The logic of creation: the gods were bored. From bacteria to whale gods, from tree gods to parrot gods. Endlessly making war and love became too much. Existential void. Power of creation-> the eternal universe. Now they only watch to fill the heavenly emptiness. Let's not disappoint them!

What could it be, I wonder? — Agent Smith

"I winder"...
Oops, sorry, "I wonder"...

It could be they used their other side, not sure. They didn't tell me about the mechanism of creation, my love...

Noble Dust is right Agent! The emanation of the gods is what we call the scientific universe.

You gotta be kidding me! (no offense, Jack Cummins!) Again! I mean, a thread about gods! I truly gonna do research. Look to all ten days of threads on tpf and compare. Im sure the last 10 win! Can take a while though. Now here AI would come in handy? Quantum computer, compare... I wait still a bit with making their announce public, only here, ooooon TeeeePeeeeeeeeeF! Await unbelievers!

Seems the egg, the opinion, comes after that what the opinion is about, the rooster. Without the rooster fertile opinions can exist, laid by mother the hen, but it still needs a rooster to let the opinion touch with the reality it's based on. Which leads to the ultimate question: which came first, the rooster or the sperm? Seems the answer is obvious.

But to this day nobody knows what "Charge" is. — Gnomon

And I think we'll never know, as it's inside the particle. We can't know what the inside of a particle exactly is. Which implies that we can't explain consciousness. Of course we eat loads of charges each day. They become part of our total charge, so to speak. And we know how that feels like. Kind of you are what you eat. You can have 1001 explanations of charge, vibrational string modes, or coupling strength to fields, the true nature will stay a mystery. A longing maybe?

Could be, but why only in dreams? And why would gods communicate with us in dreams, then not make it so we can remember what the dreams were about? Seems like a rather pointless enterprise. I guess I should say, if a god communicates with me via my dreamstates, he damn sure outta enable me to remember it. — Mww

Good question! I think the physical outside world is too "massive" for the message to send and come through. Making a voice appear in public costs more energy than letting a voice or image appear in the mind.

Natural laws are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe,
— EugeneW

Not yet, — Mww

Never in principle. All causal processes are explainable, from an infinite time in the past to an infinite time in the future. The infinite series of big bangs is good proof for the intentions of the gods to create the eternal universe.

There is the physical world and there is the mental conceptual world. We perceive both. Our eyes can be directed inwardly and outwardly. The perception of the physical world depends on our ideal world, while the ideal world is structured by physical structures. Both worlds can resonate with one another. Reality is actively shaped.

X: I'm not Jewish!
Y: Yeah well, nobody's perfect — Agent Smith

You come up, as usual, with wondrous associations, love! Luckily not all minds are perfect! :starstruck:

There are no sensations in dreams. I’ve dreamt of frying bacon, but never when so engaged, have I experienced the smell it frying. — Mww

Very true. Smell, pain, and taste are absent in dreams. I never smelt anything at least. I'm not sure if the gods need smell or taste to communicate to us. You could say (I realize now!) that that's even the reason we don't smell in dreams. The gods don't need it to communicate.

Just as I like to keep my conscious faculties separated, in order to tell which one to call on for the thing it alone can do, so too I like to keep the conscious activities separated from the sub-conscious activities. — Mww

Not sure what you want to say with this. Maybe dreaming is meant for divine communication.

So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda? What would you even qualify as propaganda? — SophistiCat

You questioning or denying of western propaganda only goes to show the propaganda made by the advocates of our beloved western way of freedom, democracy, and humanity works out just fine. The representatives in the centers of powers do a good job.

We're not made for this, and I mean that in a very real biological and mental sense, to serve large abstracted entities called states with weapons that can flatten cities. We're supposed to throw a stone or two and maybe accidentally kill someone with a an unlucky strike. Everything more than that is just the horror of civilisation combined the failure of imagination to feel empathy for nations and its people because it's too far removed from ourselves and a system that enables sociopaths to rise to the top. — Benkei

:100:

Tech-based quarrels between abstract entities called countries tend to loose sight of the individual.

P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L!!! — Agent Smith

The potential is virtual. The rooster is real.

. Gods are not presented to us as are real objects, they leave no impressions on our sensations, so we don’t intuit anything with respect to them as phenomenon — Mww

That's questionable. What if you have seen them in dreams?

The negation of the necessity of gods is easy. If the effects in the empirical world are sufficiently explained by natural law, then explanations for effects in the natural world have no antecedent necessary explanation by gods — Mww

Negating them or their necessity won't make them less real.

If the certainty of natural law is really not sufficient to explain natural causes and effect, is a god then merely possible, but still not necessary. Only when no other explanation at all, of any kind whatsoever, whether comprehensible by us or not, for the natural occurrences of cause and effect, may gods be necessary. — Mww

Natural laws are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, even if eternal (which I think is the case as the universe is a copy of heaven, to a large extent). Nor can the presence of matter explain itself. So if both matter and the laws it conforms to are known to the fundament, they can't explain themselves.

As a matter of fact, this can be done with the Abrahamic God par excellence. The two realities are perfectly compatible, as the derive from a common root in Greek philosopy of Greek philodohers in (Platonic) love: Plato and Xenophanes.

Anyway, if the driver does nothing, he will most probably be reprimanded for killing these 5 people instead of trying in any way to avoid it by diverting the trolley. — Alkis Piskas

Not sure. Maybe he'll be reprimanded for not sticking to the scheme.

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete — Gnomon

:lol:

Wholey cow!

But yeah I feel when you come across a topic it tends to come to the forefront of you awareness and you usually see it a lot more in the coming weeks after that. Like when you learn a new word you never came across before and then suddenly you see everywhere. — Benj96

Im gonna do a research. Count god threads over all 10 days of the forum. How should I proceed? I cant start from the first 10, ten 11-20, 21-30, etc. How can one find the "densest" 10 days?

I have a feeling its no coincidence...

For example, I looked at a random sequence of threads of 2 months ago. One thread only! Compare with last week!

Every countably infinite subset of the continuum that has an upper bound (happiness = 10) has a least upper bound (sorrow = 0). Which would make a potential midway point (neither happiness nor sorrow) = 5. A score of 5.53 would therefore be positioned closer to happiness than to sorrow. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this... — Possibility

The number 5.53 points to virtual people. Actual people have values above and below 5. A relative very high number of people have a lucky number below 5. Which means, they are unhappy. If you asked the luck question 10 000 years ago, when paradise was still paradise, a relative small number of people would have a luck value below 5. If they even understood the question. They were just happy.

Necessity is that for which the negation is impossible”. — Mww

The gods, that is.

Causality. Existence. Reality. Any conception for which no object can be intuited as belonging to it. Like....you know.....gods and stuff. — Mww

Every object can be intuited as belonging to it. Like scientific knowledge and the assumed objects the knowledge is about. Or the gods.

Conceptions arise from understanding conditioned by sensibility, but they also can arise from understanding without sensibility for their condition. Which allows us to think gods, but prevents us from proving the existence of them, iff they do not admit to the criteria of sensibility, from which all our experiences are given. — Mww

Nice one! I had to read that a few timed and am not sure I even understand now! One can understand the gods without any appeal to the senses. For knowing the nature of the gods or their motives you can invoke the senses perceiving the cosmos and all the life that's in it. The senses can be used to even prove the existence of the gods. If you call the dream sensory proof then it can serve as proof.

The only differences in reason, is the domain of its use. Reason concerns itself with knowledge represented by phenomena in synthesis with conceptions, pure reason with thought represented by the synthesis of conceptions alone. Reason may or may not be a priori; pure reason is always and only a priori. — Mww

Again, I had to read that slow and loud to grasp! The neighbors must think there is something wrong with me! There are different forms of reason. Not one form with different domains. That's only the case with the formal pure reason you talk about, floating in an abstract global fairyvacuum subjecting all local forms of concrete forms of reason. Pure reason (logic being its most pristine, sublime, yes almost divine form) is a killer.

The only differences in reason, is the domain of its use. Reason concerns itself with knowledge represented by phenomena in synthesis with conceptions, pure reason with thought represented by the synthesis of conceptions alone. Reason may or may not be a priori; pure reason is always and only a priori. — Mww

Yes. Pure reason is an a priori. An a priori fairy tale.

Pure reason has its own subject matter — Mww

And what might that be?

Interestingly, there are forms of realism people have proposed where the only universals/forms are the fundemental particles. I've never seen nominalism of this sort before, but I could see how it would work. Fundemental particles would be the only tropes, and tropes would really just be names for the excitations of quantum fields we observe. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It could be that fundamental particles are structures of space. If you consider an elementary an object in a 6d space of which 3 are curled up to tiny Planck-sized dimensions they appear pointlike and can be on top of each other without becoming a singularity as in a black hole. Lots of problems would be solved, like a Lorentz-invsriant invariant Planck length and the already mentioned avoidance of the singularity.

550
Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

Cosmological knowledge is the basis even for the existence of gods. If the fundamental physical laws are known, if the gaps are closed, what else can we but logically conclude that gods are the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe?

And lemmetellya, they were not mathematicians. Well, a small part of the homonid gods were actually. If only greater attention was paid to them in the run to creation. Godkind, in its enthusiasm, forgot to do. It became clear in heaven recently. Now they try to reach us. It's hard though. They hadn't anticipated this. It appears they found a way though. But it's too early to tell.

And again a gods thread! Damned! I haven't seen thamuchothem as in the last 10 days before. If someone can show me 10 days with more threads about gods than in these last 10 days then they are in for an eternal reward!

It could be me though, seeing god everywhere.

Probably better not to confuse the abilities of one faculty with the abilities of another. Pretty soon we’ll have steering wheels that dig holes in the ground. Or.....apples doing calculus. — Mww

Apples doing calculus is unreasonable. Like a parrot understanding his words. Conception using perception is reasonable.

It matters not. It is still only reason that says pure reason is a fairytale. And only reason can say how pure reason actually is a fairytale of sorts, when it operates beyond its limits. Like convincing ourselves of the reality of a thing, then making that thing impossible to experience in the same way other things are experienced. — Mww

There is a big difference between reason and pure reason. Pure reason is abstract and devoid of subject matter. It's a fictional vacuous fairytale.

However, I am sure that babies also have certain innate knowledge. — RussellA

Already in the womb the brain is put in shape to confront the world. For example, in the retina, processes run around like concentric circles whose radii grow or decrease. An effect one can sometimes observe in the dark or with closed eyes. The outside world impresses itself on the brain already in mothers safe haven. By construction or direct means, like the feeling of balance. All sensory equipment is used already then.

Ok, but are we just as certain they did?
————- — Mww

Yes! How else it came to be?

No. Understanding conceives; the senses perceive. — Mww

Then the base for god is even firmer. We can conceive by perception.

And yet pure reason is the only possible source of both affirmative and negative determinations with respect to gods, as far as humans are concerned. Whether they exist or not, reason is how we can talk about what they may or may not be. It is, after all, only reason that says reason is a fairytale. — Mww

Reason is no fairytale. Pure reason (das reinen Vernünft) is.

Bye sushi.

Perhaps they do — Mww

For certain they do. The universe wouldn't exist if the hadn't.

On the other hand, human understanding is obviously capable of conceiving an unconditioned possibility, and pure reason has the authority to establish an idea of its object — Mww

If so, then human understanding is capable of perceiving gods and to establish ideas of them. If we can know the gods by observing the universe and are informed about their motives for creation, it might even help in establishing a cosmology, or a cosmogenisis.
Pure reason is a fairytale.

If for any reason that affirms an idea, there is an equally valid reason that negates it..... — Mww

That's equivalent to falsificationism. I prefer confirmationism. Endlessly trying to falsify has its limits. One should one time be satisfied with a last confirmation.

And any thesis or proposition for which a definitive, non-contradictory judgement regarding the reality of its object is lacking, or ill-gotten, properly belongs to imagination — Mww

Of course. This judgement though is not lacking wrt to the existence of gods.

Until so far. I criticize the second part of your challenging comment later! Thanks for making it, but that's what a philosophy forum is for I guess. Arguments, reasoning, critique, etc.

How can you say it is chimera with the technological advances we have today gained by way of scientific investigation through experimentation? — I like sushi

I wrote that the methodology is a chimera. The pressumed methodology is an invention of philosophers. They try to capture the processes of scientific knowledge gathering. I think that a scientist operating while obeying the methodology (and there are lots of them invented) is a chimera.

It's clear enough for those with a modicum of horse sense. — Agent Smith

Keep that horse running wildly my love! Let's ride the untamed horse of reality without a damned saddle, without the bridles! Jippiyajay!

Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though. — I like sushi

Religion gets more money? The media is almost continuously ejecting the happy message of science and technology. Just look at commercials. Did you ever see one trying to sell gods? "One of the hardest problems in AI is to understand language", the scientists claim... As if understanding it and recreating it in AI is important. But it's brought as such. "We" (the scientists) "are on the verge of...". Documentaries about the sciences flood the market and in politics religion merely plays a side role, inly in name. Science and politics are conflated like never before in history and language is reduced to scientifically rational debate with arguments, so beloved by the ancient Greek philosophers, of who the distorted ideas of Xenophanes (the omni monster god) and Plato stood at the base of modern scientific thinking, and associated so-called democratic politics, how much we might dislike it.

Good ol’ Nietzsche stuff. And he wasnt much of an anti-atheist either. — Ansiktsburk

He wasn't an anti-a theist? Does that make him an atheìst? Or doesn't he accept the gods looking at us and announcing them to be dead? What was his image of gods?

I was thinking in term of cooking — I like sushi

So was I! A popular subject on the PF! Rooster, when he has had a good life, brings life to the egg.

More seriously, proteins were there before the ribosomes. The first ribosomes were the proto eggs.

only a methodology that guides investigation. — I like sushi

This methodology is a chimera, a fairy tale. Like the god particle and good and bad ghost particle fields.

I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? — I like sushi

The picture the media paints. The physicist that has the answers to existence because of some sacred knowledge, unattainable to "the ignorant layman", exactly as in religion.

Einstein dreamt of a final unified theory. At CERN the fundaments of the universe are probed. I can tell them what to find at higher energies without ever having experienced the ultra small directly myself.

Hawking, Einstein, Witten, Rovelli, Carroll, Wheeler, Smolin, Lederman, Teresi, Süsskind, Strominger, etc. All painted as the priests of the church of science.

I prefer the rooster. sprays life into the egg.

Not really. — I like sushi

If as a physicist you dont wanna know the basic laws then you're no real physicist. Or pretending not to wanna know because you're not capable.

You believe in god(s) how unscientific! — universeness

Precisely because of the science I believe in them.

Yeah it is and confirms your theistic dogmatism — universeness

Im not dogmatic about it. If one doesnt wanna belief it's up to them. Claiming you are 99.9% sure they dont exist is dogmatic. With a little eyewink to the possibility they do exist. Which makes him a theist. A dogmatic scientific theist!