Is God an Outsider or the Eternal Insider of the Universe?

[Iacchus32]

This is a carry over from a discussion with M. Gaspar regarding God, "The Great Outsider" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And if the Universe is truly "eternal", then it doesn't need a "creator".

And yet what if the Universe was a manifestation of that "Eternal Creator?"

And who created the "Creator"?

And yet what if our essence (soul) lived on unto Eternity? Then wouldn't that imply there was an Eternal Creator (in essence) who created us?

Not necessarily. It could mean that the Universe ITSELF has a "Spirit"... of which OURS is a part (if, indeed, "spirit" exists).

So what if God were the within of the without? Just as I am the within of my without?

If my premise is correct -- that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity -- AND, if "spirit" exists as well, then, yes, it would be "within" every part of the Entity...just as I say consciousness may be.

But if the Universe has a "spiritual" component (in addition to physical and mental), do we have to call the aggregate of the spiritual "substance" "God"?

"God" is a loaded word...with all sorts of suppositions and embellishments "weighing it down" (for me).

Why not just call the Universe a living, conscious and SPIRITUAL Being that EVOLVING with -- and through -- the rest of us (and everything else ). Instead of "praying"...why not just "communicate"? Instead of "worshipping"...why not just "appreciate"?

Why do we, as a species, overdo the "hero worship", becoming transfixed on personalities, stories and rituals that, IMO, distract from our "relationship" with our "Source"? Any clues?

The within of the without is "the life," it is the spirit, it is the essence and, it is conscious(ness).


The reason why God might appear to be the "Great Outsider" (or even non-existent) is due to our "external perception," for which reason we fail to realize that God "resides within," the within of everything, even the within which is without (i.e., our range of external perception).

In other words, if we weren't so caught up in our "external existence," we would realize that God does not reside without, but within, in which case God becomes the "Great Insider."

As for this hero worship thing, I think it's due to a lack of maturity, or perhaps a sense of having no control (hence certainty) over one's life. Neither do I think we need to put people up on pedestals, even God Himself! ... as God is not looking for "suck ups."

When someone claims that "God created the Universe", would not that "God" be, by definition, an "Outsider"?

What it "spirit" anyway? Any ideas? I "know" there's a PHYSICAL "plane". And I "know" there's a CONSCIOUS "plane". And I "prefer to think" that there's a SPIRITUAL "plane"...but I'm not exactly how to characterize it.

Do we need a new thread for this...or could you make a stab at a definition here?

Without waiting for your definition, let me say that if there IS a "spiritual" component to the Universe, then it "resides" -- like CONSCIOUSNESS -- in Everything That Is...great or small.

...IMO

Yes, starting a new a thread might be a good idea ...

Anybody have any replies? ... Comments? ...

 

[Zero]

Could be...things that you don't percieve simply don't exist? In either case, things which you cannot percieve are 'practically' nonexistant; you cannot make observations, therefore you are wasting your time trying to define their properties. It is nothing more than a huge game of 'what if?', and you get to fill in whatever answer satisfies you.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Could be...things that you don't percieve simply don't exist? In either case, things which you cannot percieve are 'practically' nonexistant; you cannot make observations, therefore you are wasting your time trying to define their properties. It is nothing more than a huge game of 'what if?', and you get to fill in whatever answer satisfies you.

What if the Universe had purpose then? And what is it about purpose, if not that which is closely associated with consciousness? Is it possible then that man is an anomaly in the Universe, and that purpose and consciousness exist only with him? If not, then where does it come from? ... A greater brain perhaps? Or, a greater intelligence?

 

[Iacchus32]

The Matrix ...

From the URLAT, http://www.probablefuture.com/matrix.htm ...

Most human entities spend their "waking" lives hypnotized by their sensory world, which gives them the illusion of a material reality "out there."

In reality, space and time are really nonexistent both at the level of Pure Aware Consciousness, and also at the level of the unaware "blind parts" that experience for It the illusion of creative thought within an illusory space/time construct called Creation.

Mankind rarely realizes that life is but a sensory illusion that gives experience and learning to Thought, and that the only reality is Thought Itself, which is forever evolving.

Consciousness can be defined as Awareness projected onto a vibratory Dream. Period. For Space/Time Creation it is but pure Dark lesser vibratory (conscious and subconscious) thought interacting more or less intensely with the inner Holographic Light/Thought Reality originating through the facets of The MATRIX ("Deep" of Genesis 1: 2).

The Matrix of life is projected and connected to each perceptual individual consciousness through a Thought/Supercomputer (The Matrix) that interacts with its sensory input/output individual computer (brain).

The Matrix is really a field of pure information, not energy. It underlies and structures all energetic processes. As such it cannot yet be detected by our instruments. It is really the realm of the mythic ether (implicate realm) that physicists know should exist but has not yet been experimentally detected.

Consciousness provides the energy of life.

Original Consciousness has an unfathomable number of connections to the General Thought/Supercomputer. Each connection will be projected for a perceptual lifetime into a story/creation thinking that it is a particular character experiencing a particular life, surrounded by particular entities and reality within an illusory space/time Holographic Virtual Reality. The Creation and the individual will be given a certain history of linearly coherent perceptual history and a sense of possible probable futures.

 

[FZ+]

It is possible, but I see little to make it probable. I think it can be established that purpose is something given only with an external conscious observer, and hence to say that there is an universal purpose is reasonable if and only if a god exists. I don't think you can place humanity as an anomaly, or say that only we have this consciousness. It's a self-consistent statement, certainly. But you can't put it as really true. Without observation, it can only be indeterminate.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What if the Universe had purpose then? And what is it about purpose, if not that which is closely associated with consciousness? Is it possible then that man is an anomaly in the Universe, and that purpose and consciousness exist only with him? If not, then where does it come from? ... A greater brain perhaps? Or, a greater intelligence?

Again, all you have is questions, with no practical way of answering them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Again, all you have is questions, with no practical way of answering them.

Exactly. All of the previous attempts you have made (as in the first post of this thread) have been an addition of assumptions and propositions, which is (of course) a contradiction of Occam's Razor.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What if the Universe had purpose then? And what is it about purpose, if not that which is closely associated with consciousness? Is it possible then that man is an anomaly in the Universe, and that purpose and consciousness exist only with him? If not, then where does it come from? ... A greater brain perhaps? Or, a greater intelligence?

Originally posted by Zero
Again, all you have is questions, with no practical way of answering them.

This is a very fundamental question, in fact so fundamental that it almost "implies" the answer. The only question is, why won't science bother to do the research?


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2352&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Orignially posted by RSM1000
And furthermore, any answers you give to solve the God problem could just as likely solve the Universe problem and eliminate God.

That's the whole beauty of it, it doesn't require Science for the answer (at least for oneself). Matter of fact it would be a long time in waiting to see when Science gets off its duff and actually does something about it. And, while it's one thing to dismiss something, it's entirely another to disprove it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Zero
Could be...things that you don't percieve simply don't exist? In either case, things which you cannot percieve are 'practically' nonexistant; you cannot make observations, therefore you are wasting your time trying to define their properties. It is nothing more than a huge game of 'what if?', and you get to fill in whatever answer satisfies you.

Where were YOU when we first "saw" an atom (via the scanning tunneling microscope maybe 30 years ago) after CENTURIES about it's (the atom's) speculated existence.

We can't "see" black holes -- which, by the way, were speculated upon in 1783 -- yet most cosmologists swear by them now.

Although there are many "things" we cannot "see"...we can THINK ABOUT THEM perfectly well.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly. All of the previous attempts you have made (as in the first post of this thread) have been an addition of assumptions and propositions, which is (of course) a contradiction of Occam's Razor.

Another way of looking at an "assumption" might be to say that "one takes the case that..." in order to provide a "bridge" between what is "known" and what is "unknown". This is done for the purpose of "thinking outside the box" -- so to speak -- and has been a USEFUL DEVICE for getting to NEW IDEAS...that may eventually be "proven" ...or not.

When I'm approached by Occam's Razor, I become fearful that someone wants to excise my creative mind.

I believe this is NOT your intention, but, rather, my reaction ...even though I value the REMINDER from time to time.

Please read my response to Zero (above) for more about the "delay time" between speculation and proof.

 

[wuliheron]

What you are speculating on is the paradox of existence. To say that the universe has a purpose is to imply a primal cause for existence, but even if you could prove there is a cause for existence, it would remain an irrational cause. In the case of the religious, Love or somesuch. Hence, it is outside the realm of science and squarely in the realm of philosophical metaphysics and theology.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Where were YOU when we first "saw" an atom (via the scanning tunneling microscope maybe 30 years ago) after CENTURIES about it's (the atom's) speculated existence.

We can't "see" black holes -- which, by the way, were speculated upon in 1783 -- yet most cosmologists swear by them now.

Although there are many "things" we cannot "see"...we can THINK ABOUT THEM perfectly well.

We can only think about those things when they have a consistant, measurable, repeatable affect on things we CAN see. Note those three words: consistant, measurable, repeatable. When something that previously was seen as 'magical' or 'metaphysical' shows those three traits, I will give it another look.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
We can only think about those things when they have a consistant, measurable, repeatable affect on things we CAN see. Note those three words: consistant, measurable, repeatable. When something that previously was seen as 'magical' or 'metaphysical' shows those three traits, I will give it another look.

Gravity was thought of as magical at one time, matter was thought of as mechanical and rational at one time. Now we have a very reasonable explanation for gravity, but a totally unreasonable one for matter. Go figure. What Quantum Mechanics demonstrates, however, is that just because something appears to be magical does not mean we are capable of proving Anything really is magical. By definition, it is simply impossible to prove something is magical. That is why this entire thread is silly.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Another way of looking at an "assumption" might be to say that "one takes the case that..." in order to provide a "bridge" between what is "known" and what is "unknown". This is done for the purpose of "thinking outside the box" -- so to speak -- and has been a USEFUL DEVICE for getting to NEW IDEAS...that may eventually be "proven" ...or not.

This is true. However, Occam's Razor still doesn't allow for one to formulate a theory, which only has the same degree of accuracy as another theory, but uses more assumptions. The theory with the least assumptions, that describes the same phenomenon to the same (or greater) degree of accuracy, is the "better" theory (according to Occam).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Zero
We can only think about those things when they have a consistant, measurable, repeatable affect on things we CAN see. Note those three words: consistant, measurable, repeatable. When something that previously was seen as 'magical' or 'metaphysical' shows those three traits, I will give it another look.

And how does what you have just said relate to the existence of atoms and black holes BEFORE they were observable, measurable or "repeatable??"

I understand the scientific process -- so don't trouble yourself to say more on that -- just address what advanced thinkers were supposed to DO with their advanced THINKING while they were waiting for "science" to CATCH UP?

Not ALL hair-brained concepts turn out to be "true".

But SOME do.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Gravity was thought of as magical at one time, matter was thought of as mechanical and rational at one time. Now we have a very reasonable explanation for gravity, but a totally unreasonable one for matter. Go figure. What Quantum Mechanics demonstrates, however, is that just because something appears to be magical does not mean we are capable of proving Anything really is magical. By definition, it is simply impossible to prove something is magical. That is why this entire thread is silly.

I've never used the word "magical" in any of MY posts.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm a "MATERIALSIST"...with the only difference between others who think themselves so is that I PROPOSE that one of the "materials" is CONSCIOUSNESS.

When I have more time, I'm going to the menu of threads on this Forum and list all those that are "silly" to pursue as a discussion.

Some play golf. Some go bunji-jumping. They have THEIR "facilities". Is not THIS the "facility" for games of the mind?

P.S. And please do not allow yourself to give into the temptation to discredit the "game".

 

[Iacchus32]

Ground of One's Being

Originally posted by Mentat
This is true. However, Occam's Razor still doesn't allow for one to formulate a theory, which only has the same degree of accuracy as another theory, but uses more assumptions. The theory with the least assumptions, that describes the same phenomenon to the same (or greater) degree of accuracy, is the "better" theory (according to Occam).

All I know is that I exist, and I base everything else upon this. Like wu li said, the only thing that's "absolute" is the "ground of one's being."

At least I "know" that I'm conscious ... everything else is "speculative." Therefore it's perfectly acceptable to pose it in the form of a question, because this is all it is, "speculation." What is so God awful wrong about asking a question? ... Because it means we might have to supply the answer?

So what does it suggest? -- and indeed it does suggest something -- that the only fundamental thing about who we are is "consciousness." Therefore there should nothing wrong about asking what it is, where it comes from, and why does it "imply" a sense of purpose? ... Unless of course we wish to "dismiss" rather than "disprove."

Like I said this is very "fundamental stuff" ... and it all begins with the "absolute fact" that we exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Gravity was thought of as magical at one time, matter was thought of as mechanical and rational at one time. Now we have a very reasonable explanation for gravity, but a totally unreasonable one for matter. Go figure. What Quantum Mechanics demonstrates, however, is that just because something appears to be magical does not mean we are capable of proving Anything really is magical. By definition, it is simply impossible to prove something is magical. That is why this entire thread is silly.

Perhaps magic is all just in the eyes of a child? And what is it about life that shouldn't entail a sense of wonder? Are we to squeeze every single last drop so that there's none left?

Yes, you know what? It's very important that we question ourselves ... Or else where will the answer come? ... From the outside? But how can you acknowledge it if not "from within?"

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps magic is all just in the eyes of a child? And what is it about life that shouldn't entail a sense of wonder? Are we to squeeze every single last drop so that there's none left?

Yes, you know what? It's very important that we question ourselves ... Or else where will the answer come? ... From the outside? But how can you acknowledge it if not "from within?"

To say everything is consciousness, energy, or whatever and has no cause is essentially indistinguishible from using the word magic. Hocus Pocus, Presto Esto, Poof... and there it is. Just what the heck is "consciousness" without matter, energy without matter, etc.? Such things are inconceivable using reason and logic because there is nothing else to compare them to. You could just as easily say dill pickles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything and it makes just as much semantic and logical sense.

As for questions, they are wonderful tools, but more than once I've had to tell someone to shut up and stop asking questions so they can listen to the answers.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
To say everything is consciousness, energy, or whatever and has no cause is essentially indistinguishible from using the word magic. Hocus Pocus, Presto Esto, Poof... and there it is.

Actually M. Gaspar extended it so far as to the say this. Whereas I base everything on the fact that I'm conscious, and really have no other means by which to determine anything, except through "being conscious."

Just what the heck is "consciousness" without matter, energy without matter, etc.?

Why? Does it "matter?" ... Ha ha! ... In order for it to "matter" it would imply a sense of purpose by the way.

Such things are inconceivable using reason and logic because there is nothing else to compare them to. You could just as easily say dill pickles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything and it makes just as much semantic and logical sense.

And yet to the dill pickle, the fact that it exists, "is" the meaning to life ... And guess what? We are speaking of the "faculty" of consciousness here.

As for questions, they are wonderful tools, but more than once I've had to tell someone to shut up and stop asking questions so they can listen to the answers.

Oh well, maybe it's just my style? Hmm ... Another question ...

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

And yet to the dill pickle, the fact that it exists, "is" the meaning to life ... And guess what? We are speaking of the "faculty" of consciousness here.

I wouldn't know if existence is the meaning of life to a pickle, I make it a point to never talk to my food.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for questions, they are wonderful tools, but more than once I've had to tell someone to shut up and stop asking questions so they can listen to the answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh well, maybe it's just my style? Hmm ... Another question ...

Don't forget to listen for the answer. In fact, if you want you can even ask yourself just why you don't seem to know the answer.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I wouldn't know if existence is the meaning of life to a pickle, I make it a point to never talk to my food.

But wouldn't you say the idea of a pickle is "self-fulfilling" to its being a pickle? (whether a pickle is aware of it or not).

Don't forget to listen for the answer. In fact, if you want you can even ask yourself just why you don't seem to know the answer.

Except that through the fact that I'm conscious, I "know" what I know ... Afraid not, you can't take that away from me! Neither can anyone else. Try and pull the rug out from under me if you like, but I'll still be standing there ... for it's not the rug which holds me up, but the ground of my "true being."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But wouldn't you say the idea of a pickle is "self-fulfilling" to its being a pickle? (whether a pickle is aware of it or not).

That would be making an unsupported assumption about the paradox of existence. For all I know Aliens in orbit are just messing with my mind.

Except that through the fact that I'm conscious, I "know" what I know ... Afraid not, you can't take that away from me! Neither can anyone else. Try and pull the rug out from under me if you like, but I'll still be standing there ... for it's not the rug which holds me up, but the ground of my "true being."

How can you say you are conscious when you don't know why you ask questions and don't even know what you yourself think? Consciousness is a word with specific meanings as well as abstract ones. None of this of course proves you aren't conscious in some sense, but it does demonstrate that you aren't conscious in specific ways. When we accept the specifics of life as it presents itself, the generalities tend to take care of themselves.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That would be making an unsupported assumption about the paradox of existence. For all I know Aliens in orbit are just messing with my mind.

If a pickle doesn't find "fulfillment" in being a pickle, then why is it a pickle? Why isn't it a cat, or a dog, or a fish?

How can you say you are conscious when you don't know why you ask questions and don't even know what you yourself think? Consciousness is a word with specific meanings as well as abstract ones. None of this of course proves you aren't conscious in some sense, but it does demonstrate that you aren't conscious in specific ways. When we accept the specifics of life as it presents itself, the generalities tend to take care of themselves.

How can I say I'm conscious? ... And to which other "conscious entity" am I conferring with here? One that doesn't exist? ... I am conscious in sense that I know that I exist, including the life that lives "within context" of that. What else is there that I need to know about it?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If a pickle doesn't find "fulfillment" in being a pickle, then why is it a pickle? Why isn't it a cat, or a dog, or a fish?

Again, for all I know it really isn't a pickle, its just those crazy aliens in orbit messing with my mind. For all I know existence has a very prosaic explanation but, as they say about sausages and hot dogs, sometimes its better not to know what's inside.

How can I say I'm conscious? ... And to which other "conscious entity" am I conferring with here? One that doesn't exist? I am conscious in sense that I know that I exist, including the life that lives "within context" of that. What else is there that I need to know? (about being conscious).

Well, its good to know you know you exist, but how do you know you exist? Maybe who you think you are is not really who you are and those aliens in orbit are having fun with you as well. Considering you keep asking yourself questions and not getting answers...

All kidding aside, I don't think life needs a purpose. I have two wonderful kids and personally don't feel a need for a reason for them to exist. If existence is its own reason, that is no reason at all but a paradox. The pickle is a pickle because it is a pickle.
The same goes for everything being consciousness or energy. It is what it is, whatever That is, and it just doesn't matter to me personally.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Again, for all I know it really isn't a pickle, its just those crazy aliens in orbit messing with my mind. For all I know existence has a very prosaic explanation but, as they say about sausages and hot dogs, sometimes its better not to know what's inside.

What about the accumulative effect called "experience?" Are you trying to say we shouldn't try to make some sense (of purpose) out of that?

Well, its good to know you know you exist, but how do you know you exist? Maybe who you think you are is not really who you are and those aliens in orbit are having fun with you as well. Considering you keep asking yourself questions and not getting answers...

Hey, we all have to "begin" somewhere now don't we. Wow that's a deep one! ... Where does "the me" begin? Whoaa ...

All kidding aside, I don't think life needs a purpose. I have two wonderful kids and personally don't feel a need for a reason for them to exist. If existence is its own reason, that is no reason at all but a paradox. The pickle is a pickle because it is a pickle.
The same goes for everything being consciousness or energy. It is what it is, whatever That is, and it just doesn't matter to me personally.

And yet don't you feel the "need" to take care of them? Wouldn't that imply a sense of purpose (justification) in that sense?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the accumulative effect called "experience?" Are you trying to say we shouldn't try to make some sense (of purpose) out of that?

It's one thing to know from experience that gravity sucks and to attempt to figure out how it sucks exactly, and another entirely to contemplate the paradox of existence. My experience there tells me I can't even understand the question, much contemplate all the possible answers. One of my favorite bits of religious poetry puts this succinctly:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

You can chuck the word God and replace it with fate, "may I grant myself", or whatever and it still makes perfect sense. In fact, you can re-arrange the words altogether without loosing the sentiment, just the drama and mystery:

Acceptance grant me the serenity
To live with the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

And yet don't you feel the "need" to take care of them? Wouldn't that imply a sense of purpose (justification) in that sense?

What it implies is that I love them, and my love for them needs no purpose or justification. The pickle is a pickle because it is a pickle, and being a pickle is good enough. I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam. Way more than enough.