God belongs to what existence category?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Look guys, what's up? Are the Jehovas' witnesses moving into the philosophy forum or what?

Just a feeling out process.

Talking about the possible existent states of Gods is one thing, but this is social darwinism that has nothing to do with the topic.

Wu Li, of the 5 states of existence attributed to God(s) you mentioned, what might be your leaning?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Just a feeling out process.
Wu Li, of the 5 states of existence attributed to God(s) you mentioned, what might be your leaning?

My learning is that It is what it is, whatever that is. Instead of attempting to pin it to the board like a butterfly specimen I take a more pragmatic approach and watch the butterflies in action. Likewise, instead of attempting to pin my own feelings and behavior down to a single thought system and paradyme, I just go with the flow and see what works. To quote Grocho Marx, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." :-)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
No offense, but you are right in assuming that such discussions belong in the Religion Sub-Forum.

Yes, But since so many discussion ae going on within this forum about God, and not in the forum that is attributed for it, I thought I could as well discuss this topic here, to really find out what people mean with their notions of God.

He exists in as much space as your mind does. Your mind doesn't take up any space, and neither does God (at least, not the God of the Bible, Jehovah). However, His "active force" (often referred to as the "Holy Spirit" is supposed to be the energy by which He created all things, and thus is everywhere (since all physical things are energy).

In all of it (again, I'm referring to the Bible's God here, I am not speaking for any other form of theism). He is supposed to have existed since the beginning of time. In fact, He would be the creator of time itself.

That is something contradictionary. If one claims on one hand that God exists in time, and on the other hand, God created time.
Since he must have done that at a 'time' in which there was no time.

Actually, the common conception of Jehovah is that He does change. In fact, if you really study the Bible, you will realize that He doesn't know the entire future, and has changed the path by which He accomplishes His purposes numerous times.

That could fit reality, as it might turn out this universe (spacetime bubble) coming out of the spacetime/quantum foam, is one in an eternal chain of coming and going of universes, in a fractal 'landscape' of universes.

Another point: I don't like the huge gap that you place between conceptual existence and physical existence. As I've tried to explain to wimms, in another thread, concepts interact with physical entities all of the time (in our brain, for example). Therefore, there cannot be such a large difference between those two forms of existence.

Who claims that there is a huge gap between material existence and the existence in the mind? I even claimed that the existence category of the mind is dependend on the material existence category, and that therefore they are somehow connected to each other.

The gap is just as large as between (for instance) my experience/sensation of a chair, and the chair itself.

I can not sit on my experiences of a chair, I can only sit on the chair itself. But al I see and ever witness about the chair, are experiences and sensations of a chair.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
My learning is that It is what it is, whatever that is. Instead of attempting to pin it to the board like a butterfly specimen I take a more pragmatic approach and watch the butterflies in action. Likewise, instead of attempting to pin my own feelings and behavior down to a single thought system and paradyme, I just go with the flow and see what works. To quote Grocho Marx, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." :-)

For me, if nobody else, I find option 5 to allow for such a view.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, But since so many discussion ae going on within this forum about God, and not in the forum that is attributed for it, I thought I could as well discuss this topic here, to really find out what people mean with their notions of God.

Very well. If Kerrie sees fit to move it, that'll be her business.

That is something contradictionary. If one claims on one hand that God exists in time, and on the other hand, God created time.
Since he must have done that at a 'time' in which there was no time.

Not exactly true. For example, BB theory dictates that there was a singularity, at the "beginning of time". However, there was no time before the "beginning of time". These thing never "come into existence" because there was absolutely 0 time "before" them.

Who claims that there is a huge gap between material existence and the existence in the mind? I even claimed that the existence category of the mind is dependend on the material existence category, and that therefore they are somehow connected to each other.

The gap is just as large as between (for instance) my experience/sensation of a chair, and the chair itself.

I can not sit on my experiences of a chair, I can only sit on the chair itself. But al I see and ever witness about the chair, are experiences and sensations of a chair.

Good points, I hope Lifegazer can restrain himself from attacking them.

I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
For me, if nobody else, I find option 5 to allow for such a view.

Lao Tzu himself supposidly said he was not a Taoist even though he invented the term. I suppose he too held the attitude that he'd never join a club that would have him as a member, but that doesn't stop people from labeling and catagorizing him as a Taoist and mystic. Oh well, I suppose I've been called worse by better people. :0)

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Lao Tzu himself supposidly said he was not a Taoist even though he invented the term. I suppose he too held the attitude that he'd never join a club that would have him as a member, but that doesn't stop people from labeling and catagorizing him as a Taoist and mystic. Oh well, I suppose I've been called worse by better people. :0)

But Wu Li, number 5 fits me. Would I deliberately insult my stupid self?

Seriously though, it was never my intention to negatively label anyone other than myself.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not exactly true. For example, BB theory dictates that there was a singularity, at the "beginning of time". However, there was no time before the "beginning of time". These thing never "come into existence" because there was absolutely 0 time "before" them.

I think there is some misunderstanding here on what the Big Bang theory in fact claims, and what not. Your reference to the sigularity and the beginning of time thing, is an interpretation, if you want, and extention, to the Big Bang theory. The debate in theoretical physics and cosmology is still going on as what happened at and or before the Big Bang. The BB theory itself cannot state more then that the current observable universe was in the past in a more dense, more hot and smaller state as it is now, and we can calculate back from now to perhaps the 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the projected singularity, but there physical theories break down.
At least 3 possible scenarios exist to explain the phenomena:
1. Instanton-pea (Hawking-Turok these). Time was near the beginning of the Big Bang "space-like", and which implements in a certain sense the 'beginning of time'.
2. Brane cosmology. We reside on one brane, and another brane collided on our brane, causing the Big Bang. In this model, neither a beginning of time is required.
3. Eternal Inflation. The universe comes out of a process called Inflation (exponentional growth of space-time); inflation can reproduce itself, and once started, never stops. This removes the need for a beginning of time.

Me personally have sufficient doubt about the first hypothese. In theory it might look good, it portrays the 'begin of time' like the North pole, which is a place one cannot go any further to the north, and is not a special point. However it conflicts drastically with our experience of time, and the theory asks us to adapt the concept of imaginary time. In imaginary time, the singularity disappears.

Most convincing to me sounds the idea of eternal/chaotic/open inflation, hich makes the best predictions about the current state of the observable universe.

Good points, I hope Lifegazer can restrain himself from attacking them.

We will see that. Meanwhile, I am having the sensation of sitting on a chair, but nevertheless I sit on a real chair, which is independend of my experience of that chair.

I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

Yes, they can be all said to be existent, nevertheless it is important to denote the difference in the way they exist.
Same way as one should not mix fairy tales with reality, or dreams with reality. If I have a dream, and meet in my dream a person, I will not assume that when in reality I meet that person, he/she has actually knowledge about the meeting in the dream.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But Wu Li, number 5 fits me. Would I deliberately insult my stupid self?

Seriously though, it was never my intention to negatively label anyone other than myself.

I was just kidding. Taoist humor tends to be dry and subtle. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner. :0)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it ...

An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...

Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

With whom do you think the burden of proof lies anyway? Is it up to you to get me to accept what you're saying without question? If so, then how could I ever acknowledge the truth of anything? While the same holds true for you or anyone else. You see, this is the only possibly way you can accept the idea of God, because when you get right down to it, it's the only possible way you can accept anything, Period.

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free ..."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

Now now Icky, play nice. But not too nice. :0)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

The process is far from being abstract, and neither are you, though the reasoning process itself uses abstract categories of the mind.

 

[Netme]

god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

I believe existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
The process is far from being abstract, and neither are you, though the reasoning process itself uses abstract categories of the mind.

I'm afraid all you can really do is speak for yourself here.

 

[Netme]

god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Netme
god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Netme
god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

And yet if "everything" were God then that wouldn't hold true ... By the way did you know the number 479 (your member ID) is the number of validation? If you don't believe me then follow the link ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

 

[Iacchus32]

Existentialism

How does existentialism fit into your schools of thought Wu Li? Would that be more in the order of "supply and demand?" Or, that everything has an "express purpose" -- no more, no less? Does it fit into one of the other categories?

Originally posted by Netme
If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

Actually I think Netme has a point here, because it's not altogether different from my own point of view (although I think it's gotten obscurred since I logged on to PF). If in fact the key to existence is to "experience" the fact that we exist, then what else is there to do, except "experience" the fact that we exist? How much more simpler could it be than that?

And why would it then be necessary to send a rocket ship to the moon? What or who's purpose would that serve?

This is pretty much all I do, is "live for today."

 

[BoulderHead]

Actually I think Netme has a point here..

So do I, actually.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How does existentialism fit into your schools of thought Wu Li? Would that be more in the order of "supply and demand?" Or, that everything has an "express purpose" -- no more, no less? Does it fit into one of the other categories?


Actually I think Netme has a point here, because it's not altogether different from my own point of view (although I think it's gotten obscurred since I logged on to PF). If in fact the key to existence is to "experience" the fact that we exist, then what else is there to do, except "experience" the fact that we exist? How much more simpler could it be than that?

And why would it then be necessary to send a rocket ship to the moon? What or who's purpose would that serve?

This is pretty much all I do, is "live for today."

Life has a purpose? You mean, I've been mislead all these years? My kids are merely the product of my being mislead? They need some higher purpose in order to validate their existence? ****... and all this time I thought I thought they simply justified their own existence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Life has a purpose? You mean, I've been mislead all these years? My kids are merely the product of my being mislead? They need some higher purpose in order to validate their existence? ****... and all this time I thought I thought they simply justified their own existence.

Okee dokee, phenokee in the pokee!

Actually I've never cracked open a book on existentialism. I just figured if there was any merit to it I wouldn't need to. And, based upon what I've heard, existentialism is defined by a state of "just being" (i.e., in the moment). Which is to say, things happen as a matter of course and it isn't necessary to become "the conductor" in the orchestra pit, so to speak.

Aside from that, what else can I say? ... Wasn't Jesus Christ an existentialist? ... Or so, this is what I've heard.

 

[wuliheron]

The sermon on the mount and the Lillies of the field are about as close as Jesus ever came to expressing existentialism, but if anybody ever believed life has a purpose he did.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

Yes.

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

Actually, you are using the term "biologist" to mean someone who only knows biological facts. I'm sure that there are biologists that are philosophically adept, and can see the need to acknowledge conceptual existence (as you and I have, with just slightly different views).

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

Yeah. I agree.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

Yes it is. You already said "...it is meaningful to say that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind". This means that he exists. Sure, in some (perhaps most) conversation, it is necessary to use "existence" to only denote physical existence, but in some (perhaps most) conversation it is necessary to use the word "computer" to only denote man-made computers. It's all about context, IMO.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by wuliheron
OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

You miss my point...
If god "existed" under the same rules we exist by, god would also have needed a creator in order to exist. In our existential law, to be existent one must have a creator. This proves that either our god is not "all mighty" or our existential rules do not apply to god. Either way a lot of our philosophical thought on this subject including religion cannot be true based on this.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
You miss my point...
If god "existed" under the same rules we exist by, god would also have needed a creator in order to exist. In our existential law, to be existent one must have a creator.

Where did you get that conclusion from?
Material existence needs no 'creator' it just needs time, space and motion/change to exist.

This proves that either our god is not "all mighty" or our existential rules do not apply to god. Either way a lot of our philosophical thought on this subject including religion cannot be true based on this.

No. The only possible explenation is that 'God' is the wrong concept!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it is. You already said "...it is meaningful to say that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind". This means that he exists. Sure, in some (perhaps most) conversation, it is necessary to use "existence" to only denote physical existence, but in some (perhaps most) conversation it is necessary to use the word "computer" to only denote man-made computers. It's all about context, IMO.

And therefore it is very meaningfull and important that 'God' as a concept of thought/mind restricts itself to that very same category of existence, and is not 'there' in the world outside of the mind.

If 'God' would be 'there' in the outside world, then the same issue applies to this material shaped 'God', as for the whole of the outside world itself, as to what/who 'caused' or 'created' it. The concept of 'God' is very much linked to the issue of what caused the material world to be and to exist. But if 'God' would belong to the (category of existence of) the material world, then we needed to conclude that 'God' would have to be it's own 'creator'. But it can be stated that either God exists, in which it doesn't need to be created, or God does not exist, in which case God can not create anything. Then the only way out of it would be to say, God would exist for eternity. But if we allow this for God, why wouldn't we allow this for the world itself?

This just urge us to conclude that for the material world to exist, no 'creator' or 'outside cause' is necessary, cause it can be shown that in every possible way, we do not need the concept of 'God' to in fact explain that a world exists in the first place.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Does Donald Duck exist?
Yes.

Just to be sure here. How do you know? From what do you conclude Donald Duck exists?


And to make it even more difficult. To what category of existence does 'a thought, a process of thinking' belong? (tricky!)

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where did you get that conclusion from?
Material existence needs no 'creator' it just needs time, space and motion/change to exist.



No. The only possible explenation is that 'God' is the wrong concept!

If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?
By god i mean the higher being that put us here. Even material existence needs a creator.. Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?
By god i mean the higher being that put us here. Even material existence needs a creator.. Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

I see.

You are obviously confused.

For the material world to exist, no creator/creation is needed.

You really don't "solve" anything, by pointing to a "creator" (cause it would for the SAME reason, rais the question: who created the creator).

You have to realize that the question, which you implicitly ask is, why does there exist something, instead of nothing. Why is there a universe, a material world, where does it "come" from?

This question is also referred to as "The fundamental question" (See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876")

The answer to this is however, very simple. The universe, the totality of matter,time&space, doesn't come from somewhere, cause it always existed. Matter, the universe, just changes it's form eternally, without begin or end.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Netme
If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?

Santa Claus made universe (out of clay).

Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

Atom. Place a wave in 1/r potential, and you got an atom.

 

[Netme]

What creates a atom? Or what causes it to appear? Saying that nothing causes it to appear defies the rules of existential law for nothing is non existent.