• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Belief in god or not?

For neuroscience there's a bit of evidence about how our brains produce the 'god' effect - there's the 'god-helmet' that is being touted as the explanation ofr people having ineffable experiences they call the presence of god.

Unfortunately there is no current explanation for just why a brain might actually HAVE such a function or reaction - one would think pausing for a quick ineffable while running from the sabretooth would tend to limit one's breeding opportunities. :D

The god helmet by Dr. Michael Persinger Lol! I love all of his work. He studies much more than that and has been doing bizarre studies ever since the 1980's.

And there are many more areas of the brain that don't favor the god position. The orbitofrontal cortex, for instance, deals with moral decision making. Areas like the neocortex are believed to deal with the deeper spatial reasoning like how some come to the conclusion on how the universe came to be.
 
I look at the brain more as the switching gear - like a phone exchange. I think the mind is like the conversations going on across those physical links. And of course then you have the people doing the conversing who are the 'I' presence for whom it all runs.

Just like the brain, most of the time when you pick up your phone to talk to me, the same equipment responds - also like the brain, on occasion it might be necessary to switch to an alternate circuit to route the conversation.

But the issue I have is looking at MRI's and similar real-time operations of the brain. They tend to point to a location and say things like, "this is where the taste of ice cream is stored and it links to over there where we store cold." The problem is, those same areas light up for (say) the taste of thickened cream and walking in the snow.

It seems to me that when they talk about where memories are, they are pointing at the switching gear that accesses those memories, NOT where the memories are stored. I think the memories are encoded in the hologram that is the mind field - which is why amnesia can happen and also why it can go away...

For amnesia, the shape of the field is altered, so the memory vanishes. It can sometimes return because a hologram tends to have all the information encoded in each part, so if the entire area is not wiped clean, the info can get rebuilt, like a RAID hard drive can be rebuilt from the ones that didn't fail.

You're my favorite person on here so far. That was an impressively well thought out response to my recent post and I am glad you took the time to write it : )

What about the deeper scans; the neuroimaging that is so tightly processed where I can poke a person with a pin in the laboratory and see regions of the brain spike as the pin barely begins to graze them? We can ask questions and see which regions of the brain light up seconds before they even respond. I hate to take the mechanical perspective here, but I really do view the brain like a machine.
 
In regards to the thread´s subject I would yes, of course I do..the problems are with the religious, not with God ime
 
So how do you perceive the universe; was it created by a god, a big bang, or something else? Now that religion is on the decline, I am wondering how peoples views have changed. So tell me your story!

Be easy :)

I don't know.

I don't believe a God created it.. not like one found in ANY religion.

I like the idea of Lee Smolins cosmological natural selection..

According to CNS, black holes may be mechanisms of universe reproduction within the multiverse, an extended cosmological environment in which universes grow, die, and reproduce. Rather than a ‘dead’ singularity at the center of black holes, a point where relativity theory breaks down and spacetime and matter-energy become unmodeled, what occurs in Smolin’s theory is a 'bounce' that produces a new universe with parameters stochastically different from the parent universe. Smolin theorizes that these descendant universes will be likely to have similar fundamental physical parameters to the parent universe (such as the fine structure constant, the proton to electron mass ratio and others) but that these parameters, and perhaps the laws that derive from them, may be slightly altered in some stochastic fashion during the replication process. Each universe therefore potentially gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

Annd I like the idea of a programmer (or programmers).. either from an alien species or.. well.. the original us..

In its current form, the Simulation Argument began in 2003 with the publication of a paper by Nick Bostrom.[1] Bostrom considers that the argument goes beyond skepticism, claiming that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", one of the disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly living in a simulation.[2] Bostrom and other writers postulate there are empirical reasons why the 'Simulation Hypothesis' might be valid.[1][3] Bostrom's trilemma is formulated in temporal logic as follows:[4]
"A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:
The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

Annnd the Russian Doll theory

Wissam Shekhani had an advanced overview of the Universe definition and content; he was impressed by the "SCALE" of the Micro World and Macro World and claimed that the Universe we live in (which has the same definition mentioned in the above first text) has two Scales: 1st "an infinite small portion of a bigger Mother Universe containing our Universe and infinite number of other Universes" and 2nd"a huge Mother Universe composed of infinite smaller Universes".

I don't like string theory, m theory or whatever they're calling it these days..
 
General Systems Theory (or at least Paul LaViolette's explanation of it) suggests it is non-expanding and perhaps infinite - we only see the part of it where light has had time to reach us, or maybe where it hasn't reddened so far by travelling through gravity wells that we can't register it.

Do you not see the massive flaw here? If the universe is infinite, the sky at night would be white.. light would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us, and there would be infinite amount of stars.. the night sky would be white with star light.
 
The Big Bang is essentially a scientific creation story. No proof of it what so ever, a myth, a fantasy upon which the entire enterprise of modern science rests. Don't forget it was a Catholic priest who helped come up with the idea.. fucking Catholic church trying to imprison peoples minds with this beginning/end bullshit instead of conceding to infinity.

I don't follow any religion and I'm interested greatly by science, psychology, and philosophy. The idea which resonates with me the most is the non-dual philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.. which basically means that at the deepest root of everything there is "primordial, natural awareness without subject or object". That awareness is "God". And it is available to any human being who dares to turn his (mental) head in that direction and see who they really are.

Where does a dream begin and end? I have my own ideas about how matter forms (centre of galaxies/electricity) but the actual space that matter occupies I believe is infinite and has always existed (and not existed).. it's all a kind of mirage, hologram, dream. I don't really like using the word "universe" because it seems to imply a boundary condition to me.

Red shift? Gravitational waves? Cosmic radiation background? The amounts of each type of element? Much more lighter ones, much less heavier ones?

The priest didn't help come up with the idea, he promoted it because he thought it fit well with Genesis.

As I just said to Journeyman.. if the universe was infinitely large and has always existed (infinite) our night sky would be white with stars.. every star in this infinitely large universe would have had infinite time to reach us.
 
Do you not see the massive flaw here? If the universe is infinite, the sky at night would be white.. light would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us, and there would be infinite amount of stars.. the night sky would be white with star light.
Not necessarily. We're just beginning to open our eyes after a long nap due to DE,DM and I. With DSSU Theory and with GST, there is an effect on light. Add in infinite distance with infinite dust and gas, and it is very possible for there to be a distance from which we get no light.
 
I believe in God... One reason is because i have realized that there is a positive side and a negative side to everything. Everything has a balance. For example, you can go out and party and drink all night and have the best night of your life but have to deal with the hangover the next day. You can work long hours and have little time to relax but you make a lot of money or you can work short hours and have a lot of time to relax but make very little money...

Its like that with everything if you think about it... Everything is balanced... Is that just a coincidence??? I personally do not believe so.

I believe that everything has a scientific explanation for it. Even the supernatural... Does that mean God does not exist??? No... Maybe God is just too complex to be explained by science... Or maybe God is science itself... along with nature and reality... which is why God cannot be detected through science and also why we cannot see him in the physical reality.
 
As I just said to Journeyman.. if the universe was infinitely large and has always existed (infinite) our night sky would be white with stars.. every star in this infinitely large universe would have had infinite time to reach us.

That doesn't make any sense, for a number of reasons.
We can't see all the stars in the universe. We can't even see beyond our galaxy.
The most distant star observable with the naked eye is only a couple of thousand light years away.
Also, stars die. They are only visible for their lifetime, regardless of whether or not they're visible during their lifetime.
For the sky to be white, there would need to be an infinite number of stars within a radius of less than a couple of thousand light years around Earth all overlapping at one point in time.
 
even if you don't believe in God spell it capital out of respect, son.

i believe in God.
 
Please stop using abbreviations I have no idea what you're talking about
DE - Dark energy
DM - Dark matter
DSSU - Dynamic Steady State Universe theory
GSt - General Systems Theory

My apologies. Normally I am better at making sure the references are in the text. But I'd have thought in the context at least DE and DM would have been clear.
 
even if you don't believe in God spell it capital out of respect, son.

i believe in God.
I normally do use the capital, but why should someone 'respect' something they do not believe in? I do it to denote the Christian version instead of one from some other belief, but seriously, respect of something a person doesn't believe?

And if you mean in respect for Christians, then why don't Christians use the lower case out of respect for those who don't believe? I'm pretty sure God doesn't care...

There's even precedence for it - we're told we have to say 'Happy Holidays' now instead of Merry Christmas, so clearly Christians CAN be accommodating. :D
 
That doesn't make any sense, for a number of reasons.
We can't see all the stars in the universe. We can't even see beyond our galaxy.
The most distant star observable with the naked eye is only a couple of thousand light years away.
Also, stars die. They are only visible for their lifetime, regardless of whether or not they're visible during their lifetime.
For the sky to be white, there would need to be an infinite number of stars within a radius of less than a couple of thousand light years around Earth all overlapping at one point in time.
The concept does make sense, even if it is limited. The idea is that in an infinite Universe every arc-second would be filled with stars at distances out to infinity and with infinite time, those stars' photons would all reach us.

It leaves out, apart from my response to rickolsnice, the idea that stars and even galaxies have lifetimes - unless he is proposing that they last forever - to which I am amenable. :D I've spent 40+ years learning to unlearn some of the basics so dismantling a few more things isn't all that big a step - mind you I'd want more than an attempted disproof to do so.

It is interesting that as far as we can see with any of the telescopes, we do NOT see primordial galaxies, we see ones that look pretty much like what we see around us. That would imply there is no 'age' to the universe, because otherwise, right out at the rim of what we can see we SHOULD be seeing hydrogen star galaxies and perhaps much smaller ones if we adhere to the Big Bang idea of how things develop.

That's part of the reason I think things like the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background :D) are not necessarily evidence for the Big Bang.

So Origin is still, to me, unknown. I do not believe in God but then I make serious efforts to not believe in anything. I want evidence and i want to KNOW. Deciding what I know based on my preferences or wishes is not knowledge to me.
 
The concept does make sense, even if it is limited. The idea is that in an infinite Universe every arc-second would be filled with stars at distances out to infinity and with infinite time, those stars' photons would all reach us.

If the universe was filled with infinite stars there would be no space to traverse.
But then you're going to say there is infinite space in this infinite universe. If so, then why do we see anything? Light would have aninfinite amount of space to travel to get to us.
And where exactly does 2nd law of thermo fit in to this universe? Or is it an illusion?
 
Last edited:
Top