I have concluded that, logically, there must [be] a Cosmic Mind or Programmer to set-up the creative progressive program that we call "Evolution". — Gnomon

Please "logically demonstrate" that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind" (whatever that is). :eyes:

Please "logically" demonstrate that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind" (whatever that is). :eyes: — 180 Proof

Sorry for butting in 180 Proof, but I couldn't resist - the temptation was too much to resist.

You're, for certain, aware of the Duck Test.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck! :grin:

You're, for certain, aware of the Duck Test. — Agent Smith

So ... "it's Wabbit season again, is it?" :smirk:

So ... "it's Wabbit season again, is it?" :smirk: — 180 Proof

What's up doc? :grin:

Tanquam ex ungue leonem (We recognize the lion by his claw). — Johann Bernoulli (said of Isaac Newton after Newton sent him a solution for the brachiostochrone problem)

An old saying is that "you can know the artist by his art". Likewise, you can know the Creator by the nature of his Creation. So, we can infer some characteristics of the Programmer by looking into the features of the Program (e.g. evolution). Some describe G*D as perfect Goodness. Others think that G*D is a "respecter of persons". But homo sapiens is a late development in evolution, and we don't get special treatment from Nature.

Therefore, since Evolution is neither Good nor Evil, but a bit of both, I assume the Cause of our existence was Neutral (i.e. BothAnd). Hence, it's only from the biased human perspective that whatever happens is judged by how it affects me & mine. What we call good & evil could be interpreted as merely necessary variations on the Hegelian (good/evil ; positive/negative) path to the ultimate output. So, humanity may seem be the current high-point of evolution, but in the-long-run we might be just one more step on the ladder to the final program output (e.g. Omega Point -- whatever that might be). :cool:

Any help will be deeply appreciated. — Agent Smith

-here is some help....god is not a philosophical topic, like magic is not a philosophical topic.
You might find logical contradictions...but magic can be adjusted since it doesn't have to follow any rules of our reality.
Unfortunately if you do a quick search on how many discussions include the word god/creator and Science/Scientific you will find that 315 (with yours) mention god and only 181 have science in their title.

Anything and everything seems to be, well, dual purpose, ethically that is: a bullet can both kill and save a person. You have to be imaginative/creative to see that. I wish there was an international treaty that says all weapons used in warfare must be for good (for instance, if you shoot someone, do it in such a way that you save that person's life or thereabouts).

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities?

A more interesting question is, is this world, as Leibniz believed, the best of all possible worlds? A scientific proof of that would look like this: Given carbon-based life like ours, the other parameters of our universe that make life and goodness possible are such that they also permit death and evil. The question can be reformulated for dystheism also.

here is some help....god is not a philosophical topic, like magic is not a philosophical topic.
You might find logical contradictions...but magic can be adjusted since it doesn't have follow any rules of our reality. — Nickolasgaspar

:up: :100:

Anything and everything seems to be, well, dual purpose, ethically that is: a bullet can both kill and save a person. — Agent Smith

Not both....but can either or depending of the situation.

-" I wish there was an international treaty that says all weapons used in warfare must be for good "
There is an international treaty and laws, this is why we have the term war crime.

-"(for instance, if you shoot someone, do it in such a way that you save that person's life or thereabouts)."
-so why shooting someone in the first place? Injuring a person is "for good"? What if the injury you inflict leaves a chronic pain to that person or perminant disability.

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities — Agent Smith

-Neither Glabarclurchen's List includes ethics. My point is that you first need to demonstrate the existence of a god, then demonstrate that he has a legitimate interest in putting up lists and then show that ethics isn't in it.
In reality nothing in our world has a "dual purpose". Purpose needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. What we label goodness and evil are just fluctuations in the process called life or existence that we evaluate according to our preferences.

:ok:

Theists claim God exists, but they make it a point to state that God's immaterial/nonphysical.
— Agent Smith

An excerpt on Tillich's negative theology:


Tillich came to make the paradoxical statement that God does not exist, for which he has been accused of atheism. "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

That statement is a continuation of Tillich’s earlier conclusion that God cannot be conceived as an object, no matter how lofty. We cannot think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite. Thus we must think of God as beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself. There is a clear logic in Tillich’s development here, and he makes it plain that denying God’s “existence” is in fact needed in order to affirm him. Still, at times he makes it hard to avoid the impression that there simply “is” no God, which is largely due to his use of the notion of existence. Again, the apologetic nature of Tillich’s discourse should be remembered. The purpose of such statements is to forcibly remove incorrect notions from the minds of his audience by creating a state of shock..
— New World Encyclopedia

This was also made explicit by John Scotus Eriugena:

things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be exist, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature” (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to be exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be exist. He is “nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam). ...This mode (of thinking) illustrates Eriugena’s original way of dissolving the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.
— John Scotus Eriugena

The point being that according to today's empiricist philosophy only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real. There's no conceptual category for the transcendent, and no way of conceptualising it or reaching it through discursive philosophy.

See also God does not exist. — Wayfarer

Alexius Meinong's (vide Meinong's Jungle) thoughts echo John Scotus Eriguena's. Mind twins separated by nearly a thousand or so years! Do such instances of multiple discovery (same idea but different people living in different times) have any bearing on reincarnation (Buddhism/Hinduism) [memories of past lives]?

A more prosaic analysis is made by Dermot Moran who traces the influence of Eriugena on the German idealists.

Reincarnation is a boo-word. Best to steer clear of it.

A more prosaic analysis is made by Dermot Moran who traces the influence of Eriugena on the German idealists.

Reincarnation is a boo-word. Best to steer clear of it. — Wayfarer

If everything, and I mean everything, could be shown to be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" or thereabouts, modal realism would be true (everything possible would exist/be actual). Every person or thing truly is perfect given the givens oui? As a rather controversial example, Hitler was perfect considering the set of experiences he went through - he was the best possible person he could be, factoring in his circumstances. :chin:

That statement is a continuation of Tillich’s earlier conclusion that God cannot be conceived as an object, no matter how lofty. We cannot think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite — Wayfarer

-Existence has termporal qualities by necessity. Something can not exist for zero seconds...
I think that in our efforts to protect concepts with great emotional value we are willing to make up concepts that have no meaning or descriptive power. "something existing for zero time and without minimum requirements criteria of what it means to exist in the first place"...or "nothing being a state of being before something came to be".
Superstitious ideas can only be the subject of Philosophy of Absurdism.

To be honest I live for the moment when a discussion with the title "Yeti and existence" will appear in a philosophical forum!
I guess for most people will not appear to be worthy of a philosophical analysis. After all what makes a superstitious claim worthy for a philosophical discussion is the number of people accepting it.

:smile: I don't have an appropriate response to your comment!

imagine a student using these concepts as an excuse for not handing out his homework! "My paper has a timeless ontology that doesn't interacts with photons..."
I mean who would ever accept that excuse....but by introducing "magic"(special pleading) fully grown ups will accept anything and they will even apply the noble title of Philosophy on top.
I mean if this isn't mental gymanstics/mastrurbation what exactly is it.

Existence has termporal qualities by necessity. — Nickolasgaspar

So do numbers exist? Scientific principles? The law of the excluded middle?

I say no. In my lexicon, these are real, but they don’t exist, precisely because they don’t come into, or go out of, existence. Rather they belong to the realm of what must be so, in order for things to exist.

Consider that in quantum physics, the orbit of electrons have values that can only be defined in terms of integers. That is a fundamental constraint on the nature their existence. Yet the fact that it’s an integer can’t be said to be causal in any direct physical sense. It’s not as if integers ‘do’ something, like exert a force. It’s rather that they are indicative of a constraint, which the electron must conform to in order to exist.

imagine a student using these concepts as an excuse for not handing out his homework! "My paper has a timeless ontology that doesn't interacts with photons..."
I mean who would ever accept that excuse....but by introducing "magic"(special pleading) fully grown ups will accept anything and they will even apply the noble title of Philosophy on top.
I mean if this isn't mental gymanstics/mastrurbation what exactly is it. — Nickolasgaspar

You have a point, but, from what I gather, this is part and parcel of philosophy and science. Philosophy is more deconstruction than construction if you catch my drift à la Socrates who was the wrecking ball of the ideaverse. After him, all that was left were piles of rubble where once majestic belief systems had been erected! He was the Genghis Khan of the world of beliefs.

-"So do numbers exist? Scientific principles? The law of the excluded middle?"
-those are concepts that describe qualities and properties of reality but they do not exist in the way physical entities or processes do (well if you laser cut a number on pvc......that is a different story lol)

So it all has to do with how we use the word "exist".
The do not exist but they are real because they describe real things in the world.

I say no. In my lexicon, these are real, but they don’t exist, precisely because they don’t come into, or go out of, existence — Wayfarer

-I gave an answer without reading your answer and I am glad that you use the same definitions and standards to explain why concepts do not exist as entities and why they are real.

Rather they belong to the realm of what must be so, in order for things to exist. — Wayfarer

I am not sure if I would ever use that term "realm of what must be so''. In my opinion those are descriptions of the objective picture of reality.

Reincarnation is a boo-word. Best to steer clear of it. — Wayfarer

I like your style! :up:

So it all has to do with how we use the word "exist". — Nickolasgaspar

The meaning of the word ‘to exist’ is the fundamental question of philosophy. You skated over a lot of very heavy subjects with a very brief reply there, lol. :meh:

You have a point, but, from what I gather, this is part and parcel of philosophy and science. Philosophy is more deconstruction than construction if you catch my drift à la Socrates who was the wrecking ball of the ideaverse. After him, all that was left were piles of rubble where once majestic belief systems had been erected! He was the Genghis Khan of the world of beliefs. — Agent Smith

-Well the parcel that Philosophy and science has to open is....>Science provides additional facts to our epistemology and Philosophy tries to understand what that means through the construction of wise claims.
Philosophy job is to deconstruct and put things back again in a more meaningful way, but what good it makes when .....the address(language) on that parcel ships it straight to the realm of Absurdism?

I mean we understand things through concepts and things we already understand. i.e. If you ask me how your phone doesn't work...and the answer was" it does work but its on a specific mode which is indistinguishable from not working"...then you have a useless explanation.

I will be back...sorry for not informing you about that.

Consider that in quantum physics, the orbit of electrons have values that can only be defined in terms of integers. That is a fundamental constraint on the nature their existence. Yet the fact that it’s an integer can’t be said to be causal in any direct physical sense. — Wayfarer

-That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures).
Don't get me wrong. Electrons' values are natural phenomena but we shouldn't confuse them with physicality.

It’s not as if integers ‘do’ something, like exert a force. It’s rather that they are indicative of a constraint, which the electron must conform to in order to exist. — Wayfarer

-So the manifestation of the energetic footprint of electrons depends on that specific value.
This manifestation of their energetic property allows them to interact with other systems and particles.
Interaction is one of the qualities that defines "existence". Are we in agreement?

That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures). — Nickolasgaspar

The states of electrons around a nucleus are just as physical as any physical macro system.

This manifestation of their energetic property allows them to interact with other systems and particles. — Nickolasgaspar

No, it's not that which allows them to interact. That's a wrong statement and logically false.

literally.He's thinking of Information as a "state of Matter". — Gnomon

Yes. And that state has a tiny amount more energy than the uninformed state. Gibbs free energy is added. If massless pure kinetic energies interact, an effective mass emerges.

The states of electrons around a nucleus are just as physical as any physical macro system. — Hillary

-Its natural and energetic. Physicality rises in larger scales.

-"No, it's not that which allows them to interact. That's a wrong statement and logically false."
-No it isn't and as a superior male I am right (see what I did there?).
Wow its really easy to argue by your standards !

Its natural and energetic — Nickolasgaspar

An electron is both natural and energetic. Around a nucleus, depending on the orbital, it has varying angular momenta. though it's energy is well defined.

No it isn't and as a superior male I am right (see what I did there?).
Wow its really easy to argue by your standards ! — Nickolasgaspar

Like I said, in investigating nature, the physical, material world, high logical standards and proofs should be applied to our arguments about the material investigated. Your arguments about the electron are nonsensical and unsubstantiated or proven. Nor is there evidence (see what I did here?).

An electron is both natural and energetic. Around a nucleus, depending on the orbital, it has varying angular momenta. though it's energy is well defined. — Hillary

-Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scales

Like I said, in investigating nature, the physical, material world, high logical standards and proofs should be applied to our arguments about the material investigated. Your arguments about the electron are nonsensical and unsubstantiated or proven. Nor is there evidence (see what I did here?). — Hillary

-No it is'nt. You just proved that you are attacking a strawman I never said that electrons are not natural or energetic. I only pointed out that you won't find physical properties in that scale (rigidity,liquidity etc etc etc).
Btw when you make claims about the nature of stuff (you said something about being divine) that is also an nonsensical and unsubstantiated claim. when you claim "heaven exists" whatever that means you need to demonstrate that claim before using it as a principles for your metaphysical speculations.

Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scales — Nickolasgaspar

The electron behaves differently from a tennis ball. But it's still a physical object. It lacks the physicality of the tennis ball but at the same time shares a lot.