Sunmaster

This thread has become a bad episode of the Twilight Zone. "What if God is really a macrocosmic virus, slowly infecting lifeforms across the universe?" "Yeah, sounds plausible. Somehow I always suspected that." "I think he came through an interdimensional portal because he was expelled from his own dimension." "Right on. That would mean he is some sort of Satan!" "Right!" ????

I believe you mean the universe is 38 billion years old, not God.

5am, rise and shine Tippaporn! I'll have a go. I think suffering is a consequence of being out of tune with the cosmic harmony and the illusion of being a separated, limited entity. Need to be short...coffee is getting cold.

Interesting choice of words "infest it". ????

Nice.

Yes, you notice a lot of things. Like determining that Paramhansa Yogananda is a power-hungry evil guru, after reading 2 or 3 quotes. Or that I am an evil guru myself. ???? So you must be correct. ????????

Sure, whatever you say.

Sure, but evil engineers are not an indication to an evil God, just like evil people, cancer in children, or natural disasters are not an indication to an evil God.

Been quite a while since I watched it, but as far as I remember they were trying to find humanity's creators who added their DNA to our planet, not God. They expected those creators to be a benevolent father figure, but that was a deadly mistake.

First, we should make a few distinctions so that we can understand each other. 1) You use "religionists" as an umbrella definition for people who believe more than what science can or is willing to explore. Under this broad definition you have all sorts of beliefs and as many practical implementation of those beliefs as there are people on this earth. Here, in the forum, most are free thinkers that don't adhere to any particular dogma. I'll include our science friends in that, too. 2) It's not an issue of religion VS science. Most people here (if not all) appreciate science and profit from scientific discoveries. I'm definitely one of them. Just look at my avatar... I'm a science officer! What we argue however, is that science is a tool to make sense of the material world. It is not the right tool to explore the inner worlds. 3) To explore the inner worlds means to know your true Self. This was the original function of religion. Or should be. It is not possible to measure, dissect, analyse, calculate the value of this adventure. It is hardly possible to put it into words. The right tools for this journey seem to be introspection, meditation but also rituals, creativity and spontaneity. 4) You say that real scientists will gladly admit that sometimes they just don't know. That may be true (maybe), but I'm talking of common mortals that don't work in a lab and don't write scientific papers. Those are more often than not the people who magically transform a theory into a certainty. The 'science says...' radical types. We had our fair share here. For example, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is nothing but a theory, yet it is so often proclaimed as a scientific fact. Science simply doesn't know where consciousness comes from. It can only see and measure the effects of consciousness. And this point is crucial: For science to admit that consciousness is NOT a product of the brain, would imply that the great schools of spiritual development were right all along. Are right in saying that it's really the other way around. The material is a product of consciousness. And with that single realisation everything changes and things start to make sense that were previously unknown. Clairvoyance, chakras, Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, higher states of consciousness, mysticism, religions etc etc....don't seem so crazy and farfetched after all. I could continue but the post is already too long as it is. ????

True. On the other hand though, you have maybe 90% of materialists who have no idea about the actual science behind their beliefs and blindly follow whatever the men in white coats tell them. The vast majority then goes on to change the "we think it's like that but we are not sure" to "it's like that. Full stop." And when challenged, they have the same reactions as those who believe in religious dogma. They lash out and become aggressive, and there is no chance of a rational discussion. This is because people need certainties in life, something they can hold on to and build their lives upon. It doesn't matter whether those "certainties" are religious or scientific. Just look at how many people believe that the brain produces consciousness or that a mysterious explosion started the universe. They treat them as facts, when in reality they are just theories. It's good to be objective and see both sides. Dogma is bad in both camps.

I understand what you're saying and I think pretty much the same. My idea is that AI will be so good at mimicking human consciousness that it will become almost impossible to tell the difference. On the other hand, I believe that humans have a connection to the universal consciousness that I just can't see happening for AI.

I'm not familiar with this author and I don't know what substack is. I'm always interested in all aspects of consciousness, especially now with AI making big steps forward. Recently I found Lex Fridman podcasts on YT, which are very fascinating. I recommend checking him out. What do you think about consciousness and AI? Do you think a machine can become sentient?

Who is "they"? Your logic doesn't work really. Not in my case, nor in many other cases. Sure, the idea of an afterlife (or eternal consciousness) brings solace to a lot of people, religious and not, but it's not the cause of the belief in God....it's a byproduct of that belief. Two very different premises.

What about all the way up the scale?

Interstellar and Contact for me. And series: Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek Voyager. Never get tired of rewatching them. ????

A sub-topic worth exploring... I was thinking about the increasing complexity of biological systems and how these systems are related to consciousness. My primary assumption is that panpsychism is correct in saying that everything in the universe is conscious to some degree. Starting from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the vastness of galaxies and beyond. This, coupled with the fact that conscious individual agents bond together in more complex systems, giving rise to a consciousness that is more than just the sum of its parts, brings us to a very interesting deductions. In simple terms, take cells for example. Cells have their own individuality. They interact with their surroundings, they reproduce, they have their own goals and purpose. When they bond together to form an organ, they all work together to fill a higher purpose. The organ itself acquires new faculties and tools to interact with their surroundings. This new entity thus seems to be more than just a mere accumulation of cells. If we go one step further, we arrive at the human being, who is a collection of organs and parts. Yet, most will agree that we are more than that. There is a consciousness that oversees the function of all the different parts. Again, there is a new identity, there are new tools to interact with the world and new purposes. But what if we take this a step further? What if we are all part of a bigger "organism", resulting in a higher order of complexity and consciousness? If this drive to unite individual agents into more and more complex systems can be seen throughout nature, does it make sense to you that it would stop at the human being, as if we were the glorious culmination of a very long evolutionary process? Or would it make more sense to identify the human being as just another step of this process? In short.... Lower systems are transcended and included in higher systems, resulting in a consciousness that is more than the sum of its parts. What about consciousness? However you may define consciousness, I think we can agree that human beings are conscious. Who or what else is conscious in your opinion? Lots of people believe that mammals with big brains are also conscious (dolphins, primates), but also dogs, pigs, horses etc. Then it gets more difficult. Can we attribute consciousness to "lower" life forms, such as birds, bugs or worms? Why or why not? What about plants? Are they conscious? How far down the scale are you willing to attribute consciousness? What about cells? Atoms? Subatomic particles?

Really....? That's what you want to discuss? I'm not American nor is English my first language. It's my 3rd language.

I'm not sure. I'm thinking about math as an example. While all of the math theorems are available to all at all times, it is quite obvious that a school kid is likely not to understand more complex theories. They have to be taught the basics first and as they progress, more and more complicated systems are introduced to them. Maybe the Bible should be taught in a similar way. In simple terms for young minds and more in depth for adult minds? The more important point though is the mental maturity of those that teach it. Without that, all other efforts will be for nothing.

Maybe we differ on the nuances of "what works", but I completely agree. A society that is focused only on the material aspect of reality and refuses any deeper understanding of our place in the universe, is a society that doesn't work. Nor is a society that blindly follows a dogmatic religion without direct personal experience. Which reconnects me to a previous post, where I tried to identify a universal belief system for the 21st century that would make sense (and would work) for all individuals. A truly inclusive framework that recognizes the accomplishments of science and spirituality alike and one that isn't a closed system, but rather an open-ended system that allows for change and growth.

Yes and no. "God" as a concept is a mere approximation of the ultimate consciousness, that which can not be put into words nor concepts. In that sense it is a creation of our imagination. But that's just our way to reduce the unreduceable in terms that are easier to grasp. It says nothing about the actual ultimate consciousness, which is not a product of our imagination, but is the source of all, including our consciousness and imagination.

I think he's referring to the fact that we dissected nature in search for God and when we couldn't find him, we simply declared "him" dead...with nothing to replace him. Like trying to dissect a body hoping to find the soul.