What reason do we have to believe that we are separate beings and not just the grand being of nature which has created mind and mentality?

And all which proceeds from the creation of mind and mentality in the machine and process of biology and brain.  All part of one grand process. 

We are the forces of nature which has produced mind, and through mind continues that grand being of nature. 

6 Answers

Relevance
  • RP
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Just as genes are more than 90% universal, character, essence, identity, etc. is something everyone possesses, but no two are identical. The force of nature is, despite a very high degree of commonality, each living being is a unique life form and no two are ever exactly alike.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Not only do I think, therefore I am, but there is no evidence for being anything other than an individual thinker.

  • Liz
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    (Genesis 1:27, 28) "And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it,"

    I'm sorry for you if you feel you are the products of forces of nature. God actually created nature, including its cycles. (Romans 1:28)

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Differing perspectives indicate individuations of Being.  The fallacy of false dichotomy (One and the many) and the false choice of either Individual (or existential individual, in materialism), or One (or group, in materialism) is a classic question in philosophies, and is resolved for those who, like Plotinus or Whitehead, realize individuation within Oneness.  If one is a thorough-going materialist, such a reductivist position of "we're all part of the 'grand being of nature' (read:  atomic processes)" is, when intellectually and logically honest, an atom-based scientism, logically unable to deny a transcendent/immanent God-source of Energy-Creation, but able to accept that "proof" is not limited to atom-based kinds of proof.  To assume in the question that "nature/atom-processes create" is the fallacy of begging the question.  Honest agnosticism does not so arrogate.

    So the "reason" (actually, reasons) for not concluding (as a matter, no pun intended, of faith qua belief) atoms are all, includes soul-field awareness developed by honest application of protocols given by such as "Interior Castle" and "Autobiography of a Yogi," and the high-level awareness that atomic processes are primarily, if not exclusively, geometrizations of "Energy" (an unknown) as fields and processes.  For example, the basic constituents of the mass of the known physical universe are Hydrogen and Helium (99.9% of known mass), which are composed mostly of protons (p) and some (< 6%) neutrons (n).  The mass of p and n is primarily (99%) not resting  mass, but "weighs in" (pun intended) at the baryonic (literally, from the Greek, "heavy") level (the level of p and n) as so-called "mass," when in point of fact, such so-called mass is at the next finer level (quark-fermionic) demonstrated to be gluonic fields.  Thus, as Higgs field posits, almost all known mass arises of energy geometrizations.  So-called "correlation functions" are presently the state of the art in quantum physics, i.e., functions which link so-called "random variables" (which so-called "randomness" is a function of incomplete data resolution re causality).  Howbeit, imho the light quark/anti-quark process is continuously symmetrical, as quarks (and anti-quarks) are never existent outside of bound states within derived particles such as p and n.  Thus imho quark continuous symmetry reflects (no pun intended, as reflective symmetry = discrete symmetry, i.e. invariance across critical phase change) a higher dimensionality than p and n.  In point of fact, a p (or n) has a real dynamic distinctly more complex than the e.g. "classic" two up quark (u q), one down quark (d q) model for a p.  In point of fact, the p (or n) conserves strong force quark balance ("color" is a term for quark/anti-quark energy in the strong force field, which term ("color") the perceptive genius Richard Feynman termed ~ "idiot physics" (as colors per se are not gauge invariant, whereas quark/anti-quark/gluon dynamics in strong force fields are, gluons being the gauge bosons which carry the strong force).  Thus at the most fundamental level of observed matter or atomicity, there are charges of strong force field which comprise the balanced proton; these charges are not simply three u and d quarks moving at 99.995% speed of Light, but many quarks and anti-quarks which arise and subside, changing from e.g u q to d q as various interactions occurring in a plasma or sea per the strong force, primarily, and additionally per q-q (and q-anti-q, etc.) interactions.  Thus the p is balanced, by a presently-immeasurable complex energy dynamic.  Additionally, the electron is kept in orbit by virtual light energy, hence the so-called indivisible "atom" is primarily energy fields, which are comprehended by physics not as a space, but as a space of functions reflecting continuous symmetry.  There is a significantly greater unity of process within QCD (study of quarks, etc. in strong force), than in QED (study of electromagnetic force as unified special relativity and quantum mechanics), as both quarks/anti-quarks and gluons/anti-gluons of various charge structures share the common strong force field, and the quarks and anti-quarks are very fast, very varied, and perfectly balanced at the dimensionality of always having e.g. 3 quarks (e.g., 2 u, 1 d, for p).

    Thus a human "macro" view of "atoms as creating reality" is backward or incomplete--rather, energy geometrization creates atoms, and Energy is an unknown reality and qualty, Energy being functionally equivalent to lowest manifestation of God, and to the "unknown God."

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Though we all share the same kind of DNA with others there is a slight variation in our DNA and that makes us unique from others. We are not entirely the same like others but there is surely something inbuilt within us or else we could not have such famous people who have done marvelous things in the world. Everybody contributes their bit of uniqueness to make up the world.

  • 1 month ago

    We humans tend to think for ourselves and even disagree with each other quite a lot.  This would be one of those times.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.