Does God really exist? I want to know your views.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eh, for some of us the gods do have objective, physical forms. It's why I can't take this "there's no evidence for gods" seriously. One of the gods I worship is literally setting in the western sky right now - anybody can see it, plainly, and study it with their own senses as well as hard science. Telling me Sun doesn't exist and there's no evidence for it is nonsense.

Of course, saying that a god exists is a two-step process:

1. "This thing exists."
2. "This thing is a god."

You need both part to get to "a god exists," and assertion #2 is up for debate just as much as assertion #1.

In fact, it's possible to say "this is NOT a god" with perfect certainty, which is something we can't generally do for "this thing does not exist." Whether #1 is true typically relies on empirical evidence, but #2 is generally just a matter of semantics, and since we're the ones who bestow meanings on words, we're entirely able to say what words do and don't refer to.

Understandings of the meaning of words certainly can vary from person to person, but unless there's some specific reason why one understanding should be chosen over another, then both are valid.

... so I think it's important to step back and ask what each person means by "god" in these discussions. Otherwise, we get into semantic arguments that end up boiling down to "he used the same sound to refer to one concept that I use to refer to a different concept, therefore his conclusions must be wrong even in his own understanding."

 

[chinu]

so I think it's important to step back and ask what each person means by "god" in these discussions.

By God I mean the one who has created all the things that we see all around us.

 

[PruePhillip]

And I would say that asking for a 'reason' or 'cause' for natural laws is
self-defeating. Causality requires time and the natural laws to operate.
And it does always hold.



I don't think it *is* half an answer. I think that asking for more is part
of the problem. It is, from what I can see, a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of causality.

Many people think that causality is fundamental: that every thing needs
a reason to exist. I see existence as fundamental: some things simply exist.
And I see causality as a property of some things that exist.

In particular, I believe the universe (including all space and time and, potentially the multiverse) simply exists. It isn't caused because time and laws of nature only make sense within it, not outside of it.

We agree on points, but interpret them differently. We now "know" the universe had a
beginning and it will have an end (with a whimper and maybe not a bang, or rip) It is
no unreasonable to expect a logical answer to what came before. Clever tricks with
causality don't really address the deeper burning question - how and why.

 

[Polymath257]

We agree on points, but interpret them differently. We now "know" the universe had a
beginning and it will have an end (with a whimper and maybe not a bang, or rip) It is
no unreasonable to expect a logical answer to what came before. Clever tricks with
causality don't really address the deeper burning question - how and why.

And part of the question is whether the phrase 'what came before' even makes sense. In general relativity, for example, it doesn't. That there *is* no 'before the Big Bang' is a possibility.

It isn't a 'clever' trick to notice that 'how and why' are questions about causes. And that there are situations where there *cannot* be a cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And part of the question is whether the phrase 'what came before' even makes sense. In general relativity, for example, it doesn't. That there *is* no 'before the Big Bang' is a possibility.

It isn't a 'clever' trick to notice that 'how and why' are questions about causes. And that there are situations where there *cannot* be a cause.

That is an absolute answer. Science doesn't do that, I have been told. So I guess you are not doing science.
Well, I have read this before when looking into theoretical physics and try to understand if the Big Bang is a fact.

...The Big Bang may not describe the actual beginning of everything. “Big Bang” broadly refers to the theory of cosmic expansion and the hot early universe. However, sometimes even scientists will use the term to describe a moment in time—when everything was packed into a single point. ...
Five facts about the Big Bang

Even some scientists miss, how it comes, that it is called theoretical physics. Are you one of them?

So please explain, how you have observed the Big Bang as an actual observation? You know, in actual practice? Do you understand how it is called theoretical physics? Do you understand what caused it to be called theoretical physics?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Consciousness/soul is like an electric current that is required to run a computer.
Whereas, brain is like a certain-program in the computer.

There's also a third thing called "Mind"
Mind is like a programmer.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in hearing additional claims without evidence. You've already made plenty enough of them. Let's stick with your contention that consciousness can exist without a physical brain. IF what you say is true THEN you should be able to provide dozens of examples of a verified consciousness existing without a brain... yet for some reason you can't provide me with even a SINGLE example. That tends to suggest that you are WRONG and consciousness CANNOT exist without a physical brain.

 

[Cooky]

I place religioues belief over science any day, that said, i do not say science does not work, but only in this physical realm we live in, due to the physical law in this Cosmos.

I have no problem with that. In fact, it's what I'm defending.

What you're doing when you place religion over science is a harmless act, even if you're a voter, since there typically aren't any politicians left in first world countries who would try to pull some religious stunts as public policy anymore... Hence laypeople can believe or not believe as they wish.

 

[atanu]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that consciousness is not dependent upon a physical living brain? Can you provide an example of a verifiable consciousness that exists or has existed without a physical living brain? The fact that the brain of a dead body can't say "I am," indicates that a living physical brain is a requirement for consciousness.

Very good. And what is a living brain? If a dead brain exhibits no consciousness, then surely consciousness is not inherent in the physical brain but is associated with the existence-life itself. So, what is that life process? Are you sure that the life process is material and can be expressed through physical laws?

Making a completely unsubstantiated claim is worthless.

Do not be so sanguine and arrogant. If you think, you know consciousness so well, you can explain how matter — which is defined by mass, charge, and momentum — exhibits phenomenal consciousness?

You may also kindly explain ‘mental causation’. If matter and it’s physical laws explain everything, then you should be able to explain ‘mental causation’ too? How one’s will make things happen? How meditation causes changes in brain?

On the other hand, asking for a proof of God (or consciousness) is naive — it belies ignorance of what is God or what is consciousness. God is not an object separate from anything and any being. God is the true subject beneath every ego self.

Same is the case with consciousness, which cannot be known independent from your own knowing. With what will one discern the absence or presence of consciousness? It is just impossible.

Anyway. I will shut up after I make another point.

In my understanding, the universe is how God is manifest to us. But I objected to your equating God with the universe, which according to realism-physicalism is an unknowable entity out there). As per physicalism, one can never know objectively this ‘world out there’, since what we come to know of the universe are what the brain fabricates. We know only the abstraction.

So, the objection stands. Since you can never know objectively the nature of the universe, stripped of brain mechanism, and as you also do not know the nature God, the two cannot be compared from the perspective of your worldview.

For me, one God appears as all.

YMMV.
...

 

[QuestioningMind]

Very good. And what is a living brain? If a dead brain exhibits no consciousness, then surely consciousness is not inherent in the physical brain but is associated with the existence-life itself. So, what is that life process? Are you sure that the life process is material and can be expressed through physical laws?



Do not be so sanguine and arrogant. If you think, you know consciousness so well, you can explain how matter — which is defined by mass, charge, and momentum — exhibits phenomenal consciousness?

You may also kindly explain ‘mental causation’. If matter and it’s physical laws explain everything, then you should be able to explain ‘mental causation’ too? How one’s will make things happen? How meditation causes changes in brain?

On the other hand, asking for a proof of God (or consciousness) is naive — it belies ignorance of what is God or what is consciousness. God is not an object separate from anything and any being. God is the true subject beneath every ego self.

Same is the case with consciousness, which cannot be known independent from your own knowing. With what will one discern the absence or presence of consciousness? It is just impossible.

Anyway. I will shut up after I make another point.

In my understanding, the universe is how God is manifest to us. But I objected to your equating God with the universe, which according to realism-physicalism is an unknowable entity out there). As per physicalism, one can never know objectively this ‘world out there’, since what we come to know of the universe are what the brain fabricates. We know only the abstraction.

So, the objection stands. Since you can never know objectively the nature of the universe, stripped of brain mechanism, and as you also do not know the nature God, the two cannot be compared from the perspective of your worldview.

For me, one God appears as all.

YMMV.
...

Very good. And what is a living brain? If a dead brain exhibits no consciousness, then surely consciousness is not inherent in the physical brain but is associated with the existence-life itself. So, what is that life process? Are you sure that the life process is material and can be expressed through physical laws?

What precisely the life process is currently remains an unknown. I cannot be certain that a physical body is required for the life process, however I CAN look for evidence that life and or consciousness CAN exist without a physical body/brain. If after extensive searching I cannot find any such evidence it doesn't mean that it's IMPOSSIBLE for consciousness to exist without a brain, but it does make the likelihood all the less probable. And it DEFINITELY warrants calling the existence of consciousness without a brain an UNKNOWN... thus anyone attempting to claim it as a fact of reality has the burden of providing verifiable evidence for the fantastical claim. Just stating that it's conceivably POSSIBLE isn't sufficient. After all, it's POSSIBLE that magical pixies exist that grant wishes, but without any actual evidence, it would be silly to accept such a claim as fact.

Do not be so sanguine and arrogant. If you think, you know consciousness so well, you can explain how matter — which is defined by mass, charge, and momentum — exhibits phenomenal consciousness?

You may also kindly explain ‘mental causation’. If matter and it’s physical laws explain everything, then you should be able to explain ‘mental causation’ too? How one’s will make things happen? How meditation causes changes in brain?

I'm not the one claiming to have answers to the unknown. There is a great deal about the brain and consciousness that we do not yet understand. All I can go by is what the verifiable evidence we have thus far suggests. And ALL of the evidence we have thus far suggests that a physical living brain is a requirement for consciousness. By changing the chemicals in the brain or interrupting or adding electrical impulses we can observe changes in consciousness. IF you could provide some sort of verifiable evidence that such a physical brain is NOT a requirement, I'm still waiting the hear what it is. I'm STILL waiting for an example of a verified consciousness existing WITHOUT a physical brain. I've already acknowledged that it's POSSIBLE to imagine that a brain isn't required, but again, without any evidence or examples for the claim, it becomes increasingly improbable.

On the other hand, asking for a proof of God (or consciousness) is naive — it belies ignorance of what is God or what is consciousness. God is not an object separate from anything and any being. God is the true subject beneath every ego self.

Same is the case with consciousness, which cannot be known independent from your own knowing. With what will one discern the absence or presence of consciousness? It is just impossible.

Here again you're making numerous fantastical claims, without an iota of actual evidence. You claim that I'm ignorant and that you're so very enlightened, yet you haven't provided ANY verifiable evidence that your god being even exists, let along that it's 'the true subject beneath every ego self'. Your fertile imagination about what might POSSIBLY be does absolutely nothing to advance actual understand of what's true. Pretending like you have answers to the unknown is nothing short of childish.

So, the objection stands. Since you can never know objectively the nature of the universe, stripped of brain mechanism, and as you also do not know the nature God, the two cannot be compared from the perspective of your worldview.

I don't claim to know objectively the nature of the universe. All I can do is relay what the verifiable evidence currently tells us. You on the other hand seem to think that you CAN objectively know the nature of the universe, simply because your fertile imagination allows you to conceptualize the POSSIBILITY, without any actual evidence to back up your fantasy.

Come back with some actual evidence instead of what you've pulled from your imagination and perhaps we can have a conversation.

 

[Heyo]

It is
no unreasonable to expect a logical answer to what came before.

Until you realize that you can always ask that question.
It's turtles all the way down.

 

[Heyo]

I have no problem with that. In fact, it's what I'm defending.

What you're doing when you place religion over science is a harmless act, even if you're a voter, since there typically aren't any politicians left in first world countries who would try to pull some religious stunts as public policy anymore... Hence laypeople can believe or not believe as they wish.

In first world countries, yes. But there is this little patch of land called the USA and they have an army and they like to play sheriff for the whole world. That's why we have an eye on politicians in the US who try to pull religious stunts.

 

[Cooky]

In first world countries, yes. But there is this little patch of land called the USA and they have an army and they like to play sheriff for the whole world. That's why we have an eye on politicians in the US who try to pull religious stunts.

The USA is a first world country, and we have the first amendment of the U.S. constitution.

 

[Heyo]

The USA is a first world country, and we have the first amendment of the U.S. constitution.

And you have Mike Pence.
The US lacks so many commonalities with first world countries that they can't really be included.

 

[Cooky]

And you have Mike Pence.
The US lacks so many commonalities with first world countries that they can't really be included.

I wouldn't flatter yourself. Clearly you don't know what makes a country first world. You probably don't even have central air conditioning or a dishwasher.

What makes a country first world is weather they are aligned with the United States... The United States is the definition of "first world".
First World Definition

 

[PruePhillip]

Until you realize that you can always ask that question.
It's turtles all the way down.

I suspect there's no such thing as an infinity in physics, at least not for space and time.
It had a beginning and it has an end. The turtles do stop.

 

[Heyo]

I suspect there's no such thing as an infinity in physics, at least not for space and time.
It had a beginning and it has an end. The turtles do stop.

I wasn't talking about physics. You can ask the "what came before" also about an assumed creator or (creation event) of the universe, and about the creator of the creator.
If you want to stop asking at a special point, why didn't you stop asking before?
However you turn it, you land on a paradox or an infinite regress.

 

[PruePhillip]

I wasn't talking about physics. You can ask the "what came before" also about an assumed creator or (creation event) of the universe, and about the creator of the creator.
If you want to stop asking at a special point, why didn't you stop asking before?
However you turn it, you land on a paradox or an infinite regress.

So how did the universe created itself before it existed? Physics come with the universe,
but there was no physics before. Yet some amazing things clearly happened to cause
that first event.

 

[Heyo]

So how did the universe created itself before it existed? Physics come with the universe,
but there was no physics before. Yet some amazing things clearly happened to cause
that first event.

The answer is: "We don't know."
There are a host of possible scenarios and we can't really exclude any of them.
They come basically from two variants, the self contained and the multiverse.
Self contained are cyclic models and temporal boundary models. They are most consistent with existing physics.
The multiverse hypothesis (including that of a creator entity) are very much "creative" (as in letting the imagination of the proponents run wild). They go from mathematical models like M-theorie over the simulation hypothesis to various creation myth.
The creation myths are the most ludicrous as they usually come with the most additional assumptions. It's funny how you can't stop fabulating once you've begun.

 

[PruePhillip]

The answer is: "We don't know."
There are a host of possible scenarios and we can't really exclude any of them.
They come basically from two variants, the self contained and the multiverse.
Self contained are cyclic models and temporal boundary models. They are most consistent with existing physics.
The multiverse hypothesis (including that of a creator entity) are very much "creative" (as in letting the imagination of the proponents run wild). They go from mathematical models like M-theorie over the simulation hypothesis to various creation myth.
The creation myths are the most ludicrous as they usually come with the most additional assumptions. It's funny how you can't stop fabulating once you've begun.

Multiverses, if they exist, most spring from a parent universe.
The cyclical universe is not a credible theory anymore - there's no "big crunch"
If you refer to the Bible re creation "myths" then bear in mind there are two stories
in Genesis. The first is more literal. It goes like this.
God created the heaven
and the earth
(and the observer/reader is upon the earth, not floating in the heavens)
The earth is dark, wet and sterile (any planet larger than Mars became a cloud planet)
the skies cleared
the continents emerged
lift appeared, first on land (fresh water) and then in the sea
finally man appeared.
The sequence accords well with science. You can't invent this stuff.

 

[Heyo]

Multiverses, if they exist, most spring from a parent universe.
The cyclical universe is not a credible theory anymore - there's no "big crunch"

Roger Penrose likes to differ. Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia

If you refer to the Bible re creation "myths" then bear in mind there are two stories

I don't care if the universe was formed from the body of slain Ymir, shat out by a raven or sneezed out but the Great Arkleseizure.

in Genesis. The first is more literal. It goes like this.
God created the heaven
and the earth
(and the observer/reader is upon the earth, not floating in the heavens)
The earth is dark, wet and sterile (any planet larger than Mars became a cloud planet)
the skies cleared
the continents emerged
lift appeared, first on land (fresh water) and then in the sea
finally man appeared.
The sequence accords well with science. You can't invent this stuff.

With plants created before the sun, yeah, totally not made up. It's exactly what I mean. It doesn't stop at the creation of the universe but goes on and on and on. It's a story, not a hypothesis. (And it is so different from what we really know that it has to be made up.)