There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[Sarkus]

Except for the BB, we pretty well know how the universe evolved without the help of a watchmaker.

So, apart from the origin, the ultimate cause, you claim we know about the evolution of the physical universe... so again I ask you: why do you think God should have a physical value? Do you think God is a physical concept?

 

[Sarkus]

I know this is not touching on the duality of material and non-material, but can multi-reincarnations of a soul be so conveniently ruled out by Christians?
I understand the soul can return in the body of another animal or plant.

It is a matter of belief. There is no reincarnation in the Bible, and I understand that it/reincarnation would make Jesus' sacrifice rather redundant, would it not? I mean, if we just came back as another person, or even animal, plant, and kept reincarnating until we achieved the necessary state to ascend, or some such objective (rather than just an eternal cycle), then for what did Jesus sacrifice himself?
So it is ruled out by Christians in the same way that they rule out a pantheon of gods, for example: it is not in the bible, it is not part of their faith.

 

[Write4U]

Then why did you say that [our theories of elementary particles] take us "farther away from the mysteries that were attributed to God"?

A biblical God that made humans in his image.

This is the image of God I object to. A guy floating in the clouds that make a human, just by a touch.

Funny, it used to be that many animals were symbolic of Gods. But the reductionist view became easier to identify with.
No one wnats to see God represented as a rat, one of the most successful creatures on earth.

But if we are going to symbolize an abstract God, why represent it with a physical pattern?
I can think of a much better symbolic representation of God in the symbolic equation E = Mc^2. Now there is a powerful abstraction that humans actually can use to create non-godly stuff like AI.

 

[Write4U]

So, apart from the origin, the ultimate cause, you claim we know about the evolution of the physical universe... so again I ask you: why do you think God should have a physical value? Do you think God is a physical concept?

No, I don't. Scripture does. I see 14+ billion years of evolving order from emerging from an energetic chaotic condition without form.

I see an abstract creative guiding principle, which shall remain nameless, lest I be send back to purgatory . But it also consists of 3 letters.

 

[exchemist]

A biblical God that made humans in his image.
View attachment 5924
This is the image of God I object to. A guy floating in the clouds that make a human, just by a touch.

Funny, it used to be that many animals were symbolic of Gods. But the reductionist view became easier to identify with.
No one wnats to see God represented as a rat, one of the most successful creatures on earth.

But if we are going to symbolize an abstract God, why represent it with a physical pattern?
I can think of a much better symbolicrepresentation of God in the symbolic equation E = Mc^2. Now there is a powerful abstraction that humans actually can use to create non-godly stuff like AI.

That’s a painting, of an allegory. If you take that literally, you have, let’s say, major gaps in your education.

But be that as it may, none of this is any longer about the soul, or mind/body dualism, or anything else relevant to the thread subject. This discussion risks becoming a soapbox from which you proclaim, yet again, your beliefs about Shapiro’s mathematical universe, which I sense you are just itching to start ballocking on about.

If you do that I’ll report you of course .

 

[Write4U]

That’s a painting, of an allegory. If you take that literally, you have, let’s say, major gaps in your education.

I know the definition of allegory, but there are millions of people who do see this as truth. The churches are full of these symbolic representations. Tell them they lack education and are controlled by priests and preachers and a golden city in Italy, also a symbolic allegorical representation of heaven.

But be that as it may, none of this is any longer about the soul, or mind/body dualism, or anything else relevant to the thread subject.

Could it be that you are limiting yourself to strictly biblical interpretation? I can reverse your "observation" about me as being applicable to your POV.
I can think of several fundamental dualisms other than the soul or mind/body dualism, that are functionally observable and can be described with symbolic language.

 

[exchemist]

I know the definition of allegory, but there are millions of people who do see this as truth. The churches are full of these symbolic representations. Tell them they lack education and are controlled by priests and preachers and a golden city in Italy, also a symbolic allegorical representation of heaven.


Could it be that you are limiting yourself to strictly biblical interpretation? I can reverse your "observation", as being applicable to your POV.
I can think of several fundamental dualisms other than the soul or mind/body dualism, that are functionally observable and can be described with symbolic language.

Let’s not drift further off-topic.

 

[Sarkus]

why do you think God should have a physical value? Do you think God is a physical concept?

No, I don't.

Yet still you ask/expect physical evidence, something of physical value, to support what you accept is not a physical concept?

If you think an invisible pink unicorn is not a visible concept (i.e. a concept that has visible as a property), would you expect the evidence of its existence to be in the form of what can be seen about it?

 

[Write4U]

Yet still you ask/expect physical evidence, something of physical value, to support what you accept is not a physical concept?

If you think an invisible pink unicorn is not a visible concept (i.e. a concept that has visible as a property), would you expect the evidence of its existence to be in the form of what can be seen about it?

Well, a talking burning bush doesn't quite do it for me. The descriptionof an abstract allpowerful being doesn't quite sound convincing either.
It is not my responsibility to disprove an abstraction. It is up to the claimant to prove the abstraction. Or at least describe the abstraction.
The bible does neither. We have here a classic case of "bait and switch".

Any indignance about my skepticism of the 3000 year old undefined abstract status quo is misplaced. I am seeking a new approach to the valid question of a causal ordering agency. A new allegory.....

 

[exchemist]

Well, a talking burning bush doesn't quite do it for me. The descriptionof an abstract allpowerful being doesn't quite sound convincing either.
It is not my responsibility to disprove an abstraction. It is up to the claimant to prove the abstraction. Or at least describe the abstraction.
The bible does neither. We have here a classic case of "bait and switch".

Any indignance about my skepticism of the 3000 year old undefined abstract status quo is misplaced. I am seeking a new approach to the valid question of a causal ordering agency. A new allegory.....

Do not start more of your soapboxing about the mathematical universe.

 

[Write4U]

Do not start more of your soapboxing about the mathematical universe

Do not sling ad hominems my way. You are just as ignorant of the God concept as I am. I am getting sick of this hollow preaching about my ignorance. Put up someting new or shut up!

 

[Sarkus]

Well, a talking burning bush doesn't quite do it for me. The descriptionof an abstract allpowerful being doesn't quite sound convincing either.

Okay.

It is not my responsibility to disprove an abstraction. It is up to the claimant to prove the abstraction.

Noone is asking you to disprove anything, nor is anyone trying to prove anything to you. Me, I'm simply pointing out that if you look for evidence of the non-physical by only looking at the physical, you won't get any closer to finding it.

Or at least describe the abstraction.
The bible does neither. We have here a classic case of "bait and switch".

The Bible does. describe God. I imagine other religious scriptures do as well.
Maybe you should re-read what they have to say on the matter before commenting further?

Any indignance about my skepticism of the 3000 year old undefined abstract status quo is misplaced. I am seeking a new approach to the valid question of a causal ordering agency. A new allegory.....

Is the "valid question" regarding the nature of what was created, or the existence and nature of the creator?

 

[exchemist]

Do not sling ad hominems my way. You are just as ignorant of the God concept as I am. I am getting sick of this hollow preaching about my ignorance. Put up someting new or shut up!

I have reason to believe I know a lot more about the concept of God, the Christian one at least, than you seem to.

 

[Write4U]

The Bible does. describe God. I imagine other religious scriptures do as well.

And therein lies the rub.
If we destroyed all scriptures and mythology, andtried to rewrite it a 1000 years later, it would all be different.
IOW current scripture does not accurately describe the concept of a creator God.

Maybe you should re-read what they have to say on the matter before commenting further?

Really?

Well,read this and tell me who knows anything about God at all.

The Attributes of God

Monotheistic definitions​

Monotheism is the view that only one God exists (as opposed to multiple gods). In Western (Christian) thought, God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (supremely good).

In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good. Many other properties (e.g., omnipresence) have been alleged to be necessary properties of a god; however, these are the three most uncontroversial and dominant in Christian tradition.

By contrast, Monism is the view that all is of one essential essence, substance or energy. Monistic theism, a variant of both monism and monotheism, views God as both immanent and transcendent. Both are dominant themes in Hinduism.

The Attributes of God

And this is informative of the attributes of god? Everyone has a different interpretation?

Even once the word "God" is defined in a monotheistic sense, there are still many difficult questions to be asked about what this means. For example, what does it mean for something to be created? How can something be "all-powerful"?

The Attributes of God

Is the "valid question" regarding the nature of what was created, or the existence and nature of the creator?

No, the valid question is how it was created. We know what was created.
And the question of why it was created is a whole other can of worms.

It is all conjecture and an evolved expression of "fight or flight" response that has existed since before homo sapiens.

 

[Write4U]

I have reason to believe I know a lot more about the concept of God, the Christian one at least, than you seem to.

Anything new to report?

The one where Jesus is the virgin begotten son of god?
Explain to me how a virgin can conceive of a male child? Are telling me there was only an abstract impregnation of male DNA?

 

[Sarkus]

And therein lies the rub.
If we destroyed all scriptures and mythology, andtried to rewrite it a 1000 years later, it would all be different.
IOW current scripture does not accurately describe the concept of a creator God.

Is scripture intended to give an accurate description, or merely a sufficient description for those that would make use of it?

Really?

Well,read this and tell me who knows anything about God at all.

I don't know who knows anything. I know some people claim to, and they believe they know. Whether they do or not I have no idea.

No, the valid question is how it was created. We know what was created.

The "how" is not a question science can ever answer. If your only tool for trying to answer such a question is one that can not answer it, then... ?

Like the "why", all you can conclude is conjecture, not knowledge.

 

[Write4U]

The "how" is not a question science can ever answer.

I see, we can pretty well answer every question about the "beginning" and all subsequent events that evolved the universe into what we can prove scientifically.
The one question that remains is "causality of the beginning", an event of unimaginable violence. After the inflationary epoch, we have a pretty good idea how the rest evolved.

One thing is pretty clear, whatever was causal to the formation of the universe, it was not out of love and humans were not created in the image of god. That allegory is an expression of human hubris. Humans have souls in the image of god? Another allegory?

Yes, we are all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of love. There will come a time when all dead human souls will occupy heaven and we get another Big Bang. Science calls it the recycling universe. "Well if that's all there is, then let's keep dancing, and have a ball"..

If your only tool for trying to answer such a question is one that can not answer it, then... ?

No, I am trying to answer such a question with a known and viable alternate narrative, but no one here seems interested!
Not only not interested, but actively hostile to the concept. I get banished every time I bring it up.

But quietly, we are beginning to understand from what and how the elusive soul and consciousness emerges along with knowledge of the fine scale processes that are causal to "action potentials".

I have yet to see somene say; "hmm, interesting concept and it is something we can really work with".

 

[Pinball1970]

Any indignance about my skepticism of the 3000 year old undefined abstract status quo is misplaced. I am seeking a new approach to the valid question of a causal ordering agency. A new allegory.....

That is the issue with the thread, defining god soul, heaven, consciousness to begin with.
Then equating that with being unconscious which has some clear medical definitions, sleep (different kinds) coma, anaesthesia.

We cannot speculate one with the other and say "check mate theists."

The soul, heaven and god are not interested in being asked about physical things.

 

[exchemist]

I see, we can pretty well answer every question about the "beginning" and all subsequent events that evolved the universe into what we can prove scientifically.
The one question that remains is "causality of the beginning", an event of unimaginable violence. After the inflationary epoch, we have a pretty good idea how the rest evolved.

One thing is pretty clear, whatever was causal to the formation of the universe, it was not out of love and humans were not created in the image of god. That allegory is an expression of human hubris. Humans have souls in the image of god? Another allegory?

Yes, we are all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of love. There will come a time when all dead human souls will occupy heaven and we get another Big Bang. Science calls it the recycling universe. "Well if that's all there is, then let's keep dancing, and have a ball"..

No, I am trying to answer such a question with a known and viable alternate narrative, but no one here seems interested!
Not only not interested, but actively hostile to the concept. I get banished every time I bring it up.

But quietly, we are beginning to understand from what and how the elusive soul and consciousness emerges along with knowledge of the fine scale processes that are causal to "action potentials".

I have yet to see somene say; "hmm, interesting concept and it is something we can really work with".

That's because we are all sick and tired of you preaching your mathematical universe religion at us, which is what you are clearly itching to do here. You've already done it numerous times, you are bore on the topic and it is not the subject of this thread.

But I now notice, with growing consternation, that you also mention "action potentials". This term, which relates to potential differences between the inside and outside of living cells, could well be a gateway for you to start drivelling about microtubules, as well.

 

[Write4U]

That is the issue with the thread, defining god soul, heaven, consciousness to begin with.
Then equating that with being unconscious which has some clear medical definitions, sleep (different kinds) coma, anaesthesia.

We cannot speculate one with the other and say "check mate theists."

The soul, heaven and god are not interested in being asked about physical things.

And all that non-scientific religious clap-trap means anything at all? Why am I being picked on? I did not invent all this nonsense.
The argument that religions have social value is pure BS. Their exclusivity begs for conflict.

I am trying to steer this concept of a universal God to a neutral arena that adresses all facets of life, and that involves either values or functions.

If you want philosophy or psychology, use the scientific approach. Biblical religions have done enough damage. It's time to grow up!

The soul, heaven and god are not interested in being asked about physical things.