Thread: how can you say that there is not a higher power?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Scientific principles can't exist without time? What in the world makes you assume that? Why would it be impossible for there to be multiverses, universes, or mere principles that don't involve time? If God can exist outside of time, why can't scientific principles (including mathematical principles) and other universes and multiverses? A three dimensional universe without a fourth dimension would be timeless, for example. You have really leaped to a conclusion.

We know of exceptions to that any way. The laws of geometry and algrebra are not dependent on time. Molecular bonds are what they are three dimensionally. A rock has more density than helium. Those are all scientific realities that are not time dependent. The objects exist in time in our particular universe, but the properties I mentioned do not involve the factor of time.

time is physical change. you cannot have physical change without more than one thing. a universe, math, a three-dimensional universe, has more than one thing.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

time is physical change. you cannot have physical change without more than one thing. a universe, math, a three-dimensional universe, has more than one thing.

You said you cannot have physical change without more than one thing and used that to conclude that you cannot have more than one thing without physical change. That is a fallacious argument. You switched your original source and result in your conclusion. You have no reason to assume that there cannot be more than one thing without physical change, your conclusion would not negate the existence of a single source scientific principle, and God is supposed to involve more than one aspect.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You have no reason to assume that there cannot be more than one thing without physical change...

but there can't, can there? if there was only one thing, which I would consider nothingness, because there would be nothing to compare it to, then you'd have no physical change.

you can't say that time has always exsisted, because for time to exsist there must be physical change, and in order to have physical change you must have more than one thing (more than nothingness). so for time to start, there would have to be something before it (or outside of it) that wasn't nothingness.

does that make sense? I don't know if it's that I'm not explaining it well enough (and I suck at explaining things), or that I have something off and I don't understand your argument. but I want you to know I'm trying to understand and I'm glad to be having this discussion with you. I mean, I don't want you to think I'm set in my beliefs and that I'm deliberately not listening, if I'm repeating myself, it's because I really don't understand.

I have a small theory though. Maybe Each event in time is like a little string, which can be jumped into or out of, or maybe there is one contious flow of time, that can be entered or exited. And when you exit all rules, and natural assumptions, everything that we know as to be a rule does no longer exist, therfore there might be a whole new set of rules, and please i think you can figure the rest out. E.X God doesnt have to have a reason to exist. Maybe god exists outside of the time strings/string and oversees it. It might be possible, it might also be possible that we can never leave our time string unless we know all of the rules, and we manage to change our minds to fit them, and our bodies, only then might we even be able to attempt exiting a time string..

its about 1 to 100000000000000 chances that i am right. Im just ranting almost

Originally Posted by tehpwner

its about 1 to 100000000000000 chances that i am right. Im just ranting almost

That sounds like worse chances than life starting by "accident".

ok then... anyway i have no evedince to back up my theory, therfore it could be wrong, any other posts on my theory?

Back on topic... I think there is a "higher power". That can be anything though. It doesnt have to mean there is a god. I think there is a higher power than us because we wouldnt be here without it, because I believe something helped begin our existance. That higher power can be evolution, time, energy, gravity, or even ALIENSSSSS... But not "god"

catch my drift???

I tend to think that the universe (or multiverse or whatever) is infinite in both time and expanse. We have two choices ultimately: Infinity, or "Nothing" (a point where this much be reached). "Nothing" is only a fantasy, therefore infinity is the only logical conclusion. I do not like to say that I "believe" anything, as belief is a mind-closer.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

but there can't, can there? if there was only one thing, which I would consider nothingness, because there would be nothing to compare it to, then you'd have no physical change.

you can't say that time has always exsisted, because for time to exsist there must be physical change, and in order to have physical change you must have more than one thing (more than nothingness). so for time to start, there would have to be something before it (or outside of it) that wasn't nothingness.

does that make sense? I don't know if it's that I'm not explaining it well enough (and I suck at explaining things), or that I have something off and I don't understand your argument. but I want you to know I'm trying to understand and I'm glad to be having this discussion with you. I mean, I don't want you to think I'm set in my beliefs and that I'm deliberately not listening, if I'm repeating myself, it's because I really don't understand.

You are getting your variables backwards again. You said there cannot be more than one thing without physical change. I asked why, and you argued that there cannot be physical change without more than one thing. You keep getting the order reversed on the two variables. I know there cannot be physical change without more than one thing. I am asking why there cannot be more than one thing without physical change.

I think mathematical, logical, and some scientific principles exists outside of time and are at the root of our time. I don't see what necessitates an animated creature with human style emotions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know there cannot be physical change without more than one thing. I am asking why there cannot be more than one thing without physical change.

oh, I get it now. I don't think two things can exsist without time. once you have two things, if those two things really exsist, there must be time because each would have to be aware of the other's existence. (if not, they would each be fully concentrated into themselves, and there would be nothing.) if you have awareness, you are aware of your own existence and also aware of the other's existence. you alternate consciousness between "I exsist" "You exist" "I exist" "You exist", there is an exchange of information, there is change. there is time.

I think mathematical, logical, and some scientific principles exists outside of time and are at the root of our time. I don't see what necessitates an animated creature with human style emotions.

I want to clarify something. when I say "God", please "divest it of all the baggage that [it] carries in the minds of most religious believers" (as Richard Dawkins worded it) and look at it more as, the something that existed first. actually, don't even worry about it. I'm going to stop using the word altogether, and refer to it instead as simply "the thing that exsisted first".

I'm not trying to "prove God", if that's what you think.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

I'm going to stop using the word altogether, and refer to it instead as simply "the thing that exsisted first".

I definitely believe in that. I have come across the idea that the first thing, pure existence, is consciousness itself. I think that is such a trippy idea. That sort of relates to what you were saying about existence's need for awareness.

Edit: If existence itself is consciousness itself, then all of existence would be one consciousness, and I guess we could call that God. That is the God I come closest to believing in, and it is the last God I believed in. Maybe I will believe in it again.

haha, yeah, it's pretty deep when you think about it. but I don't think the first thing that exsisted is conscioussness, but rather selflessness itself. because if it were selfishness, nothing would exist. if someone were to be fully concentrated on their existence, fully in their mind and there was nothing to bring their awareness to anything else, they would cease to exist.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

haha, yeah, it's pretty deep when you think about it. but I don't think the first thing that exsisted is conscioussness, but rather selflessness itself. because if it were selfishness, nothing would exist. if someone were to be fully concentrated on their existence, fully in their mind and there was nothing to bring their awareness to anything else, they would cease to exist.

Would you say selfless consciousness, or love, is the first thing that existed? If you think that and that love is all things, you are about half way to being a Hindu.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I definitely believe in that. I have come across the idea that the first thing, pure existence, is consciousness itself. I think that is such a trippy idea. That sort of relates to what you were saying about existence's need for awareness.

Edit: If existence itself is consciousness itself, then all of existence would be one consciousness, and I guess we could call that God. That is the God I come closest to believing in, and it is the last God I believed in. Maybe I will believe in it again.

I've thought about that sooo many times as well. But, how could you have pure conscousness without something else before it? Because, isn't consciousness the ability to be aware? Please explain because this idea has always intrugued me but is too confusing.

personally, I dont like to think about what existed first because it's like an endless loop. Anything you think of, you will question what created that... Maybe it was just plain space rapidly expanding and then suddenly gained enough energy to cause something.

Originally Posted by Michael

I've thought about that sooo many times as well. But, how could you have pure conscousness without something else before it? Because, isn't consciousness the ability to be aware? Please explain because this idea has always intrugued me but is too confusing.

personally, I dont like to think about what existed first because it's like an endless loop. Anything you think of, you will question what created that... Maybe it was just plain space rapidly expanding and then suddenly gained enough energy to cause something.

I don't really believe it any more. I just think it's a very cool idea. It has something to do with existence itself, which does not need a creator because it is impossible for nothing to exist, being consciousness itself, though not the consciousness of a particular form of existence, just existence itself. So the thing that cannot not exist, existence, is awareness itself. The awareness in pure form is not awareness of anything in particular. It has awareness of particular things when it exists in certain particular forms, like the minds of me and you. All individual minds and all other things are particular forms of that pure consciousness that is existence. Organisms can have conscious minds only because existence itself is consciousness. Otherwise, we would just be biological machines that have no mental experience.

Man, I wish I still believed in that. I am going to keep looking into it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't really believe it any more. I just think it's a very cool idea. It has something to do with existence itself, which does not need a creator because it is impossible for nothing to exist, being consciousness itself, though not the consciousness of a particular form of existence, just existence itself. So the thing that cannot not exist, existence, is awareness itself. The awareness in pure form is not awareness of anything in particular other than itself. (That involves an infinite regress and amounts to a circular argument, and that is one of the reasons I don't really swallow it so easily any more.) That awareness comes in particular forms, like the minds of me and you. All individual minds and all other things are particular forms of that pure consciousness that is existence. Organisms can have conscious minds only because existence itself is consciousness. Otherwise, we would just be biological machines that have no mental experience.

Man, I wish I still believed in that. I am going to keep looking into it.

That is a pretty good concept and makes sense, like we are all atoms/cells in a giant "god". I can somewhat start to grasp and believe it, but then I dont at the same time.

I will die before I know what to believe, that's the sad part

the thing that existed first was, obviously, selflessness itself, because, if it were selfishness then nothing would exist. what i think is that "selflessness" existed first, because it was aware of itself, it was aware that "I exist" "Other (or "nothingness") exiists, "I exisr" "Other exists" and so on. this is (or requires) energy, and the pure energy is responsible for everything. I've heard that science has proved that in the very beginning, there was pure heat, or pure energy. wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that this is what that is?

it comes down to ones and zeros,mathematics. 1 cannot exist unless 0 exists, but 1 had to exist first because if 0 existed first then nothing (including us) would exist.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

the thing that existed first was, obviously, selflessness itself, because, if it were selfishness then nothing would exist. what i think is that "selflessness" existed first, because it was aware of itself, it was aware that "I exist" "Other (or "nothingness") exiists, "I exisr" "Other exists" and so on. this is (or requires) energy, and the pure energy is responsible for everything. I've heard that science has proved that in the very beginning, there was pure heat, or pure energy. wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that this is what that is?

it comes down to ones and zeros,mathematics. 1 cannot exist unless 0 exists, but 1 had to exist first because if 0 existed first then nothing (including us) would exist.

To get back to what I really think, I don't believe that consciousness has to be part of the principles that are outside of time. There does not have to be intent involved. Consciousness and intent are biological principles that evolved because they aided organismic survival.

I think it comes down to, existence exists because it does. and I think everyone's purpose is to become aware of their existence. and to do that, you must be aware of the existence of others. (just like in the "beginning" of existence, 1 was aware of itself because of 0.) I think everyone has that choice. they can be aware (exist) or not be aware, and in that case they would exist ONLY to others who are aware of their existence. choosing to be aware then, means being selfless. being selfless is being open-minded, being open to others. I think...that this is what some religions, at their core, are trying to explain. just today, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-incarnation. awareness obviously exists, but some people die without being truly aware. just like an animal. so if selflessness (consciousness) really is the way, then the thing that died would be given another chance to be aware. I don't know much about it, but I got a book on buddhism today, I've only read a little so far but it seems to make sense. what do you think?

If I accepted the pure existence as consciousness idea I was talking about, I would say there is no reincarnation of individual organisms but that all minds are forms of the one consciousness that is everything, so there is no real death. You and I are the same mind, and Abraham Lincoln was that mind and so is a giraffe walking on a plain in Africa right now. Whenever an organism "dies", it is really just a matter of the one mind that exists' not taking that particular form any more. The mind that organism had is eternal because it was the only mind that ever was, one that always will be. It is the eternal mind that is existence itself.

That is an Eastern philosophical concept that Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists have their own takes on. A really good Western and nonreligious book about the idea is The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Really Are by Alan Watts. It is generally referred to as The Book. Alan Watts was John Lennon's favorite philosopher. Watts proposed the idea that that one consciousness is God and that God is playing a game of hide and go seek with himself by taking the forms of organisms that don't know what's really going on but in many cases later realize that it was really himself the whole time. That is sort of like what the Eastern idea of enlightenment/nirvana is about.

I'll definitely get that book.

if someone has true consciousness, do they lose it when they die? I don't think so, or I don't like the idea of that anyway. a giraffe can't have true consciousness, because it can't be fully aware of itself. I have true consciousness, because I'm aware that I can only exist because of others, because I am not everything. once a person understands that, do they lose it when they die physically? what do you think happens to that consciousness? that's why I'm mulling over reincarnation, because maybe the people who don't become aware of themselves, their energy, goes into another physical life, and so on until they "get it" I guess. and when someone does, they wouldn't get reincarnated because they'd lose consciousness and not exist anymore. but what makes the energy of someone who is conscious different from the energy of someone who isn't?

it seems to me that you can't lose consciousness, awareness of yourself, after you die because then you wouldn't exist anymore, and (if you have true consciousness) you do exist. I guess what I want to know is, why can't more than one being with consciousness exist?

Originally Posted by paperdoll

I'll definitely get that book.

if someone has true consciousness, do they lose it when they die? I don't think so, or I don't like the idea of that anyway. a giraffe can't have true consciousness, because it can't be fully aware of itself. I have true consciousness, because I'm aware that I can only exist because of others, because I am not everything. once a person understands that, do they lose it when they die physically? what do you think happens to that consciousness? that's why I'm mulling over reincarnation, because maybe the people who don't become aware of themselves, their energy, goes into another physical life, and so on until they "get it" I guess. and when someone does, they wouldn't get reincarnated because they'd lose consciousness and not exist anymore. but what makes the energy of someone who is conscious different from the energy of someone who isn't?

it seems to me that you can't lose consciousness, awareness of yourself, after you die because then you wouldn't exist anymore, and (if you have true consciousness) you do exist. I guess what I want to know is, why can't more than one being with consciousness exist?

According to the idea, existence is consciousness. Existence is one thing, so there can be only one consciousness, though it comes in an infinite number of forms. When a person "dies", that form of the consciousness no longer exists, but the consciousness that existed in that form does. That which is all the person's mind ever was will exist forever. So the person never actually died. He just stopped existing in that form. He is still an infinite number of other forms, and he is still the timeless being who is the only thing that exists. Some Hindu gurus have used the ocean as a metaphor. A wave crashes, but the ocean is all the was, and the ocean is still the ocean. One of my favorite quotes of all time is in the book I told you about. Watts said, "Just as the ocean 'waves', the universe 'peoples'."

However, the way you related the idea to reincarnation is in line with Hinduism and Buddhism, or at least major sects of them. I saw a documentary about Buddhism one time, and the narrator told a story about an enlightened master who told his student to look at a tree. The master said something like, "When you have lived the same number of lives as the number of leaves on that tree, you will reach enlightenment."

Originally Posted by tehpwner

I know that there is a higher power

Do you have any proof?

I love debating on the relevance of consciousness. I'm quite in tune with your logic, Universal Mind.

I use to think in the same way that "How could existence be created before time started?"

But when I realized that beyond space and time lies a place that isn't bound by either of the two, regardless if it had a 'beginning' (IE, the Creator and our consciousness), it wouldn't matter because time doesn't exist there. Time and space exist because, who knows how long ago, the Creator (or us, for all we know) created physical existence which is bound by the unique aspects of time and space.

My only fear has been, once all of the countless spirits in all of existence achieve a divine state of consciosness that is parallel to the Supreme Being, what then? Everything pointlessly repeats itself? Is there an end? That's always my curiousity. Because what if the beginning is our end, and that we've already talked on these forums an infinite amount of times?