[Mr. Blonde]

Who the fuck am I kidding, I'm not doing anything this morning.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Not sure what you're referring too -- please clarify.

Just wanted you more active here. You seem to really want to get to the bottom of some things and I'm online a lot. Dent also seems ready to discuss seriously (pending he remembers that he's way ahead of us in contemporary consciousness research), and 3 is all we need for a decent intellectual discussion (although all are welcome)

I'd like to post something I've been thinking regarding these matters of epistemology. Now that we've firmly established empiricism and rationalism I'd like to offer a definition of God and then, using our epistemological tools, posit a conjecture. This will admittedly be rudimentary at first, not least of all because I lack the capacity to comprehend or even fully articulate my thoughts on such a complex subject. But here goes.

Thank you, Data.


--------

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

God: creator of the universe. Omnipotent. Omnipresent.

God: Created the universe, therefore must, at least when he created it, exist outside of it.

God: Exists outside of the universe, meaning outside of space and time.

Metaphysics is so much more complex than this, which I'm sure you realize, but for the time being. I will partly agree. Allow me to post my similar definitions, from more of an Eastern Spice perspective --- for example, God would clearly not be a "he". These things bother me, a lot, and have been one of my biggest problems with Western theology; the (probably completely normal and unavoidable) "person"-ification of God.


Blonde's Response to Repug's Definitions:


1. The Universe: All that there is empirically available for us to survey through our five organic human senses (how many biological senses are possible?) combined with the highly-sensitive, god-like tools we have invented to investigate the physical universe further.

2. The Universe (if conscious): Brahman in the East: Ineffable, A not-thing, but all things, this is why it is a no-thing. From this no-thing springs all things. Because it is the prime thing, pure, aware, consciousness, and thus the source of all things (while not necessarily as being as "intellectual" as a human --- if you must conceptualize "It", which is impossible with language, try to think of it as an unconscious and incomprehensible but perfect mathematical algorithm in hyperspace or something), it contains several inherent qualities of Being:

✺ The term "Creator" is tricky because it still implies (naturally) a human-based consciousness, plotting away at some device for some purpose. I would refer to this field of ineffable Being, simply put, ultimate potential/creation. It does not mean creation with a purpose, other than just to do it because it wants to. That is, if it is capable of "wanting", which I'm not sure it is. Humans are though, so I like creating things simply because I want to. This is the joy of, at least human, creation, for me.

✺ So, yes, this Being would be all things that have ever or will come into existence, as this "field of consciousness" is the backdrop of which material reality exists within inside of. Think of the Holodeck, or that scene in the matrix.

The Matrix Stockroom - YouTube

The Matrix Stockroom - YouTube

Allegorically, the "white, vast, silent nothingness" which our two beings spring into spontaneously, as well as the vast and cool weaponry, would be what we would call "Brahman" in this situation. It both provides the environment for conscious beings to exist in, as well as provides whatever these conscious beings need, one way or another.

It is indescribable and ineffable because it is, ultimately, empty, nothing. It is everything so it can't be compared to anything except itself, which is impossible. Even as I type these words, I know it's nonsense, and that's the mystery. How can you describe something without using relativity?

What do you mean, "White"?

Well, it's like "Black".

What's "Black"?

Well, it's the opposite of White.

What does opposite mean?

Well, for relative reality to exist, one "thing" must RELATE (RELATivity) to another thing.....

This is the mystery behind relative and absolute realities, and I believe that much of Einstein's work may have accidentally validated Taoism, lol, but that's just a personal hunch. Also, recognizing the fact that you live in a relative reality, doesn't that mean that there must, obviously, also be an Absolute reality?

✺ "Omnipotent" not out of any sort of superiority complex, as the Christian and Catholic traditions would have you believe, but simply because that's how the system within which we reside must work, otherwise it would not BE.

✺ I haven't quite figured out the "Omnipresent" thing, particularly with my personal experiences with meditation and training my own consciousness to stay focused in the present moment. "Omnipresent" simply because it IS, NOW, the first, whatever "it" is, "it" is what "all" "came from" and "exists within", so Omnipotent isn't really an argument...these would be Natural qualities of the field, not some sort of "power" to be used with human intent, like constantly judging the actions of individual human beings. So, I agree with you, but under significantly different language. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

3. The Universe/Brahman: Being both all things inside the universe, (and thus, without), yet clearly (to some), Brahman affects us all in the physical universe. So yes, I agree that God would have to exist outside of the universe....and inside the universe at the same time.

Obviously, this is nearly impossible to comprehend, and if you can comprehend it, you usually don't feel very comfortable talking about it.

Science utilizes empiricism to test and falsifying the natural world, i.e. that which is contained within the universe. That which exists outside of the natural world is beyond the scope of science and therefore doesn't fall within the parameters of science. That doesn't mean irrelevant though. Abstract thought also exists outside of the scope of science, like the idea of morality. Mathematics also comes to mind. These are examples of a priori knowledge, which is independent of sensory experience.

I have a difficult time understanding a priori knowledge, could you provide some more examples? I agree it exists, if nothing else because of things like instinct, but have a hard time processing it academically. The only reason morality exists is because consciousness and self-awareness, as well as the awareness of the "other" exists. Deeply within us, it resonates that we are dealing with other conscious beings in a world of otherwise inanimate matter. This is from where morality springs --- a recognition, even just a glimmer, that the being that your personal morality affects, you would not want done to you. Morality should always be discussed, but as a practice, I believe it should be deeply personalized, and constantly consciously embodied, on a very personal level. So it's going to be hard to get me to discuss morality. I wish to be moral and ethical, so I will be. That's all I'm concerned with.

RE: The Natural World: I view everything that is or ever will be as Natural. Metaphysics is Natural; the concept of god is (clearly) Natural, as it arises out of so many human beings. Science currently at this point in history does not have the mechanical instruments to penetrate and examine "outside of reality" --- if that is possible --- but if there are multiverses and wormholes, those are about the best examples I can think of. It's just a matter of "time", heh.

I also believe that psychedelic drug usage is the next necessary hurdle for humanity to come to terms with, scientifically. There are many intelligent and honest people very interested in truth, enough to ignore the massive the social judgment and stigma that comes from ignorance about psychedelic drugs. I believe these chemicals are necessary to become part of our society in order to create the kind of ideas and concepts for humanity to survive further into the technological age. Don't worry, there are many technoshamans looking out for you



Repugnant Abomination: The position as it stands right now:

God created the universe. God had to exist outside of the universe to create it. The existence of God cannot be confirmed by science and the empirical method if he exists outside of his creation (i.e. space and time).

That position, thus far, is rational. Does anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

Are you implying that the existence of God can only be confirmed through rational thought, aka "must-be's"? (forgive the ad-hoc term, It seemed to make sense). If this is the case, while you may be technically (rationally) correct, I feel like this is still jus.t a glimpse into how much further this goes. I would only ask that you use Rationalism not as your prime tool, but as part of a tool-kit for understanding reality. Rationalism is a necessary tool, but not, I fear, The Answer.

I would request that you read and address what I wrote here before I can agree with this statement, because I believe that there is much that you perhaps haven't been introduced to (forgive the assumption), and are still very much viewing the God question from a very limited perspective (i.e. Christian backdrop...lots of "hims"). I also disagree that the existence of God is only possible by, if I'm interpreting this correctly... (and please again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Originally Posted by Repug

1. The Universe exists
2. How do that?
3. Something we will call God, and refer to as a him, must have made it from the outside
4. Therefore, God exists.

I wouldn't say this is irrational, but it is certainly very simplistic, unless all you're going for right now is the existence of a God, and before we even get close to that, we need to step-by-step examine all the different cultural and human definitions of God throughout history, not just what two white boys in 21st century America think.

And that could take some time, you know?

Let's take it a step further...

God is omnipresent because he exists outside of space and time, and thus can see the whole of space and time at all times. God is omnipotent, and thus can inject himself into space and time at any point. Being omnipotent he could perform miracles, which are defined as occurrences that do not or cannot be explained by nature (i.e. goes against the laws of physics). These miracles can never be verified or falsified because they represent a momentary suspension of the laws of nature and therefore cannot be replicated.

Existing outside of space and time, we can never know God scientifically. We can come up with rational theories on his existence, but this is emotionally (and some argue) intellectually unsatisfying.

Very nice description of a likely possibility!!! Studying quantum physics actually lines up very well (albeit allegorically) from concepts of the east. For example the vaccuum of space ("nothing"), as some of you may know, actually has infinite energy inside of it with particles jumping in and out of existence (whatever the fuck that means) all the time. So yeah man, I mean, these are very similar concepts, but humanity has a long way to go.

But yes, it is possible that: if a God (or gods) existed, that they could do such things. Anything is possible, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt...

If we can accept the above then faith in the existence of God can be considered reasonable. In fact faith would be required.

It is possible to replace what many people call "faith" with the long, steady practice of Zen meditation (sitting on a pillow and counting your breaths), in my personal experience. But I understand what you mean. Whatever Faith is, it means different things to different people, and some people use it in a very dumb way. I don't think that's what you're doing, but what I'm saying is I think we're on the same page.

I have faith in my existence, because I am intimately aware that I exist, in so much complexity, when I so easily could not have. That is what meditation has taught me.

Apologies if that was convoluted. I know that the definition of God I'm using is an example of Dualism and monotheism, which might not conform to other views, like Pantheism. But humor me. Rather than dispute my definition, accept it and try to pick apart my conclusion. It's something I've been thinking a lot about, and struggling with. Thanks in advance.

Good post man, hope some of my points made sense in relation to yours. For me, personally, the blend of Zen and Taoism (including an emphasis of extended time spent in Nature and a heavy prescription of Alan Watts lectures), have given me a quite relaxing worldview of existence. Smoking weed helps me take shit less seriously than I've been led to believe life needs to be, because hey, we're all gonna die.

The Golden Rule (and trying really hard to smile and have more fun in life) is all there is for me right now.




************************************************** *************************************

Came up with this during the post:



The Universe: The problem that just arose to me is that we do not know that "the Universe" is all that there is. However, if there are multiple, perhaps infinite universes, which evidence exists there may be, and if they are all connected (which may not be the case), but if they ARE all connected, then that means our term for "Universe" is simply misclassfied.

e.g., we may have to reclassify the universe as something like "Galaxy Collection" as part of an even GREATER Universe than we are aware of. This seems likely with infinite regression, and, well, infinity in general. Universe means "One-song", literally. If multiple-universe-theory appears to eventually prove true, we will have to change the name of what we call our Universe.

Also, in regard to consciousness, does that mean there is a separate God for every galaxy? Every Universe? Why not, look how many human beings they are, and we are clearly conscious multiplicities.



Just food for thought.