. I think reading the Quran, Confucius, Buddhist texts etc would have been really useful to me in public school. — Paulm12

:up:

Totally agree! I always felt something missing in learning at school. I loved physics though. Maybe because its somehow related to know about the reason for existence. I was intriguiged by all those strange weird theories and sub-atomic worlds. How nice it would have been if it all was mixed! Gods, music, art, astrology. In free classes, talking all languages... We should be prepaired for our role in society though...

That depends on the theocracy. And it seems atheocracy has some problems too...

So an atheocracy is better? Why?

You're predictable! Dear mother of gods... whatever...

Good observation!

Why are state and religion separated in the first place? Shouldn't the state be involved in all kinds of life? I mean, watching they all get their chance? Be it science, religion, astrology, Buddha, Inuit, Hopi, Sioux, etc. So they all can live as they want to?

Then why not believe? Because there's no evidence? The circle is closed.

(A) g/G "created" everything for a reason; therefore, Reason is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship — 180 Proof

You're irrationally messing up your reasons.

(B) g/G "created" everything arbitraily, without reason, by chance; therefore, Chance (i.e. randomness à la vacuum fluctuation) is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ... — 180 Proof

Evvery universe emerging from random quantum fluctuations includes evolving life. Which is precisely the reason.

So what does this "prove"? Nothing but the obvious – (whether or not it exists) g/G is superfluous and does not itself explain or justify anything — 180 Proof

This proves your irrationality.

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence — Tom Storm

Then it wouldn't be belief.

Agree with that. — Jackson

How can there be evidence for gods?

I read:

"In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction."

Why is that?

This whole Tao nonsense seems like a perfumed soft paper handkerchief to me. You can blow your nose, clean the screen, or wipe your ass with it. In Tao style. Sorry, couldn't resist! Continue!

Separation of church and state doesn't mean we exclude religious values, it means we exclude religious institutions from government. — T Clark

And it means we include secular institutions, devoid of religious values. So non-religious values are given the power.

Again, this is mistaken. "There are as many subjective realities as there are living creatures." That makes some sense, at least. The above does not. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Again, you adopt an old view on objective reality. That view holds that there is one such reality. Which is ostensibly wrong. Just ask two different scientists about any subject. You might claim that in time agreement is reached, like in the ideal world of Popper, but in reality (there you go!) this is not so. Everyone has, sees, thinks, experiences another objective reality. You might claim that they think it to be objective and thus it is subjective, but that's you projecting your idea of objectivity. Which is subjective... :grin: .

The formula "X (any X at all) is objective to me" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the notions of subjective and objective. I suggest further research and further pondering of the notions of subjective and objective. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I have pondered too much about this and have come to the conclusion that the idea of one and only absolute reality is a useless idea having its roots in Plato and Xenophanes. Plato's idea continued in science, and X's idea in theology. There are as many objective realities as there are living creatures.

Cheers! :party:

We can think they're subjective. — ZzzoneiroCosm

But why should you want them to be subjective? It's a more human approach if you think that the morality people hold as objective are considered objective instead of projecting your subjectivity on them. :smile:

For that reason, the idea of secularism - that we can exclude religious values from this process, which includes discussions of morality to develop an inclusive ethical framework - is naive at best. — Possibility

:up:

The question is how do we metaphysically justify this (other than just saying "I like it" or "I don't like it")? — Paulm12

We need a wider metaphysical framework, a theology, or maybe a cosmology. How you view, say gods or God, seems to influence your morals. Maybe the best moral is to give all forms of life equal chances. So not necessarily about good and evil, which is just there, and the "evil" is somehow stimulated in modern society. But why should the bad be no good?

We don't know whether their morality is objective. We only know what they think of it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, indeed. But what else can we do than think they are objective? Why do we think they are objective? I think for a lot of people it's the easy way. "Its just like that, so stop whining!" Somehow it's like putting the blame outside of yourself.

Take abortion (a lot of ado about that in the US, so I heard). You can say it's God's fruit that a pregnant woman wears, so it can't be aborted, or if you think differently about God or gods,, it would be no problem. Now whose morality is objective? I go with the liberal view, but is that objective? To me yes. And the pregnant woman? Difficult!

But it depends on your view of gods or God what the morals are then.

totally agree. But people wanting their morality to be objective (or claiming it is objective) does not necessarily make it true. To me, this is a huge problem with any naturalistic, secular ethics. — Paulm12

You mean moral is divinely inspired? Say, that life is sacred because life is divinely "created" or evolution invented by gods or God?

It's a sub of the problem of an absolute, objective reality. Why should there be one such reality? You can say because that's by definition the case, but we can change the definition. The morality of the atheist is not god-given, but an evolutionary feature, serving the passing of genes or memes. But it's an objective morality just the same. I don't believe in it. My objective morality is a different one.

How we know their morality is objective? If they have an objective (non-moral) principle to derive their moral from. How do we know that objective principle is objective? Because it is thought to exist independently of them. Like genes or memes selfishly trying to be passed on.

You can always ask them to change to other objective morals. You might convince them.

What if gods can't show up and proof their existence in the way you demand proof to be? Wouldn't their showing up in the flesh disturb the laws and stuff they created? Dreams or the mind would be far more subtle places to appear in and the laws of quantum mechanics don't forbid this. You might say that this is pretty convenient for the believer, of course, but how else can it be? Via the mind they can project themselves, on clouds, in dreams, etc. Or what if they just leave their creation alone. Just look at it?

To me, this would imply morality is subjective — Paulm12

Indeed, to you. But when you ask the people involved, and they say their morality is not how they want it, but an objective morality, then it is an objective morality. It's the experience that counts, not what you think it is.

Our Sun (the star) will eventually die out, therefore we (planet Earth) is doomed for certain at some point if the far future. — SpaceDweller

Good point. We will never be able to avoid the final apocalypse. One fine day it hits globally and universally. No worries. Behind us it starts all over again! No trip to heaven nor hell. Eternal recurrence is what its made for.

A good thing is that life out of water can't be reproduced with all the technological advancements we have. — SpaceDweller

Good observation. Not one single lifeform can be produced in a lob. Not even a virus.

I think it's either biological phenomena or God, but how to construct arguments on these 2 hypothesis is beyond my imagination. — SpaceDweller

Life evolving naturally was the intention of the gods. The only thing they had to create was a rightly structured 4d quantum vacuum, containing the right virtual particles (which differ from real ones in the sense that they have all momenta and energies, as independent variables). Just create that and two universes bang into existence automatically. Again and again. As planned. We are doomed to dance for the gods over and over. But I don't mind!

One problem is that big bang is modern theory of universe, therefore a God which is the creator of big bang (or a series of big bangs) does not fit into any of the revelations about God that we have today.

In other words with such hypothesis you're creating a new religion. — SpaceDweller

Believe it or not, but I had a truly amazing dream. Maybe it were the gods themselves who made me dream, or maybe it was my unconsciousness in action, but I saw thousands of creatures working together and when they had found the solution they magically turned the particles real. And the universe was born. And the first bang banged... The standard view on god is an archaic outdated, old-fashioned one.

But how do you deal with theory of evolution? — SpaceDweller

I think they made the basics. If all life in heaven took part in the development, research, and finally creation of the particles with the right properties, in the right spacetime, all intelligences, all life, could evolve in the right way to give rise to all life, and every eternal god could have a counterpart in the temporary divine material version in the material universe. The big bang could bang periodically, to let life develop (which scientists call evolution) again and again, so the eternal gods could watch them over and over again. A reason for creation could be that boredom or and existential void hit the heavens... :starstruck:

It's more or less like this. Morality is objective. But it depends on who you ask what that objective morality is. Likewise for objective truths or realities. The old and ancient Greek idea of one and only absolute, objective reality needs a fix.

Consider what happens when you hit rock bottom insifar the physics is concerned. You know how the cosmos functions. Just assume. Then you ask the question, where did the structure, particles, etc. come from? What is the reason for their existence? Who ordered them? What else than gods can be the reason? Abracadabra, simsalabim, hocus pocus, pilatus pas: "FLASH"! True magic. Add personal epihanies, and there's your proof.

Yeah, I mean, you wrote a pretty substantive comment, and even wrote it to be a great thread (which it is)... Just one word in reaction would suffice, as you wrote.

I think, BTW, that ethics or morals (I can't really see the difference) is objective. What the objective morals are then depends on who you ask. And somehow a world in which the bad or evil is not allowed to exist seems a worse world than a world in which it can exist.

I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK". — Alkis Piskas

:up:

Something is uncreated. — Relativist

Yes. The universe is uncreated if you turn time backwards. But then a new appears at the same time at infinity, running back to the central singularity.

Intelligence evolved slowly, but tthe life that slowly evolved is the material version of eternal heavenly life.

If indeed the arrow of time is associated with thermodynamics, this doesn't preclude a (thermodynamically) static quantum system from being the fundamental basis from which it emerges. — Relativist

Precisely. One cannot say time runs forward or backwards in such a primordial state.

Excellent point! Yes, also. The western way has introduced excellent means to evade the pain and misery it introduced! Be it sister morphine or brother booze.

You've deliberately lowered your IQ to participate in TPF haven't you? :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol:

A necessary but sufficient adjustment! With you I go fully fledged though! :love:

The sunlight completes the causal set of conditions for the acorn to grow - it is one and this in the Kalam cosmological argument is Allah/YHWH. — Agent Smith

Again, brother Agent: :clap:

The water, nutritionionionians, Sunlight, can be compared with the quantum vacuum. But it takes me or thou to provide them. Likewise it takes gods to provide...

That was what I said - information is the capacity, not actuality. It exists as a variability in the state of an electron. The particular meaning we attribute to that unit of potential (if any) is not essential to its existence as information. — Possibility

The wavefunction contains no information in the sense a computer memory chip contains actual information. Nor in the sense that the same chip contains potentially information. We can't project information on the wavefunction like we can to superpositions of electron spins or classical arrays of bits. The wavefunctions contains no zeroes and ones. There is no quantum computing going on beneath the surface of reality. The event horizon of a black hole is entangled with the inside after the formation of the hole. Contrary to what Erik Verlinde claims: quantum bits on the horizon or surface around the observable universe directing the inside.

...with what? — Possibility

Non local hidden variables. The wavefunction is made of it. It could be argued the are the constituents of space.

:snicker: I maybe right but I'm definitely not all right! WTF? — Agent Smith

I think our friend Lao Tao was indeed aware of the quantum vacuum. Why not? Every body literally wavers in it. Collapse can be objective, my dear brother Smith. Trust a brother in madness conveying this to you... Collapse is objective! Wheehaaaa!!! :lol: