How does one know God without religion?

JDPhD,

As man is mythologically compelled, the worry is not the end of religion but the continued influence of a myth which is nolonger viable.God as human imagination,is capable of unlimited forms and even that which is unmanifest.Christianity serves up a very distinct image of what god is,one might even say idolatry.Whether god is considered source,the unmoved mover,or the unmanifest.To say religion depends on a human like image of god is silly.All one has to do is look to the east where the gods are more elemental,they are not the last word, but manifestations of that energy coming into the world which both instills and evokes the mystery of being.As to a postulate,it at sometime in its logic should aline itself with the science of its time,just as two thousand years ago the bible expressed the science of its time.


Well religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive,neither are they synonymous.:eek:

Yes, a union of Science and Religion is advisable and ultimately necessary but a science of mind at the level of Russell's.

JDPhD,

Russell's level,that would be Christian would it not? I have assumed up till now that is what has attracting so many Christians to this site,an opportunity to gather around a new prophet.Is this then the ambition of this site,to unite science with Russell's Christianity? Perhaps the title of this site is not quite appropriate,it should reflect its biblical mission,don't you think?

I'm a Deist and this is an argument I developed called the paradox of nothingness that explains why I think it likely there is a "God" (or what I prefer to call It the Prime Observer).

If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being. But is the world logical? I don't know. But I must assume it is because I can only think logically and it appears to behave logically and that is all the evidence I have to go on. And if it is that means it can be explained.

Assuming the world is logical it seems to me there are two and only two possibilities here; 1- the universe can explain itself because that reason for being is intrinsic to it. 2-the universe is contingent on something else that has a logical reason for being intrinsic to it.

Eternity is a fact I have no problem with but just pushing "causes" back in time (or even outside of time for that matter) one after another without end seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. It is in my opinion nothing more than a linear version of a circular argument. The system may go back forever but what explains the system itself? Why should it exist at all?

Now do I have any reason to believe the universe can explain itself? Well what is the universe? Science tells me it is an energy field that exists in a continuum, formed in the big bang, that curves in various places and in various degrees. The greater the curvature the greater the energy. Also energy, according to Einstein, is equivalent to matter. There is an argument that presents itself here. If the outward expansion of the universe exactly balances the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then the curvature of the universe as a whole would be zero. So matter then would also be equal to zero or nothing. That is the universe just popped into being like a virtual particle out of the void because of the inherent uncertainty arising from quantum physics.

This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

0/2=0.

The fallacy here, it seems to me, is that the argument equates zero meaning "nothing" with zero meaning "no difference". In other words it is ambiguous. I could put an ounce of gold in each pan of a balance scale and it would indicate zero meaning no difference but I would still have two ounces of gold.

Zero meaning nothing is not the same. You can not divide zero and get any answer other than zero. Half of nothing is still nothing. And since complexity seems to arise from simplicity not the other way around and this seems to be the simplest possible description of the universe (half the energy, gravity, is positive and attractive and goes this way- the other half, the force of the outward expansion, is negative and repulsive and goes the opposite way) I have no reason to assume there is any intrinsic reason for being to be found materially.

Besides even virtual particles seem to require an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus "real" and where did that come from? It appears for uncertainty to explain anything you must first have something to be uncertain about.

Now again asking, "How can something come from nothing?" may be the wrong question. For the time being we could rephrase it and ask why is there something instead of nothing? Or what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?

If the world is logical then it is subject to the rules of logic. Terms in a sentence are qualified by the copula using a form of the words "is" or "is not". By applying the words "is not" to the concept of being as a whole you will get the concept "no being" or "nothingness". And since it applies to the whole it is absolute by definition.

Now here is where the contradiction arises. Ideas are not concrete things but that does not mean they are not something. I can distinguish between a 9 which is an odd number and a square and an 8 which is an even number and not a square. They have different properties and are therefore things in their own right as concepts. But concepts seem to require a mind to exist. That is they are contingent on an observer.

The example I use are stones and coins. I can hold 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold in my hand? I can sense no other property they have in common other than they are physical but changing the quantity doesn't seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group. So the number itself is not intrinsic to either group. I can understand the number 9 but I can not point to anything in nature and say, "This is the number 9 by itself." I can only think about it.

Nothingness is likewise a concept. After all we are thinking about it now. But if it is a concept then nothingness is not nothing. That is a paradox and in logic paradoxes can not exist. For example what happens when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object? An inconceivable event of course. Paradoxes must be dismissed as inconceivable and nothingness is a paradox therefore I must conclude a "state of nothingness" can not exist. Just saying "non-existence exists" is absurd. The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a state of existence instead of non-existence.

Absolute nothingness is to my mind an impossibility. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No properties at all. Not even potential. That means it can not even be thought of as there would literally be nothing to think about (and no one to think it anyway). But, again, since we are thinking about it nothingness can not be absolute. Nothingness is the only thing we can think of in completely negative terms except for the fact it can be thought of.

Also in logic things must follow or you have a non-sequiter. In the syllogism itself it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. In life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits the evolution of species. And in pool it is the energy transmitted from the stick to the balls that allows the game to be played.

So, following from the definitions just established by logic itself, whatever that fundamental state is it must also be a concept as that is the only thing "being" and "nothingness" have in common. That is, to be clear, the concept of nothingness exists but is self-contradictory and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory. This is not an assertion anything came from absolute nothingness which I hope to have shown I have no reason to believe is possible. And because concepts must be observed by a mind that fundamental concept must be self-referential as there is nothing else to see it. That means it can say "I AM", which is the same self-referential foundation of the mind we all share, and thus hold Itself in existence. Therefore it is a self aware observer and since it is fundamental it is prime. Therefore it is the Prime Observer.

Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don't result in paradoxes and cancel out. Likewise the requirement It be completely logical also requires the "Prime Observer" to be completely neutral so as to avoid contradictions that would negate Its own existence. A perfect "God" that is both all knowing and all powerful could only create a world that is perfect because to do otherwise would be imperfect. Since the world is not perfect we may conclude that while the "Prime Observer" is prime it is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. That is It is just an observer. Nothing more.

In that case worlds may just be an epiphenomenon that arise spontaneously for no other reason than the properties they display don't cancel out so they can be observed. Explaining how a "God" (a word I try to avoid because it is too ambiguous) with no influence on the world could "cause" that same world.

Although for the reasons just stated I see no evidence the universe could explain itself after it forms it could easily evolve guided by nothing more than its own internal dynamics. So it would look and behave as though it were fundamentally material even if it isn't.

Does this match what I see in the world? Yes. Einstein showed that matter is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger then showed that energy can be manifested as a wave. Lastly Max Born showed that waves are just probability distributions which are mathematical in nature and mathematics is just the logical organization of numbers which are concepts.

Some materialists argue that numbers are just manifestations of processes in the brain we impose upon the world. But I have no reason to accept that either because it too is a circular argument. You can't just assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. If the universe and the things in it are basically concept then so is the brain. The brain is an organ made of tissue built of cells composed of organelles fashioned from molecules that are conglomerations of atoms which are accumulations of particles formed of energy...

Asserting God as a solution to a problem is called the argument from incredulity. The trouble with it is that answer does not follow from the problem to be solved. Ancient people couldn't explain life so God must have created it. I don't think I've done that here. Neither is it just a play on words like the ambiguous materialist definition of nothingness seems to be. The conclusion that there must be a "Prime Observer" follows directly from the premises derived from logic itself. It is not something I just threw in. In fact as I look back on it I don't see how I could come to any other reasonable conclusion.

You've heard the saying, 'East is East and West is West and never shall the TWAIN meet'. (On the basis of reality they haven't). Perhaps, now that we have the paradox of nothingness is time they come together.

I know sometimes I'm logical and sometimes I'm not and perhaps the same thing happens to the world.

A system exists by postulate alone and then you build an axiom matrix around it.

My adivse is don't mix Einstein with Quatum Physics, they've never really agreed.

The statement "half of nothing is still nothing" is correct but not, "you cannot divide zero and get any answer other than zero". The correct statement: "In arithmetic, if you divide zero by any number except zero you get zero". There's of course the question of infinity and transfinite numbers but it lies outside the field of aritmetic.

In general, the conradictions inherent in thinking have never really been resolved by thinking for thinking deals mainly with contradicitions. And remember on the question of paradoxes that Russell and Whitehead tried to build a logical system that would contain no paradoxes to explain the principles of arithmetic logical and Godel proved at least one of their system axiom contradictory.

So in bringing East and West together don't you think instead of the paradox of nothingness to use the certainty of zero. The arabs did it long ago with great success.

The intellect can take you so far and no further for as long as you continue thinking you'll be thinking basically in terms of contradictions.

Since time immemorial, we've had the system of concentration to deal with contradicitions. Now that Dr. Russell has revealed his System in the Home Study Course, we have the method of decentration, a method that has never been known or practiced before.

I tried to find 'the argument of incredulity' in different references but without any success. You mean G. E. Moore's 'open-question argument' (?): "whatever definition of God is given, it remains 'an open question' whether the definition refers to God or has the property of God.

Remember, from the start I said God is a postulate in religion (and not a definition for if it were you'd get into circular thinking e. g. "what came first the chicken or the egg?" .

Sat-Chit-Ananda[true being-true consiousness-true bliss]
The Study and Practice of Yoga - An In-depth Interpretation of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

Boagie, it's very difficult to define Christianity. The message of the Russell's was a scientific one and they expressed the importance of a marriage of science and religion. It's not the Russell's Christianity and if you had read any of Walter Russell's books, you'd understand that. This forum was inspired by the Russell's and the scientific knowledge of One source.

As far as Christianity is concerned, I've thought a lot about that due to Katherine being in here and her posts. I cannot define Christianity for you but I think that if one believes in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, that is the basis of Christianity... From there it jumps in a bunch of different directions.

Boagie, I think you'd really like the home study course and the fact that it doesn't push any religion. It's not about religion at all, none of this is. Religion was defined by man and separates man. One religion admonishes another for their beliefs when they are both part of the same whole.

Justin,

It is not difficult it would seem for most people to identify themselves as a Christian. I do not know where this difficulty you speak of then comes from.You are quite right I have never read anything by Russell,but the commonality of interest with the volume of Christians seeking him out here would seem to support my first impression.I really cannot pass judgement or evaluate Russell as I stated, I have never read anything by him.It is more than apparent that the number of Christians here makes this philosophy site of a different nature then most philosophy sites on the web.All I have ever said is the title should indicate its Christian leanings.:eek:

Thank you for telling me about Russell's work and the objective nature of his science,perhaps I will get around to reading him after all.

We should stay on topic. Thank you for responding and please do ask any question you'd like in the Russell forum. I actually believe you would connect very well with the Philosophy. I've yet to come across anyone who has explored the Russell's and has had something bad to say. It's all positive stuff.

So back to the topic, how does one know God without Religion?... The answer to this can be found in the Russell's works. Can I recommend to you reading an article? Here it is..... Light!

A good introduction to Russell is Glen Clark's book on him. The Man Who Tapped The Secrets Of The Universe. Just click on the tabs to read each chapter in the book. Quite interesting and short and gives you a taste of Walter Russell.

Hmmm... I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure dividing zero by any number always equals zero. Dividing by zero, however, is another matter and that does result in infinities and absurdities.

Religion is the interpretation of the teachings of God.
One does not have to know a specific teaching to be close to their creator.

If I have never met my mother, I would still love her for who she is and for giving me life. But I would learn about her from other people.

JDPHD

Though, it is true that a god is assumed in religion, anybody can worship anything, even themselves. Anybody can rationalize, in there own desire to justify any of there actions, or words. To themselves and or others. Whether it be religion, economics, national endeavors etc., etc.
It all depends on their purposes in doing their actions or speaking their words, motives, if you like.

But what is the Truth if the result is not Life? Why seek that which does not give Life and keep it? The earth, nor anything it is made of gives Life. But yet it yields to it's presents, or at lest verifies there is Life. Which is order, not chaos. So there are many who proclaim what is order, or the order of existence. Thus the promotion of religion, or at least, what is to be believed as the Truth.

Life gives control and seeks control but those in possession of what ever life that has been given, as in mankind, can decide what to do with it and love after what ever that which they desire, whether it be Truth, Life, God, a new corvette, or, control over others.

If an individual lies it can be presumed that the individual is a liar. Even if the individual lies only once. If the individual believes the lie. Then what? Shall one who cares or loves the Truth set the individual straight on the matter? And how is that done? Would it not take the revelation of the Truth?

Religion is the will of man taking control of the beliefs of others. But the Truth is revealed by it's source. Which would have to be, the Living God.

Beautifully said. The difference is God is continuously pursuing a relationship with us. We do not need to hear of Him through other people. Sometimes only as an introduction from those who know Him. Once we know God and grow in our relationship with Him, there is no need for religion. The Bible would indicate that not even God was a big fan of religion.

However, God has revealed Himself to us through His Word and His people, so to ignore them would be ignoring God Himself. God will confirm the truth in resources and people and help us discern what is of Him and what is not . . . so don't take my word for it, ask Him.

Hmm hey dpmarting I have read your topics. And I see that youre looking for something. Proff of God and Deffenition of God. Are 2 of my topics. That if you read from start to the last post. Might asnswer some of these questions youre looking for

"nd it has been evident through out history and even today that mankind can make a religion out of kneeling to a stone. So most certainly religion is not the way."

Why stop there? Why does there have to be a god at all? I see no inclination that there is a god behind the formation of the universe and if there was one then that god is incredibly messed up. Our current universe is pretty much was I would expect if it happened without any sort of "god" getting involved in it. The universe is incredibly chaotic, despite how some will try to claim that it has order.

I fail to see the order, sure there might seem to be some order to it but I really don't see it. Not even the laws are ordered, it is we who have put a face on them to make them appear ordered but they really are not. Don't get me started on the fact that 99.9999% of the universe is completely inhospitable for human life and the space that we actually occupy is even less than that.

If you could zoom all the way out to get the full perspective of the universe we humans would not even be noticeable, not even our solar system would be distinguishable. In other words we humans are insignificant in terms of just how huge the universe really is. So why would we be so central? It would be like if you purchased a foot ball stadium to use as your home but you only use the broom closet on the south wing to live in, that is 3 feet by 3 feet. You never step out of there or use any other part of the stadium. Such a waste to have all that other space if you are only going to use 0.000000000000001% of it.

Well I suppose if you considered God to be a man or something like that, I suppose that would be true. But how about this, If you considered God to be the mass before the Big bang. Then it makes sense. From God came evreything as it expanded. And as far as being its image well ok, How about this like our body its body contains billions of cells. We just happen to be one of them Then theres nothing mystical Just a God with that it proff exists.

"If you considered God to be the mass before the Big bang."

The mass before the big bang? Why call it god? What is wrong with calling it just mass? When you call this mass god, you do absolutely nothing but add on a bunch of vague baggage that can't be determined. With that baggage it suggests that this mass had some kind of intention? That doesn't even begin to address my point. I understand your body cell analogy but that still does not explain your insistent need to slap a label god onto the universe. Which makes it seem to me that you are just grasping at the last straw remaining since all the dozens of other ways in which theists have tried to infuse god into the world but failed.

Well ok lets call it Eric. Fair enough. So we are all a part of Eric. Like cells. Well ok lets call biles and korans and any other book of that sort books of wisdow. Now lets get rid of the mystic stuff and deal with only solid concrete proff. There we are now logical. Anything like some one sayin we survived a war because it was Eric will. Lets call stuff like that nonsesnse. Ok now we have a clean plate. Now lets start. Well ok why is it important to understand that we are all a part of Eric? Well For one thing we got a gift here. Life. Ok lets clear up that mystical stuff about vials and horseman stuff from these books of wisdom. EMP event is a guarentee to happen. Weather its man made or a solor one. Its a garantte
We have poisoned our drinking and bathing water so that no small living organism can survive in the past 100 years.
Well ok whats does that mean?
Let me do another post in case I get disconected

Ok we have moved to were evreything our finances, food supply, transpotation, to name a few items that are completly vonurable to a EMP event. That means wiped out. Its is predicted that it will take 10 years to recover from a EMP event. So first week cities will still have food to survive on. Water will still not be a huge problem. No gas pumps. No atms, No computer, Factories that distrubute our food suply will be fried. General shock will be replaced by general panick. A billion people will be lighting fires to cook their dinners. First 3 months. Mass migrations to the worlds food baskets will start. Man will be like locust. Eating evreything in its path. Sinse we avoided viruses and bacteria for so long. Many will be afected by simple viruses that our bodys normaly would have been able to defend itself against. So disease will spread. Geez all that sounds just like those horseman guys. So point being. Its wise books . Asking us to take care as protectors of Erics Body. Ok guess that would be a scientific aproach to it. Does it make sense?

Basicly the concept of the group activities was to unite the community. There they would discuss the moral of the society they live in. Yes they explained things the best way they could. And yes some of the things are fantastical. But the core of these books. Came from human brains like ours. Lots of them in weekly discutions. So give it some credit. Interprit it in our current social understanding. Break down into seperate topics. Teach people the difference between someone being in hand to hand combat with dead bodies around him and saying thats Gods will to win that war. From the discutions these people had about the understandings of their society. That way we can all act like a group in these activities. I mean whats the world budget for a military right now? That should tell you that we are doing something wrong right? See simple wisdow like that. Look at the big picture.