consciousness — 3017amen

wonderment — 3017amen

We are naturally curious and so we are now in the process of asking nature about this complex feat accomplished over a long time. Once there was little or no consciousness in creatures and now it is full blown in us. Since, as in all developments, it wasn't instant, this stands against an All-Might doing it.

This leaves us but with the prospect of a Deity with only the means to start something going that might be workable, it stuttering along through five near extinctions unto our precarious present condition tottering upon a sixth possible extinction from a four degree centigrade global warming rise projected.

5a. It’s still that the religious might then suppose a ‘God’ Deity who is like a scientist who throws a bunch of stuff together that is balanced and energetically reactive enough, but not too much so that it races along too fast, etc., to make for something livable coming out of it, but, again, really, what is a fully formed person-like being doing sitting around beforehand, this also being all the more of a quandary that ever enlarges the question rather than answering it.

5b. But, if it is supposed that life has to come from a Larger Life, then a regress ensues, making this not to be a good template. As for a Deity trying to put workable stuff together, this is much like the idea of a multiverse. We continue to estimate no 'God'.

trying to disprove an existing God (that's a space for emprical questions and answers) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Time for my new thread showing not a disproof but an unlikeliness of 'God'.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6817/an-estimate-for-no-god

'flat earth' nor 'no flat earth' — Banno

Yes, agnostic on this and all else, thus only probability estimates remain, which may be higher for non invisibles.

It is evident that since neither 'God' nor 'no God' can be shown for thee sure satisfaction of all, the positions of both atheism and theism are indefensible and are thus intellectually dishonest as surety claims, leaving all to have to be truly agnostic, with leanings either way based but on observatonal probability.

Religion is a 'philosophy' with all the questions left out.

on the basis that all individual particulars contingent, manifold, and subject to decay. — Wayfarer

That's fine for their temporary existence as penultimates from some Existent capability.

Yes. A God so devoted to watching humanity must be terribly bored, unless peculiarly obsessed by us. In either case, a sad, strange figure. — Ciceronianus the White

We are God's streaming soap opera reality show.

7'th proposition — Wallows

One cannot speak well about ever invisible unknowns, and so it can't amount to anything and rather becomes a waste of silence, but if it grants comfort then it's fine for one's living choice.

higher esoteric realm. — Wallows

Although Existence is necessity and thus natural, requiring no magic for it to be, it's still the eternal basis of our existence and so there is an awe about it, as the source of us and nature.

1. The concept of the trinity is logically impossible — 3017amen

It doesn't matter, really, as it is not surly established and is already once removed from its base upon a 'God' that isn't established either, as an unknown, for then only the idle chatter of nebulous abstracts of word salads pour forth… even from Newton.

2. The nature of our existence remains unexplained — 3017amen

Cosmic and biological evolution noted over 14 billion years satisfies this.

3. The integer of consciousness and subconsciousness is logically impossible — 3017amen

4. The nature of our consciousness is unexplained — 3017amen

We're not able to inspect the first person private aspect from a public view. Yet, nature made it, as in (2).

HALLEY, NEWTON, AND HOOKE

Halley was a sea captain, a cartographer, a professor
Of geometry, a deputy of the Royal Mint, an astronomer,
And the inventor of the deep-sea diving bell,
And wrote some on magnetism, tides,
Planet motions, and fondly on opium.

He invented the weather map and actuarial table ages,
Even proposed methods to work out the Earth’s old age,
Its distance from the sun, even how to keep fresh fish,
But one thing he didn’t do was to discover Halley’s comet,
For he merely noted that it was yet another return of it.

He made a wager with Robert Hooke, the cell describer,
And with the great and stately Christopher Wren:
They bet upon why the planets’ orbit were ellipses.

Hooke, a known credit-taker,
Claimed he’d solved the problem,
But had to conceal it
So that others could yet know the satisfaction.

Well, Halley became consumed with finding the answer,
So he called upon the Lucasian Mathematics Professor.
Isaac Newton was indeed brilliant beyond measure,
But was solitary, joyless, paranoid—no pleasure.

Once he had inserted a needle in his eye and poked around,
Far inserting the bodkin between the eye and the bone.
Another time, he’d stared at the sun for so very long
That he had to spend many days in a darkened room.

Frustrated by mathematics, Isaac invented the calculus,
And then for twenty-seven years kept it hidden from us.
Likewise, he did the same with the understanding of light
And spectroscopy, keeping it for thirty years in the dark.

For Newton,
Science was but a partial part of his life’s routes,
For much of his time
Was given to alchemy and religious pursuits.

He was wholeheartedly devoted
To the religion of Arianism,
Whose main tenet was
That there could be no Holy Trinity.

Ironically, he worked as a Professor at Trinity College,
The only one there who was not Anglican.

He also spent an inordinate amount of time studying
The floor plan of the lost temple of Solomon the King,
Even learning Hebrew, the better to scan the texts.

Another single minded quest was
To turn base metals into precious ones,
His papers revealing this preoccupation
Over optics and planetary motions and such mentations.

Well, Halley asked Newton what the curve would be
If the planets’ attraction toward the sun was
The reciprocal to the square of their distance from it.
Newton promptly answered, of course, an “ellipse”.

Not finding his calculations of it, Newton not only rewrote it,
But retired for two years to produce his master work,
The Plilosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

To Halley’s horror,
Newton refused to release the crucial third volume,
Without which the first two would make little sense.
There had been a dispute between Newton and Hooke
Over the priority of the inverse square law in the book.

That solved by Halley’s diplomacy, the Royal Society
Had pulled out from the publication, failing financially,
For, the year before, there had been a very costly flop
Called The History of Fishes; so, Halley himself popped
The funds for the publication out of his own pocket.

Newton contributed nothing,
As usual, and, to make matters worse,
Halley had just taken a position as the society’s clerk,
They failing to pay the promised 50 pounds to his purse,
Paying him only with very many copies of
The History of Fishes!

Anywho, to that end regarding the last point about the mystery of existence — 3017amen

Well, we have to mention the Trinity to stay on topic. Newton spent much of his life railing against the Trinity. Ironically, he worked at Trinity College. OK, that's done.

Existence isn't a mystery, since it has no alternative; it has to be, with no option not to be.

how is it that we are able to produce unresolved paradox's like those 2 statements above. — 3017amen

They misleadingly stated unpredictables as fact.

we don't know why a lot of things in nature exist — 3017amen

Existence had no alternative and so what is here now was inherent.

So in that sense, since we have these unexplained things happening, why is it such a leap to conclude that the supernatural exists? — 3017amen

Because then that answer becomes all the more explained and so then a higher explanation is needed, over the lesser one, and so forth. So, perhaps the simple is First, with complexity becoming later on.

Ok, our work is done here — 3017amen

The fat lady didn't sing yet.

But really how it turned out…

Myth-Takes of Unconditional Love
And the freedom to be from the Above
And Goodness didn't fill human natura—
Our follies broadcast His soap opera.

Energy is not lost — 3017amen

I’m the All and the One, present-Omni,
For I’m eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, having not a cause,
As the Ground of All—I am Energy.

The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world" — 3017amen

We are 'God' stuff or 'God' thoughts!

In other news,

‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin,
Plus gave Redemption from Original Sin.

versus

‘God’ is unchanging, as ever Perfect,
Knowing and Being all with no defect,
As in all at once and everywhere,
His Self mirrored in us as a Reflect.

but either way or dipolar both,

Reflections of ‘God’ we would have to be,
As the very thoughts imagined in He—
Naught else could exist independently;
This One Effect runs continuously.

But dynamic states through time — 3017amen

A changing 'God' changing/creating events in time, as a presentist 'God', is not at all preferred by deep believers over a timeless eternalist 'God'. But what the bleep do they know?

Yo PoeticU, where you been brother, ha ! — 3017amen

I was/am a poem in stone in my parentheses as a tube-worm in the slab of timeless eternity, traversing from a fetus to a corpse through the 4D Block of God's Static Realm that simply is.

If what you describe as "evil" is required to prevent extinction, then it IS something that we ought to do. So by definition, it is NOT evil. — ZhouBoTong

Kind of like a natural evil of necessity; thus, we survived not in spite of our evil and. violence but because of it. Even our cooperation was for a better hunt and kill.

Holy Spirit — Relativist

Bless your soul with tongues of fire; Holy Spirit burn;
Leave no trace of man’s desire; Holy Spirit turn.
Oh, man, why detest thy constitution;
Doth thou think Nature has a lot to learn?

So Nature got it wrong, the pious say,
In man’s constitution, erring its essay,
Granting so many ways to go astray.
Well, then, Who, do they say, penned this world’s play?

The universe might exist supernaturally, beyond any sense of causation (or time). — 3017amen

This is the other meaning of 'eternal', as timeless and causeless, with no definition/information being able to go into it.

Why the heck do we exist here on Earth?
What mysterious origin gave birth?
What purpose the madness amid the mirth?
Why the heck would a Person be the first?

The invisibility disorder spreads;
“Might be’s” and “maybe’s” clog the fora threads,
Naturally, from meaning’s search in heads,
Ever trying to raise ‘God’ from the dead.

God’s not an ‘answer’ but begs the question,
(fill in the rest?)

the three entities — Jacob-B

‘God’, Divine Human, and Spirit, to boot,
All structured on wishes—what a hoot!
Angels added, too, and Devils haunting.
All as supposed, so, their doings are moot.

problem of evil — TheMadFool

Oh, where is the Loving One, the All-Might?
Why just the power of what natures does?
What benevolence makes for living in fright?
Where’s the Knowing of His Is and ne’er was?

is God immoral? — LNH

Maybe this, maybe that, of a ‘God’,
On and on, of worn ideas long trod,
Trying to show nature’s not what it does,
Spouting this and that—dust into the sod.

finalisation remains out of the question — Daniel C

‘God’ can’t be shown such that all would believe—
It’s all idle chatter that hopes conceive,
A blah, blah of what can’t even be preached,
Honestly, without a shred to retrieve.

According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. — TheMadFool

What really happened…

Deciphered From Dead Sea Scroll: از کجا نمادهای فلور

With flora mystical and magical,
Eden’s botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.

Thus it’s to Eve that we must give our thanks,
For Earth’s variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers we’ve ever known.

Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not God allowed them His mystery.

When they were banished from His bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Eden’s bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.

Mighty God, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in His name—
So He had no one but Himself to blame!

Yet still He made ready His thunderbolt,
As His Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrong—
But then He felt the joy of life’s new song.

Eve had all the plants that she could carry;
God in His wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.

God held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So He threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.

Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This He gave to Adam and Eve, with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.

From His bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And He be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So He laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.

‘So be it,’ He said, when time was young,
‘That such is the life My design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of Me has sprung—
So let them enjoy all the songs I’ve sung.

‘Life was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highs—
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!

‘There’s no Devil to blame for their great zest—
This mix of good and bad makes them best!
The human nature that makes them survive,
Also lets them feel very much alive.

‘That same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!’

So it was that with fertile delight Eve
Seeded the lifeless Earth for us to receive.
Though many flowers she had to leave behind,
Most we have from the Mother of Mankind.

… (flower lore and legend descriptions) …

to make God good — TheMadFool

God, alone in His Power, had no fun,
So He made Sapiens out of His One,
Our image reflecting His Love’s Knowing,
As His mirror of Divine Perfection.

Eden’s fresh market carried everything;
The shiny red apples called from the Tree,
“Touch me, take me, eat me”, and soon trouble
Was at hand although it was crispy, sweet.

Eden’s sinful Apple, causing our shit,
Made for harsh apple cider, but when it
Was heated with sulfurous brimstone it
Soon turned smooth, the Hell taken out of it!

I found the Garden in the Amazon’s heart,
Wherein lie massive fields of Lady’s Slippers
And all of the rare flowers of Paradise…
And there I put the apple back on the tree.

TIC-TAC-TOE

Omnibenevolent, Omniscient and Omnipotent — TheMadFool

GXO
XOX
OXD

everything is changing, there is no rest, or what "is". in any absolute sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is noted, as nothing particular can last for more than an instant. With no absolute, we no longer have to figure how a permanent unchanging thing can change. So, then there are no things, just events, some of them very long, such as a rock or a proton.

'absolute existence' — fresco

Yet, for Relative Totality, there is neither an Absolute Existence nor an Absolute NonExistence, leaving but a relative in-between, as relative to neither or as relative to both, but what could that mean?

Absolute Totality vs. Relative Totality
None isn’t ‘outside’ nor can be in here,
Nor can Finite One be, with None outside;
Thus, there is no absolute One or None,
Which forces a relative ‘in-between’.

‘One’ as an Absolute Totality Fails Even More
Thus, we can’t step into what isn’t there,
Nor can a One expand into a None,
Nor can there be spacers of None
Within the arena of a One.

every assertion evokes its negation. — fresco

If there isn't anything absolute, then we are relieved of an unmakable, unbreakable eternal substance, and onto to the conclusion that all is temporary, without anything permanent, except change.

Once a virtual particle is created it would have to change because the effects required for it to be created as it is, creates other effects that must destroy it, as a closure that makes for compositional parity. Absolutes wouldn't follow those rules. Quantum fields cannot be zero, for that is a definite state and disallowed, so there is fluctuation/change.

Apparently, neither complete vacuity nor total solidity can be, leaving the indefinitness of the quantum uncertainty type or random outputs without inputs to result from the limit of the unreachable two nonexistent absolutes of None and One. I conclude that relatively the universe exists, but absolutely it doesn't.

Thus, a temporary reality ever becomes and then ever gets erased, somehow, as kind of akin to a faux presentism, given no absolutes. 'Light' is some kind of a clue, since from its viewpoint 'space' shrinks to a point and time does not pass. Somehow, 'light' gets slowed down from its pure all-at-oncesness of no time and its everywhereness of no space to broadcast a temporary reality of a here and a now.

I add, “A quark-gluon plasma comes forth, later, which had to cool off during 380,000 years of opaqueness, which we cannot penetrate yet, but hope to do via its gravity waves, after which time there came light, with photons, protons, and the first few, simple atomic elements, unto stars and supernova making the rest, then molecules, which luckily are neither inclined to form or to stay together after, RNA/DNA, cells, organisms, brains, consciousness…., this ‘life’ seeming as a kind of ‘afterthought. Sorry, I’m getting too far ahead.”


(Click.)

Ruby looks up, as if through the ceiling and up to the stars, remarking, “I’ve come such a long way to be here, with you, but our possibility was there in the beginning, although spread all over.

“The Planck era at 1E-43 seconds was the first hint of us, as a cyclical compactfication or a vacuum fluctuation eruption in an indefinite realm that’s as close to Nothing as can be, but it can’t be a Nothing as such, since that would be a definite, whereas the vacuum as the basic quantum something must be fuzzy, uncaused, and undirected, matching that which we often note in the quantum realm. Apparently, motion can’t cease, for energy cannot be destroyed.”

“I’ll knock Stillness off of the list of what can be, as being a kind of a cousin of ‘Nothing’, which we’ve already banished, along with ultimate Beginnings and Ends, plus Infinity, because it can’t be capped and so it cannot be had all at once or ever, since one can always add to it; it never completes, and that is more toward its meaning, not a meaning that it is a number or an amount. I’ll add ‘random’ as probably requiring a fundamental level or the quantum level, and as dubious otherwise, as it’s mostly evened out at the macroscopic level.”

“So, Austin, to learn the Secrets of what IS and ever WAS, we must again brave the crypt and ghost of cause, as the causeless. The so-called quantum foam seems to be ever and always, remaining even now, and it still has pairs of virtual particles quick appearing and then annihilating and disappearing, as a kind of ‘noise’, during which events time still passes without any useful change overall, as the noise may not often produce something that lasts a bit or more.”

“Indeed, I answer, “The virtuals are ‘somethings’, or ‘sum-things’, as one might call them as of possibility or potential, but have not yet a true, meaningful existence until they become part of an information process and thus are able persist in their effects and go forward somewhat or greatly. This state has always been, and must be, so jot: that this All is ever here to be, since nothing cannot. We philosophers love to fathom the cryptic, where perhaps only the shade of substance slept with arithmetic, although the descriptions in physics are very amenable to math.

“There is a basic lightness of elemental being because anything more would have to be of parts, and thus beyond the fundamental arts. Bits of information need to be separated to operate, maybe, perhaps manifesting by ‘creating’ a Planck sized piece of space. Maybe we experience their separation as space. The bits can have relative relationships, which is a must, there being nothing outside or before the All, such as absolute rulers or clocks. Time evolves as relations form, all of them having to be relative. Mass, energy, and information have been shown to be equivalent.”

“So, then, where the causeless reigns supreme, the spark nursed by embers is the first that the universe remembers, as it fires toward the other members in a processing way. The opposite twins are as virtual pairs that rule the causing call, these positives and negatives constituting most of the All.”

“Yes, I’ve often thought of the many opposite states appearing in nature, such as matter and antimatter, left and right, up and down, the polarity of charge, on/off, and many more, as a near zero-sum equation.”


(Click.)

(to be continued)

mathematical model — fresco

An absolute Totality is complete in itself (not infinite), and so it must be finite and have a boundary, but Zero/'Nothing' cannot be, and thus Zero cannot be outside the boundary; thus, an absolute One of Totality is not possible, either, leaving all to be relative?

Absolute/Fundamental: covariant quantum fields.

All else as relative/emergent/relational, including:
space, time, particles, classical fields, waves, light…

Thanks for this. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

so what scale — schopenhauer1

If there are no absolutes, then there is no scale and the universe is fractal or it just pain has no scale but what is relative to itself.

I leave all absolutes, particularly 'truth', in the hands of religionists. — fresco

What are the implications of no absolutes on our notions of God, free will, meaning, and more?

A truly free choice between two options can only exist if, in my situation of having to make a choice, the impact of the opposing "influences" is equal to each other. — Daniel C

And thus for those the outcome would not matter.

Eve was far from being a perfect being — Daniel C

Because Adam only donated a rib, not wanting her to cost him an arm and a leg.

'visualization' — fresco

Useless to talk about no absolutes and relations, due to too many metaphors but useful for hard reality addressing?

I still have a theory…