Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Why should it be 'magic'?  We know that what we experience as the objective world is actually a subjective experience created by our mind within our brain.

We have already discussed all this...

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16814.0

That our understanding of the world is a subjective experience does not parse into therefore the universe is conscious itself.  The universe is objective, it's our understanding that is subjective, not the universe itself.

O.

[ekim]

About the 'word'...even in Hinduism we believe in a primeval sound 'Om' that is said to have started creation.  Maybe this refers to some kind of a primeval vibration.

It could well be.  'Word' is a translation of the Greek 'logos' which appears in St. John's Gospel.  The Greek Stoic philosophers used it to represent that which generated the Universe.  I've got a vague idea that at about the time of Jesus the Hellenistic Jews used it to represent that same principle as being within a human.  Some people think that John's Gospel was written by a Hellenist and is why it differs from the other three Gospels.

[Alan Burns]

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.  Unfortunately I can only give a short account on this forum.

People seem to confuse material reactions with conscious perception.  Conscious perception is not just a complex reaction.  External observance of complex reactions can often be mistaken as an indication of conscious perception, but the simple truth is that consciousness is not material reaction, but perception of material reaction.  Our consciousness allows us to perceive the data from our sensory organs rather than just react to it.  We can share our conscious awareness with other human beings by choosing to use abstract media to communicate what we perceive.  Early evidence of this type of communication exists in the early cave paintings in which humans were able to show what they perceived by reproducing images on the cave walls.  These early cave paintings also demonstrate the human freedom to choose how to respond to perceived data rather than just react to it.  Modern humans can now choose many different means to communicate their conscious awareness with other people.

I also challenge the presumption that there is no evidence for the existence of non physical entities beyond the scope of scientific investigation.  The existence of our universe is in itself evidence of the non physical.  Current evidence indicates that our material universe, together with its associated time dimension and physical properties came into existence a few milliseconds after the singularity known as the big bang.  It is logical to presume that this singularity has a causation from outside our known universe, and by implication we must presume that this causation was a non physical entity.  For want of another word, we could call this non physical entity the source.  This source is obviously beyond the scope of scientific investigation, but without it there would be no science, no universe - nothing.  Science can't determine if this source's only interaction with our universe was creating the singularity, or if there is still interaction from this source.  Science can't be used to deny such interaction, because there are such things as quantum indeterminacy which have no discernable cause from within our current scientific knowledge. So we have scientific knowledge of the existence of this source, but very little else from the science perspective.  If this source does have interaction with our material universe, we need to use our considerable abilities to look beyond the limitations of human scientific knowledge and contemplate the evidence provided by our own existence and human nature and come to realise that our ability to search for God is a profound human asset beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

[Sriram]

That our understanding of the world is a subjective experience does not parse into therefore the universe is conscious itself.  The universe is objective, it's our understanding that is subjective, not the universe itself.

O.

You are again taking a microscopic view and trying to split hairs.

I don't think we are currently in a position to argue for or against specifics of what is conscious and to what degree and how and so on . All we can perhaps say at this point is that we cannot arrive at consciousness from materials things such as atoms and molecules or even from complex organs such as a brain.

Rather, it is possible that consciousness is fundamental such that either....

1. everything is conscious to different degrees or
2. consciousness is somehow non-material and generates all material things  or
3. consciousness is non-material and co-exists with and independent of material things but influences them.

Take your pick.

[torridon]

People seem to confuse material reactions with conscious perception.  Conscious perception is not just a complex reaction.  External observance of complex reactions can often be mistaken as an indication of conscious perception, but the simple truth is that consciousness is not material reaction, but perception of material reaction.  Our consciousness allows us to perceive the data from our sensory organs rather than just react to it.  We can share our conscious awareness with other human beings by choosing to use abstract media to communicate what we perceive.  Early evidence of this type of communication exists in the early cave paintings in which humans were able to show what they perceived by reproducing images on the cave walls.  These early cave paintings also demonstrate the human freedom to choose how to respond to perceived data rather than just react to it.  Modern humans can now choose many different means to communicate their conscious awareness with other people.

All animals communicate their inner state, not just humans.  It is not an either/or, more a sliding scale of sophistication.  If a dog snarls at you, clearly there is a message to you in that - back off.  Just because they don't have a descended larynx and lack the FOXP2 mutation doesn't mean that other creatures have zero communication skills. 

[Stranger]

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.  Unfortunately I can only give a short account on this forum.

Why can't you produce even a hint of logic here, then? I'm not actually convinced that you even know what it means. If you did, we wouldn't get the endless fallacies. Also, if you understand logical reasoning and somebody accuses you of using a fallacy, you would expect then to argue why they aren't - you just ignore it.

People seem to confuse material reactions with conscious perception.

You have given us no reason to think it isn't.

Conscious perception is not just a complex reaction.  External observance of complex reactions can often be mistaken as an indication of conscious perception, but the simple truth is that consciousness is not material reaction, but perception of material reaction.  Our consciousness allows us to perceive the data from our sensory organs rather than just react to it. 

You are just asserting that consciousness isn't a part of a material reaction (although, the "material" is logically irrelevant), not making a logical argument for it.

We can share our conscious awareness with other human beings by choosing to use abstract media to communicate what we perceive.  Early evidence of this type of communication exists in the early cave paintings in which humans were able to show what they perceived by reproducing images on the cave walls.

Totally irrelevant. Nobody is denying our ability to perceive things.

These early cave paintings also demonstrate the human freedom to choose how to respond to perceived data rather than just react to it.  Modern humans can now choose many different means to communicate their conscious awareness with other people.

Again, you are simply assuming that human choices are not reactions - where is the evidence or reasoning to back up this assumption?

I also challenge the presumption that there is no evidence for the existence of non physical entities beyond the scope of scientific investigation.  The existence of our universe is in itself evidence of the non physical.

Assertion.

Current evidence indicates that our material universe, together with its associated time dimension and physical properties came into existence a few milliseconds after the singularity known as the big bang.  It is logical to presume that this singularity has a causation from outside our known universe, and by implication we must presume that this causation was a non physical entity.

It isn't logical to presume that at all. Do you know anything at all about the relevant science?

For want of another word, we could call this non physical entity the source.  This source is obviously beyond the scope of scientific investigation, but without it there would be no science, no universe - nothing.  Science can't determine if this source's only interaction with our universe was creating the singularity, or if there is still interaction from this source.  Science can't be used to deny such interaction, because there are such things as quantum indeterminacy which have no discernable cause from within our current scientific knowledge. So we have scientific knowledge of the existence of this source, but very little else from the science perspective.  If this source does have interaction with our material universe, we need to use our considerable abilities to look beyond the limitations of human scientific knowledge and contemplate the evidence provided by our own existence and human nature and come to realise that our ability to search for God is a profound human asset beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

So, once again, not even a hint of the promised "sound logic", just more of the same assertions and fallacies - and you're still totally ignoring the logical contradiction in your assertions about how human choice works - not fully determined by its antecedents and no randomness - a contradiction that has nothing to do with minds being physical.

Hint: a logical argument usually starts out with its assumption (premisses) and then precedes in logical steps from them to a conclusion. It doesn't consist of hand-waving waffle riddled with assertions and fallacies.

[Gordon]

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.  Unfortunately I can only give a short account on this forum.

People seem to confuse material reactions with conscious perception.  Conscious perception is not just a complex reaction.  External observance of complex reactions can often be mistaken as an indication of conscious perception, but the simple truth is that consciousness is not material reaction, but perception of material reaction.  Our consciousness allows us to perceive the data from our sensory organs rather than just react to it.  We can share our conscious awareness with other human beings by choosing to use abstract media to communicate what we perceive.  Early evidence of this type of communication exists in the early cave paintings in which humans were able to show what they perceived by reproducing images on the cave walls.  These early cave paintings also demonstrate the human freedom to choose how to respond to perceived data rather than just react to it.  Modern humans can now choose many different means to communicate their conscious awareness with other people.

I also challenge the presumption that there is no evidence for the existence of non physical entities beyond the scope of scientific investigation.  The existence of our universe is in itself evidence of the non physical.  Current evidence indicates that our material universe, together with its associated time dimension and physical properties came into existence a few milliseconds after the singularity known as the big bang.  It is logical to presume that this singularity has a causation from outside our known universe, and by implication we must presume that this causation was a non physical entity.  For want of another word, we could call this non physical entity the source.  This source is obviously beyond the scope of scientific investigation, but without it there would be no science, no universe - nothing.  Science can't determine if this source's only interaction with our universe was creating the singularity, or if there is still interaction from this source.  Science can't be used to deny such interaction, because there are such things as quantum indeterminacy which have no discernable cause from within our current scientific knowledge. So we have scientific knowledge of the existence of this source, but very little else from the science perspective.  If this source does have interaction with our material universe, we need to use our considerable abilities to look beyond the limitations of human scientific knowledge and contemplate the evidence provided by our own existence and human nature and come to realise that our ability to search for God is a profound human asset beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

Yet more incredulous (and generally fallacious) waffle, Alan: all of your 'points' have been debunked many times.

[torridon]

I also challenge the presumption that there is no evidence for the existence of non physical entities beyond the scope of scientific investigation.  The existence of our universe is in itself evidence of the non physical.  Current evidence indicates that our material universe, together with its associated time dimension and physical properties came into existence a few milliseconds after the singularity known as the big bang.  It is logical to presume that this singularity has a causation from outside our known universe, and by implication we must presume that this causation was a non physical entity.  For want of another word, we could call this non physical entity the source.  This source is obviously beyond the scope of scientific investigation, but without it there would be no science, no universe - nothing.  Science can't determine if this source's only interaction with our universe was creating the singularity, or if there is still interaction from this source.  Science can't be used to deny such interaction, because there are such things as quantum indeterminacy which have no discernable cause from within our current scientific knowledge. So we have scientific knowledge of the existence of this source, but very little else from the science perspective.  If this source does have interaction with our material universe, we need to use our considerable abilities to look beyond the limitations of human scientific knowledge and contemplate the evidence provided by our own existence and human nature and come to realise that our ability to search for God is a profound human asset beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

Numerous baseless assumptions in that. 

The Big Bang is merely implied by the current state of the (expanding) universe, but the theory says nothing about what came before it or what caused it, so all talk of it coming from an immaterial 'source' is just baseless speculation.

Quantum indeterminacy does not equate to 'no discernible cause', rather it recognises the probabilistic nature of QM and the uncertainty arising out of the impossibility of measuring both speed and position (say) with complete accuracy.

Whatever knowledge we do not yet possess, it is no good thinking we can make progress by looking 'beyond' science.  Science is exactly what we need in order to push the boundaries of our current knowledge.  Ditching science, would merely mean ditching rigour, it would be a regressive step for any would-be truth seeker.

[ippy]

You are again taking a microscopic view and trying to split hairs.

I don't think we are currently in a position to argue for or against specifics of what is conscious and to what degree and how and so on . All we can perhaps say at this point is that we cannot arrive at consciousness from materials things such as atoms and molecules or even from complex organs such as a brain.

Rather, it is possible that consciousness is fundamental such that either....

1. everything is conscious to different degrees or
2. consciousness is somehow non-material and generates all material things  or
3. consciousness is non-material and co-exists with and independent of material things but influences them.

Take your pick.

I've heard that Yoga was a sport of India, I think your Yoga, of your Indian heritage, side may have spread over to your writing side where in common with the physical side of Yoga it becomes possible to insert your head into seemingly impossible places.

Regards to you Sriram, ippy.

[Sriram]

I've heard that Yoga was a sport of India, I think your Yoga, of your Indian heritage, side may have spread over to your writing side where in common with the physical side of Yoga it becomes possible to insert your head into seemingly impossible places.

Regards to you Sriram, ippy.

 

Even in today's world...you speak of Yoga as if it is something from an alien world or another planet!! Shows how insulated ('nose in the air' perhaps) you are from the real world.

Pity!

Cheers.   

Sriram

[Outrider]

You are again taking a microscopic view and trying to split hairs.

No, there's a fundamental difference between suggesting that because we are conscious our subjective understanding of reality is limited and suggesting that because our understanding is subjective reality itself is subjective.

I don't think we are currently in a position to argue for or against specifics of what is conscious and to what degree and how and so on.

The hell we can't - we have things that exhibit consciousness, and we can test those things to see which traits, components and elements correlate with changes in that manifestation of consciousness.  As such, we can start to narrow down elements of reality that we think exhibit consciousness, and start to hypothesise about possible other elements which we've not tested yet which might do the same based on similar constituent parts or systems.  That's not definitive, but it's an argument extending from what can investigate to what we can't investigate yet, and it's basing conjecture on demonstrable examples.

All we can perhaps say at this point is that we cannot arrive at consciousness from materials things such as atoms and molecules or even from complex organs such as a brain.

Which we is this? Why can't we?  You might not be able to accept that, but I can perfectly happily arrive at consciousness from physical constituent parts as I see any number of apparently conscious people made of physical constituent parts and absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any conjectural non-physical contributory factors.

Rather, it is possible that consciousness is fundamental such that either....

1. everything is conscious to different degrees or
2. consciousness is somehow non-material and generates all material things  or
3. consciousness is non-material and co-exists with and independent of material things but influences them.

Take your pick.

Is it possible, yes.  Is there any reason to think any of those is the reality? No.  Is there any evidence for non-material, conscious or otherwise...? No. Therefore there isn't an argument to be had at this time - in the future, with more evidence, perhaps there will be, but right now it just isn't there.

O.

[ippy]

Even in today's world...you speak of Yoga as if it is something from an alien world or another planet!! Shows how insulated ('nose in the air' perhaps) you are from the real world.

Pity!

Cheers.   

Sriram

I was only speaking of how Yoga can operate, I'm neutral on the subject of Yoga nor does it interest me, you can have and are very welcome to all of my share of any Yoga there is hanging around.

I have heard that practising Yoga can be very good for your health, I would file Yoga on a par with listening to cricket on the radio and even then I've found something unbelievably more mind deadening than cricket on the radio; golf on the radio, I'd be placing Yoga just in front of cricket on the radio, they all make watching paint dry look almost over exciting.

If these things are your bag just don't count on me for any support.

Regards Sriram, ippy.

[Sriram]

I was only speaking of how Yoga can operate, I'm neutral on the subject of Yoga nor does it interest me, you can have and are very welcome to all of my share of any Yoga there is hanging around.

I have heard that practising Yoga can be very good for your health, I would file Yoga on a par with listening to cricket on the radio and even then I've found something unbelievably more mind deadening than cricket on the radio; golf on the radio, I'd be placing Yoga just in front of cricket on the radio, they all make watching paint dry look almost over exciting.

If these things are your bag just don't count on me for any support.

Regards Sriram, ippy.

You don't have a clue...ippy. So, lets just leave it at that. 

[Sriram]

No, there's a fundamental difference between suggesting that because we are conscious our subjective understanding of reality is limited and suggesting that because our understanding is subjective reality itself is subjective.

The hell we can't - we have things that exhibit consciousness, and we can test those things to see which traits, components and elements correlate with changes in that manifestation of consciousness.  As such, we can start to narrow down elements of reality that we think exhibit consciousness, and start to hypothesise about possible other elements which we've not tested yet which might do the same based on similar constituent parts or systems.  That's not definitive, but it's an argument extending from what can investigate to what we can't investigate yet, and it's basing conjecture on demonstrable examples.

Which we is this? Why can't we?  You might not be able to accept that, but I can perfectly happily arrive at consciousness from physical constituent parts as I see any number of apparently conscious people made of physical constituent parts and absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any conjectural non-physical contributory factors.

Is it possible, yes.  Is there any reason to think any of those is the reality? No.  Is there any evidence for non-material, conscious or otherwise...? No. Therefore there isn't an argument to be had at this time - in the future, with more evidence, perhaps there will be, but right now it just isn't there.

O.

My point is that if our entire perception and view of reality is subjective...we cannot...ever...have any idea of what objective reality actually is. 

You are pushing reductionism. Just because we see pictures coming from a TV, we cannot assume that the metals and plastics inside the TV actually produce the pictures. It is much more complex than that.

Evidence doesn't stand up and introduce itself. It is usually dependent on what perceptions we have, what we look for and what we are mentally prepared to see.

[ippy]

You don't have a clue...ippy. So, lets just leave it at that. 

And of course actually believing stories about 'Blue Elephant headed men'? Is a very sensible way to go, shoe, other foot Sriram.

Regards, ippy. 

[Outrider]

My point is that if our entire perception and view of reality is subjective...we cannot...ever...have any idea of what objective reality actually is.

Of course we can. The entirety of the history of science is a record of increasingly removing the human subjectivity out of the study of the universe to get a more objective understanding of its operation.  Whether we will ever be able to entirely remove a degree of subjectivity is an open question, I suspect we won't be able to, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a less subjective understanding now than we used to.

You are pushing reductionism. Just because we see pictures coming from a TV, we cannot assume that the metals and plastics inside the TV actually produce the pictures. It is much more complex than that.

Actually, the pictures do come from the metal and plastics in the TV - the information the TV uses to know what picture to show comes from somewhere else... this isn't 'reductionism', it's just not holisticism.  Reality is too vast to try to understand it from nothing in its entirety - it needs to be investigated in managable chunks, and then those chunks need to be put back together to investigate the interactions.

Evidence doesn't stand up and introduce itself. It is usually dependent on what perceptions we have, what we look for and what we are mentally prepared to see.

You're confusing the evidence and our understanding or interpretation of it.  The evidence merely is, and we collectively and increasingly improve our understanding of it.  We're not perfect, but if you operate from the standpoint that because our understanding isn't perfect we can't trust anything then you stand in the straight waiting for gravity to change its mind and send spinning into a cold, wet sun...

O.

[Alan Burns]

The TV screen is a good analogy for illustrating the limitations of human scientific endeavors.  An alien scientist could examine the minutia of how the pixels on the screen behave according to the rules of physics and chemistry and declare them all to have a natural explanation.  But this intense level of examination will only be at one level.  The investigation will be incapable of discerning the depth of information needed to perceive that the ultimate source of this pixel activity comes from human minds.

In short, reality is far too vast for our limited human scientific capabilities to discern in its entirety.  We can only see things at a very limited level of investigation.  So putting your entire trust in science may lead you to miss out on the true reality of meaning and purpose in our lives.  I am reminded of the CS Lewis essay entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants", in which Lewis illustrates this human trait by comparing it with explorers who are so intent on examining the minute evidence within the fern seeds at their feet, they fail to see the elephant in front of them.

[Outrider]

The TV screen is a good analogy for illustrating the limitations of human scientific endeavors.  An alien scientist could examine the minutia of how the pixels on the screen behave according to the rules of physics and chemistry and declare them all to have a natural explanation.  But this intense level of examination will only be at one level.  The investigation will be incapable of discerning the depth of information needed to perceive that the ultimate source of this pixel activity comes from human minds.

But any half-decent scientist - alien or otherwise - looks at the function of the television and asks 'what is the stimulus that causes this' and then traces the signals back, and finds transmitters and cameras and people and then the sociologists (who are also scientists) start their work.  To pretend that any given field or sub-field of science exists in isolation is a straw-man.

In short, reality is far too vast for our limited human scientific capabilities to discern in its entirety.  We can only see things at a very limited level of investigation.  So putting your entire trust in science may lead you to miss out on the true reality of meaning and purpose in our lives.

And here comes the 'God of the gaps' argument.  The fact that science does not - and may never have - a complete picture of how reality functions is not evidence in any way in support of magical explanations of 'true meaning'.  If you want to support the idea that there is some deeper intrinsic meaning to existence you need evidence to support it, not identifying well-understood, possibly temporary, gaps in other entirely valid explanations.

I am reminded of the CS Lewis essay entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants", in which explorers are so intent on examining the minute evidence within the fern seeds at their feet, they fail to see the elephant in front of them.

Like people who are so intent on believing in supernatural explanations for events that they fail to understand the logical fallacies in their arguments that are being repeatedly pointed out to them?

O.
[/quote]

[Stranger]

The TV screen is a good analogy...

More inane hand-waving, fallacies, and assertions. Where is the "sound logic" you keep on claiming to have?

Even the first hint?

A rough summary of the logical steps?

A list of premisses perhaps?

Nothing?

[Alan Burns]

And here comes the 'God of the gaps' argument.  The fact that science does not - and may never have - a complete picture of how reality functions is not evidence in any way in support of magical explanations of 'true meaning'.  If you want to support the idea that there is some deeper intrinsic meaning to existence you need evidence to support it, not identifying well-understood, possibly temporary, gaps in other entirely valid explanations.

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

[Gordon]

The TV screen is a good analogy for illustrating the limitations of human scientific endeavors.  An alien scientist could examine the minutia of how the pixels on the screen behave according to the rules of physics and chemistry and declare them all to have a natural explanation.  But this intense level of examination will only be at one level.  The investigation will be incapable of discerning the depth of information needed to perceive that the ultimate source of this pixel activity comes from human minds.

Don't be silly: any half decent scientist with relevant background knowledge, alien or otherwise, would quickly conclude that the TV was responding to incoming signals, where a cable/ariel connection would be a clue, and then consider where the incoming signals originated and follow the evidence.

In short, reality is far too vast for our limited human scientific capabilities to discern in its entirety.  We can only see things at a very limited level of investigation.  So putting your entire trust in science may lead you to miss out on the true reality of meaning and purpose in our lives.

More fallacious drivel - that not everything is known does not mean that nothing is known, and nor does it imply 'God'. Your ' true reality of meaning and purpose in our lives' is just mindless reification.
 

I am reminded of the CS Lewis essay entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants", in which Lewis illustrates this human trait by comparing it with explorers who are so intent on examining the minute evidence within the fern seeds at their feet, they fail to see the elephant in front of them.

I suspect you are over-estimating the value of Lewis, since whatever his merits are as the author of twee fantasy his Christian apologist stuff is laughable.

[Stranger]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible...

A disjointed, incoherent, morally abhorrent in places, often self-contradictory, collection of myths.

...and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

And some anecdotes of the kind you'll find from believers from many, mutually exclusive, faiths (not to mention other superstitions).

Where is the actual evidence?

[Gordon]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

Then you are far too easily satisfied, Alan.

[Sebastian Toe]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

..fern seed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

AB - I am glad you have found meaning and purpose from your search for God as finding meaning and purpose seem to be a way of achieving peace of mind.

The evidence from this message board seems to be that your reality, your perceived experience is true for you and others who agree with you but is not universal. Other people do not have the same interpretations as you whereby the gaps in their knowledge can be filled by a god-shaped explanation that gives them a feeling of meaning and purpose.