God's Existence: Beyond Existing and Nonexisting?

[moe darklight]

In that case are you actually saying that having theories is wrong since not yet proved?

(I know this was not directed at me but) no, a (true) scientist with a theory does not believe the theory he/she is researching until enough evidence exists to make a solid argument for it (and even then, since future evidence might prove that theory wrong again) ...

the difference between religious thinking and scientific (or actual) thinking, is this:

the scientific thinker, when he encounters a theory that sounds interesting or probable, thinks "hm, this sounds interesting. perhaps i should explore it further and see where it leads me." he simply follows a theory to explore its possibilities (sometimes it turns out to work out).

a religious thinker, on the other hand, thinks "hm, this sounds interesting... IT MUST BE TRUE!" ... and any further research (if any) is made based on the assumption that the theory is true to begin with.

---

as for not being able to prove that god doesn't exist... I can't believe people still use that argument! my blood boils when i hear someone say that.

can any of you prove the following statement wrong:
there is an invisible, massless unicorn sitting on your lap at this very moment.

because, according to religious thinking, if you can't ... THEN IT MUST BE UNDENIABLY TRUE! ... I guess we're lucky the unicorn doesn't promise to send you to a better place if you strap a bomb to yourself and kill all those who don't believe in it.

 

[fedorfan]

(I know this was not directed at me but) no, a (true) scientist with a theory does not believe the theory he/she is researching until enough evidence exists to make a solid argument for it (and even then, since future evidence might prove that theory wrong again) ...

the difference between religious thinking and scientific (or actual) thinking, is this:

the scientific thinker, when he encounters a theory that sounds interesting or probable, thinks "hm, this sounds interesting. perhaps i should explore it further and see where it leads me." he simply follows a theory to explore its possibilities (sometimes it turns out to work out).

a religious thinker, on the other hand, thinks "hm, this sounds interesting... IT MUST BE TRUE!" ... and any further research (if any) is made based on the assumption that the theory is true to begin with.

---

as for not being able to prove that god doesn't exist... I can't believe people still use that argument! my blood boils when i hear someone say that.

can any of you prove the following statement wrong:
there is an invisible, massless unicorn sitting on your lap at this very moment.

because, according to religious thinking, if you can't ... THEN IT MUST BE UNDENIABLY TRUE! ... I guess we're lucky the unicorn doesn't promise to send you to a better place if you strap a bomb to yourself and kill all those who don't believe in it.

Yeah man, exactly, my beliefs are agnostic but come on, I think religion really is just a joke, we know nothing about god or anything like that.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

God & Religion !

(I know this was not directed at me but) no, a (true) scientist with a theory does not believe the theory he/she is researching until enough evidence exists to make a solid argument for it (and even then, since future evidence might prove that theory wrong again) ...

The god that we are talking about are different from each other, The god which I'm talking about is simply the most primary particle which has existed & will exist...

Now you can take this god as a quark or conciousness or whatever...

Even if we look at the history of god, we can simply see that god was never introduced by a religion or belief it was an outcome of the primary science available to the ancient civilizations... As they couldn't explain different things or in general the existence... the concept of god was introduced.

 

[heusdens]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

If you define God as the creator of existence, then this implies God created itself. Something of a hurdle, because how can something that does not exist create itself?

Therefore, such a creation is rather meaningless and utterly nonsensical.

It simply doesn't work, no matter how hard you bend your concepts.

Rather, you are mistaken or misconceived in a very elementary sense, since you want to grasp something INCOMPREHENSIBLE, namely how Something can come from Nothing.

It is however, not a mystery how something can become, where that something did not exist before. You do that everyday, when you for instance cook your meal. This meal suddenly comes into existence where it did not exist before. Just by the process of cooking, putting the ingredients into your cooking equipment, etc.

So, the becoming of something, is rather comprehensible, since this is what we observe everyday, and contains no mystery or incomprehensibility. That is because we see the Being of the meal and the Non being of the meal, in their unity, which is becoming - or in this case better stated as the process of cooking a meal.
It is clear from that that this becoming is what unites Being and Nonbeing.

However, outside of this unity of becoming, all of a sudden turning Nonbeing into Being becomes totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE, because Being and Nonbeing are assumed to be absolutely SEPERATE and outside of their unity, which is Becoming, with the effect that one already annuls the possibility of that becoming, and yet on the other hand, is admitted at the same time, which makes there solution an impossibility.

 

[fedorfan]

Noone does or ever will know in this world.

 

[heusdens]

Noone does or ever will know in this world.

Your statements reads that any knowledge is impossible.

That is untrue, since we DO have knowledge (in this world, although it is an unnecessary precisation since only *this* world exists).

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Well heusdens, your previous reply is sure logical but how will you define something which has always existed in other words as many of the religious schools say; god has always existed and will always exist, to me this means he was never created... but I do like to know how this sentence sounds to you

Regards
Mubashir

 

[brent704]

There's the "physical" world which we discuss, think, and feel 99% of our lives. A non-physical (or spiritual) world exist- although it's our nature as human beings to not understand or even take much interest in what we cannot see or touch. Possibly, this is a handicap passed down from our ancient ancestors? Nevertheless, The mind is powerful even beyond it's OWN beleif (think about how the mind's neurological pathways are developed from birth, which explains why the non-physical world is so difficult to understand) so there are many ways for us to "connect" with the spiritual world-- this is exactly why we MUST be very careful in what we believe in our hearts & minds--because we will carry that into the next life (or afterlife etc, depending on what you beleive) and it will manifest itself in one way or another. For example, we manifest and become whatever we put into our bodies. If it's healthy (all natural), we will be healthy and exemplify what it means to be LIVING. On the other hand, if we consume "junk" food, don't exercise etc we are literally, slowly killing ourselves. We must be very careful with what we feed the heart, mind (body), and spirit (or soul). God gave us the will to live and believe whatever we wish... and he makes every one of our wishes come true (in this life or the next). So, at the end of the day, it's not about what we "know" or "beleive" to be true or not-- its about what we desire (or wish). We tend to wonder "what in the world would cause one person to kill another??" If we live our entire lives beleiving we are "weak & wounded" then evil (satan, etc) will prevail in the end (in this life or the next). We tend to doubt our faith "why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people??" We dare to wonder things like this without even considering consequences and rewards in the next life. We must try to look at the BIG picture in order to get a better understanding of God's will...we're on the this Earth for only 80-90 yrs or so. Compare that to eternity! Does eternity really exist? The choice is yours...

 

[moe darklight]

\A non-physical (or spiritual) world exist-

on what basis do you make this claim?

 

[heusdens]

Well heusdens, your previous reply is sure logical but how will you define something which has always existed in other words as many of the religious schools say; god has always existed and will always exist, to me this means he was never created... but I do like to know how this sentence sounds to you

Regards
Mubashir

It sounds like a good english sentence.

But perhaps you want me to reflect on this?

From what and/or how do you infer there to be something like a deity existing from all eternity? How did you conclude that? There must have been some reasoning for you, to assume such a being to exist.

In most versions of deities, this particular being shows up as a "logical conclusion" from a reasoning that assumes the material world must have come from somewhere.

Of course, if one assumes that to be the case, it takes a deity for the world to exist.

But what reason is there to assume the world was not always existent in the first place?

The point is: one assumes something contradictionary about the world, like assuming that the world was not always there, this leads to irrational thinking and irrational conclusions.

All forms (or perhaps almost all, since I can't make this a too general case) of religions and religious thinking drops down to this: they assume something rather illogical and then pose their "resolution", which in their case is that we somehow must assume the existence of such higher being (which come in different flavours, acc. to local traditions).

But what we should do is of course correct our illogical assumptions, instead of assuming something out of the ordinary.

Examples of this reasoning are for example to reason that the world somehow needed a begin, and since the world can not pop out from nowhere, the higher being is proposed to fix the situation, to give a "first cause". But since the deity itself is an infinite cause, this makes the situation the same as assuming the world did not start at all. The only difference is then that this eternal cause of the world, takes on some human like proportions and attributes.

But a more logical approach would be to see that this assumption of ours, that the world would have needed to have a begin, is simply wrong.

Some other form of reasoning is for example the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? Also this question is then answered in some cases and argued that we would need to have a higher being, which could have "created" the world from nothing.
That reasoning is of course incorrect, since also for this deity, that supposedly created the world, the same question does apply, rather the question then reads: why does this higher being exist, rather then nothing? In conclusion, the "invention" of this higher being does not bring us one millionth of a milimeter further in answering the question.

The question itself is however simply wrong. If we restate this as why is there Being instead of Nonbeing, we are already assuming something out of the ordinary, namely we assume that Being and Nonbeing are only and absolutely seperate and in that manner, we don't reflect on them in their unity, which is Becoming. Being and Nonbeing necessarily belong to each others, they are opposing notions which are bound to each other (that is: they don't exist separate of each other).
Being and Nonbeing are in other words just different (opposing) moments of becoming, and in becoming it is revealed the truth of the both.

 

[heusdens]

There's the "physical" world which we discuss, think, and feel 99% of our lives. A non-physical (or spiritual) world exist- although it's our nature as human beings to not understand or even take much interest in what we cannot see or touch. Possibly, this is a handicap passed down from our ancient ancestors? Nevertheless, The mind is powerful even beyond it's OWN beleif (think about how the mind's neurological pathways are developed from birth, which explains why the non-physical world is so difficult to understand) so there are many ways for us to "connect" with the spiritual world-- this is exactly why we MUST be very careful in what we believe in our hearts & minds--because we will carry that into the next life (or afterlife etc, depending on what you beleive) and it will manifest itself in one way or another. For example, we manifest and become whatever we put into our bodies. If it's healthy (all natural), we will be healthy and exemplify what it means to be LIVING. On the other hand, if we consume "junk" food, don't exercise etc we are literally, slowly killing ourselves. We must be very careful with what we feed the heart, mind (body), and spirit (or soul). God gave us the will to live and believe whatever we wish... and he makes every one of our wishes come true (in this life or the next). So, at the end of the day, it's not about what we "know" or "beleive" to be true or not-- its about what we desire (or wish). We tend to wonder "what in the world would cause one person to kill another??" If we live our entire lives beleiving we are "weak & wounded" then evil (satan, etc) will prevail in the end (in this life or the next). We tend to doubt our faith "why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people??" We dare to wonder things like this without even considering consequences and rewards in the next life. We must try to look at the BIG picture in order to get a better understanding of God's will...we're on the this Earth for only 80-90 yrs or so. Compare that to eternity! Does eternity really exist? The choice is yours...

The universe is best described as an eternal process unfolding endlesly in space and time.

 

[Anttech]

All forms (or perhaps almost all, since I can't make this a too general case) of religions and religious thinking drops down to this: they assume something rather illogical and then pose their "resolution", which in their case is that we somehow must assume the existence of such higher being (which come in different flavours, acc. to local traditions).

An Assumption is an assumption. Nothing more, to assume there is or isn't something is still just an assumption.
When you don't know all the fact, or rather can't understand all the facts about something, that something being our universe IMHO it is completely illogical to conclude anything without proper testing of your conclusion. So how do you test your hypothesis, since you don't believe there is a god, you must be able to test your believe.. right?

But what we should do is of course correct our illogical assumptions, instead of assuming something out of the ordinary.

Try telling that to a QM expert

The question itself is however simply wrong. If we restate this as why is there Being instead of Nonbeing, we are already assuming something out of the ordinary, namely we assume that Being and Nonbeing are only and absolutely separate and in that manner, we don't reflect on them in their unity, which is Becoming. Being and Nonbeing necessarily belong to each others, they are opposing notions which are bound to each other (that is: they don't exist separate of each other).
Being and Nonbeing are in other words just different (opposing) moments of becoming, and in becoming it is revealed the truth of the both.

ermm so let me get this straight, you are saying that no god exists and god exists are the same thing? Each have to exist as one because they are the opposite of one another? Like The computer I am typing on now, and the no computer I am typing on now?

 

[heusdens]

An Assumption is an assumption. Nothing more, to assume there is or isn't something is still just an assumption.
When you don't know all the fact, or rather can't understand all the facts about something, that something being our universe IMHO it is completely illogical to conclude anything without proper testing of your conclusion. So how do you test your hypothesis, since you don't believe there is a god, you must be able to test your believe.. right?

What is there to test?

The issue is rather reversed, those people claiming the theory of the existence of a deity should make their case clear, and since they can't we must conclude that their theory doesn't hold water.

Try telling that to a QM expert

QM only shows that some of our daily logical assumptions don't hold true in the quantum world.

ermm so let me get this straight, you are saying that no god exists and god exists are the same thing? Each have to exist as one because they are the opposite of one another? Like The computer I am typing on now, and the no computer I am typing on now?

You didn't get it.

Let us say: your computer (the being of it) is something that became a computer, which involved the process of manufacuring the components of the computer and assemble it, right?

Now this proces of 'becoming a computer' is the simultanious being and annulling of it's non-being of that computer. In that way (by the way of making a computer) the being of the computer and the non-being of that computer belong together, as they are two moments of the becoming of that computer.

Hope you get that?

 

[setAI]

I think the consequence of the Church-Turing thesis and computation in general is that any classical or quantum computer capable of performing [at most] a number of operations in it's lifetime equivalent to the amount of information in the observed universe- would be functionally equivalent to God in every conceivable way-

Seth Lloyd says that the universe contains about 10^90 bits of information and has performed 10^120 operational steps since the big bang- this means that even without considering the Beckenstein Bound or the locality of an observer and the severe limitations on information they impose- any computer in the Cosmos that can in it's lifetime perform 10^120 operations [regardless of 'how long' this takes relative to the computer's 'hardware'] is capable of computing the states/history of any possible intelligence including YOU and also including any form of super intelligence up to and including the entire Hubble Volume configured as a single 'supermind'- and universal computation on this scale means that such forms of super intelligence could simulate/manipulate/emulate/access information from any other conceivable universe/mind/being [with similar causality/locality]-

if the Universe is spatially infinite and/or exists as part of a multiverse- then there must exist an infinitude of such intelligent minds/computers both natural and artificial- each equivalent to God- in that they can simulate worlds as complex as ours- and thus can control create worlds/people/ histories equivalent to ours- they would intimately know any possible being intimately- know any possible thought or memory- compute all possible histories of any possible world or life- manipulate and create physical laws by simply applying the desired rule-system as a program- and each of these infinite number of intelligent computers would by definition be identical and INCLUSIVE of the others- as they could compute/access the precise states and histories of any possible equal or lesser intelligence as easily as their own [Principle of Computational Equivalence]- in essence this infinite pantheon would really be One- and would include all possible universes/gods/worlds/people in it's computation space

so God probably exists- as a sysop of sorts

 

[Anttech]

Let us say: your computer (the being of it) is something that became a computer, which involved the process of manufacuring the components of the computer and assemble it, right?

Now this proces of 'becoming a computer' is the simultanious being and annulling of it's non-being of that computer. In that way (by the way of making a computer) the being of the computer and the non-being of that computer belong together, as they are two moments of the becoming of that computer.

Hope you get that?

Yes I got it (I think); but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It seems you are saying that the process of *becoming* a computer means that the *no computer* annuls and the *computer* starts to exist. I don't see how you can annul something that doesn't exist, unless perhaps in retrospect, after knowing of the existence of that said something...

Seems to me to be a circular argument...

 

[fedorfan]

I meant that we know nothing about god and all. We most likely never will.

 

[heusdens]

What if to say that God exists or does not exist is meaningless? That's the way we think of things; either it's real or it's not. But God's the creator of existence. Why must we limit an omnipotent being to existence or nonexistance? What if there's more than what exists and what does not, like a grey area in between, or a completely new category that I or nobody else could really define? Just an idea.

What if we say, this question or discussion is meaningless?

 

[baywax]

What if we say, this question or discussion is meaningless?

This discussion is only meaningful to the person asking the question and to those people who wish to discuss it.

If I start the thread "The existence of Leprechauns..." it is only going to appeal to those people interested in leprechauns.

I guess this thread has lasted as long as it has on the PF because it is a philosphical question in the philosophy section.

But, a discussion on "The Existence of Texture..." might generate as much interest given the nature of this overall forum.

 

[heusdens]

I meant that we know nothing about god and all. We most likely never will.

That's not true. We know that god are constructions of the mind, and don't exist outside of that, ie. god is manmade.

 

[Anttech]

That's not true. We know that god are constructions of the mind, and don't exist outside of that, ie. god is manmade.

How do we know that? You are basing your argument on an assumption that God doesn't exist.

 

[heusdens]

How do we know that?

Well I would think that is pretty obvious. Do you know of any form of religion outside of human religions?

You are basing your argument on an assumption that God doesn't exist.

No, I do not. I could reflect on your statement, that it is your assumption, God could exist. As I reasoned out, that is not a valid assumption.

God only manifests itself in the human mind, as the absolute idea, and has no objective existence, ie. God is not part of nature.

 

[baywax]

God is not part of nature.

If brain activity is part of nature, the thought of god is part of nature.

The electromagnetic wave signature that is the result of any brain activity concerning god requires the laws and properties of nature to exist.

The nature of thought is cyclical in that once you have produced a thought it becomes an external force. It is not confined to the regions of the brain but actually impinges upon the outside environment.

A thought can do so either by motivating actions in the body where the thought began or by motivating actions in other organisms and/or inanimate objects.

We often reflect our thoughts in our actions and even in our appearance.

This is may explain why someone once wrote that we are made in the likeness of (our thoughts) god.

 

[heusdens]

If brain activity is part of nature, the thought of god is part of nature.

I don't think I agree, although I could agree to the point where we say that the experience of there being a God, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic (and for that reason perhapsd also an evolutionary) reason to exist.

A brain sensation (religious or mystical experience) is beyond all doubt true, and there is nothing which I disagree on that as an established (scientific) fact that one can have that experience.

I would however not conclude from this well established fact that there is (objectively) a God, since that is something quite different and altogether impossible.

This is because the only thing we experience about is a state of our brain, it is as though we look through a different mind - the mind of God somehow - on reality, in which our self is dissolved into a united reality (no differentiation between self and not-self, or subjectivity and objectivity), but then we do realize that this is just our own self experiencing that (the brain experiencing itself it's own undivided brain state).

I can tell you a little trick how to mentally experience such a state. It will take perhaps some 10-20 minutes.
All you have to do is sit back and think about anything in reality that exists and/or that could exists, and then try to think in your mind that that didn't exist. This in order to establish a state in our own mind which has 'got rid' of anything outside itself, any connection or concept of a real existing world.

You will probably experience first some difficulty of getting rid of anything that either exists or could exist, so you have to take a stepwise approach first, and anything that digs up in your mind that is existent or could exist, and try to get rid of that in your mind.
So when your for example think of elephants as existing, then think of the world without elephants, and so on.
Since this will go quite slow (because there are so many things that exist, or could exist), try to increase your steps by thinking about a broader category, for instance animals, that either exist or could exist (on all different planets, and all different universes, etc.).

Just continue to think about anything that exists or can exist, and then what comes on in your mind, try to get rid of that in your mind, in order to 'empty' your mind. It takes some concentrated devotion to do this, and sometimes, even after you have 'removed' some existing things from thought, they can come back. Like for example, after having get rid of all animals or animal alike species, on any planet in any galaxy in any universe, but then you realize for example that you didn't get rid of for example dogs or frogs, or insects, or whatever. In that case perhaps your steps are too big at once, and you should take some smaller steps. Take your steps as you seem fit, but be sure that in last instance, you need to get rid of everything that either exists or can exist, whatever it may be.

After having get rid of all the people you know of, all of humanity, all living things, and all living things everywhere else, all stars, planets and other celestial bodies, and all dust and matter that exists in the universe or other universes, or anything that is physically there, ultimately you will arrive at some point in which your mind is almost completely free of anything existent, and all you can imagine in mind is just total blackness and emptiness. So the only thing which still exists in your mind then is the existence of space (and or time) extending infinitely. Try to take the next step and get rid of that from mind.

What is still there? Well you have arrived then at a state in which the only thing you still experiencing is - you thinking that. So that is the only thing that then still exists, your experiencing this, your thinking and imagining this.

Then the ultimate step: try to get rid of this.

What you will experience then is that, while every other step you took was succesfull, you can in no way get rid of this, your (self)experience persists to exist, and there is no possible way in which you could get rid of this (and neither would you want to).
(the reason for that is of course, although you removed everything in thought that reflects on the outside world, you are still experiencing - that is your brain will still keep functioning, which is, you will still think something -, and the only experience you still have is your self-experience - you thinking that).

This experience can come with some fundamental insights, for example that you experience that you care about yourself, and that you feel some intimate connection with the rest of the cosmos, unlimited in time and space. And also this is the experience that in no possible way the cosmos, the world, could not be there, cause ultimately that would also mean that you would not be there, which, for obvious reasons, you would not want to be the case. And perhaps you could feel like you were (united with) some kind of 'worldspirit' looking out over the cosmos through all space and time and extending infinitly. In some ways it feels like our own mind dissolved itself and resolves itself as some general idea of mind or 'worldspirit' looking out over reality : we are no longer an individual mind with a body, but have some spiritial form.

The conclusion of this is that we could in no possible way think of a nonexistent world (since no matter how much of the world we could get rid of in mind, in the ultimate sense our own thinking persists to exist). We can in no way imagine within our mind the complete nonexistence of the world.

This is altogether something different as thinking about a world as it exists, but without ourselves existing in it, for example if we try to form a picture in imagination of the world at a time before we were born, or of a time after we died. A world in which we would not be there, we could imagine, it just would entail looking at the world from some(one's) other perspective. It would just be like imagining we would be born as someone else.

Although we can think about this experience in many different ways, I think it just shows us some basic facts about reality and about our minds, in which we experience some unified reality in which the distinction between self and the world around oneself have been completely dissolved.

This kind of experience is different then our normal daily life experience, in which we see ourselves as an individual in a human form with a human body, and in which we differentiate between ourselves and the rest of our world, or formulated differently, in which the world divides between our inner experience and the experience of the outside world itself, which exists indepent of ourself.

What to conclude from this? Are we experiencing something like the mind of God, or does it proof the existence of God? Or should we conclude more basically that this is just some inner experience, and for whatever (evolutionary) reason, our brains are wired in a way that enables us to experience this?

To me, although I can certainly think that some people would reflect on this in that way, this would not be some ultimate proof of the 'objective existence' of God, since we are just experiencing some mindly state, and not experience some ultimately different mind, but only experience our own mind.
Although, in the experience itself, our own individual state completely dissolves itself into the general idea of mind. There is no distinction in this state between our mind and any other mind, we just feel like one mind experiencing this, or perhaps even more, we completely unite with the whole infinite cosmos.

The feeling/experience itself only resides inside our own mind, so this means, it is an inner feeling/experience and therefore a subjective experience or feeling. It doesn't come with sensory perception of something outside our own brain or anything like that. And perhaps, when our brain is being monitored, it can be shown which part of our brain is actively involved in this experience.

 

[fedorfan]

I see what you mean and totally agree heusdens.

 

[heusdens]

I see what you mean and totally agree heusdens.

Well thanks.

I think it is usefull to explain that even if such mental experience does exist (which we can even proof when monitoring the brain), there is no need to deduce from it anything that would contradict the materialist view of reality, in which matter is primary and basically the only thing that exist, and all (including our mind) is deduced from it.

It is even clear that within this (materialistic) point of view, one is not dispermitted to call this unknown cause that caused this universe/world to exist (the totality of theoretically infinite causes prior to the big bang) something like God (having infinite potentially, stretching infinite in space and time) and attribute to it some human properties, since whatever this exact cause was, it has caused the existence of us human beings into what we are, and since we evaluate our existence as positive (which we describe as self-care, love, or whatever), we attribute that to this entity.

And nowhere down the line we are in contradiction with scientific/materialistic reality.

However it is the case that there is nothing we can know absolutely about this entity (we don't have absolute knowledge), and all base for some absolute religious statements about how to interpret this, are merely subjective.

So, any real knowledge still has to be deduced from experiment and scientific methods, based on the materialistic pre-supposition. It is a framework that does work, and provides us (approximately correct) knowledge about the world and not some unified a priori knowledge, as comes from mythical/mystical or religious experience.

 

[baywax]

I don't think I agree, although I could agree to the point where we say that the experience of there being a God, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic (and for that reason perhapsd also an evolutionary) reason to exist.

A brain sensation (religious or mystical experience) is beyond all doubt true, and there is nothing which I disagree on that as an established (scientific) fact that one can have that experience.

I would however not conclude from this well established fact that there is (objectively) a God, since that is something quite different and altogether impossible.

This is because the only thing we experience about is a state of our brain, it is as though we look through a different mind - the mind of God somehow - on reality, in which our self is dissolved into a united reality (no differentiation between self and not-self, or subjectivity and objectivity), but then we do realize that this is just our own self experiencing that (the brain experiencing itself it's own undivided brain state).

I can tell you a little trick how to mentally experience such a state. It will take perhaps some 10-20 minutes.
All you have to do is sit back and think about anything in reality that exists and/or that could exists, and then try to think in your mind that that didn't exist. This in order to establish a state in our own mind which has 'got rid' of anything outside itself, any connection or concept of a real existing world.

You will probably experience first some difficulty of getting rid of anything that either exists or could exist, so you have to take a stepwise approach first, and anything that digs up in your mind that is existent or could exist, and try to get rid of that in your mind.
So when your for example think of elephants as existing, then think of the world without elephants, and so on.
Since this will go quite slow (because there are so many things that exist, or could exist), try to increase your steps by thinking about a broader category, for instance animals, that either exist or could exist (on all different planets, and all different universes, etc.).

Just continue to think about anything that exists or can exist, and then what comes on in your mind, try to get rid of that in your mind, in order to 'empty' your mind. It takes some concentrated devotion to do this, and sometimes, even after you have 'removed' some existing things from thought, they can come back. Like for example, after having get rid of all animals or animal alike species, on any planet in any galaxy in any universe, but then you realize for example that you didn't get rid of for example dogs or frogs, or insects, or whatever. In that case perhaps your steps are too big at once, and you should take some smaller steps. Take your steps as you seem fit, but be sure that in last instance, you need to get rid of everything that either exists or can exist, whatever it may be.

After having get rid of all the people you know of, all of humanity, all living things, and all living things everywhere else, all stars, planets and other celestial bodies, and all dust and matter that exists in the universe or other universes, or anything that is physically there, ultimately you will arrive at some point in which your mind is almost completely free of anything existent, and all you can imagine in mind is just total blackness and emptiness. So the only thing which still exists in your mind then is the existence of space (and or time) extending infinitely. Try to take the next step and get rid of that from mind.

What is still there? Well you have arrived then at a state in which the only thing you still experiencing is - you thinking that. So that is the only thing that then still exists, your experiencing this, your thinking and imagining this.

Then the ultimate step: try to get rid of this.

What you will experience then is that, while every other step you took was succesfull, you can in no way get rid of this, your (self)experience persists to exist, and there is no possible way in which you could get rid of this (and neither would you want to).
(the reason for that is of course, although you removed everything in thought that reflects on the outside world, you are still experiencing - that is your brain will still keep functioning, which is, you will still think something -, and the only experience you still have is your self-experience - you thinking that).

This experience can come with some fundamental insights, for example that you experience that you care about yourself, and that you feel some intimate connection with the rest of the cosmos, unlimited in time and space. And also this is the experience that in no possible way the cosmos, the world, could not be there, cause ultimately that would also mean that you would not be there, which, for obvious reasons, you would not want to be the case. And perhaps you could feel like you were (united with) some kind of 'worldspirit' looking out over the cosmos through all space and time and extending infinitly. In some ways it feels like our own mind dissolved itself and resolves itself as some general idea of mind or 'worldspirit' looking out over reality : we are no longer an individual mind with a body, but have some spiritial form.

The conclusion of this is that we could in no possible way think of a nonexistent world (since no matter how much of the world we could get rid of in mind, in the ultimate sense our own thinking persists to exist). We can in no way imagine within our mind the complete nonexistence of the world.

This is altogether something different as thinking about a world as it exists, but without ourselves existing in it, for example if we try to form a picture in imagination of the world at a time before we were born, or of a time after we died. A world in which we would not be there, we could imagine, it just would entail looking at the world from some(one's) other perspective. It would just be like imagining we would be born as someone else.

Although we can think about this experience in many different ways, I think it just shows us some basic facts about reality and about our minds, in which we experience some unified reality in which the distinction between self and the world around oneself have been completely dissolved.

This kind of experience is different then our normal daily life experience, in which we see ourselves as an individual in a human form with a human body, and in which we differentiate between ourselves and the rest of our world, or formulated differently, in which the world divides between our inner experience and the experience of the outside world itself, which exists indepent of ourself.

What to conclude from this? Are we experiencing something like the mind of God, or does it proof the existence of God? Or should we conclude more basically that this is just some inner experience, and for whatever (evolutionary) reason, our brains are wired in a way that enables us to experience this?

To me, although I can certainly think that some people would reflect on this in that way, this would not be some ultimate proof of the 'objective existence' of God, since we are just experiencing some mindly state, and not experience some ultimately different mind, but only experience our own mind.
Although, in the experience itself, our own individual state completely dissolves itself into the general idea of mind. There is no distinction in this state between our mind and any other mind, we just feel like one mind experiencing this, or perhaps even more, we completely unite with the whole infinite cosmos.

The feeling/experience itself only resides inside our own mind, so this means, it is an inner feeling/experience and therefore a subjective experience or feeling. It doesn't come with sensory perception of something outside our own brain or anything like that. And perhaps, when our brain is being monitored, it can be shown which part of our brain is actively involved in this experience.

Well, what I was pointing out was that when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse.

So, in that sense, the neuronal impulse (that is in the electrochemomagnetic signature representing the idea of a god) actually exists.

But then, so does a neuronal impulse that represents a leprechaun.

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

So we can say that for the "existence of god" to take place we have to have neuronal transmitters and receivers just as there must be these physical elements for us to say that "anything exists" or for us to "experience anything".

 

[heusdens]

Well, what I was pointing out was that when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse.

So, in that sense, the neuronal impulse (that is in the electrochemomagnetic signature representing the idea of a god) actually exists.

But then, so does a neuronal impulse that represents a leprechaun.

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

So we can say that for the "existence of god" to take place we have to have neuronal transmitters and receivers just as there must be these physical elements for us to say that "anything exists" or for us to "experience anything".

Right. But then it is only an inner experience, like one can experience different things based on drugs, etc. It is a subjective experience.

 

[baywax]

Right. But then it is only an inner experience, like one can experience different things based on drugs, etc. It is a subjective experience.

Experience (in humans) requires the physiology of a nervous system. Each individual's nervous system will process an event differently and that's what makes the interpretation of the event "subjective".

Maybe that's why so many people say "may your god go with you". Because there are as many "god experiences" as there are people.

 

[heusdens]

Experience (in humans) requires the physiology of a nervous system. Each individual's nervous system will process an event differently and that's what makes the interpretation of the event "subjective".

Maybe that's why so many people say "may your god go with you". Because there are as many "god experiences" as there are people.

The way the nervous centre interprets outside stimuli, like for example seeing a colour or hearing a sound, would for the same reason also be "subjective", although we have every reason to say that there is an objective cause for this.

 

[baywax]

The way the nervous centre interprets outside stimuli, like for example seeing a colour or hearing a sound, would for the same reason also be "subjective", although we have every reason to say that there is an objective cause for this.

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

To begin with we use crossreferences between observers and then back those observations up with readings from instruments. But, there remains the subjectivity of our observations of these readings and of other people's observations. These are all interpretations of stimuli.

Mars was once populated with "canals" and there was no dispute about that until much later. It appears that conclusions should remain tentative and that they should leave room for future discovery and understanding.

 

[heusdens]

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

That is not what I said, I said there is an objective cause for them.
The light emitted or sound emitted.

To begin with we use crossreferences between observers and then back those observations up with readings from instruments. But, there remains the subjectivity of our observations of these readings and of other people's observations. These are all interpretations of stimuli.

That is some speculation. You mean our thoughts are "forever" unknowable, except for the mind thinking them?
I hold the position that is not the case.

Mars was once populated with "canals" and there was no dispute about that until much later. It appears that conclusions should remain tentative and that they should leave room for future discovery and understanding.

That is correct. Our understanding of the world is never complete.

 

[mosassam]

What is the reasoning that says a nervous system's interpretation of any stimuli can be objective? Interpretations are ultimately the domain of each individual's nervous system.

The stimuli can be objective, not the interpretation.
In the last few posts there has been the assumption that mind is a product of brain. If it can be demonstrated that brain may be a product of mind, would this not qualify as an indicator of the existence of god?
Baywax -"...when we conceive of a god it physically exists as a neuronal impulse". Conversely, the neuronal impulse could be a manifestation of god's existence.
Heusdens -"...the experience of there being a god, or some kind of religious or mythical experience, is indeed something which comes out of our brains and has a materialistic reason to exist". Conversely, our brains could be physical manifestations of god's existence.
This line of thinking derives from Bohm's implicate/explicate order, where the known, physical universe (explicate order) is an extension, or product of, an implicate order.
I put this forward simply as an alternative way of looking at things.

 

[mosassam]

That is some speculation. You mean our thoughts are "forever" unknowable, except for the mind thinking them?

I hold the position that is not the case.

Thoughts can be communicated in a variety of ways but, for you or anyone else, my experience of my thoughts is "forever" unknowable, until we can physically demonstrate otherwise (I think...?)

 

[mosassam]

So, the actual overlord only exists as a concept. and if we strip away all thought, as in a meditation, then all concepts disappear. What is left is what is real and we are left to experience it. But our experience relies on neuronal impulses to happen so, we won't be experiencing anything when we manage to quieten our thoughts and nerve impulses.

At this point not only is there no god but there is no "us" and no " them" and no nothing or something.

Why do you say that at this point there is no god? Surely when we have stripped away all thought, including "I", "us", "them" etc., the remainder can be considered to be god, can it not?

 

[baywax]

Surely when we have stripped away all thought, including "I", "us", "them" etc., the remainder can be considered to be god, can it not?

There won't be any consideration of the remainder because "consideration" requires a nervous system.