Who is your God? (or not)

[subversion]

matter developed consciousness
.

Do you know how this occurred?

[chazzysaw]

If the next generation is born with ana avarge 20 IQ higher than the present ones, then science will advance much more, religion will be more abandondoned and language will eventually dissapear for we will communicate one day by mental sings.

You sound like a prophet, I like your prediction. Hopefully the human species will servive long enough to see that day. Actully your mental sing communication system is in effect today. A book by Marlo Morgan "Mutant Message Down Under" she speaks about the Aborigines people who use this method of communication.

[Mr. Nobody]

Do you know how this occurred?

I venture to say that consciousness is emergent, dependant on the complexity of the organization. I see a presence in my dog. I see more awareness in apes and homo sapiens with society as his extension seems, at the present, to be the most ordered of all matter. I do not however discount the possibility of sentient machines, if and when quantum processors become a reality.

[Guille]

I'm going to try to disprove your proof if that's cool. Ok, I'm not saying I believe in god. If you can explain nature without the need of god then please explain to me EXACTLY how life arose from non-life on planet earth. Furthermore, I would like you to do an experiment which recreates life in the laboratory from non-life in order to prove your hypothesis, since you are a scientist.

Good try, but it's not more than a try.

What I mean by saying that I cane xplain nature without theneed of the idea of god is that I have never come along a problem which has requiered expresivelly to reduce an event or a phenomena to god, that is, miracles. Of course still there are many things I can't explain, why? Because I don't ahve the TOE, because I'm nto god and therefore I'm not omniscient. But I do think that we cannot deny god until science explains absolutelly everythign without him. However, as we live in a world based on statistics, all the way from physics and chemistry to sociology and economy, I can say that science ahs solved so many problems already without the idea of god that it won't need the idea of god in the future. I know, it's induction, but at least it's an argument (not like those who believe in god and just state it, but have nothing to background).

That's of course assuming you're a scientist which you have to be if you don't believe in god. So if you can explain nature without the need for god, you must explain how life started and you must recreate it in a lab.

I don't know who told you that but it's stupid. There are many people not scientist or even not based on science in their lives that don't beleive in god. Most of the philosophers in the 20th century didn't believe in god. However I do find a very important thing to do what you say: explain the start of life and recreate it.

Now I will use this to propose my proof that you cannot prove god doesn't exist. To prove god doesn't exist you must be able to explain how life started, and to prove that your explaination is correct you must recreate life in a laboratory.

The theory and the experiment are neither the proof that there is no god nor the proof that there is a god. In fact we can't really determine whether god exists or not. It seems you didn't get the idea of my argument: it showed that agnosticism, which is that we can neither proof or disproof god, leads to atheism by occam's razor. It's that simple.

Therefore in trying to disprove god you'll end up proving that we could have been created by other beings, which is the notion of god if you will.

Let's assume that I manage to explain how life arrased in nature and recreate it in a laboratory. Then I'm a being that has created life. Let's even assume that I have managed to recreate a whole universe in a laboratory, of course, it's small, but it has planets, solar systems, galaxies... And in some planets, life. Am I god? Well, it depends in what you mean by god. God wrongly defined si that who created everything, and then I would be god. But that's stupid you know why? Because that god created something is just an action, a behavior, and not himself. For example, I can write a post and so can you write a post, but that doesn't mean that you and me are the same person. The correct definition of god is around the thread "God" and is a perfect supreme being, and as I am obviously not perfect, then I'm not god even though I could create a universe and life.

[Guille]

You sound like a prophet, I like your prediction. Hopefully the human species will servive long enough to see that day. Actully your mental sing communication system is in effect today. A book by Marlo Morgan "Mutant Message Down Under" she speaks about the Aborigines people who use this method of communication.

Yes, but aborigines are very peculiar people, I've seen many documentaries in tv about strange things they can do, all around the world... It's all too suspicious to believe in it.

[Guille]

I agree. That would be a stunning possibility, but I am not sure is it within our reach. Moreover, I think that deep empathy and deep altruism is more likely to be our final achievement, and pure telepathy will stay theoretical.

Hum.... Interesting. But it's clear that pure telepathy leads to deep empathy. Because if I can know exactly the thoughts of another person, and the feelings, and everything happening in his/her mind, then I'm sure that I will understand the person and be empathetic to him, completely.

[Guille]

So why don't you tell me why it's called mother nature then?

Because it's always the women that have children, that give birth, that is, that start the life. In all species. This caused that we called the cause of life in general mother nature, what would you want it to be, farther anti-nature?

[Guille]

Chazzysaw,
I find the Goddess in the eyes of loved ones. Have you ever inhaled deeply in the midst of a forest? I have climbed only one mountain, but she was waiting for me at the peak at sunrise and also in a very old church in Asia. I have also found the Goddess in those people who give up their seats on public transit to nursing mothers, the brilliant eyes of wrinkled old people and the two soprano aria in Lakme. Maybe it's not a question of where you see her, it's a question of being open to it....

I'm completelly open to god or goddess, I would like to believe and be them to be showed. But I seen nothing. I know I'm nto blind because those who are blind are the illuminated by god, because they are illuminate dby such a strong light that they see nothing, not even reality, so they relly on god. I guess I just should change of glasses? Through my realistic ones and buy some psycodelic glasses that have god all around... I think they wouldn't go with my style.

[Guille]

Right off, your first sentence I don't agree. I don't live in a nihist society. Most of my friends and family believe in some sort of supreme being, but call it/her/him/them by different names.

That's nihilism! It's not that they believe there is no god, but that each believes in a god. Or in a truth. Or in a philosophy. And this is how things are. 50 years ago everyone in western culture believed in the god that christian rleigion sai din the bible, exaclty the same, difference were small... But we've evolved into nihilism, each calls something different and gives it different properties etz.

I think that you are right and that Nietsche did say we don't need a god, but that doesn't mean that the Goddess doesn't exist.

This is the proof of my saying that god or universal development doesn't depend on humans. If it did, it wouldn't be god.

Anyway, the fact that someone beliefs in god impplies that god doesnt' exist, for you have doubts to it's existence and that impplies that it is not shown clear in nature. If you dont' belief in god, then it does exist, for it's jsut liek E=mc^2, I don't believe it, it's there. I don't believe in god, and this means that it exists, just that what is god is very different fromt hos ehtat believe in it, I know what it is for I don't believe in it.

In order to get to the state where there is no truth, no reason and no reality, one must definitely stop.

This is exactly it. Time stops and leaves us. We've lost it, and so we have decided to look back at the time we already have. It's like when one wants to have more money but can't, then you look at how much you have and start spending it. It's a law of nature. And this is all Baudrillard.

I don't think we live in it, I think we choose to ignore it. Once again, doesn't mean it's not there, just that we haven't reached it yet. So I guess I don't agree with Buadrillard. It sounds like I disagree with Mafesoli's as well. I volunteer a great deal of my time working on human rights.

Yes, but the human rights are now interpreted as species right. We know think that we ahve rights so and so because we are humans, we are part of the homo sapiens species. But it's not that. The original human rights were done to differentiate us from nature and from any other species,as in us being beings that have virtues and rationality. Now ecologists talk about the right of trees, of wales, of foxes... I don't disagree, it's good. But it's the cause of a misinterpretation of the human rights.

This is not a situation of majority rule, but defining what makes society as a whole better.

Sorry but democracy is neccesarilly the dictatorship of the mayority. And in fact this mayority is dictated by a minority.

I think you can judge how advanced a society is by the way the most marginalized people live.

I agree. In fact, I quote one of my favourite writters, Dostoyevsky "You can know how civilsied a society is by it's prisons". In Sweden there are a few prissons which have normal rooms for the prisoners, with computers etz, and the doors are open. Whiles the USA, which so many believe to be great and the power, has prissons which are as bad as some in latinamerica (and those are the worst, sometimes they appear on tv).

In Canada, our system is premised on a belief that everyone is entitled to a minium income, housing, healthcare and food. Some of these started as private initiatives but government has endorsed them (and in some cases contributed.)

In 1968 there was in france a revolution against the over control of the govermen ton the people. They we're too slow, they had too much order, and politics is not about order but about organisation. Maybe the Canadian goverment should learn.

I think we are past post-modern.

And what are we know then? We are nothing. There are no knew political ideologies created, or philosophical movements, or even artistic movements... We have to a point in spacetime that is terrible, we ahve crossed the barrier of attraction and now we are in the black hole horizon. We're falling to it. but, what is this black hole? It is the inversion of history, the reversion. Everyone know simply gets ideas from the past, some get romanticism, some impressionism, some budhism... It doesn't matter, we're just getting back everything we through to the bin. It was a recycle bin.

The world is a dead body, and we apparently move, what we don't know is that dead bodies keep growing hair and nails. That is us.

I agree with you that any Goddess would not be constrained by gender and exist independantly of us. What I don't understand is your assertion that the Goddess doesn't need us. Aren't we in part manifestations of the Goddess? Maybe we are how she apprehends this reality...

If god is everything the we are part of it's manifestation. But as it is everything, something is nothing for it, and we are part so we are nothing. However, this is if everything is looked as entity, which is probably the conceptual error that has caused more damage to humanity.

[Marko]

Hum.... Interesting. But it's clear that pure telepathy leads to deep empathy. Because if I can know exactly the thoughts of another person, and the feelings, and everything happening in his/her mind, then I'm sure that I will understand the person and be empathetic to him, completely.

Well, I thought that we will understand other person almost completely, but never 100%. That is what I had in mind with deep empathy. That should come with the high levels of our "real existence", and the fact that we depend on our body, the physical, could be some kind of the restriction for the pure telepathy, or absolute empathy or 100% altruism. I think that best individuals can approach to 99%, but never 100%.