Please "logically" demonstrate that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind" (whatever that is). :eyes: — 180 Proof
So ... "it's Wabbit season again, is it?" :smirk:You're, for certain, aware of the Duck Test. — Agent Smith
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.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)
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 follow any rules of our reality. — Nickolasgaspar
Not both....but can either or depending of the situation.Anything and everything seems to be, well, dual purpose, ethically that is: a bullet can both kill and save a person. — 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.Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities — Agent Smith
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
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
-Existence has termporal qualities by necessity. Something can not exist for zero seconds...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. — Nickolasgaspar
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
-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.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 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.Rather they belong to the realm of what must be so, in order for things to exist. — Wayfarer
So it all has to do with how we use the word "exist". — 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. — Agent Smith
-That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures).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
-So the manifestation of the energetic footprint of electrons depends on that specific value.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
That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures). — Nickolasgaspar
This manifestation of their energetic property allows them to interact with other systems and particles. — Nickolasgaspar
literally.He's thinking of Information as a "state of Matter". — Gnomon
-Its natural and energetic. Physicality rises in larger scales.The states of electrons around a nucleus are just as physical as any physical macro system. — Hillary
Its natural and energetic — Nickolasgaspar
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
-Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scalesAn 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
-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).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
Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scales — Nickolasgaspar
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.