Nature = God's Existence???

[mIrReN]

editting; I almost cared seen the light tho now

[kay]

Why is it that discussions like this always just turn into wholesale egotism with pointless arguments over who's right and who's wrong when no one can prove anything beyond doubt? Even worse when people on the same side of the argument end up arguing with each other because they haven't actually taken the time to try to understand what each is saying.

Anyway, why can't ideas be right and wrong at the same time, depending on the context? Newtonian mechanics seems to work most of the time, but it doesn't really explain everything and in some respects is wrong. Quantum mechanics appears to explain a lot of things, but again it doesn't cover every eventuality. We all generally believe that when we partially submerge a stick into water and we see it bend, the stick doesn't actually bend but instead the apparent bending is due to the difference in the speed of light in water compared to in air. However, I'm sure we could also invent a set of mathematical expressions and laws which would allow us to consider the possibility that the stick truly does bend. It would likely result in a slightly weird worldview but it could also represent a different way of looking at things.

To claim to be truly conscious, we should always be examining everything to the best of our abilities, and incorporating any new and relevant information that presents itself. Old information sets should be referenced, and updated where necessary. No information is useless, regardless of how wrong it may seem at a given moment in time. Otherwise, we would simply lose perspective and the open-mindedness to receive any new information that could change the worldview.

As to whether Nature = God's Existence? Based on information currently available to me, the answer is No and Perhaps. "No" in that Nature is clearly proof that God (as defined by the populist religions originating from the Middle East) does not exist because said God is supposed to be the Supreme being, and Supreme beings by that definition can't make mistakes. If God didn't think the 10 cardinal sins was a good idea, he bloody well shouldn't've invented them. "Perhaps" in that there may be a god that was responsible for creating the Universe as we know it, it just might not be the God that those religions proclaim. But if we keep shouting "No"very loudly, we might just drown out or ignore the crucial nugget of data that suggests "Yes". And that doesn't really do anyone any good.

Not that God's existence or lack thereof should be of any consequence to people's daily lives. If someone needs the fear of a Creator-person to force them into being good, then said person really isn't a good person are they? And since God knows all, that means that God-fearing people who behave goodly just because they fear God will end up in hell anyway.

[Ricky_Spanish]

but at the moment, you cant bend a stick with your mind, you just cant, no more than we collectively cause earthquakes with our minds

I can't believe I haven't been gunned down yet, especially as borrowed has been in this thread...
Anyway, (just for the sake of argument) we don't bend the stick with our mind, our mind bends the stick. Can you see the difference? But now we get into the territory of what is the mind? Is it different from the brain? What is it to be conscious? Is consciousness nothing more than the fabric of all things expressed in dualistic terms?
Now, maybe i'm wrong. Maybe it's all complete bollocks, but the very fact that, as of this point, I can't be proved wrong is the enabling factor of my philosophy. Being right or wrong is actually neither here nor there, but the very practice of this philosophy has stretched and expanded my mind, made me capable of new ideas, increased my problem solving abilities and allowed me to see and understand sides of arguments I would have discounted in the past. In short, it is my opinion (and the opinion of the people that have known me for many years) that it has made me a better human being, and that is all I ever set out to do.

I certainly dont think that you can rule out this concept. Besides the obvious double-slit experiments and all versions of it. Other experiments have been carried out whereby people who have trained themselves to narrow their focus, have been able to alter the outcome of experiments, you can reasearch for the control conditions etc.

So the mind can affect quantum particles, or superpositional states. Objects are made of collapsed superpositional states(particles). So if you can 'bend' the things that something is made of, maybe you can bend the thing itself. But it could easily be the case that any macro object is beyond such malleability, ie non-consciously observerd via random particle interactions, so maybe it is not possible. But if 5000 people tried to bend a stick with their minds I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps when more is known about the quantum world and these ideas have completely replaced the old paradigms in the collective human consciousness , it could take less than 5000.

The link between the quantum world(unified field) and the mind is not really sollipsistic in a negative sense, so don't accept sollipsim as a rebuttal.

There are lots of videos about this stuff
This is a public aimed doc that will give a brief general overview of some quantum facts and ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU

[borrowed]

However, I'm sure we could also invent a set of mathematical expressions and laws which would allow us to consider the possibility that the stick truly does bend. It would likely result in a slightly weird worldview but it could also represent a different way of looking at things.

[cityzen]

Pretty much all of what is in Bringer's last post has helped me form my own personal view of existence.
Also

Anyway, why can't ideas be right and wrong at the same time, depending on the context? Newtonian mechanics seems to work most of the time, but it doesn't really explain everything and in some respects is wrong. Quantum mechanics appears to explain a lot of things, but again it doesn't cover every eventuality. We all generally believe that when we partially submerge a stick into water and we see it bend, the stick doesn't actually bend but instead the apparent bending is due to the difference in the speed of light in water compared to in air. However, I'm sure we could also invent a set of mathematical expressions and laws which would allow us to consider the possibility that the stick truly does bend. It would likely result in a slightly weird worldview but it could also represent a different way of looking at things.

That's pretty much what i'm saying. To set anything in stone is to limit ourselves. If the consideration remains, however remote the possibility, then I believe we are better off for it.

To claim to be truly conscious, we should always be examining everything to the best of our abilities, and incorporating any new and relevant information that presents itself. Old information sets should be referenced, and updated where necessary. No information is useless, regardless of how wrong it may seem at a given moment in time. Otherwise, we would simply lose perspective and the open-mindedness to receive any new information that could change the worldview.

Yes. This is how I live my life. as i've said before, if I can be shown the truth (truth, truth type truth) then i'm truly happy to have been proved wrong.

[borrowed]

Pretty much all of what is in Bringer's last post has helped me form my own personal view of existence.
Also

Anyway, why can't ideas be right and wrong at the same time, depending on the context? Newtonian mechanics seems to work most of the time, but it doesn't really explain everything and in some respects is wrong. Quantum mechanics appears to explain a lot of things, but again it doesn't cover every eventuality. We all generally believe that when we partially submerge a stick into water and we see it bend, the stick doesn't actually bend but instead the apparent bending is due to the difference in the speed of light in water compared to in air. However, I'm sure we could also invent a set of mathematical expressions and laws which would allow us to consider the possibility that the stick truly does bend. It would likely result in a slightly weird worldview but it could also represent a different way of looking at things.

That's pretty much what i'm saying. To set anything in stone is to limit ourselves. If the consideration remains, however remote the possibility, then I believe we are better off for it.

To claim to be truly conscious, we should always be examining everything to the best of our abilities, and incorporating any new and relevant information that presents itself. Old information sets should be referenced, and updated where necessary. No information is useless, regardless of how wrong it may seem at a given moment in time. Otherwise, we would simply lose perspective and the open-mindedness to receive any new information that could change the worldview.

Yes. This is how I live my life. as i've said before, if I can be shown the truth (truth, truth type truth) then i'm truly happy to have been proved wrong.

I like how you make absolutely fuckin crazy claims about MOVING SHIT WITH YOUR MIND, and then back it up with "yeah but you can't prove it wrong and weirder things happen in quantum mechanics, so thus telepathy. NANANANANABBZZBZBZBZBZBZZBZB"

[capo ultra]

bunch of rowdy bastards in here like

[cityzen]

Borrowed, you have misunderstood what I wrote.

[hifi]

read my mom how dinosaurs are not in the bible from wiki answers and it had great proof. then my mom asked that how could someone say that and not list where they got that information from and it is false. wow. and i lied about it being a he of whom i was talking about. this has been about my mom the entire time ahahah

[youthful_implants]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Richard Dawkins yet who was behind this advertising campaign by the humanist society in London. Militant atheism does irritate me though.

[capo ultra]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Richard Dawkins yet who was behind this advertising campaign by the humanist society in London. Militant atheism does irritate me though.

'there is probably no God' acknowledges that there is a chance there may be a God, which is Agnostic

[youthful_implants]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Richard Dawkins yet who was behind this advertising campaign by the humanist society in London. Militant atheism does irritate me though.

'there is probably no God' acknowledges that there is a chance there may be a God, which is Agnostic

Indeed. But Dawkins himself is profoundly atheist. He wrote the book 'The God Delusion' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

[capo ultra]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Richard Dawkins yet who was behind this advertising campaign by the humanist society in London. Militant atheism does irritate me though.

'there is probably no God' acknowledges that there is a chance there may be a God, which is Agnostic

Indeed. But Dawkins himself is profoundly atheist. He wrote the book 'The God Delusion' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

aye I know that's why I posted, it's strange that he would put his name to something that promotes the idea of God

[kay]

As someone who's in danger of experiencing an aneurysm every time he's confronted by God-worshippers, Dawkins really shouldn't be associated in any way with the message on that ad.

[unwind]

Like poetry.

[hifi]

finally got a thread with over 100 replies

[Swissdub]

watch steven hawkings guide to the universe.

ask why god lets so much evil in the world happen?

bring up the point of natural selection, bring up dinosaurs, bring up the fact the whole of religeion is based on a book with out fact, and science is based on 100's of years of research with plenty of obviouse evidence.

and if that fails, tell her to make you a god damn sammich

[noam]

As someone who's in danger of experiencing an aneurysm every time he's confronted by God-worshippers, Dawkins really shouldn't be associated in any way with the message on that ad.

i think its tongue-in-cheek??

[magma]

As someone who's in danger of experiencing an aneurysm every time he's confronted by God-worshippers, Dawkins really shouldn't be associated in any way with the message on that ad.

Indeed, he's seemingly been letting religious people make his life difficult for decades now. Let it go Richard... they're probably just wrong, not that it really matters, now stop worrying and get on with your fucking life, Dicky.

[capo ultra]

he's seemingly been letting religious people make his life difficult for decades now. Let it go Richard... they're probably just wrong, not that it really matters, now stop worrying and get on with your fucking life, Dicky.

The point is that the sign should say 'there is no God'