Well that's a wild theory. But according to it there should be Martians right now — khaled

There are aliens they just don't visit earth very much or at all. It's a long way to come, +4 light years.

But what I'm suggesting is that the start of the universe wasn't autonomous. Would you call the movement of the earth around the sun autonomous? I wouldn't. And besides even if we give that the first cause of existence was intelligent that doesn't mean it's conscious or that it still exists now. — khaled

What could the start of the universe be if it is not a first cause. The first cause logically has to be timeless - itself uncaused - beyond causality. So because it is timeless, it should still exist now. A timeless thing probably has a 1:n relationship with time - it can see all of time in one go.

Thanks much for the thoughtful and in-depth reply. (Such messages are more filling and satisfying, imho. Posts with dazzling name-dropping, feats of logic, or one-line zingers may be tasty, but leave me hungry again too soon. :yum: ) The “god question” is a funny one. On one hand, it might be THE QUESTION. On the other, it can easily produce so many more words, theories, polemics, factions. There seem to be enough of those. It could probably be assumed that we are all (self included) doing at least some psychological projecting. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but awareness of it helps immensely. I think humans have many innate emotional needs. And it seems that almost all of us are damaged or hurting in some way, maybe unconsciously. (I don’t think our culture is very nurturing and encouraging to the human spirit, but that may be another topic).

Certainly I sympathize with those who yearn for the possibility that there is some Divine order in the universe. That there is meaning and justice. And I understand the general atheist position of living a moral and productive life without a human-created mythology that doesn’t inspire being dumped on you. (Mythology equaling other people’s religion, as the joke goes). Maybe the popularity of superhero movies and literature is trying to fill the mythical need we seem to have for “poetic truth” and meaning. (As opposed to mere facts about existence). Whatever gets you through the night, and makes you want to get out of bed in the morning...

The “god question” is a funny one. On one hand, it might be THE QUESTION. On the other, it can easily produce so many more words, theories, polemics, factions. — 0 thru 9

Yes, agree with both points. Let's examine the logic of this process.

First, what's really being asked is not whether the idea of god exists, for it obviously does. To be more precise, the question is "does a god exist in the real world?"

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

It's as if you asked if your shoes are in the bedroom and I replied, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage." Nonsensical.

If we can set aside the God debate (words, theories, polemics, factions etc) then all that's left is looking in the real world.

The atheists suggest observation of reality as the appropriate method, and I agree. But not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions, but rather observation pursued for it's own value. Theories and conclusions just take us back in to the same old failed game.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. — Jake

You know that...how?

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world.

Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely. — Jake

Not sure what you were trying to say there.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing.

Perhaps. But perhaps not.

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa

What we listen to is typically the noise going round and round in our brains. That is, the symbolic world. And that's where the God debate is looking for God, in the symbolic world. We already know that the idea of God exists, so why are we still looking in the symbolic realm?

Jake
1.4k

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa


What we listen to is typically the noise going round and round in our brains. That is, the symbolic world. And that's where the God debate is looking for God, in the symbolic world. We already know that the idea of God exists, so why are we still looking in the symbolic realm? — Jake

PERHAPS "the real world" is just the noise in MY head.

No way I can know that is not the way things are.

If there is a "you" out there discussing this with "me"...how do you KNOW that all that noise in YOUR head is not the real world.

In any case, the comment I took issue with, Jake, was:

"We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world."

All this stuff I see with my eyes; and hear with my ears; and feel with my fingers; and taste with my taste buds...MAY BE the real world.

I personally would not bet on it...but it may be.

Right?

I think that it's about time that we looked beyond those who think that they're beyond the God debate. Actions speak louder than words.

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

...

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember that the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake

*Nothing* is just another concept in the “symbolic world.”

What are you trying to say?

If someone "trusts" an airplane and its pilot and chance and all associated external factors with their life, then why does turbulence frighten them? That the last few planes didn't crash actually increases the odds that the current plane will crash. Probability is actually working against us every moment we avoid harm.

I'd say it's sheer stupidity that we "trust" airplanes, or any of our inventions, with our lives. We sacrifice our safety in many ways for the sake of strange new experiences. It's the high cost of being adventurous. We're at risk every moment of our lives, and we habitually increase the potential of that risk.

I'd appreciate an elaboration on how you connect the airplane analogy with the grand clockwork of the universe.

We were discussing the axiom of cause and effect. The connection between the two was inductive evidence:

1. The way we assess the danger of an airplane journey with reference to examples of previous successfully completed journeys.

2. Is similar to the way we observe causality around us happening and thus assume it holds.

So my argument is that there is overwhelming inductive evidence of cause and effect and that evidence is of a similar nature to that which we already take potentially life threatening decisions.

Your explanation is based on a very specific assumption of conditions which are widely variable. I dismantled your airplane analogy already--every moment that injury or death are avoided is a moment closer to injury or death--each of us is at statistically increasing risk as time passes without incident. Every action brings us closer to innumerable forms of risk, and many of those risks are in some way interdependent.

Also, you can't flippantly apply an infinitesimal understanding of cause and effect to events in the universe and beyond it for which there's no method of quantitative or qualitative exploration apart from complex abstract symbolism which no one outside a small number of specialists understands.

You have been discussing nothing but "the axiom of cause and effect", you've just recently added the word "axiom" to the only thing you ever discuss.

I just explained that some humans travel despite understanding the risk while others don't. Some people won't even set foot on airport property while others enter a career as a pilot. Some people travel regardless of risk for various reasons they consider on some irrational level to outweigh it. Maybe they're more afraid of the prospect of dying of old age on their couch in front of a television than of dying in a horrible plane crash. A sense of adventure is enough to bring some people very close to death.

Either way, there are countless factors and variables behind the scenes from the surface we see all the way down to what even microscopy can't reveal. What is the cosmic crux you feel you've resolved in ten words after the human race sat scratching its heads for trillions of man/years in an absence of modern distractions?

Every time someone attempts a rational explanation for something that is infinitely inexplicable, the probability that they're wrong is infinite.

Also, you can't flippantly apply an infinitesimal understanding of cause and effect to events in the universe and beyond it for which there's no method of quantitative or qualitative exploration apart from complex abstract symbolism which no one outside a small number of specialists understands. — whollyrolling

It does not matter too much what the pre BB universe is like; as long as it follows cause and effect, we can reason about it at a high level without knowing the specifics. We know the universe has to follow some basic common sense rules; infinite regresses are impossible for instance, which leads to a timeless first cause. We can deduce that without solving the BB singularity etc...

You have been discussing nothing but "the axiom of cause and effect", you've just recently added the word "axiom" to the only thing you ever discuss — whollyrolling

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5704/poincare-reoccurrence-theorem-and-time
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5749/cantors-paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5735/bottle-imp-paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5726/unexpected-hanging-paradox

So I only discuss cause and effect?!?

Please accept my most humble apologies, you're right, there are four comments you copy/pasted from Wikipedia into threads started by other members, and none of them contained the words cause or effect.

I offered original solutions to the paradoxes!?!

You offered unoriginal paradoxes based on contradictory assumptions.

For example, why would you say in one breath that nothing exists without a first cause, but in another breath that abstract symbols humans invented represent something infinite which can have no first cause?

First, what's really being asked is not whether the idea of god exists, for it obviously does. To be more precise, the question is "does a god exist in the real world?"

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

It's as if you asked if your shoes are in the bedroom and I replied, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage." Nonsensical.

If we can set aside the God debate (words, theories, polemics, factions etc) then all that's left is looking in the real world.

The atheists suggest observation of reality as the appropriate method, and I agree. But not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions, but rather observation pursued for it's own value. Theories and conclusions just take us back in to the same old failed game.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake

Thanks for the reply. Would not disagree. A small quibble I might have is about the words “the real world”. This would seem to open up the question of what is real, what is really real, etc. and be distracting. Maybe I would use the phrase “inner experience” or “personal perception”.

(Obviously, you won’t be replying to this... sorry to see you banned. But if it’s your choice, then that is that. Your walks in the woods will no doubt continue to inspire you. Thanks for the ideas and conversation. Peace and blessings to you, and to all.)