Is God All In The Mind?

[GlitterRose]

What if consciousness wasn't only in our minds? What if it could be tangible?

If that was so, then all of us could affect it.

[Occult1]

A difference between what Krauss does and what preachers do is that Krauss has observational evidence and math to back up his "sermon" not just "God said so." And philosophers make a;; sorts of assumptions for which there is absolutely no evidence. Worthless

One can use science to try to demonstrate the possible existence of a metaphysical progenitor as well, in fact astrophycisist Bernard Haisch does so very well in his book The God Theory. (here's a quick sum up: https://www.youtube....?v=zgD-CSrEZJ0_)

Even so, these are theories that simply can't be proven as things stand in the fields of physics and cosmology. And might never be. So they are more like personal viewpoints. In it's current state, Krauss' A Universe From Nothing does not add any block in the edifice of science. In my opinion, it fails completely to adress the issue of the very existence of the laws of quantum mechanics in an hypothetical quantum vacuum. Why should these laws even take place if there is 'nothing'? To be honest, it's hard to see his book as anything more than Atheism thumping, his recurent trashings on religion and philosophy become boring. and Dawkins grand claim in the forword: ''If 'On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology''. I mean seriously..

Edited January 16, 2015 by sam_comm

[spacecowboy342]

One can use science to try to demonstrate the possible existence of a metaphysical progenitor as well, in fact astrophycisist Bernard Haisch does so very well in his book The God Theory. (here's a quick sum up: https://www.youtube....?v=zgD-CSrEZJ0_)

Even so, these are theories that simply can't be proven as things stand in the fields of physics and cosmology. And might never be. So they are more like personal viewpoints. In it's current state, Krauss' A Universe From Nothing does not add any block in the edifice of science. In my opinion, it fails completely to adress the issue of the very existence of the laws of quantum mechanics in an hypothetical quantum vacuum. Why should these laws even take place if there is 'nothing'? To be honest, it's hard to see his book as anything more than Atheism thumping, and Dawkins grand claim in the forword: ''If 'On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology''. I mean seriously..

Well Dawkins may have overstated a bit, but I think you overstate when you say the book adds nothing. It states the case for quantum fluctuation being responsible for the beginning of the BB in a way the layman can understand and despite all the criticism from butthurt philosophers who cry foul because a quantum vacuum isn't really nothing I think it makes the case nicely. Yes you must assume quantum mechanics is a fundamental law from the beginning for it to work but I don't see how this is any more incredulous than assuming God did it by magic. Where is the science for the nature of exactly what God magic is and how it works? Those physicists who try to claim physics can establish metaphysics which is completely outside the scope of physics are nothing more than metaphysical apologists, and I give no more weight to their hogwash than I do Aquinas or St Augustine. I actually saw a lecture by one who was well respected in his field (his name escapes me) who tried to claim the singularity at the BB was God. He never got around to explaining how this singularity was conscious or could communicate with it's prophets though. Scientist should stick to the realm of the observable and at least label their speculations in metaphysics as pure speculation. I think the universe recycles periodically so certain physical laws are always in effect, but that is just speculation on my part. I think my point holds though, that despite a lack of certainty, we can at least say that it is possible a universe can come into existence without any miraculous aid from a deity. And this being the case, there is no reason to assume the added complication of a creator. To paraphrase Laplace we have no need of God for our hypothesis.

[Just Dave]

When or will this mystery ever have closure? Any answers?...Any questions?

Thanks.

10.000 BC a cave dwelling humanoid looked at the sun and since he didnt understand the space nor anything else for that matter, he gave it a name " God "... so he told hes tribe that sun is now God, they worshipped it.

2000 years later, a merchant travels around with primitive notes that depict sun by the name of God... he spreads the word... Religion starts spreading

another 2000 years later ... Some people adjust this notes and stories so it suits them better, giving it a name... Allah Buda etc...

The trend continiues... Until Christ, which i am not sure why so special perhaps due to fat book written about it... but nothing changes the princip..

Greeks didnt understand feelings.... You know chemical process in the brain.... They've actually named feelings as GODS... gotta go to work...

[+Hammerclaw]

Well Dawkins may have overstated a bit, but I think you overstate when you say the book adds nothing. It states the case for quantum fluctuation being responsible for the beginning of the BB in a way the layman can understand and despite all the criticism from butthurt philosophers who cry foul because a quantum vacuum isn't really nothing I think it makes the case nicely. Yes you must assume quantum mechanics is a fundamental law from the beginning for it to work but I don't see how this is any more incredulous than assuming God did it by magic. Where is the science for the nature of exactly what God magic is and how it works? Those physicists who try to claim physics can establish metaphysics which is completely outside the scope of physics are nothing more than metaphysical apologists, and I give no more weight to their hogwash than I do Aquinas or St Augustine. I actually saw a lecture by one who was well respected in his field (his name escapes me) who tried to claim the singularity at the BB was God. He never got around to explaining how this singularity was conscious or could communicate with it's prophets though. Scientist should stick to the realm of the observable and at least label their speculations in metaphysics as pure speculation. I think the universe recycles periodically so certain physical laws are always in effect, but that is just speculation on my part. I think my point holds though, that despite a lack of certainty, we can at least say that it is possible a universe can come into existence without any miraculous aid from a deity. And this being the case, there is no reason to assume the added complication of a creator. To paraphrase Laplace we have no need of God for our hypothesis.

That just brings it all back to the same point of disagreement, with Theists saying Atheists haven't a clue, and Atheists saying Theists are just dumb. It's a web of science and speculation with holes big enough to drive a truck through. Epic Fail. Edited January 16, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[Occult1]

but I think you overstate when you say the book adds nothing. It states the case for quantum fluctuation being responsible for the beginning of the BB in a way the layman can understand and despite all the criticism from butthurt philosophers who cry foul because a quantum vacuum isn't really nothing I think it makes the case nicely.

The criticism come from anyone who realize that if there is quantum fluctuation, then there is quantum laws. It's only reasonable to ask why should these laws exist and permit a quantum vacuum in the first place. How do you know there isn't something deeper? It may not be a coincidence that Krauss is trying to adress the issue a the very end of his book and does so in a very unconvincing manner I must say.

I would also add that one of the ''buttheart philosophers'' you are refering to is actually David Albert, a doctor in theoritical physics and all agree that he stands as an equal of Lawrence Krauss when it comes to quantum mechanics.

''The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.''

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Edited January 16, 2015 by sam_comm

[spacecowboy342]

The criticism come from anyone who realize that if there is quantum fluctuation, then there is quantum laws. It's only reasonable to ask why should these laws exist and permit a quantum vacuum in the first place. In that case there is something and not nothing. It may not be a coincidence that Krauss is trying to adress the issue a the very end of his book and does so in a very unconvincing manner I must say.

I would also add that one of the ''buttheart philosophers'' you are refering to is actually David Albert, a doctor in theoritical physics and all agree that he stands as an equal of Lawrence Krauss when it comes to quantum mechanics.

''The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.''

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Of course if there is quantum fluctuation there are quantum laws but you miss my point. The top argument of theists, at least to my mind is that there must be a creator because a universe can't just pop into existence from nothing. Krauss shows that given the right initial conditions this is not so, so the theist argument fails. As to why quantum laws should be in effect, honestly, I don't know. But just because I don't know does not rule out the possibility. For what I think is most plausible google Poincarre's recurrence theorem. I don't think the BB was the beginning but just one of an infinite series of BB's each creating their own space-times. Perhaps the laws are the same in each because they are fundamental and must be this way or perhaps new ones come about each time. I have no idea. But since each has their own time reference it is meaningless to say one comes before or after the other or they are simultaneous meaning an infinite multiverse with every possible combination of events happening an infinite number of times. Granted this is speculation and you may find it far fetched but I still find it more plausible than magic. Sorry if this post is rambling, I have been up for about 30 hours and I have to work early so I have to get some sleep. I appreciate the conversation and I hope this last post wasn't completely nonsensical.We know that virtual particles pop into and out of existence through quantum fluctuation all the time. To me the universe doing so differs only in scale. Perhaps each virtual particle is it's own universe lasting billions of years by it's internal clock while happening to fast for observation by ours and our universe is a virtual particle in some vaster universe. Wild speculation? Sure, but still with more scientific basis than magic. Sorry I got to sleep

[psyche101]

psyche

I notice you are from Australia, so perhaps you missed a peculiarly American word used by another poster from California.

Philibuster.

That is not debate, but rather one-sided talking of indefinite length, often to an empty hall. It refers to a parliamentary maneuver which delays votes by pretending to debate, but really just saying the same things over and over.

All that can be done with a philibuster is to let it run its course; it is pointless to "engage" in it. One doesn't so much wave a "white flag," but rather holds onto an unmbrella. Preferably something plastic, so it doesn't leak and can simply be thrown away afterwards, because you wouldn't want to clean a brolly after it's been philibustered on.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Thank you, no I have never heard the term used in my life. My learning for today

Here we tend to use slang a lot, and string words together, which is indeed what I had assumed, again, thank you for the correction.

[Occult1]

Of course if there is quantum fluctuation there are quantum laws but you miss my point. The top argument of theists, at least to my mind is that there must be a creator because a universe can't just pop into existence from nothing. Krauss shows that given the right initial conditions this is not so, so the theist argument fails. As to why quantum laws should be in effect, honestly, I don't know. But just because I don't know does not rule out the possibility.

You see, the logical conclusion I am drawing is that if there is quantum laws in effect in what appears to be 'nothingness' then that's not really what it is. There could as well be something deeper that permit this quantum vaccum in the first place. That could very well be the metaphysical progenitor Krauss is trying to get rid of in vain, assuming that his theory is right, which may simply not be the case. I don't claim to know either. Still, I find Krauss's demontration to be shallow at best, and it doesn't answer much in the end.

One thing we can agree: 'God' is not a bearden men sitting out there somehwere.

Edited January 16, 2015 by sam_comm

[psyche101]

Exactly as I was saying above, Atheist preachers are telling us that 'nothingness' and 'pointlessness' is the ultimate origin.

I guess you can say they preach, in that they advocate earnestly known fact.

According to Krauss, we are living in a Universe that sprang from 'nothing' and that it just so happen that we are 'insignificant' being living pointless lives, thanks to quantum mechanics. Alas, he doesn't say where the laws of quantum mechanics come from!

Where do you personally find fault in his presentation? Or do you just take offence top it in general?

Where do the laws of Gravity come from?

But... Here's a merciless smackdown of Krauss's book by physicist and philosopher David Albert in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.c...e-m-krauss.html

Also worth the read!

I didn't find it merciless, he did not show Kraus to be in error, he just whinged a lot. Krauss stops short where his knowledge does, that's the big difference between science and religion.

[Occult1]

I guess you can say they preach, in that they advocate earnestly known fact.

I think you are confusing conjectures with fact.

Where do you personally find fault in his presentation? Or do you just take offence top it in general?

I laid out some of my criticism above. My point of contention being Krauss's definition of a quantum vacuum as 'nothingness' without giving a satisfying answer as to why he thinks it should be so. Let alone, why should there be quantum laws if there is 'nothing'?

This quote from the whyevolutionisstrue blog (an Atheist-oriented blog mind you) kind of resume my thoughts about it pretty well:

''Further, Krauss defines “nothing” as a “quantum vacuum,” without giving us reasons why that would obviously have been the initial default state of the universe. Is that a sensible definition of “nothing”? If not, whence the quantum vacuum? And so on to more turtles. . .''

Source: https://whyevolution...ausss-new-book/

Ah, and the fact that there is no proof for his theory, so I don't feel the need to subscribe to it, as well as his personal worlview deprived of meaning, which does not make a lot of sens to me.

Where do the laws of Gravity come from?

I do not know. Do you?

he did not show Kraus to be in error

No, he just shows how deeply flawed his theory is according to his understanding of quantum mechanics. No one can claim to know. The question of origin isn't one that will be given a definitive answer tomorrow morning, if ever.

Edited January 16, 2015 by sam_comm

[+Hammerclaw]

This is an interesting site for people of Faith who also acknowledge the relevance of Science. https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/a-review-of-lawrence-krauss-book-a-universe-from-nothing/

[White Crane Feather]

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make/support here, WCF, but materialism is not subject to scientific inquiry. While it is true that the material universe is subject to such inquiry, the philosophical position maintained in materialism is that there is no 'non-material' aspect of the universe. Since science is, by its very nature, unable to examine such a claim then materialism is not able to be 'examined by science'.

Philiosophies lie on a different branch of academic discipline than science does, and while aspects or claims of some philosophies may be able to be subject to scientific inquiry the philosophies themselves are not.

Materilaism makes some claims about the physical universe that are testable. Those claims fail. Materilaism no longer applys.

Edited January 16, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

I think you are confusing conjectures with fact.

I laid out some of my criticism above. My point of contention being Krauss's definition of a quantum vacuum as 'nothingness' without giving a satisfying answer as to why he thinks it should be so. Let alone, why should there be quantum laws if there is 'nothing'?

This quote from the whyevolutionisstrue blog (an Atheist-oriented blog mind you) kind of resume my thoughts about it pretty well:

''Further, Krauss defines “nothing” as a “quantum vacuum,” without giving us reasons why that would obviously have been the initial default state of the universe. Is that a sensible definition of “nothing”? If not, whence the quantum vacuum? And so on to more turtles. . .''

Source: https://whyevolution...ausss-new-book/

Ah, and the fact that there is no proof for his theory, so I don't feel the need to subscribe to it, as well as his personal worlview deprived of meaning, which does not make a lot of sens to me.

I do not know. Do you?

No, he just shows how deeply flawed his theory is according to his understanding of quantum mechanics. No one can claim to know. The question of origin isn't one that will be given a definitive answer tomorrow morning, if ever.

The word "nothingness" is a device used by counter apologetics in a rather illogical way. We all know quit well by now that the quantum vacuum is far from nothing. In fact nothing by its own nature can't exist. To continue to say the universe came from nothing is simply wrong. In all likelyhood quantum fluctuations did produce this universe. The other point of confusion is spaceitself. I don't think this an intentional error for illogical arguments sake, I actually think most people don't understand that when physicists speak about time and space, they are not speaking about exactky the same thing that is in the laymens mind. As such the atheist hears something that they can apply confirmation bias to, and so does the theist.

[White Crane Feather]

I honestly think you see it that way because you want to see it that way because there is a common theme. The afterlife. In that way you support each other. You once claimed that native Americans and Indigenous Australians met, and found common ground, personally, I find that very hard to believe.

One of the reasons I have bowed out of our larger discussion is because there is this constant theme of misrepresentation with you. It's extremely hard to debate with somone that is in constant fallacy land or just gaps. I remember the post you are referring to. It was a hypothetical situation to exsplain the tolerance levels of many native spiritualities that you have now represented as me saying it's actually happened. It may have or not, my example was purely hypothetical. You may have missed that the sentence would have started with an introductory phrase starting with "if", but in the above arguments I see the same thing happening over and over again coupled with other serious flaws. I have always liked you. I do like to discuss things with practical people, but that whole thing was simply going to digress into a mess.

Let me give you an example. You make a fallacious argument about our "greatest minds" being atheists. I say "look I can do it too" pointing out the illogic of such statements. then I paste a list of "Great minds" with spiritual beleifs, then you seem to think I was posting that in the same spirit you were. I WASNT MAKEING THE ARGUMENT YOU THINK I WAS. Even after I tell you this, you still keep on about it. There simply is no way to keep up with somone that is only Reading what they want or picking and choosing parts of sentences with either ignoring or simply missing whats actually being said. It's completely impossible to argue with.

Edited January 16, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Just Dave]

My god, would a person say, just, why are you guys talking in such dark, theoretical topic.... We as humans are clueless about what happened, and this "nothing" will never be defined, while we lack pretty much everything, to even begin to comprehend laws of physics that work on our planet... As we know this laws tend to react in different ways on other planets... perhaps this laws, that to us make some factual universal sense, make no sense in other galaxies, we can't know as a fact, you guys can speculate and argue but i know for a fact that no one knows, no phd diploma or higer will bring you any answers at all.. and even in 1000 years this topic will still have some dogma to it.

Not to mention that we are a " young civilization ", space is again in theory "spreading/expanding" far longer than our planet was creating... what i mean is that our race will most likely never have a single FACT to hows or whats of origin of space.

Abit of topic: even when some hardcore NASA guy said that based on hes research the space is expading at such and such rate.... i mean REALLY?! Media spreads that research around and suddenly it is a fact, later on article pops up on WIKI,...

... than ( at least i think so ) i asked myself... how can you even remotely know such a thing, its ok when it is a theory but making it fact is a little bit absurd.

Just wanted to give example on how our history is made, what they teach at schools, recent history is somewhat accurate, but going back as far as creation of space and time is ... well.. plainly put stupid... Those 8~10 per cent of our little brain, will never allow to understand the process of such magnitude...

And no there was no god... because based on plain logic, god didn't exist while our planet was never created yet, even so we know how it was created... by forces of space and time, and beside why would god " ammm create? " Dinosavers? For hes zoo or what?

Ohhh wait than i guess he didn't like them so he used a giant asteroid and erased the dashboard, waiiiiiiit for it... he tried that with Russians too recently... yet he didn't have enough power, he picked too small rock...

Yes i am getting pretty annoyed by religion... it is like....

[Mr Walker]

When you said religion improves the human condition.

If you wish.

In my opinion, the species is ready to move on from this precursor.

It means we are dealing with ego. Not facts.

Religion improves the human condition. This is the same as saying that logic improves the human condition Any form of thinking and processing information which ADDS another layer of thought to our self awareness improves our condition. Take away logic and we lose something. Take away the ability to think spiritually/ religiously and we as lose something.. I appreciate your disbelief in this concept, but that is a obvious bias..BUT. neither logic nor religion makes us more good. Both allow us more ability to be both better and worse than if we had neither ability. Neither guarantee we will use those abilities wisely.

Humanity cannot 'move on" from religious/spiritual thinking any more than it can "move on" from logical thinking. It is fundamentally in the way we learn to process information and view our world. It is one of the earliest abilities we learn as our brain develops and it is as much a part of humanity as speech or thought. What we can, and must do, is use both logic and spiritual/religious forms of thought more wisely to move us forwards as a species.

[+Hammerclaw]

[Mr Walker]

What if consciousness wasn't only in our minds? What if it could be tangible?

If that was so, then all of us could affect it.

Only to a point. Consciousness IS tangible. Thoughts can scientifically be transmitted recorded etc We are like the singer of a song. Our thoughts are the tangible but impermanent production of our selves alone.s But the thoughts are as tangible as the song. They are forms of energy. Hence we can see them and record them While this is a proven scientific technology, there is personal evidence that humans can also see/read the thoughts of others without connection via technology.Both thoughts and dreams can be read/seen, stored and transmitted, and probably altered and manipulated, using technology.

[spacecowboy342]

You see, the logical conclusion I am drawing is that if there is quantum laws in effect in what appears to be 'nothingness' then that's not really what it is. There could as well be something deeper that permit this quantum vaccum in the first place. That could very well be the metaphysical progenitor Krauss is trying to get rid of in vain, assuming that his theory is right, which may simply not be the case. I don't claim to know either. Still, I find Krauss's demontration to be shallow at best, and it doesn't answer much in the end.

One thing we can agree: 'God' is not a bearden men sitting out there somehwere.

You seem to think of physical laws as things that must exist. I see them as descriptions of how we observe things behave. Why shouldn't quantum mechanics work then as it works now? Just because it refutes God? Look at it this way, the empiricist philosopher, David Hume liked to say that when faced with 2 competing ideas he would choose the one which seemed least miraculous. For my view I must assume quantum mechanics worked then the way we observe it work now. For your view you must assume a transcendent omnipotent creator which after existing for an eternity ( a logical impossibility), it spoke a magic word and miraculously brought a universe into existence. Now you tell me which idea strains credulity more? You have a point about the idea of quantum fluctuation not really being very satisfying in explaining why we are here, but then I don't think the universe exists to satisfy us. I am glad that we can agree that God isn't some white bearded guy on a throne somewhere. I have been spending a bit of time debating muslim yec's lately. Man they are stubborn

[spacecowboy342]

Nice bit of trolling

[+Hammerclaw]

Try this.

[spacecowboy342]

Materilaism makes some claims about the physical universe that are testable. Those claims fail. Materilaism no longer applys.

Seriously? I think materialism holds up pretty well and we still have 0 evidence for spiritualism

[+Link of Hyrule]

Nice bit of trolling

Nice bit of selective reading

~ PA

Edited January 17, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[GoldenWolf]

At least athiests are trying figure out how the universe started, instead of the mentally lazy religionists "well god it". L.M.A.O.