can "know" what It is, what It is experiencing, and what It is making it all mean .
No, the Universe can not know these things by itself, unless it were a part of an even "greater consciousness," which truly is conscious.


I say the Universe is out to have an Experience...a real COMPLEX one, as I have said, that includes the lifetimes of Everything that It gives rise to (past/present/future). If It has a "central question" it might be "What can I create THIS time?"...with regard to each incarnation. Then It goes about RE-ASSEMBLING Its "parts" to create new settings (physicality), new experiences (consciousness) and new emotion-and-meaning-laden memories (spirituality).
It still sounds like you're speaking of nothing more than that which is "mechanistic." And why would it do any of this stuff, if it didn't have a clue, as you say below? It therefore must allude to a "higher intent" then.


I most certainly do NOT think It's on "automatic pilot": It -- and Its PARTS (us included) have INTENTION ...which is the "joker in the deck". To shift to another metaphor, the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" wherein INTENTION impinges on the "lynchpin" of randomness, causing certain things to manifest while others do not.
But how did the joker get there? By random? And how can there be any "real intention" without the higher proclivity to experience it, such as with us human beings? Meaning, shouldn't the Universe have an even greater capacity to understand its intentions than us?


That's why the Universe is not "all-knowing" like "God": It hasn't a clue (well, maybe a CLUE...but not much more) about how things will "turn out". It doesn't know what YOU are going to DO next minute or next year...nor what results you're going to get when you do! That's what makes it INTERESTING...I would think.
If it hasn't got a clue then it ain't conscious! So what it sounds like you're saying is that the only "true knowing" -- which, according to you (I believe?) -- was "bestowed" upon us by this "conscious Entity," is capable by us "human beings?" Who are not even sure that they're capable of knowing? And yet there's no doubt that "greater truths" do exist. But where do they come from? And how do they get "acknowledged" (by whom) before they get "filtered" down to us?


But "identity"?! What are you looking for?
Something that at least has the same capabilities that I have, but far greater ... even to the point to where I couldn't begin to understand, except perhaps, with reference to myself? Whereas if you look at what I'm saying here, it isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that I'm giving the Universe, i.e., in the form of God, a lot more credit. Have you ever heard the song, "From a Distance," by Bette Midler? Which in effect is saying, What do we really know about God? except that He's there, in His full capacity as God and, that "out of respect" He keeps His distance ... Otherwise there would be no means by which to acknowledge Him -- i.e., from the standpoint of our "not knowing" He's there which, is a widely held view (even by Atheists).

Whereas the one point of view acknowledges the human heritage which has been passed down in the name of religion, and the other one doesn't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet a machine can accomplish just as much as you require here, without having to be conscious. This is no better an answer than science would require.
Actually, I'm not looking for a "better answer than science would require." Believe me, if I could come up with an "answer" about consciousness that science ACCEPTED...I'd be as happy as Pi!

No, the Universe can not know these things by itself, unless it were a part of an even "greater consciousness," which truly is conscious.
Why do you say this. Does that mean that "God" would have to
be part of an even 'greater consciousness,' which is truly conscious" than "His"? Can't the Universe "simply" be councious of ITSELF...and all Its moving parts?

It still sounds like you're speaking of nothing more than that which is "mechanistic." And why would it do any of this stuff, if it didn't have a clue, as you say below? It therefore must allude to a "higher intent" then.
I said the Universe doesn't have a clue (or possibly just a clue) as to how things are going to turn out...or what's going to manifest from It's "body" of "possibilities"...the Sea of Potentialities!

And why does It need a "higher intent" than living Its LIVES?

But how did the joker get there? By random? And how can there be any "real intention" without the higher proclivity to experience it, such as with us human beings? Meaning, shouldn't the Universe have an even greater capacity to understand its intentions than us?
I probably should have said "wild card"...due to a wild cards "ability" to be/do "anything".

My point is that randomness and intention are PART of the BODY of the Universe...part of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the System as a WHOLE. No-ONE had to "put" them there. The Universe is just a Creature made up of this and that...like anything else.

If it hasn't got a clue then it ain't conscious! So what it sounds like you're saying is that the only "true knowing" -- which, according to you (I believe?) -- was "bestowed" upon us by this "conscious Entity," is capable by us "human beings?" Who are not even sure that they're capable of knowing? And yet there's no doubt that "greater truths" do exist. But where do they come from? And how do they get "acknowledged" (by whom) before they get "filtered" down to us?
Surely you know of folk who are proportedly conscious, yet haven't a clue (a joke). Seriously, I have never said "bestowed". Why would I when I believe that consciousness is part of the PACKAGE?! If there are "Universal Truths"...we COME TO THEM via our own THINKING.

And, maybe, as some might say, we MAKE THEM UP!

I DO believe that the natural forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe tend toward LIFE...and that life tends toward greater degrees of SENTIENCE over time...until that "Final Day" (in this particular Cosmic Incarnation) when ALL SENTIENCE comes together in a COSMIC WHOLE -- an ALL-KNOWINGNESS OF WHAT IT HAS DONE ... the BIG COLLAPSE into the Final -- then PRIMAL -- Singularity!

Something that at least has the same capabilities that I have, but far greater ... even to the point to where I couldn't begin to understand, except perhaps, with reference to myself? Whereas if you look at what I'm saying here, it isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that I'm giving the Universe, i.e., in the form of God, a lot more credit. Have you ever heard the song, "From a Distance," by Bette Midler? Which in effect is saying, What do we really know about God? except that He's there, in His full capacity as God and, that "out of respect" He keeps His distance ... Otherwise there would be no means by which to acknowledge Him -- i.e., from the standpoint of our "not knowing" He's there which, is a widely held view (even by Atheists).
I don't get what you're saying. Sorry.

Whereas the one point of view acknowledges the human heritage which has been passed down in the name of religion, and the other one doesn't.
Who does what...and to whom?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, I'm not looking for a "better answer than science would require." Believe me, if I could come up with an "answer" about consciousness that science ACCEPTED...I'd be as happy as Pi!
Then why shouldn't the answer that Science gives suffice? It sounds like the two outcomes aren't altogether different? Neither do you provide for a higher sense of purpose or intent, which is pretty much the way Science already views it. And yet, of course I am only speculating here, it may be necessary to establish the nature of consciousness, before Science will acknowledge God?


Why do you say this. Does that mean that "God" would have to
be part of an even 'greater consciousness,' which is truly conscious" than "His"? Can't the Universe "simply" be councious of ITSELF...and all Its moving parts?
No, I'm implying that God is the greater consciousness itself or, that the greater consciousness is a manifestation "of God." Similarly I can say, "I" am the greater consciousness, which is "truly" conscious of myself and all "my" moving parts. Shouldn't the Universe be endowed with at least the same capacity, perhaps even far greater, since "I" am only a drop in the bucket?


I said the Universe doesn't have a clue (or possibly just a clue) as to how things are going to turn out...or what's going to manifest from It's "body" of "possibilities"...the Sea of Potentialities!
And yet Science has pretty much already established this, whether Science wants to cosider consciousness a factor or not. It still doesn't belie any intent, which can only be achieved through establishing a "higher consciousness."


And why does It need a "higher intent" than living Its LIVES?

I probably should have said "wild card"...due to a wild cards "ability" to be/do "anything".

My point is that randomness and intention are PART of the BODY of the Universe...part of the natural/inherent forces, processes and ingredients of the System as a WHOLE. No-ONE had to "put" them there. The Universe is just a Creature made up of this and that...like anything else.
And yet what does intent imply? In which case I still don't see what it has to do with intent. You know, the greater the design the "greater the intent?"


Surely you know of folk who are proportedly conscious, yet haven't a clue (a joke). Seriously, I have never said "bestowed". Why would I when I believe that consciousness is part of the PACKAGE?! If there are "Universal Truths"...we COME TO THEM via our own THINKING.
And yet these people are without intent, meaning how will they ever get anything accomplished, in "their lives?"


And, maybe, as some might say, we MAKE THEM UP!
No, I don't "think" so. Otherwise they wouldn't be universal.


I DO believe that the natural forces, processes and ingredients of the Universe tend toward LIFE...and that life tends toward greater degrees of SENTIENCE over time...until that "Final Day" (in this particular Cosmic Incarnation) when ALL SENTIENCE comes together in a COSMIC WHOLE -- an ALL-KNOWINGNESS OF WHAT IT HAS DONE ... the BIG COLLAPSE into the Final -- then PRIMAL -- Singularity!
I have no idea of what you're talking about here? Sorry.


I don't get what you're saying. Sorry.
That we can't come to know that God exists, except from the standpoint of not knowing He exists, in other words "as Atheits."


Who does what...and to whom?
And, while I don't agree with most religions, I do agree with the premise upon which they were founded. In which case I have no problem accepting God (i.e., a far greater intelligence to the Universe than I), whereas you do.
 
  • #39
OPINION

Can anyone give me his opinion on this text:
http://www.yvrutyspot.com/BONJOURIMGODH.html [Broken]

It takes 4-8 minutes to read.

Please if you are deep religious believer, don't read that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
I go through phases of listening to Christian radio and television. I enjoy hearing the anecdotes of believers concerning events that they believe required the direct intervention of the Christian God. The claims they make range from the modest ("I had the flu so bad this last week that I didn't think I would be able to attend church today, but praise God, I am feeling better and here I am.") to wildly extravagant ("My finger was torn off in an industrial accident. I prayed about it, and the Lord grew me a new finger, and He even put a wedding ring around it, and--oh hallelujah--the ring looks like it must be worth more than the original one that got crushed in the stamping mill.")

If there really is a personal God, I would like to challenge a believer to pray thusly:

Lord, infinite in Your power and goodness, I petition You today on behalf of those who seek to do Your will in evangelizing the nations. I have seen that some of my brethren who give witness to Your existence on Internet discussion pages have sometimes spelled words wrongly, and have sometimes used incorrect grammar and punctuation. Lord, I know that You wish to be glorified in the highest possible way, and I ask You to guide those who write on Your behalf, such that from this day forward they will make no errors in their use of their language when they are writing on behalf of You. Thank you, and amen.

Any takers?
 
  • #41
I'm a taker Janitor.

And I appreciate your good/wise humor:smile:

Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
3
Replies
72
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top