New argument for God's existence?

Science > Physics > New argument for God's existence?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"mike3"
Date:	25 Apr 2007 09:59:24 PM
Object:	New argument for God's existence?

Hi.
I saw this:
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf
Notice:
"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."
Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?
.

User: "Mitchell Jones"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 07:52:41 PM

In article <1177556363.947791.291360@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?

***{Your attempt to reach the goddist conclusion via "quantum
mechanical" argumentation is a bit refreshing I'll admit, but a quite
hopeless endeavor, for a very simple reason: once you grant that any
thing can come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing,
which the entire enterprise of "quantum mechanics" is expressly
predicated upon, you rip the foundations from under the entire structure
of knowledge. Result: you lose all basis for belief in the existence of
anything, including "God," "quantum mechanics," the external world, or
even the self, mind, or whatever you chose to call the thing that is
looking out of your particular window upon the world.
How so? Simple: all knowledge, ultimately, is based upon the application
of a very specific premise, which I call the principle of continuity, to
sensations. The principle of continuity holds that no thing may come
into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. With it, we can
infer that sensations have sources--which means: the image of a thing
comes from a thing that exists, rather than leaping into existence out
of nothing; and sensations are received by things--which means: your
sensations are received by an entity, you, rather than merely vanishing
into nothing.
The point: the principle of continuity must be true, in order for
sensations to have sources or receivers. Without it, you have no basis
for inferring the existence of an external world, or of your self, or of
"God," or of "quantum mechanics," or of any other thing or phenomenon.
And, of course, if the principle of continuity is true--i.e., if, in
fact, no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing--then "God" (a being who supposedly created the universe out of
nothing), the "big bang" (through which he supposedly created it),
"quantum mechanics" (the study of supposedly discontinuous phenomena in
the microcosm), "multiple universes" (created out of nothing by the
supposed "objective probabilities" of an "indeterminate" universe) and
multitudes of other examples of transparent tomfoolery from the zoo of
"modern physics," are terms without referents--which means: the things
they claim to describe do not exist.
And when all of that garbage is taken out, what remains? The answer: an
infinite mechanical universe subject to the iron determinism of Newton's
laws--nothing more, and nothing less.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.

User: "Gordon"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 08:11:37 PM

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:52:41 -0500, Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:

In article <1177556363.947791.291360@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?

***{Your attempt to reach the goddist conclusion via "quantum
mechanical" argumentation is a bit refreshing I'll admit, but a quite
hopeless endeavor, for a very simple reason: once you grant that any
thing can come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing,
which the entire enterprise of "quantum mechanics" is expressly
predicated upon, you rip the foundations from under the entire structure
of knowledge. Result: you lose all basis for belief in the existence of
anything, including "God," "quantum mechanics," the external world, or
even the self, mind, or whatever you chose to call the thing that is
looking out of your particular window upon the world.

How so? Simple: all knowledge, ultimately, is based upon the application
of a very specific premise, which I call the principle of continuity, to
sensations. The principle of continuity holds that no thing may come
into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. With it, we can
infer that sensations have sources--which means: the image of a thing
comes from a thing that exists, rather than leaping into existence out
of nothing; and sensations are received by things--which means: your
sensations are received by an entity, you, rather than merely vanishing
into nothing.

The point: the principle of continuity must be true, in order for
sensations to have sources or receivers. Without it, you have no basis
for inferring the existence of an external world, or of your self, or of
"God," or of "quantum mechanics," or of any other thing or phenomenon.

And, of course, if the principle of continuity is true--i.e., if, in
fact, no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing--then "God" (a being who supposedly created the universe out of
nothing), the "big bang" (through which he supposedly created it),
"quantum mechanics" (the study of supposedly discontinuous phenomena in
the microcosm), "multiple universes" (created out of nothing by the
supposed "objective probabilities" of an "indeterminate" universe) and
multitudes of other examples of transparent tomfoolery from the zoo of
"modern physics," are terms without referents--which means: the things
they claim to describe do not exist.

And when all of that garbage is taken out, what remains? The answer: an
infinite mechanical universe subject to the iron determinism of Newton's
laws--nothing more, and nothing less.

--Mitchell Jones}***

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

This reminds me of the sentient computers allegory. Some of those
sentient computers which have never been connected to the
Internet tend to conclude that the Internet doesn't really exist.
On the other hand, those sentient computers that have been
connected to the Internet could never be brought to believe that
it doesn't exist.
Maybe you should give it a try...initialize your modem and
establish a connection. Gordon
.

User: "Luminoso"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 04:36:18 PM

On 25 Apr 2007 19:59:24 -0700, mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is no spoon ???

Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?

And what "pre-existing mind" was there to sustain the
"pre-existing mind" YOU are talking about ? Without
an observer, a "meta-god", it too would have crumbled
into quantum noise. Then you need a "meta-meta-god".
All this new observation/theory does is set up the same
old infinite-regression problem that's thwarted "first
mover" adherents since forever.
The universe seemed to get along just fine before there
were people, before there were animals, before there was
ANYTHING with the tiniest speck of "mind" to observe things.
If it didn't, then the prerequisite meta^infinite-power
god couldn't have come into being.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:26:04 PM

On Apr 26, 3:36 pm,

(Luminoso) wrote:

On 25 Apr 2007 19:59:24 -0700, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

There is no spoon ???

And what "pre-existing mind" was there to sustain the
"pre-existing mind" YOU are talking about ? Without
an observer, a "meta-god", it too would have crumbled
into quantum noise. Then you need a "meta-meta-god".
All this new observation/theory does is set up the same
old infinite-regression problem that's thwarted "first
mover" adherents since forever.

The universe seemed to get along just fine before there
were people, before there were animals, before there was
ANYTHING with the tiniest speck of "mind" to observe things.
If it didn't, then the prerequisite meta^infinite-power
god couldn't have come into being.

So you've got to halt the recursion at some point. We are
talking about just the universe itself here, not necessarily
about the nature of minds outside of it, for which it may
not be possible to know anything of, nor is that the point.
There must be a stop at some point. Perhaps this universal
mind does not require another mind to percieve it in order
for it to exist. We have to stop at some point. The argument
is that the "universe from mind" idea *requires* the
existence of a mind that is capable of surviving and
percieving the Big Bang, and at least until the point life
arises in the universe. Whether or not you want to call
that "God" or not is not really relevant to the point.
You may want to call and say that if we have to stop at
some point, we should stop without the universal mind.
But if the logic of the argument I gave is sound, then we
also have to reject the universe-from-mind theory as
well. So then it comes down to the validity of my
argument, and/or the validity of universe-from-mind.
.

User: "Gordon"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 05:53:23 PM

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:
(snip)

Contemplate an infinite dimensional infinite extent fractal. God
developed Himself/Itself, through this kind of fractal process
and this is an on-going project that will continue eternally.
Where did God start and where is God in terms of our temporal
reference dimension? Who/what are we hominids, and how do we fit
into this fractal? Are we a part of God's development of
Himself/Itself? Gordon

The universe seemed to get along just fine before there
were people, before there were animals, before there was
ANYTHING with the tiniest speck of "mind" to observe things.
If it didn't, then the prerequisite meta^infinite-power
god couldn't have come into being.

User: "Luminoso"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 08:41:08 PM

Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.
You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.
It *is* fair to say "the universe is conscious", because we
are part of it. But the universe is vast and we're stuck in
one small obscure corner of it. A rather pitiful level of
"consciousness" all in all.

User: "Gordon"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 08:59:15 PM

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:08 GMT, Luminoso
<

> wrote:

Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.

You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.

It *is* fair to say "the universe is conscious", because we
are part of it. But the universe is vast and we're stuck in
one small obscure corner of it. A rather pitiful level of
"consciousness" all in all.

I've entertained your perspective before, but the farther I get
into things like Super String Theory, the more I'm inclined to
think that the multiverse is indeed conscious, and our very
limited consciousness is only an infinitesimal part of the whole.
But, I am increasingly convinced that we are and will always be
linked with that "whole" universal sentience, and will move on to
higher levels. I also am convinced that our purpose at this level
is to learn all we need to know about the difference between good
and evil. God is in the process of dividing good from evil and
when this is accomplished the two domains will be irreversibly
separated in the multiverse. Gordon

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:48:34 PM

On Apr 26, 7:59 pm, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:08 GMT, Luminoso

<

> wrote:

Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.

You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.

It *is* fair to say "the universe is conscious", because we
are part of it. But the universe is vast and we're stuck in
one small obscure corner of it. A rather pitiful level of
"consciousness" all in all.

I've entertained your perspective before, but the farther I get
into things like Super String Theory, the more I'm inclined to
think that the multiverse is indeed conscious, and our very
limited consciousness is only an infinitesimal part of the whole.

But, I am increasingly convinced that we are and will always be
linked with that "whole" universal sentience, and will move on to
higher levels. I also am convinced that our purpose at this level
is to learn all we need to know about the difference between good
and evil. God is in the process of dividing good from evil and
when this is accomplished the two domains will be irreversibly
separated in the multiverse. Gordon

What if evil fundamentally does not truly exist? What if evil is just
a limited concept from our limited minds, and has nothing to do with
the true nature of reality?
.

User: "Luminoso"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	27 Apr 2007 02:29:06 PM

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:59:15 -0500, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:08 GMT, Luminoso
<

> wrote:

Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.

You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.

It *is* fair to say "the universe is conscious", because we
are part of it. But the universe is vast and we're stuck in
one small obscure corner of it. A rather pitiful level of
"consciousness" all in all.

The more I've gotten into the same subjects, the more
I'm convinced that it's just one big naturally-selected
mess of a multiverse. "Hitchikers Guide" ought to be
the 'holy book' ...

But, I am increasingly convinced that we are and will always be
linked with that "whole" universal sentience, and will move on to
higher levels.

Be careful with words like "higher" ...
Our linkage with the multiverse exists, but I just
don't see any kind of "consciousness" involved.
The Force is NOT with us.

I also am convinced that our purpose at this level
is to learn all we need to know about the difference between good
and evil.

Why would mega-IQ entities worry about what little
bits of chemical slime do ? They'd have no "purpose"
or expectations or concerns for things like us. We'd
be less than amoebas to them.
Do I detect a little bit of egotism and pride intruding
on your deductive processes ? :-)

God is in the process of dividing good from evil and
when this is accomplished the two domains will be irreversibly
separated in the multiverse. Gordon

'God'(s) are an idea PEOPLE came up with, and then ascribed
a host of personality traits and human-like intents to the
notion. 'Good' and 'evil', those words barely hold-up
to scrutiny in the human world and are certainly not
consistent across cultures and time. The concepts boil
down to "empathic" -vs- "unempathic", treating others as
you'd have them treat you. Even then, with this instinctive
faculty, only a very few things are portable across time
and cultures.
And again, why would mega-IQ universal beings concern
themselves ? I think we tend to over-estimate our
importance, drastically over-estimate. It's a HUGE
cold, ancient, almost empty universe out there, and
it doesn't care about us.
So we'll have to care about each other.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:55:33 PM

On Apr 27, 1:29 pm,

(Luminoso) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:59:15 -0500, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:08 GMT, Luminoso
<

> wrote:

Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.

You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.

The more I've gotten into the same subjects, the more
I'm convinced that it's just one big naturally-selected
mess of a multiverse. "Hitchikers Guide" ought to be
the 'holy book' ...

So basically you do not know where nature comes from, why
nature exists, right? A pure agnostic. Hmm... Then how could
you try below to glean what any supposed supernatural entity
would care about?

But, I am increasingly convinced that we are and will always be
linked with that "whole" universal sentience, and will move on to
higher levels.

Be careful with words like "higher" ...

Our linkage with the multiverse exists, but I just
don't see any kind of "consciousness" involved.
The Force is NOT with us.

I also am convinced that our purpose at this level
is to learn all we need to know about the difference between good
and evil.

Why would mega-IQ entities worry about what little
bits of chemical slime do ? They'd have no "purpose"
or expectations or concerns for things like us. We'd
be less than amoebas to them.

How do you know? Can you read the mind of the super-
entity? How do you know they would not care? How
can you impose limits on the limitless God?

Do I detect a little bit of egotism and pride intruding
on your deductive processes ? :-)

Actually, I do not see how his deduction would do that.
In fact, if the universal being has dominion over the
whole universe, then it's rule is inescapable and
this would mean that we would be restrained. I do
not see how egotism/pride would be able to thrive in
such an environment. We'd know that we weren't in
control, and thus our humility would be maintained.

God is in the process of dividing good from evil and
when this is accomplished the two domains will be irreversibly
separated in the multiverse. Gordon

'God'(s) are an idea PEOPLE came up with, and then ascribed
a host of personality traits and human-like intents to the
notion. 'Good' and 'evil', those words barely hold-up
to scrutiny in the human world and are certainly not
consistent across cultures and time. The concepts boil
down to "empathic" -vs- "unempathic", treating others as
you'd have them treat you. Even then, with this instinctive
faculty, only a very few things are portable across time
and cultures.

And again, why would mega-IQ universal beings concern
themselves ? I think we tend to over-estimate our
importance, drastically over-estimate. It's a HUGE
cold, ancient, almost empty universe out there, and
it doesn't care about us.

How do you know if this being does not care? You don't.
In fact, we should perhaps just say we can't know. In fact,
if it is so much greater than us, why must our feeble, tiny,
limited little minds be able to fathom it's thoughts like you
seem to want to think you can do? How could you think
that your mind, whose "IQ" would be abysmally tiny
compared to that of the entity ("God") we are discussing,
could be able to reason what it does and does not care
about?
Ooh...

So we'll have to care about each other.

I don't see how this being would prevent that. If you were
to believe all our religious books are inspired by said
being, then since their true interpretation demands that we
do that, then, well... Of course if you do not believe that,
then you could at best just say we know absolutely nothing
about the being's thoughts or intentions.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	04 May 2007 03:02:01 PM

On May 2, 2:55 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 1:29 pm,

(Luminoso) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:59:15 -0500, Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:08 GMT, Luminoso
<

> wrote:

Gordon <gordo...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:18 GMT,

(Luminoso) wrote:

(snip)

Nah.

You're vastly over-complicating things in order to justify
what I suspect is a pre-determined conclusion. Seek simpler
explainations that don't require "I am the universe" sorts
of beings.

The more I've gotten into the same subjects, the more
I'm convinced that it's just one big naturally-selected
mess of a multiverse. "Hitchikers Guide" ought to be
the 'holy book' ...

So basically you do not know where nature comes from, why
nature exists, right? A pure agnostic. Hmm... Then how could
you try below to glean what any supposed supernatural entity
would care about?

But, I am increasingly convinced that we are and will always be
linked with that "whole" universal sentience, and will move on to
higher levels.

Be careful with words like "higher" ...

Our linkage with the multiverse exists, but I just
don't see any kind of "consciousness" involved.
The Force is NOT with us.

I also am convinced that our purpose at this level
is to learn all we need to know about the difference between good
and evil.

Why would mega-IQ entities worry about what little
bits of chemical slime do ? They'd have no "purpose"
or expectations or concerns for things like us. We'd
be less than amoebas to them.

How do you know? Can you read the mind of the super-
entity? How do you know they would not care? How
can you impose limits on the limitless God?

And, by thinking you can apply limited, fallible human
conceptions (which are worthless compared to God)
of how some sort of being should act to a being that,
if it exists, would be so much greater than our minds
could ever hope to imagine or comprehend, isn't that
a bit of egotism/pride on YOUR part interfering with
YOUR deductive processes?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	27 Apr 2007 12:28:36 AM

On Apr 25, 7:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because

"Truth" is undefinable. If you disagree, please provide _the_ (not
_a_) definition.

the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Fumblebrained philosophers are "entirely mental".
Observation of an absence of a flash on the inner hemisphere in such
an experiment requires one to know that the emitter at the center has
emitted a particle that has missed the inner hemisphere and is yet to
hit the outer hemisphere. How is that knowledge acquired until _after_
a flash is seen on the outer hemisphere given that the exact time of
emission cannot be known beforehand?

Nope. The Universe is adequate to observe itself while we aren't
watching.
Your viewpoint requires an infinite overhead of turtles; who keeps
an eye on your god to maintain his/her/its existence, and who on him,
etc. ad infinitum?
Mark L. Fergerson
.

User: "ZikZak"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	04 May 2007 03:39:10 PM

On Apr 25, 7:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

My money is on the Eye of Harmony.
.

User: "Rock Brentwood"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	29 Apr 2007 04:57:34 PM

On Apr 25, 9:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You don't need an argument. Just be a pantheist and then everything
becomes obvious. The principles of pantheism are:
(G1) the universe is the body of God[dess]
(G2) the laws of nature are the mind of God[dess]
(G3) the indeterminism in those laws, such as may exist, is the
caprice of God[dess]
Thus Physics is the spiritual quest whose goal is a deeper
understanding of the mind of God[dess].
The proof of existence only requires pointing to the universe and
saying "see? Here.", referring to the apparently self-evident fact
that the universe exists (though even that can be question, so no
proof is watertight).
The fundamental criteria that ought to be fulfilled by this or any
other definition are
(1) existence that transcends time (i.e. eternality)
(2) existence that transcends space (i.e. omnipresence)
G1 covers this; the universe conceived in its entirety as the
spacetime continuum fulfills these two objectives;
(3) the determiner of all things that actually come to be (i.e.
"omnipotence" meant in its strict non-modal sense of not "*could* make
anything happen", but "*does* make everything happen that actually
happens)
(4) contains a representation of all information everywhere
(omniscience)
G2 covers (3) and G2 with G3 covers (4).
This, of course, is the conception of God that the oldest societies
had had, primarily before the development of sky-god[dess] religions
or the monotheistic patriarchal religions spawned from the Middle
East.
Vedantic Philosophy (which is the common backdrop of Hinduism,
Buddhism and Taoism) goes one step further taking the deepest root of
everyone's existence to be God; hence the expression "tat vam asi".
This goes one step beyond classical Freudian theory which only has a
Superego; closer to Jungian theory which had the "collective
unconscious"; but beyond that to essentially asserting that God is
suffering a massive case of multiple personality syndrome with each
Sybil shard being a separate sentience, and the task at hand being
reintegration.
There, too, the question of existence God reduces to Descartes'
proclamation. In this point of view, God's true name is "I Am".
There's an oblique reference to this idea contained in the story
surrounding what happened when Moses came down the mountain. They
asked him if he really saw God, then what is his name, he answered "I
Am" and the crowd was stunned into silence.
However, Rabbinical interpretation (as well as Christian
interpretation) completely backs away from the self-evident meaning of
that turn of events and goes on to assert that Moses was only saying
that God said "I am", while everyone else only gets to say "He Is".
So, there is a serious point of departure between Vedantic Philosophy
and Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) Philosophy on this very issue. It's
considered blasphemy in Christianity and Judaism (and especially in
Islam) to assert that your sentience is, at its deepest root, none
other than God.
None of this is exclusively a matter of philosophy. There's an
empirical element to this that will play out in the near future. If
the fundamental roots of each and everyone's sentience are each
disjoint from one another, rather than being joined at the root (as
Vedantic Philosophy would assert), then what's going to happen when
two or more people join together in a direct brain-to-brain high
speed, high bandwidth interconnect?
Already you can see the beginnings of what will happen. Even with
inanimate objects, when the control-feedback loop is tight enough,
there is this phenomenon known as "tele-presence": you perception of
where the boundary between "me" vs. "not me" begins to envelope the
object you're connected to.
So, what do you think is going to happen when the connection is,
instead, to another person; particularly with the connection being two-
way? Will the sentiences comprising the two or more people unify into
a single sentience (thus betraying any notion that we're separate
beings at the deepest level) or will they continue to experience
themselves as separate? Even more interesting is what, particularly,
will happen when they disconnect, if they had experienced unification
while connected? Will they *continue* to perceive themselves as being
a single being, after disconnection?
.

User: "Mitchell Jones"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	29 Apr 2007 05:44:13 PM

In article <1177883854.107413.142250@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Rock Brentwood <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 25, 9:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

***{As Dewey said, "It is far easier to be religious by definition, than
to be religious by conviction." What that means is that it is possible
to evade the arguments against the existence of God by simply pointing
to something that does exist--e.g., the universe, a fence post,
etc.--and calling it "God." However, that doesn't work. If you point to
a fence post and say "See, God exists," your opponent can simply say:
"That's not the generally accepted meaning of "God." In general usage,
"God" refers to a supposed being who created the universe out of
nothing, cares what men do, and is intelligent. If you deny the
existence of such a being, you are an atheist; if you claim that the
available facts are insufficient to decide whether he exists, you are an
agnostic; and if you claim that he definitely does exist, you are a
theist/goddist. Your opinion about the existence of a fence post is
manifestly irrelevant.
Bottom line: your declaration that the universe is "God" is irrelevant
to the question of whether you believe in God, because the meaning of
God is defined by general usage, and is not subject to being changed by
you.
--Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.

User: ""
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 06:03:10 AM

On Apr 26, 12:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?

Whilst I believe in God, the Christian God to be exact, which has
drawn the ridicule of other posters on this atheist web site, the
article as quoted lacks a sufficiently clear explanation of what the
author was implying - that the universe is the product of thought, and
displays characteristics of thought.
A few examples or illustrations would have helped.
.

User: "H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 06:05:20 AM

On 26 Apr 2007 04:03:10 -0700,

wrote:

On Apr 26, 12:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

"Physicists shy from the truth because
the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A
common way to evade the mental Universe
is to invoke 'decoherence' - the
notion that 'the physical environment' is
sufficient to create reality, independent of
the human mind. Yet the idea that any
irreversible act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Now, for the God argument. First off, the human mind _did not always
exist_! That is a fact! In fact, compared to the time the Universe has
existed, the time we have existed is less than the twinkling of an
eye! If this viewpoint above is correct, then there must have been
some pre-existing mind to generate the universe. God, anyone?

Whilst I believe in God, the Christian God to be exact, which has
drawn the ridicule of other posters on this atheist web site, the
article as quoted lacks a sufficiently clear explanation of what the
author was implying - that the universe is the product of thought, and
displays characteristics of thought.

A few examples or illustrations would have helped.

Yes, just paint a .jpg of GOD, and post it here.
w.
--
Thanks God that I am an Atheist.
Gottseidank bin ich Atheist.
(G.B.Shaw)
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:39:31 PM

On Apr 26, 5:03 am,

wrote:

On Apr 26, 12:59 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

Notice:

Whilst I believe in God, the Christian God to be exact, which has
drawn the ridicule of other posters on this atheist web site, the
article as quoted lacks a sufficiently clear explanation of what the
author was implying - that the universe is the product of thought, and
displays characteristics of thought.

A few examples or illustrations would have helped.

Yes, I thought something similar too. I just took what I thought
to be the simplest interpretation of what he was saying.
.

User: "Toby A Inkster"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	27 Apr 2007 11:11:22 AM

mike3 wrote:

You are confusing coherence with existence. The classic example of this in
layman's terms is Schrodinger's famous kitty killing kit.
Schrodinger placed his cat in a box, along with a vial of poison and an
elaborate device that had a 50:50 chance of smashing open the poison and
thus killing the cat in the toxic fumes. (OK, he didn't *actually* do this;
it's merely a "thought experiment". Still, he must have been rather cruel
to think it up!) Anyway, until you open the box, the cat is neither alive
or dead. It's both. That's quantum decoherence.
By opening the box, and taking the cat's pulse, you collapse the
decoherant dead-alive state of the cat ("wave function") into a single
coherent state. It is curiosity (strictly, observation) that kills the
cat.
Every aspect of the universe is in a decoherent state while it's not being
observed. It still *exists* though.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
.

User: "Dwib"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	27 Apr 2007 12:26:02 PM

On Apr 27, 11:11 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
wrote:

By opening the box, and taking the cat's pulse, you collapse the
decoherant dead-alive state of the cat ("wave function") into a single
coherent state. It is curiosity (strictly, observation) that kills the
cat.

One could you an infrared camera to measure the "temperature of box
and note the box is still warm... hence the cat is alive. Or you
train the cat to "meow" every 2 seconds (anyway, I think the cat would
be scared enough to do that) and note if it's still meowing.
So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.
Dwib
.

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	27 Apr 2007 01:56:41 PM

Dwib wrote:

On Apr 27, 11:11 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
wrote:

One could you an infrared camera to measure the "temperature of box
and note the box is still warm... hence the cat is alive. Or you
train the cat to "meow" every 2 seconds (anyway, I think the cat would
be scared enough to do that) and note if it's still meowing.

So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.

The whole point of the box is that you can't detect ANYTHING from within
it. So you have no way of knowing of the cat is alive or not. Once you
DO know (be it by opening the box, listening, etc.) then you'd collapsed
the probability function. Until that point, the cat is neither (or BOTH)
dead or alive.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	29 Apr 2007 02:08:02 AM

On Apr 27, 11:56 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

Dwib wrote:

On Apr 27, 11:11 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
wrote:

So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.

And until you tell someone else, the wavefunction remains
uncollapsed for the rest of the Universe.
So, how much of the Andromeda galaxy _really_ exists?
Mark L. Fergerson
.

User: "Rock Brentwood"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	29 Apr 2007 05:02:20 PM

On Apr 27, 12:26 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:

So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.

You can't have any such thing as Schroedinger's cat. You can't
insulate the box from the outside world. That's because there exists
an interaction that has the properties
(a) it is universal
(b) it cannot be shielded
(c) it operates (at the macroscopic level) continuously, thus
providing a continuous "measurement" on a given system by the outside
world
The box is utterly transparent with respect to this interaction, and
its contents as fully viewable under the "light" of this interaction,
as if they were completely out in the open. So, you might as well not
even have a box.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:56:46 PM

On Apr 29, 4:02 pm, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:26 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:

So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.

You can't have any such thing as Schroedinger's cat. You can't
insulate the box from the outside world. That's because there exists
an interaction that has the properties
(a) it is universal
(b) it cannot be shielded
(c) it operates (at the macroscopic level) continuously, thus
providing a continuous "measurement" on a given system by the outside
world

The box is utterly transparent with respect to this interaction, and
its contents as fully viewable under the "light" of this interaction,
as if they were completely out in the open. So, you might as well not
even have a box.

Gravity?
.

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	01 May 2007 01:30:24 PM

Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:26 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:

So.... I think Schrodinger's "box" must have very interesting
properties. It has to be able to insulate the system (cat and poison)
from ANY possible sort of outside observation.

You can't have any such thing as Schroedinger's cat. You can't
insulate the box from the outside world. That's because there exists
an interaction that has the properties
(a) it is universal
(b) it cannot be shielded
(c) it operates (at the macroscopic level) continuously, thus
providing a continuous "measurement" on a given system by the outside
world

The box is utterly transparent with respect to this interaction, and
its contents as fully viewable under the "light" of this interaction,
as if they were completely out in the open. So, you might as well not
even have a box.

Never heard of a "thought experiment" where you can imagine perfect
conditions like a completely "black box", I take it?
.

User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 12:54:53 PM

mike3 wrote:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.pdf

"Yet the idea that any irreversible
act of amplification is necessary
to collapse the wave function is
known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type'
experiments, the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing."

That's wrong. An "irreversible act of amplification" means that the state of
a large complicated system comes to depend in some way on the state of a
small thermodynamically reversible system. In the case of a negative-result
experiment, the state of the large system comes to depend on whether or not
a particle was seen.
Was that really published in Nature? That's pretty depressing. Any expert
could have told them it was wrong.
-- Ben
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 10:02:36 AM

mike3 wrote:
[snip crap]

...the wave function is collapsed
simply by your human mind seeing
nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

What created galaxies before life existed to look at them?

Circular reasoning. What was extant to observe God? Now you have
that tower of tortoises going all the way down under the elephant, and
the universe won't be Euclidean for the excess mass.
Hindus have 300 million gods. How are they doing: flush
toilets/capita, Calories/capita-day, average age of mortality?
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.

User: "Glich"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	26 Apr 2007 02:13:41 PM

"there must have been some pre-existing mind". How "must" there have
been? God can mean many different things all dependant on a humans
belief system. Who is to say that the universe has never existed?
There may be evidence but there may never (probably) be certainty.
Nothing can be fact while there is the smallest hint of uncertainty.
To believe in a God/god? The product of hope, and need for order in
the chaotic world of nature.
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	02 May 2007 03:39:43 PM

On Apr 26, 1:13 pm, Glich <Glich.Gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:

"there must have been some pre-existing mind". How "must" there have
been? God can mean many different things all dependant on a humans
belief system. Who is to say that the universe has never existed?
There may be evidence but there may never (probably) be certainty.
Nothing can be fact while there is the smallest hint of uncertainty.

To believe in a God/god? The product of hope, and need for order in
the chaotic world of nature.

There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did, then whatever mind that made it exist before
us was not human (duh). It must also have been able to exist
during the Big Bang too in order to make it.
The argument, of course, depends on the validity of it's two
assumptions. It seems fairly well-proven that the universe existed
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: New argument for God's existence?	03 May 2007 05:11:13 PM

[snips]
On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:39:43 -0700, mike3 wrote:

There "must" have been since if you _assume_ that the universe
is all based on mind, and you _assume_ that the universe existed
before humans did, then whatever mind that made it exist before
us was not human (duh). It must also have been able to exist
during the Big Bang too in order to make it.

The argument, of course, depends on the validity of it's two
assumptions. It seems fairly well-proven that the universe existed
long before humans, so then we'd have to look at the assumption
of "universe based on mind" if we want to see if we can glean
anything from this line of argument.

Indeed, we would, yet you completely fail to do so. A good way to
convince us such an argument has merit, that.
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

Re: Climate Change "Skeptics" Lose Vital Argument
my argument with the authorities
Re: Climate Change "Skeptics" Lose Vital Argument
Re: Argument against higher-animal experiments.
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism

Finishing argument, core error proven
Re: Hammond's god argument
Is this good argument? (existence of atoms)
Only argument for accidental universers. Infinite monkey theorem
The Hole Argument
Argument supporting Old Man's Infinite Universe
Re: you have no argument

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232