If it were scientifically proven that consciousness is not local (exists only with-in your brain) but pervasive (that the universe itself is conscious) and that we are only a medium for it... would you be willing to rethink the possibility of God's existance?
2006-11-13 11:47:27 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
While we have no absolute proof that consciousness is pervasive, or that objective reality is linked to consciousness for its existance, there has been scientific work in this area for years, in the field of quantum mechanics. If you're interested in pursuing this further, you might want to start with the following links.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/surf.htm
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Nexusinterview.htm
http://www.thymos.com/mind/stapp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse
2006-11-13 12:54:12 · update #1
Your proposal was getting interesting until you introduced a gratuitous element into it - "God". I've seen this argument before and it actually works against the concept of a god, or gods. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed a less ambitious, but interesting, theory wherein human mentation is necessarily projective - a bit like a classical field in ordinary physics. The point is that if it were true, then humanity can be seen as more intimately integrated to some essential character of the universe - but this essence needs no supernatural characteristics. Indeed the concept would be diminished by it.
For example, in his proposals there are empirical parameters for detection of this characteristic or its manifestations - again, just as if you were talking about, say, electromagnetism.
I'm not saying I buy the theory. I am saying that the substance of the theses points away from the supernatural. Of course if the theory has any success, it may provide a basis for talking about what humans have disguised, or abstracted, as god or gods.
2006-11-13 12:07:23 · answer #1 · answered by JAT 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If it were, we would be reconsidering a lot of things all together. It would be dumping us right back into Stoicism, Taoism and all that.
You should be careful because recent work(all within the past 20 years) is indicating that time is a non local event and the Work at CERN is turning up some very strange results about quantum information transfer.
The announcement of teleportation over short distances last year is another oddity that will take a few years to figure out. Truth is indeed stranger than 2,000 year old fiction.
2006-11-13 19:56:08 · answer #2 · answered by Barabas 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How would this be proven? I'd have to see the evidence before I could accept such a claim.
Hypothetically speaking however, if it could be proven that there is a superior intelligence, that is all of the evidence pointed to such a thing being true, I would have to consider it. I would also be fascinated by the new and exciting branches of science that such a discovery would open up, but would I call this superior intelligence 'God'? No. Would I worship it? No. Would I fear it? Quite probably. Would I want to understand it further? Yes absolutely.
2006-11-13 19:57:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid that just lends more credulance to Lovelock's Gaia theory.
Although.... What sort of seperation are you talking about though? Do you mean in that humans' consciousness resides outside their body or just that they are influenced by a larger outside consiousness?
If it was proven that this larger consciousness was responsible for our being here, either by creation or intervention via evolution, then I would be more open minded. Universal consciousness could just as easily be "proof" that Ba'al or Brahma exist.
2006-11-13 19:54:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would I rethink the possibility of the existence of a deity under those circumstances?
And besides, how could one "scientifically" prove that there is universal consciousness?
2006-11-13 19:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Consciousness is the reflection of objective reality. If it is pervasive then I should have known what you are thinking and our consciousness are interconnected. There is no proof of that.
2006-11-13 20:48:47 · answer #6 · answered by dream reality 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is Scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt, then yes, I would consider the possibility. As an agnostic I rely on envidence to make sense of the world around me, and until something is proven or disproven, I am open minded.
2006-11-13 19:52:06 · answer #7 · answered by wombatusium 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I will consider absolutely ANYTHING that can be scientifically proven - the existence of God, the whereabouts of Glen Miller, that it's turtles all the way down, or that I am Mary Queen of Scots. Over to you.
2006-11-13 19:52:31 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would be willing to rethink the possibility of God's existence if such God did something that might be proved beyond evidence. If that were such evidence, I might rethink. It's not God I am all againsy, it is believing ANYTHING that cannot be proved that I oppose.
2006-11-13 20:09:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but I would rethink the possibility of a universal consciousness.
2006-11-13 19:51:11 · answer #10 · answered by Elphaba 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋