God

[TomK]

Ricky Gervais grew up very close to me and around the same time. We come from a very similar background.  He's no Carl Sagan, but speaks his mind.

https://youtu.be/ODKGm2cjIKw?si=3gzI1GjonfwQYSW_

Then there's someone who grew up thousands of miles from me; George Carlin.

https://youtu.be/_BFIRgn9OLI?si=8oIqduZ5eLy-pxmL

Thank you, Rob, for allowing me to post these links.

[randomq]

The irony of posting "The Sound of Silence" in support of silence... Have you heard the song, sir?

I think if we ever solve the "hard problem of consciousness" we might gain some insight into the true nature of our reality, and whether a diety fits into that equation...

[TomK]

What is there to solve? I enjoyed listening to that song again - it's been a long time since I last listened to it. I still don't know what it means, but it doesn't matter; it's just a song written by human beings.  As for gaining insight into reality, there is still no evidence that a supernatural deity exists. Do you think psychologists will find evidence for one? There's an argument for reality being exactly what we see, experience, and observe, and there's no need to bring a god into it.

[TomK]

In the meantime, there's an invisible man in the sky watching over us, wanting money and sending us to hell if we don't follow his rules:

https://youtu.be/_BFIRgn9OLI?si=bzQfcCO89CLG96j3

[randomq]

What is there to solve?

You're kidding, right?  The "hard problem of consciousness" is a huge area of both scientific study and philosophy.  I'm pretty agnostic, and have a dim view of people buying into organized religion, but until we actually know how qualia (subjective experience) is *experienced*, there is a huge gaping hole in our knowledge about life.  We may eventually discover what creates the spark of consciousness, and it may be mundane, a property of nature, a property of simulated reality, or a soul.  We can keep an open mind about it without buying into religion...

[TomK]

No, I'm not joking. You are claiming that the "hard problem of consciousness" may eventually lead to whether a deity fits into some equation. It's essentially the same argument often given to atheists: but why take the chance of not believing in a god? The thing is, scientists do have open minds, but they're skeptical and require evidence. Show me one jot of actual evidence, one that's available for other scientists, and repeated experiments that show that delving into consciousness shows one iota of evidence that there is a deity, a god. And if there is, why have there been and are so many evil people in the world? That's a messed-up god if you ask me.

I picked an invisible sky god because that's what most religions teach, but what else would I pick? A goddess living in a volcano? Perhaps Hina Mo'o Kuna living under Rainbow Falls? If you believe that consciousness may lead to finding some supernatural being, then provide a hypothesis that can be tested. Frankly, believe what you want, but don't ask others to argue for you or accept whatever baseless claim you have

[randomq]

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not claiming the existence of anything, just that we may understand the issue better once we can account for how consciousness exists. Knowing that it is explained by science and ceases to exist apon death would certainly be a blow to organized religion. Discovering it is a fundamental feature of us living in a simulation would certainly change our views. Discovering it relies on forces or dimensions outside of our current understanding might open up new areas of scientic research. Being unable to explain it in the next 100 years would probably allow organized religion to continue on believing in souls.

Keeping an open mind does not mean believing until we prove otherwise. At least not for me. You are free to play Pascal's Wager as you like.

[Rob Tucker]

I have always considered Issac Newton's work to be foundational in many ways including what could even be called religion.

Isaac Newton and the Principle of “Nothing is Lost”.

The idea that “nothing is lost” is closely tied to Sir Isaac Newton’s formulation of the law of conservation of energy, one of the foundational principles of physics. While Newton did not use the exact phrase “nothing is lost,” his work established that energy cannot be created or destroyed — it can only be transformed from one form to another.

Newton’s Contribution
In his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), Newton laid the groundwork for classical mechanics, including the laws of motion and universal gravitation. His work, combined with later developments in thermodynamics, led to the modern statement of the first law of thermodynamics:

Energy is not lost or destroyed; it is merely transferred from one party to another.

Newton’s laws and the conservation of energy principle mean that energy is never truly lost — it changes form and location. This is why the phrase “nothing is lost” is often used to describe the idea that energy transformations are reversible in principle, even if in practice some energy becomes less useful due to entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).

Fun stuff. Just need to consider consciousness as a form of energy.

Please don't make me regret posting this....

[Punatang]

I have always considered Issac Newton's work to be foundational in many ways including what could even be called religion.

Isaac Newton and the Principle of “Nothing is Lost”....

I nearly composed the exact same post 90 minutes ago and decided I would regret it. I said almost your exact words Rob, to my best friend many years ago and it totally changed his perception.

Perhaps instead of thinking "supernatural being", consider thinking "supernatural force."

Less old guy in the sky wanting money, or old lady in the volcano wanting gin, and more, "May The Force Be With You".

If we are only able to perceive 3 dimensions of space and 1-ish of time, and string and M-theories tell us there should be 10 or 11, then can we not reasonably postulate that the other 6 or 7 dimensions, assuming that they exist, are: 1

 "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Please don't make me regret posting this...

[Rob Tucker]

Sir Issac gets the credit...