The Afterlife

[Chad]

One thing to me sticks out in many religions: A supposed afterlife. However, how exactly is this afterlife supposed to work? Are people thinking that they will be judged by a supreme being that will have final say over if they were good or bad? Upon judgment is your “soul” thrown in an infinitely large room or something, free to roam and do what you wish for all eternity? I guess all of this is rather dependent on your chosen religion. Doesn't this seem rather needlessly complicated, selfish (In a certain respect) and very wishful?

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist. Why do many feel that other animals just die while we ascend to some afterlife? When I read about other animals, I'm often amazed at some of their abilities. Granted, humans do have some unique features, but does this really make us so much more deserving of an eternal life? Why is there a need for an eternal life? Is there a reason why we should have a “soul” that lives on?

[Random Thought]

The more I read and think about it, the more I think this is a great trick that the religion memeplex pulls. Nearly every religion proposes an afterlife. This afterlife guarantees a great existence after death. The afterlife is not able to be proven, so it remains in question, untestable for the most part. The positive side effect to believing in this afterlife I guess would be people obeying set rules and guidelines, according to the religion in question. While it may not seem like an obvious positive side effect, many religions seem to promote some common good ideas. Such as not lying, stealing and murdering. There's much more, but I don't feel like digging around for more specific examples at the moment Of course, those who follow these practices will be at a slightly better advantage for survival, which in turn will pass on their religious ideas to their children or others who think highly of them. Not to mention the fear of an bad afterlife to keep people in line and make them strive to follow the rules and guidelines that much closer. Ok, I trailed off a little...there's much more I would like to relate, but I'll try to get to my point! I just felt like I would share where I stand on the issue.

[/Random Thought]

I guess my main questions would be this: How do you suppose an afterlife to actually work (Supposing you believe in an afterlife to begin with)? Do you feel at all like the idea of an afterlife is wishful thinking from a fear of one day your existence might come to a complete end? Or does the belief in an afterlife come solely from the teachings of the religion that you learned?

For those that don't believe in an afterlife: What do you think drives the need for people to suppose an afterlife, along with what do you think continues to propagate it?

These are all genuine questions, I don't mean to sound rude if any of my post came off that way...I have a bad tendency make that happen...lol.

(Btw - I was unsure what sub-forum to put this under...so feel free to move it if you think it's better off in a different sub-forum )

[QED]

BTW Can I have your permission to use this as my signature line?

Sure, but somehow I don't think you understand what it means. I don't think the material universe doesn't exist in some non-reduced form.

Why do you always have to hit me with so many double negatives when I wake up with a headache in the morning? No wonder I end up in a position where you don't think I understand what you mean!

This bit is for my own benefit:
Harvey doesn't think (T)
(T) is "the material universe doesn't exist in some non-reduced form"
So does this tell me anything at all about what Harvey thinks? Good job you go on to tell me then! (I think )

It exists as material like any object exists. We can reduce the object to its components which are not the object. For example, chairs exist, but chairs are made of atoms, and in principle we can talk about the atoms of the chair without having to have a concept of a chair (just give dimensions that the atoms fill the space of). However, the chair is an illusionary concept in that there are no chairs which are fundamental objects in the world. Similarly, there is nothing fundamental about matter, and if we were to reduce it far enough to its root, we would see that a quantum theory of some sort can explain the existence of matter from nothing at all. This is what I mean by material causation as being an illusion. Matter doesn't literally cause anything, just like the chair doesn't literally allow you to sit on it.

Now you've lost me. In a classical sense my chair does literally allow me to sit on it. You seem to be basing everything on the quantum level. But decoherence sets in way before we get to anything like the sort of hocus-pocus you seem to have set your sights on.

But I suspect you are referring to the spiritual world which is not at all pragmatic. It will not get us where we want to go with what we've got.

No, I'm not referring to a spiritual world. I'm referring to a quantum world ruled by quantum laws which are logical based. In my view, a spiritual world is ultimately reducible to a logical world (just like a material world is ultimately reducible to a logical world).

OK, but you seem to be insisting on making room for a supernatural element. Being a Christian means allowing the laws of physics to be broken. I see a world in which nothing supernatural ever happens. If you go to the hill called the Mount of Olives on Ascension day and fly a kite in the shape of Jesus on the cross, it won't fly any higher than my kite on my local hill. Our world is full of people walking around with superstitious ideas in their heads, but not one atom is out of place on account of such matters. Do you agree with this or not?

...I find the perspective of the material world to be one that makes sense when dealing with all the important things in life.

I don't understand how you can defend a material world given all the things we know about entanglement, teleportation, quantum ghost imaging, quantum gravity, etc.. To me, the "material world" is a LaPlacian idea that is about to be firmly thrown in the junk yard. Einstein himself started this revolution in 1905 by showing the equivalence of energy and matter. The situation for a material world has gone down hill ever since.

But this is what the material world is all about. We wouldn't have Compact Discs of transistor radios but for quantum tunneling. You seem to be recoiling from the LaPlacian and Newtonian worlds so vigorously that you go into orbit. The fact is that we can still keep our feet firmly on the ground and live in our 3 brane world or whatever model we find that fits. You seem to be looking for an excuse to insert a supernatural component into all this. Tell me something that has been witnessed in a lab that has got people scratching their heads and pointing to the supernatural as the only possible explanation.

Tell me, do you remain dead-pan when you type things like this or can't you resist a wry smile?

Oh, I enjoy at times a perspective that is revolutionalizing the way we see the world. The materialists have had their way since LaPlace, so it is enjoyable to watch their world be ripped away. My only regret is that LaPlace is not alive to watch his vision be completely obliterated.

What's with all the zeal? The obliteration, the wrecking balls, the garbage dumps? I have to be doubly suspicious of your testimony when it comes so strongly spiced. I expect an emphatic delivery from a firmly held opinion but your language veers towards the fanatical at times. You know it's not possible to reason with fanatics right?

But let's say for the sake of argument that I come around to accepting a need for a mind to satisfy the relations, an OI to interpret the laws etc. What about the subject of this debate -- where do I hook-up to the assumption that everything has been put together primarily for us?

Well, I certainly don't think everything is for us, although I suppose that it is possible that it might be. However, I think it is clear that there is much more complexity available for the universe if intelligent life evolves. As an example, just in the last ten or so years, the technology on earth has roughly doubled. If such trends were to continue, then conceivably a billion years could see humans scattered throughout the galaxy and constituting a vast majority of the complexity in the galaxy. In fact, it's conceivable that whole cyber worlds could be constructed by humans in the not too distant future. It would seem to me that this reasonable expectation cannot be overlooked by an Omniscient Interpreter that is intent on information generation (e.g., adding theorems to the long list of known truths).

Is it my fault that this is so unconvincing? To me you seem to take a simple fact (evolution by natural selection -- a mechanism which is far from being mystical in any way) which has a propensity towards the development and dispersal of information carriers, and work it back into a cosmic purpose. What you then hang on this theory is nobody's business. An afterlife, judgment, heaven and hell (I rarely hear you talk about hell -- I bet you've got something clever lined-up for that)

If not just for us - then why all the comings and goings of Christianity that you are so wedded to? Did a saviour show up for each species?

I think the savior is an instantiation of the mind of the Logos in human form. So, as Krishna said:

He who sees me in everything and everything in me, to him I am never lost; nor he is lost to me (B.Gita 6:30)

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me (B.Gita 10:8 )

Everything is born of me. I am the original source of all. No one is above me. (B.Gita 12:6,7)

All very convincing, all very easy to say, all utterly meaningless. Should anyone seriously consider the fact that just because we can make such a prime claim, it must carry some sort of weight? Do you see what I'm trying to get at? We can always come out with these words irrespective of them reflecting any truth or not. That's why you are at liberty to say such things. But don't lets confuse that liberty with there being any sort of justification.

Until you can show that there is some genuine justification then I am afraid to say that the amount of energy I can muster to keep batting this stuff back and forth is starting to wane. No doubt you're going to want to grab hold of my head and vigorously point it towards your question about material causation, but you can't seem to appreciate my objection. It's as if we're flying across the Atlantic and half way over you get agitated and tell me that you've just worked out that Jet engines can't work even in principle. But our failure to fall into the sea does nothing to force you to re-examine your analysis. Take me to a corner of the world where the supernatural is putting on a show that I can watch and maybe then we'll make some progress. But please don't tell me about it using any more double negatives.

[harvey1]

Until you can show that there is some genuine justification then I am afraid to say that the amount of energy I can muster to keep batting this stuff back and forth is starting to wane. No doubt you're going to want to grab hold of my head and vigorously point it towards your question about material causation, but you can't seem to appreciate my objection. It's as if we're flying across the Atlantic and half way over you get agitated and tell me that you've just worked out that Jet engines can't work even in principle. But our failure to fall into the sea does nothing to force you to re-examine your analysis. Take me to a corner of the world where the supernatural is putting on a show that I can watch and maybe then we'll make some progress.

I'm not sure what I can do here. I've already presented an overall picture where an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) is a natural "outcome" of there being causality. The OI is busy interpreting objects for conformance to reality, and the interpretaments are used to justify the existence of the objects. If an object is found justified, it is saved. This, I think, is the basis for thinking that an afterlife is a reasonable possibility if there is an OI in the universe.

Regarding the whole issue of the material world being an illusion, let me show that materialists think the same of consciousness. Susan Blackmore writes the following:

If consciousness seems to be a continuous stream of rich and detailed sights, sounds, feelings and thoughts, then I suggest this is the illusion. First we must be clear what is meant by the term “illusion”. To say that consciousness is an illusion is not to say that it doesn’t exist, but that it is not what it seems to be―more like a mirage or a visual illusion. And if consciousness is not what it seems, no wonder it’s proving such a mystery. For the proposal “It’s all an illusion” even to be worth considering, the problem has to be serious. And it is.

What Susan Blackmore thinks of a continuous stream of conscious experiences, I think of material cause. Why is this so hard to grasp? Let me quote Juliod Barbour on the reality of time:

Zeno of Elea... formulated a famous paradox designed to show that motion is impossible... in my timeless view the paradox is resurrected, but the arrow never reaches the target for a more basic reason: the arrow in the bow is not the arrow in the target. There are two parts to my claim that time does not exist. I start from the philosophical conviction that the only true things are complete possible configurations of the universe, unchanging Nows. Unchanging things do not travel in time from Now to Now. Material things, we included, are simply parts of Nows. This philosophical standpoint must be matched by a physical theory that seems natural within it. The evidence that such a physical theory exists and seems to describe the universe forms the other part of my claim. This section has merely made the philosophy, the notion of being, clear. The physics, the guts of the story, is still to come. (Barbour, Julian, 1999, "The End of Time": The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press, 1st edition, p. 49

So, I really don't understand the source of your consternation. What I'm saying about material causation is a very popular view. The holographic principle is growing in interest, and with it comes the inevitable conclusion that material causation is an illusion.

OK, but you seem to be insisting on making room for a supernatural element.

No. My whole view is physical in that I do not think that laws can be violated unless those laws are approximations which are violated beyond the range in which they are applicable. For example, we can find violations of Newtonian gravitation if we study objects near strong gravitational objects which are better approximated by Einstein's general relativity.

Being a Christian means allowing the laws of physics to be broken. I see a world in which nothing supernatural ever happens. If you go to the hill called the Mount of Olives on Ascension day and fly a kite in the shape of Jesus on the cross, it won't fly any higher than my kite on my local hill. Our world is full of people walking around with superstitious ideas in their heads, but not one atom is out of place on account of such matters. Do you agree with this or not?

I agree that all that composes a religious experience is based in natural law. We may not understand all the laws that are applicable, but no natural law can be broken, meaning that the approximation is not broken (e.g., Newtonian motion applies at Newtonian scales).

[Chad]

The statement “Multiverse did it” is worded odd. The multiverse theory isn’t an end all question, like the “God did it” statement is.

What do you mean? You need a brute fact where everything starts off. If atheism doesn't accept a multiverse, then it has no explanation for the enormous unlikelihood for a universe fine-tuned for sophisticated structures. Anything akin to a pantheist or theist solution is advocating a God, so what other choice is there for the atheist other than a brute fact metauniverse?

I'm comparing the statements themselves. The "God did it" statement is able to answer any question thrown at it. The Multiverse theory attempts to explain a certain situation.

I notice you mention evidence of God’s existence, are you referring to the laws of physics and nature and how accurate they must be to sustain the universe we live in?

This is one set of evidence for God's existence.

If so, why is this obvious sign of evidence towards God’s existence? Just because we don’t understand how it could have come about yet, we should assume a God in the mean time?

No, nothing like that. The word "God" should definitely be one of the top explanans for this feature of the universe. The fact that atheists don't even want to consider it evidence is evidence that atheists just don't want to consider a God at all, and that makes it a personal or psychological issue. I'm not really interested in getting involved in someone's personal issue for rejecting God (e.g., their puppy was run over at the age of six), so I can only address the physical reasons for believing that there is a God.

No, I don't consider this evidence of God because I find the notion rather silly and just a plain cop-out. Are you assuming that my non belief in god is based on a bad personal experience? Heh. My switch to to being an atheist was far from being a case such as that, nor should it matter. It was a personal issue, but it was nothing bad. Is it ok for me to make the assumption that most Christians are merely Christians due to the fact that their parents were, and the ideas were pushed into their heads at such a young age that they just accepted them and never decided to fully think for themselves?

I wish more people would put the idea of God aside for a while and try to solve some of these very interesting situations which we observe.

Well, first, I thought you were an atheist? If so, then it isn't that you wish to put aside an idea that you don't like, you think there is evidence against that idea such that it is not reasonable. That's what atheists believe. If I am correct that you are an atheist, then this position here is more conducive of an agnostic position.

I said the above because I'm fully aware of how many people believe in a God.

Take evolution for example. When no one knew of genes or how life evolved, they would find the variety of life and all it’s complexity near impossible to come about by some way other than God. Yet, here we are with a very clear view of how evolution takes life from something very simple to something much more complex and adaptive.

Not every theist was like that. For example, a theist whom I greatly admire and feel actually shocked that he is not better known was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis who in 1744 formulated what is famously known as the principle of least action. Not only did he formulate this principle, he strongly advocated a path integral formulation of theism as being a general principle of nature. Add to that, Maupertuis was one of the first documented cases of a scientist advocating natural selection a century before Darwin:

"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced..."

So, it wasn't that there were not any theists who weren't cued into how nature operates, it's just that here is a clear case of one being ignored. It's unfortunate since the path integral formulation was later found by the late Professor Feynman to be a fundamental formulation of quantum theory, and it still grows in popularity with Jim Hartle and Stephen Hawking advocating a path integral prescriptive law that caused the material world into existence. Maupertuis' spirit lives on.

I was merely using it as an example of how a misunderstanding and lack of evidence of something doesn't mean we should jump to the God conclusion. Surely some people will not jump to the that conclusion and will look for an actual answer. That's when progress is made.

You keep brining up the principle of causality. Is God somehow immune to this principle in your eyes? What was the cause of God?

God is not immune to the principle of causality, God exists interwoven with this principle. To ask what was the cause of God is to ask what caused cause. It's a meaningless question since to ask what caused cause is to assume cause. Similarly, to ask what caused God is to already assume God exists when you ask that question.

So are you saying there was no cause to God and he just existed?

All very interesting questions. Yet, it seems very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that this sort of logic-causal world is the only one possible. Are you saying God designed causality and logic?

No, at the root level of causality and logic, God exists interwoven with these concepts. However, beyond the root level, God I believe determines what is a logical theorem and what is a mathematical theorem. Also with causality, God determines what causal relations exist in the world. God is restricted to some considerable extent by causality, logic, and math, but God also restricts causal relations, logical theorems, and mathematical theorems.

How is God so intelligent to determine ALL causal relations when just above you state God had no cause but was the cause(Unless im not understanding this correctly)? Are you saying God existed in a state so intelligent to be able to determine every causal relation? Why is there even a need for a God if he existed with all the causal relations? Why have a God appear that need be more complex that what is already there? I know you will say he needed to cause the relations to happen, but why would he need to if you say there was no cause to God? By your logic if God doesn't need a cause then why not just have all the cause relations just exist along with the matter to start it off?

That seems like a nice quick answer, except under what logic and causality was God designed and how did he just happen to be able to “create” the universe?

God wasn't designed anymore than the principle of causality was designed. The existence of this principle exists, and in fact, it is needed to define what we mean by something existing or have something happen. God could create the universe by choosing to create the universe based on what God saw as a divine reason to do so.

How could a God even have a divine reason for creating a universe? Is God sitting in a room with other Gods and shooting pool and coming up with these ideas? Off what reasoning does he have to make these divine choices?

Do you believe that God just existed or that God evolved in some way? I would be interested to hear your answer to that.

God and causality and truth are one. There is no real separation. We can, of course, refer to different aspects of ultimate reality (e.g., we can refer to solely the causal aspects), but to talk about causality with any extensiveness requires us to talk about God, or talk about truth.

I've re-read that many times and I'm still unsure if that actually answers my question or not. Is there anyway you could please give a straightforward answer to the question above? I know you feel that God is interwoven withing a principle, so do you feel that God always existed within that principle or that he evolved into it somehow?

And God wouldn’t be complex? Wouldn’t a God that creates a universe and the laws and constants which we observe would have to be more complex to even pull off such a feet in the first place.

No. God is very simple. God is just an aspect of ultimate reality. It's that part of reality which requires that things cohere and correspond to truth. For example, let us say that it is a truth that the world should conform to some principle of parsimony, then God is that aspect of ultimate reality that confirms and instantiates the needed processes that the principle of parsimony is not violated. In a complex universe such as ours, this looks like God is complex (so much to consider, so little time to do it), but its really overall simple. Reality does not allow paradoxes to occur. So, we call that aspect of reality that has these rules and forbids certain paradoxial actions as God (e.g., forbids time travellers who go back in the past and stop their grandfather from meeting their grandmothers to not let that happen). In simple cases, there's really nothing to marvel at, but on complex levels (e.g., the bringing forth of life via Maurertuis' theistic natural selection principle--introduced before Darwin), and whola, we have our Omniscient Being being as discrete as ever.

How can God not be complex yet know how things must cohere and correspond to “truth”? Off what basis is God forbidding paradoxical actions? Does god “just know” what should be forbidden?

It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., a simple material basis) versus some God figure.

I'm afraid you'll have to pick which one, Chad. You can't serve two masters here. Either you will have to serve a simple material basis of the Universe, or you'll have to serve a view that Truth exists and is the cause of all material facts in the world. The material basis is not fully logical. It doesn't even have to conform to logic. In fact, a universe that is at root based on material brute facts can conceivably change its behavior tomorrow (goodbye universe). By the mere fact that the universe doesn't suddenly play by different "logical" rules should be indication that we do not live in a world having some material brute fact as its basis.

I'm just showing that the statement you made (The one I near copied) is just your opinion. You assume that God is the only logical means of the existence of the Universe. I don't feel that a God explanation is logical or necessary. You feel that a “Willy nilly material basis” (As you put it) is not possible. I'm not going to speculate much further on it.

What is that supposed to mean? Schemes of an afterlife based on what evidence and logic? Since it's quite apparent that humans evolved to this state, are you saying that God will continue to judge us based on our evolutionary state, or did he expect us to arrive at this point and already have the ground work laid out? Do you think God's observing what our ever changing culture deems is right or not and basing it off that?

God allows the world to evolve naturally. However, God acts minimally in this world to coax it toward whatever goal that the divine will has for it. These things naturally derive themselves without God having to violate the natural principles on which it is founded. This, though, is all done for a reason. The reason, I suspect, is that the universe is a continuation of the logical world and mathematical world where we see theorems being produced. Once the theorems are derived, the theorems are proved for their truthfulness. If the theorems are judged unprovable (i.e., after they have been derived), then they stay in a certain limbo of unproven theorems. If the universe is a derived theorem as I suggest, then there is yet to be a proving session for the universe. Except I don't think the proving session is limited to the universe as a whole. I think it involves every entity in the universe. If an entity is consistent with whatever language L exists before it, then that entity will be "saved" and kept as a saved theorem proved "true." This, I think, is the essence of Christianity. So, in that sense, I see Christianity as having a very logical basis.

I truly am trying to understand this, I've read it over probably four times now, lol. Can you please provide an example of an entity, theorem and what it would mean for it to be “true”?

Religion attempts to fill in the gaps with an evasion response such as “God did it”. When is the last time that someone has shown that “God did it”? It seems that as science progresses and we become more knowledgeable, these gaps become less and less.

I see the exact opposite conclusion. In my view, science is relying more and more on God, and less and less on a brute fact material world which became very popular at the time of LaPlace. Now, we see principles (God) take on extreme importance in science. Even now, the new quantum gravity theories being batted around don't even make much reference to material concepts anymore. We now need certain laws to "exist" in order for there to be material things. So, I see science moving closer and closer to pantheism, which is I think very close to the truth.

To say science is relying more and more on God is dependent on your definition of God or a pantheism approach. Sciences makes conclusions based on what we observe, and they have not observed a God. Nor can they “prove” that God doesn't exist. Which is part of the reason I feel he lives on so well. God is unobservable, untestable and has you assume him as an answer.

[harvey1]

The "God did it" statement is able to answer any question thrown at it. The Multiverse theory attempts to explain a certain situation.

I don't think the phrase "God did it" answers every question. How did God do it? Are there any processes involved? What was existing before God did it? Etc. Quite the opposite of a multiverse did it answer. We might as well say that the universe and our memories to boot (up to 5 min ago) were part of a multiverse world. It's a classic situation of overdetermination.

No, I don't consider this evidence of God because I find the notion rather silly and just a plain cop-out.

Well, that's a prejudice that I do not share obviously.

Are you assuming that my non belief in god is based on a bad personal experience? Heh. My switch to to being an atheist was far from being a case such as that, nor should it matter. It was a personal issue, but it was nothing bad.

Chad, there's a universe that exists out there. We don't know why it's here. We see some extraordinary facts about its existence that leaves only two real possibilities, it was caused by a larger state space or it was caused by some process. In case of a larger state space, we have reasons to reject it because as a brute fact it is too complex and unimaginable for it to be the case without some process in place making it evolve to some complex state. The other, a process, can start off with a principle of causality, and doesn't require advocating some huge complex start to everything. Which is more logical? I say the latter. But, I acknowledge that there is a possibility the former is possible if we cannot show that it is unlikely given what we know. I think we can show it is unlikely, so there's no further reason to consider it. Your view, though, strikes down the latter view because of a preconceived prejudice. Do you see why I see that as a psychological based reason? Why should we reject one of two solutions (and accept the more unlikely version) simply because the latter version strikes you psychologically as unpleasing?

So are you saying there was no cause to God and he just existed?

If your question is, "is there a cause to causation?", then my answer is that the question itself is meaningless. God is part of the cause relation, so it doesn't make sense to ask where the nature of that relation comes from.

How is God so intelligent to determine ALL causal relations when just above you state God had no cause but was the cause(Unless im not understanding this correctly)?

You're confusing the nature of causation with individual causal relations. For example, if I tip a glass of water over, and the water spills on the table, the causal relation is C caused E (or tipping the glass caused water on the table). The nature of causation is what it means for C to cause E. If we ask what it means for C to cause E, then God is ultimately part of that explanation. God's intelligence is part of the nature of causation. For example, when I tipped the glass over, the effect wasn't a brush fire in Arizona. Why not? Well, because E must be in the context of C. C must satisfy the conditions of E happening. How is it that something can be satisfied unless it is true that C satisfies the conditions of E happening? It is this satisfaction relation that involves a mind. Without a mind knowing and confirming that something has been satisfied, then E cannot happen. This is why God exists as part of the principle of causation. Causation (incl. logic, truth) need satisfaction, and this is the role an Omniscient Interpreter provides.

Are you saying God existed in a state so intelligent to be able to determine every causal relation?

Yes. Every causal relation has God's mind in use in some capacity. Keep in mind, that capacity might be akin to our central nervous system confirming that a nerve ending has just been stimulated. Some causal relations require more cognizance than other more simple causal relations that predominate the universe.

Why is there even a need for a God if he existed with all the causal relations?

Everything is built from the ground up. The ground is the principle of causation, and from that ground level you have all the theorems which are true as a result of there being causality and truth.

How could a God even have a divine reason for creating a universe? Is God sitting in a room with other Gods and shooting pool and coming up with these ideas? Off what reasoning does he have to make these divine choices?

In addition to causality, you also have logic and truth. There are things that are true as a result of a principle of causation, and those things logically derive from the root of this principle being true. However, everything that is "true" must be derived and proven. Objects come into existence by being considered (derived) as possibly true, and they come into permanent existence by being proven true. I suspect that our universe has many, many structures that were proven long ago antecedent to our universe (although I don't mean to imply that temporality is involved).

This Omniscient Interpreter must decide based on what is conceivably possible and then decide what is logically possible, and then what is proven. So, it is God's role to bring forth new structures (or new worlds) by considering (creating) them.

Is there anyway you could please give a straightforward answer to the question above? I know you feel that God is interwoven withing a principle, so do you feel that God always existed within that principle or that he evolved into it somehow?

God did not evolve, but God's knowledge evolved by adding new theorems that at the root of causality were not derived yet. This principle of evolution of new life is, I suppose, why God continues to use biological evolution in our world. This is the way God has been doing things for billions of worlds, and that's just the way things are done.

How can God not be complex yet know how things must cohere and correspond to “truth”? Off what basis is God forbidding paradoxical actions? Does god “?just know” what should be forbidden?

I think an appropriate way to visualize this is with a branching structure to reality. So, God must choose between branches (e.g., truth or error), and once reality moves along the branch of a true statement, the open possibility is decided and becomes a closed possibility. That is, knowledge has been created. This knowledge is embedded in the nature of reality that is beyond the branching point. So, the knowledge just "is." The reason it just "is" is because there exists a causal history showing how it became that way, and this is what is actually meant by a principle of causality (E has a reality if C has a reality). After the branching point, E has reality.

God "knows" that E should have a reality based on previous knowledge, and based on God's nature itself which is the nature of causation. This nature must be consistent otherwise it would not exist by its own lights. Therefore, God knows a paradox because God's nature is part of God's knowledge (i.e., God knows the divine nature). God will not violate the divine(causal/logical/truthful) nature of Reality, and therefore every causal decision that follows is based on this basis.

Can you please provide an example of an entity, theorem and what it would mean for it to be “true”?

Well, for example, any mathematical theorem. You pick...

To say science is relying more and more on God is dependent on your definition of God or a pantheism approach. Sciences makes conclusions based on what we observe, and they have not observed a God. Nor can they “prove” that God doesn't exist. Which is part of the reason I feel he lives on so well. God is unobservable, untestable and has you assume him as an answer.

Every observation is based on there being logic/truth/causal nature to the world. This is what I mean by basing scientific views on God, at least in a pantheistic sense.

[QED]

I'm not sure what I can do here. I've already presented an overall picture where an Omniscient Interpreter (OI) is a natural "outcome" of there being causality. The OI is busy interpreting objects for conformance to reality, and the interpretaments are used to justify the existence of the objects. If an object is found justified, it is saved. This, I think, is the basis for thinking that an afterlife is a reasonable possibility if there is an OI in the universe.

Let's just stick to the topic shall we? There's plenty of threads on the go to discuss the other matters. When you talk about the "busy OI" (boy is he busy) interpreting objects for conformance to reality this sounds like a great play on words. Words that are picked to convey a sense that something Godlike is judging everything.

Now I have to stop and consider the motivation for why this particular way of looking at things would be the right way to look at things. Do we ever see judgment outside human endeavors? I don't think so. Not the sort of judgment that has an eye on every little detail of the world (e.g. thoughts in our heads). Sure we see rocks fall to the ground and bazillions of other classical physical law-abiding events, we also see path integrals cancelling 'unjustified' wayward particle trajectories, but Mr Feynman's little spinning arrows are responsible for all these sorts of judgments. The spins are what decide what reality is.

So when you talk about "objects that are found to be justified" being "saved" you simply seem to me to be describing perfectly ordinary stuff using a form of wording that puts a Christian spin on everything. Having built this bridge you then cross it to arrive at devices such as the afterlife -- a notion so pernicious in terms of supporting all aspects of faith, salvation and heaven that it becomes a mandatory element of not just Christian religion but many others as well.

I often find myself asking WWFD? (What would the late Mr. Feynman do) I would happily put my trust in him on almost any matter for he was the epitome of a down-to-earth thinker. Shut-up and calculate is something that nods in the direction of the sort of mysticism you've latched on to, but the paradigm shift from classical to quantum worlds is still in it's infancy. I salute you for being able to work a skillful reading of the new physics into the language of the Christian message. But that's the exact summary I give of your exercise. The notion of an afterlife is simply too rich. Too much like a honey-trap for those with a sweet-tooth. You haven't spoken of hell, and I think I can guess why... it is only cancellation in your view, oblivion. But the quantum world is fragile, decoherence is always just around the corner. Are you sure we're saved after all?

[harvey1]

Do we ever see judgment outside human endeavors? I don't think so.

Which-way information could be such a judgement process.

Not the sort of judgment that has an eye on every little detail of the world (e.g. thoughts in our heads).

Does every single quantum particle qualify?

Sure we see rocks fall to the ground and bazillions of other classical physical law-abiding events, we also see path integrals cancelling 'unjustified' wayward particle trajectories, but Mr Feynman's little spinning arrows are responsible for all these sorts of judgments. The spins are what decide what reality is.

The paths themselves cancel out in the path integral, so how is that not a judgement? If Hartle and Hawking are right, then whole universe possibilities cancel themselves out.

I often find myself asking WWFD? (What would the late Mr. Feynman do)

I guess the only thing he could do is rot. Poor joke, sorry.

I would happily put my trust in him on almost any matter for he was the epitome of a down-to-earth thinker. Shut-up and calculate is something that nods in the direction of the sort of mysticism you've latched on to, but the paradigm shift from classical to quantum worlds is still in it's infancy.

There's enough information to put forth a position. It may not be enough to conclude a position, but my arguments against material causation, algorithmic complexity of a brute fact world, etc., do not require quantum theory to be applicable here. What quantum theory discussions do is hopefully shed some light on a phenomena that can be better understood using this perspective.

The notion of an afterlife is simply too rich. Too much like a honey-trap for those with a sweet-tooth... Are you sure we're saved after all?

This is from an atheist perspective; it's a prejudice. It would be like asking a Palestinian if they love Israel. You don't expect to get a non-biased answer. That's not to say that you are so biased that you cannot even address the issue, but I don't see things the way a "Palestinian" might see things. I might not see things the way an "Israeli" might see things. So, of course we form our own opinions, but since I don't have what I consider the fallacious perspective of material causation, I don't see things from your perspective at all. No offense.

[QED]

But Harvey, the closest you can come to getting anywhere near the faintest whiff of anything mystical/supernatural is right down at the quantum level. I say that because this level is a challenge to our current technology it's little wonder we find ourselves looking at a puzzle.

But then on this basis (unknowns in quantum mechanics) you say that my perspective is all wrong, and if only I would regard everything in the light of 'quantum spookiness' I would realise how the whole world is permeated by the supernatural, and how things that look just crazy from the material realist POV are to be thoroughly expected.

I'm going to stock-up on yet more reading material. I don't like the idea that I might be missing something anymore than I like the idea of process theologians having a field-day at the fringes of science.

[Chad]

No, I don't consider this evidence of God because I find the notion rather silly and just a plain cop-out.

Well, that's a prejudice that I do not share obviously.

Don’t worry about it, there are a few prejudices of yours that I don’t share either…

Why does atheism persist when it is obviously false?

It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., God basis) versus some willy nilly material basis.

The fact that atheists don't even want to consider it evidence is evidence that atheists just don't want to consider a God at all, and that makes it a personal or psychological issue. I'm not really interested in getting involved in someone's personal issue for rejecting God (e.g., their puppy was run over at the age of six)…

I’m not going to bother with another response to the topic you and I have been discussing for the past few posts. We have gone way too far off the original topic, which very few actually addressed. It was interesting to read your view on things, and I thank you for answering many questions that I did pose and was genuinely curious about. It’s quite obvious that we each have our own ideas and opinions about God and this is not the topic to discuss them in, nor is it getting anywhere fast. I do not concede, but I think it has gone on long enough in the wrong topic.

It would be great to read more about your views on an afterlife so that we may discuss that instead. I was interested in how people thought an afterlife would actually work. How are you judged, what do you do in an afterlife, why do you need an afterlife or what is it based on, what are you judged on, why are you judged on that, do you imagine a physical existence in the afterlife, what laws/rules do you think apply in the afterlife, and so on. Some of these have been partially to fully answered already, which is nice. It would have been nice to hear from more people on this subject.

[QED]

I was interested in how people thought an afterlife would actually work. How are you judged, what do you do in an afterlife, why do you need an afterlife or what is it based on, what are you judged on, why are you judged on that, do you imagine a physical existence in the afterlife, what laws/rules do you think apply in the afterlife, and so on. Some of these have been partially to fully answered already, which is nice. It would have been nice to hear from more people on this subject.

I'm sorry that we digressed. I too am interested in how people imagine the afterlife works. For many it seems they don't give it a second thought. As a general concept it's clearly one that has been around ever since humans gained the ability to ponder. I often wonder if my pet cat has an awareness of an afterlife or is ignorant of his mortality. Either might explain why he's content to spend the majority of his time in a contented slumber. Personally I begrudge the amount of time I spend asleep.

[Bro Dave]

Chad wrote:

It would be great to read more about your views on an afterlife so that we may discuss that instead. I was interested in how people thought an afterlife would actually work. How are you judged, what do you do in an afterlife, why do you need an afterlife or what is it based on, what are you judged on, why are you judged on that, do you imagine a physical existence in the afterlife, what laws/rules do you think apply in the afterlife, and so on. Some of these have been partially to fully answered already, which is nice. It would have been nice to hear from more people on this subject.

Chad, you seem sincere in your question, and therefore I am assuming you are open to other information. I will tell you my understanding that I have gleaned over my many years of study and search for truth.

We are imperfect. That was the design intent, not a design flaw. We were give the potential literally to achieve a level of relative perfection, just not in the few years we have here. God shares in our experiences and our growth, and so has provided an enormous Universe as a "university" in which to achieve our potential perfection. God has also provide the universe with sufficient personnel to administer and maintain that universe, creating yet more experiences He can share with all of His creations.

On normal planets, all this is much clearer, and therefore free will choices can be made during the living of even a short life, as to whether or not one chooses to continue, or to simply stop there when the material body dies, and become as though you never were. However, our planet, with thirty-some others, got caught up in a rebellion, and put us in isolation. Consequently, our vision of the universe is badly blurred, and we do not have sufficient information to make any such ultimate existance/nonexistance decision. Because of this, we all pretty much are headed for the Mansion Worlds, where we receive remedial training to bring us up to speed. Those who leave here thoroughly confused, or even hostile to God, will be awaken as groups every thousand years or so. All will be given every opportunity to make up for what was lacking in their mortal experiences. Some, however, will have managed to gain sufficient clarity, to find God within themselves. These will be awakened on the third day after their demise, and allowed to continue their education at what ever their level when they passed. There are seven training spheres that need to be traversed, and each time the body is upgraded or replaced. After many, many such upgrades, one reaches the point of becoming literally a spiritual entity. The learning never ceases, and we move on until in somewhere around 200 billion or so years, we have become perfect,(within the limits of our creation) and we come into the actual presents of God.

There’s more; A LOT more, and if you are interested, send me a PM. (I don’t want to bore those who are uninterested)

Bro Dave