by D wiltshire 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
If you believe in a Creator then it's relevant.
If you do not then is irrelevant!
D whiltshire, thanks for starting this topic, thought provoking!
The thing that puzzles me is ...................
It has also been proven that gravity slows down time. Thus time can be warped(gravity), slowed or even stopped completely.
Why is it that as you get older and fatter (heavier) that time seems to speed up! Shouldn't time slow down?
Qwerty
Alternatively one could say;
"What feats of the imagination do I have to go through in order to maintain my belief in a god?"
If, as you recently discussed in another post, the Universe could be set-up with sufficient self-organising abilities to produce this realty we now experience if set running by god several billion years ago, then the Universe could have arrisen naturally with the same properties of self organisation.
Now, we can't calculate the probabilty of there being an infinate chain of gods required to explain the existance of god. Even if we try to get around this quandry with postulations about god being out of time, logically there still needs to be an instigation of that state. And obviously, just because a clock isn't going round doesn't mean that things don't happen.
Likewise we can only speculate on the total number of possible set-ups of physics in a naturalistic universe. There could be one, there might be million, most of which would end up in proton soup. However, we are demonstrably in one where the physics allow self-organsiation, so it doesn't matter. The probability of it being this one might be very low, but it is.
This means you either have a natutalistic Universe that just happens to be set-up right to self-organise; unlikely, but we'd never know about it if it wasn't so it's unlikeliness is illusory, or you have one with a inex-plicable god.
Occam's Razor.
Ab,
"What feats of the imagination do I have to go through in order to maintain my belief in a god?"
That is the nature of God, he not of this universe, for he is its creator. Isn't that the way it is suppose to be, an supper intelligence that knows all, and can do things that appear miraculous to us, but have an explaination if we knew more or as we grow in our own intelligence as a race of humans.
This means you either have a natutalistic Universe that just happens to be set-up right to self-organise; unlikely, but we'd never know about it if it wasn't so it's unlikeliness is illusory, or you have one with a inex-plicable god.
I don't allways like the either/or scenereos, they remind me of creationist/or evolutionist debates. Which goes on the false premise that if you beleive in evolution then you can't beleive in creation. I think both are right on certain points.
As far as God being inex-plicable, I would say yes, because we exist inside of the universe, when we can see God as he really is, then at that time we will be able to explain him as he really is, but not to humans, because we are so limited.
francois,
Time, for its existence, requires movement. Earth time measures moon orbits around the earth and earth orbits around the sun. This is another way of saying that time requires space.
time doesn't require the movement of macroskopic objects. it just requires an increase in entropy which is present everywhere in the universe.
That is the nature of God, he not of this universe, for he is its creator. Isn't that the way it is suppose to be, an supper intelligence that knows all, and can do things that appear miraculous to us, but have an explaination if we knew more or as we grow in our own intelligence as a race of humans.
OK, here's my hypothesis. The god you describe is actually one of 43 1/3* sons of a being I call Super-God. Each son has it's own universe to run as they will, but each thinks he is the only true god, omnipotent creator of the only universe. At the end of a certain amount of "time"** Super-God will call a halt and see which god has the best universe. That god then gets a medal and Super-God presses the "reset" button, starting each universe from the beginning.
*You may think this number must be an integer, but gods (and Super-God) are not subject to our laws of mathematics
**Obviously not time as we understand it, but some kind of fluidic non-linear time
D Wiltshire, can you see how this hypothesis has as much claim to truth as yours? Do you see that, even if you're right, you can never ever know for sure, because it could all be just a trick. If God is hiding from us, Super-God may be hiding from him and of course, this regression can be continued infinitely.
While these hypotheses (yours or mine) may be true, they're not in any way useful. We can certainly ask the question: "What should we expect to see if this hypothesis were correct?" but we can't answer it, because you've defined God (and I've defined Super-God) in such a way as to be immeasurable. So if you're OK with that, you might as well come up with a more interesting god than the god of the Hebrews, seeing as you're not limited by anything as crass as the need for evidence, only your own imagination.
Intro,
Hmm, so it sounds like this is saying seeing God is to be like God. Suppose that God is awareness, (or pure consciousness, whatever you wanna call it) or 'the seeing' but not what is seen or some subject that sees, then seeing God is seeing the seeing, seeing awareness, if that makes sense. In that case, it would certainly be true that seeing God is to be like God, being aware of awareness. I'm sure this won't make a lot of sense to a lot of people, I'm just putting it out there for whoever it may click with.
I see where you are comming from. I bet in a lot of things we have similar ideas.
Funky,
OK, here's my hypothesis. The god you describe is actually one of 43 1/3* sons of a being I call Super-God. Each son has it's own universe to run as they will, but each thinks he is the only true god, omnipotent creator of the only universe. At the end of a certain amount of "time"** Super-God will call a halt and see which god has the best universe. That god then gets a medal and Super-God presses the "reset" button, starting each universe from the beginning.
*You may think this number must be an integer, but gods (and Super-God) are not subject to our laws of mathematics**Obviously not time as we understand it, but some kind of fluidic non-linear time
Hey funk, you got a good imagination, I like it, you could be on to something. Very plausible, really so many more things are plausible, than just 2. Lets get rid of the either/or syndrome.
D Wiltshire, can you see how this hypothesis has as much claim to truth as yours? Do you see that, even if you're right, you can never ever know for sure, because it could all be just a trick. If God is hiding from us, Super-God may be hiding from him and of course, this regression can be continued infinitely.
You know I have thought of similar hypos myself, i don't consider them taboo, you are right "you can never know fro sure" unless, big big big, unless God make you like himself and then and I really think, only then will you "know" for sure.
While these hypotheses (yours or mine) may be true, they're not in any way useful. We can certainly ask the question: "What should we expect to see if this hypothesis were correct?" but we can't answer it, because you've defined God (and I've defined Super-God) in such a way as to be immeasurable. So if you're OK with that, you might as well come up with a more interesting god than the god of the Hebrews, seeing as you're not limited by anything as crass as the need for evidence, only your own imagination.
I disagree! they are useful, these hypotheses are useful. They provide a basis for further investigation if they are good enough to merit it. I think even wild speculation can sometimes be useful, as long as it is recognized for what it is. The God of the universe is not small and human(was temporally), we need to think big to grasp a glimps of him(metaphorically).
Those are interesting questions about God, but have you considered quantum theory's effect on you personally? Take a look at the role of the observer in collapsing quantum probabilities into what we then sense as the 'reality' of matter and the flow of time. In a very real sense we are the instigator of the cause when we observe the effect.
1) Does your consciousness even need time or space to exist?
2) Does consciousness without your physical body look at time the same way we do with your physical senses?
3) Does consciousness view past, present, and future as all the same?
Maybe these are the questions you should be asking. If your consciousness is limited by the senses of your physical body and is quietly working both in you and at the same time is existing outside of space and time, would this help to explain things like: deja' vu, precognition, past lives, NDEs, etc...?
Maybe these are the questions you should be asking. If your consciousness is limited by the senses of your physical body and is quietly working both in you and at the same time is existing outside of space and time, would this help to explain things like: deja' vu, precognition, past lives, NDEs, etc...?
thinker
Thinker,
Those are interesting questions about God, but have you considered quantum theory's effect on you personally? Take a look at the role of the observer in collapsing quantum probabilities into what we then sense as the 'reality' of matter and the flow of time. In a very real sense we are the instigator of the cause when we observe the effect.
Spooky isn't it! I think Albert E. theories and Quantum physics has turned the world upside down, and has raise more questions than it has answered. Maybe it is just a very clever hologram we experience consciousness in.
Science tells us that everything is basically nothing, I think God is a clever manipulator of "Nothing" to make what appears to be "something" it really is not. That's my idea of what quantum physics is going to eventually tell us, as a lay-person
1) Does your consciousness even need time or space to exist?
I would say no. I strongly feel that consciousness is not just electro-chemical, but may be on a sub-atomic level as well, or perhaps the consciousness we experience is beyond space and completely "non-local" but attached to your body somehow.
2) Does consciousness without your physical body look at time the same way we do with your physical senses?
No physical body, would probably mean "no" contact with SpaceTime.
3) Does consciousness view past, present, and future as all the same?
Without the present body I would say yes, but that is conditional. Of coarse I have the right to be wrong on such highly speculative questions.
Maybe these are the questions you should be asking. If your consciousness is limited by the senses of your physical body and is quietly working both in you and at the same time is existing outside of space and time, would this help to explain things like: deja' vu, precognition, past lives, NDEs, etc...?
This could be one of many plausible conclusions.
wiltshire,
I strongly feel that consciousness is not just electro-chemical, but may be on a sub-atomic level as well, or perhaps the consciousness we experience is beyond space and completely "non-local" but attached to your body somehow.
this believe contradicts all modern findings in neuroscience.
D Wilt,
Science tells us that everything is basically nothing, I think God is a clever manipulator of "Nothing" to make what appears to be "something" it really is not.
My point is perhaps it's our consciousness, both individually and collectively, that might be 'manipulating nothing to make it appear as something'. Could such a collective consciousness be mistaken for God?
