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of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda.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

We have a similar hypothesis on the basics-

I believe that there is an Ultimate Intelligence which is the only entity that exists (like Brahman, not the God Brahma). The Universe, God and Satan are all a dream of this entity. 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.

The afterlife is where souls go before reincarnating. Some souls are terminated. The afterlife is a continuum, like many neighborhoods. Souls have no form and are neither male for female (same as God). Souls evolve to match the evolution of life. Souls use spirit matter to interact with matter. Spirits then have the same earthly form but also decay after death. A slowly decaying spirit with some soul connection is a ghost capable of haunting for a while.

Hell is the bottom section and is unpleasant. Heaven is the upper section and is unbelievably pleasant at the top. God can go to any of these sections. In effect these sections are like computer memory for classes of objects, retaining the essence and a few memories - and God has full access.

Why do I think this? I used to be an atheist, but have had many supernatural experiences. I am now a de facto theist. Not quite a full believer but a theist by choice. For the record I am 71, male and was raised Methodist.

We differ in that God appreciates worship as a form of respect and will oblige with answers to prayers. The rules of the game are that God can give hints and even personal information to people but there cannot be a universally accepted proof of the spirit world.

My experiences seem to be designed to teach me what it is all about. I need to add that I am an engineer by profession and a high performing individual who does not do drugs or have strange beliefs. My personal proof would be absolute for most people except I have retained skepticism of everything. Reality is often not what it may seem.

I like to think that with the universe are the layers(like a photoshop element) that are layered on it. That God's are more like photo editers. Perhaps something to do with the main procession balances good and evil with heaven or hell.

There must be forces which stops someone from being powerful enough to dominate all, or is there?

I'm a little confused. It can't be all based on someone's good will can it?

Maybe there's some logical element to our consciousness, we are essentually clean bodies born of the aether. To create us requires that the product be good. Thus there may be ultimate logic preventing mass evil.

Not much to take from this bar my train of thought.

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

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.

The afterlife is where souls go before reincarnating. — CliveG

I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions.

but have had many supernatural experiences. — 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.

We differ in that God appreciates worship as a form of respect — 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.

Reality is often not what it may seem. — CliveG

I agree. But my experienced and imaginary reality is different from yours. It's boringly normal and natural. :cool:

I have retained skepticism of everything. — CliveG

It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile:


Grandiosity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity

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

In my experience, God is part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. I was 24 and unknowingly ate a cannabis cookie. A four hour hallucination followed. The Universe ended but I was told I would go back to continue and would not be sure that it was "real" or imaginary. It was not life-changing. The entity was alone and bored and immoral. Not what I expected of God. Only later did I realize God was part of the dream and has the characteristics as told by prophets.

Because he and everything else exist as an illusionary dream, anything can be changed. But one rule of the game is that scientific proof of God and Spirit is not allowed. Psychic events are allowed but not when one tries to use them as proof.

Most of mine were spontaneous and unexpected. There is no reason that a human should not be able to communicate with God and with God to impart certain knowledge. I found that most of my communication happened with serendipitous events followed by some research which gave me answers

I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions. — Gnomon

After my late wife died in 2011 I spent an hour with her in the afterlife. Quite different to what I imagined. I was not prepared for the total lack of worry about ordinary life. I take life as it comes, and do not stress about things, but to experience complete freedom from pain, death, taxes, next meal, income and so on cannot really be described, only experienced. One could say it was a dream but details tell me it was not.

I have experienced death twice in a dream when younger. And judgment in the afterlife. Very vivid and very real. The first time I was sent back and the second time my soul was terminated, thus giving me the lesson that souls are not necessarily immortal.

And most of what people call "supernatural" is merely a misinterpretation of mundane experiences that don't fit their expectations. — Gnomon

Some of my experiences were experimental. As a teenager I was very good at hypnotism. Mind reading and seeing the future and viewing at a distance worked. And I knew most of the rational explanations and so could avoid them.

The most clear and extraordinary one was this. I got a shock, not a "feeling", that the biker going past me in an ordinary way on an ordinary day will die just ahead. I slowed down so as to not ride over him. He died, and not because of an accident. Just lay in the middle of the road.

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

The game of the Ultimate Intelligence has Good and Evil with Good (God) being superior. God thus has no form or gender but has the characteristics of love and compassion. A personal relationship of mutual respect is thus possible.

It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile: — Gnomon

I am my own worst and best critic. I acknowledge I could be wrong on some or all and that it may not exist. But it is hard to live as if it does not because I put it to use.

Grandiose. I presume it is a reference for me to consider. I do not like praise and although I am a strong good leader I am just as happy to follow. I get embarrassed at praise and recognition. I am both athletic and academic and was teased for being a "natural". I was somewhat autistic when younger so it did not affect me. I could learn the entire Latin textbook including the dictionary in it and come first in a bright class time after time. In my final two years the teacher told the class I had to be cheating and have the exam paper because it was not possible to get such high marks. At University, I did the same. Study the textbook the night before the exam. Party through the year will a bunch of tough guys. Street races and drinking. So am just a regular guy with an interesting life which I took as a blessing. I did invent stuff as Director of Engineering of a company and the company made serious money from them.

I am an electrical engineer but have experience in a number of disciplines. Management, programming, computer design, electronic pcb design, HR and law. My late wife was involved in community development. As an American she got involved with the National Peace Accord in preventing civil war in South Africa in the early 1990's and then she went on to rehabilitate war veterans turned criminals using Eco Therapy. I thus got involved in many modalities involving sustainable living and spirit.

I believe in an afterlife but one in which the individual is reincarnated endlessly forever. I have memory of events that happened when I was two months old. I guess this is similar in thought to Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence. .

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:

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:

I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct — Possibility

I don't either. However I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness.

When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’. — Possibility

Agreed, some people do, I don't. It still leaves the question unanswered, in your view?

This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’. — Possibility

How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century?

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

Possibility, do you happen to have any examples?

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

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?

I'm trying piece that all together with your earlier post, combined with this post.

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

I get it now. And I agree that a true God does not require adoration and ego- boosts.

My life has been "Interesting" and very different to others on an almost daily basis. I thought others had similar experiences until people started to tell me they were amazed to hear me tell them of one event after another on a daily basis.

On forums I have been told I am many things - delusional being one of them. Since I think I have been selected to inform people of how the spirit world works and to update various religions (not replace them or dispose of them) I am also accused of thinking I am "special". That was another label I got when younger - I used to joke an say "Yes. Special needs class".

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

You seem to have worked out by logic what is probable. My experiences were what prompted me to hypothesis what was logical. 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. My world is anything but dreamlike. I could not achieve the corporate success I did I was not solidly in reality (this physical reality).

I did do well when working with my late wife on rehabilitating ex-combatants to abandon the life of crime (hijacking and murder included) which involved spirit. Watching 20 at time experience spirit week after week was anything but ordinary. She achieved about a 85% success rate.

A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever. — Possibility

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.

Both Science and Religion have their principles. Hinduism has postulated up to 24 cosmic principles. And Science has a variety of principles that Galileo called "Laws of Nature", assuming that the God of the Bible was the Law-giver. I don't accept the out-dated biblical descriptions of God, but I have no better solution to the problem of Being, of Existence, than to assume that some eternal Principle, including "all possible instances of being", caused the space-time world to be. Beyond that Axiom, I know nothing about BEING.

In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation. — 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:

Enformy, EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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:

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

Well put. I like your thinking. I maintain that God remains hidden from scientific proof but will communicate with living things by influencing their thoughts. With humans those influences can on occasion be strong enough to come through as "messages". Other influences permitted are mental telepathy and seeing the future. Also quite a lot of other subtle interferences with physical laws such as Tarot cards. You do not have to believe me or take it on faith, I just thought you might get inspiration as to your hypothesis.
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?

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

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".

Even when I was very young, in a fundamentalist religion, I suspected that the Bible was not the word of God. I won't go into that long story here. But it took me until the age of thirty to finally come-out as an unbeliever. Everyone I knew was a believer in some kind of god. So I had to choose either tribal truth or my personal truth : faith or reason. My extra-biblical studies confirmed that biblical prophecies were "fulfilled" only by typical fact-fudging.

However, after years of private study of Science & World Religions & Philosophies, I eventually came to believe that the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the real world is creation by a First Cause of some kind. Unfortunately, just as I have no experience of ghosts, I also have no personal experience of G*D, or gnostic knowledge of the divine. So my "belief" is not a matter of passionate Faith, but merely an acquiescence to dispassionate Logic. I just take the G*D theory as more likely than the Serendipity (random chance) explanation for my existence. I don't expect my logical G*D to "save" me, or to grant three wishes, or to amaze me with miracles. So I approach the world Stoically, like a recovering alcoholic (recovering from addictive Faith) : "G*D grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

If you are really interested in how someone can believe in G*D without Faith or Revelation, my Enformationism website might help to explain. However, it's not a dramatic human interest story, but a boring philosophical thesis : no spooky Souls haunting moody neurotics, just mundane Selves trying to make sense of a wondrous world in ordinary ways. :cool:


Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness. — 3017amen

If you want to parse the metaphysical features of consciousness, you first need to parse this notion of ‘physical’ into its four relative, NON-spatial dimensions of awareness. Distance, shape, space and time describe only a small part of how the universe interrelates at these dimensional levels.

Simple chemical reactions, for instance, are often a relation of distance (as ‘potential’ energy), and time (as relative duration), but not space. They are two-dimensional relations, but not necessarily in the spatial sense of 2D shapes. Rather they are temporal events in relation to one-dimensional atomic structures. The dimensional awareness of space in a chemical reaction is uncertain: it can only be described as possible or potential, relative to its interaction with what is external to the reaction itself - eg. container volume, ambient temperature, and all the conditions we control for in lab experiments.

How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century? — 3017amen

When we approach the ‘physical’ as four interrelated dimensional aspects, then understanding the ‘mental’ becomes a matter of interrelating a fifth dimensional aspect (potential or value) in the same complex way - that is, without assuming a 4+1 structure.

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

Don’t apologise - there’s a lot to my philosophy that I’ve conceptualised, but not yet reduced to philosophical discourse, so this is very helpful - it just takes some time for me to reply. The meaning of words is easily misinterpreted at this level of thinking, so asking questions is the only way we can approach a shared meaning here.

Yes, I think there is an element of ignorance associated with the Will - which isn’t so much ‘making choices’ as the faculty of determining and initiating action. 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.

But it’s more than that. The Will operates according to what I describe as three conceptual ‘gates’: awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. These ‘gates’ apply to every interaction or relation in the universe, from quantum particles to the complexity of human interactions. They are mostly closed to all but a small percentage of possible interactions, in the same way that hydrogen and oxygen atoms will only bond (connect and collaborate) to create water molecules when they interact at a certain angle and potential distance/energy. But because we can perceive and interact with the potential of an action beyond ‘time’, we have conscious access to these gates when determining and initiating the potential of our own actions.

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

That reminds me of Kant's metaphysics in that every level awareness, as you say, relates to this innate fixed/a priori nature that comprises part of our conscious existence.

The intriguing thought thereto, is your notion of the less ignorance, the more the freedom. From a cognitive view, I can think of the Tree of Life metaphor, which implies that with knowledge and self-awareness comes existential angst or imperfection (some people call it evil/sin, etc.).

Since part of this thread is about God/Metaphysics/consciousness, the irony is that one's notion of 'intelligent' design in a cosmological sense, is another one's notion of conscious angst. Meaning, is our purpose of self-awareness and the will, involve seeking understanding? And in the process of understanding (our sojourn here), we experience some level of existential angst.

The topic of Metaphysical Will in nature, is something that Schopenhauer spent a great deal of time with...

From a pan-experientialist perspective, an atom is a manifestation of its entire universe - until the moment it interacts with another. In that instant, it encounters evidence that there is more to existence than this, here and now, and that integrating the new information will require attention, energy and effort - which is achieved only through interaction.

This is a form of ‘existential angst’: it’s anxiety or dread in relation to an indeterminate aspect of existence, and is experienced at every level of awareness. It’s undefined pain, humility and lack/loss in response to information that challenges a system’s manifestation or concepts of the universe. And it’s the Will that determines this response: limited to the system’s awareness of available/potential energy.

For those of us who are focused on the universe as physical, on the relation to our material existence, the difference is an understanding of what is mental, imaginary, uncertain, potential, etc. The angst is understandable - beyond this fragile, fleeting existence nothing can be observed or measured - nothing can be proven or verified or agreed upon. Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding?

And yet we find value in knowledge and interacting beyond any potential benefit for this single, temporary organism, inspiring many of us to continue to seek an understanding of these uncertain, mental, metaphysical and potential aspects of existence - despite the angst.

Those of us who focus on the relation of our metaphysical existence to God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds experience a level of angst different to that of materialist nihilism, for instance. New information - as a difference that makes a difference - challenges our understanding of improbable, illogical, irrational or immoral possibility: imagination, falseness, evil, etc. Having recognised human existence as metaphysical in nature, we must contend with its relation to ‘evil’, for instance, as part of our relation to God. If we deny that God is inclusive of what we perceive as ‘evil’, then we must deny that God is infinite or absolute. And if God is not absolute, then what is God? Is anything absolute? Does infinity even exist? This metaphysical level of existential angst includes new atheism, antinatalism, brain-in-vat and computer simulation theories.

It’s a negative internal response to the possibility of existence beyond our subjective metaphysical perception. Beyond the good, the logical, the rational and the true can be nothing worth our effort, attention and energy, let alone the awareness, connection and collaboration of the Will.

And yet we continue to experience more to existence than our subjective metaphysical conceptualisation, and integrating this new information asks that we increase awareness, connection and collaboration with what we tend to believe is not worth effort, attention and energy except in eliminating it from existence.

The fear is that by connecting and collaborating with immorality, for instance, we are giving it the power to exist, when the truth is that it exists anyway - even if only as a possibility. Entertaining the possibility of ‘evil’ enables us to understand the causal conditions that influence its potential. When we do that, we are better informed to anticipate and change these causal conditions so that we reduce its potential from beyond time, instead of reacting to its occurrence in time.

Schopenhauer wasn’t far off. But he identified more with this metaphysical level of angst, rather than with what he referred to as ‘artistic genius’ - and even pitied the expressions of pain, humility and loss by those who were more aware and open to connecting and collaborating with the world as it is. He was unaware of the joy, wisdom and beauty they also experienced. The Will seems to Schopenhauer to be a meaningless, aimless striving of reality because he focuses not on God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds, but only on the difference between this aspect of existence and what he calls ‘Vorstellung’ or our subjective metaphysical perception.

So Schopenhauer’s exploration of the metaphysical Will falls short - he succumbs to dread and anxiety and retreats back to the individual notion of existence, convinced there is nothing that matters beyond, except this ‘meaningless’ striving of the Will.

Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding? — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I think the aforementioned quote could have easily been your summary point. I think the existential angst is real, yet logically necessary, or at least intrinsic to, change. Change being necessary. With that, the Metaphysical Will takes on many facets of the human condition, and perhaps these quotations apply:

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
― Albert Einstein

“To perceive is to suffer.”
― Aristotle

“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”
― Marie Curie

“How many things have to happen to you before something occurs to you?”
― Robert Frost

“Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

“Love is made up of three unconditional properties in equal measure:
1. Acceptance
2. Understanding
3. Appreciation

Remove any one of the three and the triangle falls apart."
― Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration

"What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you"- AH Maslow


Possibility, why should things be easy to understand?

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. — Qwex

There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what?

a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. — Qwex

How do you establish a "high probability"?

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

In philosophy this type of argument is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force. — Qwex

What does this mean?

The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse. — Qwex

How did you establish this?

We are huge we can only traverse our body in segments, other, purer consciousness can sense all body in one. — Qwex

What is a"purer consciousness", how did you establish its existence, and how do you know its capabilities?

There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what? — CeleRate

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.

As for "created by what?", here's a link to a blog post on the topic "Coincidence or Creation?" And the "Click Here" link goes to a continuation of that topic on the blog forum. The "what" may not be what you expect. :smile:

convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, — Gnomon

I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say?

So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. — Gnomon

How does this qualify as a specific reason?

But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it. — Gnomon

What evidence?

Possibility, why should things be easy to understand? — 3017amen

I think that everything we understand so far points to the reality that it isn’t easy, that it never was easy, and never should be easy to understand. The idea that God could have (or should have) created a world without suffering is an expression of misunderstanding (and the suffering that comes from that): of God and of the reality of ‘creating’ a universe from pure possibility. The challenge of life and of consciousness is to understand all of existence - not as an individual, but as a possible manifestation of that existence in relation to its infinite diversity.

I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). I also think that the Metaphysical Will is real - though largely misunderstood. As the faculty of determining and initiating action, it is change itself: inclusive of cause and effect, stimulus and response, being and becoming, quantum decoherence and the collapse of potentiality waves.

As an individual, we relate to Schopenhauer’s understanding of the Metaphysical Will as a ‘force’ that we either succumb to or rebel against. But I think if we understand this Metaphysical Will instead as a relation of infinite diversity/possibility, and each of us as a possible manifestation of that in spacetime, then the Will is free insofar as each manifestation is open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with each other.

I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). — Possibility

Sure, the context was pathology. However, it applies to anything really. Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum.

But here's the quote in context:

"In this area we can learn much also from the psychopathic personality, especially the 'charming' type. They can be described briefly as having no conscience, no guilt, no shame, no love for other people, no inhibitions, and few controls, so that they pretty well do what they want to do. They tend to become forgers, swindlers, prostitutes, polygamists, and to make their living by their wits rather than hard work. These people, because of their own lacks, are generally unable to understand in others the pangs of conscience, regret, unselfish love, compassion, pity, guilt, shame, or embarrassment. What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you. And since what you are does sooner or later communicate itself, eventually... ."

Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.

If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life.

I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say? — CeleRate

Google search on "cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe.

How does this qualify as a specific reason? — 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.

What evidence? — 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:


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".

"cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe. — Gnomon

Yes. When you wrote "our world" earlier I thought you meant that the Earth was created in an instant (Which has been a theological claim, but not a cosmological one).

One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. — Gnomon

It still could be a creation event. I'm just not sure what theists think this grants them if it is.

They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. — Gnomon

This is a false dichotomy. It's not as if it has been established that the only two options are a non-contingent (world or universe?), or a contingent one that depends on an immaterial creator.

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

I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present.

Inserting an intelligent agent as a creator doesn't solve anything. Peoples idea of evidence for ID is the God of the Gaps. It's mostly perpetuated by Christians who want to get some semblance of their god into science classes.

I spoke with God yesterday and ironically enough, he told me to tell you not to worry :brow:

I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present. — CeleRate

If I may ask, why are you wondering? Isn't that in itself a false dichotomy?