What if God is weak?

[surreptitious57]

What causes entanglement is unknown and I will not speculate because I have absolutely no idea and no one probably does
But the fact that two particles can instantaneously communicate across space regardless of distance is very strange indeed

The Universe is fundamentally quantum though we experience it at the classical level and only a Theory Of Quantum Gravity can resolve this
Till then the famous incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity will continue to exist and progress cannot be made

[TimeSeeker]

The Universe is fundamentally quantum though we experience it at the classical level and only a Theory Of Quantum Gravity can resolve this
Till then the famous incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity will continue to exist and progress cannot be made

OK, but you ARE pre-supposing that spacetime is a fundamental quality of the universe. And so even though it is not clear which one is 'correct' - you have already made a choice that your experiences are in the 'classical level'?

So our experiences are an illusion?

[surreptitious57]

The Universe is fundamentally quantum though we experience it at the classical level and only a Theory Of Quantum Gravity can resolve this
Till then the famous incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity will continue to exist and progress cannot be made

OK but you ARE pre supposing that spacetime is a fundamental quality of the universe. And so even though it is
not clear which one is correct you have already made a choice that your experiences are in the classical level ?

So our experiences are an illusion ?

I think spacetime is a fundamental quality of the Universe which I experience at the classical level
Whether my experiences are an illusion is irrelevant because this existence is the only one I know
Even though it is also temporary and as such does not really matter in the grand scheme of things

[TimeSeeker]

The Universe is fundamentally quantum though we experience it at the classical level and only a Theory Of Quantum Gravity can resolve this
Till then the famous incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity will continue to exist and progress cannot be made

OK but you ARE pre supposing that spacetime is a fundamental quality of the universe. And so even though it is
not clear which one is correct you have already made a choice that your experiences are in the classical level ?

So our experiences are an illusion ?

I think spacetime is a fundamental quality of the Universe which I experience at the classical level
Whether my experiences are an illusion is irrelevant because this existence is the only one I know
Even though it is also temporary and as such does not really matter in the grand scheme of things

Well there is a distinction/assumption you need to tackle.

Most quantum physicists think spacetime is an emergent property of the quantum universe.

[seeds]

I was a theist for many years and have had experienced various altered states of consciousness, e.g. cosmic consciousness, and the likes.
I realized via extensive readings and reflections these including the inclination for theism are all deceptions in the mind of the empirical self to soothe an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Might I suggest that the only thing that you “realized” is the fact that ancient humans handed down to us a lot of mythological nonsense about reality (in the form of the world’s divergent religions) – hence your well-warranted (justifiable) railings against Islam.

However, you need to lose the naïve assumption that your own personal and limited experiences of “various altered states of consciousness”...

(along with your personally selected readings and biased reflections)

...represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced by humans as they seek answers to the ultimate questions.

Furthermore, your constant referencing of an “existential crisis” being the driving force behind the quest for understanding is extremely myopic. Because, in truth, simple curiosity is enough to impel many us.

The idea of God or higher consciousness which are transcendental and beyond empirical proofs...

The idea of “higher consciousness” is not beyond empirical proof, for as I pointed out to Belinda in an alternate thread, we can see it right here on earth:

...Belinda, you have just established the fact that your common sense is indeed sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that rocks and amoebas are “lower in awareness” than humans.

Now if you can just follow that line of reasoning to conclude that amoebas are ever-so-slightly more aware than rocks, and that flies are much more aware than amoebas, and that dogs are vastly more aware than flies, then you should be able to recognize the makings of an ascending ladder of consciousness.

I am speaking of a metaphorical ladder that denotes the existence of greater and greater levels of consciousness and awareness as it moves upward into higher levels of being.

So clearly, the idea of varying (or higher) levels of consciousness is empirically evident. We just need to stop assuming that the “ascending ladder of consciousness” alluded to above, stops at the human level.

Now on the other hand, when it comes to God, it must be understood that humans can never be allowed to access empirical (literal/irrefutable/tangible) proof of the existence of God.

As I have stated elsewhere,...

...there is a delicate balance that exists between feeding us “just enough” information about the afterlife to give us a sense of hope, while not revealing the absolute truth of our destiny in such a manner that might cause us to long for it or seek it out prematurely.

The point is that whatever experience you may have had with “cosmic consciousness,” it wasn’t cosmic enough to let you see how important it is that the truth of our eternal destiny remains hidden from us until the moment of death.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was a theist for many years and have had experienced various altered states of consciousness, e.g. cosmic consciousness, and the likes.
I realized via extensive readings and reflections these including the inclination for theism are all deceptions in the mind of the empirical self to soothe an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Might I suggest that the only thing that you “realized” is the fact that ancient humans handed down to us a lot of mythological nonsense about reality (in the form of the world’s divergent religions) – hence your well-warranted (justifiable) railings against Islam.

However, you need to lose the naïve assumption that your own personal and limited experiences of “various altered states of consciousness”...

(along with your personally selected readings and biased reflections)

...represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced by humans as they seek answers to the ultimate questions.

I make it a point to exhaust all known knowledge and literature that relevant to this point.
Which areas do you think I have not covered or missed?
If I have not, then I will cover it.

Furthermore, your constant referencing of an “existential crisis” being the driving force behind the quest for understanding is extremely myopic. Because, in truth, simple curiosity is enough to impel many us.

As my above point, I have made it an effort to exhaust all knowledge in this area.
The term 'existential crisis' is merely the very tip of an iceberg of knowledge relevant to this subject. There is a lot and tons to cover on this topic.

The idea of God or higher consciousness which are transcendental and beyond empirical proofs...

The idea of “higher consciousness” is not beyond empirical proof, for as I pointed out to Belinda in an alternate thread, we can see it right here on earth:

...Belinda, you have just established the fact that your common sense is indeed sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that rocks and amoebas are “lower in awareness” than humans.

Now if you can just follow that line of reasoning to conclude that amoebas are ever-so-slightly more aware than rocks, and that flies are much more aware than amoebas, and that dogs are vastly more aware than flies, then you should be able to recognize the makings of an ascending ladder of consciousness.

I am speaking of a metaphorical ladder that denotes the existence of greater and greater levels of consciousness and awareness as it moves upward into higher levels of being.

So clearly, the idea of varying (or higher) levels of consciousness is empirically evident. We just need to stop assuming that the “ascending ladder of consciousness” alluded to above, stops at the human level.

I have no problem with anything as long at it is empirical or empirically possible and is encompassed by critical thinking.
I dare to predict it is possible for human-liked alien to exist in a planet some light years away in the Universe since what predicted is based on empirical elements thus provable if empirical evidence are brought forth.

Now on the other hand, when it comes to God, it must be understood that humans can never be allowed to access empirical (literal/irrefutable/tangible) proof of the existence of God.

I have no issue with an empirical based God like the possibility of a "the bearded man in the sky," the challenge of its existence is to bring the evidence to justify.
If there is no empirical elements attached to God, then it is empirically impossible.
Top it all, the overriding God is imperatively the ontological God which is an impossibility based on critical thinking.

As I have stated elsewhere,...

...there is a delicate balance that exists between feeding us “just enough” information about the afterlife to give us a sense of hope, while not revealing the absolute truth of our destiny in such a manner that might cause us to long for it or seek it out prematurely.

The point is that whatever experience you may have had with “cosmic consciousness,” it wasn’t cosmic enough to let you see how important it is that the truth of our eternal destiny remains hidden from us until the moment of death.
_______

I did not insist the so called “cosmic consciousness” I have had was any thing important to any eternal destiny. Such "experiences" are very common as side effects when one meditates [properly and after a long time]. There are nothing special except they are some kind of mental activities.

What is critical is to know and understand how mad people, those with brain damage, drug takers, hallucinogen and many other reasons can also trigger a sense of cosmic consciousness, God consciousness, Unity Consciousness in the brain/mind.
There are many founders of religions and cults who started with some kind of abnormal [madness or otherwise] activities in the brain resulting in some kind of consciousness that a real God [impossibility] has chosen them as God's agent.

The idea [not concept] of any eternal destiny is a defense mechanism to soothe the Angst arising from an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

[TimeSeeker]

Top it all, the overriding God is imperatively the ontological God which is an impossibility based on critical thinking.

The ontological 'God' is my 'God'. I just don't call it 'God'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

And I openly admit that it is a dogmatic belief Does this make me a theist or a physicist?

At this point Atla may try to convince you that "information" is some fallacy (e.g this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) ) and while opposing my religion, he offers no alternative, nothing better to place concreteness in, thus committing another fallacy: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray

[seeds]

...you need to lose the naïve assumption that your own personal and limited experiences of “various altered states of consciousness”...

(along with your personally selected readings and biased reflections)

...represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced by humans as they seek answers to the ultimate questions.

I make it a point to exhaust all known knowledge and literature that relevant to this point.
Which areas do you think I have not covered or missed?
If I have not, then I will cover it.

What you need to cover is encapsulated in the following suggestion:

First, you need to figure out how you can literally enter into the mind of every human on earth.

Then after you have directly analyzed the contents of their minds and have ruled-out the possibility of anyone ever having experienced an event in their life that would counter your personal theory,...

...then you can safely say that you have covered, if not everything, then at least a big chunk of what you have missed.

What’s that you say? You say that’s impossible!

Right, it is impossible - which is precisely why my earlier assertion about your attitude needs repeating:

You seem to be presenting yourself as a classic example of someone who believes that just because you yourself have not experienced anything that would point to the existence of a transcendent level of reality, then neither has anyone else.

With that being said, I am going to point out to you the exact same thing that I point out to all hardcore materialists. It is something that you are going to insist is nonsense, but it is nonetheless true, and that is you are “sleep-walking” through life.

Or more aptly stated - you (as are all humans in general) are functioning at a level of consciousness wherein the utter perfection of the dream-like illusion of the universe has you so under its thrall that you simply cannot recognize what’s going on.

It’s like a fly landing on a human arm and not being able to recognize or comprehend that it is walking on the living body of a being that is so far above it in scope and consciousness that there is no comparison,...



...likewise, the same thing applies to humans as we walk on the earth.

It is almost impossible for us to understand that everything we are (physically) and that everything we see throughout the universe is all part of the living structure (the living mental fabric) of a Being that is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we cannot recognize what it really is.

Now of course, you will just accuse me of delusional thinking and continue on with your unimaginative mantra about how such ideas are merely the result of an existential crisis...

...while I, on the other hand, will simply interpret your closed-minded (materialistic/nihilistic) attitude as being a testament of the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

All of which seems to be an exercise in futility, wouldn’t you agree?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Top it all, the overriding God is imperatively the ontological God which is an impossibility based on critical thinking.

The ontological 'God' is my 'God'. I just don't call it 'God'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

And I openly admit that it is a dogmatic belief Does this make me a theist or a physicist?

Note you find out which type of theism you fit in here;

Types of theism
2.1 Monotheism
2.2 Polytheism
2.3 Pantheism and panentheism
2.4 Deism
2.5 Autotheism
2.6 Value-judgment theisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

If yours is not a personal God, then it is likely to be Pantheism, panentheism or Deism.

A physicist is very specific and conditioned to the Scientific Framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist

A Physicist can be a theist [above types] or a non-theist.

At this point Atla may try to convince you that "information" is some fallacy (e.g this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) ) and while opposing my religion, he offers no alternative, nothing better to place concreteness in, thus committing another fallacy: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray

"Physical information is a form of information. In physics, it refers to the information carried by a physical system. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

In the above sense, Physical Information is within the scope/framework of Physics and Science.

God as defined within theism above is totally outside the scope of Science.
Thus Physical Information [within Physics] cannot be linked to the idea of God at all.

In dealing with Physical Information is other sense, one will have to define the Framework first before making any conclusion.

[TimeSeeker]

Note you find out which type of theism you fit in here;

I am a monotheist. Information is my God/axiom. And if I am to be pedantic - entropy is my God.
I ASSUME entropy exists, from which information emerges. Which is phenomenologically identical with epistemic ignorance (uncertainty).

If yours is not a personal God, then it is likely to be Pantheism, panentheism or Deism.

By your taxonomy I am a deist AND a theist. The religion of information was invented in the last 100 years.
Information is the uncaused first cause (deism)
AND part of the day-to-day life (theism)

I don't know what the adjective 'persona' means in this context. What is an impersonal God?

A physicist is very specific and conditioned to the Scientific Framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist

A Physicist can be a theist [above types] or a non-theist

That is your understanding/interpretation/taxonomy. It is but a categorical error.
The way you use the word 'theist' is non-empirical, so I don't care for that definition.

In the above sense, Physical Information is within the scope/framework of Physics and Science.

In the general framework of Logic - it is an axiom.

God as defined within theism above is totally outside the scope of Science.

By that you mean it is 'outside the scope of epistemology'.In the paradigm of Physical Information testability/falsifiability are physical laws.
Therefore anything that is untestable unfalsifiable is outside the scope of epistemology. Therefore unscientific.

Information itself is outside the scope of epistemology. Because it is axiomatic to the framework/paradigm in which I reason.

Thus Physical Information [within Physics] cannot be linked to the idea of God at all.

Except - I apply information beyond (what you conceptualise as) physics. I apply it to my personal, every day life.

Logically God can be only one of two things:
1. An axiom
2. An assertion (deduction OR inference)

Choose one

In dealing with Physical Information is other sense, one will have to define the Framework first before making any conclusion.

The framework is (as always) everything that is knowable e.g epistemology.

[TimeSeeker]

Long story short the very notions of God AND belief are unscientific! ‘Belief’ itself is untestable/unfalsifiable.

Other than linguistic masturbation I don’t even know what it means to ‘believe in God’. What would be the consequences of such belief?

Until somebody gives me a testable/falsifiable definition for either - I am not interested in the the metaphysical arguments

[Veritas Aequitas]

...you need to lose the naïve assumption that your own personal and limited experiences of “various altered states of consciousness”...

(along with your personally selected readings and biased reflections)

...represent the full spectrum of what can be experienced by humans as they seek answers to the ultimate questions.

I make it a point to exhaust all known knowledge and literature that relevant to this point.
Which areas do you think I have not covered or missed?
If I have not, then I will cover it.

What you need to cover is encapsulated in the following suggestion:

First, you need to figure out how you can literally enter into the mind of every human on earth.

Then after you have directly analyzed the contents of their minds and have ruled-out the possibility of anyone ever having experienced an event in their life that would counter your personal theory,...

...then you can safely say that you have covered, if not everything, then at least a big chunk of what you have missed.

What’s that you say? You say that’s impossible!

It is obvious a person cannot literally enter into the mind or brain of another person.

Note, absolute certainty is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
But we can read the thoughts of a person from one's external expression, not 100% but to the best of our ability.

Humanity has now completely mapped the human genome which once thought to be impossible.
We are now on the way to map all the neural pathways of the human brain.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
Once we have fully or reasonably mapped the human brain what is there to hide within what is going on inside the human brain?

If there is to be anything else, it has to be empirical-rational possible awaiting evidence and not an impossibility like the idea of God [illusion].

Right, it is impossible - which is precisely why my earlier assertion about your attitude needs repeating:

You seem to be presenting yourself as a classic example of someone who believes that just because you yourself have not experienced anything that would point to the existence of a transcendent level of reality, then neither has anyone else.

With that being said, I am going to point out to you the exact same thing that I point out to all hardcore materialists. It is something that you are going to insist is nonsense, but it is nonetheless true, and that is you are “sleep-walking” through life.

Or more aptly stated - you (as are all humans in general) are functioning at a level of consciousness wherein the utter perfection of the dream-like illusion of the universe has you so under its thrall that you simply cannot recognize what’s going on.

It’s like a fly landing on a human arm and not being able to recognize or comprehend that it is walking on the living body of a being that is so far above it in scope and consciousness that there is no comparison,...



...likewise, the same thing applies to humans as we walk on the earth.

It is almost impossible for us to understand that everything we are (physically) and that everything we see throughout the universe is all part of the living structure (the living mental fabric) of a Being that is so far above us in scope and consciousness that we cannot recognize what it really is.

Now of course, you will just accuse me of delusional thinking and continue on with your unimaginative mantra about how such ideas are merely the result of an existential crisis...

...while I, on the other hand, will simply interpret your closed-minded (materialistic/nihilistic) attitude as being a testament of the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

All of which seems to be an exercise in futility, wouldn’t you agree?
_______

Btw, my philosophical approach is not materialistic/nihilistic.
My approach is an empirical-rational realist and transcendental-idealist.
I believe in an independent-reality and yet encompassed within an interdependent reality that is conditioned by human elements.

There is no excuse to insist there must be something like 'God' just because it is natural [inevitable and unavoidable] we cannot know everything 100% and with absolute certainty.
The control to this is, for whatever claimed to exists or possible to exists, bring the evidence to support one's claim.

If you insists there is an absolute independent God existing as real, then, yes, you are engaging with an illusion as driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis within your brain/mind and psyche.
If you are purely speculating, then we can leave it at that until you can bring the evidence to support your speculation.

As I had demonstrated the thought 'God exists' is shared by people who are mentally ill, has brain damage, took drugs/hallucinogen, under heavy stress, triggered electronically, involved in meditation for a long time, out-of-blue, etc. There are tons of evidence to support such experiences.

The control element is Buddhism rely on non-theistic approach to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Those who had mental illnesses and experience God were cured with the appropriate medicine and counselling.

As such, until you can bring the evidence to support your claim, it is most likely your "direct experience" that support your personal conviction God exists is real, is due to the impulses of the existential crisis.

Note this example where you are 'forced' to perceive two 'normal' faces.


This is the same impulses [in different set and degrees] that force you to the judgment 'God exists as real'.

[TimeSeeker]

'God exists as real'

No matter how many metaphysical verbs like 'exists', 'real', or 'being' you tag it with it doesn't make this 'God' entity testable or falsifiable in any way.

And until somebody produces a testable/falsifiable definition - I think far too much time is spent on ideas that are not even wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Falsifiability is a criterion for the epistemic realm. And any other realms do not matter...

[Dontaskme]

Long story short the very notions of God AND belief are unscientific! ‘Belief’ itself is untestable/unfalsifiable.

Other than linguistic masturbation I don’t even know what it means to ‘believe in God’. What would be the consequences of such belief?

Until somebody gives me a testable/falsifiable definition for either - I am not interested in the the metaphysical arguments

''Belief''...is the illusion of maya, without belief, there is no movie of I


Illusion is needed to disguise the emptiness within.

From belief to clarity.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Long story short the very notions of God AND belief are unscientific! ‘Belief’ itself is untestable/unfalsifiable.

Other than linguistic masturbation I don’t even know what it means to ‘believe in God’. What would be the consequences of such belief?

Until somebody gives me a testable/falsifiable definition for either - I am not interested in the the metaphysical arguments

The term 'god' is a very loose term which have been used in all sorts of context. Note the common exclamation, OMG!, god this and god that, blah blah blah.

I believe in serious note, the idea of God has to be in the Metaphysical context, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

From my research I believe the root cause of the idea [not concept] of God is driven from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible Angst [in a range of degrees] and activated subliminally most of the time.

Consequences:
A personal conviction in the belief in a God provide immediate relief to their Angst within most theists while for the other theists, the effect is milder but yet necessary.
There are pros and cons to the belief in a God as real to the individual[s] and society.

Theistic morality did and does contribute to some degree and limited morality [temporary to the current phase] to humanity but this is driven by fear, i.e. comply or else Hell.

But the worst of theism is when believers believed in a God [illusory] that is real to the extent of delivering immutable commands that contain evil elements to humanity via a messenger/prophet and put in writing in a holy text. The terrible consequence is SOME evil prone believers will adopt those command as a divine duty and commit terrible evil and violent acts on non-believers.