Who are we?

arunangelo · Post by **arunangelo** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:33 pm

We are living beings that are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Since God is love (1 John 4:8), we as His image are created for love. In creating us, therefore, God invites us to a life of love with Him and our fellow human beings (Matthew 22:36-40). Love, therefore, is at the very center of human existence and the life of our soul. Without it we are devoid of joy and peace; and without love our spirit is dead (1 Cor. 13:1-4). Furthermore, because, God is love, we can never have true love for anyone unless we are free of every form of hate and are in communion with God.

Because, we are created for love, love makes us truly human, gives meaning to our lives, fulfills the innermost yearning of our hearts and brings us peace. All our acts of love are Godâ€˜s works, which He performs through us. We share in Godâ€™s divinity by allowing divine actions, which are acts of love, through us.

0JesusFreak · Post by **0JesusFreak** » Tue May 04, 2010 7:35 pm

I do suppose it would be well supported through philosophy, but as far as the big names in western philosophy have gone, the noumenal factually exists. Of that much we are certain. Beyond that, I suppose it would be acurate to say that I believe it to be fact that God is all because He is the noumenal. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to observe the noumenal plane and that is impossible until we are dead.

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Tue May 04, 2010 7:56 pm

0JesusFreak wrote:I do suppose it would be well supported through philosophy, but as far as the big names in western philosophy have gone, the noumenal factually exists. Of that much we are certain. Beyond that, I suppose it would be acurate to say that I believe it to be fact that God is all because He is the noumenal. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to observe the noumenal plane and that is impossible until we are dead.

Well, on the one hand I disagree with you that either of the following can be said to be established facts:
- The noumenal exists
- God id the noumenal.

But I do like framing experiences, talk, and thought about the divine in terms of the noumenal. I think that's a big step in the right direction. But I must ask, is it possible to do that without resorting to fact claims? Would that itself not be more faithful? Does not the noumenal itself rebel against any such expression, translation, or reduction to fact claims (it's noumenal, not phenomenal)?

0JesusFreak · Post by **0JesusFreak** » Wed May 05, 2010 2:19 am

I'm sorry, I'm a visual and kinistetic learner. Could you please elaborate on that last sentence?

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Wed May 05, 2010 9:56 am

0JesusFreak wrote:I'm sorry, I'm a visual and kinistetic learner. Could you please elaborate on that last sentence?

Sure.
If we look at noumena, moumenon, noumenal:
noumenon [ËˆnuË�mÉªnÉ™n ËˆnaÊŠ-]
n pl -na [-nÉ™]
1. (Philosophy) (in the philosophy of Kant) a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience Compare phenomenon [3] See also thing-in-itself
2. (Philosophy) the object of a purely intellectual intuition

...we see that it is not something that submits to empirical or even purely logical analysis or verification. In other words, we can never call it a fact, or say that it IS.
But we can be said to experience or intuit something that we call noumenal. The experience is real (how we interpret it varies).
So to say "I believe it is a fact that" or "It IS" or "God IS" are not literally factual, nor do they follow logically.

However, it does seem reasonable to me to rephrase it as "I believe tha...t" or better, "I have faith that..", leaving out "it is a fact" or "it follows that."

Starting with people like Kierkegaard, and to some extent Kant, speaking of faith in this kind of post-factual, pro-faithful kind of way seems more workable. It seems to me to be truer to the nature of faith, and also more respectful of the insights of modern thought. And athiests get less pissed off.

sickles · Post by **sickles** » Wed May 05, 2010 3:08 pm

because of any conscious things ability to collapse the function of a probability wave, quantum physics would indicate that nothing is noumenal. I love learning new words!

that means that something only exists as a probability until it is actually observed. This would include god i think ;o) . Deep waters , these.

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Wed May 05, 2010 3:45 pm

sickles wrote:because of any conscious things ability to collapse the function of a probability wave, quantum physics would indicate that nothing is noumenal. I love learning new words!

that means that something only exists as a probability until it is actually observed. This would include god i think ;o) . Deep waters , these.

Yup. Nothing noumenal IS, it is merely a possibility. Perhaps faith makes God "real" which is why believers insist that they experience is the only possible verification.
Personally I get a kick out of old ideas and new ideas overlapping and engaging.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Wed May 05, 2010 5:28 pm

sickles wrote:because of any conscious things ability to collapse the function of a probability wave, quantum physics would indicate that nothing is noumenal. I love learning new words!

that means that something only exists as a probability until it is actually observed. This would include god i think ;o) . Deep waters , these.

It is not 'conscious' things.. it is observation.. or to be more precise, quantum interaction. The 'observer' does not have to be conscious... it just has to interact.

sickles · Post by **sickles** » Thu May 06, 2010 2:06 am

goat wrote:
sickles wrote:because of any conscious things ability to collapse the function of a probability wave, quantum physics would indicate that nothing is noumenal. I love learning new words!

that means that something only exists as a probability until it is actually observed. This would include god i think ;o) . Deep waters , these.
It is not 'conscious' things.. it is observation.. or to be more precise, quantum interaction. The 'observer' does not have to be conscious... it just has to interact.

actually it doesnt even have to interact, it just has to "measure". And things that are "measured" must be "observed" and "observation" is only done by the "consciousness".

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ycho08.htm
Goswami proposes that,

"the universe exists as formless potential in myriad possible branches in the transcendent domain and becomes manifest only when observed by conscious beings."

These self-referential observations plot the universe's causal history, rejecting the myriad parallel alternatives that never manifest.

The universe bifurcates in every event in the transcendent domain, becoming many branches, until in one of the branches there is a sentient being that can look with awareness and complete a quantum measurement, according to Goswami. The causal pathway leading to that sentient being collapses into space-time reality.

Meaning arises in the universe when sentient beings observe it, choosing causal pathways from among the myriad transcendent possibilities. This anthropocentric view is also reflected in cosmology as the Anthropic Principle, where the cosmos is created for our sake.

Amazingly, this is apparently compatible with quantum physics

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu May 06, 2010 6:44 am

sickles wrote:
goat wrote:
sickles wrote:because of any conscious things ability to collapse the function of a probability wave, quantum physics would indicate that nothing is noumenal. I love learning new words!

that means that something only exists as a probability until it is actually observed. This would include god i think ;o) . Deep waters , these.
It is not 'conscious' things.. it is observation.. or to be more precise, quantum interaction. The 'observer' does not have to be conscious... it just has to interact.
actually it doesnt even have to interact, it just has to "measure". And things that are "measured" must be "observed" and "observation" is only done by the "consciousness".

No, it does not. All you have to do is set up the equipment, you don't have to actually look at the actual results. 'measure' is interaction.

From a purely physics point of view, that is.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ycho08.htm
Goswami proposes that,

"the universe exists as formless potential in myriad possible branches in the transcendent domain and becomes manifest only when observed by conscious beings."

These self-referential observations plot the universe's causal history, rejecting the myriad parallel alternatives that never manifest.

The universe bifurcates in every event in the transcendent domain, becoming many branches, until in one of the branches there is a sentient being that can look with awareness and complete a quantum measurement, according to Goswami. The causal pathway leading to that sentient being collapses into space-time reality.

Meaning arises in the universe when sentient beings observe it, choosing causal pathways from among the myriad transcendent possibilities. This anthropocentric view is also reflected in cosmology as the Anthropic Principle, where the cosmos is created for our sake.

Amazingly, this is apparently compatible with quantum physics

Well, it doesn't refute it. However, it can be demonstrated that to change an outcome, you don't actually have to have a 'mind' observe, but merely set up the instrumentals.