After having read the following quote, I came to the conclusion that the agnostic stance on the matter of God's existence might be the most reasonable: — spirit-salamander
New mysterianism—or commonly just mysterianism—is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia (individual instances of subjective, conscious experience). In terms of the various schools of philosophy of mind, mysterianism is a form of nonreductive physicalism.
I am a militant agnostic. It's unknown. It's unknowable*. What's for lunch? — Joe Mirsky
I am a militant agnostic. It's unknown. It's unknowable*. What's for lunch?
Finally, I do not have the arrogance or self-importance to imagine that I could ever be personally possessed of the answer — fishfry
The difference between me and Laurence Krauss is that neither of us knows how the world got here, but he thinks he knows and I know I don't. And he's wrong, and I'm right. — fishfry
But where did that imposition of a limitation come from? I would suggest that you and everyone else is endowed with a suppressed intuitive ability to engage the world at a much deeper level, and it is the philosophy of our age, the positivism, the privileging of science and technology, the disillusionment with public religions, and so on, that create the line you think is uncrossable. — Constance
What makes you think Krauss' explanation is wrong? — Down The Rabbit Hole
In this respect, there are no impartial spectators — spirit-salamander
His belief that this is an ultimate explanation is wrong. — fishfry
Did you read my caterpillar story? Caterpillar on a leaf on a branch on a tree in a forest knows what to eat and what wants to eat it. It knows night from day, when to sleep, when to forage. It knows in its DNA that it will someday transform into a butterfly. It has an ontology. But it can't know about the tree, the forest, the earth, the solar system, the quarks and gluons, and so forth. By analogy that's the situation we're in. We may well not be at the top of the intelligence scale. Gotta go finish eating my leaf now. — fishfry
Why not Krauss' one? What would be a better ultimate explanation than that? — Down The Rabbit Hole
The point is missed. The very conditions of your accepting the actual terms of your limitations, all this talk about caterpillars and inherent boundaries of knowing, is itself imposed by the standards of normalcy you internalized when you were a child. Were it otherwise, and the lines drawn were not so rigorously established, perhaps in a world open to greater possibilities, you would be able to see terms like god, spirituality, redemption, divinity and the like actually have an existential underpinning that is simply structurally ignored in a science oriented world like ours. Remember, empirical science, I gather from your thinking, rules not just what you believe, but what you will not believe.
This doesn't make popular ideas of theism believable, but it does change the conversation, from, say, Jesus' ascension to heaven to talk about metaethics and human interiority. — Constance
Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)[1] was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his contemporaries.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.
I'm not trying to catch you out; I'm genuinely interested in your view. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Maybe, nothing came before that "nothing". — Down The Rabbit Hole
What would be a less absurd ultimate explanation than the "nothing" Krauss speaks of? — Down The Rabbit Hole
The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction. [fishfry -- emphasis mine]
I don’t know what’s the matter with physicists these days. It used to be that they were an intellectually sophisticated bunch, with the likes of Einstein and Bohr doing not only brilliant scientific research, but also interested, respectful of, and conversant in other branches of knowledge, particularly philosophy. These days it is much more likely to encounter physicists like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, who merrily go about dismissing philosophy for the wrong reasons, and quite obviously out of a combination of profound ignorance and hubris (the two often go together, as I’m sure Plato would happily point out). The latest such bore is Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University.
Now I also take your point that you believe that we are the highest level of intelligence below God. "The crown of creation." That unlike the caterpillar, we have no level above us. — fishfry
You use the caterpillar as a model for us? And these references to Darwin pin you to the very mundane scientism you deny. Caterpillars do not give us an analysis of the structures of thought and experience. Do you really think you can infer from an insect's world to ours? — Constance
And why bother? We only rely on analogies when we have no actual conditions to examine, and in our case you have the actual conditions our existence to observe. Evolution will tell you nothing of the qualitative events that may or may not confirm foundations of religion. — Constance
This talk about levels above or below is just general speculation. — Constance
Ask rather: what IS there in framework of experience that gives rise to religious ideas that is not part of the incidental features of our making? — Constance
Krauss does not have an ultimate explanation. Do you agree with that? If the question is why are there elephants, we say animals. Why animals, life. Why life, organic molecules. Why organic molecules, atoms. Why atoms? Protons, neutrons, and electrons. Why protons and neutrons? Because quarks. (The electrons don't have internal parts as far as we know). Then we ask why quarks, and Krauss tells us: quantum fields. And if we ask why quantum fields, Krauss says, "That's the ultimate explanation. Why are you so stupid?" He has an arrogant jerk kind of attitude as it happens. — fishfry
Now why do you think the RQF is an ultimate explanation? After all in 1900 they thought atoms were the ultimate explanation. This was right before relativity and the quantum revolution. — fishfry
Atheist, do you have conclusive proof that god doesn't exist? Certainly not! Why else would there be theists? — TheMadFool
I wouldn't go as far as saying I believe it is the ultimate explanation, only that it is at least equally plausible. I'm not sure if Krauss actively believes it to be the ultimate explanation? It would be interesting to see his reasoning. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I hope you'll check out some of the links I gave and google around for more. A lot of people have written pro and con about Krauss's book. I'm out of my depth, I've said everything I know. — fishfry
But I do wonder why you think Kraus has any sort of "ultimate" explanation when it leaves unexplained the primeval existence of the RQF and the laws of physics. Why do these things exist, and is their existence necessary or contingent, and have they always existed or did they come into existence? And how did that happen? Maybe God created the RQF and the laws of physics. But then you have to ask the same questions about God. Turtles all the way down. Questions that can never be answered.
I'm just saying that he has a nice account of how the world might have arisen from the RQF, and there's value in that, but I don't see how you can feel that this is in any way "ultimate" when it immediately raises so many obvious questions. — fishfry
You could substitute a house cat if you prefer. Cats most definitely have sophisticated mental states. They have dreams, for one thing. That I assume must indicate a fairly high order of mentation.
I knew my reference to Darwin was a mistake. And I immediately qualified it by saying I have some interest in and perhaps sympathy for the position of the Darwin skeptics. I name-checked a couple. No use, the rhetorical damage was done.
I wrote an entire post explaining my position that since Newton combined great science with deep belief in God, that I found no contradiction in doing science and then saying, "It's amazing that God created all these interesting natural laws, as well as the world." I'm perfectly ok with that.
I would ask you to go back and re-read what I actually wrote, and don't be triggered by the word Darwin. Be honest with me. Would a hard-core scientism type name-drop Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer? The fact that I know who they are should tell you that I have a more open mind and broader interests than you think I do. — fishfry
It's difficult for humans to approach any momentous question "neutrally". Instead, most of us -- myself included -- rely on Motivated Reasoning in order to justify our prior beliefs. That's why Faith Systems are so hard to successfully argue against. But "rational" philosophers are supposed to be able to argue against their own (owned) beliefs, in order to weed-out the chaff. Unfortunately, formal belief systems -- like the Catholic Church -- have professional philosophers (Theologians) whose primary goal is to "defend the faith". And my own less-formal Protestant indoctrination relied on mostly un-trained Preachers to justify our peculiar set of beliefs, by "preaching to the choir". Ironically, long past the "age of reason", I realized that most of their sermons were based on Motivated Reasoning.And if both parties to the discussion were to have them, the initially neutral observer and listener would have to remain neutral, i.e. agnostic, at theend of the discussion as well. — spirit-salamander
It's time to issue a challenge to theists and atheists alike?
1. Theist, do you have a watertight argument for the existence of god? No, of course not! Why else would there be atheists?
2. Atheist, do you have conclusive proof that god doesn't exist? Certainly not! Why else would there be theists? — TheMadFool
Any possible ultimate explanation would seem incomplete to us. Either we are the result of something that has been around forever (god/s, universe/s, RQF), or something came out of literally nothing. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Us caterpillars may never know — Down The Rabbit Hole
Yes. Agreed. But Krauss has no ultimate explanation, just a description of a speculative next level down. And do note that the RQF idea is speculation, not accepted or proven theory. I don't see how anyone can call it an ultimate explanation. But I already said that and perhaps we can agree to disagree. — fishfry
Us caterpillars may never know
— Down The Rabbit Hole
I'm not sure if you meant that as irony or lighthearted criticism of my position, but that is in fact my position. — fishfry
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.