Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_mikwut]

Hi Steelhead,

If my calculations are correct the double decker taco is $1.89 leaving .11 value for the evidence for the spiritual. That's something isn't it?

mikwut

[_SteelHead]

Sales Taxes will gobble that up.

[_mikwut]

So you mean there's a chance if I am in Montana?

Mikwut

[_SteelHead]

For you and Lloyd both.

[_mikwut]

Very funny indeed.
mik

[_DrW]

We already established the Mormon conception is irrational, I don't know why you keep returning to it when it isn't at issue.

This is a Mormon - oriented message board on which the majority of readers are lurkers, and therefore are likely to know little, if anything at all, about what you and I have discussed in the past.

What you just stated is a return to the embrace of physicalism. Your bouncing back and forth to suit you. If it is established that mind/consciousness is fundamental and not matter we don't have an understanding of the laws of physics for our consciousness, its implications and that is the context of our awareness of God - consciousness, mind.

The good Bishop Berkeley is not usually attempted to be refuted in the manner you are attempting, he is usually refuted by the oft quoted while kicking a rock, "I refute it thusly!" And that is for a reason. Mind as basic does not allow for the Dawkinesque type of arguments. I am quite surprised you don't recognize the metaphysical differences. We are no longer in the same physical metaphysics you so comfortably swim in when physcialism is just presupposed.

mikwut

mikwut,

Perhaps we should try to find some basic common ground before continuing the discussion. As I described above, the basic concepts, and the personalities who first championed them, as mentioned in the documentary have been familiar to me for some time.

I approach the issue by way of the evidence that I understand, and that evidence (mainly from QM) is summed up well in the documentary. If one takes the information presented in the documentary at face value, then there is nothing wrong with thinking about the issue in terms of quantum mechanical phenomena (as did the makers of the video).

So perhaps we can go back and seek some common ground, or at least common understanding, with a short Q&A exchange. I'll go first:

1. Do you believe that the laws of physics, as humankind presently conceives, mathematically describes, agrees upon, and verifies them, can be used to understand, predict and to some extent manipulate the universe, whether the universe is physical, due solely to consciousness, or is simulated or exists only through the attributes of some higher (universal) consciousness?
YES / NO

2. Do you believe in a personal God who hears and answers prayers, punishes and/or rewards individual humans, and interacts directly in other ways, including by supernatural means, with humankind?
YES / NO

3. Do you believe that humans have the capacity to alter or control reality, as perceived by third parties, by force of mind alone?
YES / NO

4. If you believe that universe we perceive only exists when being consciously observed, how would you explain this reality to someone totally unfamiliar with the concept?
PLEASE DESCRIBE

I stand ready to respond, as best I can, to your specific questions on the same subject matter.

[_Franktalk]

These laws of physics put a strict limit on the speed at which useful information can propagate. While the consequences of quantum entanglement (non-locality) can emerge instantaneously upon observation, it has been demonstrated that entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information (so called quantum no communication theorem - consistent with Bell's inequality).

I hope you are aware of a possibility of worm holes. Or a bridge in folded space. This is where information could travel vast distances using a shortcut. It would appear as though information traveled faster than the speed of light.

I happen to believe in intelligent beings besides man. I see no reason that a creature that has been around for billions of years could not use communication pathways we have not discovered. So indeed communication could be almost instantaneous across the universe. Your inability to see beyond today is very limiting.

The idea that intellect forms the physical universe also raises the possibility that many physical universes exist. This would seem to answer some odd experiments in physics.

[_mikwut]

Hello DrW.

Do you believe that the laws of physics, as humankind presently conceives, mathematically describes, agrees upon, and verifies them, can be used to understand, predict and to some extent manipulate the universe, whether the universe is physical, due solely to consciousness, or is simulated or exists only through the attributes of some higher (universal) consciousness?
YES / NO

Yes. I don't believe there is present hegemonic understanding or interpretation of all the laws of physics.

2. Do you believe in a personal God who hears and answers prayers, punishes and/or rewards individual humans, and interacts directly in other ways, including by supernatural means, with humankind?
YES / NO

I believe in a personal God. I am an idealist and it seems the simplest implication of a mind that creates demonstrates intent which is a personal quality. Our own experience of mind which is fundamental in an idealist framework denotes personhood which derives from the fundamental mental fabric of reality. I don't believe in hell and interaction would take quite a long time but briefly of course it interacts we are conscious and consciousness is the fundamental basic of reality - we are interacting every minute.

3. Do you believe that humans have the capacity to alter or control reality, as perceived by third parties, by force of mind alone?
YES / NO

I conceived by mind a lone a law practice when I graduated from law school. I altered reality by making that mindful conception a reality which is perceived by third parties. In fact everything in my life is the same. Are you referring to ESP or something?

4. If you believe that universe we perceive only exists when being consciously observed, how would you explain this reality to someone totally unfamiliar with the concept?
PLEASE DESCRIBE

I would start with color. It is an obvious and important feature of experiencing objects. But we know that color is just a product of our brain which has been stimulated by wavelengths of light not an actual physical reality "out there" when we are so perceiving. Consciousness perceives color but without the consciousness process in our minds there is no color. Sounds, like colors, are the same just as smells, tastes or sensations. Things do not smell like, taste like or feel like anything, when nobody is smelling, tasting or feeling them. What is left?

ETA: I was very happy for you regarding your mother. I would be very grateful for one of my parents to be so enlightened. Best to you respecting that.

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I believe in a personal God.

Can you qualify this belief in order to make it relevant for those of us who don't believe in a personal god?

- Doc

[_mikwut]

Hello Doc,

Hmmmmmm, belief in God to me is finding life's meaning, myth, ritual, and the sacred, caring for humanity, community, morality, it is experience of the divine, it is transcendence, it is a deepening of mental health and happiness a reason for progress and purpose. It is deeper explanation of art, beauty, symbol, value and human relationships. It is a seemingly (to me) clearer understanding of reality and the existential questions I believe we all ask. It is hope. This of course does not compel others to the same.

mikwut