About Bob Elschlager

Belief of reason in the human struggle. Also, reason in role of the material world in consciousness and the spiritual. See reasonandthereal.wordpress.com/about-this-site . Profound interest in something I call ursm/is, which I am working on how to explain and talk about. Of necessity involved with the relation of reason and the psychological (feelings). Working on how to explain all this. Also diddling now and then with technical issues, like how to set gravatars, profiles at different places, etc etc etc etc etc. Interested in finding people on sufficient set of common goals where we can see if we can advance in those ways we are seeking to advance. Actually, isn't this what all people seek? It's just that most have not stated it explicitly, to others or to themselves.

Disavow Speaker of the House Ryan

The word “disavow” has become a real nasty. What does the word mean? No problem! Logic and decency and ethics is not a characteristic of the politically correct. Just get another word to move certain American citizens to a status of barely human. Above all, never ever listen to a “disavowed” person.

But more in line with decency and truth, every American citizen has the right to present reason through the use of freedom of speech. To have a Speaker of the House say otherwise is beyond scandalous.

A God for Atheists

A God for Atheists

copyright bob elschlager, april, 2016.

This post is not political. It is neither for nor against the many sides in these arguments. This post is purely a scientific and “mathematical” development in logic.

I’ve been playing around, exploring, for a long time, religionists versus atheists. Long ago in some internet discussion group for believers in God, I asked some question, and it generated a huge number of responses. A little later I did the same on an atheist discussion group, just interchanging certain words, and it also resulted in a vast number of responses. Today I remember not the names of the discussion groups. Nor the responses. Except for one, which I have been thinking about every since.

An atheist complained: How can you disprove – attack – something – God – if there is no definition of it – God?

Recently, in playing around with various concepts and ideas, a definition popped out.

Consider the whole physical universe and all that goes on in it. This can be defined mathematically. Define this to be God.

This is a God for atheists.

Now there are no end of interesting questions about this. Only two will I have time to touch on here.

An atheist might feel, regarding this definition, what about consciousness? Is this God as defined, even conscious? More vaguely, is this God as defined, a single consciousness?

My response: atheists already believe consciousness comes fully and solely from the physical – the brain. (see why-do-people-think-that-consciousness-is-only-in-the-brain   ).

Does this response fully answer the atheist? No. But it does introduce quite a bit of pause for thought about the atheist’s concerns, pause that is rooted solely in the physical and logical, and atheists accept the physical and logical.

The other interesting question – not really a question but an issue – is this. There is only one difference between this atheist definition of God and the religionist definition. In the atheist definition, God is the whole universe, which for the atheist is the whole physical universe; in the religionist’s God, God is again the whole universe, but for the religionist, the whole universe is divided into the material (physical) and immaterial.

Furthermore, as vast periods of time and accumulation of knowledge go by, will the material and the immaterial converge? (For interesting observations on the immaterial and material, see   https://reasonandthereal.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/consciousness-statement-a-part-1  , which I am in process of rewriting to make it more accessible in terms of the writing and technical presentation, but important parts of it are currently accessible.)

Please criticize.