Intelligent design; God, taken seriously
We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.
There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.
There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.
It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.
I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".
Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power.
There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.
There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.
It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.
I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".
Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power.
Comments (202)
Indeed. Take for example art, music and math, all of which, confer no Darwinian biological advantages.
Or take consciousness and self-awareness. It goes beyond bottom-up emergence or emergent properties of existence, in that, there are metaphysical constructs such as love, sense of wonderment, the will, colors, and so forth that confer little if any biological advantages for higher life forms (and other emotive phenomena). And if it does, one would have to argue for example, why lower life forms don't commit suicide or drive themselves out of extinction through environmental conditions. :gasp:
And so, in other words, top-down intellect seems more likely than bottom-up Darwinism.
I don't think it really matters if the universe was created or not, not to us humans anyway...
It would only be relevant if that would also imply that that God not only created the universe, but that he also created some sort of moral code for us to follow.
And so, even if it would be likely that the universe was created, the likelihood that that creation also came with a moral code specific for us humans to follow seems much much... much smaller.
But yeah people will keep discussing this until the end of times, as if it makes a difference for the point they actually want to make.
On a relative scale, we humans know very little more about "everything that is" than an ant foraging in our backyards.
"Everything that is"...may always have been...always existed. (That seems to me to be the more reasonable guess.) And this thing we humans call "the universe" may be a very, very, very small part of "everything that is."
Just sayin'!
What I meant was like me saying not God, it's the subject taken seriously, in the title.
The term "Intelligent Design" is usually taken as a reference to the top-down short-term creation described in Genesis. But based on current scientific knowledge, the universe did indeed emerge abruptly from an unknowable nothingness, and has taken billions of years to reach its current state of development (some estimate halfway to The End). So I have my own hypothesis of "Intelligent Evolution" (via "bottom-up Darwinism), that is based on Information Theory. It attempts to explain how Intelligent creatures have developed from the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which don't seem conducive to Consciousness : Intelligence In -- Intelligence Out.
The linked essay was written over fourteen years ago, and could be much more detailed if re-written today --- but then, it was just a layman's hypothesis (a hunch). BTW, it does assume an abstract axiomatic Creator God, or Enformer, to "design" the process of evolution, but not the final product.
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Thank you kindly Gnomon! Quite unveiling. I did a cursory read and am curious. I will study it and report back.
Yes, I think it would be an oxymoron. For instance, I've been following Daniel Dennett's (positive Atheist) youtube debate's lately, and he is starting to use that exact term 'design' now, in his narratives. Yet he doesn't, can't, or denies any explanation of it. Go figure.
Even further, in my opinion, I think he's confused with his bottom-up theories, particularly as it relates to consciousness, self-awareness and phenomena. His books generally don't get good reviews for that reason. The reviews commonly refer to his theories as being random and rambling incoherent explanations as to the nature of things-that's not coming from me either. IMO, I think he's trying to make atheistic political statements rather than objective scientific one's.
If the atheist can actually make a human and create consciousness, case closed. In the meantime, the phenomenon of 'self aware beings' certainly not only suggests a metaphysical existence or will of sorts, but continues to provide for a sense of wonderment that causes us to think about things like art, music, math, philosophy, cosmology, love et al. all of which confer little to no biological survival value.
(I'm open to new ideas such as Dennett's, but he can't seem to get past the Kantian nature of the thing-in-itself, and is silent on the obvious clues that suggest ID is more likely than not.)
As a Christian Existentialist myself, I don't try to justify existence other than to search for both cognitive science/physical science clues to the extra ordinary or super natural. I embrace the mystery.
Likewise, we are back to Kant's mysterious/innate sense of self-awareness and human wonderment/judgement: all events must have a cause. And why should we care about that statement? What advantages and/or purpose does that have in the world of pursuing science and conscious existence?
...what people in this discussion mean by "atheist" when discussing the issue.
If they simply mean "someone lacking a 'belief' that any gods exist'" (a nonsensical meaning of the word in my estimation)...then...so what. If they are using that meaning...there may be a GOD, a God, several gods, or no gods. Intelligent design could be a function of any of those things...plus others.
If, by atheist" they mean someone who 'believes' there are no gods or someone who 'believes' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one...a serious, almost irreconcilable issue arises: What is the "intelligence" causing the "design."
Just babbling. Pay me no mind. :chin:
Was it something's work?
Does structure emerging from a big bang imply that the big bang was structured itself?
What's meant by intelligent designer is a related intelligent species, which to us is an anomaly, is capable of creating universes.
It probably did create the structure of the pre-big bang with the knowledge of universe result and resources.
If there are an infinite number of universes, there is one where the contents of this entire forum were created by monkeys randomly typing at keyboards.
Perhaps that's the universe that we're in.
|>ouglas
A countable or uncountable number of universes? Would there be a difference? :chin:
Quoting jgill
Hmmm, that's an interesting question.
It may be that having enough real monkeys at computer terminals is not actually a possible universe at all, depending on the rules via which universes are made. But certainly there are possible worlds in which there are such monkeys, since the possible world could just begin with the monkeys typing at the beginning of time, which was last Thursday, and the apparent age of the universe is only an illusion. In which case, there would only need to be a countably infinite number of possible worlds, since this forum is only of finite length.
Though at times it does seem to be filled with an infinite amount of nonsense, so I'm not completely convinced by my argument.
|>ouglas
Awwwww shit. I really didn't want us to become friends but it looks like we are going to become friends. When are you coming over my house to play Call of Duty? I guess your ok. :)
Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss!
What these guys don't seem to understand is while it is possible for matter and energy to appear out of nothing (based on us armchair physicist's knowledge base). Many Physicists argue for the universe to expand that would require the early universe to be lined up similar to a magnet (seems counter intuitive but the matter lined up allows for expansion instead of massive gravity causing stagnation or continual implosion).
Another thing these guys need to understand is time is like a billion sided dice. If you roll it one time and expect to roll an 8 you'll likely not roll an 8 but if you roll it one billion times you'll likely roll an 8. That being said there could have been a million big bangs from 1 million locations over X (lets say 10 to the 7000000 power "years"). Basically my point is there is so much that goes into understanding how complicated life and the universe that perhaps many of these people need to embrace "pascal's wager".
Are you more of a "god wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy"?
As promised i've been reading through alot of what you've been saying through out this forum. You are by far the wierdest guy on this forum, you actually remind me to some extent of a guy known as "The Theologian". I can tell you and i are going to have alot of fun on this forum together.
Yes, this is quite true because gravitational fields have negative energy. So even with conservation of mass/energy, it turns out that you can get something from nothing and it could turn out that the entire universe contains zero net mass/energy.
|>ouglas
Stephen Hawkings essentially stated that in "a brief history of time" in the early 1980s. I don't know what percentage of Physicists adhere to this or if he changed his opinion on this over the course of time. Are you a physicist?
Quoting Qwex
But if you use that anomaly power to create a closed time-like curve, you can go back in time, kill your grandfather, causing a cascade of non-causality, which might cause the birth of untold past and future realities.
|>ouglas
Quoting christian2017
I am not a physicist, but I do have an S.B. from MIT. And I did write the software that was used to operate an X-ray space telescope called the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer. Alan Guth himself told me (or rather a small room full of people) how to make universes out of nothing. He even proved that gravitational fields have negative energy. The proof is quite simple, should you be interested.
|>ouglas
Fucking Amazing!!!!! Send me the link or send it privately if you would like. Stephen Hawkings didn't explain in great detail what negative energy is. I know what and electron and a proton is. Feel free to send me the paper or the video.
Here's one explanation:
https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
It's not nearly as good as Guth's though. I'll try to type up Guth's proof tomorrow if I have a chance. I couldn't find it online.
As for what negative energy is, it's just energy that has a negative value, rather than a positive value. I assume that means that it generates gravitational repulsion, rather than attraction, but that's beyond my realm of knowledge.
|>ouglas
I think you are under the impression that natural selection is the only mechanism for evolution. It is simply not true that organisms evolve only those traits that provide it biological advantages. Evolution is simply gradual changes that accumulate over time. These changes can be completely random and may not be naturally selected for. Math could also be a consequence of increased reasoning capabilites (which certainly confer an organism biological advantage). Simply because a trait doesnt give an advantage doesnt mean the trait didnt evolve through other mechanisms.
Also, the claim that art, music, and math provide no evolutionary advantage is absurd on the face of it.
Music and art allow for groups of people to bond, which helps their survival and math is a useful tool which helps with survival.
|>ouglas
Certainly, the phenomenon of self aware beings suggests a metaphysical existence just how the phenomenon of lightning served as proof of metaphysical existence long ago.
And again you assume that art, music, math and philosophy provide no survival advantage and even if they dont, it doesnt mean they can't have evolved gradually.
I added that link to my journal. Thank you!
I finally got a chance to read your paper a bit more thoroughly. One thought I came away with is the common notion of the paradox of time and eternity. Meaning, how do we reconcile a timeless eternal force with our temporal time-dependent existence.
In other words does your theory account for 4th dimension space-time? Should the timeless existence of space-time, be regarded as an atemporal form of creation?
The reason why I asked is because some have argued that the idea of God bringing the universe into existence from nothing cannot be regarded as a temporal act since it involves the creation of time. Hawking even stated that so long as the universe had a beginning we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. That in turn would suggest if no origin in time is required then there is no appeal to a supernatural act of creation ex nihilo.
Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? That at least in theory would combine the two problems associated with time, I think.
Thank you Stars for your thoughts. Of course my initial reaction is relative to the argument over the existence of mathematics itself and the laws of gravity. Meaning, survival in the jungle does not require knowledge of mathematics and the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects.
Mathematics are essentially metaphysical abstracts. Why should we have two ways to avoid falling objects when one confers no biological survival advantage? In other words, mathematics is a pure intellectual abstract exercise, a priori. How did that evolve? (While some lower life-forms exhibit rudimentary mathematical abilities, that's as far as it goes.)
Thanks Stars, what is your proposed theory there?
Asking why is again implying that evolution must have a purpose or a direction Why not have two ways of doing so?
Besides, I think development of mathematics is simply a consqeuence of human intelligence. As humans evolved to become more and more intelligence, which helped them survive, plan and adapt better to their environment, mathematics developed naturally. Once humans developed intelligence to spot patterns and make sense of them, to plan their endeavours etc, development of maths was bound to follow. It doesnt matter if maths actually helped the early man.
Also we are better off knowing the exact mechanism of gravity than just knowing that objects fall This grants us the ability to predict exactly when objects will fall that gives us not only a better chance at escaping but also a means to perhaps harness the energy of a falling object. (Again, this is basically intelligence)
Hence, mathematics and physics are simply a consequence of human intelligence and I think that maths did help the early man, although that doesnt matter.
It's not 'nonsense'.
What you're saying is nonsense; writing like no is the answer to the question, was the universe created, when there's 0 evidence, to suggest that.
I've said the matter is hazy, we're dealing with an anomaly - something.
My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life.
Who's holding back this sort of phenomena?
I haven't claimed it's scientifically proven to be yes, I said it's probably yes.
There's nothing that points to no, but a plethora of strange things that point to yes.
Some strange: no-one is truly an expert on our universe; the chances of someone who knows more are high. Humans gain knowledge and make new technology; I've just applied my knowledge.
An explanation for why the universe came to be is something had the knowledge and resources.
It came from nothing is half an explanation, but the answer can be something or nothing, and a reasonable hypothesis can exist for yes and no.
Does 0 evidence for something or nothing, plus universal strangeness, equate probably something?
You and I definitely didn't create the universe. It must have been something else.
Why should strangeness (what is pure strangeness??) be seen as an indication of an existence beyond the universe? Why can't strangeness be seen as a limitation of our intelligence to apprehend some of the contents of an old and massive universe?
Lightning, fires and rain were all strange to us not so many years ago. But it is now clear that this strangeness was only due to limitations of our knowledge, intelligence and resources.
What's stopping things from happening when, per se, power such as a universe exists? What's to stop a much simpler world from manifesting?
So, beyond the universe, is nothing?
Nothing does exist or can exist?
Even if this something is not like us at all?
Given 1. Super Massive Nature: there could easily be a parasite that feeds off of the energy.
And that's one strange element, given all strange elements the possibilities for other existences is high.
'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force.
Why should things that are strange to us not happen on their own and need a external being? Why should a universe, that seems simpler to us be more likely to exist, in the absence of an external being, than a universe that is filled with anomalies and strangeness?
SImply because there are processes we cannot understand doesnt mean those processes need to be sustained by some higher power in the absence of which, only processes we can comprehend can exist.
The way I see it is that you are taking strangeness which is merely a limitation of the human mind, to argue for some external being holding that strange and complicated process in place. That is simply put- ridiculous.
An analogy might help:
Suppose there are group of chimps that live in a forest. They perceive the world and try to make sense of it to the best of their abilities. Now lets say they stumble across a river, something they have never seen before and are puzzled as to how the water is flowing even though the plain is fairly flat. This is very strange to them because they have never seen water flow on its own at this speed. They thus conclude that there must be some external intelligent being that is sustaining this strange mechanism (perhaps by pushing the water if that makes sense).
As humans we know that this is not unusual or caused by an intelligent creature. The flow of the river was merely due to its descent from a steep mountain (something the chimps have no knowledge about).
The point here being, strangeness is merely a limitation of our knowledge and intelligence. Had the chimps known about mountains and gravity and all that, the event would not have been strange to them but precisely because of this limitation, they found it very strange and were quick to attribute it to a intelligent being sustaining that flow.
Simply put, strangeness is not a fundamental characteristic of the universe, it only exists from our perspective. There might be other intelligent life in the universe for whom different events are strange or less events are strange or no events are strange (if such intellifgence is even possible)
I have not claimed God. I have claimed creator.
That means, resources were ordered so that a big bang would occur, I guess in the form of noxious clouds.
This doesn't mean the spirit of the creator passed into the fray and it become omnipotent. It means it had know-how and resources.
It's more reasonable that, pop, the big bang happened from nothing - it's the only guess - nonsensical - you miss out a vital part, how.
You'll soon see that you(no argument), are the whimsical one's who think life is ultra special and someone high up loves us.
This post really doesnt help.
I understand that you don't mean god as depicted in the holy scriptures but arguing for the existence of a creator on the lines that there exists events that we cannot understand or explain is futile.
Strangeness implies we are yet to learn the ways of the universe and nothing more.
To be clear, I dont claim that a creator does not exist, all I am saying is that strangeness cannot be seen even as a faint indication of an external being, be it an omnipotent god or an indifferent creator.
Yeah but you assumed I posit that this person is sat there as the moderator or something when all I'm suggesting is it's the catalyst.
It's not a higher power in so much as a builder is a higher power at building.
I think you're wrong about strangeness but I agree my explanation is insufficent, I'll change that soon.
I am sorry if I did so, could you point out where so I could perhaps rectify. Besides the analogy should still hold. The chimps attribute the flow to an intelligent creature that started it and it has continued ever since. However, this intelligent creature turns out to be an all knowing mountain.
That was because I assumed here that you meant that strange processes must be caused and sustained by a creator without which they cannot exist.
I apologise, but I dont think that makes any difference to my argument here that strangeness is no indication of a creator
Please do try. It would fascinating to see this idea being developed. However, you would have to try to look from beyond the human persepctive and see things objectively. When you do, you find that there is nothing strange, nor beautiful at all. Those are merely objects of human perceptions and cannot be used to objectively argue for a creator.
I would think that the strangeness you speak of is simply that which we cannot explain. I don't think strangeness can be defined objectively i.e such that is holds for an hypothetical creature way smarter than us.
Complexity perhaps can offer little hope as things might just be objectively complex given we use a suitable defination for complexity. But I think even that is a futile endeavour.
I'm going to need to think before I reply to this.
I had thought strangeness was more shallow than it is, in fact it's much deeper than first thought. I've got to think it through.
My guess, for now, is that you too have shallow understanding of something deep. What is your understanding of strangeness(lightning, etc)? If I could sum it up I probably could contest you.
Give me a few hours.
So there's nothing right? You think nothing can happen now, but all evidence suggests something, bar the phenomenon of death. The nothing that exists out of our universe cannot be something. And strangeness isn't our only link?
Things are just the energy side of the matter- simple logic.
Deep down, wouldn't the worst hell be nothing? You'll never be jealous of those who see again?!
You would have to support your argument with the exclusive virtues of survival, purposelessness, randomness and chance, to say the least.
Accordingly, mathematics then becomes redundant since it is not needed for anything, as it specifically relates to that Darwinian criteria. We don't need it to survive.
Then, of course, add art, music, philosophy, wonderment, love, the will, and all other related features of self-awareness from consciousness, that are also beyond logical existence as it were(subconsciousness/un-consciousness) or unexplained phenomena. The evidence points to something beyond said criteria.
Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?
Thoughts?
I imagine the resource was noxious clouds that formed a clean cloud, donut shaped, that reacted massively with rock and weight in some kind of chemically infused noxious element. A purer elemental trick.
How energy can be converted, potential new technology here. More art. That's where you find new matter.
Support what argument? It is well proven that traits can evolve from mechanisms other than natural selection.
Mathematics does not become redundant. Mathematics is an incredibly useful tool. It is generally very hard to discuss reasons for evolution of traits since the details and specifics of the conditions long ago are not very well know. It is not enough to say that maths is not needed for survival in the jungle and hence it couldn't have evolved.
Like I said, it is hard to pin point exact reasons but surely I could find a couple uses of maths in ancient times. I suppose the ability to count would confer an advantage to a group or tribe of humans in keeping track of members. Ability to count would also help early settlers to keep track of cattle.
Thus it is not wise to assume that maths didn't provide an advantage. However, the maths you are refering to is perhaps abstract maths. Stuff like linear algebra and number theory which have relatively less practical applications. However, like I said, these naturally developed once human intelligence did.
Regarding art and music, like Alan pointed out, these also conferred a survival advantage by helping groups bond together.
The argument then essentially boils down to evolution of intelligence and more importantly that of consciousness. Why do you assume that consciousness is beyond logic? Why is philosophy, love and a sense of wonder beyond logic? It is just because we haven't understood them fully yet?
Time has no beginning so the universe couldn’t have been created. Creation happens in time but before time nothing is all that is possible.
It is a 'thrown' phenomenon. Time lest not be nothing at the time. More like something, then. If it always is.
A type of space was probably around before the big bang, true or false? If false, then what about a more accurately defined higher energy species? What's it false on account on, potential logic?
You're saying cannot at a time where they statistically can.
What logic could have existed prior? Is a more modern philosophy.
The dimensions and shapes learned through these lessons are quintessential for any serious progress to be made technologically.
A good technology, a sensory tracker TV that shifts and exploits sense to create intensely pleasurable games and programs.
Another technology is a quantum computer where quantum is more about the mechanics, it doesn't require energy because the shape is centred around capturing energy in a certain way - it produces random motion in current as it computes. It does require battery energy but not energy beyond shape.
Just goes to show how hard it is to even ask the right question when we talk about such topics. Is it correct to talk about 'creation' of universe? Because the universe has always existed. It has been there since the start of time and will be there till the end of it. When was it ,then, created?
Does create even have meaning that is time independant?
It works. What else you suggest?
If you say God of the gaps, what gaps, aren't there reasonable solutions?
But then again, how it simply popped into existence is a mystery. But I am inclined more towards this spontaneous coming into existence of the universe than towards an intelligent creator.
Thank for your reply Stars! Before we get too far along, I want to make sure you didn't overlook my questions to you from the previous post. Do you think you can speak to the following, where I asked you:
Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?
I must add that this is something I have not given much thought, but if you were to ask me to, I would go for the sudden popping into existence.
It is this thought.
I don't understand those questions fully. Would you care to frame them differently perhaps??
They are straight forward questions, no? I mean, what is perplexing you about them?
I think that the statement would be true for all that exists in the universe. All events occuring in the universe must have a cause, but the universe itself need not have a cause. Hence, the existence of the first fundamental particle that marked the beginning of the universe need not have a cause but everything occuring ever since, must have a cause.
It was certainly not my intention to end up discussing such things. All I noticed what a weak argument about a existence of a creator that relied on strangeness and was supported by a slightly misinformed knowledge of evolution.
My point here is was simply that neither the existence of strange objects, nor that of mathematical abilties indicates presence of an external being.
Ok great. If you're thinking it is true, why does mathematical abstracts exist when they are not needed to survive in the jungle?
Or in making it perhaps more lucid, what event caused mathematical truths to come into existence through consciousness?
Regarding your inability to answer the other one's, of course you had no intention of exploring those questions because they are questions about Being. And so you are telling me that you don't know why you have a sense of wonderment, correct?
I don't know why you are reverting to the same old concept of natural selection being the sole mechanism for evolution.
See, I think we both can agree that evolution of intelligence is certainly advantegeous.
I argued that evolution of maths as part of the evolution of intelligence was certainly advantegeous as well.
Then I said that the development of maths naturally followed even when it gave no advantage. All that was needed was intelligence and basic math concept and the rest developed on its own, fuelled by lets just say curiosity?
Hence, even if abstract math offers no advantage, it evolved. It evolved as a inevitable consequence of the other traits that did offer an advantage.
The need to express reality in precise and predictable terms led humans to derive the entireity of maths
True, I don't know why I have a sense of wonderment. However, that only indicates the limit of my intelligence and knowledge.
Joke: Mystery would be finding the starlight valley of the universe.
Mystery to what?
Existence.
For example, it's like the back of something which is mysterious to us. Something created it and left. I think what you argue is more becoming.
Ok, but if I am trying to survive by dodging falling objects, should I use space relationships of perception, or hurry up and run calculations?
If your answer is the former, then there is no need, as you are suggesting, no?
Then you really can't explain the nature of that metaphysical feature of conscious existence, correct?
I'm just a bit confused. How did abstract's (math) evolve?
Yes, there is no need for abstract maths. I have mentioned that countless times. But need alone is not the mechansim for evolution.
You are assumng there is metaphysical feature.
I simply cannot explain conscious existence in complete physical terms, YET.
Ok, I see you can't answer those basic existential features of our consciousness.
Let's turn then to metaphysics. Does that exist?
Again, what do you mean by basic features of consciousness. We have mapped the location of consciousness in animal brain. Does that count as a basic feature?
Also, what metaphysical feature of consciousness are you talking about? Assuming there exists one,ofcourse.
Abstract's such as music, art, mathematics. Then, the cognitive sciences that deal with the Will, wonderment, love, hate, and other emotive phenomena that are important to human's yet confer no fundamental survival or biological advantages ( i.e., you can procreate without love). And kind of like what we are doing now, discussing philosophy, which has no survival value.
Accordingly, this may help:
Yes. Since the Big Bang theory indicates that our universe is not eternal, there must be "something" outside of space-time with the power to create new worlds. Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence. But, based on the ubiquity of Information --- the "substance" of energy, matter, & mind --- in every aspect of the real world, I assume that the hypothetical Source or Creator must be an Enformer, in the sense of possessing the potential for converting Platonic Forms (ideas, concepts, designs) into real, material, objects. The "energy source" is what I call EnFormAction. I won't go into more detail here, but the notion of Intelligent Evolution (guided by Information and motivated by EnFormAction) has been explored in my blog for several years.
My Enformationism worldview is indeed similar to Spinoza's Pandeism, but has included evidence that he was not aware of in the 17th century : e.g. Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Physics. Spinoza's "Universal Substance" is what I call "Enformation" or "EnFormAction". Since he believed the universe was eternal, his Pandeistic God was also eternal. But, now we must postulate something else that is self-existent : either multiplying Multiverses or eternal Enformer. And since this hypothetical World Maker must exist prior to the emergence of space-time in the BB, we can assume that it exists "without beginning or end". :nerd:
Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
The Enformer : AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Voila! Just like magic.
That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame.
Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. As time allows for one moments to be followed by another moment. Imagine time not occurring, so everything is frozen and still. Thinking about this we can tell that this can not give birth to time. So time is timeless. Which makes absolutely no sense. (If there’s an discrepancy then help me out pls)
Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time ("a brief history of time"). The problem with this oversimplification is the amount of information is still very lacking. Its not so much that we shouldn't very much embrace science, however we should understand that scientists are not wizards and their abilities to know causes are finite. A 100 years ago what is considered true might very well change drastically. Stephen Hawkings actually would have told you that the premise of turtles upon infinite turtles isn't as silly as many people would like to assume (counter-intuititve) ("a brief history of time")
Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory is a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.
That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required. :smile:
That rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time. It doesn't apply to the creator of space-time. As space-time creatures, we don't know what the rules are for spaceless-timeless existence. But I think the ancient Greeks had the right idea in their myth of Cosmos from Chaos. Chaos was not a real space-time thing, but only infinite Potential : creative power. It was metaphysical, not physical. This is inherently a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact. :smile:
Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up.
This has been a fascinating discussion, with many of my favourite posters and some newbies - I’m bummed that I slept through most of it...
So it seems that either the universe was created, or it popped into existence out of nothing. But what if both were true?
If you’re only aware of what is actually occurring in time, then it would certainly seem to you as if the universe popped into existence out of nothing. If there must be an actual cause, then I imagine you’d be stumped. And there are certainly some posters here who have proposed that we simply don’t have enough information... yet.
If, however, you acknowledge the potential of timeless, formless (unobservable/unmeasurable) existence, then it seems that this timeless, formless existence (whatever it is perceived as) likely ‘created’ the actual four-dimensional universe in which we operate, and in which cause and effect can then be observed/measured.
There appears to be two assumptions made throughout these discussions that I’d like to clear up:
The first is that an intelligent creator is a being that is separate from the actual four-dimensional universe it creates. A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever.
The second is that intelligence = knowledge, when it is only a capacity or potential for knowledge. So there need not be any actual knowledge in existence prior to creation. In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation.
Per se, if war put some humans in a very bad place, can the moderation cause our Sun to explode or fritz out to a degree?
You would think it would have gained control of the universe after the big bang.
Otherwise what is it's point to it?
Or it's feeding off the stars, in a way to exploit it's purity. It does produce a lot of energy to the correct species.
My guess is control.
Terrible Guess:
Magnetic energy can send the Sun into a spasm.
There is a bubble of squared line around every star, a net. It is magnetic energy.
There is a place that is fulfilled by every dimension, we literally miss the first, second and third an amount.
4D only.
Stars are inhibitors of consciousness that were naked - so, they are producing it to a different degree. They're like a multiply- they are so much like a nature.
We were made using maths(maybe not). A mirror of maths. A good bubble of squared line. You were made by good.
Interesting. Spinoza posited that there was a super turtle out of logical necessity. Similarly, he thought that the Universe was one in the same as time itself. And, once again, out of logical necessity.
Which makes me think about abstracts like mathematics and, the laws of physics. Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent?
Gnomon is correct I believe, when he says that the rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time.
However, in addition, the intriguing thing is time itself and infinity, which I think is one in the same as timeless truths such as mathematics, or mathematical abstracts. Think of all of this as a-temporal rather than temporal and contingent and/or causational. That's why many theoretical physicists consider mathematics a quality or feature of the mind of God.
That is, mathematics existing as timeless eternal truth's, a priori. I could be wrong, but I think that's one problem of reconciling a timeless Being to a world of contingency and causation. It relates to something that is outside of time and thus timeless (like other metaphysical abstracts as we've been discussing here).
So the paradox is that in this case, mathematics works so well in defining a contingent universe/ existence/nature, yet is considered a timeless truth ( like irrational numbers ).
Nice post. I happen to agree with your definition of the temporal-ness of time, and the timeless nature of, what I'll call, the concept of [the] eternity in time. I have an interesting video I'll post later about how it's possible a timeless eternal Being can interact with a temporal universe that we live/exist in.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).
I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.
And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence?
No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:
I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility. :nerd:
In my Enformationism worldview, the Laws of Physics are simply initial conditions and logical operators of the program that is running as Reality. The Programmer, or "super turtle" if you prefer, defined specific limitations on infinite possibilities to describe the kind of world S/he wanted to create. For example : another species of universe could be created, in which energy never condenses into matter, and any creatures that emerge are merely clouds or fields of energy.
Laws of physics are contingent in the sense that they could have been different, if the Programmer wanted to create an alternative kind of world, but are necessary for our own unique universe. Scientists call those necessities "fine-tuning". Once executed into an on-going evolutionary process though, I doubt that the "laws" could change in mid-stream. Of course, our limited knowledge of those universal laws will develop and deepen over time --- perhaps making them seem to vary.
As for the universe being essentially Space-Time, I can see some truth in that notion. Without those fundamental parameters for quantitative and qualitative extension, the Big Bang would have been the "Big Choke", and nothing could happen. :nerd:
I'm actually an independent fundamental baptist (thats a real thing). Your ideas sound similar to "collective consceeeence" (spelling?) or "collective soul". I actually do feel that it would be very hard to completely divorce christianity from this concept. Sometimes you can take a geometric object and rotate it (spin it) to make it have similar characteristics to something else until further and even intensive examination. What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". As for the computer thing, i believe it is hard to divorce an accurate view of reality from the concept of "scientific determinism" (nurture versus nature). I'm open to various grades or points in the spectrum of Calvinism, but at this point in time i would be labeled towards the far end of Calvinism. Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" . I'm not going to go into politics, so i will simply say most of our economic policies can be almost completely fixed by modernizing zoning laws (among other things). Fixing the economy would enable people to enjoy life without people murdering each other.
Well, my understanding is that humans consist of more complex relational awareness with existence than simply being, and that ‘cause and effect’ is the universal faculty by which all action is determined and initiated: the Will, reduced to four dimensions.
So to refer to the Will/Love as ‘super natural’ or ‘extra ordinary’ is to miss the point of metaphysics as inclusive of what is ‘natural’ or ‘ordinary’, and to limit our understanding of the relation between being and consciousness.
As an illustration, have you ever tried to explain to someone how to draw a chair so that it looks three dimensional? It’s not just a matter of describing how the two dimensional shapes - two squares and four thin rectangles, for instance - relate to each other on the page. It’s also about how the lines and angles and their relative positions change the observation of those shapes in relation to an observer/perspective.
In the same way, metaphysical features such as consciousness, the Will and Love are not just a matter of how Beings relate to each other in time, but about how all the complex relations that contribute to being, and their relativity, change each experience of ‘being’ in relation to an experiencing/conscious subject/perspective.
To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions.
That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.
Quoting christian2017
Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls
Quoting christian2017
FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd:
4 Ways Calvinism Differs From Lutheranism :
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/christian-theology-calvinism-lutheranism/2016/01/25/id/710818/
The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. Methodist, Calvinist, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcapaliiiiaaaaaaaan, and even to some extent Catholicism and also a lengthy list of others all fall well within the Pail of Orthodoxy. I didn't make that term up, its a real term that can be researched.
I could post a series of articles about the logic and even mercy associated with predestination. But I'll say two things. If you have a sexual predator that has repented and come to salvation, it would make him feel better to know the logic and also reality that the particles bouncing in his head decided his terrible choices. He was 100% predictable.
What many people don't realize is their snobbery and inconsistent thinking is very often nearly (nearly but not quite) as bad as the sexual predators. "don't strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". sprectrum
On a different note if i came to realize the reality and logical way of thinking behind why intelligent people accept scientific determinism and at the same time through pascal's wager (among other great reasons), i came to know that Jesus Christ predicted everything, why not "choose" to accept Jesus Christ at that point.
Most newagers each differ slightly from each other. Until you write a holy book to go along with your dogma, not alot of people will care about your dogma.
I skimmed that article. I'm not sure the comment about the bread and the wine is true. Without going into a 20 page paper on why Calvinism isn't as bad as it seems, i'll say this. If a person realizes the realities of scientific determinism and is also drawn to that loving Jesus from Isaiah chapter 53 and chapter 54 (and new testament), why not do a quick conversion over to christianity. Easy Believism is very very very Biblical. From a christian who embraces science and logic, i don't know how that christian would reject scientific determinism.
The Bible actually does teach the earth is very old. A catholic bishop came up with that 6000 year number. Genesis chapter 2 (New Arabic Version, KJV, ESV and Hebrew.
"back in my Yom we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes"
Hi Possibility!
Well, I think you might be left with a paradox or quandary of sorts there, and that's ok. I appreciate your partial explanation as to how the metaphysical features of Will and Love might interact. And also, I'm in agreement that " effectively dissolving" " these definitions" results in another dimension of existence. Ironically, acknowledgement of such explanation goes beyond the physical realm of existence (as we know it).
Obvious examples ( as given in the video lecture) is the phenomenon of experiencing the color red and beauty, just to name a few. And so similarly there, how do we experience the will, and how do we experience love? Any number of those, as you suggested, can't be explained thru an exclusive physical theory. Perhaps the only way we can begin, is by thinking of them as ( or pretending as if they were) mutually exclusive first.
And so, very simply, a beginning definition of super natural or extra ordinary would apply if the main reason is relative to the nature of consciousness being inexplicable.
Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence?
First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:
1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide
I think we can, but I don’t think we’ll get close to an explanation by continuing to think of metaphysical features as exclusive of physical features. The way I see it, the universe interrelates up to six dimensional levels. In the same way that many physicists are currently looking at the universe as consisting of interrelated 4D events rather than 3D objects in relation to time, I think that if we consider the universe as consisting of interrelated 5D potentiality or value systems, then the unanswered questions we have with regard to quantum mechanics, the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and consciousness in particular can be answered. They’re inexplicable now only because we keep looking for an explanation without dissolving the structure of classical physics.
Quoting 3017amen
In my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome?
Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.
However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs.
So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):
1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.
2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.
Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?
Off topic :
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool:
Pale of Orthodoxy : https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2009/06/outside-the-pale-rjs.html
Paleo Orthodoxy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy
Hell Bound Christians : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/09/19/southern-baptists-take-heat-for-saying-46-in-alabama-are-bound-for-hell/7f7a27f0-6f1e-43f9-9933-f0c8cd707eb1/
Hi Gnomon!
Not to digress too terribly/off topic, but quickly, in your view:
1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name.
Any validity to that?
It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy. :cool:
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
I will definitely check out that link... . And I don't want to derail this thread whatsoever into a religious debate, as it would ruin the so called cosmological thought processes of possibility-no pun intended.
Without getting into all the politics of early church history, prohibitions of texts, lost Gospel's, translation issues, interpretation concerns, literal Fundamentalist sects, extremism, etc. etc.; if only religion could embrace your advice from your above quote... .
The sin of pride has unfortunately clouded many minds from the otherwise good intentions that Religious institutions have to offer. Man having created religion forgets the fallibility of same. Throughout history, we can only wonder what Jesus would have to say about those kinds of things.
Anyway, back to; Design and taking God (not religion per se) seriously... .
Alot of Pastors like to look hard core by rejecting "Once Saved, Always Saved". I believe this theology is the theology of the over 1500 laws, notions, and axioms of the new testament and old testament. If the modern Pastors are looking for saved people who have fallen short, they can look at themselves. The solution to true fiscal conservatism isn't the poor working harder but Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and (fuck the environment) electric trike lanes. Hell i don't have a strong opinion against gasoline powered go-karts either but i've never in my whole life seen that as a source of transportation absolutely anywhere.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct - I think we need to be careful here, because there is a tendency in metaphysics (and in religion) to reject the physical features rather than strive to understand and explain them within the broader metaphysical structure. When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’.
When we began to embrace the notion of a spherical earth, for instance, it didn’t help to simply declare that the earth was NOT flat, but to show how the way we understood the earth to be flat was an illusion - a credible perception given our lack of awareness. We not only needed to explain the bigger picture, but also why we perceive the earth as flat within the context of a spherical earth. This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’.
So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):
1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.
2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.
Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?[/quote]
We have discussed the metaphysical features of Love on another thread, and I also opened up a discussion some time ago on the metaphysical features of the Will. Both point to a subjective perception of potential and value in relation to how we interact with the universe, which doesn’t necessarily relate directly to a specific event or object in time. Rather it relates to how we perceive the likelihood of that event or object changing over time, and the influence our perception can have on the event or object in the future. It’s uncertain and relative, but we can use it to make predictions about our interactions with the world, to plan for and orchestrate events before they occur, to create new possibilities out of a simple interaction, and to freely determine and initiate events - much like quantum potential.
Love is how we relate to the universe by increasing awareness of, connection and collaboration with potential and value. It isn’t confined to relations with a person or an object, but is inclusive of every possible relation we may have with the universe.
The Will is how all action is determined and initiated in the universe, and is inclusive of cause and effect as well as volition. With every relation, regardless of the level of awareness, each integrated system determines from its limited perception of potential and value whether to ignore or increase awareness, to isolate or increase connection, and to exclude or increase collaboration.
The Will to live is determined from one’s limited perception of potential and value in relation to their life: the likelihood of their life changing over time, and the influence this perception can have on their life in the future.
We have a similar hypothesis on the basics-
I believe that there is an Ultimate Intelligence which is the only entity that exists (like Brahman, not the God Brahma). The Universe, God and Satan are all a dream of this entity. We are an illusion where anything is possible, but the laws of physics rule most of the time. God is thus ALMOST onmi-all but not quite.
The afterlife is where souls go before reincarnating. Some souls are terminated. The afterlife is a continuum, like many neighborhoods. Souls have no form and are neither male for female (same as God). Souls evolve to match the evolution of life. Souls use spirit matter to interact with matter. Spirits then have the same earthly form but also decay after death. A slowly decaying spirit with some soul connection is a ghost capable of haunting for a while.
Hell is the bottom section and is unpleasant. Heaven is the upper section and is unbelievably pleasant at the top. God can go to any of these sections. In effect these sections are like computer memory for classes of objects, retaining the essence and a few memories - and God has full access.
Why do I think this? I used to be an atheist, but have had many supernatural experiences. I am now a de facto theist. Not quite a full believer but a theist by choice. For the record I am 71, male and was raised Methodist.
We differ in that God appreciates worship as a form of respect and will oblige with answers to prayers. The rules of the game are that God can give hints and even personal information to people but there cannot be a universally accepted proof of the spirit world.
My experiences seem to be designed to teach me what it is all about. I need to add that I am an engineer by profession and a high performing individual who does not do drugs or have strange beliefs. My personal proof would be absolute for most people except I have retained skepticism of everything. Reality is often not what it may seem.
There must be forces which stops someone from being powerful enough to dominate all, or is there?
I'm a little confused. It can't be all based on someone's good will can it?
Maybe there's some logical element to our consciousness, we are essentually clean bodies born of the aether. To create us requires that the product be good. Thus there may be ultimate logic preventing mass evil.
Not much to take from this bar my train of thought.
For an eternal entity, it's true that anything is possible, but only that which is temporal and physical is actual. So, for our actualized world, G*D is "dreaming" of a system with fixed laws. Any different rules would produce different worlds. From our perspective, in the world that we "imagine" to be Real, G*D is also an imaginary entity --- we don't know G*D directly, but only by inference --- that we use to explain why the world exists and persists as it does.
Quoting CliveG
I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions.
Quoting CliveG
I have had no "supernatural experiences" at all. And most of what people call "supernatural" is merely a misinterpretation of mundane experiences that don't fit their expectations. The only thing I refer to as "supernatural" is G*D. And that's because a Creator is logically superior and external to the Creation.
Quoting CliveG
My G*D has no physical human characteristics, such as emotions or egotism, because they are produced by the physical body. Human rulers, like Donald Trump, have inflated self-importance, that needs to be pumped-up on a regular basis. Many religious people assume that God requires regular reinforcement of praise & worship from his subjects.
Quoting CliveG
I agree. But my experienced and imaginary reality is different from yours. It's boringly normal and natural. :cool:
Quoting CliveG
It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile:
Grandiosity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity
In my experience, God is part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. I was 24 and unknowingly ate a cannabis cookie. A four hour hallucination followed. The Universe ended but I was told I would go back to continue and would not be sure that it was "real" or imaginary. It was not life-changing. The entity was alone and bored and immoral. Not what I expected of God. Only later did I realize God was part of the dream and has the characteristics as told by prophets.
Because he and everything else exist as an illusionary dream, anything can be changed. But one rule of the game is that scientific proof of God and Spirit is not allowed. Psychic events are allowed but not when one tries to use them as proof.
Most of mine were spontaneous and unexpected. There is no reason that a human should not be able to communicate with God and with God to impart certain knowledge. I found that most of my communication happened with serendipitous events followed by some research which gave me answers
Quoting Gnomon
After my late wife died in 2011 I spent an hour with her in the afterlife. Quite different to what I imagined. I was not prepared for the total lack of worry about ordinary life. I take life as it comes, and do not stress about things, but to experience complete freedom from pain, death, taxes, next meal, income and so on cannot really be described, only experienced. One could say it was a dream but details tell me it was not.
I have experienced death twice in a dream when younger. And judgment in the afterlife. Very vivid and very real. The first time I was sent back and the second time my soul was terminated, thus giving me the lesson that souls are not necessarily immortal.
Quoting Gnomon
Some of my experiences were experimental. As a teenager I was very good at hypnotism. Mind reading and seeing the future and viewing at a distance worked. And I knew most of the rational explanations and so could avoid them.
The most clear and extraordinary one was this. I got a shock, not a "feeling", that the biker going past me in an ordinary way on an ordinary day will die just ahead. I slowed down so as to not ride over him. He died, and not because of an accident. Just lay in the middle of the road.
Quoting Gnomon
The game of the Ultimate Intelligence has Good and Evil with Good (God) being superior. God thus has no form or gender but has the characteristics of love and compassion. A personal relationship of mutual respect is thus possible.
Quoting Gnomon
I am my own worst and best critic. I acknowledge I could be wrong on some or all and that it may not exist. But it is hard to live as if it does not because I put it to use.
Grandiose. I presume it is a reference for me to consider. I do not like praise and although I am a strong good leader I am just as happy to follow. I get embarrassed at praise and recognition. I am both athletic and academic and was teased for being a "natural". I was somewhat autistic when younger so it did not affect me. I could learn the entire Latin textbook including the dictionary in it and come first in a bright class time after time. In my final two years the teacher told the class I had to be cheating and have the exam paper because it was not possible to get such high marks. At University, I did the same. Study the textbook the night before the exam. Party through the year will a bunch of tough guys. Street races and drinking. So am just a regular guy with an interesting life which I took as a blessing. I did invent stuff as Director of Engineering of a company and the company made serious money from them.
I am an electrical engineer but have experience in a number of disciplines. Management, programming, computer design, electronic pcb design, HR and law. My late wife was involved in community development. As an American she got involved with the National Peace Accord in preventing civil war in South Africa in the early 1990's and then she went on to rehabilitate war veterans turned criminals using Eco Therapy. I thus got involved in many modalities involving sustainable living and spirit.
The link to "Grandiosity" was a reference to Caesar-wannabe Presidents and Anthropomorphic Gods who require regular ego-pumps to keep their self-image inflated. It was not a reference to you. :cool:
Our experiences of "reality" are quite different. My world is boringly normal & natural compared to yours. I can only explain your dream-like worldview as due to deeper perception, or more theatrical imagination. Anyway, my abstract G*D model is also boring, although super-natural. :cool:
I don't either. However I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness.
Quoting Possibility
Agreed, some people do, I don't. It still leaves the question unanswered, in your view?
Quoting Possibility
How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century?
Quoting Possibility
Possibility, do you happen to have any examples?
Quoting Possibility
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy here viz the Will. Are you saying that there is an element of ignorance associated with making choices? Or are you saying the Will is an intrinsic fixed thing implanted in consciousness that keeps us alive?
I'm trying piece that all together with your earlier post, combined with this post.
I get it now. And I agree that a true God does not require adoration and ego- boosts.
My life has been "Interesting" and very different to others on an almost daily basis. I thought others had similar experiences until people started to tell me they were amazed to hear me tell them of one event after another on a daily basis.
On forums I have been told I am many things - delusional being one of them. Since I think I have been selected to inform people of how the spirit world works and to update various religions (not replace them or dispose of them) I am also accused of thinking I am "special". That was another label I got when younger - I used to joke an say "Yes. Special needs class".
You seem to have worked out by logic what is probable. My experiences were what prompted me to hypothesis what was logical. I thought you may want some "proof" in the way of personal evidence from some-one who is grounded but has had infrequent but remarkable experiences. My world is anything but dreamlike. I could not achieve the corporate success I did I was not solidly in reality (this physical reality).
I did do well when working with my late wife on rehabilitating ex-combatants to abandon the life of crime (hijacking and murder included) which involved spirit. Watching 20 at time experience spirit week after week was anything but ordinary. She achieved about a 85% success rate.
Yes. That's why I refer to the presumed Creator of space-time as BEING. Not a creature, but the unlimited potential for creation of creatures. BEING is not a person or thing, but a Principle : "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning". G*D is not a proven or provable fact, but an Axiom : "an unproven statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true". These principles are beyond the ability of humans to explain, so they must be taken for granted like the axioms of geometry. Fazed by such fundamental abstractions, Nobel physicist, Eugene Wigner, wrote an article on The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.
Both Science and Religion have their principles. Hinduism has postulated up to 24 cosmic principles. And Science has a variety of principles that Galileo called "Laws of Nature", assuming that the God of the Bible was the Law-giver. I don't accept the out-dated biblical descriptions of God, but I have no better solution to the problem of Being, of Existence, than to assume that some eternal Principle, including "all possible instances of being", caused the space-time world to be. Beyond that Axiom, I know nothing about BEING.
Quoting Possibility
In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to the creative Principle or Law or Potential or Energy that motivates & controls the Evolution of the world as Enformy and EnFormAction. But my thesis assumes that G*D didn't know the outcome of this experiment in possibility. Instead, S/he programmed the System with parameters to guide it toward a hitherto unknown destination. This is what I call Intelligent Evolution : a Creative Process, not a one & done Creation. :nerd:
Enformy, EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Unfortunately, another man's subjective experiences are not proofs, but assertions to be taken on faith. Yet it's undeniable that people who strongly believe in some ideology can have remarkable effects on other people. For example, Marx & Lenin preached about the coming Utopia of Communism, thereby motivating millions of people to sacrifice their lives for a political dream. But, since there are many incompatible ideologies out there, I must "work out by logic what is probable". Similarly, I am skeptical of the Make America Great Again propaganda, because it contradicts my experience, and learning, of how nations rise & fall. Of course, I could be wrong. Remarkable things do happen. :cool:
Well put. I like your thinking. I maintain that God remains hidden from scientific proof but will communicate with living things by influencing their thoughts. With humans those influences can on occasion be strong enough to come through as "messages". Other influences permitted are mental telepathy and seeing the future. Also quite a lot of other subtle interferences with physical laws such as Tarot cards. You do not have to believe me or take it on faith, I just thought you might get inspiration as to your hypothesis.
Do you believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, seeing the future, mental telepathy, reincarnation, miracles (big and small), and the like? Do you given any credence to the teachings of various prophets and religions? Do you have a summary somewhere I could read?
No. Actually, I do believe that many people sincerely believe in such things, because they have experiences that they interpret as supernatural or paranormal. But, since my brain is rather boringly pragmatic rather than idealistic, I seldom experience any of the wonderful miracles reported by other people. I see fictional Ghost Whisperers on TV with "passed-on" loved ones standing right there in living color. But ghosts in the real world are invisible, and must be "seen" via extrasensory perception, or detected by electromagnetic technology, which can be interpreted only by experts. Generally, most people don't actually experience paranormal phenomena, but get their information second-hand from "experts" or "adepts".
Even when I was very young, in a fundamentalist religion, I suspected that the Bible was not the word of God. I won't go into that long story here. But it took me until the age of thirty to finally come-out as an unbeliever. Everyone I knew was a believer in some kind of god. So I had to choose either tribal truth or my personal truth : faith or reason. My extra-biblical studies confirmed that biblical prophecies were "fulfilled" only by typical fact-fudging.
However, after years of private study of Science & World Religions & Philosophies, I eventually came to believe that the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the real world is creation by a First Cause of some kind. Unfortunately, just as I have no experience of ghosts, I also have no personal experience of G*D, or gnostic knowledge of the divine. So my "belief" is not a matter of passionate Faith, but merely an acquiescence to dispassionate Logic. I just take the G*D theory as more likely than the Serendipity (random chance) explanation for my existence. I don't expect my logical G*D to "save" me, or to grant three wishes, or to amaze me with miracles. So I approach the world Stoically, like a recovering alcoholic (recovering from addictive Faith) : "G*D grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."
If you are really interested in how someone can believe in G*D without Faith or Revelation, my Enformationism website might help to explain. However, it's not a dramatic human interest story, but a boring philosophical thesis : no spooky Souls haunting moody neurotics, just mundane Selves trying to make sense of a wondrous world in ordinary ways. :cool:
Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
If you want to parse the metaphysical features of consciousness, you first need to parse this notion of ‘physical’ into its four relative, NON-spatial dimensions of awareness. Distance, shape, space and time describe only a small part of how the universe interrelates at these dimensional levels.
Simple chemical reactions, for instance, are often a relation of distance (as ‘potential’ energy), and time (as relative duration), but not space. They are two-dimensional relations, but not necessarily in the spatial sense of 2D shapes. Rather they are temporal events in relation to one-dimensional atomic structures. The dimensional awareness of space in a chemical reaction is uncertain: it can only be described as possible or potential, relative to its interaction with what is external to the reaction itself - eg. container volume, ambient temperature, and all the conditions we control for in lab experiments.
Quoting 3017amen
When we approach the ‘physical’ as four interrelated dimensional aspects, then understanding the ‘mental’ becomes a matter of interrelating a fifth dimensional aspect (potential or value) in the same complex way - that is, without assuming a 4+1 structure.
Quoting 3017amen
Don’t apologise - there’s a lot to my philosophy that I’ve conceptualised, but not yet reduced to philosophical discourse, so this is very helpful - it just takes some time for me to reply. The meaning of words is easily misinterpreted at this level of thinking, so asking questions is the only way we can approach a shared meaning here.
Yes, I think there is an element of ignorance associated with the Will - which isn’t so much ‘making choices’ as the faculty of determining and initiating action. In my view, the Will operates at every level of awareness, but is only capable of being ‘free’ when that awareness extends beyond time - to consider value and potential in relation to the experiencing subject. The less ignorance, the more the Will is free.
But it’s more than that. The Will operates according to what I describe as three conceptual ‘gates’: awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. These ‘gates’ apply to every interaction or relation in the universe, from quantum particles to the complexity of human interactions. They are mostly closed to all but a small percentage of possible interactions, in the same way that hydrogen and oxygen atoms will only bond (connect and collaborate) to create water molecules when they interact at a certain angle and potential distance/energy. But because we can perceive and interact with the potential of an action beyond ‘time’, we have conscious access to these gates when determining and initiating the potential of our own actions.
That reminds me of Kant's metaphysics in that every level awareness, as you say, relates to this innate fixed/a priori nature that comprises part of our conscious existence.
The intriguing thought thereto, is your notion of the less ignorance, the more the freedom. From a cognitive view, I can think of the Tree of Life metaphor, which implies that with knowledge and self-awareness comes existential angst or imperfection (some people call it evil/sin, etc.).
Since part of this thread is about God/Metaphysics/consciousness, the irony is that one's notion of 'intelligent' design in a cosmological sense, is another one's notion of conscious angst. Meaning, is our purpose of self-awareness and the will, involve seeking understanding? And in the process of understanding (our sojourn here), we experience some level of existential angst.
The topic of Metaphysical Will in nature, is something that Schopenhauer spent a great deal of time with...
This is a form of ‘existential angst’: it’s anxiety or dread in relation to an indeterminate aspect of existence, and is experienced at every level of awareness. It’s undefined pain, humility and lack/loss in response to information that challenges a system’s manifestation or concepts of the universe. And it’s the Will that determines this response: limited to the system’s awareness of available/potential energy.
For those of us who are focused on the universe as physical, on the relation to our material existence, the difference is an understanding of what is mental, imaginary, uncertain, potential, etc. The angst is understandable - beyond this fragile, fleeting existence nothing can be observed or measured - nothing can be proven or verified or agreed upon. Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding?
And yet we find value in knowledge and interacting beyond any potential benefit for this single, temporary organism, inspiring many of us to continue to seek an understanding of these uncertain, mental, metaphysical and potential aspects of existence - despite the angst.
Those of us who focus on the relation of our metaphysical existence to God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds experience a level of angst different to that of materialist nihilism, for instance. New information - as a difference that makes a difference - challenges our understanding of improbable, illogical, irrational or immoral possibility: imagination, falseness, evil, etc. Having recognised human existence as metaphysical in nature, we must contend with its relation to ‘evil’, for instance, as part of our relation to God. If we deny that God is inclusive of what we perceive as ‘evil’, then we must deny that God is infinite or absolute. And if God is not absolute, then what is God? Is anything absolute? Does infinity even exist? This metaphysical level of existential angst includes new atheism, antinatalism, brain-in-vat and computer simulation theories.
It’s a negative internal response to the possibility of existence beyond our subjective metaphysical perception. Beyond the good, the logical, the rational and the true can be nothing worth our effort, attention and energy, let alone the awareness, connection and collaboration of the Will.
And yet we continue to experience more to existence than our subjective metaphysical conceptualisation, and integrating this new information asks that we increase awareness, connection and collaboration with what we tend to believe is not worth effort, attention and energy except in eliminating it from existence.
The fear is that by connecting and collaborating with immorality, for instance, we are giving it the power to exist, when the truth is that it exists anyway - even if only as a possibility. Entertaining the possibility of ‘evil’ enables us to understand the causal conditions that influence its potential. When we do that, we are better informed to anticipate and change these causal conditions so that we reduce its potential from beyond time, instead of reacting to its occurrence in time.
Schopenhauer wasn’t far off. But he identified more with this metaphysical level of angst, rather than with what he referred to as ‘artistic genius’ - and even pitied the expressions of pain, humility and loss by those who were more aware and open to connecting and collaborating with the world as it is. He was unaware of the joy, wisdom and beauty they also experienced. The Will seems to Schopenhauer to be a meaningless, aimless striving of reality because he focuses not on God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds, but only on the difference between this aspect of existence and what he calls ‘Vorstellung’ or our subjective metaphysical perception.
So Schopenhauer’s exploration of the metaphysical Will falls short - he succumbs to dread and anxiety and retreats back to the individual notion of existence, convinced there is nothing that matters beyond, except this ‘meaningless’ striving of the Will.
Hi Possibility!
I think the aforementioned quote could have easily been your summary point. I think the existential angst is real, yet logically necessary, or at least intrinsic to, change. Change being necessary. With that, the Metaphysical Will takes on many facets of the human condition, and perhaps these quotations apply:
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
? Søren Kierkegaard
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
? Albert Einstein
“To perceive is to suffer.”
? Aristotle
“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”
? Marie Curie
“How many things have to happen to you before something occurs to you?”
? Robert Frost
“Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek.”
? Dalai Lama XIV
“Love is made up of three unconditional properties in equal measure:
1. Acceptance
2. Understanding
3. Appreciation
Remove any one of the three and the triangle falls apart."
? Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration
"What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you"- AH Maslow
Possibility, why should things be easy to understand?
There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what?
Quoting Qwex
How do you establish a "high probability"?
In philosophy this type of argument is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
Quoting Qwex
What does this mean?
Quoting Qwex
How did you establish this?
What is a"purer consciousness", how did you establish its existence, and how do you know its capabilities?
There is a specific reason to think the universe was created. Before the Big Bang theory, scientists could just assume that the physical world was eternal. In fact Fred Hoyle, who coined the derisive term "Big Bang", argued in favor of a steady state of creation as opposed to the singular "act of creation" implied by the expanding universe evidence. But the evidence in favor of BB convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, just a few billion years ago. So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it.
As for "created by what?", here's a link to a blog post on the topic "Coincidence or Creation?" And the "Click Here" link goes to a continuation of that topic on the blog forum. The "what" may not be what you expect. :smile:
I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say?
Quoting Gnomon
How does this qualify as a specific reason?
Quoting Gnomon
What evidence?
I think that everything we understand so far points to the reality that it isn’t easy, that it never was easy, and never should be easy to understand. The idea that God could have (or should have) created a world without suffering is an expression of misunderstanding (and the suffering that comes from that): of God and of the reality of ‘creating’ a universe from pure possibility. The challenge of life and of consciousness is to understand all of existence - not as an individual, but as a possible manifestation of that existence in relation to its infinite diversity.
I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). I also think that the Metaphysical Will is real - though largely misunderstood. As the faculty of determining and initiating action, it is change itself: inclusive of cause and effect, stimulus and response, being and becoming, quantum decoherence and the collapse of potentiality waves.
As an individual, we relate to Schopenhauer’s understanding of the Metaphysical Will as a ‘force’ that we either succumb to or rebel against. But I think if we understand this Metaphysical Will instead as a relation of infinite diversity/possibility, and each of us as a possible manifestation of that in spacetime, then the Will is free insofar as each manifestation is open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with each other.
Sure, the context was pathology. However, it applies to anything really. Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum.
But here's the quote in context:
"In this area we can learn much also from the psychopathic personality, especially the 'charming' type. They can be described briefly as having no conscience, no guilt, no shame, no love for other people, no inhibitions, and few controls, so that they pretty well do what they want to do. They tend to become forgers, swindlers, prostitutes, polygamists, and to make their living by their wits rather than hard work. These people, because of their own lacks, are generally unable to understand in others the pangs of conscience, regret, unselfish love, compassion, pity, guilt, shame, or embarrassment. What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you. And since what you are does sooner or later communicate itself, eventually... ."
Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.
If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life.
Google search on "cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe.
Quoting CeleRate
The embarassing question of how & why the universe originated from an unknown and unknowable pre-existence is definitely a motivating "reason" for cosmologists & philosophers to entertain the possibility of Specific Creation, and to reject it categorically. One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. Some Atheists immediately began trying to find a plausible "reason" to justify their original assumption that the universe is eternal, thus un-created. They simply modified that assumption to re-define our "universe" as a merely a local instance of a Pluriverse --- which came to be known as the "Multiverse". They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. But some "hard science" Cosmologists (Paul Davies) chose to face the "facts", and accept their implications.
Quoting CeleRate
Please don't play ignorant. In the Information Age, the evidence is easily available for those who are looking for it. But one man's evidence is another man's nonsense. It all depends on your perspective, your worldview, your belief system, and your ability to adapt your beliefs to new facts. :cool:
PS__The "Creator" I refer to is an abstraction based on logical inference, not a concrete entity known directly by revelation. It's the "god of the philosophers".
Yes. When you wrote "our world" earlier I thought you meant that the Earth was created in an instant (Which has been a theological claim, but not a cosmological one).
Quoting Gnomon
It still could be a creation event. I'm just not sure what theists think this grants them if it is.
Quoting Gnomon
This is a false dichotomy. It's not as if it has been established that the only two options are a non-contingent (world or universe?), or a contingent one that depends on an immaterial creator.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present.
I spoke with God yesterday and ironically enough, he told me to tell you not to worry :brow:
If I may ask, why are you wondering? Isn't that in itself a false dichotomy?
I'm interested in learning.
Quoting 3017amen
How so?
In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with... . If it's not a false dichotomy, it's an irony. Actually, it's probably both.
Either way, you carry the burden of explaining the nature of your own sense of wonderment from your consciousness. What purpose does it serve? And why should you care?
Why do the properties have to be metaphysical? There is plenty of empirical evidence that people learn to ask questions through a long history of reinforcing consequences provided for asking and answering questions. We learn to ask questions because we receive answers that help us in some practical way.
But that has no biological survival value.
Wonderment is much like love and the will. Iit's a metaphysical property of consciousness. Otherwise try to explain your sense of wonder in concrete terms using your notion of empirical evidence.
But it could...
"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"
"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?
"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"
For some Theists, scientific evidence is irrelevant. But for Intelligent Design advocates, the discovery that the expanding universe can be traced back to the beginning of space-time validates their belief in Special Creation. They also make much of the implication that all the finely-tuned initial conditions and the governing Laws of Nature were pre-set at the beginning to produce a "flat" curve of expansion. Which may be one reason why Alan Guth developed a mathematical theory of Cosmic Inflation to explain how matter & energy got evenly distributed, so that life & mind could emerge and replicate. But that even more radically instantaneous pre-bang event (fractions of a second) just added more evidence that it was a miracle. From nothing, a new world appeared : Presto! Voila! So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support, but can be interpreted as a 21st century technical description of an ancient mythical explanation for how & why the world exists.
Quoting CeleRate
What other options do you see to explain the BB besides : A> Random Accident by Coincidence (quantum fluctuation) in a self-existent Multiverse, or B> Intentional Instantaneous Creation of Nature by a self-existent SuperNatural Creator? In "A" the Universe is contingent upon a self-existent eternal process (e.g. Multiverse). In "B" it's contingent upon a self-existent eternal immaterial BEING. Both assume that the Potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the pre-BB existence. "A" assumes the existence of something like Democritus' eternal imperishable Atoms as the physical substance of reality. "B" assumes the existence of eternal immortal Memes (Ideas) as the metaphysical substance*1 of our world.
*1 Aristotle's Substance : A> Temporal Perishable Things (contingent accidents); B> Eternal Universals, Forms, Archetypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
"The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
"Aristotle divides the world into two categories: substances and accidents- substances are the most fundamental." https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/
Quoting CeleRate
Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism. It requires a Deistic G*D to get the ball rolling, but then the process of Intelligent Evolution keeps it moving in the right direction. The theory may or may not be "true", but it makes allowances for Life, Mind, & Qualia that are unexplained by the conventional theories of modern Science.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? Even if it could be established, theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God that cares about when one works, what one eats, who one sleeps with, and in what position.
Quoting Gnomon
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting any particular model for describing how the universe came into existence. I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options. If the universe was always here, then coming into existence is an assumption made about the big bang. Cosmologists question why their measurements of entropy are as high as they are at their calculated time of the big bang. Mathematical models also fit multiverse explanations. I have no informed opinion on the topic.
Quoting Gnomon
Thanks. I'll take a look.
"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"
"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?
"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"
Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions?
Otherwise, does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment? How should wonderment evolve? What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something? What would be examples of that some thing(s)?
I hope you find those questions intriguing. Those are just a few questions for you to research concerning the Metaphysical nature of conscious existence.
Language does not develop in the absence of a social environment. At some point in our evolutionary history vocal musculature came under operant control. In social groups this served a variety of purposes, one of which was to get needs met through the mediation of other individuals. Instead of going to get water one could ask for water to be brought. The outcome was identical (i.e., obtaining water), but now there was a new mechanism at work. There are decades of experimental research demonstrating this process.
Sitting in an armchair attempting to explain the history and functions of language development a priori is not going to get anyone very far.
I'm sorry, were you not able to answer the questions empirically, like you suggested earlier?
Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:
Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle?
Otherwise go back and research those metaphysical questions if you care to, since those are more germain to the thread topic, no?
By simple Logic. If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural". But that definition also applies to the hypothetical Multiverse : if it exists, it is supernatural -- above and beyond Nature.
But, if you mean by "established" that a particular First Cause hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, then that is another question altogether. And I assume you know the answer. The current most popular alternative to the God-theory is the Multiverse hypothesis, in various permutations. But no consensus.
Quoting CeleRate
Theists "establish" the personal characteristics of their invisible God, by Faith in the revelation of their sect's scriptures. But, since I have no faith in their scriptures, I have no knowledge at all of my so-called G*D except logical necessity. An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause : either Dumb Luck or Intelligent Creation.
Quoting CeleRate
As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? If you are not scientifically serious, you can make a sci-fi list of a> god-like aliens from outer space, or b> ancient high-tech civilizations like Atlantis, or c> a pantheon of super-human gods like the Greeks and Hebrews. Wikipedia has a list of creation myths from around the world. if you want to believe in one of them, you are free to do so. But if you prefer a philosophically cogent answer to the First Cause question, you will have to choose from two opposite solutions : Accident or Intention. :nerd:
Creation Myths : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
StarsFromMemory already gave you some insight on this matter, but you refuse to learn new information that contradicts this poorly thought out argument that you keep cluttering the thread with.
I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you explain that better then?
Or how about starting with the metaphysical questions first, if you can... LOL
That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause.
If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent?
Quoting Gnomon
Popularity of an argument is not equal to correctness of an argument.
Quoting Gnomon
Did I say there were more than two? I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. Isn't it commonplace to present true premises and valid arguments in philosophical discussions?
What caused the first cause? Does the multiverse qualify as a first cause? Or does only a god qualify as a first cause?
Then prove to us the laws of gravity are necessary for survival in the jungle! LOL
Anyway I'm sorry were you able to answer the metaphysical questions regarding the sense of wonderment and why human's have such properties from consciousness?
Tic tic tic toc
LOL
There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing.
I'm sorry, let me try again more succinctly
1. Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects; one abstractly and one spacially. And explain the purpose of thinking abstractly to us... ?
2. Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment.
tic toc tic toc
Because legs a versatile and space is 3-dimensional. You can step back, lunge forward, or dodge to the side.
Quoting 3017amen
What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences.
Great! Then why are mathematical abstracts needed?
We're not talking about experience are we? You seem to know about how the intellect has evolved, so I ask you again, how are metaphysical constructs, such a wonderment, have Darwinian survival value? Did I miss something?
If you cannot answer that one, perhaps the Will or the phenomenon of Love would be an easier metaphysical construct to unpack, yes?
You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish?
Wonderment is something you experience. I consider thoughts, emotions, and perceptions experiences. I don't know how they're generated.
Quoting 3017amen
Can you just state your full argument, instead of having this constant back and forth?
I'm just asking for clarification, again: So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? You said it, I didn't.
Quoting Malice
You can try it though.
Great! And so, why would you try it, when it's not needed to avoid the hypothetical falling object?
Sorry for the redundancy, I'm still trying to seek clarification from the statement you made.
It was a joke.
What is your argument?
I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... .
tic toc tic toc
I've answered both questions. And math not being suitable for dodging coconuts doesn't need clarification. It's bizzare that you even ask.
So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed?
And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL
You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming.
Quoting 3017amen
I already told you my view. What else do you want to know?
But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able...
Quoting Malice
Well you just said, in so many words, that more or less it's because that's what you thought. But no objective analysis. Or did you support it empirically through emergent or evolutionary processes? I didn't see where you did.
Let me try to summarize, and then if you can, plug in your scientific method:
Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking [survival] questions (about being hungry and thirsty)?
Does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment?
How should wonderment evolve?
What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something?
What would be examples of those some thing(s)?
Too, since I'm thinking you must have these answers, go ahead and empirically explain other Metaphysical phenomena like Love and the Will as well, if you are able:
How does Love provide for survival when instinct is only needed to procreate?
How does the Will provide for survival when an animal survives on instinct?
Maybe try a logical syllogism, I think that would be the most succinct way to make your case.
Just trying to help LOL
Quoting Malice
You're just going in circles now. I responded to this already. Do you have a counter-argument?
I'm shocked !! Are you saying you have no answers to these questions?
You must be trolling this thread. Nobody is this obtuse.
With all due respect, it actually appears to be the exact opposite.
For example, I asked many existential questions for which you've responded with one-liner's, tantamount to, if you don't mind me saying, equivocal double speak and/or rhetorical gibberish.
For example, specifically, you initially touted the fact that you could provide empirical evidence to support your claim that, in this instance, metaphysical phenomena and other mental constructs such as mathematical abstracts, can be explained (through natural selection). Now I am asking for specific answers to specific questions.
And thus far, you've provided no evolutionary support, let alone any empirical evidence from cognitive science, to help explain these properties or features from consious existence.
I'm indeed concluding that your goal is to troll this thread.
It's based on the same assumption that Plato and Aristotle made. In my thesis, I refer to the necessity of a First Cause as an Axiom (self-evidently true). Look it up. The "supernatural" aspect is merely logical inference. That's what philosophers do; this is a philosophical forum. You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics.
Meta-Physics : "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Plato/Aristotle First Cause : The Cosmological Argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Quoting CeleRate
You missed the stipulation in the earlier posts : both G*D and Multiverse are necessarily eternal and self-caused. No need for any other cause.
Quoting CeleRate
I gave you my reasons via links in previous posts. It's not my job to read them for you. :nerd:
Well then, it’s the one quote I don’t agree with - at least, not in the way you seem to be interpreting it. The way I see it, we can perceive to understand what we are not. That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion.
In pathology especially, I think this type of thinking limits our willingness to seek understanding of human motivations and behaviour that we find irrational, illogical, immoral, etc. By labelling these ‘pathological’, we isolate and exclude the information we might gain about ourselves and others if only we would include this potential within the scope of ‘normal’ humanity. This is why we are so often blindsided by seemingly isolated events - such as a man dousing his estranged wife and young children with petrol and setting them alight in their car on a suburban street. We call him a ‘monster’ instead of recognising that he was, until that moment, perceived as just another man - and in doing so, in concluding that we cannot understand, we limit our relationship with the potential unfolding of reality.
Quoting 3017amen
I still get the feeling we’re not on the same page here. I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance.
The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. Intelligence is a perceived potential to understand or comprehend, while ‘design’ is a perceived purpose or plan behind an action, fact or object. This is the extent of what is a priori - there is no knowledge or being, only capacity and intention for awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether we refer to this as the Metaphysical Will or Love or Enformation or ‘God’, it remains an expression of our relation to what we have yet to understand about existence - an acknowledgement of comparative ignorance, isolation and exclusion. The tension, the existential angst we experience, seems to me to come from a conscious effort to resist the fullness of that expression - in particular, to resist the inspiration to seek understanding, courage, wisdom, wonder and awe, etc from our relation. In doing so, we relate negatively to ‘God’ or the Metaphysical Will itself - to the relation as a ‘force’ - instead of acknowledging the infinite possibility of existence to which it points.
It’s a bit like our understanding of energy. We talk about energy as a ‘force’ and define its relation to the observable/measurable universe in a variety of ways. But energy is not a thing, but an expression of the relation of observed/measured objects or temporal events to their perceived potential. We cannot measure or observe that potential, only the relation. And yet we can, to some extent, calculate or perceive it and strive to understand it - more so now with quantum mechanics. In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’.
If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time.
You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing. And Ironic...the faithful arguing in bad faith. Lol, why is it that those who think they have the moral high ground never seem to demonstrate it?
I dont think hes a troll, I think he is a liar, and I dont buy his insincere politeness either. Completely Dishonest.
This thread is about ID, not the EOG. For example, we are talking about Metaphysics and Phenomenology. You seem preoccupied with EOG topics.
I suggest you start another thread on EOG and not troll this one like Malice has.
Just an observation, if you are an atheist, why are you so concerned with the EOG. I mean dude, is your belief system that weak. LOL
Hi Possibility!
Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents?
I think that deserves special attention. I'll respond to your other points shortly, thanks.
Okay. But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear?
Quoting Possibility
I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer).
Quoting Possibility
Well, it's really reciprocal. Which is to underscore relationship's, and the need to integrate awareness and understanding of them. There is indeed an interconnectedness (good analogy).
I enjoyed the opportunity to respond to skeptical questions about a topic that is important to me (existence; ontology), and which is not addressed by pragmatic Science. That's the only reason I allowed you to continue to demonstrate your superior sophistry. But I could tell from the beginning that you weren't serious about hearing any "pro" assertions, as in my Enformationism "philosophical argument". Apparently you were only interested in trolling some Intelligent Design "idiots". This philosophical forum is important, because it allows us to "dialog" (not debate) with others who hold different worldviews. So, despite your anti-philosophy attitude, you have done us a service. Thanks. :cool:
PS___FWIW, I don't accept the Bible-based Intelligent Design theory. My theory is called Intelligent Evolution, and is science-based.
PPS___I apologize for responding in kind, with personally directed statements.
No - I don’t believe we are ‘born’ with talents, but rather born into environments in which our specific genetic and biological makeup enables the development of certain abilities or potential over others. Up to this point, each of us is a unique manifestation of a broad human potential, but our awareness is not bound by actuality. It is our ability as humans to communicate and interrelate abstract concepts, significance, value and potential in relation to past, present and future that enables us to understand what we are not. It looks like a ‘talent’ only in an environment where those around us are unaware that they also have this capacity, and so they fail to develop it.
Yes. We’re not comfortable with the notion that energy as a relational concept points to ‘something’ beyond our understanding of a four dimensional universe - it’s the same with the Metaphysical Will. If there is indeed a fifth dimensional aspect to reality, then we appear to be no closer to achieving any form of ‘mastery’ over the universe than we were a thousand years ago. The humility of this realisation is part of the dread and anxiety that contributes to existential angst. We cope with it by conceptualising each relation as a thing ‘out there’ and relating only to that, effectively avoiding any relation to an entire aspect of reality that renders us humble by its complexity, and of which we are each a unique manifestation. The Will, Love, energy, potential, qualia, mathematics, language, emotion, logic - all of this points to a fifth dimensional aspect.
Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction.
True. I've watched, read and participated in a lot of these debates. There is definitely a pattern, but it often gets the gears in my head moving. I was also surprised by the responses, I am glad someone else noticed.
Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?
The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?
Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention.
I will admit that I struggle with philosophical discussions on phenomenal intentionality: the linguistic gymnastics involved with attempting to formulate an ‘objective’ structural relation of intentionality without acknowledging five-dimensional relativity is almost laughable. I can imagine similarly ridiculous discussions on formulating a concept of ‘world time’ as train travel became popular...
The way I see it, intentionality is relative to all aspects of subjective experience - it refers to a sixth dimensional aspect of reality, what I tend to refer to as ‘meaning’, or what matters. It can only be understood in an ‘objective’ sense from a perspective beyond value and potential: inclusive of immoral, irrational, illogical and impossible potentiality. All other attempts to understand it are limited by subjectivity, or ignorance of five-dimensional relativity.
As an example, I used to be an artist, and during that time my perspective of the world around me was highly aesthetic: ‘redness’ became a range of values attributed to shapes and lines on a 2D plane. Perceiving ‘redness’ as a property of objects in space was often detrimental to my work. More recently, I spent three months travelling around Europe, and on returning to Australia I was struck by how ‘grey’ everything looked while driving through the bush. The relative ‘green-ness’ I had attributed to objects had changed, even in that short space of time. It took a few months to restore this particular value setting in my visual experience.
This is not just a visual phenomenon. I can also conceptualise the world differently as a driver than as a passenger. I’ve even noticed that I conceptualise the world differently at a subconscious level according to hormonal cycles: prioritising internal affect over spatial relations, for instance. This is just a small indication of the relativity of my individual intentionality.