Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence. — Vera Mont

I have faith that this chair will support my weight. Empirical evidence - my weight, the load bearing structure of the chair, its strength, its object permanance (stability as a chair) , the ability of me to sit down. All of which can be measured, quantized, calculated to make a prediction that if I do sit down it will likely support my weight.

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny.

God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm) — 180 Proof

If something exists as "all things", can it's existence be characterised/reduced to "one" thing?

How do we go about that?

Can "potential" for example, be measured directly? Or only through what it does (indirect measurement).

Can energy be fully quantified through direct measurement - when both the act of measurenent, the observer and the measuring device, also contains and uses energy.

These are the limitations of quantification and qualification of a system from within the system using the system to do it.

When we talk about whether God exists. Do we mean as a singular object, thing or person? Do we talk about it as having a locality in space-time, or as the fabric of space-time itself? Do we aporoach it as a concept that applies to the full scope of reality?

If we take the premise does God exist? We already assume that existence is a larger concept that may or may not contain a God as a product which we must find evidence for "within" the universe- time, locality/space, matter (objectivity) and energy (ability).

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?" , and instead the sensible questions we would ask is "how does it exist?"

. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail. — finarfin

Yes agreed. Many conventional religions do fall far short of factoring in the elegant tool that is scientific method into their inquiry into the universe. I think philosophy is less rigid than religious dogmas in this respect.

This is because most conventional religions developed a long time ago in a different social landscape - without the knowledge elucidated by science. In essence they did the best with what they had to hand.

But religions come and go. New ones are developed. Old ones are lost to the annals of time. Because their texts are static, whilst the meaning and use of language is not, it evolves. So any texts that are copied hundreds of times over centuries, becoming ever more inaccurate, corrupted by errors and interpretative - the exact nuances of their meaning lost to changes in how we use languages as well as context, some languages too are dying or obsolete or getting there.

This doesn't preclude new theistic views. Ones that can try to integrate science, philosophy, intuition and spiritual archetypes into a framework where they don't all directly oppose one another but are in some sensible relationship.

All of these things are techniques of understanding reality. And whilst I have the highest regard for science, technology and their abilities, they are not without their own dogma and limitations.

That proof is only that which is repeatable, observable and measurable. This does not lend itself to any proofs of rare things, immeasurable things, unquantifiable things, scientific explorations that require being unethical or ones that try to objectify "subjectivity." Or singular unreproducible things - such as the unique individual, or the present moment. Neither are reproducible nor measurable in their entirety. If they were then all things could be predicted.

I believe if a fundamental truth is singular, and manifests all existants, it cannot be fully measured as an object/in an objective way, nor as something repeatable due to the diversity of distinct phenomena that arise from it. It can only be measured based on the presumption or character/restriction of the measurement being used.

Any decent modern approach to theism must acknowledge science and its ability to objectify and standardise features of the universe. It then has to be able to incorporate a mechanism for consciousness, beliefs, subjectivity, art, creativity and imagination - things science finds difficult to reduce to a scientific paradigm alone.

Finally we must accept that scientific paradigm is also not static nor final but always open to more reasoning, experiment and refinement. That paradigm has shifted several degrees many times, completely changing how we see the universe. For example the advent of eisnteins theories revolutionised many previously problematic or irreconcilable measurements.

My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of. — universeness

When did I say that was the case

I think that if all of us are incapable of owning what I think BELONGS to us, such as personal wonderment and awe, free thought, the right to think anew etc. — universeness

I don't think anyone is trying to detract from your personal experience of awe and wonderment. I for one am certainly not. If anything I endorse it.

All I'm saying is that you are as much part of reality as a rock, a planet, space-time etc. And that whether we like it or not, the universe has to be conscious because we know we are and we exist within it, we are part of it.

So the universe gives rise to awareness of itself. Because you are aware, and you're made from it.

The universe cannot demonstrate intent, and purpose or love and caring or even hate, despair and a need to destroy. — universeness

So humans (which do these things) are not part of the universe? We are something else removed from a the matter and energy around us?

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share. — finarfin

I see what you mean. New religion unlocked: the church of the floating ginger karaoke banana.

I think any credible definition for a believable God is one where it has the qualities neccesary to manifest the entirety of existence. As well as both logic and irrationality as existants (phenomena) that occur.

Physics is one means of interpreting such a universal god and it would cite that the energy contained in a banana is not sufficient to precipitate the existence of everything else.

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being.

Energy would probably serve better than a singing banana as a means to explain not only the universe but also the irrational products of energy (the notion of the singing banana)

The most common definition is "Justified True Belief" — Cidat

Belief can depend on justification. Justification can depend on truth.

Example: I believe in moneys value (belief) . This is justified because others agree and behave in the same way (justification) . It is true because we all transact and buy things. (truth)

Justification can depend on belief, belief can depend on truth

Example: money can be used to buy things (justification) because people believe in its value (belief). They believe it because money bought stuff for them in the past (truth).

Truth can depend on justification. Justification can depend on belief.

Example: I bought an apple (truth) because money has been known to buy things (justification). It's value comes from the fact that everyone has agreed to believe so (belief).

Truth can depend on belief. Belief can depend on justification.

I bought an apple (truth) because everyone believes that is possible with the use money (belief), and that belief comes from the fact that it has been done before (justified).

No matter what dependency or inter-relationship there is between the three, the final result is the same.

However if we remove any of the three. The sequence fails.

time itself is a circle.”

I agree with this. Human experience of time is chronological and linear (memory of the past and anticipation of the future).

Time outside of human experience is nothing more than repetitions, regular patterns, geometries: frequencies, oscillations, cycles, rates of vibration, rhythms, to-and-fro swinging, orbits, etc.

The connection between what we observe and how we form linear chronological accounts (human or personal history) is thus our clocks - our "time measuring devices" or maybe more accurately our "linear time creating and counting devices". Which all work as cycles that are single discrete units for linear counting. Seconds, minutes, hours, seasons, tides, sundials, pendulums, etc.

In essence linear time comes from a). conscious awareness and b). the chaotic changeable interaction of thousands of nature's cycles interacting with eachother: accelerating or decelerating, destroying or creating one another.

Which means the "past" state of affairs is never the same as the "present" or "future one" and adds reason to consider them as linear and progressive, one after the next.

But as far as nature is concerned, there is only the "rate-scape" - different parts of spaces experiencing different rates of change based on energy and matter content/interaction, no simultaneity or no universal "now".

But I know this, to every fiction there is an element of truth. — Raef Kandil

This is absolutely correct. The best fictions mimick the truth closely, or contain plausibility as their fundamental premise.

This is likely why so many conspiracies exist and why some of them are very popular, and it is also why the best fiction novels read well. Because the fiction is logically built up within the world of that book/film and based on the rules of that world.

Bad fictions or terrible lying highlights the truth too, not because it contains it, but from subtraction, because it makes the differences stark and obvious. Bad logic.

Everything in the "true world" (reality regardless of how we individually perceive it) has elements of truth or interacts with it/is in a some form of relationship with it.

As for "God" and its or his or her existence, I leave you with this sentiment: "If everyone has a unique concept of the word God and what it means, if every atheist has a specific term for god for which they reject, and every believer has a specific notion of god for which they accept, and they are all different and particular definitions, then what exactly are we talking about when we discuss the term? What is the standard? "

Are we simply talking cross purposes? Discussing different ideas as if they were the same idea?

The difficulty with determining the existence of God or Gods is one of definition. We can all agree that some definitions of God can be confidently rejected.

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility.

And perhaps, just maybe, there is one definition so accurate both logically and morally - all encompassing, that denying it would be as deluded as accepting that God is a singing karaoke banana.

That search continues to this day for such a definition so that we may decide whether to accept or reject it. Whether it satisfies all logic, reason and moral to accept it so.

Even then, probably not everyone will agree.

Long story short, I don't believe a theistic theory of existence must be neccesarily flawed, hateful or sinister and thus we must avoid theists or theism at all costs.

No, I believe instead that intentions are flawed. And if a theory happens on rare occasion to actually be well developed, fundamental, logical and accurate, it confers a lot of reasoning power.

I believe reasoning power combined with good intentions is divine.
Reasoning power combined with bad intentions is sadistic/ cruel.

Hence why religions (mass popularised philosophical theories of the unity of consciousness and the universe by origin - ie one's that explain both a logical and moral basis for what existence is and where it comes from) and war (misuse of such knowledge) virtually always come hand in hand.

Idiotic and deluded people can't do much harm regardless of their intentions. Because they lack efficiency, rationale and directive. Highly intelligent people on the other hand are the best and worst of us.
So if theistic theories are truly close to the universal "truth" they generate the best virtues and are misused and abused to commit the worst evils.

That is a common dichotomy in theism as a whole.

'It's the way god wants it,' is a well used theistic thought, that informs the politics and actions of many, and certainly supports the idea that only the chosen of god, deserve salvation. :roll:
Do you agree that such a viewpoint is nefarious?
Do you think it's important not to give sustenance to such or even offer breath to its embers? — universeness

Deities have been used for millenia to make people afraid, manipulate them or exploit them.

Two groups of people are at fault here.

Group 1 are those that cite deities as having conferred them divine rights. These people are opportunistic, egotistical and often have the most self serving/selfish and sinister agendas.

Group 2 at fault are those that never bothered to question group 1. For whatever reason they didn't use their common sense, logic/reason to see through the thinly veiled efforts to gain the upper hand or manipulate. Group 2 sitting idle and complaining about their treatment never organised themselves sufficiently to deny group 1 rulership.

And eventually, the tides change and revolts, mutinies etc happen.

The only way to live in peace, is to educate ourselves. Education is not so much the collection of arbitrary facts but rather a state of mind, a way of thinking. Being able to be critical, measured, reasoning etc.

That's the only way a society avoids such inequalities.
So in conclusion: people using theism as a means to gain power or oppress others is unacceptable. But, it doesn't mean theism is bad in its own right.

In essence most bases of theistic values are wisdom and kindness. And this is something I strive for.

But sadly the anti-thesis using the same knowledge base is "intelligent/cunning exploitation". Which is why so many regions were corrupted by the flaws of people.

Why is this 'it' you keep referring to not 'the universe and everything in it that is not me?'
Or is this 'It' you refer to, something you perceive IS YOU? — universeness

Hello again universeness. Sorry I haven't had time to reply as finishing up some work things before the weekend. I'll be brief now and address it in a bit more detail later.

Well, I'm not outside the universe. There is an externality to myself, as perceived by me, through which I observe "others, the world and the effects of my actions" . And I am part of the same external interactive environment for others, as perceived by them, from their point of awareness.

So none of us are outside this entity thus I don't really understand your above statement. Its not a case of everything else except for myself, or myself except for everything else. But both.

Yeah, me too. The question remains, do you think your great potato is self-aware and created this universe and is used as one of the main justifications for the divine right of theists to consider themselves 'the chosen one,' and who consider the rest of us as ultimately dammed? — universeness

I think the "great potato" as you say is self aware to certain degrees. It's self aware in the sense of every living sentient thing that's ever existed thus far and their unique experiences that they had.

Furthermore, I think the way it is aware evolves and changes over time. What it is aware of/capable of doing and experiencing, where and for how long it is aware, how many individuals are aware, what senses it can use and what data/information it can collect and process to establish a sense of self - changes.

Lastly, to say it "created the universe" separates it from its creation. Which for me I think is a misleading description as it places a deity somehwere outside of "itself" (everything).

I think its nature is "Potential" (like potential to be energy/time basically) and so it has the potential to emerge into material phenomenon from something that is not "nothing" (nothing would have no abilities/potential to do anything).
Potential is distinct from true nothingness by its capabilities to be/do stuff.

So in essence it didn't create the universe, but rather potential became the universe, and that potential for change in quality and evolution persists to this day as a fundamental constant underlying physics and chemistry.

As for "chosen ones", I don't believe anyone is special or selected tbh. This is a relic of archaic religious interpretations. Favouring specific people or groups has only ever lead to dictatorships/fascism, uncontrolled egomaniacism, discrimination, inequality, corruption, war, assassinations etc. The whole concept of a chosen one or chosen group (like the israelites for example) seems ridiculous.

If we are all made of the same entity, we share in that fact. The only choice we have is what aspect of it do we wish to manifest in ourselves and our behaviour towards others.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to make distinctions between where my theistic views come from verses preconceived notions from outdated or misinterpreted religions which I usually get lobbed at me left right and center the moment I even cough at the word theism. Because fundamentally you don't need a religion to believe in something almost incomprehensible/mysterious/elusive.

And I don't ascribe to any religion outright/in entirety but I do think they all have considerable fundamental overlap and speak of the same thing with different focuses and different errors.

The Whole Shebang. — Vera Mont

I like it. Haha. Especially because the bang aspect sort of references where it all supposedly began.

The answer is you regulate so that the consumer is incentivized or forced into the desired option. — Hanover

I agree. But political will is a reflection of the democratic will of the public in a healthy democracy at least. So really the only things that can be "forced" on people are those things they will actually abide by. And policies have failed before not because they werent implemented but because the mass of society persisted in ignoring it and thus it became "unenforceable". You can't fine or penalise the entire population.

So yes, regulation can and does work ofc. But we must time it for when conditions are ripe for its adoption.

In this case, its likely people would be happy to abide by enforced eco-consumption but it depends on the price gap between the alternative. You won't have much success for example insisting that people buy an eco product that is essential and also 5 times more expensive than the fossil fuel counterpart. If its a little bit more expensive it's doable.

So a lot of factors to consider

Yes, I got that. What I don't get is how what you describe qualifies as a deity, or whether something so big and round and wibbly-wobbly could have any point (I know, all points - which would still present as a continuous smooth surface). I recognize the concept and I don't perceive it, or the people who articulate it, as something to be wary of; but nor do I find any valances with which to engage. — Vera Mont

Thats entirely fair. I can understand where you're coming from. In essence, it is entirely up to the individual what credences or lackthereof they take from experience and the reality we all exist in.

The only reason I chose a Deity as the definition to which I applied all of these descriptors, is for the simple fact that part of it is conscious, and we as humans, appear to be the only thing we know of (so far ofc, I can't speak for a total lack of other life on other planets), that has cognitive capacity advanced enough to contemplate it.

So in essence, for now, it seems to have an aspect of personhood in the sense of "self" - multiple selves experiences it uniquely from their personal "I am".

And no other definition seems to quite encapsulate with such magnitude not only the objective universe, but also the ability to be aware within and from it and the seismic implications of everything, being, fundamentally connected and originating from the same mysterious thing.

But I don't blame other people for choosing other terms or seeing it as strictly a cold, dead, inanimate object of scientific exploration. Deity, non deity, universe, reality, existence, simulation, mother nature, the cosmos, for me the name is not so important, names are relatively arbitrary, call it "the great potato" for all I care haha, its the meaning, the relationships and interactions, that matter to me.

For me it's ultimately nameless, and at best I try to comprehend it to the maximum degree that my little human brain can manage with the limits of language and communication.

haha. That doesn't sound too promising, more of a "back-away slowly" thing. Oh well. Moving swiftly on I guess. In essence I was describing existence in as dynamic and interconnected a relationship as I could articulate.

What is the relationship between yourself and that deity? — Vera Mont

The same as everyone else's I guess. I was born within it, I live it, I will die because of it, I breathe it, I urinate it into the toilet, I throw it in the dump, I cherish and love it, I hate it, I ask what's the point in it, I discuss it on tpf, I am deceived by it, it convinces me to think differently about it for better or for worse, it frequently eludes me, I forget it, and sometimes if I'm lucky, I relearn it, remember it - in some brief moment of clarity, swiping away some of the major dead end paths I was stumbling on. I think about it. Sometimes I don't think much about it at all. I battle it, and in other instances I find myself living harmoniously with it.

I share it, I keep it to myself. It's me, it's you and its every opinion, view and perspective, wrong, right, bizarre, immoral, virtuous. Fiction and fantasy, logic and science. Hard physical proof and intuition in equal part pertaining to its many different interpretations and academic focuses.

Ultimately, I try revel in the beautiful side of it. It's benevolent half. Because I believe that's the only side of it worth worshipping. All the good stuff, but I appreciate the fact that in order to grasp at the good, one must experience the bad and compare them to develop understanding. Thats free will. That dichotomy is mutual and neccesary - like yin and yang, like the protagonist and antithesis. The heroes and villains. A must to distinguish these two qualities with growth and gain of hopefully some concrete knowledge as to what the nature of this deity is. It is self aware, and it is not aware of itself at all, and everything in-between.

In essence everyone worships some aspect of its virtues: intelligence, beauty, power, authority, wisdom/knowledge, recognition, riches and abundance, comedy, creativity and imagination, skills/talents etc.
But we also confuse what is good about it. We live in its delusion-truthscape. We cannot unanimously pin that down and contradict ourselves and it repeatedly, and so we go to war and cause great conflicts over what aspects or parts of this deity we should value.

Does that answer your question? :)

How can you not have a spatiotemporal dimension but BE a spatiotemporal dimension? — universeness

It's like saying I am Ben (a definition) and I have "Ben-ness" (the total sum of qualities pertaining to my definition).

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, is and has its own quantities and qualities. It is space-time as a property (an observed phenomenon) and all individual localities and times as quantitatively measurable compartments we have assigned to it (seconds, minutes, meters, centimeters, Astronomical units etc).

You can't posit 'it doesn't have,' because 'it is.' — universeness

There is no difference between "has" and "is" when it is the entirety of existence. These linguistic distinctions break down, think about it, objects contained within a set "are" things that "have" properties.
The entire set is all things and is all properties or similarly has all things and has all properties. In either case it doesn't make any difference to the description. It's jist a hangup on choice of verb which is based on discrete objects not the entire universe.

It doesn't have a position in time or space for example: located on the andromeda galaxy at 3 billion years into the evolution of the universe, because it is at all times and locations simultaneously - as in a singular existant permeating all of existence - obviously, because it is all of existence.

Sure but you seem to be suggesting A and not A at the same time, which is, as I'm sure you know, against the logic law of non-contradiction. — universeness

Firstly, if contradictions don't exist, how can a law of non contradiction exist? And if they "shouldn't" exist, they do exist despite that desire. In either case contradictions exist. Insisting that they don't exist because of a law renders the premise of the law non existant. That is a contradiction in itself. Ironically.

But what I will say is contradictions exist based on premises. Change the premise and you change displace/remove the contradiction. For example the grandfather paradox is a contradiction based on the ability to time travel. If you change the premise for say "linear ttime doesn't exist outside of chronologic memorised experience" then it is impossible to travel through any physical external linear time as it doesn't exist. And thus the grandfather paradox is resolved. The contradiction may shift elsewhere or you may encounter new ones based on new premises.

And yes my theorised entity does include A and not A simultaneously it's called superposition. And thus allows for discordance, opposition, perspective, individuality of perception and belief in consciousness, observation, locality, relative motion etc.

It's like, having a picture of a 96 on the floor and not knowing what the original inscribers intended orientation is. In that way it is a superposition of truth in seeing 69 from one location, truth in seeing 96 from the opposite side, and truth is seeing the possibility for it to be either from the middle. And then arguing about "which is correct" which is absurd.

Theyre all correct within the confines of their premise (the location from which the numbers were observed). If you change the premise (angle of observation or "perspective" you change your observed logical deduction).

This is the premise for Duality.

Therefore it can be A) 69, B). 96, and AB both numbers simultaneously. Depending on what bias you want to take.

None of them individually equals the absolute truth, only a partial truth. All of them taken together as a dynamic, now that is a bit more fleshed out and balanced.

So an omnipresent, immaterial/omnimaterial, outside of what we conceive as spacetime, amoral/omnimoral, inanimate animate, existent. — universeness

Not outside space-time. It is space-time as in it is the universe and its entire content. Nothing exists outside of the universe in this sense.

Yeah, I see your problem!!!!
To me your rationale should reject such a proposed set of attributes as those of a non-existent rather than an existent. — universeness

It can't reject the existence any more than it can accept it. To use dichotmies as a reason for rejection is bias. Bias towards monisms as proofs. Ie there is only one correct answer and not opposite states.

But basically, defining everything as a single whole unit, is inherently problematic. As definition is a process of exclusion/segregation/discrimination: "A but not B", "up but not down", "within but not outside" etc.
Knowning that A and B are both existants that operate contrary to one another the full set is a full dichotomy: AB (dualism) or "A + B, as well as A in isolation (monism 1) and B in isolation (monism 2). The dualism contains polarised monisms.

As long as you are enjoying the quest, and you are not hurting innocents along the way, all power to you! — universeness

Thank you I am enjoying it.
Analogy for this would be that perceiver 1 only accepts evidence 1 based on premise 1. Perceiver 2 only accepts evidence 2 based on premise 2. And so they argue with opposing logics, rationals, reasons and experiences.
Whilst the theistic concept I am pursuing would say that in both instances they have practised bias.

The truth would be someone in the middle encapsulating both bias about a common entity as a mutual relationship to one another from within the entity, using the entity as evidence or means for rejection of the entity.

None of them was in a position to wipe out all life on Earth. None of them gave itself a God-given right to do so. — Vera Mont

True, no other animal has had such potential for a disharmonious existence with mother nature. Or to threaten their own existence.

However, there is always 2 sides to every coin. We as humans have great potential. The quality of that potential can be good or bad and depends on our awareness/education or understanding of the world and then what we choose to do with that knowledge. What actions we convert it into.

We are just as capable of increasing the diversity and stability of ecosystems as we are to destroy them. Just as capable at being gardeners as we are to being a blight on life.

But for that potential to take on wholesome qualities, we need a fundamental and copernican change in our attitude towards the world we live in. Namely that we don't need to outcompete everything. A lot of that comes back to our relationship with death.

Communities that believed in transcendence, afterlives and the idea that the essence of being cannot be destroyed even after death of the body, are inherently more at peace with the environment and treat it with more respect, seeing it as a living breathing organism or "gaia-type" entity in its own capacity.

This probably why they were less interested in imposing capitalist, materialistic and possessive behaviours on other civilizations by conquering and colonialism.

Sometimes they're happy doing their own project, but they're even happier in a project they can share voluntarily, as equals, contributing to a team effort. They're unhappiest, they're taking orders from some idjit who gets double the money they get and hasn't a clue what they're actually doing. — Vera Mont

This is for sure true. Having power tends to lead to arrogance because one equates power with entitlement/righteousness. I am in power therefore I must be correct and what I say goes, because the power I exert dictates so and I then observe the effects of such dictations as proof that what I say, is what will happen.

This leaves less room to maintain a sense of humble equality with others. Or to be contested or denied action.

To read such words from you is disappointing.
What are the attributes of the god you believe in? — universeness

I'm sorry to disappoint you haha. The attributes of such an entity in my mind is that it is non-local, because it is in all locations. It is non substantial (in any specific or discrete manifestation) because it is all substances. It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. It is neither good nor bad but does form all dichotomies/opposites. It is neither inanimate nor animate as it is both what is observed as well as all observers and the content of their consciousness and perceptions.

As you can see this is problematic to any monoism - physicalism, materialism or immaterialism alone and in isolation. As such a definition is already too restrictive/reductive.

So instead I chose not to deny either account but create a fusion between them - a grounds for interrelationship. Hence dualism as we previously talked about.
The tao is an excellent basis for this account and if I had to subscribe to any religion it would probably be this one. But alas any accurate God description must account for all religious contemplations and how they relate to one another. Some are more personified and others are more phenomenonological.

You wont get away with such declarations. It's not a case of imposing your views on others, its a case of justifying your views to others. If you don't open to full scrutiny then your 'theism,' will be ridiculed in the same way as all other unjustified theism. — universeness

I'm more than happy to have my views put on the chopping block. If I am to propone any such idea I must not refrain from explaining when asked to. I don't intend to "get away with" anything. I have no sinister motive.

Most importantly, my views on a God are not static but open to reform and refinement. As I don't have all the answers. But try to work from the most macroscopic downwards and try to remove logical paradox by correcting associations/relationships in a reasonable manner.

And maybe a great many products of our present system do feel that way — Vera Mont

I agree in the sense that entertainment is the religion of the masses. Social media has shown our endless hunger for being entertained. It's quite hedonistic in that way

As we are discovering, there are limits to how much energy the planetary system can manage. Trillions of tons of energetic coal and oil have turned into an existential threat. — BC

Well lets not forget that the energy the earth receives every second, minute, hour, day, week etc from the sun makes our fossil fuel derived energy look like a speck of dust on the blackboard.

So the quality of energy is equally important as to the amount of energy when we are considering progress.

Before humans lit the first controlled/ self-contained fires to run their industries - food, metallurgy, central heating etc, the planets only actively harnessed energy was the sun.

Ever since we have become more and more dependent on chemical and then nuclear energy to power civilisation. And thus changed the chemical composition of the environment (atmosphere and oceans).

Solar energy, geothermal and all the other renewable energy sources (indirectly powered by the sun) were always more stable and wholesome as an energy source than material chemical energy.

To become sustainable there is a great irony - in that we must return to what was already before - a 100% renewable and recyclable energy status of living systems.

There is no limit to thr energy we can harness as long as that energy harnessing isn't directly dangerous to our existence (the air we breath, the water we drink m, the food we eat etc).

in simply terms then you propose "progress" is a fallacious concept. Going back to the OP this is wgat I was getting at. Progress is defined from within itself and also from goals, agendas or future prospects.

For me, all there is is change. And "progress" assumes a beginning and endpoint to that change. But energy as the source of change is relatively eternal compared to the brief and limited perspective of any human experiences.

We may see climate change mitigation as progress. But we haven't factored in other future adversities. For example if there is an existential threat from an asteroid down the line, it doesn't matter if an asteroid hits a world with a stable or unstable climate, the progress of climate mitigation is overshadowed by larger issues. And is thus null and void lest the greater threat be overcome in the meantime

Everything is 'ultimately' pointless since entropy is a fundamental law of the universe. — ChatteringMonkey

I actually believe entropy has counterparts acting in opposition. I implore newton's law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction as a basis for this counteraction.

Entropy is the tendency for energy to disperse and become more disordered, irregular and chaotic. However we can see from the solar system, earth and the life it fostered that organised, "regular" or "cyclical" systems are becoming more complex, regulated, agentic and ordered. As order confers complexity and control and possibly consciousness as a direct product - agency or autonomy.

Gravity pulls mass together. Entropy pushes energy apart. And energy and mass are equivalent. Space and time are the factors that differentiate the two equivalent states.

This would seem to demonstrate that there are forces working against entropy through the precipitation of energy into matter.

Is the level of organisation required to produce life the antithesis of entropy? Who knows. But such a calculation would require quantifying both entropy and the amount of organisation and life present in the universe, a calculation not yet possible, therefore it remains as a possibility.

It may not satisfy a balance. But then again, it could. We do not know.

But if they are balanced opposing phenomena, then entropy dominance is merely the illusion created by "bias" - the bias in observation of the inanimate universe by animate (living) things.

I would imagine one highly organised, structured and controlled organism is equivalent to a whole lot of disorganisation/ chaos we see around us.

Still parasitic and predatory, on a much larger scale. — Vera Mont

Well everything that utilises energy can be considered parasitic or predatory when compared to a universe where energy is never used by life, and thus life does not exist.

We are restricted by the physics and chemistry of life/survival to the fact that we always need resources and energy to promote our continuity. Is it parasitic as a fundamental principal? I don't think so.

Parasitism is more when our benefit comes at the direct cost of other living systems. But if our life was based on 100% renewable energy and 100% recycled material, I would not say we are being parasites. We have merely minimised our existences impact on ecology.

The Really Big Problem is considering ourselves the summit and omega of all life in the universe, with an absolute, uncontested (except by our own brethren) right to exploit it, suck it dry and toss it away. — Vera Mont

Well as pessimistic as this seems, you're probably right in that we believe ourselves the most advanced existant so far. It is certainly the case on earth. As for the universe o don't think anyone can qualify this with any concrete merit as we simply don't know if more advanced beings exist in the great beyond.

Let's not forget that before us some other animal in our direct ancestral line was the most sophisticated.
And at one point in time there was only one lifeform (the universal common ancestor) and at that time, it was the most advanced/complex system to date.

This complexity seems to continue to increase, switching between species. So perhaps we too are also just another cog in the machine, and maybe AI will be the newest update, the most complex system in a few decades. Transcendence of awareness to the artificial sphere. In which case we will have to make way for their more evolved status - greater permanence, more knowledge, more control and power, greater abilities.

It corrupts the human psyche even more effectively than power — Vera Mont

Well in many ways money and power are synonymous. The most powerful people on earth are those that either have a). The greatest wealth or b). The greatest political influence or both. Usually they're intermixed.

On average, 1/670. That's not so bad, given what a foot-soldier's life is worth compared to an emperor's. — Vera Mont

You're correct. Some human lives are more dispensable merely by profession and compensated poorly for that possibility. Military, especially in countries at war or with civil unrest are such an example. How much does one pay for someone to risk their life and health on a day to day basis?

Do what you love, share what you make, take what you need.
Learn what you can, teach what you know. — Vera Mont

Absolutely. Brava. I like this proverb/quote.

The usual conservative reaction to social welfare or GBI is: "Nobody will have an incentive work." — Vera Mont

I think this is at most partially true. People I think are generally happiest when their life has purpose. That purpose can come from anything but usually comes from career or if not career then hobbies funded by a less than desirable career. In either case there is always incentive to work so long as one is fit and able.

On the other hand, there will always be a small cohort of people that don't work nor want to work. And are for lack of a better word "social deadweight" as they don't contribute to taxes or their pension and take more in social welfare payments then they ever contributed.

But this is going no where any time soon. However it is an opportunity for jobs in careers focused on encouraging those that refuse to work to become inspired, to socially integrate, to find purpose or develop skills in the areas they enjoy so that they may participate in the workforce in a way they actually might enjoy.

Will 100%of people ever be employed? Of course not, but funding the small percentage that don't want to to stave off homelessness and crime is certainly the best option verses leaving them financially helpless regardless of their attitude.

Laziness exists. And we as people who pay tax must pay for their upkeep. You can argue it as unfair. But you can also argue it as being at a distinct financial advantage. You will have more privileges and financial freedom than anyone who settles for living off the state.

In the last several millennia, 'we' have not progressed beyond a scarcity-based, anxiety-driven 'global civilization', — 180 Proof

I can only imagine this is because we have not yet managed to make ourselves or any of our creations immortal.
Or "relatively immortal" compared to the blink of an eye lifespan of any given individual.

Perhaps this is why many imaginings of the future is an intergalactic, multiplanetary artifical sentience that feeds off the most long-lived and sustainable energy sources: perhaps deriving energy not even from starlight which is finite, but even more fundamental forces like gravity.

Such a massive civilization significantly improves the odds of us sustaining a sentience that can survive millions of years even if several cohorts die off in the process.

But even then, existential threats will likely always exist. If not from the universes hostile environment itself, then from the community of sentient beings which are always capable of intergalactic wars/genocides.

The desire to continue being alive/aware comes with a natural aversion to death. If we were to somehow prove in the future that consciousness is indestructible, fundamental or goes beyond physical bodies, I would imagine this would ameliorate our fear of death.

Im sure it is for thus reason that religions popularised the afterlife. As it gives some solace to the innate fear/anxiety of being alive for a finite time.

oh interesting I never heard if this but it makes total sense

Anything that doesn't promote those is decoration - which is not necessarily a bad thing. — Ludwig V

Well let's not forget that decoration is frequently part of one's arsenal of tactics to reproduce. Picture a peacock.
So any auxiliary attribute that promotes having sex no matter how arbitrary or random those traits may seem to actual survival, are important to the species that has them for sexual selection purposes. As long as it doesn't detract from survival outside of mating it stays.

I wonder how many attributes of humans exist because they made women and men more desirable to one another. Why for example, do men have beards and women do not?

What determined the beard as masculine rather than feminine?

So some people are developing space flight and even colonization (not to mention exploitation) of the moon and the planets while war, famine and disease still rampage around the only planet we actually live on. — Ludwig V

Should we look to home first? Should earthly problems be our sole perogative before choosing to undertake endeavours further afield? Or is taking endeavours towards space travel a neccesity to address the problems at home, even if just to inspire and motivate perhaps?

That doesn't mean we should not try to solve the problems we have. In some cases, we will succeed; in other cases we will fail; some we will not even recognize. — Ludwig V

True, and in addition some problems are currently considered good things and some good things are currently considered problematic.

What else? — Ludwig V

There is nothing else.

Out of curiosity, if you had to discern a direction, point or "aim" of humanity ie. "where we are going" - what would you say that is?

Or furthermore, would you say evolution doesn't have a purpose its running towards but instead it's purpose is behind it - ie what it comes from out of pure neccesity?

That's fair. As you said I think it has a lot to do with personal notions of the directionality, "end goals" or aims, motivation of humanity as well as what one thinks is good or bad respectively. And between all those variables I guess there is huge scope for whether one believes true progress does occur or not.

I think it's pretty fashionable to be pessimistic about the notion of social improvement. — Tom Storm

Maybe. For me I'm not sure if I am witnessing progress or simply change. But in any case I'm not pessimistic about it.

If it were to be true that we are not progressing towards anything that is ultimately and outright better/or improved verses the past (as in that the amount of happiness and suffering hasn't changed and remains equal through time).
This doesn't bother me.

Progress or no progress, my personal view is that it is what it is and its enough for me anyways not to feel pessimistic or disenfranchised about life.

For some the prospect that everything may being fundamentally pointless (that progress in the end is futile) is a source of great sadness/depression.

. We need to wean ourselves from throw-away economy. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Some industries are more throw-away for sure.
I think there's probably no better example than fashion.

The whole premise of fashion shows and catwalks is something "new", "fresh" or different. It has one of the greatest turnovers in relevance. It behaves like an ADHD child dropping the thing they liked 10s ago for something new and shiny which they'll throw away for the next in another 10s.

Fashion is so wasteful as there is nothing wrong with the clothes of last season other than the fact people are bored and don't want to wear them again. Closets full of perfectly good clothes worn only once or twice.

I read of startups now where you bring your last season clothes and they get modified several times over the course of the life of the piece so that your jacket you bought 7 years ago looks almost completely different now and so stays current/fresh using the same fabric or less fabric then it woukd use to make an entirely new item if clothing. It's a move in the right direction - satisfying both the desire to keep up with fashion trends but also to recycle.

Well if "things" can be assessed in monetary terms, why not resources, land, water, time, work, wildlife and human life? — Vera Mont

Should they be? I don't think so. Are they? Sadly yes.
There's even a valuation of human life (insurance companies). And the popular quote "time is money" reflects the fact that your salary reflects how much your hours of life left are worth compensating.

An hour of life of a minimum wage worker doing a job they don't want to do is worth less than that of an hour of the life of a tech CEOs.

Hence why in an ideal world we would all do jobs we love/are passionate about. As if you love your job you "don't work a day of your life so to speak".

You're essentially lamenting the fact that people don't care enough about eco cutlery. — Tzeentch

Haha I see your point and enjoy the humour in it. However I don't have a specific penchant for eco cutlery. Reflected by the fact that I don't own an eco cutlery company. It was simply an arbitrary example to highlight the nature of the issue.

You're probably right that it wouldn't have faired better on a barter system. As at the end if the day all systems of economy are based on "value". And we as humans apply value to literally everything.

To suggest that the use of waste products equals a free lunch is wrong. It's a free lunch for the eco cutlery producer, paid for by the guac producer, so not a free lunch after all. — Tzeentch

Then it's not actually free, is it? — Tzeentch

You're correct. Nothing is truly "free" as everything relies on fundamental principles of energy and entropy as their basis. Energy is a currency in its own right and one that nature deals in. We have supplemented this with our own symbol of currency - "money". And thus the concept of "free" is based on which currency is being considered. Things can be free of charge (free of monetary expense) but they of course have a physics based expense too.

Let's get down to the root of what I wished to say.
The environment offers us a net surplus of currency (energy) from the Sun. And though we know that even the sun is not eternal for the purpose of our short existence we can consider it a stable supplier of "free currency" - solar energy.

For our economies to work without impacting on the balances of nature, all industry and economy must obey the principles of living on a finite planet with a steady influx of energy to use for our "business as usual" - from the ground up.

This means that all waste products must be able to be converted into a substrate if value (recycling). As cycles are the fundamentally most stable and self perpetuating phenomena in nature.

So in essence, we must "tie up the loose ends of economy". And that means adopting the belief that economic growth is not indefinite. We live on a finite planet. So recycling is an absolute must.
We cannot create "terminal processes" like waste plastic that doesn't degrade for tens of thousands of years. Terminal processes are not stable or sustainable.

If we could develop a bacteria for example that could convert plastic back into crude oil, then fossil fuels would be a renewable resource. And then all we have to mitigate is the carbon footprint. If we could address that with carbon capture or planting more trees etc then again we have created a sustainable cycle.

If all these activities loose ends are circled back into soemthing organic and reusable instead of terminal, then we are golden.

We can truly "keep calm and carry on".

But as it stands economy is not based on 100% recycling its based on maximising product and by default maximising terminal waste. The terminal waste is where all our problems arise from.

Capitalists, because they only really care about their right to sate their own notions of excess and theists, as they believe, that their true glorification will happen in the next life and not in this one — universeness

Quite right. Well said. However I would point out that not all theists believe in an afterlife nor any specific entitlements in this one.

I am a theist. But I don't ascribe to any current religion as I find many aspects of them arbitrary or harmful to other peoples way of life. Theyre all in need of an update I guess as many are archaic and the language and culture they were built in has changed.

So I chose to develop my own theistic theory all things considered.

My relationship to the universe is a unique one and I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone all I offer is discussion and my views. The rest is up to others. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.