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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
Well, no. Not logical. Which is (partly) why it won't be bought - it does fit, isn't what is wanted and therefore wrong.
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.
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.
@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.
" 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.
Energy turtles all the way down? (Stuff truncated)
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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.
Commonsense shows that the universe is sentient.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy … telligence
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are out of your depth. What you say doesn't make sense.
I take Godels proof the exact same way I take the implications of any other math proof. So should atheists and actual real mathematicians
Can you tell us exactly what and where you found "wrong" in Godel's modal logic using mathematical formulations to support Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of GOD?
You can start by not making the assumption of a god in order to use that assumption to prove the god exists.
In other words you did not find anything wrong with it. Or perhaps you were just too disinterested to be bothered delving into it. Or perhaps .....the possibilities are endless.
Which is not so in terms of developing Arguments for the existence of God ( as of last counting, a mere 20 arguments) based not on materialistic or physicalistic permutations but to philosophical, transcendental, and now, via Gödel's use of Modal Logic, mathematical implications.
Have you ever heard of GIGO? Garbage In, Garbage Out? Well that is what was done here - while the logic may or may not be correctly applied, the initial presumptions are so badly flawed as to negate the entire conclusion.
Which is not particularly unusual when philosophers try to prove something. Philosophy, by itself, cannot show truth of anything as it does not depend at all on real observations of any kind. Only on constructs of the mind, which usually have no particular connection or correlation to reality. Religion is but one example.
Why is this the only math theorem to bother you?
I've never seen an atheist not posit the existence of God in order to then try to disprove God. Does this bother you too? No.
You are on record thousands of times positing God's existence in order to disprove God. That is illogical. Atheists all "blame God " for problems and tragedy.
The theorem does not bother me, although reports are that it is flawed. But what is far worse is that someone has taken a logic theorem concerning mathematics and applied it to a philosophical, theological proposition based on false premises.
Nor am I on record positing God's existence in order to disprove the existence of a god - you have mistaken me for someone else as I maintain (and always have) that no one - no one at all - can know whether there is a god or not. At some future time a god may be found or may reveal itself with proof that it created this universe but until then it is impossible to prove or disprove a god defined as immaterial, invisible and completely undetectable by any means whatsoever. Only fools, liars and honestly mistaken folk will claim knowledge that it exists OR does not exist.
OK Wilderness, all someone has to do is catch up on a few of your thousands of anti God posts.
There is no reason not to take a math approach as it is pure logic. If it has delivered some proof (as Gödel has)then by rejecting it and claiming to be open to scientific proof has to be seen as "intellectual" hypocrisy. In other words such an argument proves the person not to be interested in any proof.
Therein lies the rub.. Atheists are so wedded to their own belief systems that when you present to them alternative rational or logical arguments that goes against those belief systems, they go back to their ranting about the " make-believe world of the supernatural", "supper-daddy in the sky"; and "religion causing so much conflict" and other such discombobulations.
I've been thinking about George Berkeley's immaterialism. Whatever it is: truths, facts, observations, absolute concrete reality, all have to be discerned by a mind. No matter what it is, it has to be filtered by a mind. Only Minds and the ideas they create Objectively Exist. What can we use or interpret to refute this? Our Minds? If only Minds create existent ideas, perhaps reality is a projection of Gods Mind.
I fully subscribe to Berkeley's immaterialism which undergirds the concept that reality is not observer independent, thus Reality exists in so far as an observer perceives that it exist. This is not the same as denying the objective existence of reality, but the perception and interpretation of what that reality is can ONLY depend on the mind of the observer. Which goes to the idea that reality, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.
Which also goes to the question: Does the universe exist if there are absolutely no sentient minds that could perceive and interpret its existence. The cosmological argument for the existence of God goes straight to idea that the universe was made for sentient beings and vice versa. Design that smacks of creative intelligence not happenstance inconsequence.
Of course perception of reality depends on the observer, and on their interpretation.
But does that mean that reality also depends on that perception and interpretation? While an elephant might find a human mattress very soft, and a mouse will find it quite hard - has either perception changed the mattress? Does it's innate value of "softness" depend on an observer or is it fixed? Does the color of a fruit (defined by the wavelength of photonic light reflected) depend on what an observer sees or describes? If an observer cannot detect something (an asteroid, perhaps, or a comet) does that mean it is not there, that the matter it is composed of does not exist? Are there no "absolutes" in the universe - is everything "relative" to each and every observer?
Of course not. Reality is regardless of how an observer, any observer, may perceive, describe or interpret it. Just like the asteroid that isn't seen until it hits the spaceship is quite real and absolutely exists, so does the universe, whether there is a sentient mind to perceive it or not. While the notion that we are necessary for the universe to exist gives us great importance in our own minds, it is but a fabrication - an imaginary connection that exists only in our own minds.
These ideas will tax, frustrate and alarm the materialist mind, who in "magnificant irony" will convey their "minds" arguments to other " minds" that by faith** real is real . LOL The Quantum World - entanglement etc.makes more sense if berkely is right about space or its all just One concept of God. http://goodxbadx.blogspot.com/2009/07/b … ysics.html
@wilderness: What is fatally flawed about the assumption that God exist? You seem to be implying that anyone who has made that assumption is somewhat not thinking rationally and logically and therefore needs to be examined for flaws in their conceptual and perceptual thinking. I wont mind if you put me in that category because, to tell you the truth, I'd be in good company with philosophers, logicians, and yes scientists (phycisists , mathematicians, micro-evolutionists) who have pondered the assumption and found it not only constructively un-blemished but also perfectly intuitive.
But I forgot, you are an atheist whose neuronal connections to the spiritual have been so badly damaged by physicalism and materialism that then led to reductionsm, objectivism and ultimately nihilism.
That does seem to be a problem doesn't it? That you cannot recognize the logical fallacy in assuming your desired conclusion is true, and then using the assumption to prove itself. Perhaps it is the result of neuronal connections too badly damaged by presumed "spiritual" paths to properly function any more?
I note here you have no problem with uneducated atheists putting forward the idea God exists in order to "prove" He doesn't exist with busted logic. Bizarre.
However when a highly educated prominent mathematician backs up sound reason with faultless math you have a problem.
Your lack of understanding of even basic logical structures would be comical in this setting if it weren't so sad. But let me just say that making up a pretend "spiritual world" and applying all the logic in the world to it can, at best, indicate that your pretend construction is self consistent. It cannot, under any pretenses, have anything to say about reality that we live in. And that is exactly what has been done with the work you insist proves there is a god in OUR world; a made up, pretend world without known correlation to ours is being used to provide "truths" about reality. Truths that are true only in the imaginary world of make-believe.
You haven't responded to my previous valid point re " I note here you have no problem with uneducated atheists putting forward the idea God exists in order to "prove" He doesn't exist with busted logic. Bizarre.
However when a highly educated prominent mathematician backs up sound reason with faultless math you have a problem."
Objective observers are all noticing this and asking why.
Avoidance of or running from a valid a pertinent good point is tantamount to a state of denial. Please don't resort to insults again and respond to the very clear point.
"Run away! Run away!".............John Cleese from Holy Grail.
@wilderness: What false premise are you talking about. Nowhere in Gödel's elucidation of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of GOD via modal logic would you find anything "GIGO". Bu as I said those axioms and rules of deduction that Gödel worked on to establish the validity of Anselm's ontologic argument may not be self-evident or evident to an atheist's mind like yours, , but have been proven to be neither illogical nor irrational when applied to mathematical formulation.
Here is a link to my ontological proof of God. I would like to see it turned into hard math one day.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy … telligence
Of course you do - when a premise is assumed true in order to prove it is true that's a major logical fallacy.
@wilderness: When you make an assumption, it means that you believe in the veracity of that assumption. When you don't believe that what you are assuming is true, then why even bother trying to prove that it is true?
I don't see any "major logical fallacy" in trying to prove that my assumption is true. Now if you believe me that my assumption is false, then we could have a debate .... me trying to prove my assumption is true, and you trying to prove my assumption is false. So far you have not given me any cogent debating points to back up your statement that my assumption is false.. You making blanket statements that my assumption is false just does not cut it in this forum or any other forum. Your contention is that because you say something is false makes it absolutely false.. Now that is what I'd call "major logical fallacy"..... arrogance to the point of rupture.
But when you use the assumed truth of an assumption to prove it's truth, that's a fallacy. Using that kind of logic any and every possible statement is absolutely true.
Your assumption - that there is a god - may or may not be true, but because it's truth is unknown, any logical conclusion resulting from the assumption is also of unknown truth. That's the way logic works, whether philosophical, scientific or ontological. One starts with known truths and builds on them to produce a conclusion...never does one start with a statement of unknown veracity and try to build on it. That's like building your castle on sand; when the foundation (sand) is unknown, so is the conclusion.
Stripped to it's basic core, what your arguments here have done is state that "there is a god, and therefore a god exists". As the premise (that there is a god) is not known to be true, neither is the conclusion (that a god exists), whether the logic used is correct or not.
@wilderness: The only time that veracity could be applied to an assumption is when it has been proven to be true... and that is why folks have, short of the "sniff" test that you so require to fully believe that a God exist, proposed various arguments to support their contention that God exist. Arguments that from my perspective speaks to the validity of that contention. Now if you are not even willing to look at those arguments yourself, and instead rely on what other people say about the falsity of those arguments, then I suppose my debating with you is pointless.
Unknown truths vs. unknowable truths are different things from the perspective of debating the issue of whether God exists or not. Your view as a physicalist/materialist can only mean that unknown truths are just lurking out there waiting to be discovered or uncovered. The spiritualist view contends that God is an unknowable truth, whose existential truth could only be inferred by the integrative connections of their mind....connections that atheists are so sadly lacking. Oh but I forgot, atheists don't have minds, they just have brains.
We may be speaking of slightly different things in the "assumption" we both reference. I refer to the premise used in a logical sequence to build further truths on, and in this case the assumption that the premise that there is a god is true. It is not "true", it is unknown.
But you assume there are "unknowable" truths...an unfounded assumption if there ever is one. While it is fine to define the spiritualist view that way, it does not correlate to anything we know. Only with imaginings of the philosopher that doesn't care whether he speaks truth or not when making such claims. Only in promoting curiosity, awe and wonder. When an "existential truth" is claimed it carries almost zero weight as the claim has no meaning. Truth is truth, not something defined by a philosopher or religious zealot that cannot show their claims to be valid. Your "spiritualist view" is an amusing mental exercise that can lead to personal valuations (and can thus be quite valuable), but little more. It certainly has no connection to reality as we know it.
@wilderness: What you are plying is objectivism, pure and simple. Objectivism whose central tenet is that reality exists independently of consciousness/mind, has largely been ignored by philosophers and yes logicians, for the obvious reason that objective knowledge or reality is ALWAYS colored by the inductive perception, conceptualization and interpretation of the MIND.
So who are you to tell the elephant that the bed is hard when it perceives and interprets the bed to be soft; who are you to tell the mouse that the bed is soft when it perceives and interpret the bed to be hard.
The knowable truth is we could NEVER have the objective knowledge of life's existence were it not for the obvious fact that we have been created with the mind/consciousness that could perceive and interpret the reality of that existence.
It must be sheer terror to physicalism minded person when they realize the reality they put blind faith in cannot be Objectively proven and different than a scene from Inception or the Matrix. Isnt the same atheist that demand it be observed to be true? My heart truly goes out to them.
It must be sheer terror to physicalism minded person, when they realize the reality they put blind faith in, cannot be Objectively proven any different than a scene from Inception or the Matrix. Isnt the same atheist that demands that it must be observed, to be true? My heart truly goes out to them.
And who are you to tell the elephant that a hardness reading of 7 means something else? It is absolutely incredible that any reasoning being can actually believe that reality is changed every time someone observes or considers it; that the mattress instantly changes when the elephant thinks of it and then changes again when the mouse considers how hard it is. The mattress is quite obviously immutable; neither the elephant NOR the mouse's thoughts will have any affect whatsoever on it - to think otherwise is to raise egocentrism to truly ridiculous levels.
If you must know there is no such thing as immutability... as what happens in the quantum world. At the quantum level. the essential properties of sub-atomic particles do not exist until the conscious mind brings it into existence. The mere fact of being observed changes the essential properties of those particles, thus the notion "esse est percipi"( "To be is to be perceived") is absolutely true... even in the non-quantum world.
Immutability has nothing to do with egocentrism or vice-versa. And btw, relativism is what makes our world go round and round---just ask Einstein who conceptualized the General theory of Relativity based not on an absolutist universe.
Very good. Now all we have to do is teach each of our soldiers to observe enemy bullets in such a way as to turn them to jelly. That's what you're saying, isn't it? That the observer changes reality to something it wasn't?
And yes, I'm aware of the observer property in quantum mechanics. If that were what was being discussed, instead of macro objects, I'd at least be willing to discuss the ramifications of the act of observing. But it isn't, is it?
@wilderness: In your last post you stated this: "Only the imaginings of the philosopher that doesn't care whether he speaks the truth or not when making such claims" is I might say contrary to everything I've learned about philosophy and philosophers. Plato, Socrates and the philosophers that came after them who have passed on (before the scientific mind set took over) must be twisting in their graves. Philosophy had a lot to do with the progression of civilization, thus to devalue the contribution of philosophers is mind-bendingly irrational and illogical.
Here is a proposition that you might want to sink your debating teeth into:
"You might have thought that all truths.are, in principle, knowable, EVEN if it turns out that nobody actually ever does manage to know it. But, surprisingly enough, this is provably (not probably) false. For consider some such truth P that will never actually be known. Then the statement Q: "P is true but will never be known" is true. But Q is clearly unknowable, for if you knew Q then you would know the first conjunct(P), but that would contradict the second conjunct (P is never known), thus making Q false, which is a contradiction. Since knowing Q would yield a contradiction, and is thus impossible, then Q is an unknowable truth. So we have managed to prove a priori that either there are no never-known truths P, or else there are unknowable truths Q."
The above is known as the "Fitch's knowability paradox"
You postulate P, then decide that P is a specific, knowable truth, AND you know which P it is. Doesn't work; to say that there is SOME P does not indicate which one, so when Q picks one to be true it becomes a fallacy.
I know I'm saying this poorly, but that's the gist of what is being said here, and why it is a paradox. There is also the problem of knowing which P will never be known, yet somehow it is known which P it is, but we won't go into that.
You totally misinterpreted the whole concept. Try reading more about the Fitch's knowability paradox instead of posting a purely knee-jerk reaction to it. But I must assure you that the paradox maintains that there are unknowable truths.
So? Where was I wrong? When I commented that stating a specific truth is unknowable is different than saying that somewhere there might be one? Was that wrong to say, or is it wrong when the "theorem" confuses the two, with a resulting paradox?
And what in the world does it have to do with a trumped up "mathematical" proof of a god?
@wilderness: Another knee jerk reflex based on a total misreading or misinterpretation of the paradox. As a starter you might want to google what the word "paradox" mean. The theorem certainly does not confuse "unknown truths" from "unknowable truths".
What you call "trumped up mathematical proof" was proposed by Godel using modal logic to elaborate on Anselms ontological argument for the existence of GOD.
Therein lies the paradox....you mouthing off pre-determined arguments that does not quite apply to the topic at hand.... and you ending up totally confused as to what is next in your list of pre-determined statements.
Until such time that you can come up with a coferent deflection of the Fitch's knowability paradox... I will remain unimpressed.... as I have been before.
I'm sorry, but Godel used "modal logic" to describe and manipulate mathematical concepts, not philosophical ones. That it was then applied to imaginary entities in imaginary places as proof they exist is not what it was designed for.
And yes, your theorem certainly does confuse unknown with unknowable. As I already stated, that is the only reason there is a paradox there at all; because it is using the two interchangeably, and they most certainly are not.
@wilderness: Again you are wrong: Gödel's use of modal logic did not manipulate mathematical concepts...he applied mathematical formulation on modal logic to elucidate further Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.
The theorem did not confuse "unknown truths" with "unknowable truths". The paradox lies in the fact that the theorem seems contrary to common sense, and yet speaks of what could be considered as truthful. ie that there are unknowable truths.
Sorry about that - was thinking of another logic function developed.
The theorem beings by postulating there is something unknown (P), then goes on to discuss Q, which depends on knowing exactly which unknown is being mentioned. But no specific P is necessary; just a generic set of P that contains all unknown facts. If it were not necessary for Q to reference a specific P there would be no paradox.
@wilderness: The incoherence of the sentence: "Now we only need to tell our soldiers to observe a bullet (supposedly meant to kill them) so they could turn them into jelly" is so unsettling to be seriously considered as a debating point.... but coming as it does from you who believes that as a strict materialist/physicalist you only have brain but not a mind, is not too surprising.
Nice statement! If you have nothing else to say, insult the opponent. Maybe you'll throw them off balance. Wouldn't it be better, though, to show this "mind" you reference? Or at least give some good, solid information about what and where it is?
What's that? You can't do that because you don't know what or where it is? You don't know if it is there or not, and in fact have exactly zero evidence of it, but still insist it exists as necessary for the supernatural you also can't produce?
@wilderness: I don't think I said anything insulting except the part that said: "you only have a brain but not a mind"....but you should not consider that an insult since you yourself do not believe that there is such a thing as the "mind".
Now the discussion of what and where the mind is..... we've had multiple conversations and debates about , so I'm not predisposed at the moment to rehash them again, and again,... and again.
If we've had a discussion about the mind then you know I think there is one. It's just not a supernatural thing from another universe like you have conjured up from the imagination.
@wilderness: You saying that "... a discussion about the mind then you know I THINK there is one", is certainly big news to me. Since you are absolutely sure that I on the other hand have no clue what and where the mind is, perhaps you could tell me, what and where it is in as much as you said:...."I think there is one."
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.
I actually agree with the math/philosophy that the universe is a type of holographic phenomena, as this concurs with ancient spiritual knowledge. From this understanding such things as miracles, other dimensional realms etc would be "commonplace." It's one small step for science which brings the atheist rapidly back to "God ".
"As you think so you are" suddenly takes on a whole new literal dimension.
These "Godelian" math ideas are defiantly religious concepts.
Such advanced philosophical math proves that religion and science are closely related.
According to Stephen Jay Gould ( a paleontologist of some renown) religion and science are not related because they have different value systems, and therefore their respective paths must remain parallel but never intersect. The parallelism occurs because both value human lives and the truth that undergird human existence, science in the realm of the material, and religion, in the realm of the spiritual. From that point of view science and religion are not exclusionary but complementary to each other.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
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?
I insist the primacy of the mind to be the sole interpreter of objective reality. Now if you have any problems with how my mind or anybody's mind interpreted that objective reality, then you are the one who is insisting that everyone has to have the same mind that interprets objective reality exactly the same way. Which to me is so counterintuitive to the reality of the universe that we live in.
Question for you: why do some people taste sugar as being sweet, and some other people as not sweet? The mind, pure and simple.
Ah, but which mind? Yours? Mine? A third party? Because each and every mind will have a different interpretation of reality - are they all representative of that objective reality that is not dependent on an observer/interpreter? How can that be possible?
Sweet/not-sweet: Not necessarily the mind. Sensory equipment could and will also play a part. As will past experience. But you still side-step the absolute's of the universe, insisting that perception and relative's are all that exist. Yet the vast majority of the universe is absolute, not relative to any observer. Why ignore all that? Seems counterintuitive to me, to ignore and pretend 99.999999% of the universe doesn't exist. That only the perceived one, interpreted by the mind, has existence.
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.
Obviously. Which in turn means that Berkeley's theoretical concept of Immaterialism is a crock; an interesting philosophical construct with no connection to reality.
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.
But Kathryn isn't talking about quantum mechanics; she's talking about the newtonian macro world. As was Berkeley
and as per empirical evidence there is much to say about the correlation and integrative interaction between the micro and the macro world.
Which still has nothing to do with the concept imagined by Berkely.
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.
No, they say that Berkeley's ideas may have some validity in circumstances that Berkeley could not conceive of. That you wish to include Berkeley's reality (newtonian universe) in the environment his comments are now being found to be valid (quantum mechanics) does not change that Berkeley's ideas were completely false because he attributed them to a universe where they are not correct.
Oh no! "Thought experiments" is a good term for imagination! All that is left is to figure out if they correlate to reality - to the world outside of the mental imagination. Until that is done they must remain an amusing, or perhaps interesting, imaginary world but that is all. Nothing can be said to actually apply to the reality we live in (as opposed to the one we perceive that we live in) until such correlation is shown to exist.
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?
None. Intuition is the logical (or, often enough, illogical )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.
No, it is direct perception and enables humans and animals to perceive that which exists beyond the physical.
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
immaterialism |ˌi(m)məˈti(ə)rēəˌlizəm| noun
the belief that material things have no objective existence.
Why even come up such an idea, I wonder?
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?
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.
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.
in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
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.
Catch -22 dilemma, quandary, vicious circle; catch; chicken-and-egg problem.
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.
able to be touched or felt:
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.
But, the only way to prove intuition is to experience it oneself.
So, my work is done here.
If we were all in a coma the world would still exist!
If a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it fall, did it happen ?
If no one was around to percieve the existance of the world and the world did exist, would it exist?
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.
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?
Does God's existence also depend on a mind being there to perceive it?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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."
I'm sorry I couldn't resist.
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.
How did God exist before creating the minds necessary to perceive him before he could exist? Chicken or egg?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I never applied Berkeley's theory to define God's existence. However I might try to define what and who GOD is, the immaterial theoriy like Berkeleys are not the one that I'd use. There have been proposed by logicians and philosphers and empiricists, ARGUMENTS (20 of them as of last counting) for the existence of GOD. Now those I will use some more than the others.
The context in which you described God's existence was that of immaterialism, even sustaining God's existence as dependent upon the observer (after I asked you if this were the case) so guess I never noticed the transition from immaterialism to something else, in the discussion.
Now in terms of the debate regarding whether God exist or not, you might read my initial post and the subsequent discussion I had with Wilderness on just such a topic..
I did. I've been following every post, which is why I jumped in.
You can provide examples of how immaterialism may be compatible with God's existence, but that's not the same as it being valuable to proving it. And if it cannot be used to prove it, then the value of immaterialism's support is specific only to a theist.
To prove God's existence, there would have to be a logical sequence within immaterialism leading to the inevitable logical result that God exists. There is no such sequence of logic. All immaterialism does is define existence as relative to the observer; any use to support God's existence would ultimately require a pre-conceived assumption of certain facts about God's attributes, as well as specifications for the limits of immaterialism, making it circular and unhelpful.
As far as all the other arguments made not relating to immaterialism, they each rely upon preconceived notions about God, in order to prove his existence.
You cannot prove that God exists because by definition he exists outside of our ability to test. God is unprovable. He unable to be disproved for the same reason He is not provable. It's a self-sustaining, self-validating construct.
"You cannot prove that God exists because by definition he exists outside of our ability to test. God is unprovable. He unable to be disproved for the same reason He is not provable. It's a self-sustaining, self-validating construct."
Your choice or words is interesting. Only man can "define" something, and then it is only man defining what man has/will do. Man "defined" his god, then, and did it in such a way as to make our construct sefl-sustaining and self-validating. This is in line with what is being discussed here - that the mind has created a perceived reality, defining it in a way that pleases us, but without particular regard to whether it matches an objective reality or not - but I would not have expected it from you.
Yes I agree with you completely.
I'm not theist, but just thought it strange that even if I assumed his existence, immateriality would do nothing to prove it (as nothing can) and may in fact undermine it, in a particular way.
Not expect it from me? I'm not sure if this means maybe it contradicts something I may have said earlier? hopefully it is consistent with my other thoughts. If it isn't, I'll have to take a look and see where I may have gone wrong.
Maybe it means fall in line? Or God forbid Rattle some pans?
I'm not sure. I was worried I may have stated something which was self contradictory, in which case I would want to know so I could correct my way of thinking. It is easy when discussing these subjects, to end up doing so, as it relates not only to what we discuss, but the nature in which we discuss it.
To establish parameters, Im curious if a group of scientific minds tested for proof of the existence of your self aware introspection, in 1914 ,what evidence would they find? How would you define exist? Sometimes ? Mostly not? And this test. Whos mind interprets the truth or results? And how is this absolutely nothing more than proof of a mind or minds that interpret results?
I'm not sure the point you're making. "proof of the awareness of your self aware introspection?" How does this relate to the provability of a God?
Obviously how we interpret results has been an interesting topic of philosophy. How we interpret results stems from what we believe constitutes evidence of something. And that requires some form of logical deductions. And that depends on...etc. For now, Gods existence is improvable by our current definitions of what defines something to be provable. But then again, what we define as provable can be very different. Leading us to question.... Is anything provable truly? But I've never seen a case where God has been "proven" without also relying on the accuracy of some of the elements one is trying to "prove." But that's all perspective isn't it?
Perhaps nothing by nature is truly provable, and in order to claim so, we'd have to have preset notions on what makes something provable. So according to a Christian, God is provable. So can I say that their logic is false, without relying on concepts of what makes something provable, which they do not agree with? Probably not, so in a way, saying that God is not provable is more a statement that he cannot be universally experienced using the senses that we all share. (sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing.) But then you can argue that we do, just some do not logically accept it. It some people may have experienced him in those senses ...etc etc etc. For example I believe in the existence of [something ] which I might call a spirit or ghost or whatever, but others don't because it doesn't fit their criteria of proof. Is there an ultimate standard? Maybe not. There's much to consider. I can't prove God the same way that I can't prove the existence of anything that a group of people can t look at and say, "yep, according to all of us, this is what this is." In which case, maybe no one can prove anything. But the mind demands that there must be things more provable than others, such as the existence of a tv in my room. Because we all share sight. We do not all however share in the perceptors by which God is claimed to be perceived.
@Ashley: As I have always contended in this forum or any other forum, (in discussing the provability of God's existence) , there is never going to be any empirical proof that God exist, unless He shows Himself to us in some kind of material identity or form. The most that humans could do is to propose arguments for his existence, and that has been done by logicians, philosophers and yes empiricists.
The subject of Immaterialism was opened up by another hubber who was responding to another hubber, NOT in the context of that theory being another argument(not proof) for the existence of God. What Immaterialism as proposed by Berkeley was never intended to be an argument for God's existence, but to emphasize the primacy of the mind in perceiving and interpreting objective reality, certainly not the non-existence of that objective reality.... after the fact that we as sentient beings have the mind to perceive and interpret that reality, not before.
It's Ashton, not Ashley
You said "Now in terms of the debate regarding whether God exist or not, you might read my initial post and the subsequent discussion I had with Wilderness on just such a topic.."
Therefore you referred me to this thread for this very topic. I was merely following your suggestion.
This was after you said you would not use immaterialism to define God's existence.
Therefore I assumed you were making the distinction between using immaterialism to define Gods existence and to determine if He exists.
I reread the thread, and you were referencing God constantly in the context of immaterialism. I was following what appeared to be your OWN statements about your intentions, as well as your own obvious application of immaterialism to God.
I think somewhere along the line I misunderstood your meaning, once we started a conversation about God. You were explaining God according to immaterialist concepts, but when you said it didn't define His existence, you SEEMED to be saying "it doesn't define his existence, but to PROVE god existence, please refer to my statements [ which i assumed included those about immaterialism] as proof of God." Just a misunderstanding of your meaning.
As far as Berkeley is concerned, he did believe that immaterialism supported a God, and said as such.
@Ashley: My interpretation of immaterialism certainly, is that it could not be used as an argument for the existence of God, so if you read somewhere that Berkeley himself intended his theory of Immaterialism to be an argument for God's existence, then you have to reference that article to me so I could read and dissect it.
Again, it's Ashton
God's existence is made evident by everyday instances of perception, according to Berkeley. Since sensible objects are mind-dependent yet exhibit a persistence and regularity that transcends our perception of them, it follows that there must be a master-perceiver, God, in whose mind they always are.
I read the article. Berkeley's simply contended that materialism leads to atheism, but the questions begs to be asked" Does immaterialism leads to theism? The author suggested that it does i.e ...".the persistence and regularity of the sensible objects that constitute the natural world is independent of all human perception.....even when none of us is perceiving a tree, god IS. The mind of god serves as a permanent repository of the sensible objects that we perceive at some times and not at others. (although Berkeley took great pains to deny it......"
I believe it was not the author suggesting this, but was describing what Berkeley himself said. Note the quote from this article:
"God's existence is made evident by everyday instances of perception, according to Berkeley. Since sensible objects are mind-dependent yet exhibit a persistence and regularity that transcends our perception of them, it follows that there must be a master-perceiver, God, in whose mind they always are."
Upon further researching Berkeley's ideas, I found the following:
"The attack on theological scepticism is effected on a metaphysical rather than doctrinal level in P and D. Doctrinal questions receive more attention in such later writings as Alciphron. But in one important respect Berkeley saw his views as a fundamental contribution to natural theology, in that he thought they constitute a powerful new proof of the existence of a God."
(Source) http://www.acgrayling.com/berkeleys-arg … aterialism
Berkeley is fascinating, I been checking the library for a book. I think I had a. Chance to get an antique book years ago, but those were lean years and I chose Bacon instead. Bacon is dry as toast.
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.
. 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
Do you know why?
Because both the tree and the world existed before we were even
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??
PS The chicken, the rooster AND the egg came about AT THE SAME TIME!
Thank you, science.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Open the box and look. That should solve any problem deciding which one is correct.
No. But then they only "suggest" a God to those that want one - to those that either don't want one or don't care there isn't any suggestion at all. Only word play and thought games.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to macro objects is what was being challenged by the Schrodingers cat thought experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the only one, although it is the most accepted. Quantum mechanics does not suggest that the cat is dead and alive; Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to macro objects suggests this. This does not suggest however that our accepted explanations of of quantum mechanics (such as the Copenhagen interpretation) leads to illogical conclusions; they only lead to illogical conclusions when applied towards something for which they were not intended and to which they by definition do not apply (the "macro" cat.) In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is empirically "proven" and logical.
"Logically/philosophically, several arguments suggest ( not prove) that a God exist. Would those be valid assertions empirically?"
I have never seen an argument presented which (even within the bounds of rationalism, not empiricism) suggests by logical sequence, that a god exists without simultaneously assuming his existence. (To make sure I understand the application of your statements, are you referring to the Judeo-Christian God when you say "God," or an intelligent creator, or....?)
Very well stated. I can prove a god exists if I define it as that which produced this.We exist, something produced us, so a god exists by necessity.
Perfect logic. But it doesn't tell us what god is. Could be a being, but it could be a process. And I've in essence assumed a god exists by assigning what produced us the title:god.
And you are very right that no proof for god, classical or otherwise, doesn't also assume a god to begin with.
My prediction came true. One pseudoscientist says or has suggested in the past that an inanimate turtle dunnit. Now one is saying its turtles all the way Down. Which is it?
What's the purpose of putting out those assumptions if you do not believe that they are true; and why even propose arguments that would validate those assumptions if those arguments do not pass basic logic. As far as I'm concerned, there is no circularity to that scenario.
Simply, one should not be using assumptions one believes are true, in order to validate the very assumption you are assuming. That's what makes it circular.
So what should I be doing to validate an assumption that I believe is not true? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, since I do not believe that the assumption is true. To argue for the validity of an assumption that I believe is not true is to say the least an excercise in futility and truly illogical.
So from your perspective, when you use arguments(not proofs) for believing that your conclusion is true, what should your first statement be?
The 20 arguments (give or take) for God's existence that have been proposed by various folks, must by necessity start from the assumption (or opening statement) that God exist, for if they don't, then people will say, what exactly are they arguing for?
Now in the area of providing proof, then your scenario of circularity might be applicable.
That is exactly the case, because that was exactly the context. I'm not sure how it could have been otherwise. To argue for God's existence is to attempt to provide proof of God's existence. What am I missing?
The burden of proof is on the one claiming a god exists. And this person must show that he has gathered facts which both logically lead to the conclusion that a god exists and which are not dependent on the assumption that god exists.
Arguing is definitely NOT attempting to provide proof... not the proof anyway that atheists are so enamored with, ie the sniff and touch, and see kind.
And your definition of facts?
At this juncture I am I assuming that you have chewed, swallowed, but then regurgitated the ideas in those 20 arguments because they neither provided logical nor empirical arguments for the existence of God. If you have not, then my assumption is totally un-truthful and therefore could be considered just a "factoid" in this conversation, and therefore no argument necessary to prove that it is true.
Each argument which attempts to provide proof of God's existence, must be evaluated according to its own parameters. For example, I couldn't logically discredit Godel's proof based upon lack of empirical evidence, because the very nature of the proof is not based on empiricism.
I'm just saying that every argument I have seen attempts to prove God's existence, empirical or otherwise, by using the assumption of God's existence to prove his existence, within its own parameters
To argue is not the same as "to provide proof", unless of course you are approaching this from a purely legal point of view. An attorney is arguing that his client is not guilty, so he must provide concrete "proof" by whatever means possible ...the.. least of which is using logisms.
Now the 20 arguments are not proof, absolute or otherwise, that a God exist... they only provide the context on why the arguer believe that there is a GOD.
Arguments which attempt to prove God existence was the context (i.e. Godels proof). Therefore I've been discussing in that context and those are the arguments to which I am referring.
Don't think you're going to get anywhere - this is what I've been saying right along, that the statement that "God exists and therefore his existence is true and factual" is insufficient to draw the conclusion.
But it is all that is being produced, and those saying it refuse to accept that it is a logical fallacy. Good luck, though!
A Villarasa seemed to imply that certain " arguments for God's existence" weren't meant to prove God existence, so I was curious on what such an argument would consist of, if not claim of proof. I'm confused because it was within the context of logical argument and proof, if I remember correctly
If those folks who proposed the 20 arguments believe that the arguments were inescapable and inconvertible proof of God's existence... then why label them arguments and not proof. Again to emphasize this: Arguments are NOT proof. Now if you don't believe that those arguments are non-sensical, then say so.... but for you to say that they are meant to be proofs, thus need to be valued and scrutinized with incisional precission is , an exercise in futility.
"argument for God's existence" and "proof for God's existence" (I used the term proof, in the context of Godels PROOF, as we were discussing , which was an argument to prove God's existence) That is how you were presenting them: Within the context of proving God's existence. If someone says they have an argument for God's existence, it means that that are attempting to prove, within the argument, that God exists. If I have used argument and proof interchangeably, it is scientifically accurate and completely within the context of our discussion. Godels proof: In other words, his argument for God's existence, by which he attempts to prove God's existence, and in which manner the logical argument therein, and the argument is a given "proof."
I have already mentioned the fact that Anselm's Ontological argument for God's existence was faulted for its inconsistent formulation, thus Gödel (who is a mathematician) tried to improve or make the argument more logically impeccable by applying modal logic to it, which he did using mathematical axioms. So the Ontological argument as per Anselm's proposal was not a "proof" but an argument, and it remained an argument despite Gödel's attempt to give it more logical coherence and substance.
Now talking about argument.... the one argument that I could consider closest to an empirical "proof" of God's existence is the helix labeled DNA, and its partner in crime, the m-RNA.
We were discussing Gödel's proof specifically, and Gödel claims that it proves God's existence. I therefore take Gödel's word on his own intentions of his own proof.
Also, Anselms argument was also intended to prove God's existence, per Anselm.
How is anything in the "natural" world any kind of evidence or proof of a god? Outside of ignorance of how or why it actually happened, that is ("I don't understand how or why DNA formed, so will say a god did it").
"A mathematical proof is an argument which convinces other people that
something is true."
"Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)."
Whether or not these "arguments" or "proofs" actually DO prove what they are saying they prove, is irrelevant. They are still referred to as PROOFS.
I would assume (again) that you are being factual when you stated: "Also, Anselm's argument was also intended to prove God's existence, per Anselm".
The problem I think is that you're deep into the hole of semantics.... and not aesthetics. To clarify, Argument is an assertion, contention, thesis, rationale that results from deliberation and or discussion. Proof is the evidence that compels acceptance by the MIND of a truth or fact. Its a process or operation that establishes validity or truth. Thus you can not interchangeably use the two words, in tandem or otherwise.
Now just because Anselm (or Gödel for that matter) thinks that his argument is proof (albeit not absolute) of God's existence does not mean that he is correct in saying so. Based on the definition of the words argument and proof that I mentioned above, I could certainly say that Anselm and Gödel are mistaken in proposing that their arguments are proof of God's existence.
Godel's proof is often called an argument, as are many others, and the interchangeability of these two terms is expansive. Difference between "a proof" and "proof," which I have used correctly, is key. I made every effort to make myself clear. If you dislike Godel's proof being called "a proof," then that is something you'd need to take up with the philosophical community.
Whether or not you think Godel and Anselm's argument ARE proof of a God, is irrelevant.
The point is, these arguments were presented TO PROVE that God exists, and they failed to prove God exists, logically. That is all I ever said.
@wilderness and Ashton:
Here is a tutorial that you and your atheist cohorts might find incomprehensible, but theists find totally reasonable and sensible coming as it did from a very perceptive theorist.
(1) "Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You for example."
(2) "Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything it produces."
(3) "The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programed by any force outside itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since it has no needs. Therefore, if it produces Something Else, it must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus it is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones)"
(4) "Since the Eternal Someone ( He..or She) has no needs that He cannot fulfill on His own, He can exist without need of any kind of environment, for He existed when there was nothing else but Him. Any environment would be outside Him. and therefore would need to be produced. But all there is , is Him"
First of all, this is funny. I'm not atheist
Second, please be courteous enough to direct your answers to the person conversing with you. Wilderness and slarty have been discussing this dna issue with you, not me. I stayed out of that topic intentionally We were discussing logical sequences and that conversation ended quite a few posts ago. To assume I have identical ideas based upon your [ false] assumption that I must be atheist is quite out of line
Happy arguing !
Well you see my assumptions are never validated unless someone say it is not a valid assumption. But if memory serves me right, in one of your post you said.." I myself do not believe a God exist ..". or something to that effect.
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.
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.
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"
But you can't prove that, so it remains "unknown". As an eternity is required for collection of infinity knowledge, the statement itself may be "unknowable" as well (assuming there is infinite knowledge to be had - a questionable claim itself).
I didn't say it would. I said there is as yet no way to put a ceiling on what it can or can't discover. The problem you have is with scientists, the method gets factual results. The problem is interpretation. But as those are tested new ones arise. Eventually the story becomes clearer over time and new evidence. Subjectivity does get filtered out eventually.
"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.
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
@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.
I do believe that you have repeated what I said: "I don't know how DNA came about so it has to be a god". Still as false as it ever was, though; ignorance is never a reason to make up an answer out of imagination and then never check to see if it is true.
And of course there is the wee problem of proving that nature could not "create" the DNA molecule. You didn't even try there, just more "I'm ignorant, so a god is required". Didn't work before, doesn't work for this one, and won't work in the future. I'll repeat: Ignorance is insufficient reason to accept unsupported imaginative answers to anything. Not even when DNA could be considered an instruction manual. After all, anthropomorphizing nature doesn't make it intelligent, not even when you simultaneously claim it is a design rather than a pattern (without evidence, again).
Villarasa, there seems to be a major misunderstanding on how logic works, or even evidence. You just don't get to make any statement you wish to and declare it to be true; everything you say must have supporting evidence. When you claim DNA is a design rather than a pattern, you have to prove that. When you claim nature cannot have dunnit, you have to prove that - a simple statement does not accomplish that all necessary task. When you claim you cannot find precise information like DNA without an entity who intentionally constructed it, you have to prove that...particularly as we have already found just such information in the form of DNA without an intelligence creating it. You are once more using circular logic, or trying to, when you say it has to have an intelligent designer and therefore there was an intelligent designer. Still doesn't work!
So you are absolutely sure that the DNA was formed by Nature, a non-sentient entity... where is your proof? or lacking proof you'd say I don't know, and since I don't know I am not making any wishy-washy statement except to say that it is there. Which begs the question? what happened to to your conceptualization and intellectualization ability that as a member of Homo Sapiens, I assume you have. But maybe all these materiaslist thinking just atrophied your neurons to that point that their DNA no longer function as the instruction manual that allows you neurons to function the way they should i.e. making you think...and experience what Einstein calls "thought experiments".
No, I didn't say DNA was formed by nature - nowhere in anything I've written will you find such a foolish statement. Personally, I find nature to be the default choice, better than another universe with an omnipotent god that loves us, but it is not necessarily the right conclusion. But you...you HAVE clearly stated that it could NOT be formed by nature, that a god is necessary and you do so without a single shred of supporting evidence.
This is the difference you don't seem to get - you cannot make such statements without proof, yet you are perfectly willing to make them and then use them to show a God is necessary. You're using your "thought experiments" as evidence of a god, and that just does..not..work. Such experiments are a great way to begin an investigation, a search if you will, for evidence of a god, but they cannot be used as evidence themselves.
For this goes back to the "conceptualization and intellectualization" abilities (yes, I have them). The "thought experiments", if you will. Engage in them, use those abilities, but don't stop there as they can never provide a known truth. You may not "conceptualize" DNA as a necessary creation of intelligence, not without hard data and evidence to back it up. Mere intellectual games cannot provide that, no matter how much you wish they could, no matter how self-consistent your "conceptualized world" is - it takes hard observation to do that.
For indeed, I would engage in such activities concerning a god...except it has all been done thousands upon thousands of times already, some of it by me. And to date not a single person has ever shown a single instance to be true - they are all, without exception, mere thought games without anything to support them. I'm bored with that, frankly, as thousands of years of such activities has produced nothing whatsoever except conceptualization and intellectualization - thought games. Philosophy is great, it is wonderful, and we can learn an awful lot about ourselves from it. We just can't learn much, if anything, about the universe we live in until we go beyond that and into actively searching for reality and truth instead of simply proposing things that might be true.
And that's doubly true as objectivity is seldom even approached in such games. Our subjective wants and desires, our perception of how we want things to be, nearly always override any real efforts to discern reality through thought. Your own pre-conceived notions of what you want a god to be is a good example - you won't even entertain the notion that your god is not the kindly, friendly, helpful entity you want. Never do you explore an evil god, with purposes contrary to your wants and needs - a god that made man for food, for entertainment, as a contest (that perhaps it lost), as military fodder, a mistake, etc. Always, always your games assume a good god, and mankind as important in the grand scheme. It is neither necessary nor even, IMO, likely.
If you personally believe that Nature dunnit... what is your proof except to say that it is your default position. So what you are saying is you can have a default position, and I can't?
If you tell me what your reasons are for saying that nature is your defauilt position... then I'd gladly tell you why God is my default position...Oh but I have already told you the reasons... they are called Arguments (20 of them), some more consequestial than others...the existence of the double helik molecule called DNA is just one of them.
Atheists are inconsistent in their position. 1. It came into existence. 2. It has always existed. The logical conclusion is non -contingent agency.
Do I believe nature dunnit? I suppose so, if we define acceptance of a higher probability as the most likely to happen. Not truly a belief, but pretty close.
Why is it the default?
1. Atoms and chemicals exist. They react in nature without an intelligence forcing it, sometimes forming new substances. They even change the very nature of the chemical in some reactions such as that in the sun that produces helium (and other elements) from hydrogen.
2. Despite your (unsupported) opinion that such chemicals as DNA cannot occur by natural causes, I can find no valid reason to think it cannot happen. Indeed, I would find the likelihood of some elements, and their associated compounds, such as Uranium, to be even less likely than a common chemical formed from very common elements. One cannot endure in our universe, yet exists, the other is simply large and fairly complex. Not as complex as a Uranium atom, but complex by human standards.
3. Despite thousands of years of effort and trillions of statements to the contrary, there has never been a single instance of finding a god producing anything at all, let alone one of the building blocks for life. We haven't even found the "home" of such a god, nor shown that any event that ever happened was caused by a god. Even that a god "might" exist (forget making earthly life) is based solely on ignorance; we cannot show it impossible, so it "might" be true. At best we concoct unsupported statements that it is so (like the one that DNA cannot form without a god). This is telling.
So "Nature dunnit" becomes the default. It is possible regardless of how low the probability, and we see very similar actions every day, but have never, in thousands of years, seen any event at all we can positively attribute to a god. The possibility of a god exists, in spite of never having found one, but the probability is far, far lower than what we observe happening in nature.
On the other hand your "default" of a god is based on the assumption that there is a god (statements like "DNA" can only be made by a god" automatically assume there exists a god). I don't need to assume that nature exists; we both agree that it does. I don't need to assume that chemicals combine, I don't need to assume that nature cannot make exceedingly complex chemical compounds. We already know all of this - all that is necessary is to assume that there is no upper limit to the complexity of a chemical compound that nature can produce (or at least that it is more than DNA). Personally I find that small step much easier to take than to postulate a god with the thousands (millions? billions?) of other facts and events that it requires.
You are absolutely correct in saying that "atoms and chemicals exist", but the question is what or who caused them to exist? Are you saying that these atoms and chemicals have always been in existence and nothing caused them to exist?
"....they react in nature without intelligence forcing them to react..." So are you saying that atoms have the will to react all by their lonesome selves? or are you saying they have the inate "nature" to react, but then who or what gave them that inate ability to react? If you say they themselves gave it to themselves, , then you are saying that atoms have inate will and desires...uhhm will/desires if I'm not mistaken are a characteristic of sentience. So now you are saying, atoms are sentient?
Possibly energy has always existed. Law of thermodynamics seem to point in that direction. Energy can't be destroyed or created. So yes, good possibility that it wasn't created and always has been in one form or other.
It's cause and effect, not will as such.
Possibly now? Before your claim seemed pretty sure remember? Angular and linear momentum cannot be created or destroyed, all there was or there ever will be. Now what? Also charge but ,they are properties not something to make a personal philosophical career outa.
"Possibly now? Before your claim seemed pretty sure remember?"
Yes. But you have to understand I am giving you a model, like your god is a model. Models use facts and try to explain them. Woman have a hard time in child birth. Fact. Explanation: they pissed off god.See how that works?
All the the things I say about energy are facts discovered by science. I've put those facts together to show an alternative to a god. That's a model.
" Angular and linear momentum cannot be created or destroyed"
I don't recall saying that. I said the laws of conservation state that energy can't be created or destroyed. Now some theists will bring up the big bang and say energy was created there, and that's wrong according to all BB variants I know of. The BB singularity was compressed energy.
So even the potential beginning of this universe, if there was one, starts with all the energy that exist now.
Therefore, since something has to have always existed or nothing could exist now, energy becomes a prime candidate for being that substance in that it is probably immortal, as it were, and it constantly transforms in dynamic ways, creating all we see, eliminating the need for a conscious separate god.
"all there was or there ever will be. Now what?"
Yes, that's a scientific fact regardless. Now what? I don't know... you turn in to a pumpkin?
" Also charge but ,they are properties not something to make a personal philosophical career outa."
Properties of what? Not sure we're on the same page. But of course its a model to base a philosophical carrier on. It's probably the fact of the matter. Certainly the best model we have.
Perhaps atoms always existed, perhaps not, but that was never the root of the question as far as a god making man, or any other life. As far as the Big Bang (which happened, as far as I'm concerned, with definite proof), maybe a god did it, maybe not. I can only go on the word of cosmologists/physicists that all indicate there was no god required. Or at least no one has ever disproven (or even tried to disprove) that statement. So maybe there is a cause for the BB, maybe not, but either way there is insufficient reason to think it was intentionally done by a god. Default is, once more, the simplest explanation - that if there was a cause it was a natural one, and not one requiring another universe with different rules and entities.
Atoms have a will? Your every word here is intensely anthropomorphic. Atoms don't have a will, no intelligence gave them an innate ability to react (or even the necessity, as that is what it is). The very suggestion once more assumes a god - something which is not necessary or indicated. Nature does not require intelligence, only laws which came into being during the BB, and also do not indicate an intelligence. You are trying to assume that there was a purpose, a desired result, but that has not shown to be so and mere existence does NOT give reason to think either is true.
No, Villarasa, you can claim there is an intelligence behind the movement of every atom or subatomic particle in the universe, behind every event that ever happened and behind having the "perfect" (although it is far from that) environment for man, but it can be nothing but an opinion designed and constructed to give credence to the assumption of a god's existence. As such, though, it is a failure.
Laws do not indicate intelligence? Wow that is news to me and a lot of other people, I'm sure. So you are proposing that Nature made or implemented those Laws for what? If you answer... to prevent itself from going into eternal and perpetual chaos... then you are implying that Nature is intentionally purposeful, thus sentient. An idea that is also news to me and a lot of other folks.
And again you are assigning a purpose, a goal. What makes you think there was a "for what" involved at all? That they didn't just happen that way? Because those laws were designed to produce mankind instead of mankind forming to fit whatever laws came about? Or not at all if the laws did not permit it?
OH IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY... In the same way I suppose, (as per your conceptualization) that you and I just happened that way.... happenstance and willy-nilly, with no sentient entity being involved in our being here.
That kind of nihilism just is so stunning to comprehend.
But it is only "just that way" if you assume a god did it for the purpose of getting it the way it is. As there is no indication that is true, there is also no indication that it wasn't just chance that it ended up the way it is.
It's like seeing a boulder rolling down the hill and then exclaiming how unusual it is that it landed in the exact place it did instead of a centimeter to the side. What happened, happened and after the fact is no more unusual or unlikely than anything else happening.
You are again assuming a purpose (by a god) that wasn't there. The anthropomorphism of thinking that we're special, that everything was designed just for mankind is astounding. Too stunning to comprehend, even when it "proves" a god that we want so much.
@wilderness: The #2 and #3 statements in your post are but examples of denying the obvious, i.e. intelligence/sentience can not come but from intelligence/sentience. I find #2 a very incoherent diversionary contraption; and #3 I find mostly arguments from misconception.
So? Support your statement, then. Don't just say it is obvious (regardless of how "obvious" it is to you); show that it is necessary. Never forget that when someone says "But it's so obvious", it merely means that it isn't true at all.
(Did you notice that your post is yet another example of "God exists and therefore God exists"?)
The problem is the idea of the inanimate becoming animate. Simple matter becoming biological.
Wee is there really inanimate matter? No. It's all made of energy.
And energy is dynamic, always moving and always interacting creating new form. It does this through its nature, following basic simple rule which when repeated again and again create unbelievable complexity.
A tree's growth uses simple rules. Grow a bit and divide. No two trees are identical, And how they grow and when they divide and how they eventually look depends on soil, light, temperature etc.
So to me there is no separation between the animate and inanimate. It’s an evolution. Not Darwinian evolution which only applies to biological things once biology exists. Which is it’s why it’s silly for the religious to argue against it as if it has anything to say about “creation” Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution which Darwin himself said only kicks in once biology exist.
But I am talking about a form of evolution which does lead to biology through cause and effect according to the nature of what it’s all made of.
DNA is made up of double strands of nucleotides, which are each made of different types of phosphates, a sugar, and different types of nitrogen. That's the code.
They are read by enzymes,(usually a protein) which transfer information to RNA (made of a single strand of nucleotides)
mRNA molecules direct the assembly of proteins . The RNA informs the process as to what order to link any of 20 types of amino acids together to make all the different proteins it needs.
Proteins then do all the work building and protecting the body, replicating DNA, speeding up metabolic reactions, moving molecules to where they are needed, etc. Different proteins use different small bits of the DNA sequence to do different jobs, like make a liver or two arms two legs, blue eyes, etc. Small bits of the DNA sequence within the chain are called genes. Genes manifest as inherited traits.
As you may have guessed: proteins consist of one or more long chains of amino acids. Amino acids can be found everywhere, including in space. They are made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen.
Besides making proteins when different types combine, amino acids work in the brain in neurotransmitter transport, and in the process of biosynthesis.
So amino acids existed pre-biology, as did proteins, as did enzymes. All of which are essential to biology.
Reminds me of atoms. Put a hydrogen atom with oxygen atoms and we get water. Amazing or what? Put any atoms together and you get different substances on our level of existence. In fact all things are combinations of atoms. And what’s an atom made of ? A proton and an electron makes hydrogen. Add more electrons and proton and every time you alter the code you get a different substance with its unique characteristics and reactions to interaction with other substances..
Sounds like a code? But a code of cause and effect. No accidents. Proteins have a nature and they function like biology. But they aren’t, are they?
Atoms and chemicals follow the same pattern. The simple to the complex following simple rules of interaction.
@Slarty: And who or what do you think designed the ability of atomic structures to interact with each other to produce molecules such as the DNA that now begins to replicate until a fully functional integrative/interactive and qualic/ideasthetic (sentient) biologic entity called Homo Sapiens, is created.
You must agree that when it comes to "life" as we know it, Nature is totally neutral ie it does not care, because it is non-sentient , whether life exist or not or whether life goes on or not. Only sentience would care about life being formed and life persisting via an informational/creational (almost like a binary code) template called DNA/mRNA.
I actually did try to explain that. The nature of energy itself. But to understand what I'm talking about you may have to familiarize yourself with chaos theory. The simple becoming the complex.
And have you ever thought that intelligence might not be something a god needs.
@slarty: Intelligence implies the ability to will, desire, create and implement design, and energy just doesn't do that. The existence of the universe was willed, desired, designed and implemented by intelligence-sentience, neither of which could be applied to Nature./Energy. Biologic life itself could not have devised its own existence, until such time that a designer implemented a complex molecular informational algorithm (DNA/mRNA) that directed the formation of the material that now resides in all of the biologic entities that have and will persistently continue to populate earth.
So there are a few things we need to talk about. What is will? Will is the manifestation of your conditioning. Conditioning is genetic predispositions interacting with environmental conditioning. That dynamic is you/your will.
Needs/desires force us to do. What we do depends on our will, which again, is our conditioning. You do not choose what you want to like or dislike, you just have likes and dislikes. We don’t do anything without stimulus, not even blink.
Now another interesting thing is that we have two halves of a brain. One side is language, logic, etc. The other is not conscious, it’s instinctive or automatic. Funny thing. Some say the soul is what gives will. But when we cut the brain in half, or used to for extreme epilepsy, two wills emerged. One conscious and one not conscious. Often this manifested in strange ways. Some people found that while one hand was dressing them the other was undressing them.
Fact is, these two wills; manifestations of conditioning, usually work together.
Something else. Recently we discovered that the unconscious part of the brain knows what are going to do three seconds before your consciousness knows. Who’s running the show? Consciousness thinks it is, but that’s not the case.
The unconscious controls the body, and sends emotions denoting needs, to the consciousness. It also acts for us because consciousness is too slow. When you learn a skill like playing guitar, you spend a lot of time deliberating about it, figuring out how to find the right notes.
By the time you hit the stage you don’t think about anything anymore. It’s part of who you are. Its automatic. If you second guess you make mistakes. Martial arts, same thing. If you deliberating with a fist coming at you your already hit.
The conscious part of us educates the instinctive. It’s a tool. Language is perhaps our greatest tool.
So the conscious part of us is also what thinks of itself as “I”. But what you are is 90 percent or more unconscious.
So desires are not chosen, they are presented to us, just as an atom has to merge with another when an electron gets caught between them so as to reach its lowest possible output of energy. On another level completely, we see it as the formation of a substance not like either of the atoms its made of.
The brain in all animals is there for one reason: keep the group of cells coordinated and to facilitate movement. Plants don’t have brains. Single celled animals don’t either. Only complex multi celled walking, flying or swimming animals have one.
But some plants produce tadpoles. They have a brain. They use it to get to a nice place to sprout root and then they eat it waiting to be able to feed normally. No need for it.
So again, we need consciousness to keep us going. What would a god need it for? What does it have to deliberate about or why would it need to educate it’s instinctive side? What creates its will?
Energy doesn’t need intent, it has its nature. The simple becomes the complex. Atoms are dynamic. Chemical compounds like amino acids and proteins are dynamic. They do stuff without being intelligent. They create processes by their nature, and how things react to each other, which is very ordered, is cause and effect.
And yes, I see no reason why all of this can’t be the result of billions of interactions, all culminating in biology.
The universe, like the atom, is constantly balancing, and thereby altering the model, like evolution does.
We say its looking for perfection or an ultimate balance.
And just think. A perfect thing has no needs. So if your version of god were true, a perfect being, it would have no need to create us. But an imperfect substance looking for ultimate perfection might. And I say looking for not intelligently, but because it must, out of need, which is why all atoms will always find ways to come to their lowest possible output of energy. Not consciously, but by their nature.
"Not consciously but by nature"
You are proposing that atomic interaction (eg: Na combines with Cl to form salt, or Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to form water) occurs just because it is in their "nature" to do so. But where did that "nature" come from? Certainly not from the atoms themselves... I don't think Na and Cl or Hydrogen and Oxygen willed themselves to have their respective nature ie Positive valence for Na and a negative valence for CL, or 2 Hydrogen atoms willed to combine with 1 Oxygen atom to form water (H2O), and not with 2 Oxygen atoms to form Hydrogen Peroxide(H2O2), etc, etc etc ad infinitum.
Nature does not have the intrinsic ability/will to produce design, it only has extrinsic property/bill to produce pattern. The structure of atoms were designed, thus willed so they could interact one way and not the other or less of one and more of the other. So whatever objects Nature produce are not designed, they are just patterned. A question: can you really compare the designed complexity of the DNA molecule to that of the patterned snowflake.?
"You are proposing that atomic interaction (eg: Na combines with Cl to form salt, or Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to form water) occurs just because it is in their "nature" to do so. But where did that "nature" come from? Certainly not from the atoms themselves..."
Yes. You really don't get it, do you? Everything is forced to interact, and each interaction has consequences. It's not magic. Each different type of thing has its own specific type of reaction to any given stimulus.Its own nature, so to speak. All based on the nature of energy itself.
Nature = will. I explained this. Your will is a manifestation of your over all conditioning.
It's a system consisting of many systems, each affecting the other and changing it.
No outside help required.
Sorry.... Nature is not equivalent or equal to will.... even if you are proposing that Energy is Nature So now you are saying that "Nature"/"Energy" willed or forced atoms to interact, then why woulld it do that... just because it is the "nature of energy" to will or force itself unto others?
You are thinking of something conscious. Does a rock will itself to exist and have properties? No. Nature is ordered cause and effect. Will is just another form of the same pattern.
Ok, your turn. Explain what will is?
Will is a mental power manifested as an intention to act according to principles or ends. Thus willing is a conscious act of desiring, or wishing, or choosing an intended end or goal.
Where do you think the wishing desiring and choosing come from? that's what I'm asking? What is this power? where does it come from?
I already told you, but I'll say it again: conditioning. Where else would it come from. I'm asking for mechanism.
To summarize what you are saying: Nature is ordered cause and effect,
Will is conditioned cause and effect,
Thus they are two forms of the same pattern.
I disagree: From my viewpoint being ordered and being conditioned are two totally different process or pattern. Being ordered is being commanded; being conditioned is being manipulated; thus Nature and Will are not TWO forms of the same pattern. Nature is patterned; Will is designed. Therin lies the difference.
Trouble is, you are playing with semantics. The pattern is identical. Manipulated and designed are the same thing, Both mean conditioned. But designed has the added meaning: Designed requires a designer, which you believe in.
I prefer not to assume something which can't be falsified
I am certainly not playing with semantics when I insist that Nature (Non-sentient) produce pattern, while Will (sentient) creates design. Producing and creating are not interchangeable. Pattern and Design are two totally different things. Now conditioning could certainly be involved. For example, the production of the variegated forms of snowflakes is conditioned by environmental factors, and the creation of a piece of musical or artistic masterpiece is conditioned by environmental factors as well.
"(Non-sentient) produce pattern, while Will (sentient) creates design. Producing and creating are not interchangeable. Pattern and Design are two totally different things."
But that's the point, they are the same thing; one being a more complex form than the other. Nature produced sentience. The complex from the simple. No designer required, and since none can be shown to exist, its irrelevant.
There is nothing irrelevant about the DNA, which in its complexity shouts, intelligent design. The DNA is not anything that just "evolve" from simplicity to its mind-boggling complexity because its supremely integrated and sophisticated creative function shouts intelligent design. As I have stated before Nature in whatever form you think it comes, is only capable of forming or producing pattern, not creating design. Forming is not the same as creating. Producing is not the same as designing..
Dna is a bunch of chemical cues. Proteins do all the work. Energy isn't stagnant, its dynamic. Yes DNA evolved from RNA. It's all made up of basic chemicals like amino acids which can be found anywhere including space, and which form spontaneously in the lab by recreating earth's early environment.
You can deny it as much as you like but producing and creating are exactly the same thing and you ignore the fact will is conditioning, not some supernatural magic without a mechanism.
Before you show ID you need to show the intelligence you claim exists. And you can't produce it and neither can any one else. But we know the universe is order and we know why.Simple rules reproduced over and over again under different circumstances produce complexity.
That's falsifiable, and it proves true every day, and is the subject of a new study in physics: Chaos.
Where do you think all those proteins come from.... If you think the DNA has nothing to do with connecting and arranging amino acids to create specific proteins, then you should go back to your basic biochemistry text.
Sorry to burst your bubble again, but there has never been a man-made lab that has been able to synthesize DNA from scratch, as you are implying, by chemists mixing atoms in a flask, that combined to form amino acids that suddenly rearranged themselves to produce a genetic code. Now you might be referring to labs that has taken a slice of a DNA then allowed to percolate it in an amino acid rich media, the amino acids then being re-arranged by the pre-existing DNA to make a copy of itself.
From simplicity to complexity... what has chaos (or more succinctly entropy) have anything to do with that process.
No I was referring to creating amino acids in the lab from scratch. And just so you know, Ventner created his own dna from scratch a few years ago and has produced a single celled life form that never existed before.
Ya I know about proteins. RNA molecules direct the assembly of proteins as to what order to link any of 20 types of amino acids together to make all the different proteins.
Chaos is the mechanism that rules everything. Again, in case you missed it, simple rules repeated under different conditions create complexity. Example: one of the simple rules a tree follows is; grow a bit and divide. Each tree is unique because this simple rule is pitted against rainfall, sun, soil composition in it's exact location, among others.
Look outside at how the simple becomes complex. It's everywhere.
Entropy is a big factor here because it is the reason order always comes from chaos. Again due to the simple rules of conservation repeated over and over again under varying circumstances.
And I suppose Vetner called his created single cell life form what? Eschirichia austrolopiticus? And whatever happened to that single-cell wonder of his? Did it start creating new life forms? Did it start evolving into a multi-cell organism and from simplicity to complexity , became a hominid then started blurting hymns of adoration to his God... Vetner?
He was head of the human genome project. He decided to build a reproducing cell with the smallest amount of genes possible.
He created his own institute and funded it himself. He ended up writing DNA from scratch a couple years ago, removed a cell's DNA, and created a new cell with his DNA. It does replicate and the genes will even provide you with it's email address, if you read the code.
Recently, this year, he created the cell as well as writing the DNA.
" In a publication in Science magazine, Daniel Gibson, Ph.D. and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA. This synthetic genome has been "booted up" in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome. "
Then he built the cell itself.
"Researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) and Synthetic Genomics, Inc. (SGI) have accomplished the next feat in synthetic biology research—the design and construction of the first minimal synthetic bacterial cell, JCVI-syn3.0.
Using the first synthetic cell, Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 (built by this same team in 2010), JCVI-syn3.0 was developed through a design, build, and test (DBT) process using genes from JCVI-syn1.0. The new minimal synthetic cell contains only 531,000 base pairs and just 473 genes making it the smallest genome of any self-replicating organism."
To me he's the first human to create life in the lab, other than techs cavorting on the sly.
This is amazing stuff. The potential for designer bacteria for medical purposes is astounding. Bacteria that eat cancer cells, metabolize them i to something helpful or inert, and then die off when the food source is gone. Bacteria that live on oil, and die when the spill is cleaned up.
It's all a matter of sequencing.
Letting these things evolve is not an option yet. Perhaps that's an experiment for many years from now. One that could take a very long time to complete.
And putting cells together to form higher animals is again, a matter of four bottles of chemicals. We don't need to let anything evolve.
Looks like god ain't the only one capable of creating life anymore. In fact, get these four chemicals together, and a few more along with the environment and its pretty much inevitable.
Clearly, if chemicals were inert and life needed a god to breath it into so called inanimate matter, this couldn't be done. But it has been.
Energy is dynamic, not inanimate. There is no such thing on the atomic level, nor the chemical level. It's all about the right sequences and what interacts with what and how, and how that then creates something new.
There is nothing but code in all of this, and the code is simple interaction between different things causes specific outcomes. Same outcome every time those specific circumstances exist.. That's order, and it's all based in the laws of physics. Every step just a more complex form.
Again to emphasize my point... Ventner did not create a reproducing cell from scratch ie mixing amino acids in a flask that became an entirely self-reproducing DNA that then produced cellular structures ie nucleus, mitochondria, cell wall etc. What he did was expose a slice of a PRE-EXISTING microbial DNA, ( the opertative word being PRE-EXISTING) and exposed it to amino acids that in combination with that pre-existing DNA, initiated the self-replicating process, that I suppose came close(but not close enough) to mimicking the function of the cellular component of that microbe. THat's it. HE did not create life from scratch... for if he did, I myself would start the adoration process of Ventner as GOD.
Is that all it will take? Just wait a few years then.
To me it just means eventually anyone with the right training will be able to do it. It means it's a natural rather than supernatural process. Apparently no god required.
From what I understand, he sequenced the DNA from a bacteria, put the info into a computer, wrote the new DNA after experimenting with the genes to find out which sequences were essential, and then transferred the new code made from scratch: (using chemicals) into an empty cell of another species.
The cell was dead, and giving it this DNA booted it up.
Venter said: "This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, We call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer."
No, he hasn't created a cell to put DNA into yet. I was mistaken. I misinterpreted an article I recently read about his latest success, which on reflection wasn't very succinct: The minimal cell. In other words, the creation of a cell with close to the minimal amount of code needed for a cell to live and reproduce. But the creation of a synthetic cell isn't that far off. Others have been working on that end for years now with some successes along the way.
Lots of work to do yet; We only know what 70 percent of the sequence in the minimal cell actually does. That last 30 percent is essential in moving on. If you are going to build synthetic life forms that are going to help mankind you have to know what all the parts do, obviously. It's a dangerous business.
But it is going to happen, and when life is written by us from scratch, cell and all, what will the religious say? Probably best to just retreat, accept it, and say: Oh so that's how god designed it.
A lesson that needs to be learend: humans experimenting ( ie messing up) with the DNA molecule could and would lead to consequences that may not be to our liking. And I'm not just referring to microbial DNA, but most importantly human DNA.
Something that is certainly NOT going to happen: Homo Sapiens lab-creating a human DNA from scratch ie not from a pre-existing DNA. The creation of DNA is soley God's prerogative.
It's just reverse engineering without giving credit to the Engineer.
Right. It's just how god done it. That is, if you believe in a god. Science just finds out how it all works. It doesn't care whether or not there is a creator, because the idea can't be falsified, let alone proven true.
Why does the Catholic church accept evolution? Because their version of how god did it was proven wrong time and time again.
So accept that science is finding out how it all works and be amazed at "gods" design. No reason for science and religion to argue about it.
We can possibly debate the conclusion simplistically, if you choose, but there is no debating the reverse engineering.
Reverse engineering isn't a bad way to describe it, though there doesn't have to be an engineer in this case. Reverse engineering simply means taking things apart to find out how they work. That's what science does.
You are absolutely right when you said science only deals with discovering .... now the interpretation of what science discovers should and must be done through an ego-free prism , an undertaking that is almost impossible to do considering the fact that scientists are humans and are susceptible to all sorts of human frailties, not the least of which are their egos, some more overweening than others.
I absolutely agree, which is why there are ongoing review processes. Findings have to be repeatable. Also, interpretation is philosophy. There are a dozen interpretations of QM for example. Which if any are correct? Most can't be falsified let alone proven.
But it doesn't matter. Doing QM and getting amazing results doesn't involve any interpretation. It doesn't even need one. But humans want to know what it all means right now, so we build models or interpretations. Some good we can build on, some not so good. Most of them completely speculative.
But in other parts of physics the models are proven rock solid and used every day, like thermodynamics..
One can't believe speculative models represent fact, and to know which models are which you often have to get to know science in depth. Never the less, never mind the interpretations. The facts are amazing enough, and we're always getting more of them. No need to interpret them. Eventually they will explain themselves.
I don't find anything wrong with interpreting the meaning or the importance, or the consequences of what humans discover. And speculation is another way of looking for what is truthful.
For if we neither interpret nor speculate, why even try to discover?
Facts speak for themselves. I have no problem with speculation as long as we don't consider it fact and believe it's true. Like I said, some models are good and we can build on them with facts and new discoveries.
But a model tries to explain facts, it is based on them, but that doesn't mean it represents reality. I wouldn't want to believe a wild guess, and a fact requires no belief.
"...facts require no belief."
I disagree, for if facts are not believed to be true or valid, they just become your garden variety factoids.
"facts require no belief." This is a - mantra, (as opposed to a declarative ) common in atheism and the odd or rare pantheist. Oddly, they are strict empiricists instead of rationalists. I do hope for their sake, we are not dreaming, hypnotized or a simulation. In thoses cases and possibly others, only the a priori facts would still be true, and the other presumed facts were OMG beliefs.
If it's a mantra I've done my job. I've been explaining the concept to anyone who will listen for at least 15 years now. I wrote a book about it.
You are astute though; I am an atheist and a Pantheist. In fact Paul Harrison and I created Scientific Pantheism in the 1990s.
If a rationalist isn't an empiricist, how rational can he be?
" I do hope for their sake, we are not dreaming, hypnotized or a simulation."
If you could prove any of those things true I'd be delighted. All I want is truth no matter what it turns out to be. I don't have any skin in the game of what the truth is/faith or belief; only in finding out what it is.
"If a rationalist isn't an empiricist, how rational can he be?"
Some safecrackers have a small hammer in their tool bag.
"If you could prove any of those things true I'd be delighted."
Let us continue using a small hammer to try and open a safe.
"Facts don't have to be believed, they have to be accepted as fact....."
a priori knowledge doesn't care if they are accepted.
Some safecrackers have a small hammer in their tool bag.
Use what we can: rationality, logic, deductive and inductive. I think using them all gives you a pretty good hammer. One without the rest is incomplete.
Deductive logic depends on your premise being correct. If it isn't you get perfectly logical answers that are perfectly wrong. So much for A priori.
Facts don't have to be believed, they have to be accepted as fact when there is irrefutable evidence that they are facts. Belief is redundant. It does nothing to alter the facts whether its a negative or positive belief.
Example: I don't believe the christian god exists, but I also don't believe it doesn't exist. No way to know with certainty either way, so no reason to believe either is true.
Fact: It exists or it does not. There is no other option. One of those two is absolute truth. Belief won't alter which is the case.
Now when I say belief I am saying it in the context of faith. I can be of the opinion that such and such has a good probability of being true due to logic and evidence, but I don't have to have any faith in it being true. That's just wishing it is, believing it is, without knowing it is.
Faith via belief gives the feeling of knowing without the ability to actually be certain. That doesn't accomplish anything or get you farther ahead in your quest for truth..
In your search for truth have you encountered "absolute truth?" If you have, kindly give me an example.
IMO, there are no "absolute" truths, just relative truths. Just ask Einstein who formulated his "Relativity Theories" based on his intuitive and instinctive "thought experiments" that the interpretation of the reality (or unreality for that matter) of existence always depends on who is observing, be it in the micro or macro world.
On the other hand I would categorize truth as either "knowable" or "unknowable". When it comes to us , there are truths that are still unknown to us but could be known, thus knowable; on the other hand there are truths that are still unknown, but will never be known, thus unknowable. An example of an unknowable truth is GOD.... and that is where/when Belief or Faith comes in. 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.
Truth is relative, yes. But it isn’t enough to say that. It is relative to something, and that something is a set of conditions. As long as those conditions are static the truth about those conditions remains static. If conditions change so does the truth about them.
Now every time those conditions exist exactly, you get the same results and the same absolute truth.
I ate a bunch of cherries today or I did not. One of those statements is absolute truth that can’t be altered because there is no way to go back in time to alter what I did. And even if I did, one of those two answers would still be the absolute truth. What we do, including all the little things, can’t be undone. Another truth who’s conditions aren’t changeable.
And so yes, absolute truth can be had through relative truth. Truth is relative to a set of conditions, and absolute truth is found in conditions that can’t be altered and in conditions that recur exactly as they did previously.
Water boils at 212 f or 100c. True? Not exactly. It depends on altitude, pressure, and purity of the water. But, when your water is the exact same purity and you are at exactly the same altitude you were last time you boiled water, that water will boil at exactly the same temp it did before; every time, whatever that may be. That’s an absolute truth, and the absolute truth about the conditions.
Einstein did thought experiments. He was also a mathematician. He got it all right, including what he thought in the end was his biggest blunder. And how do we know that? Experiment after experiment trying to prove him wrong.
Deductive reasoning is wonderful, and Einstein was exceptional at it. But until he was proven right he might have been wrong.
His use of the observer perspective was due to the peculiarity of time/space at light speed. He wasn’t suggesting that the observer had any power over what was happening, only how they would perceive what was happening.
Observer driven reality was a “folk guess” as to what might be going on in the double split experiment where when one adds an observer it seems to collapse the wave function and produce a particle pattern instead of the expected wave pattern.
The guess seems to me unfounded because no observer saw anything. It was a passive sensor. So something was added, changing the conditions. And, every time you add the sensor, the same thing happens. The sensor doesn’t decide which result will come about.
So back to truth. Fredrick N proposed perspectivism where by truth is relative to perspective. There is no objective reality.
Of course the proposition shoots itself in the foot. If you say there is no objective reality are we take that as being the objective truth of the matter? A little contradictory. And if not, it tells us it isn’t true. Without objective reality there is no reality.
The objective and subjective work together, and the subjective couldn’t exist without the underlying objective reality giving it the order/conditions it needs. Subjective is our personal perspective about the objective. And we are flesh and blood objective beings.
The mind doesn’t do anything by just thinking. To affect the world you have to put those thoughts into action. Action on the objective world.
Are there things that can’t be known? Too early to tell either way. Meaning any stance on the matter is a guess and nothing more. Just like god.
But as to god, won’t we know that with certainty when we’re dead? I’m ok with finding out then. If I wake up dead I’m sure to have questions. And if I had to guess I’d say it probably isn’t anything like the Christian version. But that’s just my guess. But I don’t expect to wake up. I’m fine with simply not existing anymore.
Thanks for the interesting conversation, btw.
IMO for truth to be considered absolute, it could and should never be viewed through the prism of "prevailing conditions". Absolute truth remains truthful no matter what the "prevailing conditions are", thus its immutability remains constant in both time and space.... independent of whatever the "prevailing conditions" are in that space-time continuum.
You eating cherries and water boiling at 100 degrees centigrade are absolute facts, but not absolute truths. Specifically, in terms of logical profundity or scientific fecundity , absolute facts can never be considered as absolute truths.
Well I am familiar with the idea that absolute truth is true regardless of conditions. But in the context its often explained it’s not logical. Truth is about something, and everything is condition based. That is to say it has a nature of its own; a specific way it must react to something else, which has its own nature.
All things are made of something, all situations are about conditions. And I have already explained that some situations are unchangeable, so actually fit the criteria. Anything we do or don’t do is a fact/truth for eternity regardless of what changes, regardless if all the laws of physics change, or the universe comes to an end.
In philosophy and science, absolute truth is often explained by saying: There are no square circles. A very simple but accurate example. Also, arguing that there is no absolute truth is a self defeating argument. If it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth then that would be the absolute truth, and it just proved itself wrong.
Where you get this idea that you can separate fact from truth I don’t know. Fact=truth as truth=fact. I know of no logic or school of thought that would assert that.
In fact/truth, some dictionaries define fact as: “a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:”
Perhaps you can explain the difference between fact and truth to me, and give an example of each, as well as one of absolute truth that is not about conditions in any way.
I have no problem, with your suggestion, that one can interchangeably use fact-truth , but I must emphasize, ONLY in the physical/material realm. My point is when it comes to absolutes, Absolute Facts could not be conflated with Absolute Truths, for the simple reason that absolute facts are reliably validated SOLELY in the physical/material realm and absolute truths are substantially formulated SOLELY in the philosophical-moral-transcendental realm. Thus there are no Absolute Truths in the physical/material realm...just Absolute Facts
"absolute truths are substantially formulated SOLELY in the philosophical-moral-transcendental realm"
While I understand what you are saying I can't see any evidence of a transcendental realm. so can't count it as validating anything.
Morality is natural, no transcendental realm required. It's a matter of cause and effect played against our nature. Yes, some religious moral directives solve real problems if followed.
Morality. Who decides what it is?
Descartes told us that we cannot know about anything unless we experience it . Therefore some things like perfection cannot be part of man kind’s natural knowledge of the world because we cannot experience it. Hence god must have put these idea into us himself, so we know him.
This is wrong. Every human being can imagine that if something were to change in their particular lives, their lives would be better. We can then think of something else that would make our lives better. We can keep doing this imagining for a long time.
But eventually when all our needs are met, all our desires fulfilled, nothing we can add to it would make our lives better. So that state would for us as individuals be perfection.
We can then imagine that if all things and people were in complete harmony and balance and nothing was in conflict with anything, and nothing had any needs or desires left unfilled, that would be an ultimate perfection.
We went from a subjective perfection for the individual to an ultimate objective perfection without having experienced either and without having this knowledge implanted in us.
This is exactly how morality comes about and for the same reasons. We all subjectively want our lives to be objectively better, and one way to do that is to build a repertory of morals. The best way to do that is to come to agreements. “I will not harm you if you promise not to harm me” is one of the most basic agreements societies form.
Now, naturally we love our children and we love our families. We crave love and warmth from others. We crave friendship. We also want to do business with others because they have goods we need. So we have natural agreements with each other.
We have found that by making agreements, although they can be broken, we have a better chance at being treated fairly, with respect and dignity, if we afford that same treatment to others. This is an objective way to gain our own subjective desires for a perfect life.
The golden rule, while not perfect, reflects this attempt at making our lives better through agreement on principals. I don’t like being attacked for my goods, so I agree not to attack others for theirs in return for the same protection.
There is no need for a god to implant these ideas into us, they are a matter of survival of the species. How can you make a better life for yourself if you are always in conflict with others?
So morality is a natural part of our nature. It has been selected for through countless generations.
Morality is not a question of who decides what it is, it is objectively true that morality is simply doing no intentional harm. Harm is objective. If you kill or beat someone that harm is both subjective and objective. So saying harm is a subjective idea is wrong. It is a subjective idea but it also an objective reality.
Same goes for moral values. They are subjective, but at the same time if followed they get objective results.
Humans can imagine their lives being better and we strive as individuals and as societies to make those visions a reality. No god is required to tell us this, cause and effect tell the story and enforce morality all on their own. Cause calamity and you get calamity in return. If you want your life to be better then you can’t cause conflict with others. You may have to fight those that would do you harm, of course. That doesn’t take away from anything I have said. At times we must fight for the values we hold dear. That is, in fact, the way morality is enforced. If someone commits murder society has the right and the responsibility to see that they don’t do it again. It is cause and effect in action.
We may well come to different ideas on how to enforce morality and some religious ideas of morality are questionable in this day and age, but at the core we are all trying to find a way to do the same thing: live optimum lives.
So finding the right formula for perfection is the basic goal of all people, be it just a subjective perfection or an objective one for all, ensuring in that way the perfection for every individual.
It’s a daunting task that produces as much conflict as it resolves at times. It’s often trial and error. But people keep trying, and keep modifying the agreements we have with each other.
Is morality absolute? Yes and no.
Morality changes as conditions change. But as long as conditions do not change, the morality of the situation remains absolute.
This is the same principal as truth. Truth is relative to specific conditions, are remains absolute until the conditions change.
As long as your light switch is on, the absolute truth of the matter is that the light switch is on. When it is off the absolute truth of the situation is that it is off.
If all the problems associated with act are dealt with, then doing that act is no longer immoral. Morality is a way to deal with problems which make our lives worse. If all the problems around an activity are solved the activity no longer poses a problem. Of course most of our social problems don’t change.
Morality can be broken down to one formula: Do no intentional harm. Intent is big for humans. I am much more inclined to forget about something you did and to forgive you for it if your intent was good but it all went south on you, then if you intended harm. Most people inherently feel that way. And we all know that at times good intent does pave the road to hell.
Doing no intentional harm brings fewer calamities on yourself and less conflict for others, giving us all a better life. And there is no need for a god to tell us that, it’s just objective fact for which we have centuries of evidence.
"I can't see any evidence of a transcendental realm" ........ "Morality is natural, no transcendental realm required"
Really? IMO, for morality or moral values, to claim the label of absolute truth, it can not be derived from "the natural", thus by necessity, it must be imbued with the transcendental or existential.
Richard Dawkins was quoted as saying: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect, if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose (i.e. no God), no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. However, it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones".
Sounds right to me (Dawkins). As if he understands that there IS no "absolute" morality - that morals differ by culture and even within a culture evolve into something they were not. Which in turn is why it is primarily the egotistical religions of the world that claim absolute morality that is superior to all other moral systems..
"Really? IMO, for morality or moral values, to claim the label of absolute truth, it can not be derived from "the natural",
Well that's your opinion because you are religious. What evidence is there for your point of view?
I don't see where else it can be derived from because I don't believe in a conscious god like yours.
And so I find evidence from the natural world.
I also fail to see why morals given by a god are more valuable than those we find from our nature. After all, a gods will is decreed morality. So what? What makes it absolute? What makes it special?
All people of the world have come to all the conclusions and laws of the bible without ever reading it and before it existed. Why? Because all humans are more alike than we are different.. We all have the same basic needs and desires. That's where morality comes from and what makes it appropriate to us.
A decreed morality isn't morality at all.
So you and Wilderness agree that there are no "absolute" morality in as much as the morality that you accept are all mandated by "nature" .... which I suppose only makes sense since the natural world is all relativistic be it in the cosmic or sub-atomic realm. So why do you insist on the existence of absolute truth in the natural world, and not insist on the existence of absolute morality in that natural world. For your world, or any world to make ABSOLUTE sense, it MUST have absolute truth as well as absolute morality. For what are absolute truth and morality but an imposition of immutability. Nature certainly is not immutable, and as such could never confer immutability on either truth or morality. For absolute truth to exist, it must be accompanied in tandem by absolute morality. Without one or the other, or both, your world or any world will devolve into eternal chaos, and that is exactly what is going to happen if the truth of a transcendental realm (where absolute truth and morality resides and emanates) is not accepted.
I still insist that in the natural world, there are no absolute truths (just absolute facts), and therefore no absolute morality' For absolute truth and absolute morality to exist, nature must be excused or recused , from that equation, since there is NOTHING absolute in the natural world. The existence of absolute truth resides in the philosophical-moral-transcendental realm and the application of absolute morality can only come from an entity that is outside of nature.
To substantiate what I am saying in the above post, I will quote several sources:
(1) Peter S. Williams: "...God is a necessary condition of objective moral values i.e. the sort of moral truths that are discovered rather than invented by humans and which are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not"
(2) Paul Kurtz: "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God, nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral."
(3) Julian Baggini: "If there is no single morality ie God, we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves....(and) that means that moral claims are not true or false...you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error."
(1) But there are no "objective" moral values for a god to make. Every one of them is man-made, for man's purposes (do any animals have morals?), and every system man has ever made changes through time.
(2) Indeed, all morals are ephemeral. Even those dating back to old testament times and supposedly God's word have undergone changes and what was once consider moral no longer is and vice versa. Even the morals of the god spoken of have changed!
(3) There is no error: moral claims are neither true nor false. Just (locally) moral.
Morals are objective in that they try to solve real human problems. No matter what culture, we all face the same human problems. we deal with them differently in some cases but every culture has laws against theft, murder, etc.
Our human needs are the reason for morality, as it were. Yes they are both objective and subjective at the same time. I am an object as well as a subjective being. If you hurt me my pain is both objective and subjective
Actions and their effects are both objective and subjective when we're dealing with biology..
No, nature doesn't say you can't or shouldn't kill me. But if you do others will fear you could do it to them. Do you want to die or go to prison for the rest of your life? Those are objective consequences.
That's why religious morality was invented. A way/reason to punish after death even if some would say you weren't punished enough in life. We don't even have to call it morality, but that's how the religious relate to it best. After all, moral directives are just blueprints outlining a social issue that causes conflict for many including yourself, and outlines a solution. Mostly:Don't do that.
So yes, morality is subjective as it relates to how subjective beings behave. But how they behave is objective.
I want to live till I die naturally. I don't want to be murdered. I also have empathy being a human, so I can put myself in some one else's shoes, and realize that if my life is sacred to me, then so is theirs .to them. And others lives that I care about are sacred to me as well.
In fact, life itself is amazing to me. More so because I think its natural and not created by a conscious being. What does that say about the nature of what produced us? Amazing.
All life is related and all is sacred to me and many others.
That's been so for hundreds of thousands of years, and another reason religion was created.
Humans have a nature that forces us to look at ourselves critically and find ways to better ourselves. The Greeks told us we had to rise above our brute natures, and better ourselves, making the world better for humanity.
So those are objective human traits: empathy, love, a desire toward perfection, what ever it might be. Evolved traits, selected for. So our subjective/objective morality is toward an objective goal.
Morals are absolute under specific conditions. If the goal is a better life for all, then there are objectively correct ways to attain that goal, and objectively wrong ways in every situation. Don't murder, don't be a thief, etc, etc. .
OK - you're redefining "objective" as something else than outside the human mind. I'm OK with that, although I'm not sure just what it is you're trying to say there unless you mean there is a goal, an objective, in having them (but then what is "subjective" if not that there is no reason or goal?).
But as soon as you try to say that "absolute" morals only operate in specific times, places or circumstances than it is no longer absolute. I can go along with killing an enemy, for instance, that is trying to kill me as still absolute, but not when one tribe feels it is OK to kill a neighboring tribe but tribe 3 says it is always wrong. At that point it is no longer absolute. And every moral mankind has come up with has been ignored or refused as a moral by one culture or another.
Probably the closest we've ever come to being absolute was the golden rule. Did Genghis Kahn accept it? Hitler's Germany? The slave owners in American past? The priests promoting the Crusades or the inquisition? Today's terrorists? Even that most common rule has been neither absolute nor universal.
Well, objectivity is something outside the mind, certainly. But it’s more complicated than that.
Your body, brain, limbs etc, are objective things. They are real. How you feel is obviously from your mind and subjective. But how you act due to those feelings is objective, in that real actions effect the world in real ways.
So within the human is a complex relationship between the two.
Is a goal objective? Certainly, because again, it’s about actions directed toward an end in the real world. You may say it is also subjective because a human mind thought of it. It’s both in different ways.
Now, even in religion it isn’t the universal use of the moral that makes it absolute. It’s apparently a decree from god. It’s an absolute law. Anyone can break it, of course.
So we have to go back and define what a moral is, and I tried to do that by saying it’s a plan that if followed is supposed to solve human problems. A set of guidelines toward an objectively better life as well as a subjectively better life.
Buddhism is all about ending suffering by following simple morals/rules.
And again, it’s not the specific rules that make morals universal, but the fact that every culture comes up with them, and they deal with universal human problems.
So these issues and their solutions are part of being human. As I said before: because we all love, we all want peace and security, etc.
I can take this to another level. Atoms follow one simple rule: They must always try to reach their lowest possible output of energy. To accomplish this with lots of other types of atoms around is difficult due to interaction. So to accomplish this lowest possible output they merge with each other. That merger creates a new substance with properties different from the parent atoms.
This is pattern is repeated right up through complex chemical systems to cells to the behaviour of humans. That’s the law that all this is built on, and it effects everything.
Conflict demands resolution. Conflict causes high outputs of energy. In fact the one who runs out of resources first loses. A new order always comes from chaos, and thereby a much lower output of energy. We have to interact just like atoms do.
That’s what makes these set of plans called morals absolute: The fact that in a real way the directive comes from what we made of and what we are.
Again, not specific forms of morals, just the fact that they all deal with common human issues. It’s the issues we share that are universal, objective and absolute. Objective in that they don’t come from mind, but from our nature, which is outside mind, as it were, even though it influences mind.
Chemical reactions are not caused by a "desire" for lower energy output - some common ones like photosynthesis require energy to proceed. Nor do atoms or molecules continually give out energy; they keep it inside unless that energy is above a level specific to that atom (fluorescence, for instance), whereupon it is given up in a relatively short time with or without other atoms. Instead chemical reactions happen for a "desire" to have filled electron shells, which has nothing to do with output of energy.
Nor are morals designed to promote "laziness" - they come from protection of the species (species[i], not individual or culture) and from the endlessly inventive mind of the human animal.
It appears that your "absolute" moral is dependent on your definition, and your assignation to a god that provided it. But can you give a few examples of "absolute" morals that have been used by all peoples everywhere, defined by a god so that they [i]would be accepted? Keep in mind murder to appease gods, the wide range of sexual taboos and requirements, slavery, torture, cannibalism, etc. as you do. Which morals are "absolute", verifiably so because all cultures have followed them?
An electron shell is also known as a principle energy level. It’s a specific orbit of an electron around a nucleus. Each level has a different specific energy level with the lowest orbit being lowest level of energy and the highest orbit being the highest energy level possible for that specific atom.
And I admit a poor choice of words. When I said output I should have said energy level, its state of excitement. That said: when an electron moves from one level to another it can gain energy by absorbing a photon and it goes back a level by emitting a photon. So energy levels are increased and decreased by input and output.
Exciting atoms means higher energy which is unstable and unsustainable, as I said in the last post. All orbits/energy levels for an orbit are specific and the highest possible level can’t be increased. Electrons get knocked out of orbit and often caught by other atoms binding the two atoms as they continue to share the electron. Or proximity forces them to merge. But the reason they merge is for stability in the situation.
The specific law I was talking about tells us all atoms tend toward their lowest possible energy levels, which could they reach it would be their closest inert or “noble” gas. This works hand in hand with entropy which is not chaos as some think, but the reason for order.
Laziness has little or nothing to do with it. It’s about balance and stability, which is what humans strive for as a species. Why do you think creativity is? It’s driven by conflict. It’s part of our nature to problem solve and resolve conflict. Hence what we call morals.
No one, even the religious, claim that morals are universally adopted, so why you think they would have to be to be absolute, I don’t know. What you want to call morals are limits. You can’t reach the speed of light by adding energy to mass is absolute. But that’s not how morals work.
Again, they are directives that if followed solve real objective problems. Problems inherent in all humans. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more than one way to solve any problem, hence why different cultures use different methods.
"Now even in religion, it isn't the universal use of the moral that makes it absolute. It's apparently a decree from God. It's an absolute law, Anyone can break it, of course."
You would agree that religion, is a human construct, and anything man-made is subject to the whims and egos of us humans, who had been given by whoever created us the Will to freely exercise the dictates of those whims and egos. IMO what you term "decree from God" such as The Ten Commandments were issued more from the perspective of the humans whose interpretative interaction with the Deity were in most instances probably more metaphorical than literal.
Now there was nothing metaphorical about the historical veracity of Jesus of Nazareth whose Sermon on the Mount, I suspect, he uttered for us, (who follow him) to consider as our absolute moral guideposts. And of course we are free to reject the term absolute when it comes to moral guideposts.
The way I see it, in terms of Homo Sapiens, and the natural world that he exist in, there are no Absolute Laws and no absolute truths... just absolute flaws and absolute facts.
My problem is I don't know that a transcendental exists, and after years of looking for one I found only human mind and the amazing things it ca do and imagine.
To you the universe is top down, a perfect god that creates imperfection down to atoms, and then wants it all to become perfect.
I see a bottom up universe where imperfect nature is always creating and revising striving for perfect balance, and hence perfection.
In metaphorical terms, instead of a god creating us, all of this is attempting to create a god state.
Again, I'm being metaphorical.
In one of the post you wrote in this forum I remember you writing something about the only time that you might glimpse an absolute truth is when you take leave of your earthly life and you existing in the hereafter, or something to that effect. Now why would you believe in life after death, when you don't seem to think a transcendental world exist. Isn't existing in the hereafter the same as existing in a transcendental world?
No, I don’t agree that there is no absolute truth or absolute morality. You have to ask what morality is. Is it an absolute commandment? If so then it is just a decreed law.
But that’s not our morality then, it’s gods morality and may not be relevant to us.
But what are gods morals? The ten commandments? The laws given to Israel in the OT?
What exactly is gods morality?
The ten commandments that deal with murder, theft, adultery, and lying, are all values human naturally hold dear. We value truth, peace, honesty and fidelity. Laws concerning these issues were already on the books in Egypt when Moses lived in the court. They existed well before that in Sumerian culture 5000 BCE.
So they were nothing new. The laws he gave to the Hebrews were also not new. They all were ways to avoid conflict. We can still break them, so they aren’t absolute in that regard.
Humans want their needs met. We want peace, security and freedom. How do we have any of those things when we are at war with others and always looking over our shoulders? We don’t.
Guess what. That’s an absolute truth, and it is made so by cause and effect: The nature of the universe; the nature of energy.
Try to do anything you like. Cause and effect slaps you in the face if you cause shit. Go out and shoot people on the street. See how long before your dead. Have an affair and see what hell you bring on yourself and your family and others, including disease, betrayal, revenge, etc etc. Steal from people and risk getting beat up, killed, put in jail, etc etc.
Actions have consequences, not just for those you mess around, but for you too. That’s why morality exists. Morals are a real path to a better life. If you don’t want conflict, don’t create it.
Cause and effect is absolute. But it is relativistic in that the effect that happens depends on all the conditions at play. You may get away with one theft, perhaps a dozen. But eventually you will get caught and there will be unpleasant consequences, beside just your own guilty conscience, which in itself doesn’t help you live a great life.
You keep saying the natural world is relative, but alone that phrase is meaningless. Some use it to mean everything is true. But that’s nonsense. The natural world is relative to conditions. Relative to the nature of the building blocks that produce everything including you and me. The laws of physics. And within that framework the truths are absolute, the reasons for moral thinking and morals are absolute.
What we do with them and the consequences for us are absolute according to the conditions.
Now what makes a gods morals absolute? Just his whim? To me that’s not morality and certainly not absolute, unless you then say that he produced nature and instilled that morality in us by of our nature and the nature of cause and effect etc.
Then we are saying the same thing, but then you concede that morality is natural.
Otherwise you have to explain how he instilled morality into us outside the natural reasons we already have for adopting it.
While we are on the subject of Einstein, there is no denying that his "thought experiments"/imagination made him conceptualize his relativity theories, to which I would certainly apply the descriptive "scientific fecundity" for no other reason than they led to or open new and often fruitful theoretical inquiries ie dynamical space-time, black holes, and an expanding universe. From the perspective of "scientific fecundity" Einstein's relativity theories do come close to bearing fruit of the "absolute truth" variety.
The operative word being "come close to" but not quite dead center on being termed "absolute truth". Why? because in the quantum world relativity just does not quite cut it. As a matter of "absolute fact" general relativity can only be an approximation to a more general quantum theory of gravity. Quantizing general relativity, remains the great quest of theoretical physics. And so it goes... the search for absolute truth.
general relativity can only be an approximation to a more general quantum theory of gravity.
Not at all. You have that backwards. QM can’t account for gravity. All attempts have come up empty. That’s why it uses Einstein’s version: the lay of the land, as opposed to a graviton.
Yes, we are looking for a unified field theory, but Einstein theory of a fabric of space has just been observed recently, where a cosmic event sent ripples through space/time, Dilating time by a few seconds as it passed objects around it and light years away. That again shows that he was right about gravity being how mass effects the fabric of space, not a field, not graviton particles.
The uncertainty in the micro world is due to a lack of knowledge, and might well be revised as time goes on.
I think its rather simple. Einstein said that mass does not create matter because mass is a property of matter. Mass is kinetic energy.
What creates matter is energy, compressed, moving below light speed. That’s not a quote, he was talking in terms of energy tensors. But I gave you the simple version.
Anyway, that solves the duality in the double slit experiment. Energy is both wave and particle. No duality. Heisenberg knew it. He said it himself. There is a wave function and a particle function.
Einstein nailed it. But it still has to be proven true, and many scientists haven’t made the connections yet concerning that part of relativity. I’d give it a high probability.
And yes, always more to learn. But absolute truth isn’t about one thing. There are many absolute truths , and we already know a few.
I agree. Dangerous as hell. But we will continue and we will design humans to live on other planets with higher or lower gravity, and perhaps even for underwater and other types of atmosphere that would be poison to us.
Not just genetics, there is nanotech, bionics, and chip tech coming our way. Today you might consider a parent who had a chip implanted in their kids brain to enhance it an unfit parent. In a few decades you'll be considered unfit if you don't.
Wait a few hundred years. you won't recognize humanity anymore. We are in charge of our evolution now. If we don't exterminate ourselves, the sky's the limit.
For extended life too.
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.
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.
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.
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? not sure
"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.
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
If, as is suggested by astro-physicist, the universe had its beginning after the Big Bang,( with the exact nature of what initiated it still up for a lot of conjecture), the question needs to be...
by Alexander A. Villarasa18 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...
by Spaghetti Monster6 years ago
While I was quaffing one of my latest products in the beer factory, I pondered the following.Creationists believe that God created the world in 6 days, and that Adam and Eve were happy in the garden of Eden until a...
by christiananrkist2 years ago
i asked this question in the Q&A section a while back and only got 1 response. given any worldview wouldnt a supernatural event had to have taken place at some point? most theist would obviously say a god/gods...
by kirstenblog3 years ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by LewSethics4 years ago
He could have done it in four or five days if He didn't insist on making most heavenly objects thirteen billion light years distant. Just showing off?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.