The 3 Universe Theory

It was superstition. The populace holds sway to the last in the always proven absence of first cause. Methodology sustains us en masse indefinitely, but not in the manna upon which all that remains indefinite are the peaks of our feeling. The conceptual alone is believed to be the basis of our entertainment, hence tragedy. In actuality, conception is the act. Procreation always our fore/afterthought.

 

We only live in one universe, it is measurable and just so happens to encompass all forms of consensus human or otherwise. If you need to assign the word "universe" to describe the human psyche have had it!

 

INFERENCE???

Com'on!
An incorrect conclusion based on a wrong supposition--

"In" is non sequiter. The Universe is ALL-- can you demonstrate hyper- or sub-space?
See Michelson and Morley.

The Universe is closed in Time. Before ANYTHING existed, there was NO time.
And when everything ends-- that includes time. The word "existence" loses meaning.

 

EXACTLY!

Infinity, like "0", is a mathematical concept with no basis in reality.

You can't have "0" of something--
you simply don't have it.

 

It was Chemistry.

 

Then why is it impossible for you to see my point?

Which, I believe, makes my point!

 

Language as putative science --see Nietzsche, on first and last things, - human all too human. : D

What is this 'before anything existed'? When does 'everything' end in the 'all' of the universe it is?

You shouldn't expect my indulgence Geck! I am, after all, a poet! LOL

One more thing: Account for motion! I implore, beseech, all but beg you! Present your case! But most of all, enjoy it! ; )

 

Certainly, and the human will will never be rid of its overall question-mark.
How strong are our questions? If we are ultimately goal-less, who among us is best able to express the nature of our being wasted? lol

 

#1. The material world may be an illusion. Kant showed long ago that the world of perception is not necessarily reality. Mass, the most fundamental property of matter might be an illusion. Its defining characteristic, resistance to acceleration, may be akin to an electromagnetic phenomenon.
#2. I think you mean illusional world. In Future of an Illusion, Freud explained the difference between a delusion and an illusion. Delusions are demonstrably contrary to reality; e.g, a person other than Napoleon who thinks he's Napoleon. If you could demonstrate (which you can't) that there is no God, you could characterize religion as a delusion. An illusion, on the other hand, is something that might possibly be true, but isn't susceptible to proof and is characterized by a high degree of wish fulfillment, e.g., the belief of a young girl of modest means that she will marry a prince some day, or Freud's belief that psychoanalysis gave him a scientific grasp of the human psyche, or your belief that God does not exist. #3. Consensus on things unproven may be useful for functioning in the world. Santayana speaks of animal faith, the conviction that there is an objective reality that we can interact with, e.g., that when I type these words there will be a real Geckopeli and Relaxxx out there to reply. There are people on Hip Forums who don't believe that. I asked one of them why he was bothering to communicate with me if he thought I was an illusion. I can't remember his reply. But "animal faith" is essentially based on consensus about the nature of reality, including scientific consensus. Many papers have been published these days in peer reviewed journals positing multiverses and hyperdimensions. There is an impressive scientific consensus among physicists concerning such things, despite the fact that no one has produced any empirical evidence that they exist. Their main appeal is that, if they were real, they'd offer a plausible explanation of the fitness of our universe which otherwise might have to be explained by God, which mystics throughout history and across cultures actually claim to have experienced empirically.

 

Okie:

He can, to himself. The self is greater than god, which, when posited past conception, is only a certain kind of self-abdication revealing a subjection to language. If the religious could create a god, they'd characterize themselves beyond delusion. I've yet to witness a religion that is not based to some degree in the fear of god. : D

 

How convenient. This is a round about way of shifting the burden of proof.

That's not really fair. You are defining him as 'not Napoleon' rather than
subjecting his definition to demonstration like the first case.

I would say "we cant demonstrate that he didn't travel forward in a time
machine" but you've already told us (without demonstration) that he is not
napoleon.

 

Not at all. He who asserts must prove. The assertion that belief in God is delusional (as opposed to the defensible statement "I don't believe in God) shifts the burden to the person making the assertion.

[/Quote] Take it up with Freud. I was simply explaining his distinction between delusions and illusions. A person who is not Napoleon but thinks he is would be clearly delusional. I told you he wasn't Napoleon for illustrative purposes. It's a hypothetical supposition, true by definition. If the person turns out really to be Napoleon, then he isn't delusional. A person who buys a lottery ticket for the Irish Sweepstakes because somebody is going to win and it might as well be her would be better described as suffering from an illusion. Who knows? Somebody is going to win, and there's a chance it could be her.

 

I agree.

But they are essentially the same position. If someone considers the belief in
god a delusion, he has already admitted his Atheism.

I don't know what it would mean for an atheist to grant that another might be
under divine influence, but "god only talks to some of us" is not a very
persuasive argument. On second though: If he were willing to grant that god
talks to some people he has argued theism in the affirmative and is not an
atheist.

I don't believe that people think there is an invisible man in the sky. They use
'God' the same way you do (even if they don't know it): To describe
something that hasn't been defined.
I do agree with Freud (ON THIS SUBJECT lol), and I think
'The God Delusion' was either a marketing ploy, or Dawkins underestimating
how innacurately most people convey their religious beliefs.

Perhaps he knew that explaining a delusion would be easier than telling
people "Not only do you not believe in god, but you don't even know that you
don't believe."

Its only clear because not being Napoleon is apart of his definition, thus we
have no need for a demonstration. Its a false analogy since the difference
between an illusion and delusion is demonstration.

 

logically speaking, all zebras are animals, but all animals are not zebras. Some atheists get by very well not believing in God without considering anyone who disagrees with them to be delusional. If you must insult the mentality of your opponents why not call God an "illusion", as Freud did in the book in Future of an Illusion.

As for God talking to people, I'm skeptical. I'm inclined to go along with comedienne Lilly Tomlin: "When you talk to God, its prayer. When God talks to you, its schizophrenia." My Christian faith is partly a result of a life changing "moment of clarity" in which I saw meaning in a passage of Genesis that I hadn't seen before and got excited about it (and still am). Was that God talking to me? Maybe, but it can also obviously be explained in naturalistic terms. So I have the feeling I got an insight from God, at least metaphorically, but would I go so far as to assert it was supernaturally grounded? Not without further evidence. The important thing to me is that belief in God is not contradictory to science and logic (i.e., not delusional) and that it is supported by substantial evidence (for that, see, for example, the many works of respected physicist Paul Davies.

On that point, you may be suffering from an illusion. A lot of people in this country, particularly in my part of the country, actually do believe literally in such a figure. Check out the Christian forum.

 

Some people will take offence to absolutely anything and I cant help that.
Whether or not the atheist considers the individual delusional or not can be
reduced to whether one has examined another persons belief in god or not,
which is essentially only discovering what he thinks in the first place
(consistency). If we were to apply Freuds definition to religion, the delusion
is not only outright apparent from the ought-is problem, but manifestly false
with regards to passages that suggest superfluous ideas about un-nature.

With theism, you could claim delusion only if you were unaware of how loose
the definition of god is. Illusion is the best you can do for a relative term.

I think a lot of people like to imagine they know what they mean when they
say god, but I just don't buy the hype. The same individuals will quickly
confide in the supernatural when they are backed into a corner, making the
same mistake they began with, which is talking about something that is
by definition unknown.

I made the error myself just now because there's no other way to say it, but
the word "something" in the last sentence is a false value....There is nothing
there.

 

What is it Okie?

 

Genesis 1:27 "So God created Man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female." In reading that, I came to think of all people I encountered as,at least potentially, reflections of God--not the whole, but aspects. The divine potential is there. This admittedly, requires a lot of faith, since lots of folks are pretty messed up, but it's useful for me to seek the good in people and in humanity in general. This makes me a Humanist and put me at odds with Calvinists who regard everybody as totally depraved, also based on a reading of Genesis.

An interesting thing about this experience is that I don't believe Genesis is literally true. Why that particular passage would trigger a train of thought that had such an impact is an intriguing question. Geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Genome Project and current director of the NIH, ardent evolutionist and called by the Endocrine Society "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time", embraced Christianity as a result of his reaction to a frozen waterfall that diverged into three streams, calling to mind the Trinity. One may wonder what would have happened if the waterfall instead had been frozen into many strands looking something like spaghetti. Needless to say, Collins had been preconditioned for a religious experience by his reading of C.S.Lewis and his grappling with the anthropic principle. I was also ready, as a result of despair about the mindless competitiveness of the daily grind--and of thinking about the anthropic principle.