Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

"What might happen if we were all beings who knew (in the Biblical sense of 'experienced') every happening, every relationship, that has happened? "

Answer: "We'd find no differentiated happenings, no differentiated events. Instead of separate events, separate selves, we would be one whole big happening."

Really? After all, if we had knowledge of all events in the past, we would be God, wouldn't we? We'd have to be, as to achieve what you describe requires some serious capabilities, including a memory big enough to retain all past events, which is approximately the size of the Universe...

Exactly.
God is an alternative name for the absolute.
(True, many people think God is a very large powerful person however this belief is not within the context of non-dualism)

The main reason why I gravitate towards non-dualism is for the way it allows for ambiguity over the issue of 'God'. It enables thinking about the 'absolute' source, which may be called 'God' , but could also be termed differently. What puzzles me about so much debate about the existence of God is that it is seen as about rational arguments for and against, rather than about perception and naming of the creative force within nature itself.

[Lagayascienza]

For atheists, there is no need for "ambiguity over the issue of God". And for those who are thorough-going materialists, Idealism isn't necessary either. If materialism is true, the everything stems from matter and energy acting in accordance with the laws nature - that's it, nothing spooky to see here. But some of us leave the door ever-so-slightly ajar for Idealism because there remain some things that materialistic science is not yet in a position to fully explain. Consciousness, for example. But that may change eventually.

[Belinda]

For atheists, there is no need for "ambiguity over the issue of God". And for those who are thorough-going materialists, Idealism isn't necessary either. If materialism is true, the everything stems from matter and energy acting in accordance with the laws nature - that's it, nothing spooky to see here. But some of us leave the door ever-so-slightly ajar for Idealism because there remain some things that materialistic science is not yet in a position to fully explain. Consciousness, for example. But that may change eventually.

But this science that you speak of must now include quantum physics: the observer is an integral part of every experiment, so it follows that there is no such thing as laws of nature or science i.e. laws of billiard ball determinism.

[Lagayascienza]

A lot of people try to read all sorts of spooky things into quantum mechanics. However, the strange behaviour observed at the quantum level is about subatomic particles. It has nothing to do with macroscopic objects like the brain. The archticture and the processes that occur in brains is unrelated to subatomic particles, except in the most general and uninteresting sense that everything is made of subatomic particles.

But New Age writes love QM. They think that no one understands it and that, therefore, they can make all sorts of wild claims about everything from creation to consciousness. However, consciousness emerges from the macrscopic and microscopic architecture, and from the electrochemical activity of brains. It depends on neurons and synapses and sodium channels, etc. which are all enormously larger than any subatomic particle.

I think determism is true and that scientific reductionism, whether we're talking about creation or about consciousness, is our best tool for understanding the universe. And whilst it may true that, in some instances, the whole is sometimes greater than the sum of the parts, the way New Age writers use the term holism is mostly bunk like the rest of the New Age nonsense such as healing crystals, channeling, etc.

[Pattern-chaser]

The main reason why I gravitate towards non-dualism is for the way it allows for ambiguity over the issue of 'God'. It enables thinking about the 'absolute' source, which may be called 'God' , but could also be termed differently. What puzzles me about so much debate about the existence of God is that it is seen as about rational arguments for and against, rather than about perception and naming of the creative force within nature itself.

Yes, those who are anti-theist focus on such superficial and trivial arguments, IMO. They miss the point entirely. ... Which perhaps explains their anti-theism?

[Pattern-chaser]

But this science that you speak of must now include quantum physics: the observer is an integral part of every experiment, so it follows that there is no such thing as laws of nature or science i.e. laws of billiard ball determinism.

Nicely put.

[Lagayascienza]

I haven't met any "anti-theists" here. There are a number of non-theists or atheists. However, I have noticed some theists here who are wont to wield terms of derision like "anti-theist" when they have nothing intelligent or substantive to offer.