Either there is a God, or there isn't.

[Birdjaguar]

I agree, except that I would distinguish between this unifying substance (and the Intelligence that created it) as "Soul," and our personalized experience of it as "soul."

I would say that "this unifying substance" (Soul) is the fabric of existence, permanent and unchanging; self sustaining; without creator. The little "souls" of creation are in truth one and the same, but blinded by the limits of consciousness to Truth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So the Universe has 1 soul and we're all connected through that?

Sounds like an extended version of Gaia theory.

Let me try again. From a science perspective I would say that the bottom of whatever quantum physics is the top of, signs will point to something most fundamental and the source of the big bang or whatever launched the universe. All of the diversity and differentiation of the physical universe is merely a subset of this primal force, energy, stuff which always permanent and unchanging. The big bang was merely the illusion of change. For example, if we were to meet and have a conversation at a coffee shop, we would see all kinds of things and people around us and we, and they, would be doing very different things that we notice with our senses and process with our brains to make it all sensible.

Now because we are going to discuss god, I suggest that you try on my special quantum mask. When you put it on, it changes what you are able to “see” and “process” with your brain. With the mask on, you are only “aware of” the 12 fermions (quarks & leptons) and the 5 basic forces. Everything around you (including you) appears as the fermions that make it up. I’m not really sure exactly what that would be like, but it is probably pretty different from our everyday view of things.

I do not wear a mask. We are each experiencing the same thing (being in a coffee shop), but how we perceive it is totally different. Now pretend that the fermions and forces were actually a single uniform substance that never changes (red jello?). You would experience everything as a unity, while I experience the same unity as myriad objects and actions. Consciousness (awareness, mask or no mask) determines the experience, but in reality, the basic stuff never changes. I talk to the waitress and order another café au lait. For you there is no waitress, no coffee, no conversation, no coffee shop and no you or me. Just red jello, without end. Your experience of existence is Real (because you can see the universe in its permanent unchanging state; mine is “filtered” by limited consciousness and only allows me to experience what my consciousness lets through. While my experience seems real to me, it is not a true picture of Reality.

So answer your questions, we are all connected all the time, but are not aware of it. We are all one. Is that the Gaia theory?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I define the "soul" as that which is most fundamental to and present in all physical existence. The soul unifies all things.

Birdjaguar, this definition is extremely nebulous and completely inadequate for any credible debate. Taking this definition I would assume 1) that all things, including non living entities and inanimate objects have a soul, and 2) that everything has the same soul connecting everything together. Hence there is only one soul which for some reason seems to choose to wander the planet in 6 billion different bodies (and an uncountable number of rocks and other inanimate objects to go by this definition).

I somehow doubt this is what you, or for that matter anyone else considers a soul to be. Any chance of a more refined and meaningful definition?

Keep in mind what I said in the post above. I will add a little theology here. The “red jello” is the Soul or, if you will, Oversoul. I did not characterize the red jello or Oversoul in my previous posts other than to say it is permanent and unchanging and most fundamental to all creation. I did not say it was pretty, had wings, is smart, looks wispy, and worshipped god. I did not say it was all powerful, all knowing, forgiving or moved in mysterious ways. They are all characteristics of things in the physical universe. How you or I might characterize an eternal, infinite, unchanging existence is mostly cultural window dressing that makes it easier for us to grasp the concept.

OK so what? Postulating such a thing doesn’t add much to our understanding of the world or help us stop killing one another. How might this be connected to anything useful or interesting without becoming a love fest for dervishes?

Through the moment of creation (big bang?) separateness manifested itself from the smallest of small “things” and in a mere 14 billion years we have lots of big things whirling around a lot of not so empty space. Keep in mind that all the big things and creatures are all made up of the most tiny. Twelve particles and 5 forces make up everything we see and touch. And at the same time it is all red jello which cannot be perceived because of the limitations of a consciousness based on the illusion of separateness. Whew!

My definition: Awareness or consciousness: the ability of something to detect and respond to change.

Everything in the physical universe has some level of awareness, from quarks and leptons to people. Atoms respond to other atoms at an atomic level, just like molecules. Bacteria are aware of both internal and external changes around them. They cannot do much, but they can and do respond. The atoms and molecules of rocks respond to chemicals and will change. The “awareness” of inanimate things is severely limited, but it is there. Anyone out there who understands chemistry can probably describe what kinds of forces and chemical atoms respond to better than me. The response of a carbon atom, when it finds and open bond on another carbon atom, is pretty quick and decisive. In its very primitive way, is it less aware of what is important to it than an OT poster who checks out the babe thread? Or a zebra that smells a lion around the water hole? Not everything detects all change, but everything detects appropriate change.

The evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness from the most primitive and tiny to where we are today. Human consciousness is really just an organized collection of many smaller, less complex consciousnesses: atoms, molecules, cells, bacteria, where the whole seems greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[CurtSibling]

There is no other way out (strangely enough). Both possibilities are frightening. If there is a God then we'd better find out who he is and what he wants!

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Which side do you take?

I believe there is a God, because whichever way you believe, it is by purely faith. There is no imperical evidence to support the (non)existence of a God. Frankly, I would rather believe that we were created by a loving God who has a purpose for us than to believe we came from a rock and are getting better progressivly. In effect, evolution teaches us that we are Gods. We are slowly becoming more and more like perfect Gods through a slow process.

What is your take? If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong? The government?

No personal attacks please.

I think you have to expand your view from these mere black or white choices.

To think in terms of just 'good/bad' or 'god/athiesm' is a bit bland.

.

 

[Kilroy]

@Perfection & Warpus:
I hypothesize that in the end experiments will “point to” a single unifying “substance” as the source of the physical universe. That uniformity is what I would call the soul.

Yeah, and maybe the universe is really just a revolving superfluid duder. Honestly, it's probably just that England's first game in the World Cup tonight was a total disappointment, or that I've had a bit to drink, but I'm tired of your posts Birdjaguar. Just say something, ANYTHING, that has some kind of thread of reality attached to it. Please. I mean, I for one tried to come in here and inject some kind of sensiblility into this little debate you've been having, and you flamed me. So, you know, just say something that has some merit and could concievably be argued against, instead of simply mouthing the same BS platitudes over and over again. You'll be doing everyone a favor especially yourself.

At the very least, explain how this mysterious "unifying substance" has anything to do, at all whatsoever, with a soul. Even just a little bit. Why is a person's stream of consciousness dependent upon the fundamental building blocks of matter, Birdjaguar? It's a comforting thought in an Aristotelian sort of way, but really anybody can merely post stuff that they think might be true, and by golly wouldn't it be great if it were, but at some point you have to fight that irresistable juggernaut known as empiricism, and what an unforgiving SOB he is.

Or maybe you don't think empiricism, and quaint things like observables are important, which could be a valid point on a case by case basis. But, you'll have to justify that for us first, which you haven't done. So, you know, get crackin' on that.

This post was harsh. I'm really sorry. I blame the Swedes, personally.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I mean, I for one tried to come in here and inject some kind of sensiblility into this little debate you've been having, and you flamed me.

If you are referring to post 272, C~G brought that to my attention and I edited my post to be less harsh. I am sorry to have offended you. I am thinking about the rest of your post. As far as your fear of being harsh towards me: I appreciate your honesty.

 

[civ2]

Hi, everybody!
I'm back after a long time.
On-topic:
I believe in One God and that's the most important thing for me.
I'm obviously too lazy to read through the entire topic but I still think that there is no such thing as half-belief.
You can't believe and not-believe at the same time.
You can be unsure about some or many details - that's logical and inevitable - but you can't say you believe half-way.
That's my opinion.

 

[Sidhe]

You should start a thread on your own personal theory of the universe Bird Jaguar, not that your philosophical musings aren't interesting, but I think their beyond the scope of the original question, also very personal imaginings which don't relate to any religion I know. There are four forces btw unless you mean to include the strongest force in the universe love Actually there are technically three since electro-magentism and weak have been proved to be the same force. I suspect all forces are one personally, with gravity being a side effect of matter. But that too is way OT

 

[Birdjaguar]

You should start a thread on your own personal theory of the universe Bird Jaguar, not that your philosophical musings aren't interesting, but I think their beyond the scope of the original question, also very personal imaginings which don't relate to any religion I know. There are four forces btw unless you mean to include the strongest force in the universe love Actually there are technically three since electro-magentism and weak have been proved to be the same force. I suspect all forces are one personally, with gravity being a side effect of matter. But that too is way OT

My count came from this: http://physics.bu.edu/cc104/gauge.bosons.html
I was counting bosons (5) and called them the four forces; since z & W are both weak. Hence the confusing language on my part.
On all the rest, between you and kilroy, your point is taken. I will cease.

 

[C~G]

Yeah, and maybe the universe is really just a revolving superfluid duder.

You believe into it too?

At the very least, explain how this mysterious "unifying substance" has anything to do, at all whatsoever, with a soul.

I guess he tries to explain that world is one big soul, a single observer that exists everywhere but only evident by through the means and the methods such as human brain. Or at least I suggest such translation.

Each of us, one small coal drawn away from the fire.

Why is a person's stream of consciousness dependent upon the fundamental building blocks of matter, Birdjaguar?

Of course, it has. You are build from those fundamental building blocks of matter, aren't you? And you have what we call "consciousness"?

It's a comforting thought in an Aristotelian sort of way, but really anybody can merely post stuff that they think might be true, and by golly wouldn't it be great if it were, but at some point you have to fight that irresistable juggernaut known as empiricism, and what an unforgiving SOB he is.

Empiricism is alway based into certain things. It has to do with nature of observer. It would be funny to start throwing out Aristotelian thoughts in this threads especially since it has lot to do how Christianity is based into certain principles of Aristotles, but it would probably lead into discussion far, far away about the subject of the thread.

Or maybe you don't think empiricism, and quaint things like observables are important, which could be a valid point on a case by case basis. But, you'll have to justify that for us first, which you haven't done. So, you know, get crackin' on that.

Sure Birdjaguar is throwing around some heavy blocks of thoughts but again you aren't really countering his points either.

My definition: Awareness or consciousness: the ability of something to detect and respond to change.

I agree.
There's one chance that people like those who's thoughts are very inclined with physical universe might understand the thought behind it all by saying the impossible.
That consciousness as we know it, doesn't exist.
It is only illusion created by ourselves.

Everything in the physical universe has some level of awareness, from quarks and leptons to people. Atoms respond to other atoms at an atomic level, just like molecules. Bacteria are aware of both internal and external changes around them. They cannot do much, but they can and do respond. The atoms and molecules of rocks respond to chemicals and will change. The “awareness” of inanimate things is severely limited, but it is there. Anyone out there who understands chemistry can probably describe what kinds of forces and chemical atoms respond to better than me. The response of a carbon atom, when it finds and open bond on another carbon atom, is pretty quick and decisive. In its very primitive way, is it less aware of what is important to it than an OT poster who checks out the babe thread? Or a zebra that smells a lion around the water hole? Not everything detects all change, but everything detects appropriate change.

I'm thinking in the same way.

The evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness from the most primitive and tiny to where we are today. Human consciousness is really just an organized collection of many smaller, less complex consciousnesses: atoms, molecules, cells, bacteria, where the whole seems greater than the sum of the parts.

This is where I disagree.
Personally I believe the evolution of consciousness of human happened in certain circumstances and conditions. The evolution happens in all levels, not just in the level of DNA neither in the level of small particles, but all in the other levels as well at the same time. "Consciousness" of humans or the illusion of it is just result of varying degree of evolution in the part that we call human brain.
IMO human consciousness is integral part of what we might call our identity. And I believe that it has to do with the things we relate to ourselves, creating identity, which again mentioned is the best way to adapt into enviroment. So when our enviroment changes, our identity changes and so does our consciousness.

But said this is slipping into OT. l apologize.