Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[PureX]

This seems to be an argument of the form:

1. The idea is plausible.
2. I'd like it to be true.
3. I will believe it to be true.
4. You can't prove it's not true.

A little weak, dontcha think?

Actually, no. It's both logical and reasonable if the result of choosing to believe that "X" is true is significantly positive, while the result of choosing to believe "X" is false is neutral, or negative.

In this case we have overwhelming evidence of a transcendent, metaphysical realm of existence. Our own life and consciousness proves that. So the "X" in question then becomes the possibility of other transcendent, metaphysical realms of existence, which are now unknown to us, or known perhaps only to a rare few of us. There are people who claim to have experienced such. There is no empirical evidence that can validate or invalidate their claims, however. And so it's up to us whether or not we choose to believe them, to "disbelieve" them, or to just leave the question open.

It is both logical and reasonable, then, to adopt the position that gives us the most desirable result. For you, that is apparently to "disbelieve" them. Though I don't see what you gain by that. For me, it is to believe them, but according to my own interpretation, not theirs. And for others, … everyone has to decide for themselves.

 

[bybee]

I have a hard time understanding why we humans don't do far more of this, and then apply it for the sake of our own bell-being.

For example, why haven't we studied the human animal phenomena of 'bloodlust'? It seem to break out on a regular basis all across the world, murdering thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people, and yet as far as I know, there's been no concerted effort given to studying it, and looking for ways of identifying it in advance, and possibly mitigating it.

When it seems to me that something like this would on the top ten list of obvious contenders for serious investigation.

Amen Brother. I agree.

 

[PureX]

So you assert but I don't think it's nearly as separate or distinct from physical reality as you do it seems.
Where did I say that a metaphysical didn't exist? I simply doubt that there is any separate metaphysical realm!

The concept of "separation" is relative. Life springs from non-life. They are "separate" primary categories (realms) of being. Yet they are also completely integral. Neither "exists" without the other. Consciousness springs from the realm of living things. Yet it is a "separate" realm of existence: a perceptual/conceptual realm. And yet it is also integral to the life from which it springs. Just as life is integral with the matter from which it springs.

So if we insist that "separation" be the verifying factor of the phenomena of transcendence, then you can't verify the phenomena, because transcendence does not mean "separated from". Yet if you insist that a transcendent state display all and only the characteristics of the state it transcends, then it can't do that, either, or it would BE that un-transcended state. So by using this paradoxical criteria of, "separate but integral" and then insisting that here be no paradox or contradictions, we could effectively deny any possibility of transcendence, even though it is logically self-evident.

… so it isn't very likely imo that a metaphysical place, outside somewhere and separate somehow, conveniently already existed to help with all that heavy processing.

And yet the possibility of it was 'built into' the most elemental foundations of existence, to be manifested eventually, through us (and possibly through countless other life forms). And it does exist, now, "on it's own", and, "apart from our own mind", just as the internet exists on it's own and apart from our own individual computers/servers. Collective consciousness exists. Even though we can't access as a whole.

As I have already said, our metaphysical conclusions will often initiate real physical actions, why that would need to be concluded as doing so from a separate metaphysical realm seems rather unnecessary and highly unlikely if you ask me.

Well, it IS being initiated from a metaphysical realm. Consciousness IS a metaphysical realm of existence. Where you're getting yourself tangle up is in this paradox of "integral separation". I don't know how to help you with that. Reality is often paradoxical, to us, because we have only limited (relative) access to it.

When something un-testable is asserted then it can reasonably be dismissed in a similar fashion …

Which means nothing relative to the assertion's accuracy. Which then calls into question the "reasoning".

 

[alwight]

The concept of "separation" is relative. Life springs from non-life. They are "separate" primary categories (realms) of being. Yet they are also completely integral. Neither "exists" without the other. Consciousness springs from the realm of living things. Yet it is a "separate" realm of existence: a perceptual/conceptual realm. And yet it is also integral to the life from which it springs. Just as life is integral with the matter from which it springs.

So if we insist that "separation" be the verifying factor of the phenomena of transcendence, then you can't verify the phenomena, because transcendence does not mean "separated from". Yet if you insist that a transcendent state display all and only the characteristics of the state it transcends, then it can't do that, either, or it would BE that un-transcended state. So by using this paradoxical criteria of, "separate but integral" and then insisting that here be no paradox or contradictions, we could effectively deny any possibility of transcendence, even though it is logically self-evident.
And yet the possibility of it was 'built into' the most elemental foundations of existence, to be manifested eventually, through us (and possibly through countless other life forms). And it does exist, now, "on it's own", and, "apart from our own mind", just as the internet exists on it's own and apart from our own individual computers/servers. Collective consciousness exists. Even though we can't access as a whole.
Well, it IS being initiated from a metaphysical realm. Consciousness IS a metaphysical realm of existence. Where you're getting yourself tangle up is in this paradox of "integral separation". I don't know how to help you with that. Reality is often paradoxical, to us, because we have only limited (relative) access to it.
Which means nothing relative to the assertion's accuracy. Which then calls into question the "reasoning".

I would propose that the "metaphysical realm" is simply a part of this one, an overlay perhaps, which in one sense perhaps doesn't really exist except dynamically in time, but not in space. If ideas are given a physical form then they are recorded in physical space.:think:

So where does your "higher power" fit into the metaphysical realm you believe is true PX?
Do those who conceptualise there all have their own HP or the same?

 

[noguru]

I would propose that the "metaphysical realm" is simply a part of this one, an overlay perhaps, which in one sense perhaps doesn't really exist except dynamically in time, but not in space. If ideas are given a physical form then they are recorded in physical space.:think:

So where does your "higher power" fit into the metaphysical realm you believe is true PX?
Do those who conceptualise there all have their own HP or the same?

Astrophysicists and cosmologists, according to Einstein's theory, claim that photons do not experience time. They are eternal/timeless. The only way that time has any meaning in regard to a photon is how it interfaces with matter.

The way this all plugs in is still mysterious to those of us who pay rent in the physical universe of time. But subatomic particles/electromagnetic radiation seems to be beyond our understanding (to a great degree) and not confined to our limitations.

 

[Hedshaker]

Astrophysicists and cosmologists, according to Einstein's theory, claim that photons do not experience time. They are eternal/timeless. The only way that time has any meaning in regard to a photon is how it interfaces with matter.

The way this all plugs in is still mysterious to those of us who pay rent in the physical universe of time. But subatomic particles/electromagnetic radiation seems to be beyond our understanding (to a great degree) and not confined to our limitations.

Do you think that energy is eternal? I do, along with time and space, though I make no claims to that effect. It just makes sense to my tiny mind

 

[alwight]

Astrophysicists and cosmologists, according to Einstein's theory, claim that photons do not experience time. They are eternal/timeless. The only way that time has any meaning in regard to a photon is how it interfaces with matter.

The way this all plugs in is still mysterious to those of us who pay rent in the physical universe of time. But subatomic particles/electromagnetic radiation seems to be beyond our understanding (to a great degree) and not confined to our limitations.

I am encouraged by better minds than mine that say "if you think you understand quantum physics then you don't.".

 

[noguru]

I am encouraged by better minds than mine that say "if you think you understand quantum physics then you don't.".

Yup.

 

[PureX]

I would propose that the "metaphysical realm" is simply a part of this one, an overlay perhaps, which in one sense perhaps doesn't really exist except dynamically in time, but not in space. If ideas are given a physical form then they are recorded in physical space.

Yet it's difficult to argue with the fact that there is the place where you are, and there is your conception of the place where you are. And the latter is far, far more "real" and useful to you than the former. The latter affords you all sorts of possibilities that the former cannot because the latter is not encumbered by time, space, and matter. You can imagine it in all sorts of ways in which it currently, physically, does not exist. Physical reality is only what it is. While conceptual reality includes what it could be, and even what it couldn't. Conceptual reality is certainly born of physical reality, and yet transcends it.

So where does your "higher power" fit into the metaphysical realm you believe is true PX?

The "higher power" is that which explains what I cannot explain. That which understands what I cannot understand. That which knows what I don't/can't know. That which controls what I cannot control. The "higher power" is the inexplicable 'first cause': the creator, sustainer, and purpose of all that exists. It's to this "higher power" that I turn when I feel grateful to be alive. Or when I feel confused and frightened by the circumstances of my existence. Or when I need to feel that someone is listening, and that someone cares, when there's no one else around to listen or to care. It's to this "higher power" that I appeal for courage when I am afraid. And for wisdom when I need to make a tough decision. Because I have to trust in it's benevolence in order to keep moving forward in life.

Do those who conceptualise there all have their own HP or the same?

I assume everyone has their own ideas about what that "higher power" is, but that they are all somewhat similar. Some have simply accepted what others have told them it is, because they can't or don't want to work it our for themselves, I suppose. But even their decision to accept what they're told is still their own decision.

I am not a follower, and never have been. So I've chosen to develop this "higher power" concept for myself. Though I have adopted ideas about it from others, of course.

 

[Hawkins]

Do you think that energy is eternal? I do, along with time and space, though I make no claims to that effect. It just makes sense to my tiny mind

That's rather a human concept. According to Einstein, time is never a stable physics quantity, but speed is. More of problem is, humans don't actually know what time and space are. We gained the conception from the 3D environment we are living in, which as proven by science, doesn't apply universally. That's why the statement "speed is stable but not time/space" is just a 'formula' on paper without a human conception.

 

[Town Heretic]

I am encouraged by better minds than mine that say "if you think you understand quantum physics then you don't.".

Bought a Dodge Fermion last year. It had dents, but the price was good and you expect those things to have been leaped on.

Took it to a quantum mechanic for a service check. He found a dead cat in it. Got the bill yesterday but I don't know if I should open it.

 

[quip]

Bought a Dodge Fermion last year. It had dents, but the price was good and you expect those things to have been leaped on.

Took it to a quantum mechanic for a service check. He found a dead cat in it. Got the bill yesterday but I don't know if I should open it.

Wait three days.....

(Was Schrodinger a religious man?)

 

[noguru]

Bought a Dodge Fermion last year. It had dents, but the price was good and you expect those things to have been leaped on.

Took it to a quantum mechanic for a service check. He found a dead cat in it. Got the bill yesterday but I don't know if I should open it.

If you don't open the bill you will not owe anything on it. :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

Bought a Dodge Fermion last year. It had dents, but the price was good and you expect those things to have been leaped on.

Took it to a quantum mechanic for a service check. He found a dead cat in it. Got the bill yesterday but I don't know if I should open it.

Yes but if the condition of the cat had remained un-observed it would have been both alive and dead at the same time apparently, ...I'm really getting the hang of quantum physics now.

 

[Town Heretic]

Wait three days.....

(Was Schrodinger a religious man?)

I believe so. :angel:

If you don't open the bill you will not owe anything on it. :chuckle:

All I know for sure is that he can't sue me until I do.

Yes but if the condition of the cat had remained un-observed it would have been both alive and dead at the same time apparently, ...I'm really getting the hang of quantum physics now.

I thought about suing him for deciding the point, but it wasn't my cat.

 

[alwight]

Yet it's difficult to argue with the fact that there is the place where you are, and there is your conception of the place where you are. And the latter is far, far more "real" and useful to you than the former. The latter affords you all sorts of possibilities that the former cannot because the latter is not encumbered by time, space, and matter. You can imagine it in all sorts of ways in which it currently, physically, does not exist. Physical reality is only what it is. While conceptual reality includes what it could be, and even what it couldn't. Conceptual reality is certainly born of physical reality, and yet transcends it.
The "higher power" is that which explains what I cannot explain. That which understands what I cannot understand. That which knows what I don't/can't know. That which controls what I cannot control. The "higher power" is the inexplicable 'first cause': the creator, sustainer, and purpose of all that exists. It's to this "higher power" that I turn when I feel grateful to be alive. Or when I feel confused and frightened by the circumstances of my existence. Or when I need to feel that someone is listening, and that someone cares, when there's no one else around to listen or to care. It's to this "higher power" that I appeal for courage when I am afraid. And for wisdom when I need to make a tough decision. Because I have to trust in it's benevolence in order to keep moving forward in life.
I assume everyone has their own ideas about what that "higher power" is, but that they are all somewhat similar. Some have simply accepted what others have told them it is, because they can't or don't want to work it our for themselves, I suppose. But even their decision to accept what they're told is still their own decision.

I am not a follower, and never have been. So I've chosen to develop this "higher power" concept for myself. Though I have adopted ideas about it from others, of course.

Thanks PX, I too would like to believe in a higher power of some kind but personally I really can't convince myself that any real such entity is likely or has any particular concerns and regard for our wellbeing, and perhaps isn't even aware that we exist in this firework of a universe that was ignited.
I could be completely wrong of course but that's how it seems to me.
Maybe however I should simply not try to rain on other people's parades since spiritual beliefs seem very important to some?
But to answer the OP of this thread I don't hope that a higher power doesn't exist, I simply hope I can face whatever is real, not an imaginary one as well.

 

[PureX]

Thanks PX, I too would like to believe in a higher power of some kind but personally I really can't convince myself that any real such entity is likely or has any particular concerns and regard for our wellbeing, and perhaps isn't even aware that we exist in this firework of a universe that was ignited.

What makes you think you have to convince yourself? I am not 'convinced'. I just choose to live according to my need and understanding of that which exceeds me. And barring any reasonable evidence to the contrary, I believe this is logical and reasonable to do. If you note my description, the "higher power" is simply that which fulfills and exceeds me. So it's to that which I turn when my own power is not enough.

I learned this in AA. There were a lot of folks there who didn't believe in any gods. Yet one of the 12 steps requires that the alcoholic "turn himself over" to his "higher power". And it was explained that the higher power didn't have to be a religious "god", necessarily, it just had to be a power greater than themselves. For example, an alcoholic that can stay sober has a 'power' that an alcoholic that can't, lacks. So "turning one's self over" to that 'higher power' simply meant asking the sober alcoholic how they do it, and then following their directions. Perfectly sensible.

In time I developed a conception of this "higher power" that embodied other aspects of my own limitations. Like the limits of my knowledge, the limits of my wisdom, and of my patience, and my forgiveness, and my self-sufficiency, and my courage, and so on. So it's to the embodiment of those "higher powers" that I turn when I find myself lacking. I call the embodiment of those powers, "God", simply because that's the traditional word for it in my language, and I have no animus against that word (as some people do). I even allow myself to conceive of this embodiment of the 'higher powers" as a being, sometimes, simply because it's conceptually easier and more convenient for me to do that. But it's not a requirement. And I often do not conceive of "God" as a 'being'.

I could be completely wrong of course but that's how it seems to me.
Maybe however I should simply not try to rain on other people's parades since spiritual beliefs seem very important to some?
But to answer the OP of this thread I don't hope that a higher power doesn't exist, I simply hope I can face whatever is real, not an imaginary one as well.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to point out the reality behind the religious mythologies and dogmas. And how they work for people. The human imagination is by far our greatest and most powerful tool. We would be fools not to use it to our best advantage simply because it transcends the limitations of physical reality. In fact, it's that very transcendence that, to my mind, makes it all the more "real", in that it is the engine that powers our whole concept of reality. What we call "reality" is an IMAGINED reality, created in our minds, based on our experience of actual reality.

Imagination is the heart and soul of our human experience and understanding. Yes, it needs to be tested against physical reality to keep it from running away with itself. But without it, we wouldn't really even be human, anymore. We'd just be some sort of biological automaton, living by instinct and blind habit.

This is why when atheists dismiss "God" as being 'imaginary', I think they're being very, very naive. Because everything we conceive of we human conceive of through our imagination. Imagination is how our minds function.

 

[Hedshaker]

That's rather a human concept. According to Einstein, time is never a stable physics quantity, but speed is. More of problem is, humans don't actually know what time and space are. We gained the conception from the 3D environment we are living in, which as proven by science, doesn't apply universally. That's why the statement "speed is stable but not time/space" is just a 'formula' on paper without a human conception.

All we have are human concepts, including the creator-god concept.

 

[noguru]

All we have are human concepts, including the creator-god concept.

Agreed. We handle the world with gloves, those gloves are that interface between our perception and the objective reality out there. Some people's gloves are very thick and lack various levels of sensitivity to what is really out there. The thickness of those gloves for each individual seems to be influenced, to a great degree, by certain chosen belief systems.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

atheist hope there is no God. A - theist must believe also believe that they themselves are god seeing there is no God that can exist who is above and higher than themselves or what they can see. How do you know that what you see isn't flawed or an accurate interpretation of reality in which we see?