Agnostic.com

43 5

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]

Storm1752 8 Dec 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

43 comments (26 - 43)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Is what...?

sorry, that's as far as I got.

2

What you describe I would be more inclined to call "Mother Nature", before I called it "God". But I'm not even inclined to go that far.

1

All claims of all gods are absurd.

1

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?

1

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.

1

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! 😉

1

not science. but enjoy 🙂

1

Maybe it is DOG's thought that is limited, and we humans are the real gods, maybe this speculation is a complete waste of time too.

You got something better to do? I don't, at the moment.

I do, but the world does not rotate around me . . . . you have that right, and if ever you manage to come up with something useful from it, I am all ears.

1

I hope 'god' is universal consciousness and that we contribute to it in our small way. I think of it as having innate consciousness, like Gaia or the bodily (motor) intelligence of a human being. I think it is impersonal, having a way about it that works and we can fall in with it or not as we please.

1

Then explain why there is no objective evidence for a god?

0

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]

0

I read your comment as a fanciful steam of thought, then straight to pseudoscience with the last sentence. “Many scientists now believe...”

0

Here is a hebrew study about the word "ruach". It means force as described like the kinetic energy of breath, air, or a storm.

[hebrew-streams.org]

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Acts 10:34

Word Level 8 Dec 24, 2019

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

@Word lol, luv the rant! Send me yer $. I have the key to the mystery?

@Atheist3

0

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 The point is that fruitless labor is unfruitful.

@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.

0

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.

0

People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we tend to try to explain them to ourselves as best as we could at the time. Hence the belief in the supernatural (which is a bit misleading nomenclature because for those who believe in them, they are "natural." ). This is simply a human-assignment. We see the thunder and we assign it to a god. Sure, we have done that. But that doesn't mean the thunder as any other significance that it didn't have before we made such an assignment.

However, the religions as they have evolved to become are not simply assignment of human thoughts feelings and motives to something pure impersonal (that is, everything non-human, such as clouds, rain, animals, etc). They (religious beliefs) are like viruses, and depending on the social, political and economic environment that they find, and depending upon their own internal adaptability, they survive, florish and evolve, to ultimately fit snuggly into the existing power-structure. They are man-made viruses.

When the various religions are examined historically and contextually within their time frame, they evolve so much and into so many different forms, it is laughable to me when anyone ever suggests that the religions and religious beliefs have any other-independent source than man-made.

I didn't mean to theorize religions accurately depict this purported consciousness--far from it.
Rather, they may be co-opting and misinterpreting the limits that consciousness puts on us. By doing so, they would be only muddling and confusing the issue, because they are speaking out of ignorance.
For instance, why DOES 'god' allow "bad things happen to good people" and vice versa? Why DOESN'T 'he' intercede, answer prayer, etc.?
Because 'god' ISN'T a person, an entity, with human characteristics, but simply that 'thing,' according to this concept, which brings awareness to matter?
If it's true even electrons have this consciousness, maybe the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go, and the more ordered and complex an animated life form becomes, all the way up to animals and humans, the more SELF-aware it becomes.
But maybe that's ALL it does; if so, the only operative 'divine' laws which apply come from how one consciousness interacts with another, like how atoms attract and repel each other depending on their chemical and electromagnetic properties.
So when people erroneously have tried to explain these impersonal interactions in personal terms, they end up rendering the whole complex process meaningless and worse, nonsensical and ridiculous.
That's my idea anyway, though I'm sure I'm poorly expressing it.

@Storm1752 Got it. Makes sense.

@AtheistReader The article from who j I extropolated this train of [mindmatters.ai]:

@Storm1752 It's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't call it science. 🙂 Interesting hypothesis, but I try to check the author's background usually, and this is published by the Walter Bradley Center, whose mission is as follows:

"The mission of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence at Discovery Institute is to explore the benefits as well as the challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI) in light of the enduring truth of human exceptionalism."

An enduring truth of human exceptionalism? Hmmmmmm.. This is a part of the Discovery Institute that advocates for... wait for it... the Intelligent Design. Go figure, eh?

[en.wikipedia.org]

@AtheistReader Interesting. It goes to the question of, 'Where did the physical world 'come from?'
I'D say, with my only evidence Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it didn't 'come from' anything. It always was and always will be.
How can that be? After all, everything comes from something.
Not true.
Everything just changes form, from matter into energy and back again, depending on other forces acting on, and interacting with, it.
I don't think, then, there is any such thing as intelligent design, because I don't think anything WAS designed.
Ask yourself the question: can you imagine things being any other way?
As far as human "exceptipnalism" is concerned, I personally doubt we are exceptional in any way, but just a next logical step in a process of increasing complexity.
If you ask me, we should be taking a much more active role in accelerating this process, rather than endlessly debating the "morality" of "playing god" and interfering with the "natural way of things."
We ARE "the nature of things!" That's like saying doctors interfere with 'god's,' will by treating patients! Or lifeguards shouldn't save drowning swimmers. Or firemen should let people fry in a burning building...
There is no way to know to what this process could lead. And I'm not talking about horse/human hybrids...

0

If "it" is simply a force/manifestation of gravity or whatever, why think of "it" as "gawd"????
More importantly, what difference would it make to anyone (assuming we didn't fall off the earth...)

[mindmatters.ai]

0

test everything, and keep what is good yeh

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:441419
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.