It is a matter of experience .up to now we have not knowledge so what we realise but not able to speak in words because conciousness can not be derived only based on known physics maths n medically qualities of human brain also spinial card which are directly related
@@maheshmalhotra2662 sorry, don't follow what you are saying. The "closer than your jugular vein" Quran 50:16 verse has nothing to the discussion in the video. It is a verse saying that God knows every sin (as they are recorded by two angels v17) and everyone will die and be judged (v18-20), no one will escape (v21-22) and will thrown into Hell (v24)...
God is not a being but is being itself and we all share in that being. We are all parts of God and God is the sum of all parts of existence. Traditional theism has some problems that Pantheism does not have. Traditional theism says God is a being. Where is this being? Pantheism says God is being itself. God is not invisible. The extreme personalizing of God in traditional theism is a problem because it is anthropomorphism, though not always so obvious. They think God is like them, or they are like God. Pantheism says no, there is no proof for that. It is better to say "We don't know how God really is but God definitely is." Our intelligence is proof that our primary source is intelligent. Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence. Intelligence implies life but who can say with certainty they understand the Life of God?" Pantheists don't suffer from the problem of evil. As we are all parts of God responsibility for evil shifts to us. If God constantly intervened in each of our affairs that would invalidate freedom. We are meant to be free not slaves. We don't even understand the life of God let alone the knowledge of God or the power of God. A pantheist does not insist on saying God is even omniscient so the problem of evil does not arise.
I used to be a pantheist. But then, this kind of thing we call God doesn't judge me, doesn't probably realize I exist, couldn't even realize anything perhaps, and is pretty much interchangeable with Nature. So, as Sagan said once, why not skip a step and just call it Nature? Then you wouldn't confuse it with a term that carries too many religious baggage. And so, I became an atheist.
Right! I think the ironic arrogance of many theisms is that they attribute gods with characteristics of human consciousness for relatability (e.g. emotions and awareness); this isn't even shared among the observable organisms of just our planet. It very often comes off to me as an anthropocentric idea about the origin of reality, as though a human-like consciousness with human-like drives is necessary for existence itself.
At least for Westerners, pantheism appeals to people that can't buy into the idea of gods that are claimed to have written books for humans but don't want to live in a godless universe. Pantheism does relatively negligible violence to reason; it doesn't require one to deny well established science and such. But it's still irrational because there really isn't any compelling reason to consider the inanimate universe a 'god'.
ha ha ha WTF. What a load of bullcrap lol 😆😆😆 Call it a tea ☕, so who made the tea. lol. I'm done with people like you... 💨💨 Call it nature. Call it a cup of tea. That's not my concern. I'm asking who made the tea. Don't tell me a fart made it 🙄🙄
I don’t view Pantheism as the universe is God. My take on it is that everything in the universe has some degree of consciousness. This consciousness is universal. It permeates all living things, even plants to some degree. This is what we all are at our deepest level. Although because each of us has experienced life from a different point of view we identify with the body we currently inhabit. We don’t realize that we are all living thing’s experiencing life and the universe from different perspectives.
@@KCost82 What you're describing is actually a different idea called Panpsychism. It can be kind of related to pantheism or you can even be both but they aren't quite the same concept.
Hemispatial neglect is a neuropsychological condition in which, after damage to one hemisphere of the brain is sustained, a deficit in attention to and awareness of one side of the field of vision is observed. What we observe with people who have this condition is that they respond to outside stimuli but they are totally not consciously aware that they do. For example if you would throw an object towards them they would defend but they will be totally unaware of what prompted them to respond in the way they did. They lack a felt quality of experience. But what does this mean? It seems quite obvious that conscious awareness is not a given. For conscious awareness to 'emerge' a particular minimal structure of the brain seems absolutely compulsory else it could not simply disappear due to a stroke. We already know that the brain processes information and use this information to fire neurons which determines our actions. The above example demonstrates that we don't need to be conscious for our brain to proces information and let us respond. So let's look at information processing. Without consciousness the Brain becomes a processor of information. Via our "sensors" we receive information that is being processed in the brain. The responses are different given the stimuli and will also differ in time depending on previous experience. The truth is that slightly different circumstances can generate completely different results. All this is true but will differ from person to person and actually from brain to brain and from biological stimulus response system to bsr-system in general. Now what would we expect given this information? I think that if consciousness is fundamental consciousness is there all the time and cannot be a result of information processing. If, however consciousness is a result of processes and structures in the brain, we would be able to determine that there is a difference in time when people proces information and when people become aware of the results of this process. In other words there would be a causal relationship between them. Recent studies in neuro science show precisely this. When we measure how people make decisions we can pretty well distinguish between the two processes. The brain knows what decision has been made before we become consciously aware of those decisions. Closer to truth has reported on this in one of there 'big questions in free will video's'. It even has further consequences. Consciousness is thus demonstrably a causal relation. Causation is dependent on time so time should be fundamental as well. Can you demonstrate this to be true? To me this makes a strongly and even conclusive case that consciousness is a result of processes in the brain and it rules out anything like a soul or consciousness being fundamental. There is a separation between living and non living. But we have systems that proces information that are non living which are human made. The characteristics of those systems, no matter how advanced and complex they are, is that they proces information in precisely the same way all the time. There may be circumstances in which they cannot respond, you're phone doesn't work without energy but try it a million time it will always produce the same result. The same goes for all matter in the universe. We know how particles and even the fundamental particals respond in all circumstances. Precisely the same way as we can predict. There is no acception. Even in QM you may argue that we don't know for example that an atom may decay or in what order the particles in a double slit experiment will construct the wave pattern, we do know the results and that it is predictable. Results of mind processes differ from occasion to occasion. There are as many differentiations as there are minds. Thus we would expect to see this back in non biological structures that has the felt quality of experience or conscious awareness. Nothing even remotely points to such. This makes it truly impossible to call consciousness anything close to a fundamental structure. To me it sounds as if consciousness is portrayed as a forcefield we cannot detect which we can use and that has an immense influence on our reality. I would suggest to 'use the force' and demonstrate it exists. Yes I know. People claim having experiences like in meditation that demonstrates the truth of panpsychism. you may have had an experience in meditation, so have I, many many times. I don't doubt it. But you are simply attributing meaning to your experience towards your preferred conclusion just like a theist who experiences the same feelings beliefs it to be transcendental because... Well yes, because he already beliefs this in advance. The same feelings can be experienced from drug abuse or brain stimulation with strong magnetic fields. All that is been done by pantheists proponents, is simply muddy the water without actually engaging in a well defined falsifiable hypothesis. Just like Deepak Chopra's frequent semantic gish gallops with words salads where the meaning of words are slightly shifted not to clarify but to confuse. The only purpose is not to present a concrete model that stands on its own merrits but to shed doubt on existing models and feed into people's hope. It's nothing more than a modern version of astrology. The language is purposely chosen complex, ambiguous and shady in order to reach maximum confusion while, just like Deepak Chopra, the pantheist doesn't actually say much more that that consciousness is fundamental because.... Well because they think it is. It isn't much more than going on a scuba diving trip for the first time and feel overwhelmed by the mesmerizing beauty of marine life, to than come to the conclusion that such beauty can only be the result of an infinite being that wanted to create this. It's nothing more than personal incredulity. Now don't understand me wrong. The pattern searching mind wants to believe in magic, in forces beyond our understanding that govern the universe and it demands an explanation for everything we cannot fathom. So it will constantly produce inferences to this preferred conclusions. And, let's face it, it's big business. Just because it feels right doesn't make it right though, just because it seems consistent doesn't make it true, just because it resonates with your intuition doesn't make it sound, just because people are able to formulate it in a way that sounds logic and real doesn't mean that they have met there burden of proof. In general any model that doesn't stand on its own merrits but is in desperate need to falsify another model in order to gain any form of credibility should be dismissed. In pantheism the heavy lifting is done by appealing to intuition and the human minds tendency to search for agency in any form. Such models can only fail.
If you say that God is real as opposed to unreal, you are unconsciously assuming that reality is a more basic principle than God, since you are judging God by it. Reality encompasses the fundamental forces, the gods and consciousness itself-- including imagination, deceptions, myths, dramas, illusions and all concepts of the vast unknown.
One can be spiritual, but not religious. People who have experienced Near Death Experiences can teach us a lot about the spiritual reality, and is not what religions teach. "The Law of One" discribes everything is a manifestation of the " Infinite Source ". Everything, living and non living, is the Infinite Source ( God) experiencing itself. This is also a discription of Pantheism.
Sorry not everyone actually experiences divine things in near death. In my cardiac arrest I experienced absolutely nothing, just woke up being resuscitated in my front yard.
@@PhantomGardener couldn't tell you how little information I actually walk out of an ayahuasca session with, it's an infinite amount that lasts for an infinite time, but then our limited human brains filters 99% of it and I used to come down to a certainty of not having felt anything at all. I believe it took some neuroplasticity to rewire my temporal lobe with the hypocampus and visual cortex so I could actually store that kind of information. those who've had NDEs, did you previously engage in psychedelics, transcendental meditation or spiritual practices such as stargazing in awe? or was it an emergent phenomena you were more easily prone to? diagnosis of depression, bipolar or other mental atipicity? what kind of NDE was it? what caused it?
@@PhantomGardener "Just beacuse you don't remember does not mean it didn't happen" So... just because I don't see unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist?
Let's move some words around until we define god into existence. All we learn from this futile exercise is how powerful words are in creating our personal realities and how impotent they are in affecting our common reality.
There's actually a word for the idea that the concept of god isn't sufficiently well defined to be meaningful; igtheism. People tend to leap right to arguing over whether or not a god exists without ever seriously considering what something would have to be like in order to necessarily be considered a god. Typically the closest you see to a serious attempt to meaningfully define "god," are concepts like "the ground of being" or "the non-contingent being", neither of which must necessarily be considered a god.
@@b.g.5869 Ha ha. Thanks for the new word, igtheism. It's nice to know that others see the futility in these earnest debates over ambiguous fluff. Too bad that the devotees of the various species of that fluff have caused so much destruction and misery.
@@olivierdelyon8196 You don't have to believe in a supreme being. The universe isn't a "being" in any meaningful sense. This is the sort of idea that appeals to people that find it very difficult to believe a supreme being actually exists, but they want some sort of god to exist, so they call the universe "god". There aren't any good reasons for thinking of the inanimate cosmos as a divine being. I think it's good to have a sense of awe regarding the cosmos. It's the ultimate enigma. It's not a being however, much less a divine one.
It isn’t logical to think that the creation could understand the Creator, as there is no reason to think they would be comparable in any way. The Creator of the physical universe we are aware of (setting aside other possible dimensions/universes) would have powers and abilities that would be inconceivable to our limited minds. That said, we should always keep pushing on the boundaries of our knowledge, and two of the main ways we do that is through scientific and philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality.
That's weird. I would think that the only thing you would have in common with your creator would be your awareness of self. That advanced consciousness you have which gives you awareness of the abstractions in reality, the abstractions which gives life to your increased intelligence. I would think that upon discovery of similarities between you and your creator, having then created in that likeness, that one would intuitively know that it would be only by digging through these similarities, and likenesses, where the truth could possibly be found. If the Creator made you a Sandbox, it's likely that the solution isn't in the sand. It's far more likely that you are the solution, and the doorway is inside of you.
“Thus says The Eternal, The Trustworthy and True Witness, and The Source of The Creation of God:” 15“I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot; because it is necessary that you be cold or hot,” 16“And you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I am going to vomit you from my mouth.” 17“Because you said that you are rich, and, 'I have prospered, and I lack nothing', and you do not know that you are sick and wretched and poor and naked,” 18“I counsel you to buy gold from me, proved by fire, that you may prosper, and white garments to put on, lest the shame of your nakedness be revealed, and eye salve to apply that you may see.” 19“I rebuke and discipline those whom I love. Be zealous therefore and return.” 20“Behold, I stand at the door and I shall knock. If a man listens to my voice and will open the door, I also shall come in and I shall have supper with him, and he with me.” 21“And I shall grant the overcomer to sit with me on my throne, just as I have overcome and I sit with my Father on his throne.” 22“Whoever has an ear, let him hear what The Spirit says to the assemblies.”
@@williamesselman3102 What I was referring to is the essence of the Creator. However, there are many things we can know concerning the characteristics of the Creator--strength, compassion, knowledge, etc. Those characteristics are reflected in all of existence to one degree or another, and when all goes well, nothing on this planet can reflect them more fully than human beings.
We already know time doesn’t really exist. If you took the universe and stretched it out like a wet noodle all history from beginning to end that information is still there and exists. You could look at it from start to finish in a sense. Meaning in our minds reality as it is seems to “pass by” when in actuality we just “experience” and experience reality in its current and expanding form. So in a sense yes, we could just be observers from the universe itself, a form of self aware intelligence that experiences the universe with a sense of “time” rather then time existing in reality as we know it.
@@oocloudoo1549 Only God knows everything intuitively. Humans only think discursively. God is eternal and timeless while we are temporal and finite creatures.
Or simply a state of awareness, perception, responsiveness & cognition of the environment by an ENTITY with a MIND. Consciousness is just a FUNCTION of the MIND of an ENTITY.
Panentheism is more accurate. Which is that, God is everything in the natural world and MORE. The more here refers to the Frequency domain that is outside the natural world and is immaterial. In fact the frequency domain is what God is, as that domain is what give rise to the natural world.
I alway thought that panentheism and pantheism are in opposition to each other. But maybe the real Opposition is between panentheism and naturalistic pantheism. Maybe both should be seen as a subset of pantheism.
We do not want to bring together the god and matter or we do not want to put the god in the space. Why? Whereas, I remember Wittgenstein's sentence, (as far as I remember): the mystery is not why there is the world, the mystery is the world itself! Good discussions in this agleam medieval age.
Ok but consciousness isn’t fully understood. So if everything in existence has some sort of proto-consciousness couldn’t the collective consciousness of all things exist as God without necessarily having any none physical properties?
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw Were you attempting to reply to the OP or to me? Because what you've written makes no sense with respect to what I wrote in response to OP. The OP's post was poorly written, but what he or she was describing _is_ essentially panpsychism.
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw Is this your first day on the Internet? "OP" is an extremely common abbreviation for "original poster", meaning the person that started this thread. Congratulations! You're literally the last person on the planet to learn what "OP" means 😉.
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw You're astonishingly ignorant for someone that is so quick to rudely criticize things which by your own admission you don't know. If you were more mature and intelligent you would have started with this question instead of posting insults accompanied by poop emojis. Panpsychism is the idea that the entire universe is conscious, and that even apparently inanimate objects like fundamental particles have some spark of consciousness. I'm not a supporter of panpsychism but what the OP was describing is essentially panpsychism.
@@b.g.5869 ok, I'm sorry, i admit my mistake, and i shouldn't behave like that. My sudden reaction was surely immature, but I'm not an immature person, but sometimes i do react immaturely. Now come to the real issue, the issue of Consciousness, the problem with this word is that there's no universal definition of Consciousness. In very Simple term we can say Consciousness is the sense of Awareness that what's going on and what's happening. The sense of becoming aware of your surroundings is consciousness. But the problem with non living creatures is totally different, they can't become aware of their surroundings, they don't have the sense of existence. The sense of existence is only present within living creatures. So We can't say that non living things have consciousness. But we can surely say that all the living and non living things have a specific program inside their body. So they act accordingly to their pre determined program. The word program is more suitable than the word Consciousness. We human beings are conscious about our biological and sociological needs. But i never use the word Consciousness in Philosophical terms. I think the more suitable word is the Program.
Physical reality / nature is part of God? Describing physical reality / nature connects to the intellect of God, if not to the person, or consciousness of God?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 the universe doesn't require Consciousness to describe itself to itself? If there was a universe without Consciousness, there is no universe. Who would describe it? Who would know it? If you were alone and you were the only one, who would prove that? Reality came into existence at the moment of consciousness. Consciousness is a fundamentally intrinsic quality of space and time that cannot be separated. You cannot know anything without knowing in the first place. You can't get behind Consciousness because everything is consciousness.
quantum non-locality is already beyond matter and mind, because it is outside of the concept of space and time. so that could be one of the signs of Spinoza's modes outside of matter and mind
A better explanation of quantum-non locality than Spinoza's modes is that space-time itself is not a pure vacuum but an omnipresent flow of energy of virtual transitional particles (already proven to exist). This media (space-time) exists in a true, this time, vacuum that is, as such, dimensionless containing all of the universe, offering an instant shortcut to anything that exists in this entirely engulfed universe of space-time by this true vacuum. This is what makes quantum entanglement possible as well.
@@MQartGallery But an "entity" must make a "decision" on what to measure in order to get a result. Not when but what to measure. Without the "measurement" there is no Reality. Is the "entity" part of the quantum-non locality? In the case of God, no. In the case of humans and conscious individuals, yes. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 I see. Well, quantum "theory" is not truly a cohesive scientific theory, exactly as Einstein said about it. It is just a collection of very accurate calculation equations and experimental observations that it can not explain as it is Not a theory that tries to explain "reality". For quantum people, "reality" is out of reach of science, nothing is certain or even truly there. If one is blind and does not have the sight to see the sun, this does not mean there is no sun!
@which world well, your statement does not belong to religion nor science. Scientists do not think in terms of things! They think of observations, experiments and equations, "things are not included".
@which world Sorry. There was a Big Bang and it apparently started. There was nothing before the Big Bang. If you are a materialist atheist, your best "bet" is to try to prove the Big Bang never happened and that the Universe was and is eternal. For the materialist atheist, that's a tough sell because almost all cosmology points to a start, expansion and eventual complete dissolution of the Universe. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
While I wouldn't necessarily call myself an atheist, I agree for the most part, with Schellenberg. Pantheism sits much better with me than theism. It's also the scarier. For if everything is a manifestation of the one Unity, then how we treat our fellow creatures has serious moral implications. Vivisection, battery farming - all this fits comfortably under human-exceptionalism & the idea that we are "special", made in a theistic God's image. But what if we're not "special"? What if, as mind-body manifestations of the one pantheistic unity, we don't have the right to do the things we do? A cow queued for slaughter, a lab-rat, a battery chicken & a human, are but different manifestations of a single unity. Pantheism is the scarier, because it entertains no sky-daddy who's reserved a special place for his favourite creation. How we treat our fellow creatures just might have consequences on where we return in our next lives. There is no heaven for the "good", no hell for the "bad". Perhaps more realistically, some pantheists might infer a never-ending progression across lives, from self-indulgent comforts to caged confinement ending in bloody slaughter, depending on how we've lived our lives. Now what can be scarier than that?
Without Augustinian realism and the biblical God morality has no objective reality nor are there any moral absolutes. Today babies are murdered in the womb. Tomorrow the poor and the homeless could be murdered to save the planet. Right and wrong is determined by socialist power and tyranny in such a world.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 There are different interpretations of pantheism. If the self is nonlocal, as I suspect it is, then there is no reason why reincarnation should be off the table. If we accept this, then there are possible mechanisms for entangling the self with the contexts of one's rebirth - independent of distances, intergalactic or otherwise. If we factor in semiotic theory and nonlocality theory (QM), then the law of karma has a possible scientific interpretation. Who cares about moral law handed down by dictate from an anthropocentric, theistic religion? Nature has its own karmic law, and it provides an alternative basis on which to reconsider moral principles. To this extent, Hinduism is especially interesting and relevant. No sky-daddy required.
Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions. Everything in the Universe .. is a Function ... processes inputs into outputs ... and have set purpose, properties, form & design. The Laws of Nature and Natural phenomena are Functions. The Human Body is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions. Man has known for thousands of years .. that the Universe has an UNNATURAL origin by a very very powerful intelligence. Atheism is also a religion, which simply replaced a "supernatural" intelligence with the theories, ideologies or FIRM BELIEFS of a "natural" intelligence. Either all the religions are wrong ... or .. there is one religion which has correctly identified the very powerful intelligence that "created" every Function in the Universe. There's a reason why nature & natural processes over any period of time will never make, maintain, fix, improve & fine tune ... the simplest of all physical Functions. All Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence.
Imagine the incredible, amazing, lost-for-words-to-describe complexity, diversity of creation, life and death, was a movie, and every living organism with free will a character. Religious people argue that the creation needs a creator to exist, therefore what they consider the perfect movie was created by a miraculous perfect director, almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, inmortal, eternal, loving God. Atheists argue that there is not evidence of the existence of that perfect director, and that the religious God is a narcissistic, unforgiving, merciless, bully rather than a loving father, and if everything needs a creator why the rule is not applicable to God. The cosmological argument, by reasoning, concludes that in order to be existence or creation an uncaused cause, a miracle that always existed, God, must exist, because if everything needed to be created by a predecessor a beginning would not exist. I argue that the movie is the director, impossibility possible miracle God. The perfect and imperfect movie is the director’s Life, Psychology, Mind, Body, impossibility possible miracle God. God is existence and non existence, perfect and imperfect, one and multiple, same and different, eternal and mortal, ignorant and omniscient, wise and fool, impotent and omnipotent, finite and infinite, creation and evolution, life and death, hatred and love, conscious and unconscious, alive and inert, relative and absolute, miracle and natural laws, caused and uncaused, created and no created, past, present, future, universe. Perfection is imperfection impossibility possible miracle God, because life without death is death, a purposeless life, the life of an addict. What do we strive, work, love, live for if we were inmortal, perfect? What joy there is in being perfect, knowing everything, not existing merit, accomplishment, success, not having to make an effort to learn, improve ourselves? Life being the religious God is death, absolute imperfection. If you were a player in a role playing game would you like a perfect character, inmortal, omniscient? You wouldn’t roll the dices because you would accomplish automatically what you intended to do, you would not take decisions because your actions would be determined by your knowledge of the future. You would not play, have fun, live, because there would not be a challenge, aim, purpose, possibility of failure. God is the perfect, for being imperfect, Game of Life and Death. Perfect and imperfect God is eternal and mortal in infinite time without beginning and end, impossibility possible miracle. When time started? And before what happened? When time would end? And after what would happen? God’s life is perfect because can die, and our purpose, challenge, is to keep God eternal creating life, learning ourselves to increase the probabilities of God’s survival, eradicating diseases, understanding the universe, and else. If we knew everything, an impossibility, we would be eternal because we would understand how to transform God to perfection, like understanding perfectly a miraculous Lego game of life and death with non existence and existence infinite pieces that could create anything because the possibilities are infinite. Knowledge is power. God would die when all life die and The Mind is switched off. The purpose of the miraculous director is to make a never ending happy movie, with happy characters, working to play, having fun, improving self, loving creating life to keep the game eternal. In God’s life happiness is what matter. Happiness is honesty, being truthful, without deceiving others, that are oneself, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. The director suffer if any character in the movie suffers. The creator with and without creator suffers if any organ is in pain impossibility possible miracle God. The director is not happy if any character in the perfect and imperfect movie lie, deceive himself and others, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. Ridicule, absurdity, stupidity, imbecility, violence, brutality, cruelty, theft, prohibition, censorship, greediness, meanness, slavery, controlling, imposition, ignorance, foolishness, religion, beliefs, lunacy, madness, nationalism, excluding the different, socialism, taking without asking, christian national socialism, nazis, addiction, unhappiness, death, hell is not funny, fun, joy, truth, honesty, freedom, allowing, generosity, giving to take, living life by life’s terms, participating, liking and sharing the truth, life, addiction recovery, health, wealth, happiness, heaven. And it is, impossible possible miracle God. God is the perfect and imperfect, eternal and mortal, finite and infinite, everything and nothing, wisdom, foolishness, life and death, addiction recovery and addiction, one and multiple, ignorant and omniscient Game of Life and Death created with and without creator, the cause uncaused and caused, the impossibility possible, the miracle of the irrefutable cosmological argument. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore an impossibility possible, a cause uncaused, a miracle, God exist. Science can not explain the origin the creation that was not originated because always existed. I was created by my parents and i always existed impossibility possible miracle God because i am my parents, that are my grandparents, that are everything else. God is not neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The history of God is infinite in time because even if God was created finite years back from an eternal nothingness, non existence would be existence impossibility possible miracle God everything and nothing. Death is resurrection, end is beginning impossibility possible miracle God. When we die we stop being actors in the perfect and imperfect movie to be the movie, that is the director, the past of God, impossibility possible miracle God. All humanity in hell and heaven of the past of God are cheering for me to accomplish to publish the first theory on God ever written, a theory on what, who, how, why, when is the miracle of the cosmological argument.
god was the first quantum of energy, discrete machine. His energy equals reduced plank's constant. Our universe is a huge robot and every particle in it consists of discrete pieces - god and his copies. Evolution - is actually construction, process of world creation by god. And that's not a joke as I can provide the algorithm partially. Not all as I would need super computer and financing to check everything. This universe executes algorithm and it started by one discrete machine. With energy that equals reduced plank's constant. That's why action is discrete, that's why Heisenberg uncertainty principle works etc. This is actually a theory and it gives predictions, which can be checked.
@@dongshengdi773 What is obscure here? Quantum of energy, energy equals reduced plank's constant. Our universe is a huge robot and every particle in it consists of discrete pieces - god and his copies. Evolution - is actually construction, process of world creation by god. And that's not a joke as I can provide the algorithm partially. Not all as I would need super computer and financing to check everything. This universe executes algorithm and it started by one discrete machine. With energy that equals reduced plank's constant. That's why action is discrete, that's why Heisenberg uncertainty principle works etc.
Makes one wonder if theism has fatal flaws, then why do a large number of very intelligent people believe in theism and Christianity in particular? People who are Christians like Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. George Ellis, Dr. John Gurdon (Noble Laurate), Dr. Kenneth Miller, Dr. Juan Maldacena, Dr. Don Page, and the list goes on and on. Surely, these people have given their religious beliefs some in-depth thought. There are alternatives to pantheism, namely, panentheism and process theism - and others.
Just because a large number of people believe in some particular thing, doesn't mean that particular thing is true. Positions don't become convincing because a lot of people hold it. Aristotle recognized this over 2,000 years ago. Reciting a short list of research scientists who profess faith-based positions, and assuming that they surely, definitely, without any doubt whatsoever, must have thought carefully in order to have accepted those positions, and then taking their careful thought as completely true yourself, is not an impressive way of arguing for theism. Some "in-depth" thought (whatever that means) isn't the same as concluding beyond all doubt that something is true. In fact, the only place where something can ever be shown to be true beyond *all* doubt is in mathematics, and demands rigorous logic. Theism's fatal flaw is that there has never been any evidence provided for any theists claims, ever. Not a single scrap. If you have no evidence, no points of data to be demonstrated and reconfirmed, then the position carries a fatal flaw. The only way to argue for any position is by way of evidence. No matter how evidentially supported some claim may be, say the claim that water undergoes a phase change into ice at some fixed temperature, for example- is further supported by the appealing to how many people believe it, or how intelligent they are. It is only supported by evidence.
Theism feeds into people's ego. It posits an infinite uberman that is able to do anything. Theism also give people an idol to pray to in their time of need.
Religion, Machine Analogies, & Fine Tuning are natural phenomena, because it is an actual fact of science ... that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical FUNCTIONS. All Functions ... process inputs into outputs ... and have set purpose, properties, form & design. Everything in the Universe ... has clear & obvious ... purpose, form, design & FUNCTION. Science ( Function) completely relies on the Laws of Nature( Function) for Man (Function) to explain Natural Phenomena (Function). The Human Body ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions A Machine ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions. Sir Issac Newton was correct over 300 years ago with his Watchmaker Analogy where he effectively said "The Universe ( & Life) is a Function composed entirely of Functions, ... and requires a Function maker ... to exist & to Function." A Natural Function will always be like an Unnatural Function. Atheism is also a religion, which replace a "supernatural" intelligence ... with the theories, ideologies, or "firm beliefs" of a "natural" intelligence. Only an intelligence ... makes abstract & physical Functions. Nature & natural processes can never ever make the simplest Function. Either all of the religions are wrong or there is One that has correctly identified that "almighty" intelligence that made it all ... and why?
@@abelincoln8885 Newton was wrong; we do not live in a watchmaker universe. That has been established beyond doubt. Atheism is not a religion; it is a belief that a supreme being does not exist. Religions have far more than a belief in God. Nature, through evolution, made you and me. All religions are false.
@@georgegrubbs2966 lol. A watch is a Function. The parts of a watch are Functions. A Watch Maker is the Function Maker. Machine Analogies are NATURAL PHENOMENA ... because a Machine & Life ... are both physical Functions composed entirely of Functions. Law is an abstract Function ... made only by an intelligence. The scientific method is an abstract Function made only by an intelligence. Natural phenomena are simply natural PROCESSES of .... Functions. Everything in the Universe is a FUNCTION. Again. A Watch is simply a physical FUNCTION composed entirely of Functions. All life are physical Functions composed entirely of Functions. And only an intelligence ( like Man) ... makes, maintains, repairs, improves & fine tunes ... and abstract or physical Function. Enough of your nonsense about Newton's OBSERVATION of a natural phenomena. You can not debunk a natural phenomena. They will always be observed because they are natural processes of Functions ... obey the Laws of Nature and their design. All thermodynamic systems ... originate from the SURROUNDING Systems(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature for the theormodynamic system to exist & to .... FUNCTION. The Universe is a FINITE isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy. Man has always known the Universe has an UNNATURAL origin by a very powerful intelligence. This is why 5 of 7 billion people believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural intelligence that made everything. And the other 2 billion believe in the theories, ideologies & fairy tales of the only known intelligence in the Universe. Stop worshiping a false religion that believes nature & natural processes can make, maintain, fix, improve & fine tune abstract & physical Functions. Nature & natural processes will never make a watch or machine ... because they are Functions. Elemental particles are FUNCTIONS and there is zero scientific evidence proving Nature & natural processes made elemental particles, atoms, elements, compounds, molecules ... or even a star and planet or galaxy. A natural origin of the Universe & Life billions of years ago is pure fantasy in the deceptive guise of science fact. It is however a fact about the origin of Thermodynamic Systems ... and abstract & physical Functions. But you aren't interest in facts ... but only popular opinion & common beliefs. smh.
There is one thing that most of us would like to know, no matter what “existence theory” you espouse: “What is the ORIGIN of the digital information we find in living systems?” Most of you say it comes into existence by “supplying energy to simple systems that build complexity over billions of years.” But aside from building computer games, you have no evidence that it can or has ever occurred. The “simulations” you build are fun. But that is still not evidence. When theists suggest it was planned, you scream at them: “Non-science-conjecture!” But it’s ok for YOU to do the same thing, without any real proof. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
mm kinda but we're in a simulation. that's so obvious. that everything is made of fields and the double slit prove the observer is everything and we're in a game/sim.
@@invisiblechurch9621 Christianity defines God by His propositional revelation in the Holy Scriptures. The best summary of those propositions is the Westminster Confession of Faith.
you don't have to call it God, you can call it Creator , programmer of this simulation, intelligent designer, initiator of the big bang , first cause , UNmoved mover, the ultimate observer in quantum mechanics, etc etc
(7:00) *JS: **_"Although I remain open on pantheism, I am an atheist."_* ... The #1 problem with any God-based theory, doctrine, religion, or ideology is God being defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity. Since the universe appears to be strategically assembled to support life, structure, and existence, we simply shove an all-knowing entity into the driver's seat and boom!... _we're all set!_ The problem arises when we question where this all-knowing entity acquired all of this knowledge and why it would waste time creating a universe full of things to which every outcome is already known in advance. There is no necessity for an all-knowing God to learn anything! The truth is that everything in existence must evolve from simplicity to complexity. An all-knowing God does not fit onto this existential framework.
That's an interesting axiom that everything evolves from simplicity to complexity. But the axiom is just your starting point. God as defined by Scripture says that God is a simple being. My axiom is Scripture.
Spinoza used the word God to refer to the universe but he did not believe that God is personal or intelligent. But he sometimes waffled on this I think.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 He doesn't refer to God as the universe, he calls God substance or nature. The universe is the only part we can perceive. Anything outside of Universe is also substance or nature.
@@cuansaham2532 Spinoza did not believe in a personal God. He was a pantheist. If he refers to God as thinking he could only be thinking of humans within the universe.
At the beginning could have been just 0 (nothingness) or 1 (the everything, God). I find difficult to think at an intermediate set (ex. 0.483727 = quantum fields+energy+some cosmic laws or whatever) plausible because the lack of motivation for it except some random causality that have no propelling causation.
At the very bottom level of our reality is a seething ocean of pure energy we call the quantum realm. The "nature" of this energy is chaotic and unbound by rules or structure, it was never created and can not ever be destroyed (conservation of energy). This "random" and chaotic energy produces "random" but fleeting patterns that infinitely rise and fall, both being created and destroyed almost simultaneously. Every once in a while a pattern emerges from the randomness that is potent enough to sustain itself against the destructive aspect of this infinite chaos. This potent pattern becomes the nucleus of a new universe, nucleating and growing like a crystal (cosmic inflation). The laws of physics in this new universe are determined by the structure of its specific space/time fabric which is in turn patterned after the original pattern that emerged from the "void". All any universe can ever be is just energy and information, and these things are non-physical and thus resemble mind. Fun fact: matter = mother, pattern = father. One may ask, mother and father of what?
@@alexgonzo5508 but you need to add some basic/high intelligence otherwise would not explain itself and you will fall back into the "we were lucky that was there".
@@francesco5581 No, i don't think so because intelligence implies internal structure which has to come from somewhere. Intelligence is contingent and chaos is not, intelligence comes from chaos but only after structure emerges. Like the ancient saying says "Ordo ab Chao" or "Order from Chaos", because chaos is more fundamental than order, intelligence is order, so intelligence is dependent on structure. Chaos is not dependent on anything and needs no reason for what it does. information = in-form-ation = to form = internal structure (structure = form) intelligence = telling from within (due to internal structure or form) consciousness = to know together = to gather and interact = pattern apprehending pattern (form affecting form)
@@alexgonzo5508 chaos is just a nice word for randomness... Randomness cannot create something by proper "will" so we could have had a cloud instead of an universe. Since the universe is "something that makes sense" hardly is the product of randomness. a molecule/cell does not act randomly but act intelligently. Too many "random" step would your require too Randomness gave you a perfect starting set Randomness gave you fundamental laws Randomness gave you precise constant values Randomness gave you perfect pressure, temperature and quantities Randomness gave you the table of elements Randomness gave you all the steps to create something complex, each one with the right quantities, temperature and pressure Randomness gave you habitable planets Randomness gave you life Randomness gave you consciousness Remove just one of those "random" events (and the list is probably 10 times longer) and you will have basically nothing.
@@francesco5581 No, go back and read what i wrote. It starts with randomness, then order which does everything in your list. Don't react to what i wrote, but respond to it. I could explain more thoroughly but first answer this question: What is intelligence? Define it?
You have Free Will, because you act like that. You know it. How does your Free Will come into existence from predetermination, or randomness? It cannot. That means that your individual elementary particles also must have Free Will. If your individual elementary particles have Free Will, then your individual elementary particles have Consciousness. If your individual elementary particles have Consciousness, then everything, that is made up of them, also has Consciousness. How do you know that everything, that is not made up of them, does not have Consciousness? Some say that there is something extra causing us to have Consciousness. What is the logic behind somethings having Free Will, and other things' actions being predetermined, random, or purely externally determined? If everything has Consciousness, then, just like there is a Collective Consciousness of your body, there is also a Collective Consciousness of the Universe. What about other Universes? What about whatever is beyond this Universe? That is also somewhere. That is also connected to this Universe. That also has Free Will. That also has Consciousness. There is a Collective Consciousness of the Cosmos. Ultimately, there is One Whole. That is the Real God. We come here to learn. How much we have learnt can be seen in our eyes. You can see the purity in a person's eyes. They are calling Spirit Matter, 'Dark Matter', because they cannot see it. The Worlds where Spirits live, they also comes under this 'Dark Matter'. The Big Bang is talked about in some Hindu Scriptures. In Hindu Scriptures, God is said to be Formless, and also in the Form of Divine Light. In Islam, they believe that God is Formless, and Angels are made up of Light. Light is the fastest. The Speed is Light is believed to be 299,792,458 Km/s. Newton also believed it to be infinite. At the highest frequency, just the fastest would remain, wouldn't it? Everything has the Form of Light, although it is at different at different frequencies. Everything is a Manifestation of the Divine Light.
Imagine the incredible, amazing, lost-for-words-to-describe complexity, diversity of creation, life and death, was a movie, and every living organism with free will a character. Religious people argue that the creation needs a creator to exist, therefore what they consider the perfect movie was created by a miraculous perfect director, almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, inmortal, eternal, loving God. Atheists argue that there is not evidence of the existence of that perfect director, and that the religious God is a narcissistic, unforgiving, merciless, bully rather than a loving father, and if everything needs a creator why the rule is not applicable to God. The cosmological argument, by reasoning, concludes that in order to be existence or creation an uncaused cause, a miracle that always existed, God, must exist, because if everything needed to be created by a predecessor a beginning would not exist. I argue that the movie is the director, impossibility possible miracle God. The perfect and imperfect movie is the director’s Life, Psychology, Mind, Body, impossibility possible miracle God. God is existence and non existence, perfect and imperfect, one and multiple, same and different, eternal and mortal, ignorant and omniscient, wise and fool, impotent and omnipotent, finite and infinite, creation and evolution, life and death, hatred and love, conscious and unconscious, alive and inert, relative and absolute, miracle and natural laws, caused and uncaused, created and no created, past, present, future, universe. Perfection is imperfection impossibility possible miracle God, because life without death is death, a purposeless life, the life of an addict. What do we strive, work, love, live for if we were inmortal, perfect? What joy there is in being perfect, knowing everything, not existing merit, accomplishment, success, not having to make an effort to learn, improve ourselves? Life being the religious God is death, absolute imperfection. If you were a player in a role playing game would you like a perfect character, inmortal, omniscient? You wouldn’t roll the dices because you would accomplish automatically what you intended to do, you would not take decisions because your actions would be determined by your knowledge of the future. You would not play, have fun, live, because there would not be a challenge, aim, purpose, possibility of failure. God is the perfect, for being imperfect, Game of Life and Death. Perfect and imperfect God is eternal and mortal in infinite time without beginning and end, impossibility possible miracle. When time started? And before what happened? When time would end? And after what would happen? God’s life is perfect because can die, and our purpose, challenge, is to keep God eternal creating life, learning ourselves to increase the probabilities of God’s survival, eradicating diseases, understanding the universe, and else. If we knew everything, an impossibility, we would be eternal because we would understand how to transform God to perfection, like understanding perfectly a miraculous Lego game of life and death with non existence and existence infinite pieces that could create anything because the possibilities are infinite. Knowledge is power. God would die when all life die and The Mind is switched off. The purpose of the miraculous director is to make a never ending happy movie, with happy characters, working to play, having fun, improving self, loving creating life to keep the game eternal. In God’s life happiness is what matter. Happiness is honesty, being truthful, without deceiving others, that are oneself, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. The director suffer if any character in the movie suffers. The creator with and without creator suffers if any organ is in pain impossibility possible miracle God. The director is not happy if any character in the perfect and imperfect movie lie, deceive himself and others, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. Ridicule, absurdity, stupidity, imbecility, violence, brutality, cruelty, theft, prohibition, censorship, greediness, meanness, slavery, controlling, imposition, ignorance, foolishness, religion, beliefs, lunacy, madness, nationalism, excluding the different, socialism, taking without asking, christian national socialism, nazis, addiction, unhappiness, death, hell is not funny, fun, joy, truth, honesty, freedom, allowing, generosity, giving to take, living life by life’s terms, participating, liking and sharing the truth, life, addiction recovery, health, wealth, happiness, heaven. And it is, impossible possible miracle God. God is the perfect and imperfect, eternal and mortal, finite and infinite, everything and nothing, wisdom, foolishness, life and death, addiction recovery and addiction, one and multiple, ignorant and omniscient Game of Life and Death created with and without creator, the cause uncaused and caused, the impossibility possible, the miracle of the irrefutable cosmological argument. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore an impossibility possible, a cause uncaused, a miracle, God exist. Science can not explain the origin the creation that was not originated because always existed. I was created by my parents and i always existed impossibility possible miracle God because i am my parents, that are my grandparents, that are everything else. God is not neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The history of God is infinite in time because even if God was created finite years back from an eternal nothingness, non existence would be existence impossibility possible miracle God everything and nothing. Death is resurrection, end is beginning impossibility possible miracle God. When we die we stop being actors in the perfect and imperfect movie to be the movie, that is the director, the past of God, impossibility possible miracle God. We would know everything that has happened, all reality, and respond to ourselves with perfect justice for our behaviour and responsibility in the wellbeing of God, and the regret, shame, guilt, if our actions contributed to the endless death of God would be infinite. Hell and heaven is ourselves for eternity til endless death when all life die and the mind is switched off, God die. All humanity of the past of God are cheering for me to accomplish to publish the first theory on God ever written, a theory on what, who, how, why, when is the miracle of the cosmological argument.
X-Files Good (god) is the exact opposite of vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate). Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now. Lead into gold Tears into roses Weapons into ploughshares
Have you studied the Bible like it was a treasure that would unlock a door to an even greater treasure inside of you? Or do you just allow what other people say to persuade you one way or the other?
@@williamesselman3102 Yes, I have read the Bible Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding , society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the evangelical counting corpses such misery. But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate). The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human. Like bats that fly around in the darkness of caves... the evangelical vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
The long-standing culture you are a part of just spews through you and your words. You just parrot from your ancestral environment. I am my environment.
That anyone can say that they know what this reality means is absolutely ridiculous. And since they can never and will never prove any of it, the theology of self-promoting speculation is free to continue.
@@williamesselman3102 Well hello old friend. 😁 What we have found is an indifferent reality. Every spiritual theology thinks with absolute certainty that their culturally created reality is the only answer. And it's always left into the hands of a small select group to interpret the messages passed down to them. Shamans, priests and cult leaders, all telling you that they have the only right interpretation. And you will find paradise if you just do as they say and have faith in the message they present. 🙄
Christians are Mastered by themselves and themselves alone. Each of us are led by the Holy Spirit. No man has taught us anything. Just like always you know nothing.
What is the difference between - NATURE - and GOD ? I don’t see any.. Mother Nature and God the Father are both metaphorical terms that represent the FORCES that create the cosmos. The God of Thunder.. the Sun God.. are just a metaphorical means to understanding the FORCES OF NATURE.. by personalizing them.. but then we have this strange practice of people.. who argue whether these metaphors exist.. or not. This is rather like when the poet says.. “My love is like a red red rose..” .. and someone boldly claims.. “That is scientifically impossible”.. while others claim… a woman who looks like a rose is A MIRACLE! ..In plain talk.. its ridiculous.. to take metaphors literally.. if you get my drift.. yet.. hardly anyone ever questions this rather bizarre way of understanding things. If you want to see an atheist confused.. add a modified dictionary definition of NATURE.. (artfully adjusted).. to the debate.. but don’t mention the word NATURE.. and you will get exactly the same reaction.. as if you used the word GOD… Try it.. it really works. Here’s one I made earlier.. extracts taken from several dictionaries.. remixed.. with the irrelevant godless bits left out. THIS IS - NATURE - DEFINED IN VARIOUS DICTIONARIES - The force that is responsible for physical life and that is sometimes spoken of as a person: Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. the sum total of all things in time and space; the entire physical universe - the power, force, principle, etc. that seems to regulate the physical universe often personified, sometimes as "Mother Nature Nature personified as a CREATIVE and CONTROLLING FORCE affecting the world and humans. - Personification of the power or force that seems to regulate the physical universe - a personification of the forces of nature as a controlling and regulating maternal being, sometimes creative and caring. - Nature can also be viewed as the generous provider of all things.... SO....MOTHER Nature.. or GOD THE FATHER.. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ? Is Feynman just using the word NATURE.. to avoid using the word GOD.. because he was an atheist.. I inserted the word GOD into his quotes.. to make my point.. Richard P. Feynman NATURE (OR GOD) QUOTES - What's the difference? “I think nature's (or God’s) imagination Is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us relax” "As usual, nature’s imagination far surpasses our own, as we have seen from the other theories which are subtle and deep." “We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvelous than the imagining of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature (or God) is far, far greater than the imagination of man.” "The way we have to describe Nature (or God) is generally incomprehensible to us." “Why nature (or God) is mathematical is, again, a mystery.” ― Richard Feynman All these theist.. atheist.. idealist.. materialist.. etc.. etc.. labels seem meaningless to me.. They belong to blind men.. all examining the same elephant.. AND... MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU..! -
"All these theist.. atheist.. idealist.. materialist.. etc.. etc.. labels seem meaningless to me.. They belong to blind men.. all examining the same elephant.." And yet here you are, after all that cogitation, pretending that your non-label is not itself a label. You are just fondling a part of the elephant you claim has no name. Why would this confuse only atheists?
@@con.troller4183 wrote - “And yet here you are, after all that cogitation, pretending that your non-label is not itself a label.” Not at all.. a label artificially separates.. but I do not experience that separation. I have never been attracted to group thinking.. to joining the club.. (probably due to asperger's).. Group thinking often turns into stupid thinking.. both in politics and religion.. There are Christians who haven’t a clue what the Bible says.. and they depend on strangers.. who mislead them... to tickle their ears.. rather than take the time to study the scriptures themselves. And then the atheists put faith in what they are saying.. without even bothering to check if it is true… BIG MISTAKE! Both theism and atheism get in bed with each other.. in that respect. Hardly opposition. They both understand metaphorical language in the most literal sense.. then the atheist wonders while the Bible seems to be talking nonsense.. which is NOT TRUE.. it is the LITERAL way they read it that causes the problem. “Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” - Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor Con.Troller418 wrote - You are just fondling a part of the elephant you claim has no name. If I asked you to quote me saying - the elephant that has no name” could you do that.. I very much doubt it.. I’m puzzled.. you say I am claiming that.. but where did you get that idea from? Please.. Take a look again at what I said... It would be better if you actually quoted my actual words.. rather than adding you own words to them. It can cause confusion. But.. Not at all.. I realize that the elephant.. and me.. are one and the same… and the apparent division.. is an illusion generated by the brain.. “We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” ― Buddha Atheists will claim God means a man in the sky.. while some Christians (but not all) are saying god is a person.. who listens to prayers and does miraculous things. Others claim ALL IS MIND.. or God is NATURE.. while some religious philosophers recognize MANKIND itself is GOD.. or god IS the life force.. RE-LIGION (meaning to RE-UNITE).. WAS INTENDED TO BANISH THIS DIVISIVE THINKING.. but as the Bible repetitively says.. “THEY NEVER LISTENED”. This god-man concept is found in the Bible - Buddhism - and Hindism.. and ALSO IN the philosophy of Nietzsche and Jung.. if we dig deeply enough.. it makes sense.. But is there a label for people who see humans themselves as god like beings.. CREATORS.. I'm wondering.. I have never come across it. “Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god.” - Nicolas Gomez Davila Put in the most simple terms.. “We living beings all belong to one another, we are all actually members.. or aspects.. of a single Being, which we may in western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman.”- Erwin Schrödinger Why do we need so many divisions and labels just to understand such a simple idea? Answers on a postcard.. but don’t be rude. ------------------------------------------------------ Con.Troller418 wrote - Why would this confuse only atheists? My words were If you WANT TO confuse an atheist.. They didn’t imply an (ONLY AN ATHEIST) limit.. Atheists are my most frequent opponents.. so I am referring to past experiences with them. I get a lot of inspiration from the disagreements I have with them.. “A clash of doctrines is not a disaster - it is an opportunity.” - Alfred North Whitehead
As the long as the host keeps hosting people he carefully selects and meets, individually, with no group or open discussions, just him imposing and setting his own agenda, solo opinions and questions his channel will never come closer to the truth, far from it. God is not reality, our reality is just one of God's creations. There were different realities and there will be others. God isn't like anything of his creations. God is infinitely greater than that. God permeates All reality we know and all that we do not know about. In the beginning, there was only God and in the end, there will be nothing but God. Only God is eternal and has no beginning or end but everything else does. Humans should worship their creator, and be grateful for the countless blessings God gave them, what they know about and what they do not.
@@ManiBalajiC It's not, joke-man. "middleman" is the wishful thinking of atheists like you. Well, if you do not believe in the creator, and die as such, I assure you of the biggest nastiest shock of your entire life right at the very end of it, on this earth that is. You will transition into the next phase of eternal human life, which can be only described as hell for you and your idols of atheists and ignorant "scientists". I doubt very much that you will enjoy then your "absolute" belief in whatever tiny scientific knowledge that you might have had in your "previous" earthly life.
Our religions have little to do with this vast universe. I joined Et's religion. How do we know ET exists? We don't and we don't know God exists either. I am devoted to what I call the All Powerful All. It is divided not democrats and republicans fighting each other. wink haha I argue the all-powerful all was mindless and there was no consciousness only all-powerful expansion and then lives evolved from no intelligence because there was none.
I really liked this video.. if I had to choose a reality based around God, I would certainly choose pantheism.. There's an intuitive feel to it.. Fortunately, I do NOT have to choose a deity based reality, largely through the insights of QFT and Qm we have learned that the universe is NOT deterministic! What would be the place in it for a god that does NOT know what will happen next?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 After all friend, and I mean you NO disrespect for your beliefs, BUT wouldn't that be a faux pas from every perspective including philosophical??
@@Bill..N What would be a blunder? Saying that everyone dies? Everyone dies whether or not you believe the Bible. That is predetermined. The difference is the Bible says that God planned it all ahead of time. Foreknowledge and determinism is the same thing. If God foreknows that tomorrow you will visit Walmart is it possible that you won't go?
At one point in human history, God resided in the mountains. But then we climbed and scoured the mountains, and it wasn't there. So we said, God must be in the sky! And then we went to the sky, and couldn't find it there, either. Today, we can see into vast reaches of the universe, and we observe all kinds of wonderful and bizarre things, but so far, no sign of any god. If the only place left for god to be, the only corner of ignorance remaining, has to be all of reality itself- then, it is very silly to label it "god" rather than reality. If god = reality, then why not just call reality... reality? Or, why not call it something else entirely, like "awurdusadfn"? Definitions are arbitrary, after all. It could just as easily be that reality = awurdasadfn. Or that god = awurdasadfn. What makes the position of pantheism different from some other position which also equates reality with some other label? What content could the position of pantheism possibly contain, if it fundamentally boils down to semantics? What incentive is there to take its position over any other? It seems like pantheists are just really desperate to call something, any and EVERYTHING "god". I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough to be an argument. It doesn't matter if they lack the imagination to consider other possibilities. It's not a reasonable position to take, because it's not really a position to begin with. To be a pantheist is to say that something (x) is equal to something else (y), and... whoop-de-fucking-do? Screw it, why not set the already well-defined term "Carrot Top" as equal to some other term, like: "urjerismcdfwnasf"? Urjerismcdfwnasf is just as viable a term to use to talk about Carrot Top as "Carrot Top", after all! I could've just called him fucking Carrot Top, but because I reeeeeally wanted to use the ridiculous term Urjerismcdfwnasf, we had all better just accept another equally useful term alongside it, because hey, it makes me and maybe some other folks happy. Do you see how this provides us with zero insight into the nature of Carrot Top? And please notice: I didn't have to espouse unrelated physics jargon (like many others in this comment section), in order to have a bona fide opinion about pantheism. I just took the logic of it a little more seriously than pantheists, which disallowed me from accepting their claim. Imagine if we all thought just a bit more carefully about the positions we take? How much more insight into the nature of reality might we gain? Maybe we don't need a panoply of pretty terms to describe one already well-defined thing, or even one incompletely defined thing, like reality. Maybe god is a silly term, and isn't worth getting upset over- yet maybe worth analyzing it's use with more care. Peace.
In a way, I pity you and your argument, which is akin to never encountering the word "umami" and always describing the taste of cheese, mushroom and beef as "salty-sweet".
Mentat, nobody owes you an explanation. There is a doorway inside of you. On the other side of that door your savior stands and is knocking. The rest is your responsibility.
the endless ideologies behind theism. boy did abraham start an endless drama cycle of gods n religions. and the funniest thing is he was not even a real person. just a persona created for the Ahb Rha Ahm trinity.
Couple of hundred years of "real" science? Not the first time I`ve heard this, and it just pisses me of, lol. We have at least a 1000-1500 years of science building up to what we have to day, if it wasn`t for those people we might not be where we are today. Just throwing a few names out there for fun, Hipparchus, Archimedes, Euclid, Eudoxus, Galen and many more.
I think he implied modern science. Post newtonion specifically , which can be argued to have been our first steps to really understand gravity and the existence of a grander reality - cosmos.
@@samosa9488 Ah, yeah, did`nt think of it that way. Always wondered what a scientist from that era of time would say if he knew what we know today, or even just Einstein or Tesla, lol.
The "science" revolution began from the 1500's lead by Theists .. who believed in Creation and fixed Laws and everything have a purpose. Only an intelligence .. makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions. Time, space & the Laws of Nature a abstract Functions. Energy & matter are physical Functions. Everything in the Universe is a Function ... processes inputs into outputs ... have set purpose,form & design .. and can only be made by an intelligence Science( Function) relies completely on the fixed Laws of nature(function) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena(Function). The Theory of Universal Functions ... is the scientific explanation for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Every thing is a function and requires a function maker to exist & to function.
GOD=SAVIOUR, Salvation is FINAL Purpose of Creation by God. that's always What/Who The Real God in Bible from beginning. no matter how excellent idea you have/believe, SIMPLY USELESS IF YOUR GOD CANNOT SAVE YOU FROM YOUR SIN & ETERNAL DEATH/HELL! PANTHEISM TEACH THAT YOU ARE GOD, & THAT IS SATAN IDEA/DESIRE/TEMPTATION. FIRE OF GOD MUST DESTROY EVERYTHING AT THE END BECAUSE HUMAN WORSHIP THEMSELVES & UNIVERSE AS IDOL-GODS! 😭
ATHEISM IS RELIGION/BELIEF/FAITH/WAY TO AGAINST GOD EXISTANCE! ATHEISM IS RELIGION BY SATAN, DEVIL'S MIND/IDEA & MOVEMENT TO ATTACK GOD & HIS MORAL! 😈 .. GOD IS EXISTANCE FOR EVERYTHING. CREATURE IS NOTHING WITHOUT GOD. EVERY EXISTANCE IS HELD BY GOD. BUT HELL EXISTANCE IS PUT ON THE SINNER'S SOULS & EVIL/SATAN EXISTANCE. FIRE OF GOD WARP THE HELL, DEEP LIKE A BLACK HOLE = NOTHING CAN BE SEEN & NO ONE ESCAPE FROM THERE! REALITY OF NOTHING IS, YOU SEE NOTHING & FEEL EMPTINESS, BUT FIRE OF GOD KEEP YOU EXIST IN TOTAL DARKNESS FOREVER! ABSOLUTE NOTHING IS SCARY MISERY! 😱
You shouldn’t believe something just because it teaches you that it saves you from hell. There are too many religions that claim to be the only way of salvation and it is impossible for all to be true. But it is possible for all to be false. Hell causes people to be emotional, emotionality causes people to reject the truth.
@@LazyRare _"From that perspective, yes, Jesus would be, but who are you to claim that that perspective is the most true?"_ The evidence that Jesus never existed is that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Wouldn't you think that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed?
Two very thoughtful people. "God is closer to you than your jugular vein."
Interesting that you should quote that verse from the Quran, have you ever read it in its context?
It is a matter of experience .up to now we have not knowledge so what we realise but not able to speak in words because conciousness can not be derived only based on known physics maths n medically qualities of human brain also spinial card which are directly related
@@maheshmalhotra2662 sorry, don't follow what you are saying. The "closer than your jugular vein" Quran 50:16 verse has nothing to the discussion in the video. It is a verse saying that God knows every sin (as they are recorded by two angels v17) and everyone will die and be judged (v18-20), no one will escape (v21-22) and will thrown into Hell (v24)...
bullshit
@Closer To Truth Always delving. Thank you.
The show should be called , Never Arriving at the Truth.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Lol. Searching is as close one can get.
God is not a being but is being itself and we all share in that being. We are all parts of God and God is the sum of all parts of existence. Traditional theism has some problems that Pantheism does not have. Traditional theism says God is a being. Where is this being? Pantheism says God is being itself. God is not invisible. The extreme personalizing of God in traditional theism is a problem because it is anthropomorphism, though not always so obvious. They think God is like them, or they are like God. Pantheism says no, there is no proof for that. It is better to say "We don't know how God really is but God definitely is." Our intelligence is proof that our primary source is intelligent. Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence. Intelligence implies life but who can say with certainty they understand the Life of God?" Pantheists don't suffer from the problem of evil. As we are all parts of God responsibility for evil shifts to us. If God constantly intervened in each of our affairs that would invalidate freedom. We are meant to be free not slaves. We don't even understand the life of God let alone the knowledge of God or the power of God. A pantheist does not insist on saying God is even omniscient so the problem of evil does not arise.
I like his idea that personhood might be a starting place for an even grander element within God.
I used to be a pantheist. But then, this kind of thing we call God doesn't judge me, doesn't probably realize I exist, couldn't even realize anything perhaps, and is pretty much interchangeable with Nature. So, as Sagan said once, why not skip a step and just call it Nature? Then you wouldn't confuse it with a term that carries too many religious baggage. And so, I became an atheist.
Right!
I think the ironic arrogance of many theisms is that they attribute gods with characteristics of human consciousness for relatability (e.g. emotions and awareness); this isn't even shared among the observable organisms of just our planet. It very often comes off to me as an anthropocentric idea about the origin of reality, as though a human-like consciousness with human-like drives is necessary for existence itself.
At least for Westerners, pantheism appeals to people that can't buy into the idea of gods that are claimed to have written books for humans but don't want to live in a godless universe. Pantheism does relatively negligible violence to reason; it doesn't require one to deny well established science and such.
But it's still irrational because there really isn't any compelling reason to consider the inanimate universe a 'god'.
ha ha ha WTF. What a load of bullcrap lol 😆😆😆 Call it a tea ☕, so who made the tea. lol. I'm done with people like you... 💨💨
Call it nature. Call it a cup of tea. That's not my concern. I'm asking who made the tea. Don't tell me a fart made it 🙄🙄
I don’t view Pantheism as the universe is God. My take on it is that everything in the universe has some degree of consciousness. This consciousness is universal. It permeates all living things, even plants to some degree. This is what we all are at our deepest level. Although because each of us has experienced life from a different point of view we identify with the body we currently inhabit. We don’t realize that we are all living thing’s experiencing life and the universe from different perspectives.
@@KCost82 What you're describing is actually a different idea called Panpsychism. It can be kind of related to pantheism or you can even be both but they aren't quite the same concept.
Hemispatial neglect is a neuropsychological condition in which, after damage to one hemisphere of the brain is sustained, a deficit in attention to and awareness of one side of the field of vision is observed.
What we observe with people who have this condition is that they respond to outside stimuli but they are totally not consciously aware that they do. For example if you would throw an object towards them they would defend but they will be totally unaware of what prompted them to respond in the way they did. They lack a felt quality of experience.
But what does this mean? It seems quite obvious that conscious awareness is not a given. For conscious awareness to 'emerge' a particular minimal structure of the brain seems absolutely compulsory else it could not simply disappear due to a stroke.
We already know that the brain processes information and use this information to fire neurons which determines our actions. The above example demonstrates that we don't need to be conscious for our brain to proces information and let us respond.
So let's look at information processing.
Without consciousness the Brain becomes a processor of information. Via our "sensors" we receive information that is being processed in the brain. The responses are different given the stimuli and will also differ in time depending on previous experience. The truth is that slightly different circumstances can generate completely different results. All this is true but will differ from person to person and actually from brain to brain and from biological stimulus response system to bsr-system in general.
Now what would we expect given this information? I think that if consciousness is fundamental consciousness is there all the time and cannot be a result of information processing. If, however consciousness is a result of processes and structures in the brain, we would be able to determine that there is a difference in time when people proces information and when people become aware of the results of this process. In other words there would be a causal relationship between them.
Recent studies in neuro science show precisely this. When we measure how people make decisions we can pretty well distinguish between the two processes. The brain knows what decision has been made before we become consciously aware of those decisions. Closer to truth has reported on this in one of there 'big questions in free will video's'.
It even has further consequences. Consciousness is thus demonstrably a causal relation. Causation is dependent on time so time should be fundamental as well. Can you demonstrate this to be true?
To me this makes a strongly and even conclusive case that consciousness is a result of processes in the brain and it rules out anything like a soul or consciousness being fundamental.
There is a separation between living and non living. But we have systems that proces information that are non living which are human made. The characteristics of those systems, no matter how advanced and complex they are, is that they proces information in precisely the same way all the time. There may be circumstances in which they cannot respond, you're phone doesn't work without energy but try it a million time it will always produce the same result.
The same goes for all matter in the universe. We know how particles and even the fundamental particals respond in all circumstances. Precisely the same way as we can predict. There is no acception. Even in QM you may argue that we don't know for example that an atom may decay or in what order the particles in a double slit experiment will construct the wave pattern, we do know the results and that it is predictable.
Results of mind processes differ from occasion to occasion. There are as many differentiations as there are minds. Thus we would expect to see this back in non biological structures that has the felt quality of experience or conscious awareness. Nothing even remotely points to such.
This makes it truly impossible to call consciousness anything close to a fundamental structure. To me it sounds as if consciousness is portrayed as a forcefield we cannot detect which we can use and that has an immense influence on our reality. I would suggest to 'use the force' and demonstrate it exists.
Yes I know. People claim having experiences like in meditation that demonstrates the truth of panpsychism. you may have had an experience in meditation, so have I, many many times. I don't doubt it. But you are simply attributing meaning to your experience towards your preferred conclusion just like a theist who experiences the same feelings beliefs it to be transcendental because... Well yes, because he already beliefs this in advance. The same feelings can be experienced from drug abuse or brain stimulation with strong magnetic fields.
All that is been done by pantheists proponents, is simply muddy the water without actually engaging in a well defined falsifiable hypothesis. Just like Deepak Chopra's frequent semantic gish gallops with words salads where the meaning of words are slightly shifted not to clarify but to confuse. The only purpose is not to present a concrete model that stands on its own merrits but to shed doubt on existing models and feed into people's hope. It's nothing more than a modern version of astrology. The language is purposely chosen complex, ambiguous and shady in order to reach maximum confusion while, just like Deepak Chopra, the pantheist doesn't actually say much more that that consciousness is fundamental because.... Well because they think it is. It isn't much more than going on a scuba diving trip for the first time and feel overwhelmed by the mesmerizing beauty of marine life, to than come to the conclusion that such beauty can only be the result of an infinite being that wanted to create this. It's nothing more than personal incredulity.
Now don't understand me wrong. The pattern searching mind wants to believe in magic, in forces beyond our understanding that govern the universe and it demands an explanation for everything we cannot fathom. So it will constantly produce inferences to this preferred conclusions. And, let's face it, it's big business.
Just because it feels right doesn't make it right though, just because it seems consistent doesn't make it true, just because it resonates with your intuition doesn't make it sound, just because people are able to formulate it in a way that sounds logic and real doesn't mean that they have met there burden of proof.
In general any model that doesn't stand on its own merrits but is in desperate need to falsify another model in order to gain any form of credibility should be dismissed. In pantheism the heavy lifting is done by appealing to intuition and the human minds tendency to search for agency in any form. Such models can only fail.
Reality is god.
WHO is older Physical Reality or Spiritual God?😇
If you say that God is real as opposed to unreal, you are unconsciously assuming that reality is a more basic principle than God, since you are judging God by it. Reality encompasses the fundamental forces, the gods and consciousness itself-- including imagination, deceptions, myths, dramas, illusions and all concepts of the vast unknown.
One can be spiritual, but not religious. People who have experienced Near Death Experiences can teach us a lot about the spiritual reality, and is not what religions teach. "The Law of One" discribes everything is a manifestation of the " Infinite Source ". Everything, living and non living, is the Infinite Source ( God) experiencing itself. This is also a discription of Pantheism.
Sorry not everyone actually experiences divine things in near death. In my cardiac arrest I experienced absolutely nothing, just woke up being resuscitated in my front yard.
Just beacuse you don't remember does not mean it didn't happen
@@PhantomGardener couldn't tell you how little information I actually walk out of an ayahuasca session with, it's an infinite amount that lasts for an infinite time, but then our limited human brains filters 99% of it and I used to come down to a certainty of not having felt anything at all.
I believe it took some neuroplasticity to rewire my temporal lobe with the hypocampus and visual cortex so I could actually store that kind of information.
those who've had NDEs, did you previously engage in psychedelics, transcendental meditation or spiritual practices such as stargazing in awe?
or was it an emergent phenomena you were more easily prone to?
diagnosis of depression, bipolar or other mental atipicity? what kind of NDE was it? what caused it?
@@PhantomGardener "Just beacuse you don't remember does not mean it didn't happen"
So... just because I don't see unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist?
@@PhantomGardener 😂 yeah but everyone else remembers so vividly. Try again
Religion can still make sense. Should a Creator be like a father? Reality can be too little for noticing anything special.
Let's move some words around until we define god into existence.
All we learn from this futile exercise is how powerful words are in creating our personal realities and how impotent they are in affecting our common reality.
There's actually a word for the idea that the concept of god isn't sufficiently well defined to be meaningful; igtheism.
People tend to leap right to arguing over whether or not a god exists without ever seriously considering what something would have to be like in order to necessarily be considered a god.
Typically the closest you see to a serious attempt to meaningfully define "god," are concepts like "the ground of being" or "the non-contingent being", neither of which must necessarily be considered a god.
@@b.g.5869 Ha ha. Thanks for the new word, igtheism. It's nice to know that others see the futility in these earnest debates over ambiguous fluff.
Too bad that the devotees of the various species of that fluff have caused so much destruction and misery.
The Universe Is God,God is da Universe,indeed... 👍
There's no compelling reason to think so. We know the universe exists; there is no compelling reason to consider it god.
@@b.g.5869 This supreme being we're supposed to believe in,what shape could he have,what could IT be?🤔
@@olivierdelyon8196 You don't have to believe in a supreme being. The universe isn't a "being" in any meaningful sense.
This is the sort of idea that appeals to people that find it very difficult to believe a supreme being actually exists, but they want some sort of god to exist, so they call the universe "god".
There aren't any good reasons for thinking of the inanimate cosmos as a divine being.
I think it's good to have a sense of awe regarding the cosmos. It's the ultimate enigma. It's not a being however, much less a divine one.
It isn’t logical to think that the creation could understand the Creator, as there is no reason to think they would be comparable in any way. The Creator of the physical universe we are aware of (setting aside other possible dimensions/universes) would have powers and abilities that would be inconceivable to our limited minds. That said, we should always keep pushing on the boundaries of our knowledge, and two of the main ways we do that is through scientific and philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality.
That's weird. I would think that the only thing you would have in common with your creator would be your awareness of self. That advanced consciousness you have which gives you awareness of the abstractions in reality, the abstractions which gives life to your increased intelligence. I would think that upon discovery of similarities between you and your creator, having then created in that likeness, that one would intuitively know that it would be only by digging through these similarities, and likenesses, where the truth could possibly be found. If the Creator made you a Sandbox, it's likely that the solution isn't in the sand. It's far more likely that you are the solution, and the doorway is inside of you.
That's where I would look, but I can't look there for you.
Revelations 3:20
“Thus says The Eternal, The Trustworthy and True Witness, and The Source of The Creation of God:”
15“I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot; because it is necessary that you be cold or hot,” 16“And you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I am going to vomit you from my mouth.” 17“Because you said that you are rich, and, 'I have prospered, and I lack nothing', and you do not know that you are sick and wretched and poor and naked,” 18“I counsel you to buy gold from me, proved by fire, that you may prosper, and white garments to put on, lest the shame of your nakedness be revealed, and eye salve to apply that you may see.” 19“I rebuke and discipline those whom I love. Be zealous therefore and return.” 20“Behold, I stand at the door and I shall knock. If a man listens to my voice and will open the door, I also shall come in and I shall have supper with him, and he with me.” 21“And I shall grant the overcomer to sit with me on my throne, just as I have overcome and I sit with my Father on his throne.” 22“Whoever has an ear, let him hear what The Spirit says to the assemblies.”
@@williamesselman3102 What I was referring to is the essence of the Creator. However, there are many things we can know concerning the characteristics of the Creator--strength, compassion, knowledge, etc. Those characteristics are reflected in all of existence to one degree or another, and when all goes well, nothing on this planet can reflect them more fully than human beings.
We can comprehend two attributes, not modes
Why don't you ever investigate that consciousness might just be time. We are just time.
The passing of one thought to another marks the passing of time according to Augustine. There is no passing of time in God's immutable mind.
We already know time doesn’t really exist. If you took the universe and stretched it out like a wet noodle all history from beginning to end that information is still there and exists. You could look at it from start to finish in a sense. Meaning in our minds reality as it is seems to “pass by” when in actuality we just “experience” and experience reality in its current and expanding form. So in a sense yes, we could just be observers from the universe itself, a form of self aware intelligence that experiences the universe with a sense of “time” rather then time existing in reality as we know it.
@@oocloudoo1549 Only God knows everything intuitively. Humans only think discursively. God is eternal and timeless while we are temporal and finite creatures.
Or simply a state of awareness, perception, responsiveness & cognition of the environment by an ENTITY with a MIND.
Consciousness is just a FUNCTION of the MIND of an ENTITY.
Panentheism is more accurate. Which is that, God is everything in the natural world and MORE. The more here refers to the Frequency domain that is outside the natural world and is immaterial. In fact the frequency domain is what God is, as that domain is what give rise to the natural world.
I alway thought that panentheism and pantheism are in opposition to each other.
But maybe the real Opposition is between panentheism and naturalistic pantheism.
Maybe both should be seen as a subset of pantheism.
We do not want to bring together the god and matter or we do not want to put the god in the space. Why? Whereas, I remember Wittgenstein's sentence, (as far as I remember): the mystery is not why there is the world, the mystery is the world itself! Good discussions in this agleam medieval age.
Ok but consciousness isn’t fully understood. So if everything in existence has some sort of proto-consciousness couldn’t the collective consciousness of all things exist as God without necessarily having any none physical properties?
That's called panpsychism.
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw Were you attempting to reply to the OP or to me? Because what you've written makes no sense with respect to what I wrote in response to OP.
The OP's post was poorly written, but what he or she was describing _is_ essentially panpsychism.
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw Is this your first day on the Internet? "OP" is an extremely common abbreviation for "original poster", meaning the person that started this thread.
Congratulations! You're literally the last person on the planet to learn what "OP" means 😉.
@@EnSabahNur-ir5mw You're astonishingly ignorant for someone that is so quick to rudely criticize things which by your own admission you don't know.
If you were more mature and intelligent you would have started with this question instead of posting insults accompanied by poop emojis.
Panpsychism is the idea that the entire universe is conscious, and that even apparently inanimate objects like fundamental particles have some spark of consciousness.
I'm not a supporter of panpsychism but what the OP was describing is essentially panpsychism.
@@b.g.5869 ok, I'm sorry, i admit my mistake, and i shouldn't behave like that. My sudden reaction was surely immature, but I'm not an immature person, but sometimes i do react immaturely.
Now come to the real issue, the issue of Consciousness, the problem with this word is that there's no universal definition of Consciousness. In very Simple term we can say Consciousness is the sense of Awareness that what's going on and what's happening. The sense of becoming aware of your surroundings is consciousness. But the problem with non living creatures is totally different, they can't become aware of their surroundings, they don't have the sense of existence. The sense of existence is only present within living creatures. So We can't say that non living things have consciousness. But we can surely say that all the living and non living things have a specific program inside their body. So they act accordingly to their pre determined program. The word program is more suitable than the word Consciousness. We human beings are conscious about our biological and sociological needs. But i never use the word Consciousness in Philosophical terms. I think the more suitable word is the Program.
Physical reality / nature is part of God? Describing physical reality / nature connects to the intellect of God, if not to the person, or consciousness of God?
Pantheism solves nothing since intelligent sentience is not required for the material universe to be deified.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 the universe doesn't require Consciousness to describe itself to itself? If there was a universe without Consciousness, there is no universe. Who would describe it? Who would know it? If you were alone and you were the only one, who would prove that?
Reality came into existence at the moment of consciousness. Consciousness is a fundamentally intrinsic quality of space and time that cannot be separated. You cannot know anything without knowing in the first place. You can't get behind Consciousness because everything is consciousness.
quantum non-locality is already beyond matter and mind, because it is outside of the concept of space and time. so that could be one of the signs of Spinoza's modes outside of matter and mind
A better explanation of quantum-non locality than Spinoza's modes is that space-time itself is not a pure vacuum but an omnipresent flow of energy of virtual transitional particles (already proven to exist). This media (space-time) exists in a true, this time, vacuum that is, as such, dimensionless containing all of the universe, offering an instant shortcut to anything that exists in this entirely engulfed universe of space-time by this true vacuum. This is what makes quantum entanglement possible as well.
@@MQartGallery But an "entity" must make a "decision" on what to measure in order to get a result. Not when but what to measure. Without the "measurement" there is no Reality.
Is the "entity" part of the quantum-non locality? In the case of God, no. In the case of humans and conscious individuals, yes.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 I see. Well, quantum "theory" is not truly a cohesive scientific theory, exactly as Einstein said about it. It is just a collection of very accurate calculation equations and experimental observations that it can not explain as it is Not a theory that tries to explain "reality". For quantum people, "reality" is out of reach of science, nothing is certain or even truly there. If one is blind and does not have the sight to see the sun, this does not mean there is no sun!
@which world well, your statement does not belong to religion nor science. Scientists do not think in terms of things! They think of observations, experiments and equations, "things are not included".
@which world Sorry. There was a Big Bang and it apparently started. There was nothing before the Big Bang. If you are a materialist atheist, your best "bet" is to try to prove the Big Bang never happened and that the Universe was and is eternal.
For the materialist atheist, that's a tough sell because almost all cosmology points to a start, expansion and eventual complete dissolution of the Universe.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
While I wouldn't necessarily call myself an atheist, I agree for the most part, with Schellenberg. Pantheism sits much better with me than theism. It's also the scarier. For if everything is a manifestation of the one Unity, then how we treat our fellow creatures has serious moral implications. Vivisection, battery farming - all this fits comfortably under human-exceptionalism & the idea that we are "special", made in a theistic God's image. But what if we're not "special"? What if, as mind-body manifestations of the one pantheistic unity, we don't have the right to do the things we do? A cow queued for slaughter, a lab-rat, a battery chicken & a human, are but different manifestations of a single unity.
Pantheism is the scarier, because it entertains no sky-daddy who's reserved a special place for his favourite creation. How we treat our fellow creatures just might have consequences on where we return in our next lives. There is no heaven for the "good", no hell for the "bad". Perhaps more realistically, some pantheists might infer a never-ending progression across lives, from self-indulgent comforts to caged confinement ending in bloody slaughter, depending on how we've lived our lives. Now what can be scarier than that?
Pantheism does not entail either reincarnation or morality. It in fact does not even require any intelligence in the materialistic universe.
Without Augustinian realism and the biblical God morality has no objective reality nor are there any moral absolutes. Today babies are murdered in the womb. Tomorrow the poor and the homeless could be murdered to save the planet. Right and wrong is determined by socialist power and tyranny in such a world.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 There are different interpretations of pantheism. If the self is nonlocal, as I suspect it is, then there is no reason why reincarnation should be off the table. If we accept this, then there are possible mechanisms for entangling the self with the contexts of one's rebirth - independent of distances, intergalactic or otherwise. If we factor in semiotic theory and nonlocality theory (QM), then the law of karma has a possible scientific interpretation. Who cares about moral law handed down by dictate from an anthropocentric, theistic religion? Nature has its own karmic law, and it provides an alternative basis on which to reconsider moral principles. To this extent, Hinduism is especially interesting and relevant. No sky-daddy required.
Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions.
Everything in the Universe .. is a Function ... processes inputs into outputs ... and have set purpose, properties, form & design.
The Laws of Nature and Natural phenomena are Functions.
The Human Body is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
Man has known for thousands of years .. that the Universe has an UNNATURAL origin by a very very powerful intelligence.
Atheism is also a religion, which simply replaced a "supernatural" intelligence with the theories, ideologies or FIRM BELIEFS of a "natural" intelligence.
Either all the religions are wrong ... or .. there is one religion which has correctly identified the very powerful intelligence that "created" every Function in the Universe.
There's a reason why nature & natural processes over any period of time will never make, maintain, fix, improve & fine tune ... the simplest of all physical Functions.
All Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence.
@@abelincoln8885 good job
Imagine the incredible, amazing, lost-for-words-to-describe complexity, diversity of creation, life and death, was a movie, and every living organism with free will a character. Religious people argue that the creation needs a creator to exist, therefore what they consider the perfect movie was created by a miraculous perfect director, almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, inmortal, eternal, loving God. Atheists argue that there is not evidence of the existence of that perfect director, and that the religious God is a narcissistic, unforgiving, merciless, bully rather than a loving father, and if everything needs a creator why the rule is not applicable to God. The cosmological argument, by reasoning, concludes that in order to be existence or creation an uncaused cause, a miracle that always existed, God, must exist, because if everything needed to be created by a predecessor a beginning would not exist. I argue that the movie is the director, impossibility possible miracle God. The perfect and imperfect movie is the director’s Life, Psychology, Mind, Body, impossibility possible miracle God. God is existence and non existence, perfect and imperfect, one and multiple, same and different, eternal and mortal, ignorant and omniscient, wise and fool, impotent and omnipotent, finite and infinite, creation and evolution, life and death, hatred and love, conscious and unconscious, alive and inert, relative and absolute, miracle and natural laws, caused and uncaused, created and no created, past, present, future, universe. Perfection is imperfection impossibility possible miracle God, because life without death is death, a purposeless life, the life of an addict. What do we strive, work, love, live for if we were inmortal, perfect? What joy there is in being perfect, knowing everything, not existing merit, accomplishment, success, not having to make an effort to learn, improve ourselves? Life being the religious God is death, absolute imperfection. If you were a player in a role playing game would you like a perfect character, inmortal, omniscient? You wouldn’t roll the dices because you would accomplish automatically what you intended to do, you would not take decisions because your actions would be determined by your knowledge of the future. You would not play, have fun, live, because there would not be a challenge, aim, purpose, possibility of failure. God is the perfect, for being imperfect, Game of Life and Death. Perfect and imperfect God is eternal and mortal in infinite time without beginning and end, impossibility possible miracle. When time started? And before what happened? When time would end? And after what would happen? God’s life is perfect because can die, and our purpose, challenge, is to keep God eternal creating life, learning ourselves to increase the probabilities of God’s survival, eradicating diseases, understanding the universe, and else. If we knew everything, an impossibility, we would be eternal because we would understand how to transform God to perfection, like understanding perfectly a miraculous Lego game of life and death with non existence and existence infinite pieces that could create anything because the possibilities are infinite. Knowledge is power. God would die when all life die and The Mind is switched off. The purpose of the miraculous director is to make a never ending happy movie, with happy characters, working to play, having fun, improving self, loving creating life to keep the game eternal. In God’s life happiness is what matter. Happiness is honesty, being truthful, without deceiving others, that are oneself, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. The director suffer if any character in the movie suffers. The creator with and without creator suffers if any organ is in pain impossibility possible miracle God. The director is not happy if any character in the perfect and imperfect movie lie, deceive himself and others, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. Ridicule, absurdity, stupidity, imbecility, violence, brutality, cruelty, theft, prohibition, censorship, greediness, meanness, slavery, controlling, imposition, ignorance, foolishness, religion, beliefs, lunacy, madness, nationalism, excluding the different, socialism, taking without asking, christian national socialism, nazis, addiction, unhappiness, death, hell is not funny, fun, joy, truth, honesty, freedom, allowing, generosity, giving to take, living life by life’s terms, participating, liking and sharing the truth, life, addiction recovery, health, wealth, happiness, heaven. And it is, impossible possible miracle God. God is the perfect and imperfect, eternal and mortal, finite and infinite, everything and nothing, wisdom, foolishness, life and death, addiction recovery and addiction, one and multiple, ignorant and omniscient Game of Life and Death created with and without creator, the cause uncaused and caused, the impossibility possible, the miracle of the irrefutable cosmological argument. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore an impossibility possible, a cause uncaused, a miracle, God exist. Science can not explain the origin the creation that was not originated because always existed. I was created by my parents and i always existed impossibility possible miracle God because i am my parents, that are my grandparents, that are everything else. God is not neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The history of God is infinite in time because even if God was created finite years back from an eternal nothingness, non existence would be existence impossibility possible miracle God everything and nothing. Death is resurrection, end is beginning impossibility possible miracle God. When we die we stop being actors in the perfect and imperfect movie to be the movie, that is the director, the past of God, impossibility possible miracle God. All humanity in hell and heaven of the past of God are cheering for me to accomplish to publish the first theory on God ever written, a theory on what, who, how, why, when is the miracle of the cosmological argument.
god was the first quantum of energy, discrete machine. His energy equals reduced plank's constant. Our universe is a huge robot and every particle in it consists of discrete pieces - god and his copies. Evolution - is actually construction, process of world creation by god. And that's not a joke as I can provide the algorithm partially. Not all as I would need super computer and financing to check everything. This universe executes algorithm and it started by one discrete machine. With energy that equals reduced plank's constant. That's why action is discrete, that's why Heisenberg uncertainty principle works etc. This is actually a theory and it gives predictions, which can be checked.
Sir. Sorry you arent RIGHT please show up YOU sentence in phich proceedings instead in obscure comments. Thank you.
@@maxwellsimoes238 see on my channel. I can not describe theory of everything in a comment.
you're not right for posting obscure comments
@@dongshengdi773 What is obscure here? Quantum of energy, energy equals reduced plank's constant. Our universe is a huge robot and every particle in it consists of discrete pieces - god and his copies. Evolution - is actually construction, process of world creation by god. And that's not a joke as I can provide the algorithm partially. Not all as I would need super computer and financing to check everything. This universe executes algorithm and it started by one discrete machine. With energy that equals reduced plank's constant. That's why action is discrete, that's why Heisenberg uncertainty principle works etc.
Yes he is
Makes one wonder if theism has fatal flaws, then why do a large number of very intelligent people believe in theism and Christianity in particular? People who are Christians like Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. George Ellis, Dr. John Gurdon (Noble Laurate), Dr. Kenneth Miller, Dr. Juan Maldacena, Dr. Don Page, and the list goes on and on. Surely, these people have given their religious beliefs some in-depth thought.
There are alternatives to pantheism, namely, panentheism and process theism - and others.
Just because a large number of people believe in some particular thing, doesn't mean that particular thing is true. Positions don't become convincing because a lot of people hold it. Aristotle recognized this over 2,000 years ago. Reciting a short list of research scientists who profess faith-based positions, and assuming that they surely, definitely, without any doubt whatsoever, must have thought carefully in order to have accepted those positions, and then taking their careful thought as completely true yourself, is not an impressive way of arguing for theism. Some "in-depth" thought (whatever that means) isn't the same as concluding beyond all doubt that something is true. In fact, the only place where something can ever be shown to be true beyond *all* doubt is in mathematics, and demands rigorous logic.
Theism's fatal flaw is that there has never been any evidence provided for any theists claims, ever. Not a single scrap. If you have no evidence, no points of data to be demonstrated and reconfirmed, then the position carries a fatal flaw. The only way to argue for any position is by way of evidence. No matter how evidentially supported some claim may be, say the claim that water undergoes a phase change into ice at some fixed temperature, for example- is further supported by the appealing to how many people believe it, or how intelligent they are. It is only supported by evidence.
Theism feeds into people's ego. It posits an infinite uberman that is able to do anything. Theism also give people an idol to pray to in their time of need.
Religion, Machine Analogies, & Fine Tuning are natural phenomena, because it is an actual fact of science ... that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical FUNCTIONS.
All Functions ... process inputs into outputs ... and have set purpose, properties, form & design.
Everything in the Universe ... has clear & obvious ... purpose, form, design & FUNCTION.
Science ( Function) completely relies on the Laws of Nature( Function) for Man (Function) to explain Natural Phenomena (Function).
The Human Body ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions
A Machine ... is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
Sir Issac Newton was correct over 300 years ago with his Watchmaker Analogy where he effectively said "The Universe ( & Life) is a Function composed entirely of Functions, ... and requires a Function maker ... to exist & to Function."
A Natural Function will always be like an Unnatural Function.
Atheism is also a religion, which replace a "supernatural" intelligence ... with the theories, ideologies, or "firm beliefs" of a "natural" intelligence.
Only an intelligence ... makes abstract & physical Functions.
Nature & natural processes can never ever make the simplest Function.
Either all of the religions are wrong or there is One that has correctly identified that "almighty" intelligence that made it all ... and why?
@@abelincoln8885 Newton was wrong; we do not live in a watchmaker universe. That has been established beyond doubt. Atheism is not a religion; it is a belief that a supreme being does not exist. Religions have far more than a belief in God. Nature, through evolution, made you and me. All religions are false.
@@georgegrubbs2966 lol. A watch is a Function. The parts of a watch are Functions. A Watch Maker is the Function Maker.
Machine Analogies are NATURAL PHENOMENA ... because a Machine & Life ... are both physical Functions composed entirely of Functions.
Law is an abstract Function ... made only by an intelligence.
The scientific method is an abstract Function made only by an intelligence.
Natural phenomena are simply natural PROCESSES of .... Functions.
Everything in the Universe is a FUNCTION.
Again. A Watch is simply a physical FUNCTION composed entirely of Functions.
All life are physical Functions composed entirely of Functions.
And only an intelligence ( like Man) ... makes, maintains, repairs, improves & fine tunes ... and abstract or physical Function.
Enough of your nonsense about Newton's OBSERVATION of a natural phenomena.
You can not debunk a natural phenomena. They will always be observed because they are natural processes of Functions ... obey the Laws of Nature and their design.
All thermodynamic systems ... originate from the SURROUNDING Systems(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature for the theormodynamic system to exist & to .... FUNCTION.
The Universe is a FINITE isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy.
Man has always known the Universe has an UNNATURAL origin by a very powerful intelligence. This is why 5 of 7 billion people believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural intelligence that made everything. And the other 2 billion believe in the theories, ideologies & fairy tales of the only known intelligence in the Universe.
Stop worshiping a false religion that believes nature & natural processes can make, maintain, fix, improve & fine tune abstract & physical Functions.
Nature & natural processes will never make a watch or machine ... because they are Functions.
Elemental particles are FUNCTIONS and there is zero scientific evidence proving Nature & natural processes made elemental particles, atoms, elements, compounds, molecules ... or even a star and planet or galaxy. A natural origin of the Universe & Life billions of years ago is pure fantasy in the deceptive guise of science fact.
It is however a fact about the origin of Thermodynamic Systems ... and abstract & physical Functions.
But you aren't interest in facts ... but only popular opinion & common beliefs. smh.
Until the concept of God becomes a personal experience for each of us it will remain just an idea
amen
Why is there something rather than nothing?
There is one thing that most of us would like to know, no matter what “existence theory” you espouse: “What is the ORIGIN of the digital information we find in living systems?”
Most of you say it comes into existence by “supplying energy to simple systems that build complexity over billions of years.”
But aside from building computer games, you have no evidence that it can or has ever occurred. The “simulations” you build are fun. But that is still not evidence.
When theists suggest it was planned, you scream at them: “Non-science-conjecture!”
But it’s ok for YOU to do the same thing, without any real proof.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
mm kinda but we're in a simulation. that's so obvious. that everything is made of fields and the double slit prove the observer is everything and we're in a game/sim.
agree .
we don't have to call him God,
we can call him the Ultimate Observer, the Creator , etc
If God is everything then the word God has no credible definition.
Most religions do not think you can define God
@@invisiblechurch9621 Christianity defines God by His propositional revelation in the Holy Scriptures. The best summary of those propositions is the Westminster Confession of Faith.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Everyone from Maimonides to Thomas Aquinas wrote that trying to defining God is an exercise in futility.
I just spent twenty minutes crafting a comment regarding a position which you have beautifully exemplified in a single sentence. Well said.
Psalms 145 verse 3 and Psalms 147 verse 4
Nothing is God
And God is Nothing
That is beautiful: poetry and also true.
Dmt will settle the debate in about fifteen minutes
you don't have to call it God,
you can call it Creator , programmer of this simulation, intelligent designer, initiator of the big bang , first cause , UNmoved mover, the ultimate observer in quantum mechanics, etc etc
definitely not intelligent designer
Don't go between thier fairy tale lifes
(7:00) *JS: **_"Although I remain open on pantheism, I am an atheist."_* ... The #1 problem with any God-based theory, doctrine, religion, or ideology is God being defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity. Since the universe appears to be strategically assembled to support life, structure, and existence, we simply shove an all-knowing entity into the driver's seat and boom!... _we're all set!_
The problem arises when we question where this all-knowing entity acquired all of this knowledge and why it would waste time creating a universe full of things to which every outcome is already known in advance. There is no necessity for an all-knowing God to learn anything!
The truth is that everything in existence must evolve from simplicity to complexity. An all-knowing God does not fit onto this existential framework.
Define truth.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 *"Define truth."*
... Whatever is the opposite of non-truth.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Define non-truth. Your non-definition is meaningless sophistry.
Since God is all knowing He does not acquire knowledge. He already immutably knows everything and He never learns anything new.
That's an interesting axiom that everything evolves from simplicity to complexity. But the axiom is just your starting point. God as defined by Scripture says that God is a simple being. My axiom is Scripture.
Why do people consider Spinoza a pantheist? As explained in the video, he was a panentheist.
Because Panentheist usually believe in a personal deity
Spinoza used the word God to refer to the universe but he did not believe that God is personal or intelligent. But he sometimes waffled on this I think.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 He doesn't refer to God as the universe, he calls God substance or nature. The universe is the only part we can perceive. Anything outside of Universe is also substance or nature.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 In the Ethics Spinoza says God is thinking thing
@@cuansaham2532 Spinoza did not believe in a personal God. He was a pantheist. If he refers to God as thinking he could only be thinking of humans within the universe.
At the beginning could have been just 0 (nothingness) or 1 (the everything, God). I find difficult to think at an intermediate set (ex. 0.483727 = quantum fields+energy+some cosmic laws or whatever) plausible because the lack of motivation for it except some random causality that have no propelling causation.
At the very bottom level of our reality is a seething ocean of pure energy we call the quantum realm. The "nature" of this energy is chaotic and unbound by rules or structure, it was never created and can not ever be destroyed (conservation of energy). This "random" and chaotic energy produces "random" but fleeting patterns that infinitely rise and fall, both being created and destroyed almost simultaneously. Every once in a while a pattern emerges from the randomness that is potent enough to sustain itself against the destructive aspect of this infinite chaos. This potent pattern becomes the nucleus of a new universe, nucleating and growing like a crystal (cosmic inflation). The laws of physics in this new universe are determined by the structure of its specific space/time fabric which is in turn patterned after the original pattern that emerged from the "void". All any universe can ever be is just energy and information, and these things are non-physical and thus resemble mind.
Fun fact: matter = mother, pattern = father. One may ask, mother and father of what?
@@alexgonzo5508 but you need to add some basic/high intelligence otherwise would not explain itself and you will fall back into the "we were lucky that was there".
@@francesco5581 No, i don't think so because intelligence implies internal structure which has to come from somewhere. Intelligence is contingent and chaos is not, intelligence comes from chaos but only after structure emerges. Like the ancient saying says "Ordo ab Chao" or "Order from Chaos", because chaos is more fundamental than order, intelligence is order, so intelligence is dependent on structure. Chaos is not dependent on anything and needs no reason for what it does.
information = in-form-ation = to form = internal structure (structure = form)
intelligence = telling from within (due to internal structure or form)
consciousness = to know together = to gather and interact = pattern apprehending pattern (form affecting form)
@@alexgonzo5508 chaos is just a nice word for randomness... Randomness cannot create something by proper "will" so we could have had a cloud instead of an universe. Since the universe is "something that makes sense" hardly is the product of randomness. a molecule/cell does not act randomly but act intelligently. Too many "random" step would your require too
Randomness gave you a perfect starting set
Randomness gave you fundamental laws
Randomness gave you precise constant values
Randomness gave you perfect pressure, temperature and quantities
Randomness gave you the table of elements
Randomness gave you all the steps to create something complex, each one with the right quantities, temperature and pressure
Randomness gave you habitable planets
Randomness gave you life
Randomness gave you consciousness
Remove just one of those "random" events (and the list is probably 10 times longer) and you will have basically nothing.
@@francesco5581 No, go back and read what i wrote. It starts with randomness, then order which does everything in your list. Don't react to what i wrote, but respond to it. I could explain more thoroughly but first answer this question: What is intelligence? Define it?
Mmm..... people are awakening?
You have Free Will, because you act like that. You know it. How does your Free Will come into existence from predetermination, or randomness? It cannot. That means that your individual elementary particles also must have Free Will. If your individual elementary particles have Free Will, then your individual elementary particles have Consciousness. If your individual elementary particles have Consciousness, then everything, that is made up of them, also has Consciousness. How do you know that everything, that is not made up of them, does not have Consciousness? Some say that there is something extra causing us to have Consciousness. What is the logic behind somethings having Free Will, and other things' actions being predetermined, random, or purely externally determined? If everything has Consciousness, then, just like there is a Collective Consciousness of your body, there is also a Collective Consciousness of the Universe. What about other Universes? What about whatever is beyond this Universe? That is also somewhere. That is also connected to this Universe. That also has Free Will. That also has Consciousness. There is a Collective Consciousness of the Cosmos. Ultimately, there is One Whole. That is the Real God. We come here to learn. How much we have learnt can be seen in our eyes. You can see the purity in a person's eyes. They are calling Spirit Matter, 'Dark Matter', because they cannot see it. The Worlds where Spirits live, they also comes under this 'Dark Matter'. The Big Bang is talked about in some Hindu Scriptures. In Hindu Scriptures, God is said to be Formless, and also in the Form of Divine Light. In Islam, they believe that God is Formless, and Angels are made up of Light. Light is the fastest. The Speed is Light is believed to be 299,792,458 Km/s. Newton also believed it to be infinite. At the highest frequency, just the fastest would remain, wouldn't it? Everything has the Form of Light, although it is at different at different frequencies. Everything is a Manifestation of the Divine Light.
Imagine the incredible, amazing, lost-for-words-to-describe complexity, diversity of creation, life and death, was a movie, and every living organism with free will a character. Religious people argue that the creation needs a creator to exist, therefore what they consider the perfect movie was created by a miraculous perfect director, almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, inmortal, eternal, loving God. Atheists argue that there is not evidence of the existence of that perfect director, and that the religious God is a narcissistic, unforgiving, merciless, bully rather than a loving father, and if everything needs a creator why the rule is not applicable to God. The cosmological argument, by reasoning, concludes that in order to be existence or creation an uncaused cause, a miracle that always existed, God, must exist, because if everything needed to be created by a predecessor a beginning would not exist. I argue that the movie is the director, impossibility possible miracle God. The perfect and imperfect movie is the director’s Life, Psychology, Mind, Body, impossibility possible miracle God. God is existence and non existence, perfect and imperfect, one and multiple, same and different, eternal and mortal, ignorant and omniscient, wise and fool, impotent and omnipotent, finite and infinite, creation and evolution, life and death, hatred and love, conscious and unconscious, alive and inert, relative and absolute, miracle and natural laws, caused and uncaused, created and no created, past, present, future, universe. Perfection is imperfection impossibility possible miracle God, because life without death is death, a purposeless life, the life of an addict. What do we strive, work, love, live for if we were inmortal, perfect? What joy there is in being perfect, knowing everything, not existing merit, accomplishment, success, not having to make an effort to learn, improve ourselves? Life being the religious God is death, absolute imperfection. If you were a player in a role playing game would you like a perfect character, inmortal, omniscient? You wouldn’t roll the dices because you would accomplish automatically what you intended to do, you would not take decisions because your actions would be determined by your knowledge of the future. You would not play, have fun, live, because there would not be a challenge, aim, purpose, possibility of failure. God is the perfect, for being imperfect, Game of Life and Death. Perfect and imperfect God is eternal and mortal in infinite time without beginning and end, impossibility possible miracle. When time started? And before what happened? When time would end? And after what would happen? God’s life is perfect because can die, and our purpose, challenge, is to keep God eternal creating life, learning ourselves to increase the probabilities of God’s survival, eradicating diseases, understanding the universe, and else. If we knew everything, an impossibility, we would be eternal because we would understand how to transform God to perfection, like understanding perfectly a miraculous Lego game of life and death with non existence and existence infinite pieces that could create anything because the possibilities are infinite. Knowledge is power. God would die when all life die and The Mind is switched off. The purpose of the miraculous director is to make a never ending happy movie, with happy characters, working to play, having fun, improving self, loving creating life to keep the game eternal. In God’s life happiness is what matter. Happiness is honesty, being truthful, without deceiving others, that are oneself, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. The director suffer if any character in the movie suffers. The creator with and without creator suffers if any organ is in pain impossibility possible miracle God. The director is not happy if any character in the perfect and imperfect movie lie, deceive himself and others, impossibility possible miracle God one and multiple. Ridicule, absurdity, stupidity, imbecility, violence, brutality, cruelty, theft, prohibition, censorship, greediness, meanness, slavery, controlling, imposition, ignorance, foolishness, religion, beliefs, lunacy, madness, nationalism, excluding the different, socialism, taking without asking, christian national socialism, nazis, addiction, unhappiness, death, hell is not funny, fun, joy, truth, honesty, freedom, allowing, generosity, giving to take, living life by life’s terms, participating, liking and sharing the truth, life, addiction recovery, health, wealth, happiness, heaven. And it is, impossible possible miracle God. God is the perfect and imperfect, eternal and mortal, finite and infinite, everything and nothing, wisdom, foolishness, life and death, addiction recovery and addiction, one and multiple, ignorant and omniscient Game of Life and Death created with and without creator, the cause uncaused and caused, the impossibility possible, the miracle of the irrefutable cosmological argument. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore an impossibility possible, a cause uncaused, a miracle, God exist. Science can not explain the origin the creation that was not originated because always existed. I was created by my parents and i always existed impossibility possible miracle God because i am my parents, that are my grandparents, that are everything else. God is not neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The history of God is infinite in time because even if God was created finite years back from an eternal nothingness, non existence would be existence impossibility possible miracle God everything and nothing. Death is resurrection, end is beginning impossibility possible miracle God. When we die we stop being actors in the perfect and imperfect movie to be the movie, that is the director, the past of God, impossibility possible miracle God. We would know everything that has happened, all reality, and respond to ourselves with perfect justice for our behaviour and responsibility in the wellbeing of God, and the regret, shame, guilt, if our actions contributed to the endless death of God would be infinite. Hell and heaven is ourselves for eternity til endless death when all life die and the mind is switched off, God die. All humanity of the past of God are cheering for me to accomplish to publish the first theory on God ever written, a theory on what, who, how, why, when is the miracle of the cosmological argument.
This stuff has been talked about in Sufism for over a millennia. Dutch philosopher was quite a bit late to the party
X-Files
Good (god) is the exact opposite of vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"?
Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
Lead into gold
Tears into roses
Weapons into ploughshares
I like it
steve coley- What?
Have you studied the Bible like it was a treasure that would unlock a door to an even greater treasure inside of you? Or do you just allow what other people say to persuade you one way or the other?
@@williamesselman3102 Yes, I have read the Bible
Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding , society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the evangelical counting corpses such misery.
But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate).
The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human.
Like bats that fly around in the darkness of caves... the evangelical vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
The long-standing culture you are a part of just spews through you and your words. You just parrot from your ancestral environment.
I am my environment.
That anyone can say that they know what this reality means is absolutely ridiculous.
And since they can never and will never prove any of it, the theology of self-promoting speculation is free to continue.
You would need to believe that reality can't tell you.
@@williamesselman3102
Well hello old friend. 😁
What we have found is
an indifferent reality.
Every spiritual theology thinks with absolute certainty that their culturally created reality is the only answer. And it's always left into the hands of a small select group to interpret the messages passed down to them. Shamans, priests and cult leaders, all telling you that they have the only right interpretation. And you will find paradise if you just do as they say and have faith in the message they present. 🙄
@@thomasridley8675 reality told me. I don't make appeals to other men.
Christians are Mastered by themselves and themselves alone. Each of us are led by the Holy Spirit. No man has taught us anything.
Just like always you know nothing.
My friends do the will of God, you are not my friend.
What is the difference between - NATURE - and GOD ? I don’t see any.. Mother Nature and God the Father are both metaphorical terms that represent the FORCES that create the cosmos. The God of Thunder.. the Sun God.. are just a metaphorical means to understanding the FORCES OF NATURE.. by personalizing them.. but then we have this strange practice of people.. who argue whether these metaphors exist.. or not. This is rather like when the poet says.. “My love is like a red red rose..” .. and someone boldly claims.. “That is scientifically impossible”.. while others claim… a woman who looks like a rose is A MIRACLE! ..In plain talk.. its ridiculous.. to take metaphors literally.. if you get my drift.. yet.. hardly anyone ever questions this rather bizarre way of understanding things.
If you want to see an atheist confused.. add a modified dictionary definition of NATURE.. (artfully adjusted).. to the debate.. but don’t mention the word NATURE.. and you will get exactly the same reaction.. as if you used the word GOD… Try it.. it really works. Here’s one I made earlier.. extracts taken from several dictionaries.. remixed.. with the irrelevant godless bits left out.
THIS IS - NATURE - DEFINED IN VARIOUS DICTIONARIES - The force that is responsible for physical life and that is sometimes spoken of as a person: Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. the sum total of all things in time and space; the entire physical universe - the power, force, principle, etc. that seems to regulate the physical universe often personified, sometimes as "Mother Nature
Nature personified as a CREATIVE and CONTROLLING FORCE affecting the world and humans. - Personification of the power or force that seems to regulate the physical universe - a personification of the forces of nature as a controlling and regulating maternal being, sometimes creative and caring. - Nature can also be viewed as the generous provider of all things....
SO....MOTHER Nature.. or GOD THE FATHER.. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ?
Is Feynman just using the word NATURE.. to avoid using the word GOD.. because he was an atheist.. I inserted the word GOD into his quotes.. to make my point..
Richard P. Feynman NATURE (OR GOD) QUOTES - What's the difference?
“I think nature's (or God’s) imagination Is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us relax”
"As usual, nature’s imagination far surpasses our own, as we have seen from the other theories which are subtle and deep."
“We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvelous than the imagining of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature (or God) is far, far greater than the imagination of man.”
"The way we have to describe Nature (or God) is generally incomprehensible to us."
“Why nature (or God) is mathematical is, again, a mystery.”
― Richard Feynman
All these theist.. atheist.. idealist.. materialist.. etc.. etc.. labels seem meaningless to me.. They belong to blind men.. all examining the same elephant..
AND... MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU..!
-
"All these theist.. atheist.. idealist.. materialist.. etc.. etc.. labels seem meaningless to me.. They belong to blind men.. all examining the same elephant.."
And yet here you are, after all that cogitation, pretending that your non-label is not itself a label. You are just fondling a part of the elephant you claim has no name. Why would this confuse only atheists?
@@con.troller4183 wrote - “And yet here you are, after all that cogitation, pretending that your non-label is not itself a label.”
Not at all.. a label artificially separates.. but I do not experience that separation. I have never been attracted to group thinking.. to joining the club.. (probably due to asperger's).. Group thinking often turns into stupid thinking.. both in politics and religion..
There are Christians who haven’t a clue what the Bible says.. and they depend on strangers.. who mislead them... to tickle their ears.. rather than take the time to study the scriptures themselves. And then the atheists put faith in what they are saying.. without even bothering to check if it is true… BIG MISTAKE!
Both theism and atheism get in bed with each other.. in that respect. Hardly opposition. They both understand metaphorical language in the most literal sense.. then the atheist wonders while the Bible seems to be talking nonsense.. which is NOT TRUE.. it is the LITERAL way they read it that causes the problem.
“Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all.
As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” - Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor
Con.Troller418 wrote - You are just fondling a part of the elephant you claim has no name.
If I asked you to quote me saying - the elephant that has no name” could you do that.. I very much doubt it.. I’m puzzled.. you say I am claiming that.. but where did you get that idea from? Please.. Take a look again at what I said... It would be better if you actually quoted my actual words.. rather than adding you own words to them. It can cause confusion.
But.. Not at all.. I realize that the elephant.. and me.. are one and the same… and the apparent division.. is an illusion generated by the brain..
“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” ― Buddha
Atheists will claim God means a man in the sky.. while some Christians (but not all) are saying god is a person.. who listens to prayers and does miraculous things. Others claim ALL IS MIND.. or God is NATURE.. while some religious philosophers recognize MANKIND itself is GOD.. or god IS the life force.. RE-LIGION (meaning to RE-UNITE).. WAS INTENDED TO BANISH THIS DIVISIVE THINKING.. but as the Bible repetitively says.. “THEY NEVER LISTENED”.
This god-man concept is found in the Bible - Buddhism - and Hindism.. and ALSO IN the philosophy of Nietzsche and Jung.. if we dig deeply enough.. it makes sense..
But is there a label for people who see humans themselves as god like beings.. CREATORS.. I'm wondering.. I have never come across it.
“Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god.” - Nicolas Gomez Davila
Put in the most simple terms..
“We living beings all belong to one another, we are all actually members.. or aspects.. of a single Being, which we may in western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman.”- Erwin Schrödinger
Why do we need so many divisions and labels just to understand such a simple idea?
Answers on a postcard.. but don’t be rude.
------------------------------------------------------
Con.Troller418 wrote - Why would this confuse only atheists?
My words were If you WANT TO confuse an atheist.. They didn’t imply an (ONLY AN ATHEIST) limit..
Atheists are my most frequent opponents.. so I am referring to past experiences with them. I get a lot of inspiration from the disagreements I have with them..
“A clash of doctrines is not a disaster - it is an opportunity.” - Alfred North Whitehead
@@TheVirtualTourist
Gish, meet Gallop.
As the long as the host keeps hosting people he carefully selects and meets, individually, with no group or open discussions, just him imposing and setting his own agenda, solo opinions and questions his channel will never come closer to the truth, far from it.
God is not reality, our reality is just one of God's creations. There were different realities and there will be others.
God isn't like anything of his creations.
God is infinitely greater than that.
God permeates All reality we know and all that we do not know about.
In the beginning, there was only God and in the end, there will be nothing but God.
Only God is eternal and has no beginning or end but everything else does.
Humans should worship their creator, and be grateful for the countless blessings God gave them, what they know about and what they do not.
Nice joke,but there is no need to have a middleman...
@@ManiBalajiC It's not, joke-man. "middleman" is the wishful thinking of atheists like you. Well, if you do not believe in the creator, and die as such, I assure you of the biggest nastiest shock of your entire life right at the very end of it, on this earth that is. You will transition into the next phase of eternal human life, which can be only described as hell for you and your idols of atheists and ignorant "scientists". I doubt very much that you will enjoy then your "absolute" belief in whatever tiny scientific knowledge that you might have had in your "previous" earthly life.
Do you believe that idealism is false?
Our religions have little to do with this vast universe. I joined Et's religion. How do we know ET exists? We don't and we don't know God exists either. I am devoted to what I call the All Powerful All. It is divided not democrats and republicans fighting each other. wink haha I argue the all-powerful all was mindless and there was no consciousness only all-powerful expansion and then lives evolved from no intelligence because there was none.
I really liked this video.. if I had to choose a reality based around God, I would certainly choose pantheism.. There's an intuitive feel to it.. Fortunately, I do NOT have to choose a deity based reality, largely through the insights of QFT and Qm we have learned that the universe is NOT deterministic! What would be the place in it for a god that does NOT know what will happen next?
Hebrews 9:27 (NKJV): 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
Isaiah 14:24 (NKJV): The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying,
“Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass,
@@ThomasCranmer1959 After all friend, and I mean you NO disrespect for your beliefs, BUT wouldn't that be a faux pas from every perspective including philosophical??
@@Bill..N What would be a blunder? Saying that everyone dies? Everyone dies whether or not you believe the Bible. That is predetermined. The difference is the Bible says that God planned it all ahead of time. Foreknowledge and determinism is the same thing. If God foreknows that tomorrow you will visit Walmart is it possible that you won't go?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 What judgement?
At one point in human history, God resided in the mountains. But then we climbed and scoured the mountains, and it wasn't there. So we said, God must be in the sky! And then we went to the sky, and couldn't find it there, either. Today, we can see into vast reaches of the universe, and we observe all kinds of wonderful and bizarre things, but so far, no sign of any god.
If the only place left for god to be, the only corner of ignorance remaining, has to be all of reality itself- then, it is very silly to label it "god" rather than reality. If god = reality, then why not just call reality... reality? Or, why not call it something else entirely, like "awurdusadfn"? Definitions are arbitrary, after all. It could just as easily be that reality = awurdasadfn. Or that god = awurdasadfn. What makes the position of pantheism different from some other position which also equates reality with some other label? What content could the position of pantheism possibly contain, if it fundamentally boils down to semantics? What incentive is there to take its position over any other?
It seems like pantheists are just really desperate to call something, any and EVERYTHING "god". I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough to be an argument. It doesn't matter if they lack the imagination to consider other possibilities. It's not a reasonable position to take, because it's not really a position to begin with. To be a pantheist is to say that something (x) is equal to something else (y), and... whoop-de-fucking-do? Screw it, why not set the already well-defined term "Carrot Top" as equal to some other term, like: "urjerismcdfwnasf"? Urjerismcdfwnasf is just as viable a term to use to talk about Carrot Top as "Carrot Top", after all! I could've just called him fucking Carrot Top, but because I reeeeeally wanted to use the ridiculous term Urjerismcdfwnasf, we had all better just accept another equally useful term alongside it, because hey, it makes me and maybe some other folks happy. Do you see how this provides us with zero insight into the nature of Carrot Top?
And please notice: I didn't have to espouse unrelated physics jargon (like many others in this comment section), in order to have a bona fide opinion about pantheism. I just took the logic of it a little more seriously than pantheists, which disallowed me from accepting their claim. Imagine if we all thought just a bit more carefully about the positions we take? How much more insight into the nature of reality might we gain? Maybe we don't need a panoply of pretty terms to describe one already well-defined thing, or even one incompletely defined thing, like reality. Maybe god is a silly term, and isn't worth getting upset over- yet maybe worth analyzing it's use with more care.
Peace.
In a way, I pity you and your argument, which is akin to never encountering the word "umami" and always describing the taste of cheese, mushroom and beef as "salty-sweet".
Mentat, nobody owes you an explanation. There is a doorway inside of you. On the other side of that door your savior stands and is knocking. The rest is your responsibility.
the endless ideologies behind theism. boy did abraham start an endless drama cycle of gods n religions. and the funniest thing is he was not even a real person. just a persona created for the Ahb Rha Ahm trinity.
Everytime I hear someone use the word Spinoza I click on like
Couple of hundred years of "real" science? Not the first time I`ve heard this, and it just pisses me of, lol. We have at least a 1000-1500 years of science building up to what we have to day, if it wasn`t for those people we might not be where we are today. Just throwing a few names out there for fun, Hipparchus, Archimedes, Euclid, Eudoxus, Galen and many more.
I think he implied modern science. Post newtonion specifically , which can be argued to have been our first steps to really understand gravity and the existence of a grander reality - cosmos.
Science is always false. What is considered true today will change tomorrow. Truth is immutable, however.
@@samosa9488 Ah, yeah, did`nt think of it that way. Always wondered what a scientist from that era of time would say if he knew what we know today, or even just Einstein or Tesla, lol.
The "science" revolution began from the 1500's lead by Theists .. who believed in Creation and fixed Laws and everything have a purpose.
Only an intelligence .. makes, maintains, fixes, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions.
Time, space & the Laws of Nature a abstract Functions.
Energy & matter are physical Functions.
Everything in the Universe is a Function ... processes inputs into outputs ... have set purpose,form & design .. and can only be made by an intelligence
Science( Function) relies completely on the fixed Laws of nature(function) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena(Function).
The Theory of Universal Functions ... is the scientific explanation for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Every thing is a function and requires a function maker to exist & to function.
GOD=SAVIOUR, Salvation is FINAL Purpose of Creation by God. that's always What/Who The Real God in Bible from beginning. no matter how excellent idea you have/believe, SIMPLY USELESS IF YOUR GOD CANNOT SAVE YOU FROM YOUR SIN & ETERNAL DEATH/HELL! PANTHEISM TEACH THAT YOU ARE GOD, & THAT IS SATAN IDEA/DESIRE/TEMPTATION. FIRE OF GOD MUST DESTROY EVERYTHING AT THE END BECAUSE HUMAN WORSHIP THEMSELVES & UNIVERSE AS IDOL-GODS! 😭
ATHEISM IS RELIGION/BELIEF/FAITH/WAY TO AGAINST GOD EXISTANCE! ATHEISM IS RELIGION BY SATAN, DEVIL'S MIND/IDEA & MOVEMENT TO ATTACK GOD & HIS MORAL! 😈
..
GOD IS EXISTANCE FOR EVERYTHING. CREATURE IS NOTHING WITHOUT GOD. EVERY EXISTANCE IS HELD BY GOD. BUT HELL EXISTANCE IS PUT ON THE SINNER'S SOULS & EVIL/SATAN EXISTANCE. FIRE OF GOD WARP THE HELL, DEEP LIKE A BLACK HOLE = NOTHING CAN BE SEEN & NO ONE ESCAPE FROM THERE! REALITY OF NOTHING IS, YOU SEE NOTHING & FEEL EMPTINESS, BUT FIRE OF GOD KEEP YOU EXIST IN TOTAL DARKNESS FOREVER! ABSOLUTE NOTHING IS SCARY MISERY! 😱
You shouldn’t believe something just because it teaches you that it saves you from hell.
There are too many religions that claim to be the only way of salvation and it is impossible for all to be true. But it is possible for all to be false.
Hell causes people to be emotional, emotionality causes people to reject the truth.
God is unknown and unknowable.
Jesus is a fictional character.
From that perspective, yes, Jesus would be, but who are you to claim that that perspective is the most true?
I support this. God may exist but we know nothing about it except it created us
@@LazyRare
_"From that perspective, yes, Jesus would be, but who are you to claim that that perspective is the most true?"_
The evidence that Jesus never existed is that there is no evidence that Jesus existed.
Wouldn't you think that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed?
@@LazyRare
_"God may exist but we know nothing about it except it created us."_
We don't even know that.
@@Bringadingus
_"There's no evidence of any deity at all."_
It could be argued that there is evidence of a deity, or deities, but no proof.
How does this guy even know his reasoning skills are valid?