Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other natural physical laws, like electromagnetism or the speed of light?
As such, would it not amount to a 'governing principle' describing and limiting the extent of our freedom of thought and action, much like, say, gravity or heat limit what our physical bodies can do, beyond which it encounters resistance?
If so, did men and women then give human thoughts, feelings, and motives to something which is purely impersonal?
Many scientists now believe something like this could be true.[mindmatters.ai]
Probably. The anthropomorphism of such a force provides the problems we face with anthropocentric beliefs.
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature worship and I don't think that nature is into being worshiped.
I'm saying that's what men do when they create religions. Maybe the 'god' I think may exist is the impersonal consciousness all matter down to every single atom has.
I don't KNOW exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to start a religion here![mindmatters.ai]
@Storm1752 Basic consciousness is awareness of one's surroundings or environment. All life has a certain level of consciousness. Even AI senses and monitors its environment and to that extent possesses some consciousness. It is simply silicon-based intelligence rather than carbon-based intelligence. Self-consciousness may be nothing more than (neural) feedback loops that allow one to be conscious of one's consciousness. In that case, a certain level of intelligence will automatically and naturally lead to self-consciousness, even potentially and eventually in AI. I don't really think of consciousness as being anything special or mysterious but inherent to life. Now, I suppose you could speak of a collective consciousness of the Universe but it does not necessarily follow that it is centralized into a Supreme Intelligence. In fact, I see no evidence of that, just human projection of human consciousness onto nature. Nevertheless, it does seem that there may be some guiding principles to the formation of the universe and the life within it that we usually refer to as the laws of physics or the laws of nature. This would, it seems, include the characteristic of consciousness endemic to life.
It's not that I'M calling it 'god.' It's that some other people interested in understanding "reality" do, indirectly, by imagining consciousness is centered in a hierarchy, going from the least to the most organized, which must have an apex, a crown.
This is patterned on man-made social structures, right? But it could be an anarchy instead, or a democracy. Or something else. Or nothing.
Maybe we just ARE.
And to suggest we and/or our self-realization are to be "worshipped" is ridiculous, and may betray a misunderstanding of who and what we are, which is everything, so to speak.
Should "everything" be worshipped? Of course not.
The article which cites "many scientists" and where I got my notions is:[mindmatters.ai]
@K9Kohle789 Ummm....do bees and ants communicate with each other telepathically, you mean? Or something like that?
I don't know; I doubt it, but who knows? Instincts can mysterious.
As far as we're concerned, I'm thinking of 'energy' common to all matter which with increasing complexity becomes more and more self-aware. That may suggest a 'collective consciousness' of some kind, at least at it's most evolved level. It doesn't seem the scientists themselves have much more than a vague notion what that really means... but if there IS any validity to it, that may be the source of man's conception of 'god,' and the wellspring from which religion itself originated.
Sorry, I appreciate your respect for T.S. Eliot and the book you're reading, but do YOU think past and present (and future) exist simultaneously? I can't see it.
I CAN see that time is a kind of illusion. Organisms--and inanimate objects for that matter-come into being, have a life cycle, and die. It's a chemical process governed by physical laws.
TIME only exists in our minds relative to our OWN life cycle and OTHER life cycles. I personally do NOT think any of it is pre-determined.
Moreover, the idea some 'god,' even supposing one DID exist, knows the future is ludicrous, and apparently comes from the "paradox" between "free will" and the supposed fact 'god' knows EVERYTHING, including the future, making it a fait accompli. But since the 'future' hasn't happened yet, there is nothing yet to know! -.[qz.com]
@K9Kohle789 Only if the future were known could it be "pre-determined."
Leaving aside the parallel universe for a moment and focusing on this one, take a decision you are considering but haven't I made yet. You could choose from a number of different options, each of which will set in motion different chains of events, some very similar, some widely divergent. Or, you could decide to do nothing, which in itself is a decision with it's own results.
No matter what you do or don't do, however, the hours will tick away and today will pass and tomorrow will arrive.
If you've done nothing, things in that regard will have remained unchanged, but other chains of events you've previously set in motion will continue to unfold based on the interaction of millions, billions, even countless trillions of random events based on decisions other people have made in the same way as you, totally outside of your control.
If you've decided on a course of action and begin executing it, likewise an equal number of random events will interact with your actions at THAT juncture, and the result will be different, in some ways readily apparent, but in other ways unseen and unknown.
In other words, no matter what you do or don't do, the result will be random, to a large degree. So much of the result depends on events of which you'll never be aware. The people affected will never know where and how these unseen forces originated. So much of what you do cannot be "pre-determined," in other words, but are the result of countless random events outside of your control.
Not even 'god' would know!
Think where you are today compared to what you had planned a few years ago, say Do two outcomes resemble each other in any way? I'll guess not! Out lives more closely resemble ping-pong balls in a lottery hopper, than a carefully-orchestrated 'plan!' This is the reason.
God isn't. It does not exist, but a false human conception.
If you define 'god' as consciousness, it exists. If everything has consciousness, from the very tiniest particle, to you (very big IFs), everything is 'god.'
So, the line of thought goes, the people who created these religions (and god) were really trying to describe, explain, and understand consciousness, their own and everyone elses'.
That they projected THEIR and everybody else's consciousness into a separate "entity" or "entities" may have been simply a result of their inferior understanding of the nature of the physical universe and what are it's constituent parts.
As our understanding of it--and consciousness--increases, it stands to reason, the closer we get to understanding "reality" itself.
@Now that you have said that, please elucidate. Please clarify and provide the intellectual or evidence basis for such a statement,.
Bullsiht! God does not exist in any way or in any form. The rest is just illusion & delusion. Or do you have any evidence? Évidence is everything.
Here I am, I really exist, yes, I have eaten a taco. What more evidence do you need of my existence?
I have only my own experience as a living, breathing, conscious person. Do I exist? Do you? Does the chair you're sitting in?
Non of the above. God is a figment of your imagination.
Not talking about 'god' as a 'thing' or 'entity,' but as consciousness. Or are you yourself a figment of your own imagination?
Do I exist, or are you just making me up?
The first 2 words are a problem, " is 'god'" no, god isn't. The force of nature already is impersonal, so that doesn't work well. A "universal consciousness" is a stab at mystifying the simple fact of not understanding how our brains work. The fact we use sound, sight, and touch for communication when the brain is functioning should show there isn't a need to have a universal connection when our brains stop working at death or unconsciousness (not sleep)...
Humans all the time give thoughts, feelings, and motives to impersonal items...then the last sentence has the "trump card" "believe" in it.
"See the problem"
Yeah, I see it.
I think of myself as inhabiting a body, but it could just as easily be some other body and it'd still be me.
Or would it?
If I was different in looks, physiology, and circumstances, would I be the same person?
Is there something uniquely ME about me, or am I interchangeable with everyone else?
Are we ALL interchangeable, or is there something uniquely YOU about you?
Btw, I can't speak for "many scientists," but I'm not sure they "believe" consciousness is universal, just that it MIGHT be.
@Storm1752
Still have to use the word believe, a true scientist wouldn't use the word believe. They would say "it isn't proven to be possible and untill it does it can be discarded...
@Storm1752 My friend, the body any of us inhabits is the one made by the union of 1 single sperm cell and 1 single ovum that is ALL there is to it.
The fertilized ovum develops into an embryo, then into a foetus and finally into a human baby, what becomes of that tiny baby is a matter of what it eats, learns and does as it grows, that is the only and major choice we have in life, we cannot inhabit any other body EXCEPT the one we are born as.
@Triphid Agreed halfway... maybe we will be able to inhabit another body some time in the future. It might be a scientific possibility that we haven't discovered. Maybe there will be a great scientist someday who will be able to transfer human conciousness to a computer. Maybe another great scientist will be able to create a body that can effectively host that conciousness. Who knows just yet?
I'm not sure, but I do know that a perfect vacuum, hypothetically, is a truly unrivaled and one of a kinda anomaly.
What's your point?
@Storm1752 Why does there always need to be a point?? I guess the point is that nature abhors a vacuum, so it probably detests god as well. At least, according to the old school works of Aristotle...
@Bobby9 Nothing is pointless.
@Bobby9 Oh, you think so?? I can respect that.
@FiliusInfernum So, would say that there was a point contained in the Greek Legend of Sisyphus having to spend eternity pushing a huge stone up-hill every day only to have it roll back down hill every night?
@Triphid Probably a test of the mettle. That legend could easily be a metaphor for giving each new day your all. People are drawn to strength, triumph, and determination. These are all poetic motifs of Sisyphus.
@Bobby9 My point is in line with the original post, suggesting that 'god' might be a personified impersonal force/concept. My example of that was to equate 'god' with something purely theoretical and intangible, such as a perfect vacuum. If, FOR EXAMPLE, the universe is skimming the surface of some perfect vacuum, there'd be no way to tell outside of the observed effects this vacuum has on it. Similar to the singularity of the Big Bang. This cannot be directly observed, only its effects can. Sort of like death, in a sense. Nobody can directly observe the moments before and after they are alive, but the relative effects of such an inevitability dominate a great source of cognitive decision making throughout the courses of our lives. I'm purely spitballing here. Hypothetical mumbo jumbo, if you will. It's honestly hard to provide any form of serious "point" in the realm of philosophical discourse. The post I am commenting on in the first place is an entirely and purely hypothetical debate, over possible philosophies, that some scientists might accept and that many do not. I see no reason whatsoever to provide any of you with even half a point while on the subject of philosophy. It's a meaningless gesture to fish for one. What, you want me to tell you the meaning of life just to give you something to argue about?? Fat chance. You decide for yourselves. I can't always spoon feed people my thoughts and opinions. Sometimes you just need to put the work in and develop view points on your own, especially when it comes to the intangible and philosophical. THERE IS NO POINT that I can provide for you, only that which you can provide yourselves. Sometimes you just can't help the helpless, no matter how much you want to. Sad, but true.
Here is a hebrew study about the word "ruach". It means force as described like the kinetic energy of breath, air, or a storm.
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Acts 10:34
The interesting thing is, the gnostic xtians considered 'ruach' as a way to impart mystic, unrevealed knowledge. Hence, the mystic kiss.
@Atheist3 never heard of it that way.
The uneducated with no interest in mystical traditions and the esoteric may regard Ancient Egypt as little more than a place of pagan worship, strange hieroglyphics, and monuments erected by thousands of Hebrew slaves. But those more learned, especially those having undertaken the initiative rituals of Freemasonry, will see a link between the Egyptian metaphysical tradition and modern mystery schools, of which Freemasonry is one. www dot gaia dot com /article/ancient-egypt-and-freemasonry
Lord of host Lucifer the devil leading the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers in the establishment of the mark of the beast 666 identification for taxation and government control. No justice for the innocent, more children can be trained to speak and act abused to wrongfully prosecute innocent people especially those that oppose there Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worship "my teacher made me touch her p.p ". Take the original indigenous inhabitants of their land call it America call them such as Mexicans, Indians and native Americans
God is a fictional character. My take, if there is anything bigger than us, it's beyond our comprehension. I just revel in the awe and the mystery.
I read your comment as a fanciful steam of thought, then straight to pseudoscience with the last sentence. “Many scientists now believe...”
Oh boy, another one of these. I frequent an atheist/theist fb debate page and this same issue was being pushed by a theist.
The answer lies in the "consciousness "part of the statement. This idea trys to overthink the simplicity of death. What point is there to keep the life record of old dead meat trying to stay alive, floating in a cosmos??..
Hello...
Hey, I like reading 'old dead meat' records!
I think we need to stop worrying about what happens after death. We simply cannot know that. Instead, focus on this life and all that happens... the good, the bad, and the ugly. We start with us, since we do know that humans play a major role in all of this. But we learn to live with the paradox of life, and learn to live with the 'unknown.' And if that doesn't work, Vodka.
This is just a rework of the God of The Gaps argument mish-mashed into the Intelligent Design argument with a little bit of "What Is Consciousness" tossed in for good measure. That which cannot be fully explained must be the work of some extra-dimensional consciousness, and that consciousness itself is some kind of proof of extra-dimensional existence. Yadda yadda. It's a fun exercise but gets you nowhere. Philosophers are not scientists but this article really wants to conflate the two fields with out-of-context sound bites from somewhat prominent members of both communities.
Alan Watts and Sam Harris do a good enough job in each of their respective fields, as far as I'm concerned, because each understand (understood) the boundaries.
I don't understand why people try so hard to marry these ideas. Are we really that impatient with science?
Mind matters appears to be associated with the discovery institute. Steven Meyers, a proponent of intelligent design, is a senior fellow at the discovery institute. [discovery.org]