The phenomenon and the explanation

[partinobodycular]

First criteria of everything that is. Existence.

To be precise, there are two criteria for everything that is...it exists and it changes. There's absolutely nothing that you can point to that doesn't possess both of those criteria.

And yet, in spite of that fact. Your God supposedly lacks one of them. In fact He lacks the very thing that's essential to being alive. Why?

Change requires a beginning, middle and an end. Eternity doesn't.

Why must change have a beginning? That's no different than saying that existence must have a beginning. Each individual change must have a beginning, just as each individual being must have a beginning, but that's not to say that change itself must have a beginning any more than existence itself must have a beginning.

 

[dlamberth]

What a fish swims in, is not inside itself, now is it?
Still making no sense ..

It's a koan that many will understand. If a person doesn't get it, as with the way of koans, there's no way to explain it to them.

I am trying to understand, but you are being incoherent.
You said: So a connection links this supposed cosmic, universal, life force with yourself (and everything else) according to that statement.

The connection I'm pointing towards is not an external one, but an internal sacredness of Oneness sort of thing. The picture of Divinity comes into view for me during those ecstatic moment of sacredness that I experience every now and than.
I know...incoherent.
We have different realities so speak different languages.

No 'connection' would be needed if the concept is already perceived by yourself, therefore it must be external to you.

I'm not understanding how I or anything else is external to life. It's Life that I'm pointing towards, knowing that I experience the depth and reach of Life differently than you.

I'm not into quivering over the word used. I guess I wasn't exact enough? Would a word like "Oneness" work better for you? I'm just looking for a way of a understanding connection.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Oh yeah? Then how am I somehow acquiring it meaning from what you write?

Whaddya think .. that the meaning behind the word 'existence' was somehow grabbed out of thin air, by our ancestors and then used as tool is by humans in the past and the passed down through the generations? Get real .. its a human invented concept .. no different from any other words and the meanings they convey and this can be demonstrated via the scientific method and the history of language development (which is more than anyone can say for the gobbledygook process you're using .. ie: at least science gives other people some access to understanding ..).

Are you thinking that 'being' is contingent on thinking?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I see this thread being active and I'm not quite sure what it is about (or how it could be relevant to evolution.) I wondered when it got weird -- it was post #6.

 

[SelfSim]

I see this thread being active and I'm not quite sure what it is about (or how it could be relevant to evolution.) I wondered when it got weird -- it was post #6.

The 'weirdness' displayed here is the outcome of non acceptance of observational data, which was basis of the issue raised in the OP. This is not just limited to the ToE, unfortunately.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you thinking that 'being' is contingent on thinking?

I don't have to think that .. I can objectively test for, and demonstrate using the results, that what you mean by 'being', is completely dependent on the presence of an active human mind.
You cannot even come up with a test for refuting that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My spirit of adventure is a non-physical entity that's well and truly alive in me .. but its part of who I am and not something separate from me.

So why is this God thing separate from those where its alive in their hearts? How did that happen, I wonder?

I would speculate that it's part projection and part the same deep need for causal explanation that drives science (though they drive in different directions).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's a great question to be asking. It's one I feel all Lovers of God need to be asking themselves often. Here's my take that comes from the inner experiential or gnossis as some may call it, way of knowing. For myself, when I look beyond the outer forms of life and into the inner essence of a being, I'm aware of and see a divine connection with a universal life force that runs through out and within all of the cosmos.

That sounds like begging the question - ISTM you can't look into the inner essence of a being without believing that there is an inner essence, nor can you see a divine connection without having a concept of the divine to apply...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speaking only for myself, the way I experience God is as pure consciousness. I wouldn't call that as being "alive" in the physical sense that you and I are familiar with.

What is 'pure consciousness'? how is it different from ordinary consciousness?

How can there be consciousness without life?

You seem to be reifying consciousness as some kind of 'stuff', ethereal or otherwise, when the best evidence we have suggests that it's a process, a mode of brain function. This is a mistake many woo-meisters make with 'energy', and in the same way - they also talk of 'pure energy' as if it meant something, but it doesn't.

 

[dlamberth]

What is 'pure consciousness'? how is it different from ordinary consciousness?

How can there be consciousness without life?

You seem to be reifying consciousness as some kind of 'stuff', ethereal or otherwise, when the best evidence we have suggests that it's a process, a mode of brain function. This is a mistake many woo-meisters make with 'energy', and in the same way - they also talk of 'pure energy' as if it meant something, but it doesn't.

OK...unpure consciousness than if that suites your fancy.

 

[SelfSim]

OK...unpure consciousness than if that suites your fancy.

That's what this thread is giving me .. .. Polluted consciousness!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK...unpure consciousness than if that suites your fancy.

It's not a question of what suits my fancy, but a question of what you mean - you took the trouble to tell us that you experience God as 'pure consciousness', and I'd like to know what you mean.

So what do you mean by 'pure consciousness'? how is it different from ordinary consciousness?

Is it just a poetic expression, or does it indicate a special kind of consciousness? if the latter, in what sense is it 'pure'?

 

[dlamberth]

It's not a question of what suits my fancy, but a question of what you mean - you took the trouble to tell us that you experience God as 'pure consciousness', and I'd like to know what you mean.

So what do you mean by 'pure consciousness'? how is it different from ordinary consciousness?

Is it just a poetic expression, or does it indicate a special kind of consciousness? if the latter, in what sense is it 'pure'?

I'm sorry, but I'm with a bunch of friends, 50 or so, eating good food, dancing to great music and just having a great time. Everyone is vax'ed and masked up. That seems to be working pretty good. I was wondering about that, but it's working well. I'm using a friends laptop to let you know that it isn't until next week that I'm able to continue this line with you. Maybe for a very quick note what I can add is that in the world I live in, consciousness came before the physical world. And in this physical world, it's consciousness that's evolving into different forms. As a materialist, you seem to think that consciousness requires a body to function. To me, that's a very limited perspective. I flip that perspective 180 degrees. I agree with Teilhard de Chardin who says that we are a spiritual being with a body. I've recently came across what to me is an interesting perspective built upon the insight of Ibn Arabi that I've been trying to figure out how to condense for this thread. Anyway, be well.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Maybe for a very quick note what I can add is that in the world I live in, consciousness came before the physical world.

.. which is completely not 'the physical world'.
Its from that point where everything becomes completely ungrounded and detached from objective reality.

 

[dlamberth]

.. which is completely not 'the physicalthqt targ world'.
Its from that point where everything becomes completely ungrounded and detached from objective reality.

I own an IT company that targets the Auto industry. Trust me, though sometimes it seems esoteric, we are very grounded and totally attached to objective reality. Your barking up the wrong tree.

 

[SelfSim]

I own an IT company that targets the Auto industry. Trust me, though sometimes it seems esoteric, we are very grounded and totally attached to objective reality. Your barking up the wrong tree.

That you own an IT company, is mostly irrelevant when it comes to science's objective reality, as the distinction between subjective and objective, in software development, is largely dependent on human (user) perceptions/requirements.

 

[dlamberth]

That you own an IT company, is mostly irrelevant when it comes to science's objective reality, as the distinction between subjective and objective, in software development, is largely dependent on human (user) perceptions/requirements.

True...and your point is?

What your missing in a major way is that a person can live in two different worlds and thrive. Your limited to just one.

 

[SelfSim]

True...and your point is?

Well the point is that the distinctions between 'subjective' and 'objective' will be very unclear in the 'world' you have chosen to live in, when you willingly admit the notion of universally ubiquitous, disembodied, flowing consciousness, as being anything more that just a simple, everyday, pure belief.

What your missing in a major way is that a person can live in two different worlds and thrive. Your limited to just one.

Hardly ...
The difference is being able to efficiently recognise a purely personal, subjective notion and a broadly more realisable one.

PS: By the way, the correct word abbreviation you continually use (as per the second quote above) is: "you're" .. (and not "your") .. which is yet another of life's important language distinctions.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I don't have to think that .. I can objectively test for, and demonstrate using the results, that what you mean by 'being', is completely dependent on the presence of an active human mind.
You cannot even come up with a test for refuting that.

No thing was being before the human mind could apprehend the concept of being or until it could be symbolized and communicated?

 

[partinobodycular]

Well the point is that the distinctions between 'subjective' and 'objective' will be very unclear in the 'world' you have chosen to live in, when you willingly admit the notion of universally ubiquitous, disembodied, flowing consciousness, as being anything more that just a simple, everyday, pure belief.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. It really doesn't matter whether the physical world creates consciousness, or consciousness creates the physical world, the exact same rules would apply.

Why?

Because in order to be conscious one must be conscious of something. Even the concept of "I am" requires a context in which to ground that concept. So along with "I am" there must be a concept of what I am not. But consciousness can't simply create whatever it wants to, it can't just "wish" things into existence. What it creates must be coherent. "C" must follow "B", must follow "A" and so on, otherwise all that you have is chaos. There would be no logical reason for anything, and consciousness, along with its supporting context would be torn apart by cognitive dissonance. So for consciousness to exist it must do so in a context that's coherent. Cause must precede effect, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason must apply. There must be rules that not even consciousness itself can violate, and therefore reality would end up looking exactly the same as it does now.

And it's not really a matter of consciousness creating reality, because consciousness can't exist without reality, and logically, it can't precede something that it can't exist without. So it must be that the two are inseparable, they emerge together, with neither one being the cause of the other, but rather each being different aspects of the same thing, consciousness.

So in the end, you really have no way of knowing if reality exists "out there", or whether it's all in your mind. The two versions would look exactly the same.