How do we explain our existence?

[wordryder]

Religion’s admonition, to worship and live our lives to glorify God, does not easily satisfy the human heart and intellect today. Our logic has become a discriminating seeker, needing more engagement—one that compels direct evidence of God and the reason for our existence.

Religion has yet to provide answers that we term useful. Nor does Science’s explanation, that we are a happy accident, satisfy many of us who need answers to questions that go beyond physics and biology:
Why are we here?
Is God here?

In exploring answers to these questions, first there is a need to consider the possibility that God exists. For me, the most reasonable idea of what God would need to be is one that clears away any notion of “gender” or “a being”--notions that diminish and limit. It would also need to be a perception that makes the concept of God more useful.

The idea of God, offered for consideration here, is by an eighteenth century author and religious scholar, M. B. Eddy, 1876, makes the most sense to me:
“the Only MIND PRINCIPLE SPIRIT SOUL LIFE TRUTH LOVE.”

Listening to a physicist explain the existence of particles that can’t be seen, she says, “We know they’re there because of the effects they engender.” And so we marvel at a 6-point snowflake, beehive cells, and the intelligence of an octopus. These examples are quiet announcements of something more profound than Science has been able to explain in a way that reaches both parts of us coincidentally —that which feels (sensing) and that which reasons (consciousness).

With the conditional acceptance of Eddy’s compound idea of God, discussion follows with the use of mathematics as a metaphor, because mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers are on record interpreting mathematics as primary evidence of God’s existence:
• “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Euclid
• "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe." Astrophysicist Paul Davies; Superforce (1984)
• "In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s (mathematical) laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematics methods by means of deduction." Albert Einstein
• “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle, British astrophysicist

Based in PRINCIPLE mathematics is an elegant, beautiful and logical science. As fascinating as mathematics is, however, if left only in the abstract, it can be difficult to understand, undervalued and remote.

We relate to mathematics best when used in a way that manifests its reality within the bounds of our physical universe.

It is also offered as a metaphor in support of my argument.

“Manifest: clearly visible; apparent to the mind or senses.” Webster’s Dictionary

Suppose, in applying manifest to our questions, we come to a thought that says:
If God is the only spiritual Creator, is it possible that we inherit a similar ability—to manifest? And might there be a reason?

The idea that we manifest is not new. There is scientific and spiritual precedent for this idea. Three are offered here:
• “...physicists, faced with compelling experimental evidence, have been moving away from strictly mechanical models of the universe to a view that sees the mind as playing an integral role in all physical events.” “Rediscovered the Mind,” by Harold J. Morowitz. From Psychology Today, August 1980.
• “..the physique is simply thought made manifest.” “Miscellaneous Writings," ibid. M.B.E.
• Dr. John Wheeler (theoretical physicist on retro-causation): “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?”
Martin Redfern (radio program host): “Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we, and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.” "The Anthropic Universe" 2/18/2006

Considering the proposition that we do possess the capability to manifest, would this capability suggest a purpose related to God?

If we accept manifest as an ability, another question presents itself: without man, could God’s existence be apparent?

If the answer to this question is “No”, then another idea occurs concerning the nature of our relationship with God—an idea that proposes the possibility of a synergy which may further support our existence.

“Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergo, συνεργός meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome.” ibid., W.D.

No, this would not have us equal to God, but the idea that we are a natural result of God's existence does suggest that a synergistic relationship is necessary to accomplish the purpose of our existence.

Working theory: We exist to make God and Creation apparent (manifested) and God's existence becomes apparent, clear and useful in much the same way a child learns 2 + 2 = 4 with a set of tiles, making mathematics more real and understandable. As a consequence, it would stand to reason that our being here is necessary.

A question accompanies this theory:
Is it possible that we come equipped to manifest, whether we want to or not?

Now comes Free Will, as an expression of SPIRIT’S infinity, in the sense that diversity must be another outcome of God’s compound nature.

Free Will can also mean we are free to remain ignorant of God’s existence. An error in mathematics can lead to disaster, but the disaster is certainly not the fault of mathematics, nor was it created by mathematics. It is we who perceive evil, not God, and perhaps when Free Will remains ignorant of our purpose, we are “free” to perceive evil.

Would it not then be incumbent upon our choosing to control our ability to manifest under the direction of discrete knowledge?

The main difference between science and religion is that science works to prove or disprove theory, eventually settling on a consensus that advances to the next theory. Because each religion, however, seems to lay dogmatic claim to The Truth, progress is hampered, and real, spiritual thinking instead remains dormant.

Thus the pursuit (beginning in pre-adolescence) of a continuing, independent, and comparative study of religious scripture (any and all), along with the writings of spiritual philosophers and philosopher-scientists (those men and women dedicated to thinking deeply on these concepts), would perhaps advance our collective consciousness. A perspective emerges on how these ideas are useful, parallel, coincide or differ from each other.

The effort alone would fine-tune consciousness, and perhaps lead us to realize the importance of what we’re accomplishing mentally.

Further, if what Morowitz, Wheeler, Eddington, and Eddy say is true, we are also manifesting the Universe.

“Ah,” some might argue, “but the universe is billions of years old; we aren’t that old as a species.”

If true, with LIFE’S expression represented everywhere, isn’t it plausible that we would not be the only self-aware beings who manifest?

Wheeler’s statement is certainly worth considering as well, since “retro-causation” is now being explored, and, if proven a reality, will certainly further substantiate the idea of manifestation as an inherent, human ability.

The possibility that we manifest suggests meaning—a meaning that perhaps explains why we are here under the conditions in which we exist:

• Could this ability enable us to recognize and begin to understand MIND’S Creation, accede to LIFE’S nature,and find utter satisfaction in a reciprocal relationship with LOVE.
• Could it possibly demonstrate the TRUTH of existence as being the “Ultimate, Unifying Force,” that Science looks for so diligently and Religion ignores so completely, to demonstrate the inextricable Unity of GOD and Man.

Finally, the idea that we, and an astonishing array of other conscious beings, are not just in a physical location, but are indispensably/inherently needed to manifest God and Creation's existence, has a scope that justifies the scale of the Universe.

[wordryder]

OK, everyone, there are a couple of dozen ways to go with this, including asking the author if her hair is growing into her brain. Do some research, issue your challenges and let the games begin!

[barts]

I, for one, don't think your hair is growing into your brain.

My quibble with your thoughtful and elegantly argued hypothesis, however, concerns the implied notion that there is God (who is not well defined in your article) and Us. They are put forward as two separate entities where the Wehas some purpose relative to the God. I'm not convinced there is a discrete Weand a discrete Him.

A stronger case, I think, can be made for Us or One. All things, all forces, all "natural" laws are related and entwined, and all are dependent for existence on everything else. Consequently, there is only One thing, and any segmentation we believe we see is not reality, but rather an artifact of our limited abilities to observe and the even greater limitations to our ability to think. We are, of course, able to use segmentation and discrimination to gain what might be an improved understanding of all Creation or, let me call it, the One.

So, what is our purpose as an integral part of the One? I think you, and those you cite, are on to something.

We, like the "natural" laws, are a vital component of the One. We, as a form of life and small part of the One, have evolved to a point where we (as a part of the One) are beginning to be self-aware. Think about that for a moment. We are an intricate arrangement and manifestation of natural forces that can consider and observe not only itself, but also the universe around it. We, indeed all life, are the One becoming self-aware, I suggest.

By all life, I assume that life is arising and evolving throughout the Universe. Given the "laws" of nature, life is likely inevitable.

Given the above speculation, let me suggest that what many people think of as God did not create the Universe, but rather the Universe is creating God. We are a natural and necessary and inevitable part of that evolution, that creation. Our purpose, now that we are becoming self-aware and can consider all of Creation? To facilitate the Universe's, the One's, transition to God: a self-aware One with volition. A volition that will lead to what comes next, and therein lies another mystery.

[Jack]

Nor does Science’s explanation, that we are a happy accident, satisfy many of us who need answers to questions that go beyond physics and biology:
Why are we here?

Science is the effort to understand why we are here, but from a mechanistic angle rather than a philosophical one. Evolution is a mechanism that explains why we are here, how we got to be what we are. How we got to be here in the first place is a question science still can't answer due to the lack of evidence and a clear indication of precisely how life began. Likely we'll never know for sure because we can't go back to confirm our suspicions. I understand that natural, mechanistic explanations don't satisfy everyone, some people feel the need to have a philosophical answer for the question of why we are here. That explains why humans invented philosophy and gods in the first place and why the notion of gods is still with us. It doesn't provide any evidence that gods actually exist in reality but it does account for the reason humans entertain the idea that gods exist.

In exploring answers to these questions, first there is a need to consider the possibility that God exists.

No, there really isn't. We can explore the questions of existence as a purely natural process without the need to introduce a god. Introducing an abstract notion of god into the process of life adds an unnecessary complication that helps explain nothing. The more complex the particular god, the more attributes its endowed with, the more complexity is introduced. Science is our effort to understand the existence of the universe and everything in it with the simplest explanations possible. Because science is a tool we use to understand the natural universe the explanations it seeks are obviously going to be natural, physical and material. Because the process of doing scientific research is a matter of measurements and observations it's not useful to suggest possibilities that cannot be quantified, observed or measured. The possibility that god exists is a postulation many people want to believe, not one that is required to explain the universe. Let's use the phenomena of death as an example. From a scientific view we know that death occurs, we're learning more every day about why death occurs and it's a process that we can observe and measure from its onset to the final decomposition of the body. Many religious beliefs include notions of what occurs after death. These ideas comfort many and help them cope with the emotional effects of another's death on them. But there is no way to scientifically examine those notions. There is no medical or biological evidence of a soul, so those who want to believe a soul exists and survives bodily death must choose to do so without any natural evidence to corroborate their beliefs. The after-death beliefs add nothing to our understand about the physical process of death. They are simply an unnecessary complication added on to make some people feel better about their emotional reaction to death.

The idea of God, offered for consideration here, is by an eighteenth century author and religious scholar, M. B. Eddy, 1876, makes the most sense to me:
“the Only MIND PRINCIPLE SPIRIT SOUL LIFE TRUTH LOVE.”

Other than the unnecessary inclusion of "spirit" and "soul", concepts both ill-defined and biologically unsubstantiated, I see no reason that those qualities can't be appreciated from a purely physical standpoint. Principle, mind, life, truth, love, all these have physical and emotional facets. All can be appreciated as both philosophical and scientifically quantifiable attributes of living beings. I also see no reason to identify them in any way with a concept of god. Again, that's an unnecessary addition that in no way aids our appreciation and understanding of them.

[wordryder]

Thank you, barts. The definition of God makes the most sense to me, but I can't take credit for it. And I did leave a little something out as I didn't want to develop any tangents, hoping others might find a lot of open doors in what I was postulating.
I think my two questions at the end are in total agreement with the idea that we are coincident with God: Could this ability enable us to recognize and begin to understand MIND’S Creation, accede to LIFE’S nature,and find utter satisfaction in a reciprocal relationship with LOVE.
• Could it possibly demonstrate the TRUTH of existence as being the “Ultimate, Unifying Force,” that Science looks for so diligently and Religion ignores so completely, to demonstrate the inextricable Unity of GOD and Man, 'inextricable' meaning "can't be separated" in this case.
The only point of divergence that I find with your argument is that

the Universe is creating God.

I don't believe that God (who must be spiritual in order for the concept to work for me) created the physical universe. I hope I made it clear that we may be doing that, as we speak, perhaps along with other sentient life forms.

It really helps me to think of God as the

Only MIND(that which creates) PRINCIPLE (that which governs) SPIRIT (that which instills) SOUL (substantial) LIFE (activity) TRUTH (that which is unchanging) LOVE (that which nurtures)

because this concept has eternal and infinite implications, whereas the physical universe may not. I don't recall that physicists have committed to that idea yet. I also find it difficult to believe that the universe has ingrained in us the ability to: love unselfishly (LOVE), make leaps in thought (MIND), apply mathematics (PRINCIPLE), demonstrate nobility (SPIRIT), nor does it have the ability to render in us deeply held convictions that result in the good that's being done in this world (SOUL), grow our conscience and respect each other(LIFE) . None of these things are quantifiable, Jack. Science is all about measuring; God is all about infinity. Have to go and do work, pay bills, etc., you know---stuff.

[wordryder]

Also meant to say thanks for your considerations, Jack. Always insightful and worth contemplating. Hope to have more time this evening to parse with them.

[wordryder]

Re: 6th December 2011, 08:14 AM #4 Hey Jack Glad to see you got in on the act. Still feels a little lonely in here. Guess the topic wasn't as startling as I thought.

Science is the effort to understand why we are here, but from a mechanistic angle rather than a philosophical one. Evolution is a mechanism that explains why we are here, how we got to be what we are. How we got to be here in the first place is a question science still can't answer due to the lack of evidence and a clear indication of precisely how life began. Likely we'll never know for sure because we can't go back to confirm our suspicions.

I know this is difficult to see from your perspective and I'd probably have a hard time convincing you otherwise, but will focus on how I've come to think otherwise. I find quantum mechanics so fascinating and have been looking at it for about 8 years now. (Got C in physics, ho-ho.) My first encounter was with a book by Paul Davies. He quotes a bunch of physicists, more or less leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions. One of the physicists talked about something that today is being called retro-causation which, if valid would shake up both creationists and evolutionists. It's a quick read if you have time: "God and the New Physics," is the title. I have a little theory about life in the universe--even thought about doing a little fiction story about it, just don't have the time.

That explains why humans invented philosophy and gods in the first place and why the notion of gods is still with us. It doesn't provide any evidence that gods actually exist in reality but it does account for the reason humans entertain the idea that gods exist.

Granted the books in the New Testament are really "iffy," but the Old Testament seems like another matter--even "feels" different to read it. The Hebrew culture didn't have a lot of philosophy going for it, until perhaps David came along, but their idea of God was big and bad. I don't think they spent a lot of time wondering where they came from. Genesis, it seems, has two authors, one called the Elohist who wrote the first chapter and 3 verses of the second (according to biblical scholars) then was added to by another author whose ID (most likely Jehovist) slips my mind. So monotheism becomes a shared belief, strong enough to withstand a world full of pantheism and survives as nationalistic glue to this day. In the early days of Hebrew monotheism it felt to me like they were dragged kicking and screaming into the idea, making me think it wasn't something they thought they 'needed.'

We can explore the questions of existence as a purely natural process without the need to introduce a god. Introducing an abstract notion of god into the process of life adds an unnecessary complication that helps explain nothing. The more complex the particular god, the more attributes its endowed with, the more complexity is introduced. Science is our effort to understand the existence of the universe and everything in it with the simplest explanations possible.

Yup, we can, but it just doesn't touch the whole person. It leaves part of of us (the most important part) out. I have something I'm going to send you--not willing to share in this forum because it's too close to me, but it may explain how steadfast I am in my conviction--understanding. The religious author I mentioned said it's not enough to believe, or just have faith, we need to educate ourselves into an understanding of God. (If you scoff at that idea, I wouldn't blame you, coming from your perspective, but it sure makes sense to me.) That was the challenge she issued and it didn't go over too well with organized religion. They love all that mystery, dogma, etc.

There is no medical or biological evidence of a soul, so those who want to believe a soul exists and survives bodily death must choose to do so without any natural evidence to corroborate their beliefs. The after-death beliefs add nothing to our understand about the physical process of death. They are simply an unnecessary complication added on to make some people feel better about their emotional reaction to death.

Yeah, the idea of death is the last thing on my mind. I frankly don't know what to think about it. If we're dead-dead then so much for that. If there is another plane of existence I'll be interested to see what it is. My experience tells me there may be. I get a little wobbly when I hear about the light and tunnel thing, though.

Principle, mind, life, truth, love, all these have physical and emotional facets. All can be appreciated as both philosophical and scientifically quantifiable attributes of living beings. I also see no reason to identify them in any way with a concept of god. Again, that's an unnecessary addition that in no way aids our appreciation and understanding of them.

PRINCIPLE: That which governs

MIND: That which creates

SPIRIT: That which enlivens

SOUL: Deep conviction

LIFE: That which acts

TRUTH: That from which all reality flows

LOVE: That which nurtures


G O D
This is how God "appears" to me.
I'm sending the other writing to you now. Have a great nite, Jack.

[Jack]

I read Davies years ago and see from some of his more recent writings that my opinion of his viewpoint doesn't merit alteration. He's a scientist who consistently misstates the functioning of his own chosen profession and is intent on melding Christian belief (specifically) with science. He believes the Earth was created for the benefit of humans. I disagree with most of his opinions.

Here's an example of how I think he gets it wrong.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

Taking Science on Faith - New York Times

Where we disagree is his contention that "science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." An ordered universe would only be a matter of faith if science had made that determination prior to any observation and experimentation. When we realize that the "order" in the universe, the laws of physics and cosmology, were constructed to explain observed phenomena, the matter of "faith" is no longer applicable. I know Davies wants to reconcile belief and science but he goes about it by making dishonest and deceptive statements.

...so far this faith has been justified

Of course it has because it's the result of basing conclusions on observation and experimentation, not from devising predetermined conclusions then searching for evidence that supports them.

[wordryder]

I didn't get that idea from Davies at all and I've read that book a couple of times, particularly the conversations between atheist and Christian. Like the humor. OK, Paul may have an agenda, but I like the idea that science and religion could meld, particularly in view of Einstein's statement that science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame.
An astrophysicist friend of mine was doing a radio interview and the host commended him for thinking "outside the box" (by using the Uncertainty Principle to find life on planets we can't see) and Laurence said, "It's more like Outside the Box is thinking of us."

And you know what else? We weren't there when scientists started "discovering" the nature of the universe. Who knows how much they struggled around to come up with their theories. Einstein and his partner did thought experiments, forget the name for that. Just sitting there "supposing"--granted it's high-level supposing...I'm sure Newton and the apple is a way over simplified version of how he drew his conclusions.

A physicist explains her work on unseen particles by saying, "No, we can't seem them, but we know they're there by the effects they create." I recognize God in the same way.

[Peter]

Why are we here? I'm glad to say that nobody knows. We're free to pursue our own purpose in life. Consider the alternative.

There is a celestial dictator and you were created to worship him for all eternity. He watches you all the time and can even convict you of thought crimes if you should stray from the narrow path he's dictated for you. You have no hope of doing anything but worship this god forever. Your worshiping him now and you know exactly what you'll be doing a billion years from now.

That would constitute a fate worse than death for me. Some would argue that it just sounds horrible but really you'd be happy and content all the time. Really? If so I would have to be changed, lobotomized even. I don't want to be changed. I want to be me.

No, just give me 70 or 80 years here on this Earth being as happy and content as I can and keep your lobotomized eternity.

[Peter]

A physicist explains her work on unseen particles by saying, "No, we can't seem them, but we know they're there by the effects they create." I recognize God in the same way.

What effects do you see that are most likely caused by a god? Do you think I'll agree?

[wordryder]

I was more interested in creating debate about manifesting and here we are still debating God. There are other threads for that. My argument was contingent upon considering God in the way I presented, then going on from there. Moreover, I don't get the dictator idea and I don't do a lot of grovelling. Please move on to the thread on the Logic of Theism so that this thread can deal with the dance of science and religion.