Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Indo-Iranian Aryans placed it in the dark sea below where Varuna lorded and demons hid.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does any supernatural god exist?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Every neuron in the brain, gray or white, stores information.
That's not what I asked for. Also, I added another request to my post above.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Consciousness is the end result of chemical and electrical interaction of information in the neurons.
Remove the neurons from the picture and there is no consciousness.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You don't know that as you only infer it based on an assumption. I.e. you can't see consciousness in a neuron.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The best science evidence for God comes from a law of thermodynamics. Science has many theories, but only a few laws, with this handful of laws considered higher in terms of universal science priority and application.
The law I have in mind, to reason the basis for God, is the second law, which states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy increase has to do with the complexity of things, increasing. Entropy is a driving force behind evolution; drive to make more and more complex life forms, like humans.
Entropy is not exactly energy. However, entropy is connected to energy by the Gibb's free energy equation G= H-TS, where G is the free energy, H is enthalpy which is internal energy, such as the energy in a gallon of gasoline or a lump of enriched uranium, T is temperature in degree Kelvin, and S is entropy.
When entropy S increases, via the second law the minus sign; -TS, reduces the free energy. This means for entropy to always increase; 2nd law, the universe has to net lose or bleed free energy. We can reverse entropy, and get the energy back, but since the second law states entropy has to net increase in the long term, useable free energy is always net disappearing from the universe, tied up in the increasing entropy; negative free energy.
Conservation of energy, which is another law, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but rather it can only change form. So where is this lost energy going and in what manner is it being conserved? When the Big Bang went from a singularity to umpteen sub-particles, this enormous increase in complexity would have drained the universe of lots of free energy, especially with the early temperature so huge. This early free energy is conserved, but is no longer part of the material universe's useable free energy economy.
It is very possible, that this same sudden 2nd law energy drain, may have taken away the free energy symmetry of matter and antimatter; free energy budget was suddenly downsized to just matter; endothermic and conserved elsewhere.
Ancient people often speculated about another plane of existence. The 2nd law provides for a growing conserved energy matrix, that energy conservation and the second law suggests, has its own conserved existence apart from the material universe.
If we go back to the Gibb's free energy equation, G=H-TS, entropy is not energy. Temperature times entropy is energy. Temperature reflects the average kinetic energy of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance. If we plug in T=0K, which is absolute zero, and assume the entropy of the universe has to still increase, theoretically, we would still get increased complexity S, but without any changes in the free energy; G, of the universe. Theoretically, if the 2nd law also applied within the lost energy pool, internal complexity would be increasing in the lost energy pool, while not appearing to display any changes within the universal free energy budget; separate evolving existence.
Life and the human brain generate a lot of entropy increase based on metabolism and the firing of memory. Life is also a series of states of increasing complexity; entropic states from water, to cells, to organs, to body, etc. It is possible, these memory are conserved in the lost energy pool and continues to increase to higher states; evolving soul.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe they offer amusement.
We Never Know
No Slack
"you can't see consciousness in a neuron"
Can't see dark matter either. Only its effect.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I suppose you could argue that it is human nature to dam a river. So it isn't the act that is supernatural but the blocking of the river which is supernatural.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, so it is an inference and not an observation as such.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe having read the Bible several times that I know it well enough.
I believe there is a difference between moral and ethics. For me morality is whatever people decide it is but ethics are what an authority says they are. So God has an ethic that most likely was not followed by the people whose morality differed. So for the ancient people of the Bible it was moral but God's law of love would not approve of it. However there ca be circumstances where selling into slavery is a loving act. When Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites it was a more loving act than killing him.
If it's the "end result," you should be able to demonstrate it. Again, please show me consciousness, and then explain the process in how the chemical and electrical interaction of information in the the neuron produces it. Assuming the "information" you're speaking of is contained within the nucleus of the neuron, please explain how the "information" interacts with the chemicals and electrical signals producing consciousness.
If you cannot demonstrate consciousness and how it's produced, I'll conclude that your statement is merely a claim based on an assumption.
We Never Know
No Slack
Yep. Kind of like love. You can't see love but you can see its effect.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the verb see relevant for this context has 2 defintions. Which one are you using?
We Never Know
No Slack
IMO its isn't knowable if a god exists or not.
By that I find it interesting that together there are more people that are certain a god does or doesn't exist than people that don't know.
We Never Know
No Slack
If you are referring to these....
verb
1.
feel deep affection for (someone).
2.
like or enjoy very much.
"I just love dancing"
IMO you cant see "love" in either. Just the effects of love.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How do you see the effect of love? What is it that you see?
We Never Know
No Slack
Really? Can you not see actions from love?
Those actions are the effect of love.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, whatever.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
I was sitting in a Philisophy of Science class a long, long time ago, and there was a new question being introduced.
Is observation theory-laden?
The professor held up his white coffee cup, and asked us what we see.
I saw a coffee cup.
He explained that we were really seeing a white splotch on our visual field (ie: favoring syntax over semantics), and then went into some weird theoretical stuff about photons and rods and cones and whatnot, which I found confusing because I’m just a mathematician, not a philosophical observation theorist.
I couldn’t see the disembodied context-free white splotch that he claimed that I was seeing, but upon further observation, I was able to determine that the coffee cup was white (which I hadn’t noticed at first, since the coffee-cuppedness of the object was what I perceived directly, and the white splotch only came to me after learning the theory behind it, and concentrating on decontextualuzing my visual field thru will power alone).
My direct perception was of the (semantical) coffee cup, but thru the use of philosophical observation theory, I was able to actually see the (syntactical) decontextualized white splotch.
The professor explained that (according to philosophical observation theory), my direct perception was the white splotch, which only later acquired it’s semantical character as a coffee cup.
And because of this complicated theory, I was mistaken about my own perceptions, and actually perceived the syntax prior to the semantics.
Therefore, according to the professor, Observation was NOT theory laden.
Philosophy is hard if you’re a mathematician, without an understanding of philosophical observation theory. Without the theory, we can only make guesses about what we are actually observing directly.
Thru a proper understanding of theory, we can correct our perceptions of our own perceptions, bringing our perceptions more in line with theory, thereby proving that observation is not theory-laden.
QED
Last edited: