Voila! Just like magic.I must add that this is something I have not given much thought, but if you were to ask me to, I would go for the sudden popping into existence. — StarsFromMemory
Voila! Just like magic.
That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame. — Gnomon
Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory is a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time — christian2017
That rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time. It doesn't apply to the creator of space-time. As space-time creatures, we don't know what the rules are for spaceless-timeless existence. But I think the ancient Greeks had the right idea in their myth of Cosmos from Chaos. Chaos was not a real space-time thing, but only infinite Potential : creative power. It was metaphysical, not physical. This is inherently a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact. :smile:Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. — Leviosa
Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.
That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required. :smile: — Gnomon
We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.
There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.
There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.
It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.
I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".
Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex
Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence — Gnomon
Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. As time allows for one moments to be followed by another moment. Imagine time not occurring, so everything is frozen and still. Thinking about this we can tell that this can not give birth to time. So time is timeless. Which makes absolutely no sense. (If there’s an discrepancy then help me out pls) — Leviosa
No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up. — christian2017
In my Enformationism worldview, the Laws of Physics are simply initial conditions and logical operators of the program that is running as Reality. The Programmer, or "super turtle" if you prefer, defined specific limitations on infinite possibilities to describe the kind of world S/he wanted to create. For example : another species of universe could be created, in which energy never condenses into matter, and any creatures that emerge are merely clouds or fields of energy.Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent? — 3017amen
No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:
I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility. :nerd: — Gnomon
In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).
I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.
And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence? — 3017amen
That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". — christian2017
Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound soulsJust to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" — christian2017
FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd:"collective consceeeence" — christian2017
That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices. — Gnomon
Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls — Gnomon
FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd: — Gnomon
To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions. — Possibility
Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence? — 3017amen
First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:
1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide — 3017amen
my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome? — Possibility
Off topic :The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. — christian2017
It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy. :cool:1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name. — 3017amen
So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. — Gnomon
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool: — Gnomon
Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.
However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.