Well, since the universe is all space, you can’t go beyond it in the way you’re saying. The reachable universe is finite, so if the supernatural is beyond the reachable universe, we will never know anything about it.
First, what’s unexplained? Second, if we explain something, do you consider we have made the supernatural natural, or just that we haven’t really explained it? And if the latter, what would you consider an explanation of anything?
Is whether P = NP supernatural? Just joking - at least you offer a definition. I don’t think I agree, but at least your’s is understandable.
So where in your brain are those words contained then? If I dissect you can I extract those words? How small are they?
And while we’re at it, what would you be thinking about if you were NOTHING BUT a brain, since of course only your brain is your mind, and the rest of the nervous system has nothing to do with it.
Well, if my Rabbi agreed with your conception, he had the good sense never to tell us. There is a prayer that says god has no form, which is certainly reasonable.
I’m not denying the Qabbalah says what you say it does - just that it is mainstream.
A god with multiple faces is far different from what you have been describing. In the Gita Krishna certainly has a form, though it is not his true form. He also has a will and a separate consciousness. I’m not a Hindu by any means, but I have seen no evidence in my reading that your conception is mainstream Hinduism either.
I might be off in the number of nines either way, but I still say your view is that of a tiny minority.
Umm, mainstream Christianity and Judaism certainly does not pretend that humans would ever be able to describe god. I’ve never claimed that any god worthy of mention would be describable. In fact, I’m not sure anything that is truly supernatural would be describable. What is describable, which is the point of the analogy, is the projection of the supernatural onto the real world. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from you if your god can impact the real world, and I’ve never gotten an answer about how the world with god would be different from one without a god. So, this doesn’t impress me much.
I’m heartbroken.
So mystery schools teach Agatha Christie. Gottya.
Actually, I understand the difference between set piece mysteries, scientific mysteries (which are kind of similar) and mysteries dealing with the fundamental meaning of life, the universe, and everything. While the first two get solved, over 2,000 years of exploring the third has not gotten us very far, but that is just my jaded, scientific view. It makes me thing that there are no answers to these mysteries, which does not mean considering them is of no value.
If people use the term supernatural as an excuse not to study something, I agree it is a misnomer. If you think the set natural is equivalent to the set supernatural, then I ask you what do you think science and the study of the natural cannot understand?
You could probably receive radio waves from the Andromeda Galaxy for a fairly modest amount. Or you could study it using a pair of Mark I eyeballs. Bouncing would take several million years, even if it were technologically feasible.
They have forms but they are all manifestations of the one God. I am perfectly willing to believe that Shiva lives on a mountaintop in the Himalayas, but explaining why to you would be futile.
Except that you support it in this next paragraph.
Yes, God can impact the real world, and does so constantly, God’s impact is called “Physics”. A world without God would be different in that it wouldn’t exist.
[quote}
I’m heartbroken. [/quote]
It would certainly seem so.
Does this tactic work for you often?
Science is a Mystery School. I know claiming that it’s not makes it specialler for you, but it is.
I don’t think science and the study of the natural cannot understand anything. It’s a matter of what we understand now and what has coalesced. Right now there are probably two scientists who have the answers to each other’s lifes quest, but do not know each other, and could possibly die not having known each other, only for someone a couple generations from now to read the work of both and put it together for them. As I have said many times before mysticism and science are not at odds, it is you who believes that, not I.
They are recorded in the pattern of the brain’s neural connections of course, so they are quite small. If we could locate the right spot, it might very well be possible to remove them, but we have no way to find a specific word without some sort of “brain index”.
Without any input I’d go crazy of course.
Why futile ? Because you can’t, or because it would make you look silly ?
Physics is not a “god”; it’s just physics. The universe exists just fine without a god.
Not, it’s not; the whole point of science it to dispel mystery.
No matter how often you say that, science and mysticism will remain opposites.
So what you are saying is that they are encoded, like software?
I see, so input is an integral part of perception then?
If there is anything I should have been able to prove by now it’s that I am not worried about looking silly. I can’t explain it because there are whole layers of other things I would need to explain first, and Voyager has not shown and openness to those other things to get to that point just yet.
Physics is the “Effect” God is the “Cause”. I disagree that you have ever known a universe without a God.
Now that is mainstream, as I understand it. And not unique, since the Catholics have the trinity. It is certainly reasonable that an ineffable god would show different faces to different people, even as Alanis at times.
Physics, as we know it, gives the same answer independent of time and location. Does God, as you see it, constrained to give the same answers that Physics does? The traditional god has the option of violating the laws of physics, which is where the supernatural comes in. If you define the universe as equivalent to god, that is at least a definition, if not a standard one. Krishna is god, but is Arjuna?
If a mystery school is a place where you solve mysteries, so it is - and thus my joke about Agatha Christie. But I think you are not giving mysteries full credit. If you look at the mysteries the Greeks studies, you’ll find that science has indeed solved many of them. But there are deeper philosophical mysteries, the whys, that science can’t address. How boring if the purpose of existence was considered as a problem of the same level as computing the orbit of Saturn.
No argument about putting things together being important - I’m in the process of writing a paper that does just that. If mysticism is the study of mysteries as you descibe them above, not only are science and mysticism not at odds, they are equivalent. But I’ve never even said they’re at odds - I’ve even described how to look at things I thought you thought were mystical in a scientific way. My whole point in this thread is that you can even look at the supernatural in a scientific way.
But I’m not sure I’ve caught up to your latest god definition, or if it is even coherent. The crucial question is whether there are consciousnesses outside of god. I’m guessing you think not, while most religions think yes.
If I understand you correctly, people have invented the concept of the supernatural to explain perceptions, caused by altered states of conciousness, which are not explicable physically, yet which they are convinced are real. Is that close? Alien abductions of the Mack type are explained in a similar way - not drugs, just a sleep state.
When I am very tired (40 minutes into a meeting right after lunch) I have all sorts of interesting thoughts and hallucinations, which one day I’m going to say something in response to and get into a lot of trouble.
Seriously, I think you have a very interesting explanation. I like it.
Somewhat more firmly, which is why the brain is sometimes referred to as “wetware”.
No, it’s an integral part of mental stability.
As I’ve said before, prove it.
Assuming that’s true, it doesn’t matter because the crucial difference between them and science is that science works.
Science is based on facts, mysticism isn’t. Science regards assumptions as a flaw in a theory; mysticism thrives on faith. Science works, mysticism fails. Science tries to discaover the truth, mysticism makes up fantasies and demands belief. Offhand, outside of the fact that both are practiced by humans, I see no way in which they are not opposites.
Actually I don’t claim, and don’t wish to be, a total skeptic. I prefer to work on evidence, but barring strong falsification of a hypothesis, keep it open, but on a far back burner, waiting for more evidence. I don’t reject the possibility of the supernatural out of hand (my definition, which seems not to be others) though not seeing any evidence I assign it a very, very low probability. I order hypotheses on the basis of evidence for them. I don’t know if you consider that skepticism or not. I read the Skeptical Inquirer since it is a good antidote to the unthinking acceptance of claims of evidence for the supernatural. Most real science ignores these claims, since they have not built a level of evidence yet to be interesting. Yet, to combat a culture that thinks that things shown in supernatural TV shows really happen, it is good to have people study this, though it usually advances science not a whit.
Well, you’re right of course. I was taking my example from the classic “Flatland” which I hope you have read. It’s an imaginary universe, quite impossible, designed to illustrate a point, and not an attempt to theorize about anything.
But you do have an interesting point. Just as the 2d plane exists within a 3d universe in my example, if there were the supernatural the natural world would exist as a subset of it. You and Daniel think it is a proper subset, which might be true.
And do read Flatland if you haven’t. It is quite a treat. The author is E A Abbott.
See from the above statement I would say that you are a true skeptic. A true skeptic waits for falsification of a hypothesis before considering the matter closed. They don’t assume ANYTHING.
Never have, I’ll keep my eyes open for it.
Yes, I think it’s a proper subset. That is also how I feel about other consciousnesses and God. Certainly God is an individual entity, in a way seperate, but the seperation is PURELY perceptual, and it’s important to understand that. It’s useful to perceive a seperation, but it’s important to know that the seperation is only a cognitive tool, and not an actual reflection of reality.
I would go so far as to say all existance is contained in a single point, and that every point is that point. This is why it’s important to perceive seperation where there is none, for without it there would be no form. Think of the word “Computer” as the point, within that point is contained all of the things we associate with a computer. Remember though, I am only talking about the WORD computer, not the THING computer. The word computer encompasses ALL computers ever made. The WORD computer is the God of computers, from which all other computers are derived, for without it there would be no computers. It’s important to realize that all conceptions of God that I can draw for you are subject to context, and no matter how elegant, are crude representations. Kind of like how the Mona Lisa in all it’s exquisite glory does not come close to matching the form of an actual human being.
So God is the point, but even conceiving of a point is DEFINING God, putting a limit, the WORD point has multiple letters, and each of those letters is in and of itself a concept, so we cannot limit God by such a concept as P O I N T, point, because God is so much greater than that, it is ALL concepts together as one, aware of itself.
So I am a materialist and a Spiritualist in that they are reflections of one another, and what is true for one is true in the inverse in the other. Just like you can set out to reach the edge of the universe and never get there no matter how long you travelled, you can set out to delve into the smallest point that contains everything, and never get there either. So I cannot define God for you. It’s useless even to try, but hopefully I can help you “Perceive” God.
I think the distinction between what I believe and an atheist is that I believe the Earth, the Sun, and the Universe are intelligent, and self-aware.
So I wouldn’t say the Supernatural exists OUTSIDE the universe, in the way a Superstructure of a building or a ship doesn’t exist OUTSIDE the construct.
Hopefully this post explained something to you about what I mean by the word “God”.
Let me start by saying this is the clearest explanation of your belief system yet, and is very helpful, so thanks. That I may disagree doesn’t alter the fact that I’m not shooting in the dark anymore.
perhaps we are compartmentalized pieces of god’s consciousness, but I think it is more than just perceptual or cognitive. We do not directly share others’ thoughts, so something more seems to be going on.
Here’s where I disagree, in part. The WORD computer is just a tag put on actual computers, and not the source of computers at all. Under the tag computer are tags describing kinds of computers, from Bush’s (Vannevar, not George ) analog computer to my old friend the LGP-21 to the laptop I’m typing on now to the thin client I use at work. For Feynman a computer was a lady who spent all day at Los Alamos on a mechanical calculator doing bomb calculations. The Difference Engine was a computer before the term was invented. So even if we called them smurfs, the things would still exist, with another tag on them.
Now the rest I agree with. The tag god refers to a lot of different conceptions of god, most of which even believers would agree do not exist. Each person assigns a tag true or false to each, and the atheist just assigns the tag false to all the ones he’s come across. (The ones he has not don’t get a tag - but we suspect that they all get the false tag.)
While I agree that the Mona Lisa does not match a person, the tag Mona Lisa, or looking at pictures of it, does not match looking at the actual Mona Lisa in the Louvre.
Under the tag god is the tag mswas’s God. The process of defining that god is hanging some tags on it - limitless, for instance. I agree that we cannot hang enough tags on it to fully describe it, but we can hardly do that for anything. But I suspect that the tag “Tom’s God” has some different tags on it from yours. I can hang the tag “believe to be false” on both, but I can’t hang the tag “know to be false” on them, which I can on the fundamentalist god. And the tags I hang on my version of mswas’s god are different, no doubt, from yours.
See above for what I mean by define god. And I agree that we can spend a lifetime understanding even the most trivial thing fully. Feynman’s achievement was in asking why a beam of light is straight. I vaguely understand the answer.
If the universe is all there is, then the supernatural does not exist outside of it, and the natural universe is a subset of the full universe. If the natural universe is the entire universe, then the supernatural is the null set. To be clear, this is what I’m betting on, due to lack of evidence, but I haven’t seen a proof except the definition of them as equivalent.
