< <
9 / total: 12

Transcriptions of the Talks 6/8

Dr. Paolo Cioni  - “Psyche and the Crisis of Materialist Reductionism”

I start quoting famous Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka about the failure of materialist reductionism in psychology (1930): “the materialistic solution is astonishingly simple. It says: the whole problem is illusory. There are no three kinds of substance or modes of existence, matter, life, and mind: there is only one, and that is matter, composed of blindly whirling atoms which, because of their great numbers and the long time at their disposal, form all sorts of combinations, and among them those we call animals and human beings. Thinking and feeling, why, they are just movements of atoms...”

This view is not only a scientific conviction, but as well, or even more so, is a creed and a wish. It is the revolt of a generation that saw a strongly entrenched church hold on to dogmas which science, growing up like a young giant, had crushed a generation that, by the successful applications of science to technical problems, had become overly arrogant and had lost that feeling of awe which should accompany all true knowledge. Just as the victorious barbarians, be they vandals or Calvinists, destroyed thoroughly and passionately the creations most dear to the vanquished enemies, so our materialists developed a hatred of those parts of human philosophy that pointed beyond the pale of their narrow conceptions. to be called a philosopher was an insult, and to be a believer was to belong among the Untouchables.

manzara

Koffka has also good arguments against Darwinism: “We could easily fall into the trap of teleological explanation, looking at the result of communication and using this result as a cause of the process. to say: a certain process occurs because it is biologically useful, would be the kind of explanation we have to guard against. For the biological advantage of a process is an effect, which has to be explained by the process, but the former cannot be used to explain the latter. the concept of biological advantage, on the other hand, does not belong to dynamics at all. and therefore teleological explanations in terms of biological advantage have no place in Gestalt theory”. Neuroscientists are reductionists and primarily monists. In its classic form materialistic monism implies that body and mind are the same thing. the identity theory posits a complete correspondence between mind and body: mental states or mental phenomena, such as feeling pain or seeing red color, would be nothing more than neural events that depend on the activation of specific neurons, cerebral structures or pathways.

Thus, subjective events must be assimilated to objective ones at the bodily level: i.e., the sensation of pain would be a mere epiphenomenon of a neurobiological fact. Mind is consequently interpreted by mainstream materialists as nothing more than a byproduct of brain activity.

Warnings about this raw reductionism, though, are sent even by some of the most enlightened representatives of the physicalist position.

I hereby quote two Authors: Mark Johnson (2007): “No single method of inquiry could ever capture everything we need to help us understand the tightly interwoven phenomena of body, meaning, and mind. For example, unless human beings as a species someday lose their capacity for consciousness, we are never going to give up the phenomenological level of explanation. At the very least, we are going to define many of the primary phenomena of mind on the basis of our felt experience over our bodies and our world. Consequently, the adequacy of explanations of other levels (such as accounts from cognitive neuroscience) is going to be judged, in part, by how well they help us understand the phenomena so described (i.e. the phenomenological body). What else could we expect, since all explanations are explanations to and for ourselves, geared to helping us understand our world? They are necessarily going to be evaluated by us relative to our body-based capacities for meaning-making, inquiry, and thought.”

Alberto Oliverio (2012): “Neuroscientists aimed at clarifying the nature of the different mechanisms of the brain, but have paid less attention to the ways in which they cooperate and to those interactions through which emerges a mind that is not derived from the simple sum of individual activities that are separated into watertight compartments. While describing emotional mechanisms, neurotransmitters that underlie them, nervous centers that are involved, neuroscientists have not focused on the classical aspects of the emotions: their meaning, their relationships with distant experiences, the way in which emotions help to give meaning to our existence, to direct our purposes, to structure our thinking patterns. For these reasons, although some theories of mind take into account the results deriving from neuroscientific knowledge, the mind that philosophers and psychologists look at is usually different from the one described by neuroscientists. Despite advances in neuroscience –or maybe because of themthe contrast seems to persist between the world of objectivity and the one of subjectivity, the world of mechanisms and the one of meanings.”

The condition given by mainstream physicalists can be conceived as a unidirectional bottom-up process: the nervous system, at its highest level, produces mental properties. Mind as a separate entity might even be nonexistent.

This theory, however, whether the brain-mind relationship is interpreted as an identity, whether it is understood as causal relationship, seems already less convincing when one considers mental pain or distress: in the case of a person suffering from what has happened to himself, any neurobiological modification will be secondary. At this level, the aforementioned unidirectional bottom-up process takes the form of a bidirectional process, where the top-down component must, as well, be taken into account.

This could lead us to ascertain that mind, once created by brain activity, has its own, somewhat independent, life. Mind interacts with itself and the product of its activity is somehow poured out on the physical structure that caused the onset of the process itself.

This way, we are able to have a better explanation of some psychophysical phenomena that are nowadays beyond the reach of explanation in conventional physicalist terms. Among them, phenomena of extreme psychophysiological influence such as stigmata, hypnotic blisters, or other skin markings of specific shapes and at specific locations induced by suggestion or vivid imagination; maternal impressions; distant mental influence on living systems; which are not compatible with the known anatomic and physiological pathways. and more: life-transforming mystical experiences of both extrovert and introvert forms, and their connections with genius-level creativity, psi phenomena, and NDEs occurring under extreme physiological conditions. But also: the central phenomena of our everyday conscious mental life including meaning, intentionality, and consciousness itself with its built-in features of unity, qualitative or phenomenal content, and subjective point of view.

This concept (the mind interacting with itself and with the structure that produces it in a two-way direction) is anything but naïve, and perfectly compatible with the latest developments of modern physics.

With regard to this, Henry Stapp, a renowned quantum physicist, has proposed a systematic attempt to use the implications of quantum physics for mind-brain theory. According to Stapp, there continue to be bottom-up and locally acting mechanical processes (which von Neumann calls Process 2), like the process of exocytosis in which neurotransmitter molecules are released into the synaptic cleft, but these now take the form prescribed by quantum-mechanical generalizations of the laws of classical mechanics and incorporate all of the uncertainties entailed by the quantum principles. Operating alone, Process 2 would rapidly generate a vast proliferation of possible brain states, simultaneously existing in a state of potentiality. What actually happens, according to the quantum principle, is determined at least in part by a second process (Process 1) of fundamentally different character, which von Neumann himself specifically characterized as arising from, or leading into, the human mind, “the intellectual inner life of the individual” (p.418). These influences are entirely free, in the sense of not being determined by anything in the physics itself. Consciousness itself, in short, is needed to complete the quantum dynamics.

In summary, according to Stapp, the conscious mental activity operates topdown, and in an inherently non-local manner, to select or enforce large-scale, quasi-stable patterns of oscillatory brain activity from the multitude of possible patterns generated by Process 2. These sorts of global activity patterns correspond in a natural way to neural correlates of mental activity, as conventionally conceived.

Dr. Paolo Cioni

Increasingly hard times are ahead for pure materialists. American psychiatrist Edward Kelly, with a highly qualified multidisciplinary team assembled at the University of Virginia, has produced two very thorough books on the empirical, evidence-based, and theoretical levels: “Irreducible Mind” (2007) and “Beyond Physicalism” (2015). In these books, on the path traced by F. Myers (“Human Personality and Its Survival From Bodily Death”, 1907), he outlines some research directions widened to include phenomena, hitherto relegated to the field of “parapsychology”, fully inside of the topics pertaining to psychological and psychiatric sciences. Theories must be adaptable to include observed phenomena and potentially significant elements for the advancement of specific knowledge, and not be used to exclude phenomena that are not befitting for their frameworks.

Qualitative progresses of science arise, Kelly points out, not from the observation of the usual phenomena, falling into the theory, but of exceptional, unusual phenomena, that just because of their qualities, falsify the mainstream theory, and lead to drafting a new one. Just as in the field of physics, where some exceptional phenomena have led to overcome classical physics discovering relativistic and quantum reality, the same should be expected with the study of psyche. In the psychic sphere we observe, albeit rarely compared to the usual ones, multiple phenomena that refute, and falsify the dominant theory about psyche-matter relationships and reality itself. Hiding these phenomena, or setting them aside under the label of “para ...”, just because they are statistically rare and because they are hard to be observed, or to get the approval of mainstream authorities (with relatbe sufficient, on presently accepted physicalist principles, to prevent their formation.” Kelly reports also even more sensational and disturbing cases, which disrupt mainstream theories, of “true precognition”, i.e. direct or unmediated apprehension of future events: “Most significant, in our view, are the many welldocumented spontaneous cases involving multiple low-level factual details that are recorded at the time of the original experience (which often takes the form of an unusually vivid or intense dream), and then verifiably occur at a distant point in the future”. He maintains, too, that there is “a large further body of evidence directly suggestive of postmortem survival, the persistence of elements of mind and personality following bodily death…

The nervous system, at its highest level, produces mental properties. Mind as a seperate entity might even be non-existent.

We in fact possess a great deal of such evidence, much of it of very high quality, but unfortunately this work remains practically unknown outside the small circle of persons professionally involved with it”. This line of research is historically derived from the “trance” studies: “A large proportion of the most important research revolves around a half-dozen or so such persons who proved especially good at providing, under well-controlled conditions, detailed and accurate information seeming to derive from specific deceased persons about whom they could not have learned in any normal way.” Among these stands out the historical case of Leonora Piper, discovered in 1885 by William James, the founder of American scientific psychology.

The research area on post-mortem survival concerns also the so-called “apparitions”, in which the percipient may see an actual visual apparition, hear a voice, have a dream, or simply feel the presence of a loved one, at or near the time that the “agent” is undergoing serious or fatal injury at some physically remote location. Bob Rosenberg has built in about the subject an archive of more than 700 individual cases, many of which include detailed documentation, such as: testimonies of people or partners who attended the event, and clinical and legal data. It seems really difficult to overlook the impact of this, taking refuge behind a simple denial.

Famous neuroscientist C. Koch, who has worked for 20 years with F. Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA molecule, has recently (2009) shocked the scientific community by publishing his belief that consciousness probably does not reside exclusively in the brain, but it is an essential manifestation of reality. This view, known by philosophers as “panpsychism”, today finds its highest expression in the scientific theory of consciousness of neuroscientist

 

G. Tononi, in the past collaborator of super materialist G. M. Edelmann, Nobel Prize winner, and cowriter of the book: “A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination,” 2000.

Tononi has outlined in 2004, and then developed later, the so-called ITT (Integrated Information Theory). According to this perspective, “consciousness is a fundamental property, such as mass and charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. a special structure (like human nervous system) is needed to gather much of it, but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.” This theory, so distant from the initial purely materialistic mainstream approach, is now subject to serious consideration by the neuroscience world, being based on empirically quantifiable assumptions. the implications are vast, and unthinkable until today: the mathematical value of the information integrated into a network, known as phi, is greater than zero in every living cell, each electronic circuit, even in a proton consisting of only three elementary particles.

Physicists like J. Wheeler have laid the foundation for an understanding of a completely new reality, in which matter, laws and physical constants of nature, and the whole universe are best described, not in terms of physical objects, but through “processing of a fundamental dynamic information”.

Quantum mechanics suggests that at the deepest level of nature, the entire physical universe is interconnected.

Could the total information of the Universe be integrated in some deep sense? Is the Universe in some way conscious of itself? Are we ourselves, with our separate and cooperative individual consciences the way in which the Universe is conscious of itself (as astrophysicist C. Sagan stated)?

MYSTERY and AWE ARE PART of OUR LIVES
AND ACCOMPANY US THROUGH ALL OUR TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCES. MATERIALISTIC REDUCTIONISM ONLY DISTANCES US FROM the TRUTH.

Dr. Paolo Cioni

Adnan Oktar Says

Who Is It That Experiences All These Perceptions?

manzara

As we know, the electric signals coming from the cells in our eyes are transformed into an image in our brains. For example, the brain interprets some electrical signals coming to the visual center in the brain as a field filled with sunflowers. In reality, it is not the eye that is seeing.

Therefore, if it is not our eyes which are seeing, what is it that sees the electrical signals as a sunflower field, at the back of our brain, in a pitch dark place, without feeling any necessity for any eyes, retina, lens, visual nerves or pupil and enjoys the view in the sight?

Or who is it that hears (without needing an ear) the voice of a very close friend, becomes happy on hearing it, and misses it when he cannot hear it, when the brain is totally sound proof?

Or who is it in the brain that feels the fur of the cat when stroking it, without having any need for a hand, fingers or muscles?

Who is it that feels sensations such as heat, cold, and a sense of consistency, depth, and distance, as they originate in the brain?

Who is it that smells the lemon, lavender flower, rose, melon, watermelon, orange, and barbecued meat inside the brain (even though the brain is smellproof), and feels hungry because of the smell coming from the grill?

We have thus far discussed how everything we perceive continuously is actually formed inside our brains. Who is it then that sees the sights in a brain as if watching television, and becomes excited, happy, sad, nervous, or feels pleasure, anxiety or curiosity while watching them? Who is responsible for the consciousness which is capable of interpreting everything seen and everything felt?

What is the entity in the brain that has consciousness and throughout life is capable of seeing all the sights shown to him in a dark, quiet head, that is capable of thinking, and reaches conclusions and makes decisions in the end?

It is obvious that it is not the brain, made up of water, lipid and protein, and unconscious atoms, that perceives all this and is responsible for consciousness. There must be a being beyond the brain. Despite being a materialist, Daniel Dennett ponders the above question in one of his books:

My conscious thinking, and especially the enjoyment I felt in the combination of sunny light, sunny Vivaldi violins, rippling branches – plus the pleasure I took in just thinking about it all – how could all that be just something physical happening in my brain? How could any combination of electrochemical happenings in my brain somehow add up to the delightful way those hundreds of twigs genuflected in time with the music? How could some information-processing event in my brain be the delicate warmth of the sunlight I felt falling on me? For that matter, how could an event in my brain be my sketchily visualized mental image of … some other information-processing event in my brain? It does seem impossible. It does seem as if the happenings that are my conscious thoughts and experiences cannot be brain happenings, but must be something else, something caused or produced by brain happenings, no doubt, but something in addition, made of different stuff, located in a different space. Well, why not?1

On the other hand, R. L. Gregory questions the existence of the entity in the back of the brain, which sees all sights:

There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. a picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see it – but this would need a further eye to see its picture… and so on, in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.2

Materialists who believe that nothing exists except matter cannot understand this particular question. Who does this “internal eye”, which sees and perceives things seen and reacts to such things, belong to?

In the following passage, Karl Pribram describes this important search by science and philosophy for the identity of the perceiver:

It is obvious that it is not the brain, made up of water, lipid and protein, and unconscious atoms, that perceives all this and is responsible for consciousness.

Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the “ghost” in the machine, the “little man inside the little man” and so on. Where is the I—the entity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of Assisi once put it, “What we are looking for is what is looking.”3

Although many people venture close to this reality in answering the question “who is the entity that sees”, they hesitate to accept all of its implications. As demonstrated in the examples above, in discussing the entity in our brains, some refer to the “little man”, while others say “the ghost in the machine”, some refer to “the being using the brain” while some say “the internal eye”. All these terms have been used to describe the entity beyond the brain which possesses consciousness, and the means of reaching this entity. However, materialist assumptions keep many people from understanding the true nature of this being which actually sees and hears.

The only source that answers this question is religion. In the Koran, God states that He created man in a physical way initially and then “breathed His Spirit” to the man He created:

When your Lord said to the angels, “I am creating a human being out of dried clay formed from fetid black mud when I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration in front of him!” (Qur’an, 15:28-29)

(He) then formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Qur’an, 32:9)

In other words, the human being has another existence besides its physical body. That entity inside the brain which says “I am seeing” the sight inside the brain, and “I am hearing” the sound inside the brain and aware of its own existence, and which says “I am me”, is the soul given to human beings by God.

Any human being with a mind and a conscience can understand this: the being that watches every incident inside the brain— watches as if looking at a screen throughout his life—is his soul. Every human being has a soul that sees without the need for an eye, hears without the need for an ear and thinks without the need for a brain.

The materialistic view—which maintains that matter is the only thing that exists, and that human consciousness is only a result of some chemical reactions in the brain—is in a quandary about this issue. to see this it might be instructive to ask the following questions to a materialist:

◉ Sight is formed in our brains but what is it that watches this sight in our brains?

◉ Try to see in your mind’s eye your neighbor living downstairs in your apartment building when he is not with you. Who is it that vivifies this person so clearly in your imagination down to the details of his costume, the lines in his face, the whites in his hairs; the tone of his voice, the way he speaks, the way he walks?

A materialist will be unable to give a satisfactory answer to such questions. the only explanation to these questions is the soul given to man by God. However, materialists make a mistake not accepting the existence of any being other than matter. For this reason the truth explained in this book deals a massive blow to atheist materialist thought, and constitutes a subject that materialists refuse to discuss most.

References:
____________________________________

  1. Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown and Company, NY 1991, p. 26-27
  2. R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: the Psychology of Seeing, p. 9
  3. Ken Wilber, Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, p.20

Nerves interpenetrating our bodies consist of hundreds, and sometimes, thousands of nerve cells called “neurons”.

Who Is It That Experiences All These Perceptions?

As we know, the electric signals coming from the cells in our eyes are transformed into an image in our brains. For example, the brain interprets some electrical signals coming to the visual center in the brain as a field filled with sunflowers. In reality, it is not the eye that is seeing.

Therefore, if it is not our eyes which are seeing, what is it that sees the electrical signals as a sunflower field, at the back of our brain, in a pitch dark place, without feeling any necessity for any eyes, retina, lens, visual nerves or pupil and enjoys the view in the sight?

Or who is it that hears (without needing an ear) the voice of a very close friend, becomes happy on hearing it, and misses it when he cannot hear it, when the brain is totally sound proof?

Or who is it in the brain that feels the fur of the cat when stroking it, without having any need for a hand, fingers or muscles?

Who is it that feels sensations such as heat, cold, and a sense of consistency, depth, and distance, as they originate in the brain?

Who is it that smells the lemon, lavender flower, rose, melon, watermelon, orange, and barbecued meat inside the brain (even though the brain is smellproof), and feels hungry because of the smell coming from the grill?

We have thus far discussed how everything we perceive continuously is actually formed inside our brains. Who is it then that sees the sights in a brain as if watching television, and becomes excited, happy, sad, nervous, or feels pleasure, anxiety or curiosity while watching them? Who is responsible for the consciousness which is capable of interpreting everything seen and everything felt?

Nerves interpenetrating our bodies consist of hundreds, and sometimes, thousands of nerve cells called “neurons”.

What is the entity in the brain that has consciousness and throughout life is capable of seeing all the sights shown to him in a dark, quiet head, that is capable of thinking, and reaches conclusions and makes decisions in the end?

It is obvious that it is not the brain, made up of water, lipid and protein, and unconscious atoms, that perceives all this and is responsible for consciousness. There must be a being beyond the brain. Despite being a materialist, Daniel Dennett ponders the above question in one of his books:

My conscious thinking, and especially the enjoyment I felt in the combination of sunny light, sunny Vivaldi violins, rippling branches – plus the pleasure I took in just thinking about it all – how could all that be just something physical happening in my brain? How could any combination of electrochemical happenings in my brain somehow add up to the delightful way those hundreds of twigs genuflected in time with the music? How could some information-processing event in my brain be the delicate warmth of the sunlight I felt falling on me? For that matter, how could an event in my brain be my sketchily visualized mental image of … some other information-processing event in my brain? It does seem impossible. It does seem as if the happenings that are my conscious thoughts and experiences cannot be brain happenings, but must be something else, something caused or produced by brain happenings, no doubt, but something in addition, made of different stuff, located in a different space. Well, why not?1

On the other hand, R. L. Gregory questions the existence of the entity in the back of the brain, which sees all sights:

There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. a picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see it – but this would need a further eye to see its picture… and so on, in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.2

Materialists who believe that nothing exists except matter cannot understand this particular question. Who does this “internal eye”, which sees and perceives things seen and reacts to such things, belong to?

In the following passage, Karl Pribram describes this important search by science and philosophy for the identity of the perceiver: Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the “ghost” in the machine, the “little man inside the little man” and so on. Where is the I—the entity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of Assisi once put it, “What we are looking for is what is looking.”3

Although many people venture close to this reality in answering the question “who is the entity that sees”, they hesitate to accept all of its implications. As demonstrated in the examples above, in discussing the entity in our brains, some refer to the “little man”, while others say “the ghost in the machine”, some refer to “the being using the brain” while some say “the internal eye”. All these terms have been used to describe the entity beyond the brain which possesses consciousness, and the means of reaching this entity. However, materialist assumptions keep many people from understanding the true nature of this being which actually sees and hears.

The only source that answers this question is religion. In the Koran, God states that He created man in a physical way initially and then “breathed His Spirit” to the man He created:

When your Lord said to the angels, “I am creating a human being out of dried clay formed from fetid black mud when I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration in front of him!” (Qur’an, 15:28-29)

Although people presume that they see the original of matter, light, sound and colors do not exist outside of our brains; only energy exists

Although the fact that everything we experience is a totality of perceptions formed inside our brains has been scientifically proven, some people still claim that they see the originals of these images that exist outside our brains. However, they will never be able to prove this claim. As mentioned before, light, sound or colors do not exist outside of our brains. Light only exists outside in the form of energy waves and packets of energy, and we only become aware of light when it hits the retina. Similarly, there is no sound.

There are only energy waves. Sound only forms when these energy waves reach our ears and are subsequently transmitted to our brains. There is no color outside, either. When we say “there is no color” people might think of a view of black, white or gray. In fact, these are also colors. In the world outside of our brains even the colors of black, white and gray do not exist. Only energy waves in varying strength and frequency exist, and these energy waves are only converted into colors through the cells in the eye and the brain.

Quantum physics is another branch of science which shows that the claims of those who say that they see the original of matter are unjustified. the most important truth discovered by quantum physics, which leaves materialists speechless, is that matter is 99.9999999% empty.

In his studies of physics and psychology, Peter Russell often makes comments about human consciousness. In an essay adapted from his book, From Science to God, Russell explains this truth thusly: Take, for example, our ideas as to the nature of matter. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny balls of solid matter-a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary, subatomic, particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike), the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons-again a model based on experience. An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but these subatomic particles are a hundred-thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a grain of rice. the whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be other grains of rice flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, “matter is mostly ghostly empty space -99.9999999 percent empty space, to be a little more precise.”

With the advent of quantum theory, it was found that even these minute subatomic particles were themselves far from solid. In fact, they are not much like matter at all-at least nothing like matter as we know it. They can’t be pinned down and measured precisely. They are more like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles.1

We can thus see that science shows us that beyond the confines of our brain, there are only energy waves and energy packets. Beyond our brain there is no light, no sound and no color. Additionally, atoms and subatomic particles that form a material are actually loose groups of energy. As a result, material is comprised of space. In reality, God creates matter through a vision with these qualities.

  1. 1Peter Russell, the Mystery of Consciousness and the Meaning of Light, 12 Oct 2000, http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/futureedition/From_Science-ToGod.htm

We can thus see that science shows us that beyond the confines of our brain, there are only energy waves and energy packets.

The Truth About Matter Shows That God Is the One Absolute Being

One of the most important things implied by this fact is that God is the One Absolute Being. Some people, under the influence of materialist philosophy, think that matter is absolute being. Some of these people believe that God exists, but when they talk about the existence of God, and where He is , they display their ignorance. For example, if they are asked “Where is God?”, they will ignorantly answer, “Show me your intelligence; you cannot. So, God is a reality like intelligence, but you cannot see it.” Others assume in their own minds (God is surely beyond that) that God has an illusory existence like that of radio waves. According to their false view, they themselves and the things they possess are absolute existence and God’s existence encompasses this material existence like radio waves. However, what is illusory is they themselves and the things they possess.

The One Absolute Being is God. God’s existence embraces everything. Human beings are in no way absolute beings but a transient image.

God reveals this truth in a verse:

God, there is no deity but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tire Him. He is the Most High, the Magnificent. (Qur’an, 2:255)

The fullness of faith consists of understanding this truth, avoiding the mistake of associating others with God and acknowledging God as the One Absolute Being. Someone who knows that, apart from God, everything is a shadow, existence will say with certain faith (at the level of Haqq-al yakin – truth of certainty) that only God exists and there is no other deity (or any being with strength) besides Him.

The materialists do not believe in the existence of God, because they cannot see Him with their eyes. But their claims are completely invalidated when they learn the real nature of matter. Someone who learns this truth understands that his own existence has the quality of an illusion, and grasps that a being which is an illusion will not be able to see a being which is absolute.

As it is revealed in the Koran, human beings cannot see God but God sees them.

Eyesight cannot perceive Him but He perceives eyesight... (Qur’an, 6:103)

Certainly, we human beings cannot see the Being of God with our eyes but we know that He completely encompasses our inside, our outside, our views and our thoughts. For this reason, God reveals Himself in the Koran as “controlling hearing and sight” (Qur’an, 10:31)

We cannot say one word, we cannot even take one breath without God’s knowing it. God knows everything we do. This is revealed in the Koran:

God – Him from Whom nothing is hidden, either on earth or in heaven. (Qur’an, 3:5)

It is very important that God watches us, sees us and hears us at every moment. Someone who realizes this, even if he does not see God with his eyes, knows that He is aware of him at every moment. For this reason, no matter what he is doing, he knows that God is a witness of him. Consequently, he is careful not to do anything to displease Him and will be mindful of what he does, says, and thinks. In the Koran, it is revealed that God is close to us in everything we do; that He watches us and that nothing eludes Him.

You do not engage in any matter or recite any of the Koran or do any action without Our witnessing you while you are occupied with it.

Not even the smallest speck eludes your Lord, either on earth or in heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur’an 10:61)

Certainly God, Who is Absolute Being, knows every aspect of the human beings He has created. This is a very simple thing for God. But some in their ignorance may find this hard to understand. However, when we observe the impressions we think are the “external world”, that is , as we lead our lives, the closest being to us is not an impression, it is clearly God.

The secret of the verse “We created man and We know what his own self whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein” (Qur’an 50:16) is hidden in this fact.

But when a person thinks that his body is composed of “matter, the absolute entity,” he cannot conceive of this important reality; this is again because he thinks that the nearest thing to him is his body. For example, if this person conceives of his existence as being his brain, he does not admit the possibility that there is a being closer to him than his jugular vein. However, when he conceives of the fact that matter is not absolute, and that everything is a facsimile that he experiences in his mind, then concepts such as outside, inside, far and near have no meaning. His jugular vein, his brain, hands, feet, his house and his car that he thought were outside himself, even the sun, the moon and the stars that he thought were so far away, are all on the same plane. God has encompassed him all around and is eternally near to him.

That God is eternally near to human beings is also revealed in this verse: “If My servants ask you about Me, I am near (to them)...” (Qur’an, 2:186) In another verse the same reality is expressed, “Surely your Lord encompasses mankind round about.” (Qur’an, 17: 60). In spite of this, some people continue to err by thinking that the nearest thing to themselves is themselves. However, God is closer to us even than we are to ourselves. the fact that God is the near-

est Being to a human being is emphasized again in these verses: “Why then, when death reaches his throat and you are at that moment looking onand We are nearer him than you but you cannot see” (Qur’an 56:83-85) Indeed, a person on the point of death or lying in a hospital bed may think that the closest being to him is the doctor at his bedside, his mother who is embracing him, or his friends touching him and holding his hand. But as it says in this verse, God is closer to him at that time than anyone else. Moreover, God is the single closest Being to him not only at that particular moment, but from the first moment of his existence. But, because people do not see it with their eyes, some of them are ignorant of this reality. the fact that God is not circumscribed by space but embraces all things is revealed in another verse:

Both East and West belong to God, so wherever you turn, the Face of God is there. God is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. (Qur’an 2:115)

In another verse, God explains this reality in this way:

It is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then established Himself firmly on the Throne. He knows what goes into the earth and what comes out of it, what comes down from heaven and what goes up into it. He is with you wherever you are—God sees what you do. (Qur’an 57:4)

All of this implies that God is the One, True, Absolute Existence. with His Knowledge, God embraces human beings who are shadow beings and every other thing. This fact is also pointed out in the following verse:

Your God is God alone, there is no deity but Him. He encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Qur’an 20:98)

In another verse of the Koran, God warns people against being heedless:

What! Are they in doubt about the meeting with their Lord? What! Does He not encompass all things? (Qur’an 41:54)

 

9 / total 12
You can read Harun Yahya's book The Origin of Life and the Universe - 2nd International Conference 2017 online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.
Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
page_top