The first question one would put to any 'intelligent designer' is 'what the fuck is wrong with you?'. — StreetlightX

That's why I like the idea of a semi-aware consciousness, that is only now becoming aware of what it really is, and what it is truly capable of doing. Either something childlike, creating what it can until its reasoning and skills develop, or in a just-waking-up kind of haze, where there creative capability is diminished, and some confusion between dream and reality persists.

I've nearly died twice. Both times, I simply lost consciousness, and regained consciousness not too long thereafter. No lights, no experiences, nothing (similar to when I've been put to sleep for ECT). Both times, my survival was unlikely, there were no direct witnesses, and it was impossible to validate the chain of events. This is what points me toward Question 1 & Option 1 plus Question 2 & Option 3 having some credibility.

The purpose is to create, observe, learn, and evolve. To have fun. — Rich

Sounds a bit like what Jim Carrey said: "We're just conscious awareness dancing for itself for no other reason but to stay amused."

Or, like I said earlier, could we be part of the universe figuring out its own existence, not really having or not really knowing a true purpose; having vast intelligence, but only semi-aware, similar to the drug-induced states we can experience as humans.

Why would it make more sense if nothing had ever existed? — Harry Hindu

Because nothingness wouldn't require all of the perfect variables that make our existence possible. Because there would be no paradoxes to explain away.

If you are baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists, wouldn't an intelligent designer qualify as something that "exists" and you should be equally baffled by it's existence? Everything you ask about quarks and atoms would need to be asked about the intelligent designer too. Why doesn't God need a creator?

If you're going to say that God is eternal, then let me just stop you right there. The universe, or the multiverse (everything in it's entirety), could be eternal and without a designer. So your whole point for questioning the existence of everything could be equally applied to your belief in the existence of a God. — Harry Hindu

Right, it would make much more sense if nothing had ever existed... but here we are! Knowing that there are currently unexplainable paradoxes (e.g. infinite space, infinite time, infinite regression), I would guess that humans are currently incapable of understanding their own existence, never mind the existence of some creative intelligent force. But there is one true answer, whether it is one or a combination of the current philosophies, or something as of yet unconsidered. Unless biocentrism is part of this truth, I will likely never know the true nature of the universe.

Although given the acceleration of scientific advancement, we may come closer to figuring out the nature of consciousness, and the inner workings of quarks and such, in my lifetime. Or will anti-aging and cell regeneration somehow manage to extend my life indefinitely, so that this consciousness will never cease to exist... :-O

But I think ID errs in believing that the existence or otherwise of a God, is something that can be proven - or disproven! - by the science. — Wayfarer

Could it be said that science's inability to explain the reason for the seemingly intelligent behavior of subatomic particles and the nature of consciousness supports the idea that there is some sort of ID at work, perhaps one that is still becoming aware of its own nature? The ever-increasing known complexity of the universe seems congruent with elements of biocentrism and quantum mechanics - where things only exist when observed. Did atoms exist before we were able to see them, or is that just the universe's attempt to explain all of the wondrous things it has unwittingly created in a vastly intelligent semi-aware state?

Even assuming (without justification) that the Universe was designed, there is nothing intelligent about it. — Maw

You do know that you are stuck to a giant spinning round rock that is flying around a big ball of fire, right? X-)

Is this the answer?

I've never heard of this guy before... Did this article only appear because I went 'looking' for it? This seems to point to Question 1 & Option 1 plus Question 2 & Option 3 - where I am the only truly self-aware entity in my version of reality, and I'm slowly figuring out what I really am... :s

So a bunch of people sitting around painting pictures and playing music would be somehow more meaningful? To what end?

@Rich

Finally we agree on something! X-)

Given that we exist, it seems impossible for nothing to have existed at any point. Is it possible that consciousness persists, and that it is as though it is immediately reborn as soon as it dies? Since there would be no experience in a state of nothingness, there would be no sense of time passing.

@VagabondSpectre

Determinists seemed determined to wring everything meaningful out of life, most especially the ability to manifest spontaneous creativity. — Rich

How can you wring something out when it's not there to begin with? What grand meaning is there to life, aside from what has been biologically programmed (i.e. survival)? Determined or not, fated or not, there's no other real known point to life.

Don't worry, depression is all in your head. I'm sure anxiety is too...

Click here for idiotic rant

It doesn’t really make sense to me how time could exist if there’s no space since they are in a sense the same thing. — SonJnana

It seems to me that this may be true when trying to measure time. To me, it still makes sense to say some sort of unmeasured absolute time passes at the same rate for all things all of the time. To illustrate, consider two human beings born at the same time in the same location. One travels to a far away place in space, and returns 20 years later (local time). Even if their watches measured a different amount of time, they have still existed for the same amount of absolute time.

I think the one on evil was deleted because I referred to my ex-wife as being proof of evil. As evil as she is, she probably saw it and had it removed.

Interesting. To me, it would make way more sense for nothing to have ever existed. But here we are...

But that would mean that nothingness could not have existed in between the two events, as the end of the reverse big bang would be instantly followed by the new big bang. Did we just prove that nothingness could never have existed??? (I think my brain is breaking... haha)

Time is really a measurement of change, isn't it? — JustSomeGuy

I think time can measure how long something stays the same too. Imagine the entire universe perished into nothingness, in some sort of reverse big bang. Then at some point, a new big bang occurred, out of which something emerged from nothingness. Surely, time could be said to be passing between those two events, even though nothing existed for a certain duration (i.e. non-changing nothingness existed for 2 years)?

Agreed. Timelessness doesn't make sense. For something to happen, something has to undergo change during a progression of time. In fact, time would continue to exist even if absolutely no change was occurring. Time would exist even if nothing else existed.

That doesn't mean the idea that there are no causes is wrong. That might make sense in some situations also. As I said, I get it and I think it can be useful. — T Clark

I think it would be amiss to say there are cases where cause does not exist, at least to some extent. Even if we introduce probabilities, cause is still relevant. Consider a man approaching an intersection when the light turns yellow. This happens 10 times when he is exactly the same distance away, at the same time of day, in the same weather conditions. There are no other cars or pedestrians. If he stops 9 out of those 10 times, we could say that the combination of his innate biological traits, his previous experience in such a situation, and his expectation of results, governed his responses. There may indeed be a random element, but the combination of circumstances is heavily weighted toward stopping.

Now change the experiment, and put a woman in his place. She would probably blow the light 9 times out of 10, because females cause way more accidents.

Did you empirically sense through sight, smell, sound, taste and/or touch the act of one causing the other? Or did you only empirically sense two different occurrences and then add something non-empirical--the act of causing--with your imagination? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If there is no gap to be filled then why do you bring an act of causation into it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You're going to cause me to put you in a class with Rich if you keep going on like this...

Cause isn't a physical thing to be sensed. It's a term describing the link between one thing that happens due to another thing having preceded it. I would even venture to say that a cause need not be true 100% of the time (i.e. if 85% of people who are sexually abused experience depression, I would label sexual abuse as a partial or probable cause of or contributor to depression). Again, cause is a description of a chain of events, not a physical thing to be observed.

What is the cause, and what is the effect? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It may be difficult to pinpoint the root cause... but I could say that this discussion caused the idea of poking myself. I could say my intent to poke myself caused me to pick up the pin. I can definitely say that the pressing of the pin's point into my arm caused a pain signal to reach my brain! There is no gap to be filled, other than the fraction of time it takes for the signal to reach the brain and be interpreted.

If the mind operates in a similar fashion, there will be some kind of randomizer in the brain, whose output will require the attribution of meaning, which could also be random. — tom

If its actions are truly random, then the mind would not be "setting its own initial conditions". To set its own initial conditions in any coherent way, there would have to be some consideration of inputs and expected outputs. Even a random number generator requires a seed before it can generate a meaningless random number.

I am saying that causes exist only in the imaginations of humans. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Am I not understanding your definition of 'cause'? If I grab a pin and poke myself in the arm, am I not causing myself to experience the pain of being poked by a pin?

What if the mind is capable of setting its own initial conditions? — tom

What information would be considered when choosing the initial conditions? It would have to rely on expected results based on existing information, once again leading to determinism...

I am male but I captured some demons' semen outside my body. It happen to me twice. The first was performed by Satan and the second one by a Friend/Brother, I don't have any name for Him. — bahman

Sounds frightening. Sorry you had to experience that. :(

Isn't this totally opposite of what I wrote? — Rich

Maybe when taken out of context. You still attach some magical quality to Mind that is the final factor in decision-making, independent of the experiences and expected results.

Someone's bouncing particles are having a bad day. — Rich

True, but my comments still stand! haha

Why is pointlessness even relevant? — Agustino

It probably doesn't help that I work at an old-age home, where most of the people don't know who they are anymore, can't carry a conversation, and/or have to wear diapers and can't wipe their own butts. Seeing people in varying states of mental and physical decay is a constant reminder of what we're all working toward...

When I was 12-14 and played video games, I remember that I would often end up compulsively researching how to be the best at a certain game — Agustino

I think that's a common drive for a lot of people; one that comes from this learned need to be somehow different from or better than others. I know this played a large role for most of my life, and lingers on despite having recognized it for what it really is. For example, I get some small satisfaction at being the #1 Word Buzz player in the world (and from letting other people know! haha), despite it having no real use in my life aside from passing the time.

Having a Mind that is making choices is exactly what we experience in life. — Rich

There's that magical Mind again, that is uninfluenced by the experiences it has experienced, and unaffected by the results it expects. Just because there are too many determinants, both conscious and sub-conscious, doesn't mean the determining factors don't exist. (To which Rich will reply, "There's that magical Determinism again, determining everything that happens. Mind is what you experience every day. It's what you are experiencing right now. Ruminate."

By the way, are you standing on the median in this example?

I want to cross the street. I look left and then I look right and I decide to go right. — Rich

Otherwise, I think you're still going to be walking on the sidewalk instead of crossing the street...

and having sex with me during this state or in some occasion when I am awake — bahman

Did you happen to capture any 'demon semen'? Sorry, couldn't resist!

I'm surprised to see that so many otherwise seemingly fairly intelligent people believe in NDEs and OOBEs... ;) I mean, anything's possible, but you would think by now we would have developed some method of proving them indisputably if they did in fact exist. I'm with @jorndoe... Spurious, suspect, and dubious!

@Agustino

I think the problem is that I spent a good portion of my life chasing the wrong points, and the consequences of those actions are interfering with my chasing the right points... haha

Maybe it would help if you indicated for what the donations would be used... Not everyone is aware of the costs of running a forum like this.

@JustSomeGuy @schopenhauer1

I continue to exist because I can't bear the thought of causing unwanted suffering in others, even though I would likely not be around to witness it. I also fear the result of a failed suicide attempt, ending up with an even worse set of circumstances (partial brain damage, paralyzation).

Being 'trapped in life' this way, I aim to do things that will minimize suffering or maximize long-term contentment. I take antidepressant medication, undergo repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation once a month (another treatment for depression), talk to a counselor when life's stresses are high (like now, while I'm fighting my ex's potential move with my daughters to a city 6 hours away), work a steady job, exercise regularly, stick to a decent diet, get an adequate amount of sleep, and pay attention to the people in my life that matter.

It may sound like a pretty dismal perspective, but by doing all of these things, I manage to maintain a decent mood most of the time, and enjoy a lot of what life brings. Thoughts of the ultimate pointlessness of existence have less power when I maintain this feel-good regime.

Causation/determination exists, regardless of how many factors are interwoven. That is not to say that someone could predict even the simplest seemingly random event, such as the flip of a coin. Pre-determination could only exist if someone were capable of measuring all of the interwoven factors in real time, and using those measurements to predict an outcome, also in real time. No one I know can do that...

Anyone have some cheerful advice for a dad facing the possible relocation of his daughters?

I think the odds are very much in my favor, given that the children's best interests is the main factor considered by the courts, but the thought of losing consistent quality contact with them is quite distressing nonetheless.

I still say it's better to change tracks and minimize the unwanted suffering. I would change the track even if it were one person and someone's pet lizard, versus one person.

There's no murder involved - it's simply minimizing the damage that will occur in the circumstances. It's kill three, or kill one. Not kill three, or murder one. For it to be murder, you would have had to intentionally sabotage the brakes, or know the brakes are malfunctioning, and intentionally arrange for there to be people on the track.

I think there is a tendency in most people to make decisions that will minimize the level of unwanted suffering in others. Being forced to make a decision quickly, with no information other than the number of people that will die, the odds are that there will be less suffering if you choose the track with one person on it.

Of course, having more information may change the decision... For example, the three workers on one track are convicted murderers that show little chance of rehabilitation, and the single worker is a hard-working father of three.