I will be back — Nickolasgaspar

:grin: @Wayfarer RUUUNNNN!

YOU BREAKED MY TOY!

WHY YOU BREAKED MY TOY?!

:cry: :groan:

A safe guess would be that you also don't like when your assumptions are getting red flagged by logic and soundness...right?

....it was already broken...... I only pointed out the cracks..

A safe guess is that you also don't your assumptions getting red flagged by logic and soundness...right? — Nickolasgaspar

I dunno what you're talking about!

it was already broken — Nickolasgaspar

:chin:

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

I wasn't aiming for perfection you know!

You have a sad life, to you everything is :broken:

Coming from me, that's something you should think about and deeply!

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

The last is of course questionable. And philosophy should asks these questions, as it should question the opposite too: "God does exist. This is questionable". We can easily conceptualize gods as ethereal, spiritual, enlightened eternal beings, made of pure magical soul, while the universal life is a material finite abstraction thereof. If the finite material beings recur infinite times (but non-identical) in subsequent universes, then the eternal heavenly life can be said to be reflected in the material universe.

I dunno what you're talking about! — Agent Smith

That is the general dominant theme in these discussion ....

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

A wonderful description of the state of modern "philosophy"!!!

:up:

See also God does not exist.
— Wayfarer

The last is of course questionable — Hillary

The post it was quoted from contained a link to God does not Exist, by Bishop Pierre Whalon, so the phrase ought not to be taken literally.

This thread has now descended into juvenilia so I'll leave it at that.

The post it was quoted from contained a link to God does not Exist, by Bishop Pierre Whalon, so the phrase ought not to be taken literally. — Wayfarer

No surprise, he is an Anglican so called "bishop", hah.

The post it was quoted from contained a link to God does not Exist, by Bishop Pierre Whalon, so the phrase ought not to be taken literally. — Wayfarer

Our beloved bishop claims to have knowledge of God in the same way as claiming the gods look just like life in the universe. His concept of God is an intellectual abstraction which doesn't resemble the true nature of divine presences.

From the article:

In other words, God could not be God. He would be at best some sort of super-alien, flitting about the creation flashing super powers, seemingly irrationally. That is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. Its "worshippers," the "Pastafarians," are the latest in a long line of skeptics, though with perhaps a finer sense of humor. And even if said Monster existed, it could not be God. There would be no reason to worship it; in fact, one would do well to avoid it and its "noodly appendages."

Those who say they do not believe in God often give lack of evidence for their unbelief. This is a confusion of knowledge and faith. It is also an error of logic -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There cannot be any empirical evidence of the existence of God, for God does not exist.

Let me be clear: I believe God is. But my faith is not knowledge. At best I can give sound reasons -- sound to my mind, at least -- why my faith is not irrational. And that begins with clarifying the terms. What we call god (all human languages have a word for it) is something we infer from the fact of existence. The universe is, and it exists. Why it does -- why there is something rather than nothing -- cannot be proven from the terms and relations we can discern in the makeup of the universe.

"Pastafarians"... He's got a sense of humor! But why you should posit a spaghetti monster? Is that a god who eternally eats spaghetti? Well, it could be that's a true image of God. But why should God exist alone in the first place? The Greek gods were many, with distinct features, so why couldn't gods be manifold? Or animal like? Plant-like? Or slipper animal gods.

A wonderful description of the state of modern "philosophy"!!! — Hillary

Have you heard of the crab mentality? Visit Wikipedia for more!

"Crab mentality, also known as crab theory, crabs in a bucket (also barrel, basket, or pot) mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you". The metaphor is derived from a pattern of behavior noted in crabs when they are trapped in a bucket."

It's confusing though. What crab behavior indicates that the crab says that if he can't have neither can I. Have what?

I dunno!

according to today's empiricist philosophy only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real. — Wayfarer

I would add "occurring", since "existing" limits things to static ones.

Then, a question arises: are things that are considered real only physical or are non-physical things also included? For example, if I think of a solution to a problem --which does not occur in space and is not of a physical nature-- it is real for me, and I can also prove it so that it becomes real to others too.

This, as you can see, brings in the quite common question: "Real for whom?" Because what is real for me might not be real for you and vice versa.

As a result of all that, the statement "only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real" --besides being incomplete, as I mentioned at start-- is unfounded, or ambiguous at best.

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. — Agent Smith

Yes. Ethics is concerned with relationships between people, not between G*D & Man. As I see it, G*D is not Fair-to-me, but Neutral-to-all. For most people, fairness is judged from a personal & subjective perspective. But for the impersonal & objective Programmer of Evolution, variations between "good & bad" are inherent & necessary in the Hegelian Dialectic. The heuristic (trial & error) Evolutionary Algorithm searches for "fitness to an ultimate purpose", not for "fairness to the individual players" in the game. In the game of Evolution there are winners & losers, but the rule-maker is only concerned with the final outcome.

Personally, my life has been mostly good, so I don't think in terms of Dystheism. Apparently, the game is setup with rules (natural laws) that apply equally to all players. So, in that sense, the game is fair. And it's up to each player to make the best of his own talents & situations. Unfortunately, some are born without talent (advantages) and into untenable circumstances. That may seem unfair, but human culture is able to counter-balance the situation with such innovations as Charity. That's why I think of the evolving world, as an experiment in Free Will, to see if its agents are able to learn how to act morally & ethically. Regarding the final score, I assume that it will be satisfactory for the Programmer. But we'll just have to wait & see if, after The End (the Totality), the game is reset and started all over again, with a score of zero to zero. In any case, a Dystopian worldview only hurts the viewer. :smile:

PS___Best World for whom? Certainly not for me. But it's somewhere in the middle. Presumably, it will turn-out OK for the Creator's purposes. Humans can only dream of Utopias, but G*D can make it happen . . . eventually. If Free Will is the point of the game, it will take time to let it develop from top-down Natural Laws to inter-personal Cultural Laws.


Evolutionary Algorithm :
There is a problem to be solved, and the solution is conceived to lie somewhere in a space of possible candidate solutions – the search space. The evolutionary algorithm searches for good solutions in the search space using this typical structure:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/evolutionary-algorithm

Hegelian system :
Hegel's grand idea is "totality" which preserves within it each of the ideas or stages that it has overcome or subsumed. Overcoming or subsuming is a developmental process made up of "moments" (stages or phases).
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm

Then, a question arises: are things that are considered real only physical or are non-physical things also included? For example, if I think of a solution to a problem --which does not occur in space and is not of a physical nature-- it is real for me, and I can also prove it so that it becomes real to others too.

This, as you can see, brings in the quite common question: "Real for whom?" Because what is real for me might not be real for you and vice versa. — Alkis Piskas

But 'real for whom?' then raises the issue of subjectivism - that what is real is up to you or me. But it can't be that way - what if I change my mind? Does something that was real then become unreal? It can't be dependent on your or my say-so.

As for things that can be proven to others, this is one of the fundamental principles of scientific discovery. It's the whole purpose of replication and peer-review. But of course the difficulty is that scientists often start with the presumption that what is real must be validated in terms of what is observable or empirical - so here is the problem of the limitations of empiricism once again.

That is why I asked the question: what is the nature of intellectual objects, such as number, and scientific and logical principles? Mathematical platonists believe that numbers are real, in that they're the same for any observer, but they're not material, because they can only be grasped by a rational intellect.

Some scholars feel very strongly that mathematical truths are “out there,” waiting to be discovered—a position known as Platonism. It takes its name from the ancient Greek thinker Plato, who imagined that mathematical truths inhabit a world of their own—not a physical world, but rather a non-physical realm of unchanging perfection; a realm that exists outside of space and time. Roger Penrose, the renowned British mathematical physicist, is a staunch Platonist. In The Emperor’s New Mind, he wrote that there appears “to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the mental deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own...”

Many mathematicians seem to support this view. The things they’ve discovered over the centuries—that there is no highest prime number; that the square root of two is an irrational number; that the number pi, when expressed as a decimal, goes on forever—seem to be eternal truths, independent of the minds that found them. If we were to one day encounter intelligent aliens from another galaxy, they would not share our language or culture, but, the Platonist would argue, they might very well have made these same mathematical discoveries.

“I believe that the only way to make sense of mathematics is to believe that there are objective mathematical facts, and that they are discovered by mathematicians,” says James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Toronto. “Working mathematicians overwhelmingly are Platonists. They don't always call themselves Platonists, but if you ask them relevant questions, it’s always the Platonistic answer that they give you.”

Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago. — What is Math?

That is the whole problem in a nutshell, although I don't expect that many will understand it.

Yes, and that which is real (i.e. ineluctable, more-than-intersubjective) is independent of "faith". — 180 Proof

Yes- in general, things exist irrespective of people believing they exist. But faith entails an unjustified belief. Belief in God can be unjustified even if a God exists.

Hypothetically, let's assume a God exists: a being who created the universe, but does not intervene in its affairs post-creation. (Christianity is false in this scenario, because it entails an interventionist god). Joe believes a God exists because he was raised Christian and unquestioningly accepted what he was taught. Joe's belief in God is unjustified, and it's mere coincidence that his belief is true (i.e. it's a Gettier problem).

But 'real for whom?' then raises the issue of subjectivism - that what is real is up to you or me. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Isn't that what I have said already? You have even quoted me on that! :smile:

But it can't be that way - what if I change my mind? Does something that was real then become unreal? It can't be dependent on your or my say-so. — Wayfarer

Everyone can and does change one's mind from time to time. And one's reality changes accordingly. What difference does this make? There's no stable, static reality. Even if one thinks of reality as the physical universe --which is wrong-- that changes too, in fact, on a constant basis. There's nothing static and never changing, except such abtract ideas as infinity, eternity, God, etc.

... This will take long. I will come back to it later ...

Everyone can and does change one's mind from time to time. And one's reality changes accordingly. What difference does this make? There's no stable, static reality. — Alkis Piskas

There may not be a static reality, but some things will never change.

There may not be a static reality, but some things will never change. — Wayfarer

This is true. For instance, most of my habits never change! :grin:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

You know, I've been thinking (like never before in my life)...the gap between us and God could be as big or even bigger than the gap between us and animals stones! That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him).

Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things. — Terry Pratchett

A good repartee to the so-called problem of evil!

As far as God's concerned, the universe is lifeless, biologically barren!

So we're just sacks of chemistry! — Neil deGrasse Tyson

To the guy upstairs, we're nothing more than a chemical reaction! Could you feel anything for one? :chin:

That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him). — Agent Smith

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him"

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him" — SpaceDweller

Let's see what Gnomon has to say.

His G*D is some kinda information-based entity. He makes it a point to state, in very clear propositions, the word "god" is what in math is a variable (x, unknown, re god of the gaps).

You know, I've been thinking (like never before in my life)...the gap between us and God could be as big or even bigger than the gap between us and animals stones! That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him). — Agent Smith

Paradoxically, G*D (Programmer ; Cause ; Source) is both "wholly-other" and "all-encompassing". In the sense of being unbounded by space & time, G*D is in a completely different ontological category from the creatures bound to live within the constraints of an imperfect, but evolving, physical world. However, in the Enformationism thesis, we humans are integral parts of the Whole System, in a concept similar to PanPsychism. Metaphorically, we are all ideas in the Mind of G*D.

So, in an Ideal sense, G*D is US --- we are real forms of the ideal Form, we are chips off the old BEING. According to PanDeism (all is god), G*D, whose substance is EnFormAction (energy ; power to cause change, to create), converted some of His/Her metaphysical substance (ideas ; mind) into physical substance (matter). Moreover, PanEnDeism (all in god), is based on the notion that we creatures are integral parts of the ultimate Whole. But, if you are uncomfortable with overtly religious god-models, you could simply say that we are the offspring of Mother Nature.

Presumably, the Creator/Programmer knows everything we know, and feels all that we feel. We are G*D experiencing what it's like to be finite & time-bound. Some have said that we creatures are how an Ideal G*D experiences Reality. When we suffer, G*D suffers, and when we exult, G*D is elated. Unfortunately, this is all hypothetical from our narrow perspective inside the system. But, at least, it gives us some reason to feel a philosophical kinship with our silent & remote Creator, who doesn't intervene but conjoins. Some religious believers express that notion of oneness in various metaphors, such as the Footprints In The Sand poem. You may not go quite that far, but as a philosophical worldview, it's at least a positive take on the human experience, as representatives of G*D in the world. Which aspect do you express : the Divine or the Satanic? :cool:


Wholly Other :
The term “wholly other” is used in Christian theology to describe the difference between God and everything else.
https://carm.org/dictionary/wholly-other/

Footprints in the Sand :
https://www.onlythebible.com/Poems/Footprints-in-the-Sand-Poem.html

Panendeism :
http://www.supra-id.org/panendeism

God becomes the universe :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him" — SpaceDweller
Let's see what Gnomon has to say. — Agent Smith

No. That's a Calvinist Christian notion of "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God", who sees us as loathsome insects fit only to be burned. https://wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch03_03.htm
The Creator of an imperfect, but evolving world, couldn't reasonably expect perfection from fallible creatures in an imperfect immature world. So we can only make the best use of whatever messy situation we find ourselves in. My god-model is more like the one expressed in the poem below. :smile:

Desiderata :
. . . . . . Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/desiderata.htm

:roll:

Presumably, the Creator/Programmer [ ... ] our silent & remote Creator [ ... ] — Gnomon

*Cough* yeah but ... :chin:

Please "logically demonstrate" that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind ... Creator / Programmer" [ ... ] — 180 Proof

You know what, take this as a compliment for I intended it as one, your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)!

You're a prophet, Gnomon! :smile:

:fire:

Please "logically demonstrate" that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind ... Creator / Programmer" [ ... ] — 180 Proof

Would you rethink your position on God if I were to say that God is just one of the many explanatory hypotheses out there for the existence of the universe? In other words, I go from God exists to God may exist.