Gnomon
474
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
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of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda.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
For an eternal entity, it's true that anything is possible, but only that which is temporal and physical is actual. So, for our actualized world, G*D is "dreaming" of a system with fixed laws. Any different rules would produce different worlds. From our perspective, in the world that we "imagine" to be Real, G*D is also an imaginary entity --- we don't know G*D directly, but only by inference --- that we use to explain why the world exists and persists as it does.We are an illusion where anything is possible, but the laws of physics rule most of the time. God is thus ALMOST onmi-all but not quite. — CliveG
I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions.The afterlife is where souls go before reincarnating. — CliveG
I have had no "supernatural experiences" at all. And most of what people call "supernatural" is merely a misinterpretation of mundane experiences that don't fit their expectations. The only thing I refer to as "supernatural" is G*D. And that's because a Creator is logically superior and external to the Creation.but have had many supernatural experiences. — CliveG
My G*D has no physical human characteristics, such as emotions or egotism, because they are produced by the physical body. Human rulers, like Donald Trump, have inflated self-importance, that needs to be pumped-up on a regular basis. Many religious people assume that God requires regular reinforcement of praise & worship from his subjects.We differ in that God appreciates worship as a form of respect — CliveG
I agree. But my experienced and imaginary reality is different from yours. It's boringly normal and natural. :cool:Reality is often not what it may seem. — CliveG
It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile:I have retained skepticism of everything. — CliveG
For an eternal entity, it's true that anything is possible, but only that which is temporal and physical is actual. So, for our actualized world, G*D is "dreaming" of a system with fixed laws. Any different rules would produce different worlds. From our perspective, in the world that we "imagine" to be Real, G*D is also an imaginary entity --- we don't know G*D directly, but only by inference --- that we use to explain why the world exists and persists as it does. — Gnomon
I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions. — Gnomon
And most of what people call "supernatural" is merely a misinterpretation of mundane experiences that don't fit their expectations. — Gnomon
My G*D has no physical human characteristics, such as emotions or egotism, because they are produced by the physical body. Human rulers, like Donald Trump, have inflated self-importance, that needs to be pumped-up on a regular basis. Many religious people assume that God requires regular reinforcement of praise & worship from his subjects. — Gnomon
It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile: — Gnomon
Our experiences of "reality" are quite different. My world is boringly normal & natural compared to yours. I can only explain your dream-like worldview as due to deeper perception, or more theatrical imagination. Anyway, my abstract G*D model is also boring, although super-natural. :cool:In my experience, God is part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. — CliveG
I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct — Possibility
When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’. — Possibility
This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’. — Possibility
It’s uncertain and relative, but we can use it to make predictions about our interactions with the world, to plan for and orchestrate events before they occur, to create new possibilities out of a simple interaction, and to freely determine and initiate events - much like quantum potential. — Possibility
The Will to live is determined from one’s limited perception of potential and value in relation to their life: the likelihood of their life changing over time, and the influence this perception can have on their life in the future. — Possibility
Gnomon
477
Grandiose. I presume it is a reference for me to consider. — CliveG
The link to "Grandiosity" was a reference to Caesar-wannabe Presidents and Anthropomorphic Gods who require regular ego-pumps to keep their self-image inflated. It was not a reference to you. :cool: — Gnomon
Gnomon
477
In my experience, God is part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. — CliveG
Our experiences of "reality" are quite different. My world is boringly normal & natural compared to yours. I can only explain your dream-like worldview as due to deeper perception, or more theatrical imagination. Anyway, my abstract G*D model is also boring, although super-natural. :cool: — Gnomon
Yes. That's why I refer to the presumed Creator of space-time as BEING. Not a creature, but the unlimited potential for creation of creatures. BEING is not a person or thing, but a Principle : "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning". G*D is not a proven or provable fact, but an Axiom : "an unproven statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true". These principles are beyond the ability of humans to explain, so they must be taken for granted like the axioms of geometry. Fazed by such fundamental abstractions, Nobel physicist, Eugene Wigner, wrote an article on The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever. — Possibility
In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to the creative Principle or Law or Potential or Energy that motivates & controls the Evolution of the world as Enformy and EnFormAction. But my thesis assumes that G*D didn't know the outcome of this experiment in possibility. Instead, S/he programmed the System with parameters to guide it toward a hitherto unknown destination. This is what I call Intelligent Evolution : a Creative Process, not a one & done Creation. :nerd:In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation. — Possibility
Unfortunately, another man's subjective experiences are not proofs, but assertions to be taken on faith. Yet it's undeniable that people who strongly believe in some ideology can have remarkable effects on other people. For example, Marx & Lenin preached about the coming Utopia of Communism, thereby motivating millions of people to sacrifice their lives for a political dream. But, since there are many incompatible ideologies out there, I must "work out by logic what is probable". Similarly, I am skeptical of the Make America Great Again propaganda, because it contradicts my experience, and learning, of how nations rise & fall. Of course, I could be wrong. Remarkable things do happen. :cool:I thought you may want some "proof" in the way of personal evidence from some-one who is grounded but has had infrequent but remarkable experiences — CliveG
Unfortunately, another man's subjective experiences are not proofs, but assertions to be taken on faith. Yet it's undeniable that people who strongly believe in some ideology can have remarkable effects on other people. For example, Marx & Lenin preached about the coming Utopia of Communism, thereby motivating millions of people to sacrifice their lives for a political dream. But, since there are many incompatible ideologies out there, I must "work out by logic what is probable". Similarly, I am skeptical of the Make America Great Again propaganda, because it contradicts my experience, and learning, of how nations rise & fall. Of course, I could be wrong. Remarkable things do happen. :cool: — Gnomon
No. Actually, I do believe that many people sincerely believe in such things, because they have experiences that they interpret as supernatural or paranormal. But, since my brain is rather boringly pragmatic rather than idealistic, I seldom experience any of the wonderful miracles reported by other people. I see fictional Ghost Whisperers on TV with "passed-on" loved ones standing right there in living color. But ghosts in the real world are invisible, and must be "seen" via extrasensory perception, or detected by electromagnetic technology, which can be interpreted only by experts. Generally, most people don't actually experience paranormal phenomena, but get their information second-hand from "experts" or "adepts".Do you believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, seeing the future, mental telepathy, reincarnation, miracles (big and small), and the like? Do you given any credence to the teachings of various prophets and religions? Do you have a summary somewhere I could read? — CliveG
I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness. — 3017amen
How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century? — 3017amen
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy here viz the Will. Are you saying that there is an element of ignorance associated with making choices? Or are you saying the Will is an intrinsic fixed thing implanted in consciousness that keeps us alive? — 3017amen
In my view, the Will operates at every level of awareness, but is only capable of being ‘free’ when that awareness extends beyond time - to consider value and potential in relation to the experiencing subject. The less ignorance, the more the Will is free. — Possibility
Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding? — Possibility
My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life. — Qwex
'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force. — Qwex
The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse. — Qwex
There is a specific reason to think the universe was created. Before the Big Bang theory, scientists could just assume that the physical world was eternal. In fact Fred Hoyle, who coined the derisive term "Big Bang", argued in favor of a steady state of creation as opposed to the singular "act of creation" implied by the expanding universe evidence. But the evidence in favor of BB convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, just a few billion years ago. So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it.There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what? — CeleRate
convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, — Gnomon
So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. — Gnomon
But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it. — Gnomon
Possibility, why should things be easy to understand? — 3017amen
I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). — Possibility
Google search on "cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe.I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say? — CeleRate
The embarassing question of how & why the universe originated from an unknown and unknowable pre-existence is definitely a motivating "reason" for cosmologists & philosophers to entertain the possibility of Specific Creation, and to reject it categorically. One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. Some Atheists immediately began trying to find a plausible "reason" to justify their original assumption that the universe is eternal, thus un-created. They simply modified that assumption to re-define our "universe" as a merely a local instance of a Pluriverse --- which came to be known as the "Multiverse". They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. But some "hard science" Cosmologists (Paul Davies) chose to face the "facts", and accept their implications.How does this qualify as a specific reason? — CeleRate
Please don't play ignorant. In the Information Age, the evidence is easily available for those who are looking for it. But one man's evidence is another man's nonsense. It all depends on your perspective, your worldview, your belief system, and your ability to adapt your beliefs to new facts. :cool:What evidence? — CeleRate
"cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe. — Gnomon
One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. — Gnomon
They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. — Gnomon
PS__The "Creator" I refer to is an abstraction based on logical inference, not a concrete entity known directly by revelation. It's the "god of the philosophers". — Gnomon
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.