In other words, we live in a non-material universe,where substance does not exist,but things appear as if things were made of substance. — god must be atheist

Bishop George Berkeley, 'esse est percipe'. There is no independently-existing material substance, but only perceptions; the only truly existing beings are spirit/s.

Sting - 'we are spirits in a material world'

thanks, Wayfearer. I mean Welfarer! I mean Wayfaroere!!!! I mean Wai Fe-lel!!!!! I mean WAYFARER!!!!

Sorrry.

So what is if nothing IS? Is our fate to accept that nothing is, everything only seems to be issing?

In other words, we live in a non-material universe,where substance does not exist,but things appear as if things were made of substance. — god must be atheist

What a great hoax is being put over on us! We put a picture of some cheese in a mousetrap and catch a picture of a mouse. Our senses don't really take anything in, but this is faked to fool us. Just wait until I catch the guy who did this!

Sting - 'we are spirits in a material world' — Wayfarer

Hence, "Ghost in the Machine". Hm.

Just wait until I catch the guy who did this! — PoeticUniverse

Please let me have a few choice words with him, too, once you are finished with him. Thanks in advance.

Just wait until I catch the guy who did this! — PoeticUniverse

But... but... but what if NOBODY did this? After all, in a universe in which nothing is, there is nobody either... to do things.

No scapegoat. Now, that's reeeeeally aggrevating. Now I am really angry at him, now that it's been revealed he has not got the gumption to exist.

What a way to escape the retribution of justice!

So what is if nothing IS? — god must be atheist

Life is like a movie, but the pain is real.

But... but... but what if NOBODY did this? After all, in a universe in which nothing is, there is nobody either... to do things. — god must be atheist

Nobody Nowhere Nowhat Nowhen did it.

The negative potential energy of gravity exactly matches and cancels out the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

Life is like a movie, but the pain is real.
2 minutes ago — Wayfarer

Dat true.

Bela Tarr comes to mind.

The negative potential energy of gravity exactly matches and cancels out the positive kinetic energy of stuff. — PoeticUniverse

I did not know that, although if I had paid attention, I could probably have picked that up from earlier conversations in my life.

It makes sense, but it's not an a priori truth. Also, this is the status quo, but it does not indicate a creation... and if so, what stops the system from going back to a null-and-void state, that is, losing even the appearance of possible existence? Is that what entropy does? discharge equal amounts of kinetic energy and negative gravitational energy? If I only knew...

if so, what stops the system from going back to a null-and-void state, — god must be atheist

Heck if I know! Stephen Hawking came up with the zero-sum example, although Pascual Jordan had it long ago, too.

One time I confided some of my recent suffering to the Great Lama of the East, who has a temple here nearby. I have a whole story of it, but I'll just put the end, unless you want it all.

He said not to worry about the suffering, for it isn't real…

I said, “Yes, I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real, that we shouldn’t worry about life’s tribulations.”

He replied, “That’s what we believe. Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence look, seem, and act just the way it would, in every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly. That’s what they say makes for the great illusion.”

“I hate to say this, Great Lama, but an implementation difference that makes no difference (as thee messenger) is no difference (in the message).”

“I think you’re onto something.”

Agreed. If the illusion looks real, it may as well be regarded as real.
This is also a good psychological defense against solipsism, just in case you find that depressing, too. I do.

With absolutely no offence meant, please don't take it badly, but I also have a ton, and I mean a ton, of writings of my own that nobody wants to read. I promise not to read yours, if you agree not to read mine. I somehow think it's the best case scenario for both of us this way.

I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality. The material world exists, but it is only given structure by consciousness (or spirit). You can’t have one without the other. Hence, the materialism vs. idealism debate is really a confusion of the nature of reality. Both are true, needed and necessary in order for reality to be the way we find it.

Since consciousness (or spirit) gives structure to matter, I am of the reasoned opinion that there must have been consciousness (or spirit) at the very beginning (or creation) of the universe (or multiverse). Call this what you want. I call it God.

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) I am going to posit are also the manifestations of the consciousness (or spirit) perceiving itself on its most fundamental and microscopic level. Hence, energy IS spirit, and consciousness is spirit that is organized in very complex and convoluted ways (think of the billions of neurons in the physical brain).

So, spirit is the ultimate substance of reality, both of mind AND matter. Now, this doesn’t mean that matter isn’t ultimately real. Just walk into oncoming traffic, and you’ll find out just how real matter is. However, what it’s fundamentally made of is what mind is also fundamentally made of, i.e. spirit.

Think fractals. Spirit exists on the largest of scales (God’s mind and to a lesser but still macro scale, our minds), and spirit exists as the stuff of matter.

Now, this might sound a lot like idealism, but I’m not sure that our consciousness survives the disintegration of the material brain. I tend to believe that the spirit that makes up our brains is absorbed by the cosmos when we die, and we are no longer conscious. (We are stardust and we are spirit at the same time!) I believe that when we die we return to God and become part of the One again. This is also what the Hindus call returning to the Brahmin, what the Buddhists call Nirvana, and what I call returning to God (or the One).

I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. Anyone else is welcome to comment.

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential) — Noah Te Stroete

According to Razorback Kitten (if I read her post right, which is questionable) this is a lie. Whom should I believe?

Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). — Noah Te Stroete

Please name them. The physicists.

This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) I am going to posit are also the manifestations of the consciousness (or spirit) perceiving itself on its most fundamental and microscopic level. — Noah Te Stroete

You are asserting that spirits can be seen through a microscope. That is only true if your blood spirit level is above legal limits for driving a vehicle.

Dear Noah, I am not doubting a word you say. Your knowledge of theoretical physics is scanty at best. But so is mine. Your connecting spirits to strings, god to spirits, and in a way the pope to the end of a string, is not my cup of tea. Your connecting them I can't discuss, dismiss or debunk, for I have not enough knowledge to do so. But I am of the opinion that you are doing a lot of wishful thinking, which can't be substantiated, not even tansubstantiated.

So on the same ground that you based your assertions, (which ground is a basic level of ignorance), I reject your assertions (ie. based on my same or comparable basic level of ignorance to yours).

If you assert that I don't have the right to reject your thesis based on my ignorance, then I'll plead that you don't have the right to create a thesis based on your ignorance.

I think you are reading too much into what I said. I never said “spirits,” which brings up mental pictures of ghosts or something. By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.

But whatever.

I don't like references to supernatural things when we talk about the physical world, that's all.

Spirit already has a very well defined (albeit not spectacularly precise) definition in the language, and the common or most used usage has to do with souls, spiritual stuff. I resent even a hint that connects physical events to the supernatural. Therefore I would like you and everyone else to use words for concepts that are of the physical world that are in no way suggesting supernatural qualities.

This is a WISH of mine, and please don't misconstrue it to be an ORDER. I have no power or control over what you or anyone else (except myself) says. I can't control you, or anyone else, except myself, and I know that. This is a simple wish and desire I expressed here, not an order or directive.