Does God Exist?

Yes. To me, God is Love. Is Love an algorithm?

 

did I ever say such things are unknowable? I stated "at our present level of development....blah..blah...blah" and didn't make any final proclamations concerning anything.
Why are subjective experiences so important?
what else do you have?
even considering "objective" data, it is still a wholly and completely subjective experience. We may all agree after discussion that certain wavelengths of light reflect back light that we call "red", but even though we are in agreement, the only thing any of us actually can rely on is our personal subjective experience. This is an old concept here, but it does have significance in any discussions concerning such things as God and spirituality.
actually I would love to don Micheal Persinger's "God Helmet" and see if it reproduces any experiences I have had that one could label "spiritual".


the only instances in which I quote or go to scripture is whenever some yahoo is exhibiting a juvenile and rudimentary understanding of the topic, yet doing so from a position of supposed expertise. go back over the last 8-9 years and you will find that to be true.
sure I may have had personal experiences that have influenced my views, as have we all, but you and others are always amiss whenever you try to affix labels to me.
I've always said my conception of God is contained in the Bible, but not constrained by it and that it is an ongoing, ever evolving process, as it truly should be for all of us, regardless of which side of the fence you currently stand on.

I guess this whole issue of religion, specifically Christianity as presently practiced, really gets under your skin?.......mine too, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


it is humorous to me is that I keep getting slapped with labels (which is odd as I have never divulged any religious or political affiliations in all my time here, only experiences) over this crap, when in reality I'm much more open minded about the topic than the majority of those labeling me are as I don't just discount certain things off hand nor am I so naive' as to take the stand "Cancer exists, so God doesn't!" or similar infantile ideas.

 

I"I've always said my conception of God is contained in the Bible, but not constrained by it and that it is an ongoing, ever evolving process, as it truly should be for all of us, regardless of which side of the fence you currently stand
on."

Well said. And as ive stated earlier in this thread, assumptions about peeps here are a serious buzzkill.

 

Guerilla,what evidence shows that its a farce?
lol even computers show us that a well written program can have glitches.
Is it your stance that everything is a product of random accident ?

 

Is love an algorithm...Im thinking that if there is a god, god is love,and it turns out to be a self replicating algorithm,then yes, love could be included in the algorithm, since it would be a part of god. I understand how many would reject this idea, considering the romantic and idealistic constructs people have of god.

 

Could be in principle if not by definition. Not an algorithm in terms of us providing a solution to a problem but one which produces results fundamentally. Just as a crystal transduces energy in the same way no matter what it's proportion or size, the angles or the way it refracts light remain the same. I don't find it a distasteful description just because it is not an emotional term. It could grow on you. there is something inherent in matter that emerges as self promotional.

 

People with more and less than 5 fingers and toes, pretty straightforward lol

Humans, which we both agree are imperfect, build and code script for computers, so no surprise there that they glitch.

Evolution demonstrates a sense of non-randomness in natural selection, so I wouldn't say everything is a 'random accident', however that doesn't suggest there is a supernatural deity with it's own agenda directing evolution or the universe either. The argument that our evolution is directed by some purpose is one proposed in Ancient Aliens , which I mentioned I watched earlier, as well. I don't see any reason to believe in a deity over aliens, in my finite time on this planet. The 'promises' of super advanced technological aliens seems quite empowering as well, not that I believe in that.

The fact that life appears to be so transmutable in characteristics of both extant and extinct species really makes it difficult for me to ascribe to a particular purpose to any of it. Though I am no expert on the archeological record, it seems animals more or less develop according to the atmosphere and environment they are exposed to. I enjoyed the Alan Watts analogy of the apple tree appling and the earth peopling.

With that said, The vastness of the cosmos and particular laws and constants of the universe do seem fairly ordered in a way that's difficult for me to comprehend emerging without any sentience behind it. If there were any supernatural power behind it, I suspect it is simply beyond what we can imagine in any coherent way. Mystical or peak experiences can certainly bring about states of consciousness far removed from consciousness' normal frame of reference, but those are fleeting in a way which our normal homeostatic frame of reference is not, so I don't think we should place precedent on those experiences over what we experience daily, nor do I feel one needs to default to the supernatural when experiencing the ineffable.

 

Very well put thedope..much better than I explained the same sentiment.
As with any theory, it is always a good idea to apply critical thinking, even to ones own beliefs.It never hurts to examine the math either.

Thank you your reply guerilla, very well put indeed. It has been argued in the that nothing happens at random, but the math shows us that it can.

 

So I described a god function in us and associated with this of course is brain chemistry. There is the psychedelic experience as well as spontaneous ecstatic experience. I do not think it is correct to say that these states are not sustainable or that we can't balance out at those levels. I think the key is emotional resonance. Like tuning in a radio station. To recall vividly the emotional state induces the chemical set or a facsimile of it. We learn to tune in just like we learn to tie our shoes. We keep at it clumsily at first until we develop a muscle memory or become tying shoes. Also in the case of addiction the reaction to a substance can induce the body into new homeostatic demands.

I think I read where studies indicate that emotion can influence the expression of genes. I will try to find the material, don't remember where I saw it.

 

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/666/

 

This seems like an important area of agreement. The cosmic order seems difficult to comprehend without any sentience behind it. (I'd say intelligence or cognition, but I and most theologians agree that whatever it is, it's ineffable). So what you're saying seems close to deism. And if I understand you correctly, you're saying that "mystical peak experiences" are real phenomena but not necessarily connected to the source of the cosmic order. They could be purely psychological, like the feeling of exhilaration we experience on a spring day, only far more intense--and accompanied by heightened cognitive awareness, or a "moment of clarity" otherwise known as insight. I'm a Christian because of one of these peak experiences, but I'll admit it was not necessarily proof of anything "supernatural". It seems to me, then, that the major difference between us is that I chose to interpret the experience in religious terms, and to infer from the integrated complexity of the universe that there's "Something Big Out There" deserving of my awe and admiration. The reasons for my choice are pragmatic: a decision to find meaning and moral guidance in the basic teachings and example of Jesus, which I take to be the agape principle. The decision isn't an arbitrary existential choice a la Sartre, but a thoughtful conclusion reflecting my moral sense, which is admittedly culturally grounded, and a conviction that following this course of action would make me a better person and the world a better place, and that that would be "real" and "true" in the most meaningful sense of the words. To make this choice isn't strictly speaking the result of logic and evidence: it's grounded in moral intuition and personal experiences. But it works for me. So where did I go wrong?

 

I dont think you did go wrong. Jmho

 

Yes and that level of uncertainty allows for novel expression.

 

i actually attended a religious school for a while. my parents are jewish. i believed in heaven as a child. i was taught about it in school...it was fun. i was always happy. religion is great. but you have to be careful not to get in a cult where they scream at you and theres yelling. usually religous schools dont ask for money and feed you and you can wear whatever you want.

 

Here's where I think you went wrong:

Not to speak for Guerr but he concluded by saying that we need not default to the supernatural. The difficulty of understanding something does not merit or demand the invocation of something even more difficult to understand in order to explain it.

Then why do you subscribe to a religion which is built on the premise that the meaning of life resides in certain supernatural entities and events occuring in Judae a few thousand years ago?

Well I hate to be the one to tell you, but it's not "out there", you're right in it. You're as in it as can be. In fact, we're as "out there" as can be. Alan Watts phrased it well when he said that he never understood the desire to "go out into space" in a space ship. We're already way, way out in space. We're in the suburbs of an average galaxy, whirling through space in ten different directions at once. This is as out as it gets. We have no choice in already being born on a fantastic space ship.

Perhaps you meant "out there" in non-spatial terms, to which I have two answers. One, if you mean "out there" is outside space, time, cognition, experience, etc, then I simply haven't a clue to what you're referring and I don't think you do either. Counting angels on a pinhead. If on the other hand you mean that there must be something "more to life" as is often said, this simply comes from ignorance as to what does in fact constitute life, a growing body of knowledge that bright and passionate human beings are adding to this very moment, should we but listen. Centuries and millenia ago when almost nothing was known about anything, religions were created to fill the void of utter perplexity and meaninglessness which comprised human life. Can you imagine living in a world where not only were you likely to die of a contagion before age 40, you didn't even know what a contagion was, how it worked, how it spread, why it attacked us. The world was scary, and there were no answers. So answers were created.

Today, the situation is very different. The more we learn about how the universe actually operates, by observing it with sensitive instrumentation and applying our logic and reasoning to construct simulations, the more we arrive at true answers, which are not only infinitely more valuable for being true, but are actually useful and can be put to work. The domain of god and religion is shrinking by the second. Every iota of knowledge which is gained reduces the domain of mystery of life. I would be quite interested to see what mainstream religion will look like in 100 and 500 years.

Your moral intuitions are grounded in logic and evidence; you note the consequences of beliefs and behaviors on yourself and your world, and make changes accordingly. Morality can, and should be, a scientific endeavour. Here you explain that it's not the case that you follow Jesus Christ because he is the Son of God and commanded certain behaviors, but because you yourself concluded these behaviors are good to have, and they happen to coincide with the teachings of Jesus, so in addition to certain inneffable experiences you've had, you've made the conscious decision to therefore align your personal demographic with "christianity". This is a calculated move on your part, also employing logic and evidence. You don't call yourself a follower of Lao Tsu for a reason, even though your morality might coincide 100%; the reason is that there are certain social benefits which come when joining the group of Christianity in the western world.

 

this is the song that never ends.. ^

 

Insh Allah.

 

Yah the only thing that throws me with some of the mathematical demonstrations is that I believe they still require some sort of parameters.

I've seen the double pendulum demonstration for Chaos Theory and played "The Game of Life" which shows evolution of forms over generations but don't both these demonstrations need some sort of parameter set? I could be mistaken or perhaps there are explanantions of the natural world which don't apply to these computational demonstrations.

 

I would challenge the assertion that religions were created to fill the void of utter perplexity and meaninglessness which comprised human life.
"The oldest known religious texts are the Pyramid Texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The earliest form of the Phoenician alphabet found to date is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos (The Sumerian Temple Hymns) circa 1000 BCE.[1] The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumer, with origins as early as 2150-2000 BCE,[2]:41–42 is also one of the earliest literary works that includes various mythological figures.[2]:41–42 The Rigveda of Hinduismis proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE[3] making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of theZoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for GathicAvestan have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 - 600 BCE.[4][5]
The majority of scholars agree that the Torah's composition took place over centuries.[6] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around thedocumentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[7]
The first scripture printed for wide distribution to the masses was the Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, and is the earliest recorded example of a dated printed text, bearing the Chinese calendar date for 11 May 868 CE.["
Focusing on the rigveda it was composed in sanskrit, a technical language created specifically for explaining various states of consciousness from the vedic tongue by the rishis or "seers of thought." They were intense observers of sensation and the inner landscape. Very much involved in the biofeedback loop of making ever finer distinctions or coming to know.

 

The term "supernatural" is troublesome. I think of "supernatural" in two contexts: (1) something which is beyond the current paradigms of science; and/or (2) something which is outside of nature, in the sense of being "transcendent". Things that might have been considered "supernatural" centuries ago seem quite natural today. For example, the computers and internet that we're currently using. And whatever is the ultimate source of the universe or multiverse could be considered "supernatural" in the sense of being distinct from or outside the nature or natural laws it created--by definition. I concede a belief in the supernatural in both of these senses. I'd "invoke" this idea because it seems to fit the mystery of the phenomenon I'm describing. I could be matter of fact about it and talk about it as though I have it figured out, that science will have it figured out in the forseeable future, or that it's not worth getting all awestruck about. That attitude would be a choice, much like the choice our technocratic culture makes about nature itself. In contrast to the Native American attitude that nature is sacred, the western industrial tendency is to desacralize nature. Beliefs have consequences. I don't think the secular-technocratic attitude does justice to the phenomenon.

In particular, Guerillabedlam mentioned that the order of the universe might be taken as an indication that it was the product of "sentience". Physicist Paul Davies uses the term "design". According to astronomer Sir James Jeans: the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own minds...a tendency to think in a way which, for want of a better word, we describe as mathematical. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, p137. "Think" may be too strong a term, but Davies suggests that "Occam's razor compels me to put my money on design"--although he adds:"as always in matters of metaphysics , the decision is largely a matter of taste rather than scientific judgment.The Mind of God, p. 220.So I've made and existential choice to venerate design as the Occam's razor alternative to more complex explanations like M-theory.

Why do I "subscribe to a religion which is built on the premise that the meaning of life resides in certain supernatural entities and events occurring in Judea a few thousand years ago?" Specifically, that would be Jesus. Again I have problems with "supernatural". I tend not to believe the miracle stories, for reasons explained adequately by Hume: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see no extraordinary evidence for the virgin birth, the nature miracles, and a literal bodily resurrection. The healing miracles I tend to believe, because they can be explained in terms of psychosomatic or hysteric phenomena. I subscribe to Jesus' teachings and example, particularly his unconditional love for the poor and society's rejects. That force, if taken to heart, could heal the world.Again, it's an existential choice, but I think a rational one.

I'll try to get to the rest of your post tomorrow.