jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (326 posts)

Nature Dunnit !!!!

  1. A.Villarasa profile image81
    A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago

    The Pantheists among us believe that Nature and "GOD" are the same thing, thus the natural world that we are now discerning and discovering was created by Nature itself ... a self creating entity so to speak. This contention is supported by Naturalists who believe that "ONLY natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world...., and further, that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, and that the changing universe is  at every stage a product of these laws."
    Theists on the other hand challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality; they view natural laws not as the primary cause of creation, but rather the laws promulgated by a Primary  creative/intelligent source, (totally unrelated to nature.,  thus supernatural) to govern what the primary source has created ie Nature.

    The empiricists among us have dutifully/serenely  forwarded the concept of the Big Bang as the initial event that led to the formation of all that is material and physical in the universe... thus confirming the idea  that the universe had a beginning and  would therefore  likely have an end. If the universe had a beginning, and Nature and its laws created and subsequently formed the universe we now see  could we then say that Nature was there even before the big bang. If so, in what form could Nature have been, before it started to create the universe?

    One very imaginative Hubber, suggested forcefully that in his conceptualization, Nature was a self-contained form of  ENERGY, that during its  expansion accumulated enough mass that then  led to the production of all the material things in the universe. Thus no need for a GOD.

    If Nature did it all by its lonesome self, why would it create sentient and intelligent life (that's you and me) when by its very ontological composition, Nature is NOT sentient?

    Alfred Russel Walace  an  avid evolutionists (and together with Charles Darwin, co-elucidator of natural selection as it relates to  the evolutionary process) diverged from the path of total materialism and naturalism when he concluded that natural selection alone was insufficient to account for a set of uniquely human characteristics the most obvious of which is the size and complexity of the human brain. Subsequently he proposed that some other entity had to be invoked, in order to explain the existence of a brain, that could support the intellectual activities of humans in all cultures, time frames, environments, and predicaments. That other entity he proposed was a supernatural one.

    1. Frank Menchise profile image18
      Frank Menchiseposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Your post is a very interesting post and I believe that there will be lots of people following and posting their own beliefs and ideas. As for myself, a simple reader and writer of some simple religious post, I hope that somebody somehow write something useful to enlighten our religious minds, as there are several issues that one can talk about. For this reason, I would like to quote your article in my next religious hub; I hope you don't mind if I do that?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image81
        A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I won't mind. Good  luck with your hub.

    2. Emili Babic profile image60
      Emili Babicposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      nice

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Nature may not be sentient, but what do you mean by nature? It has be the nature of something. it is in fact the nature of energy. Energy is all there is and ever was. Einstein tells us it is not mass that creates matter, because mass is a form of energy. What creates matter is compressed energy below light speed. That's what subatomic particles are, what atoms are, what everything is.

      The nature of energy can be found in the laws of physics. Energy can't be created or destroyed. All Big Bang variants start with a singularity made of almost infinitely compressed energy.   All the energy now in the universe. Even then, BB is not a given. It's a rational guess based on observable facts, with more than one possible explanation. Roger Penrose has an interesting take on it all.

      But never the less, all things are made of atoms/energy. And it does it all due it's nature.

      What creates sentient life? Complexity. The simple becoming the complex by following very simple rules. Case in point: Atoms must tend toward their lowest possible output of energy. This forces atoms to merge, creating new substances with completely different properties from either atom alone.

      Hydrogen burns. Add oxygen and what do you get? Water. Is that insane or what. Remove a proton or electron from an atom and becomes a different substance. Amazing or what? Complexity from simplicity, or: Chaos theory.

      Why humans? Doesn't it mean a god has to be sentient? Why? We know we have an unconscious side that knows often 3 seconds before we do on the conscious side exactly what we are about to do next. Conscious deliberation, language, all of it educates the non-conscious and alters our behavior.

      We need to do this because we are human. Ask yourself what a god would need with it? It  doesn't have to educate it's instinctive does it?

      No reason what so ever that the nature of energy could not have created all life simply by doing what it does best. It's the most dynamic substance that exist. Isn't the definition of god: that which produced us and everything else? And it's a fact that that thing is energy.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "Isn't the definition of god: that which produced us and everything else? And it's a fact that that thing is energy."

        Unfortunately, to the theist that is merely the beginning of the definition of their god.  For that god must love them (energy has no love), must care about them (energy does not care what happens to you), must intervene in an intelligent manner in our lives to make them better (energy has no intelligence to intervene with) and above all, must guarantee eternal life for the soul that resides outside this universe (energy cannot do that, either).

        So, at the end of it, energy cannot be a god.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Well if we want to expand this analogy, god is light. Energy is light. God is creative. Nothing more creative than energy. God has always existed. Something in fact has to have always existed or nothing would exist now. Energy, the foundation of everything that exists can't be created or destroyed. That makes it immortal as it were.

          It creates the conditions for love. You are nothing but energy so how can you say it can't love?

          Lol... I'm just saying, if we are going to convince theists their god isn't required we have to explain it in their terms.

          How much more personal do you need to get with god than being made of it? wink

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Well, not if you wish to use the Judeo-Christian definitions of a god.  Such an entity is undetectable, but light is quite detectable and even our puny senses do it very well.  Nor does light show "creativity"; that is a prerogative of intelligence and light has none.  That you claim "God has always existed" is a statement you cannot back up with any data whatsoever, as is the statement that something had to always exist or nothing would exist now - our ignorance of either is insufficient to declare that either statement is true. 

            Nor can you say we are nothing but energy; most religions insist there is an immaterial, supernatural, extrauniversal part of us (the soul) that exists independent of this universe.  (Whether I agree with this or not, it is a very common belief).

            So the theist isn't going to swallow any of this - the definitions don't fit the ones they accept as true.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Can you get something from absolutely nothing? I think logic backs the statement up nicely,actually. And creativity is not dependent on intent. Energy is creative in that its nature creates/produces the complex from the simple in the same way a furniture maker creates from a slab of wood, or a plant turns co2 into oxygen.

              Will they buy it? Are any of them logical rational people?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                Well, no.  Not logical.  Which is (partly) why it won't be bought - it does fit, isn't what is wanted and therefore wrong.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Well yes, but there are always those on the fence who sometimes need a different perspective. And there is seed planting. often an idea needs time to gel. All interactions alter all those involved, even if imperceptibly. But those small changes accumulate and sometimes add up to big ones.

                  Information, building models, it's all part of discovering what's really going on. In the end I think most people want truth, but Ir's not always easy to find. Particularly having faith based belief, which gives a sense of certainty even though it can't provide real certainty, because if it did it would preclude a need for itself. God apparently wants your faith, and doesn't want you to be certain.

                  Not sure why that would be if it actually exists. Sounds more like a mind trap. But that's just me.
                  I want real probability, if I can't have certainty. All I care about is truth no matter what it is.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    No, I don't think most people want truth.  They want to hear what they already think they know, or what they want to be true, not necessarily what is true.

              2. A.Villarasa profile image81
                A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                @Slarty: Granted that what you are saying is true, ie Energy is creative..., but does it create pattern or design. From my perspective, creating design speaks volume of sentience thus intent; creating pattern as what energy, or for that matter, nature does is thouroughly non-sentience related.
                So the question arises: why would sentience evolve from a thouroughly non-sentient cause producing patterns that are never purposeful.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  " Granted that what you are saying is true, ie Energy is creative...,"

                  Thank you for seeing that.

                  "but does it create pattern or design."

                  Of course it does.Geometry is everywhere, for instance. Salt molecules are squares. Why are honey cones shaped they way they are? Bees that smart? No. they form cylinders but cylinders leave holes which are filled in by pressure creating the familiar shape. You get the same effect with bubbles if your good at blowing them. Again, its all part of chaos theory.


                  "From my perspective, creating design speaks volume of sentience thus intent; creating pattern as what energy, or for that matter, nature does is thouroughly non-sentience related."

                  So what? Do you know much about the human brain?

                  "So the question arises: why would sentience evolve from a thouroughly non-sentient cause producing patterns that are never purposeful."

                  For same reason water forms.

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Energy turtles all the way down? (Stuff truncated)

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Well, from the bottom up. I can tell you what things are by what they do and what they are made of. Eventually we get to atoms and subatomic particles, and then I tell you they are energy.

          Then you ask what energy is and that's the end of the road. It's what every actual object is made from. I can tell you what it does, but asking what it is is meaningless. It's everything. There is nothing else

    4. ahorseback profile image52
      ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Right ........now all you brilliant atheist's   in  pseudo- intellectual thought process has to do now is explain where that very tiny first spark came from ,  a Test tube perhaps ?

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        What first spark? Existence is the default. Cause and effect, according to the nature of energy, does the rest.

    5. soldertools profile image60
      soldertoolsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I must say here that Nature is the real form of God  if we can see. Also the whole universe is a controlled by a energy which is not known by ordinary people. We must controlled all our five senses from the outside world in order to  feel the feel the difference between we people, nature and God which actually not exist.

    6. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I feel that many people do not want to be accountable and do not have the desire to deal with God. 

      However, Romans 1:20      For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

      is right there in the Bible.

      Many people can't imagine life after this one and don't want to think about it.  Therefore, they gravitate to ideas of godlike images that let them continue to be themselves.

  2. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 7 months ago

    The Bible accurately predicted and is remarkably and observably true, that atheists would be dogmatically devoted to physicalism. Regarding epistemology, there's rationalism and idealism etc,etc yet those seem to be unweildly notions to the unbeliever who usually proclaim themselves strict empiricist. They might google rationalism or constructivism, however as Aurelius would ask what is their nature, what is it doing here, well It's physicalism and it pervades their very being and thoughts, and its no surprise that a fig tree produces a fig. Take note in the inconsistencies of their reductionism. Very simply if, as pertaining to some cosmological model proposed by the materialistic inclined, - if nature were a porcelain turtle. Well, then a porcelain turtle dunnit. When they realize that porcelain turtles have no intent or can't do anything they will invariably resign themselves to porcelain turtles all the way down. Anyhow its time to listen to Chopin. And, As i do, I will use introspection to ponder why my conscious self feels satisfied while I listen to It, where that ineffable feeling comes from, while I'll simultaneously wonder why enjoying a piano and the introspection of ineffable feelings was so necessary in the evolution of primates.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
      A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      @Phoenix:
      You are absolutely correct when you wrote: "....the introspection of ineffable feelings was so necessary in the evolution of primates", if by primates, you are soley referring to Homo Sapiens. The privilege of ineffability belongs to no other living creature but man, because he is the only specie that  has developed a brain that ponders  sacred, transcendental, spiritual values. ....values that are culturally and geographically  universal.

      Now the naturalists/atheists/empiricists may consider these values absurd because they run counter to their purely physicalist/materialist predisposition, but in so doing,  devalues and degrades Homo Sapiens to their basic  animal perseveration.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image81
      A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      @pheonix: There must be truth to the idea that belief in the supernatural is embedded in the deepest sulci of our brain; empirical evidence show that
      generally speaking humans with deep spiritual predisposition have differentiated neuronal connections in their corpus callusom and amygdala than humans with no spiritual connections at all. Could it be that during a human's lifetime, separation from the spiritual to the purely physical/material predisposition  could be traced to the development or non-development  respectively of these neuronal connections?

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Maybe its use it or lose it. Overuse it and get stuck with it. A spiritually minded person or a person that can use other valid modes of understanding knowledge besides myopic physicalism are painfully reminded of realitys physical structure everytime we stub our toe. The materialistic do not have or use that balance. Like  subjecting oneself to snow/ physicalism.  Until one is snowblind.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image81
          A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          The idea that the universe as we now see and perceive it, was created over billion of years ago  sans direction, thus no purpose/utility, is as  counterintuitive as it could be. The nihilists among us would even go to the extent of declaring  that life emanated from nothing more than the inconsequential coupling of chemicals that ultimately formed the DNA. Thus, life according to that formulation could come and go and Nature would never be bothered by such events that on a molecular level is  unimpressively devoid of  any intervention by intelligence.

        2. A.Villarasa profile image81
          A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          An atheists that I had some singularly discomfiting interaction with on HubPages, stated that the DNA is non-intelligent. Which I totally disagreed with for the simple reason that this molecule alone, all by its lonesome self is responsible for all the living entities on earth. Anything that could produce life as we know it, is to say the least imparted with the  intelligence from whom/which it derived its ability to do so. The formation of the molecule that is DNA was neither happentstance nor willy-nilly...it infers intelligent design.
          Researchers at both Harvard University and  John Hopknis Hospital are now in the threshold to powerfully advance the case of a Creator based on the factual notion that DNA is an information based system. Common everyday experience teaches that information derives solely from the activity of human beings. So by analogy, the biochemical information systems, too, should come from a Divine Mind.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            I'm not a biologist..so..  but DNA carries information/ instructions to build living things.  If that wasn't enough it builds living things that invent/ discover math, create symphonies, paint masterpieces etc.  These things just by products of a larger brain? On another thread I said that emergence/ more than the sum of parts is exactly like semantics in language.  You have the physical things like DNA that is already information like syntax that creates life that has introspection. Now if you have enough monkeys typing they can write Tom Sawyer with enough time I guess, but the monkeys wont be able to read what they accidentally wrote but more importantly they won't realize thatthe end goal was an intelligent process. I'm on my phone and is difficult to express but from big bang to 7 billion AI that actually work and can procreate derived from less than hydrogen in 14 billion years is staggeringly quick and miraculous.  Nature is playing chess with us and it is maneuvering its pieces to put us in mate and the checkmate is when realize what it did.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image81
              A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              @phoenix:
              A more succinct/subtle/sublime definition of an intelligent entity involves or invokes the ability to sense the environment and adjust accordingly its morphology, physiology and phenotype. So by this definition, the DNA is sublimely "intelligent" when going through the mutational changes; changes that are responsible for the natural selection in the evolutionary process..

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                You should check out the waggle dance by bees where they communicate using geometry.angle speed velocity distance energy. It's an amazing feat considering the individuals do not procreate. They or some believe they have a top down natural selection process http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFDGPgXt … ata_player

    3. A.Villarasa profile image81
      A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      @Phoenix:
      To add another tact to the above discussion: If natural selection was the sole purveyor of the evolutionary process, would it have created humans with true reliable  and verifiable belief systems? In order to understand how beliefs are formed, thus warranted, and justified, they must be found and interpreted in the context of an epistemological supernatural entity.

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this
  3. Oztinato profile image84
    Oztinatoposted 7 months ago

    Commonsense shows that the universe is sentient.

    http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy … telligence

    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
      A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      On its own the universe could only be considered sentient if it has the ability to have subjective perceptual experiences(qualia) or the ability to categorize and create concepts(ideasthesia).

      The only reason why one might conceptualize the universe as being "sentient" is,  it follows indomitable laws, that us humans call the Laws of Physics. Laws that has been put in place ( by an intelligent and sentient entity) so the universe does not evolve into  eternal  and total chaos.

      1. Oztinato profile image84
        Oztinatoposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Limited human sentience can't be applied to "God". Omniscience is not the same as personal opinion etc. If you are truly sincere I invite  you to read my hub on the wisdom shown by the universe. This catches out God who trys to be secret. I believe this can be expressed mathematically as well as per hub.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image81
          A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          I did read your Hub regarding the wisdom shown by the universe. Interesting ideas.

          Now your opinion that God tries to be secretive and that you could express this in mathematical terms needs to be elucidated further. So I'm all eyes and ears for that if  you sincerely like to share it.

          1. Oztinato profile image84
            Oztinatoposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            What I'm saying is that the wisdom immanent or "hidden" in the universe may be able to be proved mathematically. Not by me as I don't have the math to do it. In my hub I start with a set of logical premises as an ontological proof. Such proofs can be formulated into theorems. Perhaps you have the math? If not please try to flaw my reasoning.
            What is obvious to a believer (ie the presence of God) may be able to have mathematical representation. Kurt Godel has a foolproof ontological proof backed up with complex math that can't be flawed. Perhaps there are other such proofs.
            If wisdom is totally separate to puny humans it is immediately apparent that sentience can exist outside of humans. If wisdom can be percieved in matter and the universe by logical analysis then we have proof of a sophisticated concept of God that relates to highly evolved religious concepts.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image81
              A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              @Oztinato:

              A very perceptive empiricist/philosopher (whose name escapes me at the moment) once conceptualized that the universe is a mathematical modem/model and its  construct could be understood not in the language of physics but of mathematics. Thus he suggested that  if we have to ascribe some kind of defining character to whoever created the universe (theists termed GOD) it would be that of a mathematician, not a physicist.

              Gödel proposed an elucidative revision of Anselm's traditional ontological argument for the existence of God. In the process he used a form of logic ie modal logic to advance the ontological argument intitiated by Anselm. His mathematical equations are too complex for  non-mathematicians (that's you and me)  to even begin to comprehend. I think the axioms derived from those mathematical equations combined with clearly defined rules of deduction are proof enough of God's existence because those axioms and rules of deduction, although not self-evident, could not be considered  false  when understood in the realm of logical proof.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                It's interesting, isn't it, that these types of things are often proposed...but no one goes on to actually DO them.  Except Godel, of course, and his math was seriously flawed right from the beginning with flawed assumptions contrary to fact.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Modal logic is not math.

                2. Oztinato profile image84
                  Oztinatoposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Why is it that average garden variety atheists all claim to be maths geniuses who can contradict Godel in a dismissive manner? The answer of course is they've bumped into some scientifc proof that contradicts their alleged request for proof of God. Therefore such theorems remain the only ones subject to ridicule out of many thousands of other theorems: this is illogical and purely emotive.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps because everyone else does as well.  Including mathematicians - about the only ones that don't are the theists that don't care if it is wrong as long as it "proves" their god.  You could, too, if you would bother to actually examine it rather than just accept it because it supports your belief system.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image81
                    A.Villarasaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Your average, garden variety atheists could actually be defined as someone who does believe in God but denies it because he is not quite sure whether God likes/loves  him or not.

                3. A.Villarasa profile image81
                  A.Villarasaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  @wilderness:
                  what fact (s) are you referring to?
                  Godel used  modal logic via the equational language of mathematics, not the other way around. So whatever "fact (s)" you might be referring to may not necessarily fit the structural imperatives of modal logic.

              2. Oztinato profile image84
                Oztinatoposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                We will see in this forum how quickly very average hp atheists will now all become both maths geniuses and philosophy geniuses able to dismiss complex theorems and years of philosophical evolution with quaint faux pas.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image81
              A.Villarasaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              If only Srinivasa Ramanujan (the great Indian mathematician) were alive today he would have been able to help you with your theory that the universe could be expressed  in mathematical terms. He was known to have said this: " An equation for me has no meaning unless it rep[resents a thought of God."

              1. Oztinato profile image84
                Oztinatoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I saw a recent film about him. Fascinating individual.
                Another great math genius was Kurt Godel who came up with a God Theorem! Godel was Einsteins anointed successor. Einstein spent his last years in close contact with only Godel.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                  A.Villarasaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps Gödel was trying to convince Einstein that the Universe could in fact be described or understood in the language of mathematics.... not physics.

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

    The physical / material emerges / stems from / comes from the metaphysical / immaterial.
    Q. What is the proof of Spirit?
    A. The world as it manifests / nature / rocks /  rotating planets / spiraling universes / wind / rain / fire / dirt / seasons / evolution / revolution / consciousness of humans and all creatures great and small.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      The philosophic concept that you just stated in your post is what is termed subjective idealism as developed by George Berkeley.... yes the same Berkeley that the University of California at Berkeley was named after.

      This form of idealism does not deny the existence of objective reality, but it asserts that this  reality is completely dependent upon the MINDS of the subjects that perceive it.

      According to Berkeley's theoretical concept of Immaterialism, an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind. Surprisingly , this theory has found provable validity in of all places, Quantum Physics. In fact some physicists are making proclamations about the universe similar to the implications propounded by this theory.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Would that mean that if an object is NOT perceived by a mind that it does not exist?  This would bring new life into the ET crowd, searching for life outside our planet if there is any truth at all in it.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image81
          A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          As I have emphasized in my previous posts, subjective idealism or immaterialism does not deny the existence of objective reality; what it  does is clarify the validating  value of the brain  in perceiving ie experiencing through the senses, that objective reality. From that,  the integrational capacity of the brain transforms the experience into an interpretation of what that objective reality is.  The interpretation of reality (a function of the mind, not the brain)  is what becomes relative, not absolute thus the  Newtonian concept of absolute space is null and void... in both the cosmic and  sub-atomic world---- this  as per quantum mechanics.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            "an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind"

            That is completely contrary to what this statement implies; that without a perceiving mind there is no existence.  It is also the antithesis of the concept that a mind is necessary for the existence of the universe and therefore god exists.  It is, at the root, the opposite of everything you've said about the mind in this thread.

            What changed, that objects can suddenly exist and interact without an observing mind?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image81
              A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Again I repeat.... Immaterialism does not deny the existence of  objective reality, but the interpretation of that reality is mind dependent. In your example of the "bed"....of course there is the objective reality of a "bed" but the mouse and the elephant  interpreted it differently, from the vantage point of their mind.... interpreting the bed as hard( according to the mouse) , and soft (according to the elephant).

              The mind is necessary for the interpretation that the universe exist. If there are no sentient minds to perceive and interpret that the universe exist, from what vantage point could you say that the universe exist. The only reason why you  say the universe exist is because you perceived and interpreted it that it exist..... after the fact.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                No, the mind is certainly NOT necessary for an interpretation that the universe exists, not unless you want to include that a mind is necessary for any interpretation at all.  That interpretation is a mental concept of a mind, and therefore a mind is necessary.

                Of course, that does not exclude non-sentient minds; they also interpret the world around them and decide if it is real (exists) or not.  But if sentience is necessary for existence (not perception, not observation, not interpretation of sensory input, but actual existence)...well, that can only be considered false on the face of it.  And while the statement that a mind (forget sentience; that's not necessary for anything) must exist and perceive in order to interpret what it senses, well, that's about as obvious as it can possibly get and is of no value to repeat as can produce nothing not already known.

                Mouse/elephant; you continue to insist that "Hardness" is a relative term and thus must be interpreted, and that is mostly true.  But what if "hardness" is NOT relative to the observer, but defined in such a manner that it is an absolute (mohs hardness number)?  What then?  Does it still need a mind to "interpret" and give an opinion relative to the mind?  When color is defined by photon wavelength, does it still need a mind to interpret?  When mass (weight) is defined by the acceleration a specific force produces on it, is it still a relative and in need of interpretation?

                Or is all of the "interpretation" merely a construct of individual minds and has nothing to do with reality?  Is it merely perception, and doesn't change the macro world one iota - it only changes what attribute a single, specific mind will give it?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                  A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  You're close ... but not quite.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    The question then becomes why you insist a mind can change the macro world merely by observation/interpretation OR why a mind is necessary for existence of the universe.  As neither is true, and we both agree to that, why insist that it IS true anyway?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          No, it would not mean that. The world exists whether perceived or not. Those who are dead probably do not perceive it, yet it exists. If human life ceased to exist, the world would still be here, (and thrive all the better for it.) Furthermore, If the human population looses its technology, most humans would die off and the earth would get a needed reboot. The world would win in this case. Humans would not.
          Except those used to living primitively.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Obviously.  Which in turn means that Berkeley's theoretical concept of Immaterialism is a crock; an interesting philosophical construct with no connection to reality.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image81
            A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            You might want to look at quantum mechanics again.... Bekeley's concept is not "crock" according to physicists who have dealt with the "weirdness" of the sub-atomic realm... a realm which is as connected to reality as your mind interpreting that reality exist but which interpretation is oh so relativisitc.... Just ask Einstein who formulated the theory of   general relativity based on the concept that there is no absolute space, thus no absolute reality.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              But Kathryn isn't talking about quantum mechanics; she's talking about the newtonian macro world.  As was Berkeley

              1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                and as per empirical evidence there is much to say about the correlation and integrative interaction between the micro and the macro world.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Which still has nothing to do with the concept imagined by Berkely.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    In my world and in Einstein world, "imagined" means  "thought experiments."... which obviously not the same in your world. So you see, your mind says whatever concepts Berkeley came out with were  just  imaginings of the "fairy tale" type and thus inconsequential... but that is not what  the other people say about Berkeley's ideas. It's all in the mind if you still don't believe that.

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

    The material /physical world is perceived by the five senses. The metaphysical world cannot be perceived by the them. It can be perceived though. We need to refine the ability to perceive it through intuition which leads to conscious awareness of it. What philosophy is that?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      None.  Intuition is the logical (or, often enough, illogical smile)application of past experiences and information to provide the best available in finding new knowledge.  It is not, in any form, a method of perception of the world around us - only an interpretation of what our perception has given us when insufficient to meet our needs.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        No, it is direct perception and enables humans and animals to perceive that which exists beyond the physical.

        "intuition
        the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."
        Dictionary


        It is an ability which can increase if practiced. I think children are born highly intuitive and this is how they learn so much during the first six years. Now, I am surmising but someday testing / close observation of children might prove it true.

        anecdotes:
        Once, was when I was a swim teacher, I was wondering what a boy's name was. I just thought it my mind. The boy answered me a second later by voluntarily telling me his name!  Recently, as a day care substitute teacher, I observed intuition in action. As the children were reading, waiting for their parents who come at different times, one boy announced, Oh, I am going home early today. He stood up and in walked his father who was a half hour earlier than usual. He couldn't see the father as he approached, at all. None of us could.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          No, very young children have zero intuition as they have no past experience to base it on.  And while the reasoning is often in the background, unconsciously, it is most definitely there.  There is no direct observation (perception) from intuition.

          You can see this in your anecdote; the child has come to recognize when someone wants their name and may give it without being asked.  That does NOT mean they read your mind, though - it means past experience in similar circumstances has resulted in the request for their name.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            How about the other incident I mentioned?  How about all the instances in your own life where you knew things without being told or what about those precognitive dreams you have had throughout your life?
            Like when you called your daughter right at the moment she needed a shoulder to cry on?
            Or when you dreamed you were going to a country fair and sure enough the next week there was an announcement in the paper regarding a country fair? How many people dreamed the twin towers were falling a couple days ahead of the actual event?
              anecdote 3: My ten month old son had inhaled a piece of walnut and was turning blue. It was stuck in his throat. I, in a panic, picked up my phone to call my ever knowledgeable and lifesaving type mother-in-law who had been a nurse. She was on the line at the exact moment I tried to call her! The phone didn't even ring. Together, we were able to get my son to the hospital for an operation to remove the piece of walnut. We were able to act quickly to save his life due to NO delay in my reaching her. Why did she pick up the phone at that moment … you can say it was luck but … I think it was intuition. She just sensed it.
            TWISI

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              "There are children playing in the street who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago." J. Robert Oppenheimer

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              What about the thousands of times you needed something and didn't get it?  When you cherry pick incidents to "prove" the supernatural, and leave out every event that shows otherwise, the result is going to be the "proof" you want.  Then add in a refusal to consider any possible causes outside of what you want to see, and it gets even stronger...at least if the effort is to prove something rather than find answers.

              But there is more - your mom's phone pickup does not indicate intuition and it doesn't indicate ESP.  Until those things can be shown to be involved, (rather than simply say you think so) the default is something we all know and see happen every day.  You term it luck, but it is more properly called "coincidence" and it happens with regularity.

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

    immaterialism |ˌi(m)məˈti(ə)rēəˌlizəm| noun
    the belief that material things have no objective existence.
    immaterialist noun
    Why even come up such an idea, I wonder?

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Because the key word is "objective".  As a hypothetical, can you prove that reality exists without using your mind or using any creature that can possibly percieve reality in any way and convey that proof, reason or argument to an atheist who is in a coma and is not exhibiting any brainwaves on an EEG?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        A conscious person cannot convey what he is experiencing to an unconscious person.

        If you argue with an atheist, you are wasting your time trying to convince him, (through reason and argument) of your perceived reality, (whether he is in a coma or not.) He needs to perceive objective reality on a subjective level. As we all do.
        But objective reality exists whether subjectively perceived or not.
        Obviously.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Perceiving reality......as we all do.....as we perceive reality with our eyes, I believe our brain has to invert the images coming in, turning it right side up as we view it in our mind.  It is an image that is constructed by the mind. Our minds are creating an image of reality. Now imagine that reality is a negative image of another Mind.

        2. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          ob·vi·ous·ly
          ˈäbvēəslē/
          adverb
          adverb: obviously

              in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.


          catch-22
          noun
          noun: catch-22; plural noun: catch-22s

              a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

          smile

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Catch -22 dilemma, quandary, vicious circle; catch; chicken-and-egg problem.
               I disagree.

              obviously: clearly, evidently, plainly, patently, visibly, discernibly, manifestly, noticeably; unmistakably, undeniably, incontrovertibly, demonstrably, unquestionably, indubitably, undoubtedly, without doubt, doubtless; of course, naturally, needless to say, it goes without saying.

            ANTONYMS
            perhaps.
            possibility:

            VERSUS

            definitely,
            palpably
            able to be touched or felt:

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      When your self awareness wonders about an idea it would appear that you personally have self evident objective proof of your mind and the idea.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I would say no. You have subjective proof of your own objective reality.
        But that is a doozy! lol

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

      But, the only way to prove intuition is to experience it oneself.
      So, my work is done here.

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

      If we were all in a coma the world would still exist!

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

      If a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it fall, did it happen ?
      YES.
      If no one was around to percieve the existance of the world and the world did exist, would it exist?
      YES.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image81
        A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        The existence of objective reality depends  in the perceiving and the interpreting, thus the  knowing that it exist. If the universe was created by a non-sentient, thus non-perceiving entity i.e. Nature (as what the Pantheists believe)  why would it have created sentient beings (that's you and me). As far as I am concerned, Nature is incapable of creating sentient life, thus is totally neutral (absolutely does not care)  on whether  life,  sentient or not  comes and goes.

        Now if a sentient entity did create the universe, and no sentient beings were created with it, what purpose would that creation be... if no one knows except the creator that the universe exist. That's what I'd call an exercise in futility.

        As far as I could conceive of a God creating the universe... He certainly DOES NOT and would not  DO futile activities.... thus he created the universe for the purpose of its existence being wondered and awed upon by sentient beings like you and me..... and that's after the fact that we have been created to be able to perceive and interpret the objective existence of His creation.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          And with this post we find the major problems of philosophy, all rolled into one.

          "The existence of objective reality depends  in the perceiving and the interpreting, thus the  knowing that it exist"

          This is flat untrue - false to the core - as an objective reality, by definition, does NOT need to be perceived in order to exist.  Even the knowledge that it exists does not need a perception or observation of that; if it is causal in another, observed, event it can still be known.

          "Nature (as what the Pantheists believe)  why would it have created sentient beings (that's you and me)"

          A statement of ignorance (you don't know why it would have created) does not mean that either there IS a why or that any reason you might conjure is correct.  It is only a statement of ignorance and nothing more.

          "As far as I am concerned, Nature is incapable of creating sentient life"

          Again, saying that you are ignorant of whether nature is capable of creating sentient life does not mean that it is not.  Not even the qualifier "as far as I am concerned" changes that - rather it reinforces the ignorance being stated.

          "...thus is totally neutral (absolutely does not care)  on whether  life,  sentient or not  comes and goes"

          That you have stated ignorance of Nature's abilities does not give rise to the "thus" (the conclusion) being set forth.  Rather, it denies any connection between the two and clearly states that the conclusion is unknown; is purely a fabrication of a mind ignorant of reality.

          "Now if a sentient entity did create the universe, and no sentient beings were created with it, what purpose would that creation be"

          Yet another statement of ignorance (I don't know what the purpose would be), this time coupled with a demand that there IS/WAS a purpose in creation - something that cannot be known by anyone at this time.  It is indeed and exercise in futility to build on the premise that there was a purpose, yet you continue to do so.

          "As far as I could conceive of a God creating the universe... He certainly DOES NOT and would not  DO futile activities"

          But your conceptions, all of them, are not all possibilities.  You cannot use them as a starting point for logical reasoning as they are not only incomplete but not known to be true, either.  Creation may have been nothing more than a god twiddling it's fingers, so to speak - an activity purely out of boredom or even an unintended result of another activity.

          "thus he created the universe for the purpose of its existence being wondered and awed upon by sentient beings like you and me"

          Here we find ignorance being used to form a conclusion, but even so the conclusion is not borne out by fact.  Only by imagination and desire of the speaker for a specific result - the purpose might be for food, for beauty, or as an accident excremental discharge of the creating god.  You have nothing whatsoever to point to the purpose being wonder and awe of the intelligent entities created along with the rest of the universe.

          The bottom line of all this is that the entire discourse is based on stated ignorance coupled with a desire for specific conclusions; conclusions that are NOT borne out by either observation or reason.  Just desire, but then that IS the policy of the philosopher isn't it?  To give a picture of reality that fits with personal desires rather than any real correlation between the perception and the reality it supposedly represents?

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this
            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13014191.jpg

        2. AshtonFirefly profile image84
          AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Does God's existence also depend on a mind being there to perceive it?

          1. A.Villarasa profile image81
            A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Absolutely, and that is why he created sentient beings so they will perceive in their minds that He does exist. For if he did not create sentient beings, would any one know that He exist?. Nope....so why even create when that creation is only known to Him and nobody else. That in my book is what I'd call an act of futility. And god in my book do not do acts of futility.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
              AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              The concept collapses upon itself.

              If His existence depends upon the perceiver, then if human beings do not perceive of Him, He does not exist.

              I will quote your from an earlier post:

              "The mind is necessary for the interpretation that the universe exist. If there are no sentient minds to perceive and interpret that the universe exist, from what vantage point could you say that the universe exist. The only reason why you  say the universe exist is because you perceived and interpreted it that it exist..... after the fact."

              You could easily replace "universe" with "God" in this explanation, as God can only be perceived in our minds, per your answer to my question.

              How do you perceive the  concept of God? In your own mind. If your mind did not exist, neither would your concept of God. Hence according to your own parameters, "from what vantage point could you say that" God exists? You read (sight, a perception) a book (Bible) which was transcribed from people speaking (sounds, a perception). All of which are sensory experiences, by which you then come with an idea and belief (mental construct.)

              It's like a mirror reflecting a mirror, ad infinitum.

              You cannot say "God created sentient beings to perceive him," without using your mind, and your own mental perceptions of what a human being is, and of what perception is.

              If you are going to argue that nothing exists outside of our perceptions, that, by definition, includes the thought itself that nothing exists outside of our perceptions according to your own definition.

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                I believe that substantive reality including our minds and the ideas they create are the mirror images created from another Mind, namely God, with the reality being a sort of focal point between perceiving minds. Think of a focal point / mirror image / negative photo / that combines together from all sides   literally superimposing reality between perceiving minds. I May be taking liberties with berkeleys ideas, but its interesting considering gen 1;27

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                  AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  This is a very interesting theory, but I'm not sure how it fits the model of Berkeley's ideas. Could you please explain in more detail?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Id like to but Im on a tiny phone. Is a nihtmare posting as it is. Just been tossing the ideas around lately. Granted seemingly stupid counterintuitive ideas as berkleys ideas appear at first glance are an intellectual ls Brea tar pit to refute.

              2. A.Villarasa profile image81
                A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                @ashton:
                Sorry to burst your bubble but the Universe is not GOD or vice-versa and therefore you could not substitute the terms concomitantly or congruently.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                  AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  The bubble you speak of exists only in your mind, not mine; therefore it cannot be said to "truly" exist, that it may be "popped."

                  big_smile I'm sorry I couldn't resist.

                  Anyway.

                  I didn't say that the universe was God.

                  I was saying that both the universe and God, per your statements, subjectively exist.

                  Please reread my meaning in the post. I think you may have misunderstood me.

                  I was explaining how you are not realizing that the mental process you are using to come up with this theory, is also, per Berkeley, subjective and only real in your mind.

                  Your ideas about God are mental constructs that you formed based upon sensory observations (the Bible, word of mouth, etc.) in the subjective world around you. Therefore your theory itself is all in your mind. Yet you are using this theory within your subjective reality, to absolutely define a concept outside of your subjective reality. But this mental construct is, by nature, subjective. I explained this better in my last post.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              How did God exist before creating the minds necessary to perceive him before he could exist?  Chicken or egg?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                He exist because He Himself knows that he exist. That's from HIS perspective. Now from our point of view He exist because we have used our minds to conceptualize and perceptualize,....  then  surmise and extrapolate and interpret  and thus argue that HE exist.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Then the requirement for man to perceive Him for His existence is nonsense.  Unneeded at all. 

                  But beyond that, He exists because man imagined a god into existence?  A god that created the species that created the god with their imagination?  Come again on that one?

                  But while I'd agree that man conceptualized and perceptualized a god, and even surmised and interpreted their own concept, they most certainly did not extrapolate anything into a god.  That would require the use of logical reasoning and there has been none concerning creation of a god.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    No logical reasoning? Really? 
                    Then those logicians who have pondered whether GOD exist  have no clue what they are talking about when they concluded based on their "thought expreriments"  that logical imperatives could in fact  be applied to that existence?

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      Unfortunately, every single "logical" approach to proving god that I've ever seen either depends on ignorance as proof or as God's existence as proof that He exists.  Both are logical fallacies:

                      Nothing else could create the universe (meaning I don't know of any other way) and therefore a god did it.  False logic, using ignorance as proof.

                      God created the universe, therefore God exists.  False logic, using the premise (God existed to create the universe) as the conclusion.

                2. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                  AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  So you're saying that He exists because he thinks he exists. So his existence is His own subjective reality? This would make us, as humans, also subjective realities and having no existence outside God's mind.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    If you think that God's mind work in the same way that our mind works, then your supposition that us humans have no existence outside of His mind could be true. But then again I don't think His mind works the same way as ours do.... so there. Did I have any empirical evidence to support that contention? NOPE... it's just what my  human mind is telling me.

                    1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                      AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      "If you think that God's mind work in the same way that our mind works, then your supposition that us humans have no existence outside of His mind could be true. But then again I don't think His mind works the same way as ours do.... so there. Did I have any empirical evidence to support that contention? NOPE... it's just what my  human mind is telling me."


                      You were the one attempting to describe God via Berkeley's theory, not me. So I have no supposition or opinion. It was not my supposition, but a logical conclusion of the premise you provided: You said, "He exist because He Himself knows that he exist. That's from HIS perspective. Now from our point of view He exist because we have used our minds to conceptualize and perceptualize,....  then  surmise and extrapolate and interpret  and thus argue that HE exist."

                      And this logical conclusion is not mine, but a result of describing this according to your OWN parameters.

                      According to the parameters you have set forth, If he exists because he exists, then his own existence is subjective; meaning that what he creates is also subjective. You were the one applying Berkeley's theory to define God's existence; if at the point of creation you feel the theory no longer applies, because God's mind is not like ours, then that is you choosing when this theory is and is not applied, making any prior application for argument contradictory.


                      My point is this: applying Berkeley's theories to prove this theory of God becomes counterproductive. If your ideas are true (and they might be, who can say?) then Berkeley's theories do not support but undermine them, by definition.

                      In order for Berkeley's theory to support God, you'd have to already have preconceived ideas about God, making it a circular argument.

                      Again, I'm not arguing against the belief itself. I'm arguing against the agreement between subjective reality and your notion of God.

                    2. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      But there may be some empirical evidence, of a sort.  Consider what the old testament (the assumption that the bible is true is necessary here) has to say about how God thinks and acts, using descriptions of what He said and did.  It may have been somewhat close to how the ancient people thought, but is a far cry from how civilization has changed mankind; from what mankind has become, in both morals and reasoning abilities.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            . I cant speak for Villarasa or a genius like Berkeley, and Im Kinda busy overseeing my garden gnome cultivating a zero energy universe in the back yard   ..but wwti ..the only creating going on is the idea of reality. The notions of temporal spatial are creations , not limits...who created who ad infinitum  is a temporal spatial causal concept

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

      Do you know why?
      Because both the tree and the world existed before we were even 
      A. conscious 
      B. conscious of them.

      The tree and the world are not dependent on either our consciousness nor our consciousness of them in order to exist.
      Well, they are not! and it is VAIN to think otherwise!!!
      Science is far superior to philosophy!
      The question, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, is this:
      What are they dependent on for existence, if not OUR consciousness??

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

      PS The chicken, the rooster AND the egg came about AT THE SAME TIME!
      Thank you, science.

    8. Oztinato profile image84
      Oztinatoposted 6 months ago

      Wilderness
      as usual certain people choose to neglect Kurt Godels pure modal logic and faultless maths regarding scientific "proof" of God.
      Added to this is the proof of our own senses that the universe has an infinitely complex structure that points to a wisdom far beyond mortal beings.
      Plus the real existential dilemma can only be resolved by the correct concept of God.
      Plus the inability of any current atheist science to contradict the existence of God without first positing God's existence.
      Need I go on?
      In the vernacular a person would have to be like an ostrich with it's head in the sand to actually miss the point. smile

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
        AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        A scientist does not have burden of disproof; it is illogical. We have a set of data which we interpret. Some of us think it leads to the logical conclusion that an intelligent being exists. Some don't. That's based on how we perceive data. How we perceive data is all about our worldview and paradigms.
        Positing Gods existence is to say "ok. Lets suppose that this were true... Then it would contradict itself or this fact it this fact... Therefore not true." What do you think scientific testing entails? We have a hypothesis. We test the hypothesis. We see if the hypothesis would be self contradictory or contradict other things.... It's a way of observing everything in its entirety.
        The atheist scientists believe that from the data they have, there is no logical sequence that leads to an intelligent being necessarily.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          We are all sitting in the theatre of your mind, eating popcorn , watching a movie titled reality on One screen and predicates and propositions on a classroom projector, on the other. It would appear that rationalism is a more sound tool to use than empiricism, unless you plan to leave the theatre and return. And what the heck is on the floor?

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
            AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            And so begins the philosophy of science and interpretation of data. Those topics delegated to "science" ultimately become questions of philosophy

        2. Oztinato profile image84
          Oztinatoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          If only atheist scientists say this then we have to posit they are solely influenced by personal emotional issues. For example if they can't fault Godels actual maths they are letting purely emotional personal failings to get in the way of science. It is the same as "disproving" any formula just because we feel like it. That's not science that's just whimsy.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            But anyone that understands even the most basic of logics can fault Godels proof of a god.  It is actually very simple to do so as the rules of logic do not allow assumption of truth of a premise used to prove a conclusion, yet that is exactly what Godel does.

            On the other hand, continual insistence that faulty logic proves a god does seem to be a purely emotional personal failing by allowing a simple personal desire to influence the gathering of knowledge and truth.

          2. AshtonFirefly profile image84
            AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Atheist scientists aren't the only ones who posit this. There are theists who also claim that scientific theories do not lead to the logical conclusion that God exists.

            Again, there is no such thing as burden of disproof. There is only falsification of theories. And the only context in which a theory would be falsified, is if that theory were a direct result of facts gathered by scientific method.

            Theism did not originate from scientific discovery; by definition it has personal and emotional applications, and was later applied to scientific theories, therefore more likely to produce the need for agenda. Scientific theories were derived from scientific method. And the nature of science is to search for truth in an unbiased fashion.

            Science is the discovery of truth. Theism claims to already know the truth.

            And no, Godel's theories are not wholly accepted by the scientific community, and it is not because of emotional or personal reasons. The axioms inherent in Godel are challenged by many scientists, theist or not, due to logical fallacy.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image81
              A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              @ashton:
              And can you tell us specifically where in Godel's elucidation of Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence via modal logic using mathematical axioms, is the logical fallacy.

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                This has already been discussed in detail and the reasons for its criticism are very thoroughly published. The proof is only workable if you accept the axioms, which are not proven. If you accept them, then you are already assuming the truth of that which you are attempting to prove. That is circular. And that is just one of the problems. The point being, none of this restricted to just atheists, and all the reasons for criticism are based on science and logic, not "I just don't like the outcome." In other words, no agenda.

                Burden of proof on the theist. Godels isn't valid just because someone demands that it must be so. There are serious logical problems which are accepted by both theist and atheist.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                  A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  So what happens now if scientific evidence  doesn't perfectly  fit what is logical or vice versa. What do you follow--- empiricism or logism?

                  What I  think Godel is trying to prove is that in the subject  of God's existence, empiricism takes a back seat to logism, because as what has been propounded both by empiricists and logicians, there are unknown truths and   unknowable truths. It is in the area of the latter  that empiricsim or   scientific inquiry would not  be able to dip its tentacles into.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image84
                    AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Can you please explain what you mean by "if scientific evidence doesn't fit what is logical?" I'm not sure the application you're making and did not want to assume.

                    Not all propound the existence of  unknowable truths.

                    Logism? I'm assuming you mean logicism. Both are schools of philosophical thought, and are not the only two options. Yes of course all science is ultimately be based on some mode of scientific philosophy (empiricism, etc.) for interpretation requires thought and logic.

                    Either way, Godels proof is circular, and he presented it as a proof of God's existence, per his own claims. This does not discount logicism, just this particular application of it.

                    And either way, there is no such thing as burden of disproof.

                    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      Quantum mechanics  strongly suggest that Schrodener's cat would be both dead and alive. Would that be a valid assertion logically?

                      Logically/philosophically, several  arguments suggest ( not prove) that a God exist. Would those be  valid assertions  empirically?

                    2. A.Villarasa profile image81
                      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      Now going back to Berkeley....if you have a face to face conversation with him, would he say yes to the last question because as an empiricist, his  conclusions were based on the observable fact that human minds are limited by  ideation , thus strongly  amenable to  conceptual persuasion or abstraction.

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Neither can afford to take a back seat in science. And no one can prove that there is anything that science, that is to say the method, can not eventually figure out. Just no way to know yet.

                    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      The scientific method was conceived by human minds and as such is susceptible to the corrupting influence of the human ego. And the history of homo sapiens have always been mottled by that overweening ego, so I  certainly and strongly disagree with you that the scientific method will figure out every unknown truths, eventually. Thus the concept of "unknowable truths"

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    "So what happens now if scientific evidence  doesn't perfectly  fit what is logical or vice versa. What do you follow--- empiricism or logism?"

                    In such a case there are several possibilities:
                    1.  The observation was incorrect.  The observer read the gauge wrong, hallucinated, was drunk, whatever.
                    2.  The interpretation of correctly observed events was wrong.  The bright light in the night sky was interpreted as an ET but was only a hydrogen balloon catching fire.
                    3.  The logic, either premise or process, is false.  As with Godel's "proof" an unproven axiom is used as proof or the premise IS the conclusion.

                    What is NOT possible is that a correctly observed and interpreted event is impossible according to correct logic.  The answer to the quandary is to find the error; not to simply decide that one or the other is wrong because we want it to be.

                    1. A.Villarasa profile image81
                      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      You might want to read more about modal logic....if you think that modal logic use false premise or process, then I suppose any inference of logicality to your assertion/assumption is what is truly circular

                    2. A.Villarasa profile image81
                      A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                      @wilderness:You question the validity of using the DNA as an argument for the existence of God?

                      As molecules go, the DNA is  unique in that it could be considered a full instruction manual (a design, not a pattern)---- a 3 billion lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. How did this information/instruction program wind up in each of the billion cells that compose the body? Certainly NOT Nature dunnit, since nature in the area of biologic process or causes is completely lacking as an explanation when programmed/designed information is involved. You can not find precise information like this without an entity who intentionally constructed it.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, but Godel begins the proof with the assumption that a god exists, and then uses that assumption to say that a god exists.  This does not work.

        Next, our senses do NOT point to an infinite complexity; that is a construct of the imagination.  No possible sense can sense infinity without being infinite itself and thus the statement is false.  Nor is it possible for any sense to indicate wisdom beyond mortal beings; if it were possible then we could not sense such wisdom.

        But there IS no existential dillemma; only an imagined one created by false logic.  There is thus no "correct" concept of God available at this time and only finding that god and thoroughly examining it will produce a "correct" concept.  No possible logical reasoning, building on imagination, can do so.

        Science cannot disprove the existence of a god any more than anything else can prove it.  This is understandable as man's definition includes that it can be neither proved or disproved, plus if it is not there it cannot be disproved either.

        So yes, it is like an ostrich, refusing to look around and find truth.  Forever pretending that what is there, isn't, and what is NOT there actually is. 

        Finally, Ashton is 100% correct; it is not the task of a scientist to disprove a god's existence.  On the contrary, it is the task of those that claim a god DOES exist to prove their claim.  But not with either a statement of ignorance followed by "therefore god exists" OR by saying one exists and "therefore god exists".  Neither approach has any validity at all.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image81
          A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Nowhere in Godel's mathematical formulation of Modal logic as a revision of Anselm's Otological argument could you find the idea that halleluiah I have proof of His existence. Arguments are such that they never assume definitive proof, and in the case of God, atheists would never contemplate any proof aside from GOD actually presenting Himself to them in the flesh. And as I have said multiple times....good luck with that.

          So we can continue debating this ad infinitum.... and God must be so humored  just observing humans indulging in  such acts of futility. As i have opined in this forum, GOD is an unknowable truth.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            That would not work. They do not disbelieve, they disavow.

    9. aware profile image69
      awareposted 6 months ago

      My god hasn't gender. Nor the need to per.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I just read that we are truly neither male not female as far as our essence as soul. I guess we are basically neuter in reality. That is kind of a relief! We identify with our roles, but can exercise the power of either. Neither gender is naturally inferior to the other.

    10. AshtonFirefly profile image84
      AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago

      A Villarasa off topic but it might make conversation clearer... perhaps switch to chronological view in hubpages? It keeps saying you're responding to one post of mine from a while back (it automatically quotes it) and that's probably from viewing it threaded? hmm not sure

      1. A.Villarasa profile image81
        A.Villarasaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Good idea

    11. paradigmsearch profile image90
      paradigmsearchposted 6 months ago

      You can do better than this.

    12. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 months ago

      "Belief's operative goal is to at least make what is  relative truth somewhat more amenable to, or comes closest to,  being called an absolute truth."

      The problem, of course, is that when "closest to" becomes a matter of "If you can't answer the question then I'm automatically right", or "You will burn forever if you don't agree", or "If you can't prove me wrong then I'm right" it isn't very close.  It is not, in fact, any closer than any other belief system or answer dreamed up by anyone at all.

      God is indeed of the "unknowable truth" category, but all that means is that it is unknowable.  There is no reason to invent arguments trying to "get close" to any absolute truth about GOD.  It is, and shall forever remain, unknowable; it is designed that way and thousands of years of failed effort to make it a truth instead of belief clearly point that out.

     
    working