jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (527 posts)

It's All About Interacting/Interlocking Relationships

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago

    Of all the presented (20 of them, including Pascal's Wager) arguments for the existence of God, the most persuasive, and therefore could stand on its own, is the "Argument from the World as an  Interacting Whole."

    As presented by Norris Clarke, a philosopher/metaphysicist, the argument goes this way: The world/Universe is an ordered system of many active component elements. Their inate or natural  properties are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws (or Laws of Nature), thus as per the Law of Gravity, all particles with mass are ordered to move toward every other according to proportions fixed by that law. The "Law" of Reciprocal relationships orders every hydrogen atom to combine with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1. The "Law" of Opposites attracts orders an atom with a positive valence to combine with an atom with a negative valence, to create a stable molecule.

    Empirical evidence reveals to us that our world-system is not merely an aggregate of many separate, unrelated laws, but rather a tightly interlocking whole, where relationship to the whole,  structures and determines the parts. The parts can no longer be understood apart from the whole; its influence permeates them all. Thus in such a system no component part or active element can be self-sufficient or self-explanatory. One part can not act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it. Any part could be self-sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system---which is impossible, since no part can act  except in collaboration with the others.

    Since the parts make  sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the part can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world/universe,  requires a UNIFYING EFFICIENT  CAUSE to posit it in existence as unified whole.

    A UNIFYING EFFICIENT CAUSE, i.e GOD

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      - exactly.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Interesting theory.  Because Hydrogen is one electron short of filling it's outer shell and oxygen is 2 electrons short, and because mass exhibits a force we call gravity, there is a god required.

      Not.  This is as bad as Pascal's Wager, where he begins with the assumption of a god and goes on to "prove", using that assumption, that we should all believe in the one he thinks exists.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        - doesn't it just make sense that some force is running the show?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Yes.  The "force" you refer to is called "natural laws" in the common language.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            And who/what do you think created those laws... Not nature itself because a non-sentient entity (which nature is)  could never create anything by itself ...the least of which are those laws...  except  when Laws are ordered by a sentient entity (God) to regulate the interacting/interlocking mecahnisms of the parts that  makes the whole of nature , functional in an orderly manner.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Thank You, A.Villarasa.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              "Not nature itself because a non-sentient entity (which nature is)  could never create anything by itself "

              Your proof (or even evidence) that your statement is true?  Or are you just spouting off out of ignorance - "I don't know so my ignorance proves a god!"?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                ...whats wrong with that?
                There is a way to perceive God, but it takes intuition. Until you are that finely tuned, you'll have to surmise… Surmise toward truth.
                Here is a question: You really do not believe Jesus came with the truth?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  As intuition is based on past experience, and you have never seen a god, I can only surmise that you don't "perceive" one, either.

                  Jesus came with a message on how to live a "good" life.  Beyond that we have no way of knowing.  The tale of his "father in heaven" may be just that; a tale without substance (of which man has certainly produced a plethora of).  Or it could be absolute truth.  We can't tell, can we?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    I can. I have intuition.  (Meditation brings results.)

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    If Jesus as you stated " came with a message to live a good life", I can fully surmise that you DO believe in the historical veracity of his existence. So if his message was as non-threatening as that, why was he ordered to be  crucified by Pontius Pilate, but  of course with the persistent urging of the Jewish religious authorities at that time?
                    Taken in the above context, your next statement, " beyond that we have no way of knowing" was perplexing to say the least.
                    Of course  we have a way of knowing, unless of course you are questioning the historical veracity of what is written in the New Testament porition of the bible. This to  my thinking clearly reveals the dis-congruence and dissonance of your interpretation of historical facts.

              2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Are you saying or even implying that nature is sentient? ....that it could create things on its own, specifically, as is the topic of this discussion,  laws that governs its operative functionality?  Or that it could create material or physical entities all by its lonesome self with out the imposition and direction of  those laws that governs its existence? WOW... now that's what I would call "shooting from the hips."

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Ever seen a stalactite?  The Grand Canyon?  A redwood tree?

                  Sure, nature creates things all the time; beautiful, wondrous, awe inspiring things. 

                  But that's not what you're claiming is it?  You're claim the laws required a god to create them, but don't seem able to show that god.  What else do you have that such an entity was necessary for the "creation" of natural laws?  Do you have a full and complete understanding of the Big Bang that you wish to contribute, or are you using your (and everyone else's) ignorance of the details to claim a god was necessary?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Ignorance you say? Well let me see now....You  are one who believes that the creation of the universe did not necessitate the presence or existence of a Supernatural/Existential  force, a  lot of folks have termed or named GOD. And if I recall correctly, you stated that  you have no idea as to how the universe was created, and whyever/however/whatever was involved in its creation, but absolutely a  GOD IS NOT IT.  How you traveled the distance from ignorance (I didn't know how the universe came into existence)  to absolute blissful belief that GOD IS NOT THE REASON FOR THAT EXISTENCE, was to say the least, done in  warp speed.

              3. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                No, he is making an actual argument.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Then it needs proof.  Negatives are notoriously difficult to prove - it's like saying there is no god - but proof is still necessary.  A simple statement of opinion, even if based on limited experience, is insufficient.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    In a discussion people will bring whatever it is to the table and people will discuss and some might agree and some might disagree and give rebuttal that actually come with sound arguments. Then others will just take the opportunity to put people down, because they usually don't understand the argument or other reasons.

                    I like the post because it reminds me of synergetics or emergent behavior.

              4. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @wilderness:
                Everything that is in the visible (and still to be visible or never would be visible) universe is part of that  created and organized entity we call NATURE. The nature of the universe is such that some parts are inert, but are made to interlock/interconnect with other parts that are equally inert and more importantly also with parts that are active (whether sentient or non-sentient), by the Laws of Nature. Whoever/Whatever created the universe also created those Laws that now control/regulate everything in that creation. To say that Nature self-created and the Laws of nature were inevitably created by that self-creating NATURE, is illogical to say the least. The nature of reality imposes causality to its core, and what undergird existence is the reality of that causality.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  I know you keep saying that - that the laws of nature cannot come into existence via nature, but all you can ever produce as evidence is that you don't see how it could happen.  Which, as I said, means that "I dunno, so goddunnit".  It takes a little more than a statement of ignorance to produce factual truth, don't you think?

                  "So protons behaving unhindered by the "laws of Physics"..." and
                  "The nature of reality imposes causality to its core"  (both from you)

                  seem contradictory.  On the one hand is agreement that not everything follows the laws we know of, then a statement that one law (conveniently, the one you like to use to prove a god) is inviolate.  The point being that you haven't the faintest idea if the second statement is true in every environment.  That of the quantum world, for example, or the one of the singularity that preceded the big bang.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Just from memory, based upon various posts in diverse places, where unabashedly 1.) you wrote an entire paragraph about how Roger Penrose brings mythological characters to all of his arguments, because, according to you, he is biased towards them, as is the norm for theology, you said, and how you were mistaken, because Penrose is an atheist and that was 2.) only because you did not like him critiquing a book and author, of your next  3.) unsupported claim of having knowledge of something that is not even remotely known, because of exotic theories, and how  4.) you suggested that emergent behavior is a potentially pejorative phrase about monkeys or something and how 5.) you do not seem to know a contingency argument from a teleological argument, 6.) All of which is demonstrably invalid, and only because you continue, unchecked, with disproportional impunity,  appeals to ridicule,  I am now wondering if you have ever considered that you may be wrong about all of your unfounded, unsupported, tightly held beliefs?

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    2wilderness:
                    The evidentiary veracity/factuality  of what I write in these forums are not to be interpreted with the same security as let us say that of A. Einstein or S. Hawking..  But what I write  I base on my perceptual  recollections of  materials read, and subjects debated, and essays accumulated over the years. I  keep in touch with current thinking on this and that topic, but my writings are almost always  constant on one thing....logic.

              5. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @ wilderness:
                Sorry to burst your bubble but Nature is not sentient....certainly not in the same sense or meaning that we apply the word  to humans and the other biogenic entities  that are aware of the reality of their existence. If you still insist that nature on its own could create  without the input and imposition of the laws that governs the cosmos, then I suppose you are not living in the same universe that I live in, which begs the question: how and when and why did that happen. God only knows.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  "If you still insist that nature on its own could create  without the input and imposition of the laws that governs the cosmos"

                  Where did Wilderness, or anyone else, say that?

                  And you are still ignoring my question of how matter can exist prior to natural laws. Will you please answer it?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Nowhere, of course, but it DOES make a great talking point to "disprove" what isn't accepted.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    @jabnesix: You might want to re-read your threads and that of Wilderness on this forum. You/Wilderness may not have said it in those terms, but the implications and suggestions on those threads clearly indicate that you /Wilderness believe Nature self-created and any part of nature be they sentient or non-sentient  could create on their own without the direction/imposition of sentience ie Laws of Nature/Physics.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  As the laws are a major portion of nature it would seem obvious that they could have been instrumental. 

                  But you're right - no one knows exactly how the universe was created.  So why do you keep insisting that an unseen, and perhaps non-existent, god knows?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness: "could have been instrumental..." is the worst kind of hedging that I have read on this thread.
                    "perhaps non-existent god...."  is the second worst kind of hedging that I have read on this post.
                    But I suppose coming from a physicalist like yourself, those statements are not any more than what I could/would  expect.

                    Of course there is no "could" in laws being instrumental....they are IN FACT INSTRUMENTAL in all that has happened and will happen in the universe.

                    Of course God created the universe... those 20 arguments are more than enough for me to say that proofs of  God's existence do not have to go through the empirical model.

            3. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Why can natural entities not create? They seem to do it every day on a micro scale. I think nature is the ultimate creator on earth and natural forces are creating things all over the universe in from of our eyes from organic films on meteors to the birth of new stars.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Creation  fundamentally involves purpose;purpose means intention..all purview of sentience. Nature  creates only under the direction of  sentience and without  that imposition by sentience, could and would  nature create on its own. That is the question?

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        The argument from truth.

        “Only an infallible omniscience could absolutely establish the whole truth of a proposition.

        If there is no such thing as that absolute establishment, there are no wholly true propositions.

        “There exists no absolutely true proposition,” being self-refuting, is necessarily false.

        Its opposite is therefore true: there exist absolutely, wholly true propositions.

        There is an infallible omniscience.”

        The premise is this: only a god can know the absolute truth about anything.  This is assumed because we humans can’t take every detail about a thing or event into account. We are limited, but a god wouldn’t be. So only if god knows it is true can we hope to know something is true.

        Further, if no god exists there are no completely true statements. In other words there is no truth.

        Now, my first observation is that a thing is true or not, whether we know it to be true or not. A god knowing the entire truth about a subject we do not know is true or not, is irrelevant. It is still true or not with or without a god.

        A god knowing does not alter the truth of the matter, just like our opinion on a matter doesn’t change anything from true to false , or false to true. And the argument isn’t saying that the god alters truth to it’s whim. And  yet that’s the only way you could say that without god there is no truth.

        Our knowledge is irrelevant to truth. Knowing and speculating  are both passive, even for a god.

        Saying that without a god there is no truth is absurd. The statement is opinion, not fact. The premise only points out that if there is no god, then there is no one who knows the absolute truth about everything. And even that is speculation.

        The statement is, in fact “Self refuting” like saying there is no truth. If there is no god then the statement can’t be true because in the absence of a god there is no truth, making the statement false.

        So truth must exist even without a god knowing about it.

        And of course it does.  Even the religious agree about that.

        So much for that one. Think I'll do a hub on all twenty. this is fun.

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 20 months ago in reply to this

      I believe in a supreme being, as there are just too many coincidences explaining the very magic of just my ability to communicate and your ability to understand. There are just so many random circumstances and coincidences supporting my existence that I can accept before I have to acknowledge some pattern.

      This philosophy, not politics. What the religious fanatics need to recognize is that each person must explore and discover these things on their own. It could as well be as individual as a fingerprint.  As the God, specified in the Bible, gives each person a choice as to which course they may choose. Who am I, mere man, to take that away? That is the problem with religious fanatics. There are no objective way to argue with agnostics and atheists. They have just as much right to their beliefs concerning the origins of the universe as I have to mine or you to yours. After all, the world is full of religions yet people mostly do not live by the precepts that they preach about. Religion in our current world and as practiced by frail humanity is rife with hypocrisy and savagery. Not exactly a force for good. No one can make anyone believe anthing. As an objective answer to the question is not forthcoming.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        I keep it up because, ultimately it IS about politics!
        You'll see!

      2. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Religion as an institutionalized human endeavour is subject to  those humans whimsical  ego....thus an imperfection that only an understanding divine  entity could  tolerate.

    4. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Sounds kind of like emergence or Fuller's synergetics in a way.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        @Phoenix :
        I have  always thought that the whole is more than just the sum of its component parts. In the humans or any sentient beings for that  matter, what makes the above conception believable  is the perception that aside from the  physical parts, is the existence of a non-physical entity we call "soul", the reality  of which, the non- believers, are mightily trying to deny.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          If someone wrote a self awareness program and put it in a robot, I would bet cash money the first thing it would do is look in a mirror and pinch itself. That is the nature of the physicalism beast. To be sure, self awareness is reducible, it was a program, written, by someone, who had an idea, who also had self awareness, who had neurons, that got born, that emerged out of abiogenesis, from the dust it came.

          But why stop there. Such as your post here Mr. A.Villarasa and emergence or synergetics, reality appears deterministic, there seems to be an underlying pattern to reality, the program is running and it's genius, it is creating 3D objects with sentience and sapience. All those individuals are interacting, such as you and I are right this minute. We are from the dust and we are currently improvising each thought and word, concurrently between us. We can guess, or anticipate what each other might say, but the interaction is fluid and dynamic and could possibly create new lines of thought, we are currently more than the sum of parts, and that improvisation is yet to be realized, constantly, it is waiting to be born, now, in the future or next post.  Such is creation.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Creation  always implies sentience. The Big Bang as labeled by empiricist, we are now fully discovering  bits by bits, is the supreme example  of a fully devised,coordinated, and imposed act of creation.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Of course it doesn't.  Unless you think ants (anthills), birds (birds nests) and caves (stalagmites) are all sentient.

              No, you're merely finding connections between parts of the universe and attributing it to an intelligence without having any real reason to do so.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Parts that are interconnecting and interacting to the fullest, as per according to nature's laws

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  You mean like a termite mound, with dirt interacting with termites and outside atmosphere in order to give "air conditioning" for the termites?  That kind of connections?

                  But when things interconnect and interact "to the fullest", is there any other way to interact?  Given that the laws require it?  If laws produce any interaction at all, it would seem a requirement that such interaction would be to the fullest extent provided by the law, not some halfway job.

                  Example (hopefully descriptive enough to show what I'm saying); two planets orbiting a star.  One doesn't suddenly "decide" that it no longer likes the laws and suddenly ignore them and float away.  The only possibility open to it is to remain in orbit - as there is only one possibility, there is no god needed to keep nudging it along.  There are no "options" when dealing with natural laws, and the laws themselves dictate exactly how interactions will happen.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    God does not need to constantly nudge along the activities of all his creation. He formulated those Laws so he did not need to be awakend from his nap by a subordinate who is having an anxiety attack because one planet orbiting a star "suddenly decided" to leave its orbit and go trudging along a different  path to orbit  a neighboring star system.

    5. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      "Since the parts make  sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the part can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world/universe,  requires a UNIFYING EFFICIENT  CAUSE to posit it in existence as unified whole.

      A UNIFYING EFFICIENT CAUSE, i.e GOD"


      It boils down to "Because the universe exists, there must be a cause. That cause must be God"

      I think there does need to be a cause, but what makes you think it must be God? There could be other, natural causes. EVEN if there is a God, a natural cause would still make sense. He has to have tools to work with.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        One must first hypothesis a purpose - that the purpose of the universe was to create humanity.  Only then does a god make any sense at all, and then the god can be used to show the hypothesis must be true after the hypothesis is used to show a god is true. 

        On the other hand, if the human species just happened - a coincidence or accident, unimportant to the universe - then there was no known purpose and no god needed.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Actually it makes more sense if there wasn't a God at all. Because then you have to explain where God came from. So God shouldn't logically exist.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Well, one must also hypothesize another universe, with vastly different laws from our own.  Nothing is eternal here, but in that universe both god and the universe itself is.  And, just like before, that there is such a universe shows that a god exists (that made this one) which then shows that the hypothesis is correct because it has an eternal god.

            Easy!  And very neatly takes care of where the god came from, all on one quick hypothesis, that an eternal god had a purpose in making this universe.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            @janesix: God is the only entity that is an  Uncaused cause. He was NOT caused or created into existence by another entity, thus the concept that He is eternal. No end... no beginning

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              How do you know that?

              I could say the same thing for the laws of physics.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @janesix: The illogicality/irrationality  of the concept of a continuing regression of a God caused by another entity, and another by another, and another by another and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, is evident. One had to stop at one Uncaused entity that caused the universe to exist  either via the Big Bang (the current, most popular theory) or by other mechanisms that empiricists are mightily working to come up with evidentiary data. Until that is fully and finally resolved, we can all conjecture as to how exactly the universe was created, and created it was, by an UNCAUSED CAUSE, believers call GOD.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you that there has to be an uncaused cause. But why do you think it's God? Why can't it be a natural cause?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    @janesix:  Your conceptualization,  has to imply that the formula for creation already exist, and that nature or natural cause had the temerity and perspicacity to create the materials, then imposing the Laws that we now call the Laws of Physics on those materials that ultimately lead to the creation of the universe that we now see surrounding us. Nature  is NON-SENTIENT and therefore, could not on its own decide to create the basic/simple materials that now has become the complex universe that we see surrounding us. Simplicity to complexity demands sentience.

                  2. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Because an explanation, that employs causality, for why causality exists at all, is contradictory.

      2. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        It does not boil down to that because it is not a cosmological argument from contingency, it is a teleological argument. It just got truncated.

        It goes kind of like this. We have a Big Bang. This Big Banged into (conveniently for us) an operating system. That operating system is interacting and interwoven and the individual parts are all connected although independent, yet dependent on each other, an aggregate of parts that make a whole that is in actual operation. The argument concludes that to achieve a system like that, where its parts operate in a reciprocal manner, where the parts and the whole have such a tandem nature, where or how it sprang into such relationship type system that actually works,  that this could only be achieved by a mind that could encapsulate that type of system. It is kind of like blowing up some canvas and paint and it came out a perfectly fitted jig saw puzzle with a picture of water lilies on it, with everyone left wondering if Monet was ever a demolition expert. It is not about the blowing up, or the puzzle, or how it all fits together, or the picture, it is all of it together, suggest a preconception of a mind.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          "It is not about the blowing up, or the puzzle, or how it all fits together, or the picture, it is all of it together, suggest a preconception of a mind."

          It suggests it to you, but not to everyone. It's a possibility, that's all.

          A creative mind isn't NEEDED to make a system that works. Why can't it happen on it's own? We see self-organization on all levels, from water boiling to the structure of cities. Why not on a universe sized scale?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Isn't there a better term than " preconception of a mind."?
          How about "conception of a mind."

          1.) preconception:
          preconceived idea/notion, presupposition, assumption, presumption, prejudgment; prejudice.
                                                                        VS
          2.) conception
          2. 2 inception, genesis, origination, creation, invention; beginning, origin.
          …maybe "an inception of The Mind," would be accurate.

          Is The Mind invisible????? Within our beings our minds are completely dependent on consciousness… or are they???

          If we have a mind how did we get it?

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Your mind comes from your brain.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Perhaps the brain was MADE for the mind.
              - made is not a good word either… the mind evolved the brain.
              throughout time the human mind evolved the human brain.  So many human minds were evolving…
              like a common urge to evolve in a common direction… toward greater and greater intelligence.
              The intelligence had to have been first.
              A universal Intelligence had to have been First...
              In other words, in existence on an invisible level in the first place.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                And where did the mind exist before the brain was made(or evolved)? How was it able to function?

                What does a mind outside of a brain think about, without any external stimuli?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Itself.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    What happens when a mind is left without outside stimulation for too long? It goes crazy.

                  2. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    "Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations,[2] bizarre thoughts, and depression"

                    wikipedia

      3. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        @janesix: The idea that the universe was "uncaused" is anathema even  to the deeply rooted and unaplogetic empiricists in our midst.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Why do you think God had to be the cause of the universe, as opposed to natural causes?

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Nature can not and will not cause anything UNLESS and UNTIL, it is directed by the Laws of Physics that governs all the activities (ie interactions/interconnections)   of all the functional entities that are parts of the whole universe.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              I agree.

    6. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Very interesting.  Yes, something with incredible power, intelligence and a will to put the effect we see into motion.  A will, a mind, that  made a choice.

    7. Lucid Psyche profile image59
      Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      I like that argument. It's good to know that established science and correctly applied logic now show that the philosophical arguments for the existence of God were correct.

    8. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      I can prove a god exists in very short order.

      We are alive. The human race was not always here. So something started us. If we define that which produced us as god, then god exists out of necessity.

      The other factor is that if something had not always existed then nothing would exist now.

      So I've proven god exists. But what is it? Nothing in logic tells us what god is in this definition.

      It doesn't have to be the Christian version, and it is not out of necessity a conscious being.

      Without getting into too much detail, science has shown us through the laws of conservation that energy and mass can not be created or destroyed. And it is that which forms all things.

      So the nature of existence itself is a candidate for god: that which produced us and all things, no conscious god required.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        God was the most stupendous explosion this universe has ever, or can ever see.  The Big Bang.  Now if we only understood that bang a little better...

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          BB is a model, and as such is useful. But there are other possibilities. One such possibility was postulated by Roger Penrose a few years ago. It's pretty good, and it postulates a more static universe with many "small" bangs, as it were.

          But regardless of that, BB theory starts form a singularity consisting of all the energy in the universe in a compressed form. So mom could be the BB, but god is energy and it's nature. smile

      2. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        @slarty:
        Just wondering why Einstein in all his genius did not think of the idea that you are proposing... or maybe he did think about it but decided hhhmmm NO, or maybe he said YES absolutely, but then decided that God does not play dice with the universe.
        Stephen Hawking, in all his genius did propose the existence of god, but an impersonal one i.e. Gravity.

        Mass,Energy, Gravity ... all by their lonesome selves creating...all suggesting non-sentience, all suggesting entropy, all suggesting incoherence, all suggesting the throw of a dice. Which are all anathema in the universe that I live in.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          So, Einstein said god doesn’t play dice, which means the universe is not random nor is anything random chance. The universe works by cause and effect according to surprisingly simple rules.
          Remember, this quote is from a personal letter he wrote to a colleague concerning QM. It was probably never meant for the general public. To me it was obviously a metaphor. Particularly in light of other public statements he made.

          Einstein was born a Jew, obviously. When asked in an interview if he believed in god he said that if he believed in a god, it was the god of Spinoza. In other words: Pantheism; the belief that the totality of existence, the universe itself, nature, is god.

          So pretty much what I was talking about.

          Now Stephan Hawking was basically saying what wilderness said about the BB. Have you read the book?

          “Mass,Energy, Gravity ... all by their lonesome selves creating...all suggesting non-sentience, all suggesting entropy, all suggesting incoherence, all suggesting the throw of a dice. Which are all anathema in the universe that I live in.”

          On the contrary, entropy is not disorder, it is absolute order and yes it is that which helps facilitate creativity. None of physics suggests incoherence, just the opposite. Einstein was right; in a cause and effect universe random does not exist.

          Chaos theory shows us this time and time again. Everything operates according simple but ridged rules. One of the most basic rules is: all atoms tend toward their lowest possible output of energy. This one rule forces atoms to merge and consequently create new substances.  Those substances interact causing compound substances; and all interaction follow patterns according to the nature of the substances doing the interacting.

          That’s why you don’t live in a throw the dice universe.

          If you are interested in entropy, I wrote a hub about it.

      3. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        1. "then god exists out of necessity." -

        2. "if something had not always existed then nothing would exist now."

        3. "Nothing in logic tells us what god is in this definition."

        4. "So the nature of existence itself is a candidate for god"



        This is frank and intellectually refreshing. I think we can go further from a logical standpoint.  I think it is logical to consider "god exists out of necessity" as being within

        a). a set by itself  i.e. an absolute necessity

        b) reality is intelligible, i.e. logic math etc etc, reality I believe could be considered information.

        c) An (a) absolute necessity, is providing or is the source of that information.

        conclusion:

        This self existent, absolute necessity, is at liberty and is the source of information.

        But I agree it is difficult to define from a logical standpoint, however I do believe we can logically infer some of these attributes mentioned.

        We could speculate (and I am sure some will think it is zany) that aliens are running a reality simulation program, that is holographic, 3D, and has substance, (because reality is pumping out "intelligible" information - but aliens don't fill the bill for a self existent, absolute necessity, requirement.

        I think it is logical to believe there is something out there that is self existent and intelligent that is not limited by or subject to,  the spatio-temporal

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Your simulation runner is an pimply teenaged emo kid. That's why the universe sucks so much.

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see reality as the product of pure genius. I see our world as being a perfect balance of virtue and it's unavoidable counterpart, that creates a whole.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_wasp

              I guess God needed SOMETHING to balance all the love in the world.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                http://s23.postimg.org/i1pv25mt7/vvv.jpg

                some people see this above, because that is their perspective.

                https://cultureandanticulture.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/84829-050-2fe9bce1.jpg

                I see this. They are both the same.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  So why do you think God created spider wasps?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    To provide an excuse to question the integrity of a Creator? To provide material for an inquisitive mind?  I cannot create a blade of grass. When or until I can, then I will show everyone else hows its done and how I can do it better.  I don't think any creature would appreciate that kind of micro management.  The problem with ice cream is it drips on a sunny day.  Thats the price we pay.

                2. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  But reality has what some might consider blemishes.  Quasars, supernovas, dying stars, deserts, cactus and wasps. Or we could look at them blemishes as brushstrokes, dabs of paint. Reality is a masterpiece painted by a genius. It is not a cheap photograph.

                  But let us get rid of wasps and love because of the potential repugnance or heartbreak. Let us make a perfect photocopy and perfect scanners to scan them, and all automated with no room for errors, blemishes or seeming imperfections. Just photocopies and robotic scanner people, who are programmed to only know good.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    In the cosmic world where entropy is the general rule, those blemishes you are referring to may in fact  be manifestations of greater design and purpose.

                    In the biogenic world (that' s you and me and all the living entities on earth) entropy do occur with some constancy and regularity, but we have been able to surmount the degrading effect  of chaos by developing mechanisms that continue to interlock, integrate and interlock that results not in entropy, but harmony.

                  2. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    I new you were going to avoid the question.

            2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              you see a world in conflict. And that conflict is creativity. Without conflict there would be no creativity because there would be no need for it.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I can't help but wonder why some people get away with stuff like this, while others can't.   I think it brings down the level of discussion and debate on a site like HubPages.  We could be having a great discussion instead.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          “This self existent, absolute necessity, is at liberty and is the source of information.”
          That’s probably the only statement I’d have to disagree with up to here. It’s a leap that doesn’t necessarily follow. Specifically the at liberty part. There is no evidence of that.And on the contrary, it seems to run by strict rules, which are its nature.

          You are astute in realizing that everything is information in its own way.

          The rest of what you say is as you stated: speculation. And while fun, it doesn’t really get us anywhere.

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            This thread did not always exist. The OP created it. The OP chose to provide information. Is it logical for me to assume he is mechanical? The OP did not have to, but he did.  Or,  let's assume it is true that this thread always existed as opposed to never existing. A mechanical, thread-post producer, that always has a prior post, but never a first post? Why a thread at all? Why this thread?  At the end of the contingency road is an absolute necessity. It is providing information. A purely mechanical/physicalism/contingent/naturalistic, either or, or all, or combination thereof is not a logical stance. Such as this thread, such is reality, the most logical conclusion is an independent, not contingent, source chose or from our perspective is choosing to provide information. A naturalistic, mechanical, explanation to me is like saying a busted watch tells the correct time twice a day.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              No, but you know already that a person started the thread. I see a watch in the forest and know someone made it exactly because I know nature doesn't create things like that. But If I look at and study nature I can see the things it creates and how. But I don't see or know of any being that can create exactly like nature does. So you assume an intelligent being is behind it but that's pure speculation.

              I can show you nature creating, where as you can't prove god exists let alone show that it can do anything.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Your overall stance, as I see it, is that to explain the reason for causality, reality, big bangs, multiverses, string theory, anything and everything contingent, and everything else:  logic, mathematics,  information etc etc equals "natcha dunnit".  Only the real difference between my beliefs and your beliefs, is that I can make an actual logical argument, whereas, your stance has provided nothing of substance in the form of an argument.

                Why is there something than nothing? What is the reason? Why is it expressing itself? I have a logical answer.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Well you think you have a logical answer. But of course you don't. No one does.

                  "God created the Universe because it started and everything that starts needs a cause" is not in any way logical. Because of course, you would then have to explain where God got his creative abilities, and there is no logical explanation for that.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    That sounds a lot like a kalaam/ quote from Oceansnsunsets. So, if you are going to claim that I do not have a logical answer, then my rebuttal is please make sure you actually quote me to show that you can differentiate between posters and arguments made.

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Sorry but I deal only in fact. You start from a premise you can't defend. Prove a conscious god exists and you have a logical argument. Without that you are guessing based on your bias. That's not an answer and it's not good enough.

                  I want facts and real answers or they aren't worth my time. I base my opinions on fact but I don't marry my opinions, they change as new information arises.

                3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  why something and not nothing?

                  The simple answer is, why not? There is no reason to think a state of nothing is more natural a state than there being something. Besides which if there ever a time there was nothing at all, there would still be nothing at all. You can’t get something from nothing.

                  So the default seems to be existence.

                  Can nothing exist even as a state? No. Nothing is not a state. It does not and cannot exist by definition. Therefore the state of existence is the default state. We exist which means there has always been something. Had nothing existed the question would not be possible.

                  It is a difficult idea to talk about with current language. How can we even make sense of saying if there were ever a time that there was nothing? Of course if there were nothing there would be no time. The question is in a literal sense meaningless.

                  We may ask will it always exist? There is always the possibility that at some point nothing will exit at all. But if that is the case, nothing will exist again.

                  The answer is: there just is something and always has been. We may argue about what, but we cannot argue the fact that there always has to have been something. What, at this point, is almost irrelevant to the specific query.

                  It is not as if at some point nothingness decided to become something. So there can be no starting point, no anthropomorphic reason for existence to come in to being. It just always has been. There is no alternative.

                  We may ask specifically why we as humans came into being and we may argue about that. But not about the fact that something has always existed.

                  Now those who know my writing know that I am fond of the laws of conservation. Energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed. So the obvious candidate for the source of all this, that which always was and likely always will be in one form or other is energy/mass. Even if that energy/mass is in a state of potential.

                  The laws that govern energy/mass are the reason we humans exist. Some would ask where such laws come from. But again this is an almost meaningless question because the laws are not laws, they are the nature of the source. The limitations on how things can react with each other is the reason for order. Without order/limitations the source itself could not exist.

                  All things are energy/mass in different configurations and transformations. Humans are no exception. We are perhaps special among biological creatures because we can think about how the universe really works and actually have a chance of finding out. But we exist because through cause and effect according to the nature of energy/mass we were inevitable.

                  It is no good to try to lay odds on how improbable existence is because it is a certainty. We do exist. To speculate and say if we started the universe again would it produce life again is meaningless. We cannot run the universe back. We cannot start it over. We do not even know for a fact that there was a beginning to this universe.

                  This question of why something instead of nothing is what has spawned a scientific debate called the anthropomorphic principal. To me this is clearly a non-starter that stems from the misconception that it takes more work for something to exist than it does for nothing to exist. Also and more to the point that the universe is set up to fit our existence.

                  But clearly the idea that nothing ever existed as a state that something can emerge from is an absurdity and highly illogical. It is also far more logical to conclude that we fit the universe because it produced it, not the other way around.

                  My conclusion is that existence is the default. There can be no reason for there being something if there was always something; and there can never have been nothing at all or there would still be nothing at all.

                  This essay should be considered an add-on to the first essay I did for Hub Pages called: Observer driven reality check. I may add to it at a future time.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    So begging the question and circular reasoning is your conclusion? In your opinion It just is and and in your opinion since it just is, [and since that fallacy presents a problem] there has always been something?  You are supporting one fallacy with another. That is not a logical argument, it is blind faith, supported by a couple of fallacies.

                    Why not? Is not a reason or an answer. If I asked a millionaire for a million bucks and he asks: What for? Should I say, why not? Hey, giving me a million dollars is just the default? Intellectually speaking there is a difference between building a toy Taj Mahal out of tinker toys compared to falling asleep amongst a bunch of tinker toys and claiming I am an engineer. Why is the tinker toy Taj Mahal there? Why this particular Taj Mahal? Why is the earth flat? Hey, why not? Its just the default, its always been flat. And that line of reasoning works for you?

              2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @Slarty:
                What you term "speculation" are actually arguments... 20 arguments that are based on  or undergirded by philosophical/rational  thinking that from my point of view tangentially touches the empirical as well.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  I haven't seen them then. Could you point me to them or lay them out for me here? Perhaps someone already has but I missed it. Thanks.

                2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  For your elucidation here are the 20 arguments (1) from Change, (2) from Efficient Causality, (3) from Time and Contingency, (4) from Degrees of Perfection, (5) from design, (6) from Contingency, (7) from The world as an Interacting Whole, (8) from Miracles, (9) from Consciousness, (10) from Truth, (11) from the Origin of the Idea of God, (12) from Conscience, (13) from Desire, (14) from Aesthetic Experience, (15) from Religious Experience, (16) Kalam Argument, (17) Ontological Argument, (18) Moral Argument, (19) Common Consent Argument, (20) Pascal's Wager.
                  My favorite is as you already know is #7. I am assuming that  Phoenix'es favorite is #10.
                  One of your cohort in the non-believers camp, Wilderness, just hates Pascal's Wager... I suppose because it  predicts fire and brimstone to those who do not believe.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Ah yes. I've seen them all and have logical rebuttals for each.Nothing new there. I thought these were twenty augments you had devised.

              3. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                @Slarty:
                Your statement "I can show you nature creating"  should be revised to include the fact that what you term "creating" is actually "changing" i.e changes imposed on natural entities by systematic forces  that are outside and/or  inside those natural entities that are themselves the result of changes imposed by some other sytematic forces... in a long string of sytematic forces acting on natural entities that leads to changes until stability is achieved or  disolution completed.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Right. Or close enough. And?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    And which leads us to a closely related argument  for God's existence, i.e. The Argument From Change, which briefly stated goes this way: IF, there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. BUT it does change, therefore, there must be something in addition to the material universe. Additionally, the universe is the sum total of all matter, space, and time--- these 3 things depend on each other, thus this being/entity outside the universe is outside matter, time, and space. It is not a changing thing; It is the unchanging Source of Change.

    9. Elenin profile image81
      Eleninposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      I found this writing to be the most interesting, well written piece I have seen on these Pages in a long time. I have read minimal comments.
      Your extrapolation of Norris Clarke’s philosophy is stimulating and concise. I too, perceive a world whose Laws are not random occurrences but interconnected, working within a framework of universal intent. The following was written in response to the leap from Nature to God you stated in your last paragraph.
      A UNIFYING EFFICIENT CAUSE, i.e GOD
      A UNIFYING EFFICIENT CAUSE, i.e Nature i.e., the World as an Interacting Whole under the Laws of nature
      The more poignant questions beyond the observation of Nature; is there an intelligent Architect who created Nature? Did this creator design this universe with purpose, aforethought and attention? Does that force exist to this day and if so, what relationship does this force have on individuals?
      To me, the beauty of Nature and God’s hand in its creation is evident every day, but the observation of the interrelations between living things beyond the physical, the sometimes uncanny synchronicity of thoughts and movements, indicate to me a connection with a higher, unseen power on an individual basis. As electricity, radio and TV broadcasting bands, ultrasound and other undetectable to the unaided eye waves and currents flow thru and around us, so then I believe does the shimmering wave of The Creator, the Life Force, The Alpha and The Omega, The Beginning and The End, The Ever-present Now, i.e. the eternal GOD, flow through and around us.
      Access to this wave is something-+
      that each individual possesses.
      like a river of light  given as a birthright.
      I have come to realize that it is each individual’s task (like it or not) to rediscover and reconnect with God. This is the primal law. All living things are on the same journey of which mankind is the crown of creation. The laws of Nature guide us on our way. The laws of Man not so much, and have often gone far astray of both Nature and God.
      Science discovers little, the major breakthroughs are merely rediscovery of what has always been here, the science is in creating applications that put these breakthroughs to use. Darwin, Newton, Tesla, Einstein – Rediscoverers; important work yes, but let us lay importance on that which is most important. God. Of each individual’s most important concern (like it or not); our purpose in God’s plan.
      Thanks for a thought provoking post.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        @elenin:
        Your post is as thought  provoking as the idea that man's destiny,since he's been made witness to God's creation , is to try to untangle and discover the mysteries of the universe, and in so doing, get closer to the creator of that universe.

    10. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      This is obviously the one you like best so let's look at it this way.

      In my alternative: energy is god. It is that which all things are made of. It is immortal, as in: always was in one form or other. It's nature are the laws of physics, which as you say are nothing but order. It's interactions are all with self creating interconnected systems within systems that all work as a unit in some ways, but as individuals in others.

      In this sense there is nothing but god. However there is no need for it to be intelligent in the way we humans think of it.

      It doesn't have to explain its existence as it is eternal. No beginning to explain. Just like the Christian god, so no middle men required.

      It creates from self. It is light.

      All the religious metaphors fit. It created the earth, and it was void and shapeless. It then populated the earth, made rain, created light/photons and bunch of types of light we don't see. It is the stars, the planets. It is everywhere and everything at once.

      There is nothing else. And best of all, we know it exists.

      But don't worry, you not believing in it won't piss it off. But my advice is: live by the rules of cause and effect. Learn them well. Because if you mess with it, it'll slap you down so hard.

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        A lot of what you say, seems absolutely true to me too.  When you say: "All the religious metaphors fit."

        I wonder how you cannot make the connection.


        I guess some 3,000 year old sheepherders got lucky?

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Or had good imaginations. Those things were there in the sky, a moon, stars, the sun. Questions like where did we come from asked abundantly

          Some ask why they know water was created before man kind? Well water is essential to us. No water, no air, no sky no land, no us. They weren't stupid. They knew what they could observe, made some pretty good deductions about some things and didn't do so well on others.

          The garden story tried to explain why life was hard. We pissed off god. Ok, that explains it... to a guy 5000 years ago and present day believers. Doesn't wash with logic or reality though..

          And I did make the connections. I'm pointing out that energy is exactly like your god in all ways but human style intelligence and human attributes. It doesn't need them itself. It has us for that.

          By the way,the last post and the above describe a religion called Scientific Pantheism.

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            So are your religious beliefs scientific pantheism?  I am a Scientific Methodist myself, with a website about it, currently in the wings.  It is interesting that you say that reality or all energy is kind of like God,  but doesn't need human intelligence, because it has us for that.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Well congratulations. You must tell me about it in detail.

              You asked if I’m a Pantheist. Sorry, but that’s a long post. Ready? Here goes.

              My relationship with Pantheism is complicated. In the late 1990s Paul Harrison contacted me to see if I’d be interested in putting together a religion/world  view for atheists with numinous feelings.

              Atheism means only one thing, the person does not hold a belief in gods. It doesn’t tell you anything else about them or they might feel or believe or not believe.

              I had a web page at the time called the Heretic’s home page, and he knew that my opinions on that page reflected his.

              He had already chosen the name for it because it actually almost mirrored Spinoza’s Pantheism, but we would get our information about the world through science.

              The difference between Spinoza’s Pantheism and ours is that Spinoza postulated a completely connected though still separate god. All things together are god, but god itself is somehow more than all things. Not a personal god, of course: nature.

              Scientific Pantheism is like the Brahman. There is nothing but god. All of nature is god, or all of nature qualifies as god, though we generally don’t call it god because a god is generally above all else and since all is god, nothing is objectively above or below, so there is no god in the traditional sense, and we’re back to being atheists.

              After we started getting a great deal of interest we started a debate list so people could voice their opinions on Pantheism. Later we created a credo and formed The World Pantheist movement, not to convert people, merely to let them know about us.

              We don’t have anything to sell, like salvation. People call themselves Pantheists because it was always their world view and they didn’t have a name for it.

              Our membership grew all over the world, but especially in Italy where a real time pantheist communities sprang up in short order.

              But I’m a heretic at heart. I can’t stay in one place intellectually; I always want to know more. One of my first personal tenets was: learn from everything, fall to nothing. I was beginning to formulate new Ideas about the Pantheist god, to try to nail it down to one thing or aspect of the totality.

              I don’t feel comfortable when Pantheists say the universe is god, because while it might be the case in one sense it isn’t the source. So once I had pinned down energy as the source I revised my Pantheism and changed the name of my world view to Rational Pantheism. 

              I left the WPM around that time for that reason as well as other differences with Paul.

              In almost all other respects our world views are the same.

              Since then I’ve also taken on a new philosophical position: non-belief. I actively try to live without belief or faith in anything at all. Reason being: There are only ever three options. Something is fact, or it is speculation. The third option is deception, but I give most ideas the benefit of the doubt on that score.

              Facts do not require faith or belief. They require acceptance once known to be fact. And even then acceptance always depends on them remaining facts. Speculation should not be believed because to do so can be foolish, dangerous at times and heartbreaking if proven false.

              In any case there is never a need for belief or faith. Wait and see or I don’t know are perfectly acceptable positions to hold on all speculative claims.

              What I’m advocating is the incorporation of the scientific method into the way we think and run our lives. Particularly for people looking for truth.

              My target audience is mostly the seekers who are looking for a place to start, which is why I wrote a book called The Seeker’s Guide.

              So am I still a Pantheist? Yes, but I’ve moved on from basic Scientific Pantheism, to an expanded version.  A world view of one, that I know of.  It’ll probably always be that way.

            2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              "It is interesting that you say that reality or all energy is kind of like God,  but doesn't need human intelligence, because it has us for that."

              Is god. Well it was just a way to put it, but yes. We have a specific kind of intelligence which I think is unique to sufficiently advanced biology. But most animals get along just fine without our kind of intelligence.

              Our subconscious is really wh at drives us and sustains us. What we call intellect is a tool. Unfortunately, in some ways, it is also the seat of self identity. We place most importance on that aspect of mind. But again not everything even needs a brain. Plants do really well without them. They don't need them.

              In fact the brain is only useful for things that move. A Sea Squirt is a plant that reproduces via small tadpole like creatures. They have a brain and use it to find a good spot to dig in. Then while they wait to root and for food, they eat their brain. They no longer need it.

              Energy works by its nature. It has no need to think. It's not biological.But we do have to think, and we are energy, and thus we get to contemplate and learn. What does energy need to learn?

              It's fine without human intellect, it creates human intellect, that's one of its forms. Why? Obviously as a consequence of its nature.

  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago

    And so it goes....a total eclipse of the mind that  has become darkened by so much exploration and extrapolation  of the physical and material that then leads inevitably  to the total elimination and rejection of the  spiritual foundation of sentient existence. A pity really, to think about it, and yet despite Pascal's wager of eternal damnation  of folks who do not believe  in a supernatural force...that supernatural force is more than willing to forget and forgive because he loves all of his creation

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      That's an interesting word: Sentient:

      sentient |ˈsenCH(ē)ənt| adjective
      able to perceive or feel things:
      sentience noun ,    (My use of noun in a sentence: I am a drop of sentience in an ocean of sentience.)
      sentiently adverb: Dictionary

      sentient
      sentient adjective
      (capable of) feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive. Thesaurus

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Odd - I still don't see any evidence from you.

      Pascals Wager - he never did indicate just why his god was the right one, you know.  Just assumed, with the same appalling lack of logic his "proof" shows, that it was.

      Perhaps that is a good thing - with the thousands upon thousands of claims, all totally unsupported, maybe it is best we just forget about the mythical "spiritual" world.  All we ever get is claims, approximately as many as there are people, and that does no one any good at all.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        The only evidence that might sway you that God exist  is when he  presents himself to you in all his glory and splendor....but that would be too late, since by then you would be devoid  of all your 5 senses....something that you valued so  much while you were still living your earthly life.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Shall I then conclude that you really cannot support any of your opinions?  If you can't, why put them out, then?  Why would anyone simply accept your word - the word that is obviously based on ignorance rather than truth?

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            You can conclude  whatevet strikes your fancy.

            A divinely inspired human once said: "Don't be afraid.... the truth shall set you  free."

            As I see it you are so afraid , the truth has no chance of ever setting you free....from a life so totally tethered  to the physical  and material... a life lived in utter futility.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              As you see it.  And what do you see that I'm so afraid of?  Certainly not truth, as desire for truth would be a reason for requesting supporting evidence, while other fears could act in opposition to an active, questioning search for truth.  What then?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Evidentiary  interpretation and conclusions only happens in the physical world... a world that the supernatural  force is not a part of, but the creation of which he was intimately involved in and to which he ordered laws to be applied to its orderly  existence

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Which does nothing to answer the question, does it?

                  But if evidentiary rules are not applicable to your supernatural world, how DO you find truth there?  Just declare it is so without ever attempting to verify that the claim is true?  How do you determine which opinion/claim/declaration is true, or do you just assume that anyone that makes a claim about the supernatural both knows and is telling the truth?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    You are also free to believe  whatever you want to not believe,
                    but freedom has its cost made more severe, if that non belief restricts  your in ate ability to perceptual I've and conceptualize and perpetualize and ultimately actualize thougts.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    <"Jesus came with a message on how to live a "good" life.">
      "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
    Why did he say that do you suppose?
    To me, God is Universal Spirit.
    If we tune into Universal Spirit and become one with it, (or Jesus who was one with it,) in consciousness, (through intuition,) we become good.
    It works scientifically, in my understanding.
    I am just sharing possibilities based on ideas I have been exposed to and which make sense to me.
    (...and based on results from meditation.)
    Just Sharin'.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    Hey, A.Villarasa,
    Happy eclipse/blood red moon: 
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31965456
    Some say it will bring forth greater enlightenment. Thanks for ALL your contributions!  smile

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    <"But if you can't tell truth from fallacy in that world, how do you know your god is not a powerful but evil ET that murdered the creator and stepped into His shoes to create havoc in His creations?  That created the lie of Satan to cover its own evil deeds?  God knows ( smile ) there is enough evil in the world to make that scenario possible.">

    What evidence would there be of an evil ET causing the havoc when clearly ONLY MEN & WOMEN create it?!!?
    None.
    There is evidence, however, that a Creator created all the good,  (and strange… like mosquitos, cockroaches, vampire bats and snakes, etc., including bigfoots perhaps if they exist…)  What is the evidence? Nature.

    PS

    Q. How is truth is found in the supernatural world
    A. Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the part can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world/universe, requires a UNIFYING EFFICIENT CAUSE to posit it in existence as unified whole.
    Not by positing? Then by observing.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      By the definitions that have come out in this thread, none whatsoever.  The exact same evidence from the supernatural world that a god did it or that it was good rather than evil. 

      But you cannot observe the supernatural world.  You cannot tell, there, the difference between good and evil, right and wrong or truth and lie.  What comes from that world, then, can be either of those things, or neither - as it may be lie we can't even tell from the events it causes as we cannot determine the ultimate goal OR the path being used to get there.  Again, from the discussion in this thread, anyway.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        ...what if you consider that this IS, (edit: or an extension of,) the supernatural world? and IT IS! I am a supernatural being in a (pretty much) supernatural world.
        Supernatural refers to that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature. I think scientists would agree, they sure don't understand it all!
        - right?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I see.  Our world, an extension of the supernatural world, does not follow the laws of physics.  Not sure where you get your information, but you need to find another source.

          Yes, you can consider such a thing.  Does it make it true, that you consider it so?  Well, no.  That takes evidence, evidence which you decline to supply.

          No, scientists don't understand it all (and never will).  Is that a reason to postulate another universe, just to answer questions science hasn't answered?  More importantly, is it a reason to declare that other universe exists?  Well, no.  Ignorance is never a reason to make up answers without knowing if they are true.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Is that a reason to postulate another universe?
            I did not postulate another universe. I am saying the meta-physical and the physical worlds are, in all actuality, one and the same in essence. The physical world is slowed down; it is way way slower.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Is it a reasonable to postulate a much faster world as being the same thing as the slower one we inhabit? 

              You know, changing the word from "universe" to "world" doesn't actually change the rationale behind the statement.  And no, if the "essence" of one is to obey physical laws while the other does not, that's a pretty big difference.  Far too much to be saying they are of the same "essence".

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                One is fast one is slow… they (world/universe, whatever,) are of the same essence. God "became" (my interpretation of "created",) "light…" according to the Bible… what is "light" in all actuality? The source and essence of ALL that exists.
                http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Light is a photon.  Obviously the bible is wrong (again) as god does not reside in this universe - He had another one to live in while forming this one.  Claiming light is the source and essence (there's that "essence" again) of all is once more unsupported and without evidence.  Matter is not light, atoms are not light and YOU are not light.

                  But why would you post a link about neutrinos?  They are not light.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    because neutrinos are also God manifesting. it is ALL God manifesting. what you see and observe all around you is not evidence… it IS God:  The Slowed Down version.
                    Neutrinos are a bit faster, I would guess.
                    "How particles acquire mass is one of the deepest unsolved mysteries of elementary particle physics."
                    http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/significance.html

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    God = existence.
    Existence = objective reality.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    Are you a subjective reality, wilderness?

    No.

    So you are god, slowed down (not God speeded up.)

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

    Democracies require the morals and values which come about with the belief in a creator.

    More importantly, without a Creator who gave us our human rights, we wouldn't know what they are.
    - we wouldn't have any.
    The laws of nature and the laws of nature's God are the basis for our human rights.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

    It is really in our best interest to believe in Creator/Father/God/MTO…even if one can't identify god/God as one's own existence/awareness/objective reality.
    Someday all will be able to. Meanwhile, I, for one, am encouraged by discussions like this one.
    TWISI

  9. PhoenixV profile image78
    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago

    Mr. A.Villarasa - More than the sum of parts:


    I look out at reality and I see an orchestra, improvising as they go,  a new song, right now. I do not know how many band members there are: 1, 2, 3, 5 or an infinite number.  I see the song with my eyes or mind. Reality is their song, the song resides within the parameters of fundamental frequencies possible, (physicalism) so it has those limits, but the improvised melodies/chorus/timing are unlimited (ineffable)  (more than the sum)  because of the style. I am just a fan of the band.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      I like this.  The song is limited in many ways - by the number of people in the orchestra, the possible frequencies, the number of different instruments used, the abilities of the players (novice, expert and so on) and other factors as well.

      Just as the universe is changing.  It, too, is limited - by the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc, by the number of atoms, by the energy available, by the time since creation and so one. Different sections show different development stages, from old, dead stars surrounded by cold, dead planets to stars just being born or just dying in a super nova.  Life perhaps arises here but not there simply from statistical coincidence.  A continually changing, growing universe without the need for human approval (unlike the orchestra).

      I like it.

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Possible frequencies, a mind operating within the range of its perceptions, (however much or little), a bias towards physicalism, empiricism,  a posteriori.  Here is what ya get:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I4mTEdAf8


        Possible frequencies,  a mind operating within the range of it's perceptions, (however much or little), a bias towards rationalism, a priori. Here is what it is.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TmxfHbd-M0

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Although reality contains both:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I4mTEdAf8
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TmxfHbd-M0

          I speculate that if your perception of reality was actually true we would not be having a discussion, because we would be here:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I4mTEdAf8

          But it is self evident that we are here:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I4mTEdAf8
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TmxfHbd-M0

          But this is where we are now.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TmxfHbd-M0

          Otherwise, like I said, we would not be having this discussion.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I think you have a very skewed concept of what the term "rationalism" actually means.

          "rationalism
          [ ˈraSHənlˌizəm, ˈraSHnəˌlizəm ]
          NOUN
          a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response:
          "scientific rationalism"

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I have been a rationalist for over 30 years.

            rationalism, in Western philosophy, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to the rationalists, certain rational principles—especially in logic and mathematics, and even in ethics and metaphysics—that are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into contradiction.

            Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism...

            empiricists <---- you know the type, they're always comically running around wanting proof of yesterday and everything else.



            Phoenix V wrote : Evidence and or empiricism is only as good as the logic that upholds it.  Why drink from a puddle when you can drink from the source. page 2 on the it certainly is reasonable to believe that God is "existing" thread.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              But then we come to that belief in a god from another universe.  Rational?  No, of course not - only ignorance coupled with a desire for answers can produce such a belief.  Never "reason and knowledge rather than religious belief or emotional response".

              Do not confuse "rationalize" with "rational"; they are the antipathy of each other.  "Rationalize" results in the statement that "reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" without regard to the reality of the premise(s) being used and can very seldom be used as a test of knowledge.  That comes from observation and physical testing, used to determine if the reasoning process was correct or simply the result of GIGO.

              As an example, consider the reasoning that dark matter is exists and is the force driving the universe apart.  We could stop there, having reasoned our way to such a concept, but we aren't.  Great effort is being put into testing that conclusion, and only when that testing is positive can we actually say we have expanded our knowledge base and that dark matter/energy exists.  Not when we have "reasoned" our way to it's existence.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Well, I am sure you would agree that understanding information is different than a google search or copying out of a text book and floating it past an indifferent teacher. I have studied the classic Rationalists for over 3 decades and even blogged about them for a decade at least. So I am pretty sure I know what I am and what it actually means.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  That's fine and good, but when you use professional jargon to the population in general, and when it is not the same meaning as that general population assigns to it, there will be a problem.

              2. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Ad hominem.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  How so?  Unless you are referring to the decision to appeal to emotionalism in declaring a god rather than reason?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Strawman.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      @Phoenix:
      In whatever language, musicality, would still smell as sweet.  God in his repose is obviously enjoying the musicality of his creation.

      1. mishpat profile image60
        mishpatposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        What a "pleasant" response.  I like it.  ♪♬♪♪♬

  10. PhoenixV profile image78
    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago

    It's pretty simple for me really. We live in a deterministic reality. We have one freewill choice. It created that one freewill choice. I can get on board with it or I can jump off a building and deny the reality of sidewalks. Regardless, calmly, quietly, it will impose its will for all to see. You can bet your bottom dollar.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      All of which (model, chicken coop and sidewalks) have nothing to do with the big bang.  The statement that we live in a deterministic reality does, but you can offer no evidence  that that reality then (I know, poor choice of words when there is no time) was the same one the big bang came from.  It is supposition only, based on experience of a very (very) different reality.

      But this is getting interesting.  If I'm understanding you correctly all that is needed for a correct conclusion that matches reality is cerebration.  Rational thought will always produce a correct answer if carried out properly.

      Yet, rational thought (knowledge the earth was the center of everything) produced stars and planets that rotated around earth.  Rational thought told us humans could never fly and that the earth was flat.  Rational thought told us black holes could not exist.  And rational thought is telling us that because everything we are familiar with is deterministic (with cause), then everything we aren't familiar with and have no experience with is the same.  Yes?

  11. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago

    I think jumping to a "god" makes sense for some people.  I suppose it isn't necessary for it to be god for all people, but it does need to be something that can be highly intelligent, have a will, a mind, and be capable to create laws of nature, and much more.  So what are some other options?  This is a discussion that should be had I think, especially for atheists, but really for all of us.  The problem becomes what seems to be almost an avoidance of the point, which then opens the door for simple dismissal and maybe denial.  It hasn't been shown to be warranted though.  If there is a god, this is precisely the kind of thing that rightly would point to his existence.  It would be fair too, if he is the cause, that he gets this kind of "coverage", lol.  If its an ET of some kind, then it deserves the credit, etc. 

    Its not really reasonable to assume its ok with the rest of all history till now, that we can expect causes for effects, EXCEPT for what seems to be the biggest event of all time.  The beginning of all we know, which resulted in things like laws of nature, and more wills and intellects that can ponder such things.  For me the question becomes, why NOT ask for the reason for this biggest question with the biggest repurcussions for all time for all of us?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      If God doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        I thought God had a cause:  He wanted to focus on something outside himself…therefore the universe...
        ?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Oh yes, well I can see that being reasoning for a cause to create the universe.  Makes sense to me.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I guess the issue is cause vs. no cause. Cause being proof of God.  Everything is proof of God, cause or not, I say.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Can you elucidate on that cause being proof of a god?  As we don't know of any cause, or what it might be, it could very well be a natural thing, without any interference from a god. 

              Yes, some attribute everything to a god, using it as proof of a god, without ever knowing if it was a god or not.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @wilderness: Humans having the cerebral capacity,  coupled with an almost insatiable desire to discover and investigate, may one day come to a point in their  trajectory towards their  specie's  destiny, when they would untangle and therefore understand 99.9% of the mysteries of the cosmos. The 0.1% will always be a mystery and truly beyond human's capacity to untangle and understand, thus the  veracity of this statement: "God dunnit" will never be questioned even by anyone....in the same manner that the veracity of the  statement: "I think, therefore I exist", will never be debated.

        2. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          By "cause" I mean by what means did God come into existence. But I think you already knew what I mean.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Why, uh yes, I most certainly did! Because the cause of something indicates that the need of something plus the result of something is equal to the sum of all the parts required to operate both visibly and invisibly. And the parts of the whole are ever interlocking as evidenced by cells, organisms, systems, and other functioning wholes... and black holes, as well!
            Obviously.


            Just kidding. I have no idea what I just wrote.
            Pheonix made a run-on look easy.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Lol. Ok, I want to propose that God is a rebel without a cause:)

              Just my bit of fun for the day.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Edited:

        Fair question, and one that I see often on HP and elsewhere in this kind of discussions. 

        Answer, the universe began to exist, for one.  Things that begin to exist point to a cause.  They have a cause.    Since we are talking about a sufficient cause for that effect, God would fit that bill.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          That's only a theory. And not a very well supported one at that.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I haven't seen a case made that the universe is eternal.  I have seen cases made that it had a beginning.  So I guess we each have to study up on those topics to our own satisfaction. 

            I don't think that what we observe in our universe from its beginning until now, is sufficiently accounted for by random, naturalistic processes.   I find that a lot of faith and belief of another kind comes into play for those that hold to views like that.  So it begins to be about what warrants such faith and belief at some point, to me.  It seems to all boil down to "can the cause be sufficient for the effect we see?" 

            If simple dismissal is allowed, of the kind that simply won't allow for a view to possible because it isn't preferred, then it becomes more of a game to me, than a search for truth of what really explains our reality. I am  not saying anyone is doing this, but I have seen it done.  To be fair, I don't believe that a naturalist/physicalist view can achieve what we see, but I am totally open to listening to how some might think it could be a sufficient cause for the effect of our universe.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              I am personally open for many possibilities, including God. I just don't think God can be argued for logically. I think if someone has to convince themselves that God logically exists, then they are having problems with faith in the first place. I know, I've been there.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I have seen many excellent, and highly logical reasoning given here by believers that have not been rebutted in a logical way.  I can appreciate that you have/had your own experience in doubting your faith in the past.  To be fair though, this doesn't necessarily mean that is the same reason for all people that are trying to discuss God logically.  For me, it is the only and most logical conclusion, and it can be discussed as such.  This is my own experience, and it is more firmly concluded in the process. Some people MIGHT be wanting to convince themselves, but this is to assume they need to do that in the first place.

                As for people here discussing why a god makes the most logical sense to them, this is something also commanded in the scriptures for them to do.  Its not a practice of them trying to justify their faith in a god.  I Peter 3:15-16

                "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,  having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

                This is hard to do, and not always easy, but I do see many people giving great reasoning with logic and rationale, for the reason they believe, and it doesn't have to do with doubting.  I think a lot of "anti" belief is out there, and it is easy to make some people doubt, and deal with the ridicule that comes with it.  (That was even predicted.) My hope is to do it with gentleness and respect, even when its hard.   I hope to be better at this over time.

            2. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-b … scale.html

              There is new evidence that supports an eternally expanding and contracting universe.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Theoretical evidence I might add, but nonetheless intriguing. As a subset of this scenario, a very provocative   astrophycisists  theorized that the Big Bang was not what we think it is or was ie the creation of the whole universe albeit our universe, but rather just a fluctuation from an already existing universe... thus the concept of a multiverse.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, lots of interesting theories, and we really just don't know. One idea I think is funny is that the evidence can also point to the Earth being the center of the universe, because the universe is the same distance in all directions. (Not that I believe that, of course:)

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I have found the link below to be a great and fairly concise resource for what we are touching on here, regarding the standard cosmological model, vs other models.  Here is one quote from it, but know that after the quote much more is shared about these other models, one of which you talk about there.

                J. Warner Wallace: "All of us, regardless of worldview, are looking for the first, uncaused, sufficiently powerful, non-spatial, a-temporal, immaterial cause of the universe. From this description you can see how dangerously close this cause sounds to a theistic description of God. Perhaps this is why many researchers and cosmologists seek to find a cosmological model avoiding a cosmological singularity (a model denying the beginning of space, time and matter). A number of models have been offered, but none have the explanatory ability to supplant the Standard Cosmological Model."

                He goes on to share what some are, including the Steady State Model, the Oscillating Universe Model or Cyclical (like what you mentioned, would be a contracting and expanding model), and a Quantum Gravity model.  He shares the problems inherent with those models, for anyone seeking to learn more or confirm or deny what they are thinking about better models than the standard cosmological model includes.  (The one where the universe has a beginning.)

                http://www.str.org/blog/is-there-a-way- … Rsb0OH-6So

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Here's my way of thinking, which may or may not be logical. I suppose I have my own set of "beliefs". Like for instance, I think everything has to be logical, and has to have a cause.

                  It makes more sense to me that NOTHING should exist. But as things do exist, I have to try to figure out what the most rational explanation might be, based on the scientific facts I know.

                  To me, God is unlikely to exist, as I don't see where the intelligence and will would come from. But I can imagine the laws of nature existing, because the all fit together in a logical way.

                  I can imagine intelligence and will evolving, like it has with human beings and dolphins and elephants. But not the kind of intelligence you would need to be able to come up with the staggeringly complex laws that make the universe work.

                  My thinking is biased to what I can and can not believe. I would imagine that everyone is biased to what they believe, and rationalize according to that.

                  I don't think it's even possible to tell who is being more "logical". The universe is WEIRD. It's strange that it even exists, and we have to do the best we can to figure out what's going on.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    What you are  avidly pursuing is the concept that God does not exist because creation is so complex that even a God-like entity could not have rationally created. Reminds me of the counterintuituive idea of  putting the cart ahead of the horse.

    2. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      "The problem becomes what seems to be almost an avoidance of the point, which then opens the door for simple dismissal and maybe denial. "

      We ARE discussing the point. In great detail. It's been a really interesting a very civil discussion, I might add.

    3. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 20 months ago

      Assuming man is logical (for the most part) but knowing man does not think as God "thinks" (as the Bible agrees), it would seem that man cannot logically understand God but that God is unaffected by man's logic.

      There is a standard logic on both sides which the logical worldly man refuses or is unable to accept  The logical spiritual man does accept two standards.  In each, there is and must be a reasoning process upon which each places their "faith."

      The logical worldly man uses a margin and extension of faith in its sciences as it marches ahead in its incomplete studies.  At the same time, he compiles his proofs, disregarding the spurious and tossing out the false presentations.

      The logical spiritual man has completed his studies in Jesus Christ by the same process.  But all else, that is further studies, is learning what to do with that which they have graciously been given.

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago

      All views (from atheist to a very religious person) needs to understand there is an uncaused first cause that is eternal, has a will, is highly powerful and intelligent. This isn't a "problem" for just those that believe in a god to wrestle with. (Or to have to "prove or show" to those that don't believe in the believer's conclusion.)  Its for all of us to consider what could that thing be.  It has to be sufficient. 

      Now if a person just doesn't want to know about that thing, or avoid it for some reason, then that is at least a "response."  I think this is what we are seeing in a bottom line kind of way, a lot.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        "All views (from atheist to a very religious person) needs to understand there is an uncaused first cause that is eternal, has a will, is highly powerful and intelligent"

        No, we don't "need to understand" that, because it isn't true. You just think it is. You can think up any parameters you want, it doesn't mean they are right.

        You have no way to know what the parameters for the universe to come into being had to have been.

        You have no problem believing a God could exist on it's own, yet you conclude that it's illogical for the universe to exist on it's own. That doesn't make sense to me.

        I have no problem with either existing on their own. I have no bias.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I am not just thinking up any parameters I want, as my reasoning for thinking I am right.  It is because of what we know in our universe.  I am not being biased, but open to being shown how, as you seem to indicate you think I am working out of bias. 

          If you or anyone would like to make a case why a universe like ours exists rather than nothing existing at all, if there is no uncaused, intelligent, personal (with a will) mind, then I am open to hearing about that.  As of yet, I haven't seen a better explanation than an eternally existing God, a personal mind, with power and decision making capabilities. 

          I am speaking more about origins, beginnings, than a universe that is in existence to the degree we see it now.  It makes sense to me that it will continue to exist at least a time, and would appear to do so without any "help" from a God. (Though I personally believe differently, this isn't what I am discussing here with you.) I just mean I can see why its current state would appear to go on without help.  Hopefully, this addresses the part above that doesn't make sense to you. Or I hope so.

          1. Lucid Psyche profile image59
            Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            "If you or anyone would like to make a case why a universe like ours exists rather than nothing existing at all, if there is no uncaused, intelligent, personal (with a will) mind, then I am open to hearing about that.  As of yet, I haven't seen a better explanation than an eternally existing God, a personal mind, with power and decision making capabilities."

            There is no better explanation for the existence of the universe than a First Cause which is sufficient to the existence of the universe (that cause being greater than the universe itself = God). In fact a cause is a logical requirement for anything which begins to exist. In this context, atheists usually end up arguing against causality which is ironic in that they claim to be advocates of logic.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              How about "It just happened.  With or without a natural cause, and the rest is simple coincidence"?

              Perhaps atheists argue against a cause because no one (including believers) have any idea at all what went on in the singularity before the big bang.  And because we now know causality does not apply throughout the universe we occupy.  Far better, to the atheist, to acknowledge ignorance than to make up a story that can never be verified and call it "truth".

              1. Lucid Psyche profile image59
                Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                "Perhaps atheists argue against a cause because no one (including believers) have any idea at all what went on in the singularity before the big bang."
                This is what we can know from established science and correctly applied logic, Time, space, and matter (the natural realm as we know it) began to exist. Anything which begins to exist requires a cause (Principle of Causality, which is one of the First Principles of Logic). Time, space, and matter having begun to exist could not have caused themselves to begin to exist. Thus logically, the First Cause must by definition be supernatural. A cause must also be greater than it's effect. The First Cause had to be greater in information and energy that the universe itself. Proof enough for any rational person that something which could reasonably be defined as god does exist.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Unfortunately for that premise, the Principle of Causality, it is known to be false in some circumstances.  There is also no reason to think it was true before the natural laws we are familiar with (such as gravity) existed.

                  Logically, then, you are using as a basis for all your considerations a so-called "law" that may or may not be applicable.  To use the logical sequence you are proposing requires that the premise be known to be true; something you cannot show, and your Proof is invalid. It may be true, it may not, but you cannot know when you base your thinking on such a premise.  Any rational person knows that simply because something works (is true) here does not mean it works there and you have utterly failed to show that Causality was true before the creation of any other of the natural laws.

                  1. Lucid Psyche profile image59
                    Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    "Logically, then, you are using as a basis for all your considerations a so-called "law" that may or may not be applicable.  To use the logical sequence you are proposing requires that the premise be known to be true; something you cannot show, and your Proof is invalid."

                    The Principle of Causality is one of the First Principles of Logic. No one can think rationally without The First Principles of Logic. They are the foundational basis of Empiricism and thus of science itself.
                    If something begins it must be caused. Period. To deny that is irrational.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      "If something begins it must be caused. Period. To deny that is irrational."

                      Then prove it, and with something beyond your personal, but severely limited, experiences.  To make the claim without proof is irrational; it becomes only a belief rather than a rational statement.

              2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @ wilderness:
                How and when did you know that "causality does not apply throughout the universe".

                Do you have any epirific proof that what you are stating  is factual.?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Study up on quantum mechanics.  As I understand it there are quite a few particles that pop into and out of existence without a cause. 

                  But the bigger question, unanswered, is how anyone knows that there was a cause for the big bang, before the laws of nature even existed.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    With no KNOWN cause.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      That is correct.  I will add, however, that our ignorance is not a reason to decide that there IS a cause we cannot detect.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Just because a few particles "pops into and out of existence" does not negate in any way the principle  of causality.

                    The statement" pops into and out of existence" could also and only mean that particles are detected one second, then  undetected the next, not that they come in and out of existence as they please. Which pretty much implies that our mechanisms of detecting these particles  are not as accurately speedy  as they should be.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      You seem to have forgotten to read the last part of the comment:  "As I understand it there are quite a few particles that pop into and out of existence without a cause.  "

                      It's also interesting you you can claim that they still exist, just that we aren't detecting them - can you provide evidence that that is true at all?  Not just possible (with which I would agree) but that they positively still exist?  "The statement" pops into and out of existence" could also and only mean that particles are detected one second, then  undetected the next, not that they come in and out of existence as they please."

                  3. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    @ wilderness: Before the Big Bang, there was no " nature" to apply those laws into or upon. Was the singularity as you term it, material in nature. I seriously doubt that since  matter ( as we know and experience it) was only formed  several million years after the Big Bang, helium and hydrogen being the only atomic structures known to have existed during those several  years.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Hmm.  I thought I already replied to this - wonder what happened?

                      Although I thought heavier elements came into being, at least in small amounts, before millions of years, I agree with this.  Which is why I question that we can know any form of cause, or if there was one, for that event.  The rules we know almost certainly did not apply, yet we still try to apply them.  I don't see that as reasonable or logical.

                  4. Lucid Psyche profile image59
                    Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    "Study up on quantum mechanics.  As I understand it there are quite a few particles that pop into and out of existence without a cause. "

                    Not knowing what a cause is ... is not the same as there not being a cause.

                    But the bigger question, unanswered, is how anyone knows that there was a cause for the big bang, before the laws of nature even existed."

                    Because the universe And the laws of nature began to exist. Answered. Again.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Yep - answered with the same unsupported premise you have used from the beginning.  Negating any use of logical thought - the GIGO principle will always do that to those that use a belief rather than a fact to start their logical train.

                  5. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    @ wilderness: if you are implying that in the quantum world, causality does not exist based on your statement that "some particles pop in and out of existence" , then I'd say that the validity of that  premise has not been confirmed by empirical evidence.

              3. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                @ wilderness: ignorance can only be applied to statements that have no applicability to anything that is being discussed, in this forum or any other. People have  applied their arguments  to solidly infer or confer validity to those arguments, and for you to on your own state flatly that one.s premise is not valid, without giving reasons or parameters for why you say those premises are invalid, just does not cut it in any debate.

            2. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Considering the suggestion, nihil fit ex nihilo, and the suggestion that causality is an effect, of a cause, and all that may or may not entail,  whatever the truth may be, it is the source of all knowledge, known, unknown and/or unknowable. It has always been that way and will always be that way and is only dependent upon being true to it's nature of being the truth.  Whatever the truth may be, it is independent, autonomous and at liberty, and everything that is, was, or will ever be, is derived from that truth. Whatever the truth may be, it is expressing itself in an intelligible fashion and to deny that would be illogical. If we claim that it is not expressing itself in an intelligible fashion, by what method can we prove our claim?

              1. Lucid Psyche profile image59
                Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                "Considering the suggestion, nihil fit ex nihilo, and the suggestion that causality is an effect, of a cause, and all that may or may not entail,  whatever the truth may be, it is the source of all knowledge, known, unknown and/or unknowable."
                Very good. And it brings up another point. Rationality and logic are also also effects of a cause greater than themselves. If naturalism were to be true we would have no reason to trust logic itself.

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Regarding causes. Is determinism, determinism if it only becomes deterministic but always in the future? Is reality probabilistic or deterministic or both or neither, or contain unknown hidden variables? Is reality reality or is reality becoming reality concurrently? Regarding the unknown or infinite and or unknowable, causes, effects and causes of causality, we can advantageously avoid it all with a more pure formulation that takes into account unknown or the unknowable, inconsistencies, paradoxes, redundancies or the circular.  There is a truth to it all.  That, we can logically know. Within that truth, outside that truth or coexistent or variations of a union with that truth, or with the truth as it transpires etc etc is a source. It is a self existent, free, source of everything including the systematic process that produces rationality and logic capable by humans, that can analyze the systematic process itself. The source is intelligible by it's own nature.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    @Phoenix:
                    When it comes to human affairs, determinism just doesn't have any place of imposition, because as well all agree, humans have "free will".

                    Now some people have denied the existence of free will, but if you eliminate free will from the equation of human decision making process, then the existence of good and mostly evil becomes really problematic.

                    1. janesix profile image60
                      janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Not all of us believe we have free will. It hasn't been proven that the universe isn't deterministic.

                    2. PhoenixV profile image78
                      PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      I have probably a rather unique view of free will and determinism etc. and these are just my personal opinions.

                      Here are some questions to clarify my position.

                      What is not God's Will? Is there anything that is outside of God's Will?

                      I think that reality is entirely deterministic and all Gods Will. I think that God created human beings so that they could have relationship and freedom, in a deterministic reality/God's Will. It would appear an impossible contradiction. Yet I believe it is happening.  For me there is only one actual freewill choice. Choose God's Will or deny God's Will.  And that is what we observe all around us.

    5. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 20 months ago

      The question is not " what could that thing be." 

      The question is what do we do with that "thing."  Luke 1:35.

    6. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 20 months ago

      Side Bar questions ... related to postings here

      I note at times comments seemed to be changed or edited after a rebuttal is made.  The rebuttal then seems out of place or not related to the comment.  How does one locate the original posted comment?  I have seen this down with "URL" addresses.

      How does one answer multiple comments at one time.  I have seen "green" boxes with several different screen names all in the same reply "box."

      Is there a "help" page for these?

    7. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 20 months ago

      Just can't help it, I have to say the user name makes me smile in nostalgia... "Spock, a heading for Jane 6, ...  Sulu, take the con ... phasers on full ... Scotty, get ready to beam Bones and I onto Jane 6 when we are in range ... But Jim we must realize that Jane6 is in the neutral zone ... 

      Just reading that name gives some psuedo-reality to some otherwise mundane debates!

      But your question is valid.  The lack of objective reality has been a bane to Christianity.  It was this tact that was and is used by many gnostics, past and present to confuse the non-thinking, non-reasoning believers and unbelievers alike.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        LOL...

        I LOOOOOOVE Star Trek!

    8. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago

      Thanks again.

      I don't have a hub that explain's fields, I'll have to think about adding one. But think of them like the air around you. There are different kinds of fields. The air field permeates the earth and is made of oxygen and other gasses. Some fields take up small areas like the strong and week forces in atoms, and others permeate the universe like the Higgs field.. No one calls it an air field, of course, but it works for the example.

      What specifically were you interested in?

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Mostly, I'm trying to figure out if it's a "thing" Like you can see the shape of an magnetic field with iron filings. And, can they exist alone?

        Just trying to get a batter grasp on it, like with energy.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I’d answer consciously that a field is a thing like a body of water is a thing made up of many small things. But there we get stuck defining what a thing is. We’re back to common definitions that say a thing has mass and takes up space. All fields take up space but not all have mass .
          How do you define thing?
          Energy is the stand alone as all fields are made of it.
          Not sure that helps.
          What else do you mean by standalone? Everything is connected. Nothing really stands alone, as were.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            This is very frustrating. I'm not even sure of what I'm trying to ask.

            How are all things connected?

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              How are all things connected? Well first off by the fact that we and all things are made of the same substance. Secondly all things are systems within systems. Nothing exists on its own, everything relys on its environment, everything shapes its environment. Everything interacts, forms mergers. Societies, economies, ecosystems etc, out of need.

              Fields co-exist, interact, create new states.

              Weather is again a perfect example. It depends on all the events of the world culminating in what you get. Lorenz remarked that a thousand buterflys flapping their wings in south America could result in a snow storm in Europe. Not directly, but the cause and effect that goes out from that event accumulates and causes small changes which continue to grow culminating in your weather.

              Bell discovered that “locality” fails at the quantum level. That just means that causes are not always local, as we used to think. Again, a monk sitting on a snail on mount Fuji  may contribute to an election in Spain just by knocking a few stones down the mountain.

              So everything that happens everywhere effects what you are experiencing right now and your actions go on for ever in the chains of cause and effect they create.

              I could go on but I think you get the picture

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I was thinking more along the lines of all fields/energy being physically connected. I know at least the Higgs and the gravity fields are supposed to permeate everything. That's what I thought you meant by "everything's connected".

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  That too in many ways. wink And we are still looking for a complete unified field theory.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    And until such time that the unified theory of everything is empirically discovered, physicists, and other folks like you and me will just have to be happy with the knowledge that the macro world is so predictable, but the quantum world is as unpredictable as ever.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Coming right up!  I'll have it ready for ya in the morning! big_smile

                    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                      Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Ah, but the quantum is predictable through QM and relativity combined, and since chaos theory we've discovered that some of that quirky nature of the quantum does show through, making this far less of a Newtonian clock work universe even in the macro levels..

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      1.) "Can we deny it is intelligible?"  No.
      2.) "Is it creative?" ("Hey look around us.")  Uh, Yes.
      3.) "Is it genius?" (-an understatement.) Yes.
      4.) Is it "exceptional intellectual power?" Yes.
      5. Is it a "creative power?" Yes.
      6. Is it some "other natural ability?" Yes.
      7. Is it okay/appropriate to call "it" God? Yes.

      I just had to answer these questions, PV, since I know the answers.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        WHAT are you talking about

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          to refresh:
          PV wrote: <"we have an unknown, X -  call it truth, source, reason, explanation etc. and we see it's self evident, a priori - results. It is deterministic. It is self existent. It does not rely on anything, Its very nature is being true to its nature of being the truth, such as the absolute truth on your question, the truth is not a lie and adheres to, a is not, not a, law of non contradiction, it is self evident.">

          That's what we are talking about, is it not?

          Just Chiming In Per Usual.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Never mind me. For some reason I thought this was the Chemtrails thread.

            Pardon My Craziness.

      2. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        1.) "Can we deny it is intelligible?"  Sure
        2.) "Is it creative?" That would imply intelligence, so No
        3.) "Is it genius?" That would imply intelligence, so No
        4.) Is it "exceptional intellectual power?" Yes.
        5. Is it a "creative power?" Same as 2
        6. Is it some "other natural ability?" Don't even get that one
        7. Is it okay/appropriate to call "it" God? Sure, you can call it whatever you want

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          @janesix:
          IMO, to think  that the universe was not created by sentience is more illogical than to think that it was.

          We've been discussing the issue of causality, so the question needs to be asked: could a non-sentient entity  truly create us, the ultimate effect or result of that creation, who  are admittedly and beyond reasonable doubt, sentient beings?
          Slarty posited that in fact us and the universe are the effects  of a cause, either via sentience, or via what he terms "a process". My contention is sentience and process flows from the same cause, because process implies, direction, intention, goal.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Our intelligence was the result of billions of years of evolution. It evolved.

            It almost didn't. Chordates barely made it out of the Cambrian. Mammals would still be mice if a comet hadn't destroyed the dinosaurs.

            So now you have to show that intelligence was in fact the result of a "process", that it was designed that way, and not just an accident of nature.

            (I don't necessarily believe it was an accident, but these issues need to be resolved, at least in my mind)

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Not billion, but million of years. The hominid specie  as per the fossil record did not make its appearance until  approximately 5- 7 million years ago.  Man's Evolutionary pathway, as per natural selection, is a process, slow and gradual as it was, but nonetheless sentience driven because implanted in our DNA are the structures and mechanisms that  WOULD LEAD TO THAT GOAL OF BEING SENTIENT. Obviously environmental impositions had a lot to do with how our specie evolved, natural selection being a process that allows for the "survival of the the fittest" , not only physically, but most importantly , mentally.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I consider "evolution" to start at the beginning of life, which is about three and a half billion years. But that's not important. The point I'm trying to make is that the fossil record shows we nearly didn't make it. If the chordates died out like they almost did 540 million years ago, we wouldn't be here. Etc.

                What I'm saying is, it's not an obvious progression from bacteria to humans. It's more like a forest of bushes.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  The fact is we made it.... which in terms of perspicacity and temerity has found no equal in the natural/sentient world.

                2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  @janesix:
                  If you think my equation has mathematical value or application (as Einstein's equation does), you are sadly mistaken. Now philosophically, I  think I am making a good point with that equation.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Since I don't understand the point you were trying to make, I don't really have a useful reply.

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Only if there is an intelligent source. Do you have a formula for determining that?

            2. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              You got it wrong... Intelligence is not the result of a process... process is the result of intelligence. In Einstein's elegant equation E=mc2, energy and mass are one and the same thing. In my equation I=PnL wherein Intelligence(I)  equals process(P) multiplied or imposed upon by natural laws(nL)

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry, you don't get to just make random things up.

              2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Are these natural laws then imposed upon the intelligence?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  @slarty: The Causative Intelligence ie God that created all the sentient beings that we are aware of, and still to be aware of, by his  Supernatural nature  was and will never be subject to natural laws. By definition natural laws are only applicable  to the material world, including us, the ultimate expression of intelligence in that material world.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    All complex system always start out as simple systems, and evolve from there. Therefore, your omniintelligent creator would have had to evolved from simpler systems.

                    What did God evolve from?

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Your formula say otherwise so you may want to revise it or scrap it. Intelligence = process governed by natural laws means intelligence is the same as process governed by natural laws and the other way around. Process governed by natural law is the same as intelligence. So you are making my case for me.

                    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                      A.Villarasaposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Really... I don't see it that way. Be that as it may, I just listed for you, in another post, all the names of the 20 philosophic ideas that argue for the existence of God. They are obviously not based on empirical evidence, but some do touch tangentially on empirical considerations.
                      You can start dissecting any one of those as you please.

      3. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        TWISI2   smile

    10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      lol

    11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      6.) Is it some "other natural ability?"
      I would assume "supernatural."
      YES

      7.) Is it okay/appropriate to call "it" God? <"Sure, you can call it whatever you want">
      Mighty Triple O

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        I think once you said there were supernatural laws? What are they?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          The laws of nature reveal a supernatural basis.

          basis |ˈbāsis| noun
          The underlying foundation (cause) of a process:

          "the underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process." Dictionary

          supernatural |ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl| adjective
          (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
          noun ( the supernatural )
          manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
          Dictionary.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            As above, so below. (Fractals, scalar laws)

            This is the type of thing I mean.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              I believe we are witnessing the manifesting of God here, (and in the universe.) God must equal life and the processes that are evident to our five senses. "I do not believe in God."
              You do not see, hear, feel, taste, touch… anything?
              Maybe the Fibonacci series and how ALL nature is based on it is an example / evidence of supernatural law.
              <"As above, so below. (Fractals, scalar laws)"> I would agree.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                But what makes it Supernatural? Maybe it's just a layer of law we don't understand yet that's absolutely natural.

    12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      Take a butterfly.
      all butterflies emerge out of a cocoon. Definite stages of growth create a butterfly. First, it is a caterpillar… nature guides it to become a cocoon and then it comes out... according to genetic instructions. Those instructions reveal something really supernatural. Something invisible directed the course of its evolution/creation.

      Take a human child
      It goes through definite stages which are universal to all children.  The child is created stage by stage according to a preset mode of unfoldment. Just like a butterfly.
      What emerges in six years is nothing like the infant at birth. The laws of nature are at work from birth on... directing the formation of a human child.
      TWISI

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        It doesn't reveal something supernatural. Just something we don't understand. Yet.

    13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      repeating: Those instructions reveal something really supernatural. Something invisible directed the course of its evolution/creation.

      "supernatural |ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl| adjective
      (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:" Dictionary

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        All physical laws are "invisible'.

    14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      Edit: MY conclusion:
      Mighty triple O is the cause of all that manifests and IS all that manifests.

      Is there some problem with that understanding?

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        No problem, I just don't share that understanding.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I am only sharing MY understanding.
          What is yours?

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            That everything has a rational answer.

            But the Universe may be a living entity, unfolding like a developing embryo, starting from the big bang,and ending with some form of higher consciousness.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              - so God is the universe, unfolding? I agree with that. I like that.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Everything needs a name. You can call it that.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  like  "The Force ?"

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    That's kind of funny. Last night I was reading about quantum fields. They described particles as "a disturbance in the field" and that's the first thing I thought of.

            2. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              I like this too, I genuinely do, it is very thoughtful. I agree with you 100% that everything should have a rational answer, and we have to just keep inquiring. Sometimes I feel like to find out about things, for myself, anyway,  I have to create a holographic outline of an unknown, or unknowns/unknowable by tracking the trajectory of what can be known, inferred or deduced. Kind of like metaphorically putting my hand on a piece of paper and dobbing a magic marker all around and hopefully, using reason, I am left with a blank space, that is shaped as my hand i.e a solution, if any. Is there a blank spot picture of a hand or is it just random dobs of magic marker, If any of that makes sense.

              Your thoughts remind me how I have read about the large scale structure of the universe on wikipedia and how it consists of superclusters and filaments. I remember an article where it compared pictures of stars/galaxy/structures and I guess neurofilaments from a human brain and how similar they looked. I am not saying the universe is a big brain or anything, but it was interesting, they seemed to be similar structures.

    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months ago

      The presence of God is felt as peace and joy within us
      and manifests as life on the physical plane all around us.

     
    working