why are you wondering? — 3017amen

I'm interested in learning.

Isn't that in itself a false dichotomy? — 3017amen

How so?

In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with... . If it's not a false dichotomy, it's an irony. Actually, it's probably both.

Either way, you carry the burden of explaining the nature of your own sense of wonderment from your consciousness. What purpose does it serve? And why should you care?

In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with — 3017amen

Why do the properties have to be metaphysical? There is plenty of empirical evidence that people learn to ask questions through a long history of reinforcing consequences provided for asking and answering questions. We learn to ask questions because we receive answers that help us in some practical way.

But that has no biological survival value.

Wonderment is much like love and the will. Iit's a metaphysical property of consciousness. Otherwise try to explain your sense of wonder in concrete terms using your notion of empirical evidence.

But that has no biological survival value. — 3017amen

But it could...

"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"

"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?

"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"

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

For some Theists, scientific evidence is irrelevant. But for Intelligent Design advocates, the discovery that the expanding universe can be traced back to the beginning of space-time validates their belief in Special Creation. They also make much of the implication that all the finely-tuned initial conditions and the governing Laws of Nature were pre-set at the beginning to produce a "flat" curve of expansion. Which may be one reason why Alan Guth developed a mathematical theory of Cosmic Inflation to explain how matter & energy got evenly distributed, so that life & mind could emerge and replicate. But that even more radically instantaneous pre-bang event (fractions of a second) just added more evidence that it was a miracle. From nothing, a new world appeared : Presto! Voila! So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support, but can be interpreted as a 21st century technical description of an ancient mythical explanation for how & why the world exists.

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. — CeleRate

What other options do you see to explain the BB besides : A> Random Accident by Coincidence (quantum fluctuation) in a self-existent Multiverse, or B> Intentional Instantaneous Creation of Nature by a self-existent SuperNatural Creator? In "A" the Universe is contingent upon a self-existent eternal process (e.g. Multiverse). In "B" it's contingent upon a self-existent eternal immaterial BEING. Both assume that the Potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the pre-BB existence. "A" assumes the existence of something like Democritus' eternal imperishable Atoms as the physical substance of reality. "B" assumes the existence of eternal immortal Memes (Ideas) as the metaphysical substance*1 of our world.

*1 Aristotle's Substance : A> Temporal Perishable Things (contingent accidents); B> Eternal Universals, Forms, Archetypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
"The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
"Aristotle divides the world into two categories: substances and accidents- substances are the most fundamental." https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/

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

Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism. It requires a Deistic G*D to get the ball rolling, but then the process of Intelligent Evolution keeps it moving in the right direction. The theory may or may not be "true", but it makes allowances for Life, Mind, & Qualia that are unexplained by the conventional theories of modern Science.

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support — Gnomon

How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? Even if it could be established, theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God that cares about when one works, what one eats, who one sleeps with, and in what position.

What other options do you see to explain the BB besides — Gnomon

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting any particular model for describing how the universe came into existence. I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options. If the universe was always here, then coming into existence is an assumption made about the big bang. Cosmologists question why their measurements of entropy are as high as they are at their calculated time of the big bang. Mathematical models also fit multiverse explanations. I have no informed opinion on the topic.

Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon

Thanks. I'll take a look.

But it could...

"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"

"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?

"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"

Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions?

Otherwise, does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment? How should wonderment evolve? What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something? What would be examples of that some thing(s)?

I hope you find those questions intriguing. Those are just a few questions for you to research concerning the Metaphysical nature of conscious existence.

Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions? — 3017amen

Language does not develop in the absence of a social environment. At some point in our evolutionary history vocal musculature came under operant control. In social groups this served a variety of purposes, one of which was to get needs met through the mediation of other individuals. Instead of going to get water one could ask for water to be brought. The outcome was identical (i.e., obtaining water), but now there was a new mechanism at work. There are decades of experimental research demonstrating this process.

Sitting in an armchair attempting to explain the history and functions of language development a priori is not going to get anyone very far.

I'm sorry, were you not able to answer the questions empirically, like you suggested earlier?

Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:

Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle?

Otherwise go back and research those metaphysical questions if you care to, since those are more germain to the thread topic, no?

How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? — CeleRate

By simple Logic. If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural". But that definition also applies to the hypothetical Multiverse : if it exists, it is supernatural -- above and beyond Nature.

But, if you mean by "established" that a particular First Cause hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, then that is another question altogether. And I assume you know the answer. The current most popular alternative to the God-theory is the Multiverse hypothesis, in various permutations. But no consensus.

theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God — CeleRate

Theists "establish" the personal characteristics of their invisible God, by Faith in the revelation of their sect's scriptures. But, since I have no faith in their scriptures, I have no knowledge at all of my so-called G*D except logical necessity. An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause : either Dumb Luck or Intelligent Creation.

I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options — CeleRate

As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? If you are not scientifically serious, you can make a sci-fi list of a> god-like aliens from outer space, or b> ancient high-tech civilizations like Atlantis, or c> a pantheon of super-human gods like the Greeks and Hebrews. Wikipedia has a list of creation myths from around the world. if you want to believe in one of them, you are free to do so. But if you prefer a philosophically cogent answer to the First Cause question, you will have to choose from two opposite solutions : Accident or Intention. :nerd:

Creation Myths : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:

Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle? — 3017amen

StarsFromMemory already gave you some insight on this matter, but you refuse to learn new information that contradicts this poorly thought out argument that you keep cluttering the thread with.

I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you explain that better then?

Or how about starting with the metaphysical questions first, if you can... LOL

If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural" — Gnomon

That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause.

If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent?

hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, — Gnomon

Popularity of an argument is not equal to correctness of an argument.

As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? — Gnomon

Did I say there were more than two? I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. Isn't it commonplace to present true premises and valid arguments in philosophical discussions?

Your ego is making a fool out of you. If you actually want to understand the theory of evolution, then you need to spend a lot more time reading about it and learning. The argument that it's impossible for a brain to evolve, that is capable of eventually figuring out math among other things is impossible because you don't need math to dodge coconuts is sad.

An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause — Gnomon

What caused the first cause? Does the multiverse qualify as a first cause? Or does only a god qualify as a first cause?

Then prove to us the laws of gravity are necessary for survival in the jungle! LOL

Anyway I'm sorry were you able to answer the metaphysical questions regarding the sense of wonderment and why human's have such properties from consciousness?

Tic tic tic toc

LOL

There is no need too, it doesn't contract natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation or epigenetics. This has already sufficiently been explained to you.

There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing.

I'm sorry, let me try again more succinctly

1. Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects; one abstractly and one spacially. And explain the purpose of thinking abstractly to us... ?
2. Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment.

tic toc tic toc

Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects — 3017amen

Because legs a versatile and space is 3-dimensional. You can step back, lunge forward, or dodge to the side.

Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment. — 3017amen

What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences.

Because legs a versatile and space is 3-dimensional. You can step back, lunge forward, or dodge to the side. — Malice

Great! Then why are mathematical abstracts needed?

You don't, because you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut. Now, if you want to make good use of a catapult in a war, then you'd be on to something.

What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences. — Malice

We're not talking about experience are we? You seem to know about how the intellect has evolved, so I ask you again, how are metaphysical constructs, such a wonderment, have Darwinian survival value? Did I miss something?

If you cannot answer that one, perhaps the Will or the phenomenon of Love would be an easier metaphysical construct to unpack, yes?

Because you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut. Now, if you want to make good use of a catapult in a war, then you'd be on to something. — Malice

You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish?

We're not talking about experience are we? — 3017amen

Wonderment is something you experience. I consider thoughts, emotions, and perceptions experiences. I don't know how they're generated.

You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? — 3017amen

Can you just state your full argument, instead of having this constant back and forth?

I'm just asking for clarification, again: So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? You said it, I didn't.

I'm just asking for clarification, again: So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? You said it, I didn't. — 3017amen

you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut — Malice

You can try it though.

You can try it though.

Great! And so, why would you try it, when it's not needed to avoid the hypothetical falling object?

Sorry for the redundancy, I'm still trying to seek clarification from the statement you made.

Great! And so, why would you try it, when it's not needed to avoid the hypothetical falling object? — 3017amen

It was a joke.

What is your argument?

I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... .

tic toc tic toc