Yes, I understand what matter is, but why do you mix it with religion saying is in God’s mind? — javi2541997

If God created the material universe then it follows logically that matter is a concept in God's mind. Matter is not an eternal substance, it is a mathematical idea. And if God exists that is where the idea originated, right?

What? — javi2541997

Matter is two things. The substance of matter is energy. The form of matter is geometry. When energy cools it condenses into material patterns - like water forming ice crystals. These patterns are physical objects like a hydrogen atom, a rock, a planet...
These patterns can dissolve away as matter returns to its energy state. Material objects are transient patterns not substances.

Nonsense. If everything counts as evidence, then nothing counts as evidence. — 180 Proof

That depends on how you define evidence. I'm defining evidence as what exists be it a dust mote or a galaxy or anything in between. 'Evidence for' is not something that is objectively 'out there'. There is no "evidence for" anything out there in reality because "evidence for" is in the understanding, in the mind.
Evidence is mute. It only becomes evidence for something in our understanding. This is an important distinction.

You and TheMadFool have everything backwards. And you believe that that is how it is. That's how strong your faith is. — god must be atheist

Matter is not a substance it is a mathematical concept. It is a pattern in an energy field. These patterns can be described mathematically. Matter is a concept in God's mind.

The universe has no mathematical nature. — god must be atheist

Can you describe any aspect of reality which is demonstrably non mathematical or goes against mathematical reason?

What I am driving at is that if you take the universe or parts of it as evidence that there is a creator, you still don't know anything about the creator OTHER THAN WHAT YOU FANTASIZE ABOUT HIM. — god must be atheist

If the universe contains beauty we can say that God knows and values beauty. You could counter this by saying the universe also contains ugliness. But ugliness/evil is a corruption of good. Evil is not some alien entity utterly other than God. It is a corruption of goodness/life. Evil cannot exist without good as a parasite cannot exist without its host. It is the positive that matters and it is the positive that God created.

The description that's a good match for reality is mathematical. Put differently, natural phenomena follow mathematical laws. — TheMadFool

It seems to me that mathematics are the foundation and physical reality is mathematics made visible. Hawking asked 'What breathes fire into the equations?' If mind is the fundamental reality and if matter is contingent/created then it would seem that matter is a physical illustration or image of mind/mathematics. The material universe is thought made visible.

"Evidence" such as –? — 180 Proof

Evidence is everything; everything from a dust mote to a galaxy. Russell argued that there is not enough evidence for God's existence but there is a whole universe of evidence. The real question is how do we interpret the evidence?. Some people interpret the evidence in a way that supports the existence of intelligence in the universe at large and does not limit intelligence to biological entities.

Even materialists state that it arises because it is caused, and not due to random chance. — god must be atheist

The theory of evolution is founded on chance. I know Dawkins would not agree but it is because it depends utterly on mutations coming up with useful combinations. These combinations are then - the theory goes - selected by Natural Selection. But the mutations are said to be random. If useful mutations don't randomly arise Natural Selection has nothing to select. The bottom line is that organisms are ultimately constructed by a random process because if randomness does not come up with the goodies nothing is going nowhere.

Faith is independent of facts and of reason, and therefore no amount of facts or reason will shake anyone's faith (unless they give in to reason). — god must be atheist

Faith is not some vacuous belief that is without foundation. It is based on reason and intelligence but reason and intelligence that transcends the narrow bounds of academia. It is reason and intelligence that arise out of consciousness.
Art, music and literature cannot be reduced to what we normally call 'reason' but they are reasonable. They involve reason, order and intelligence on a more subtle level.

There are abundant grounds to suspect this "what if" puts the cart before the horse like saying "what eyes are brought into existence by sight?" or "what if wings are brought into existence by flight?" :roll: — 180 Proof

I think the same objection could be raised against materialists; they argue that biological structures bring intelligence into being when the evidence suggests intelligence comes first. It depends on which end of the telescope you are looking through!

To materialists, it is the bread and butter of their world view; to creationists it is incomprehensible. — god must be atheist

It is not just creationists who believe there is intelligence in the natural world. Creationism is a particular school of thought.

materialists will insist that the combination of elements is not planned, but caused. — god must be atheist

Chemical do what chemicals do. There seems to be no limit to what they can do and the question is; Why are they doing this particular thing (creating physical 'life')?

the idea of life being created by aliens or extra-dimensional entities just moves the question of how life started to a different location. — T Clark

Yes, but it also makes us reassess how likely the existence of life in the universe is and calls into question the assertion that life 'must' be abundant in the universe.

I am not aware of any convincing evidence. — T Clark

The abduction accounts paint an interesting picture.

Based on very circumstantial evidence (and my own unjustified intuition), I'm betting on life being common and intelligence not being extremely rare. Here's some "evidence." — T Clark

Often people say that life must be abundant in the universe and this belief is based on the idea that life arises spontaneously from matter. The argument is that there are billions of stars and planets so the chances are that life evolves in lots of places. But what if life does not arise by chance? By a statistical physical mechanism? What if life only evolves if it is brought into existence by intelligence? This alters the picture radically.

Complicating the matter greatly is the fact that the evidence suggests two things:

1. These beings are nuts-and-bolts, biological, space-faring aliens.
2. They are spirits or interdimensional beings who travel here via the 'Astral Plane' as some call it.

If the evidence suggests both of these things then maybe they are both true.

Has anyone ever considered that an advanced civilization may have taken a different route and chose social and cultural advancement (Metaphysics) instead of technological. — SteveMinjares

1. Mechanical power - human
2. Mechanical power married to electromagnetic power - human
3. Mechanical + electromagnetic + computing power - human
4. Mechanical + electromagnetic + computing power + psychic power - alien.

Meh. I don't see much depth in the Fermi Paradox because of the way it is stated. It assumes they are not here because they are not visible. There are two problems with this:

1. Some people say they are here.

2. The paradox is based on the assumption that if they were here we they would make themselves known. Why would they?

Maybe their presence - for reasons known to them - is secret or semi secret? Maybe they make their presence known to some people and not to all...

I guess this principle depends in the philosophical point of view you are considering in. According to Cartesian logic, existence depends a lot of “being” which is connected to awareness. This is why Descartes wrote his famous theory and phrase: “cogito ergo sum” — javi2541997

Yes but what is the 'I Am'? That depends on how you use the words 'existence' and 'being'. Sometimes they are interchangeable. I am using 'existence' to mean that which is, eternally; the positive thereness of what is on the most primordial level. Being, in my vocabulary, means what is alive and conscious. Created, sentient beings. Existence becomes being in the way a lump of bronze becomes a statue of an eagle, a horse etc. The bronze is just there, the horse or eagle emerge into being.

Real belief in God is a matter of consciousness not intellect. Intellectual knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. More sublime levels of knowledge can come from consciousness (what some people call 'delusion').
I engage in intellectual arguments because that is the only arena that most materialists are willing to enter. Also to hopefully arrive at the realization that intellectual arguments will not resolve anything either way.
I don't think most people believe/disbelieve because their intellect leads them that conclusion. Belief and disbelief operate on a more subtle level. Intellectual arguments are post hoc; an apology for one's standpoint.

Existence and God are the same thing. Existence is not a property of any created thing. Created things are properties of existence. Necessary existence is existence itself, God. Contingent or created things are properties. Existence and being are not the same. In the 'beginning' there is existence. Through creation existence evolves into being/life. To say that God created the universe is to say that existence evolved into being.

You have a container in which there are ten black balls and five white balls. You reach in a pluck out a ball. What is the probability it is black? White? — jgill

black = 2/3
white = 1/3

Probability means that out of a number of events each has the same likelihood of happening. But how can we say they are all equally likely? How can we know that?

The problem with randomness is we don't have a rigorous definition of it. Also, if 100 events have an equal probability of happening they are said to be random but one of them does happen and there must be a reason for that. It may be that randomness is simply a subjective human concept.

What is the prior probability that you are you, and sitting in this particular room with its particular arrangement of stuff? What are the odds that there's any stuff at all? The odds are virtually zero. Yet here you are. — fishfry

It seems everything that happens in human life is highly unlikely - what are the chances of you and all the people in the cinema being there? But, as you say, you are all there!

The universe exists within God. Physical (space)time is a physical object just like a chair or table except it has an extra dimension. 'Before time' is not important. What is important is the fact that time is a property of existence.

God is supernatural. Please don't defile him by equating Him with the profane. — god must be atheist

Supernatural only in the sense that we define what is natural. What is possible for God is natural for God.

I find no unintelligibility {lack of logic or ill logic} about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility {i.e. ill logic} about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting. — god must be atheist

If God creates a stone He cannot lift that does not mean God is not omnipotent it means that there is no natural way to lift the stone. A strong man can create a pile of stones he cannot lift but that does not mean he is not strong. Omnipotence means all that is possible, all that is possible in God's nature. No natural possibilities exist outside God.

Omnipotent does not mean being able to do illogical things. It means God is capable of doing everything that is naturally and logically possible. It is not possible to make mankind free and not free at the same time.

The world we experience is subjective and this subjectivity has been used to create the most preposterous philosophies claiming that the world is not really there at all. What matters here is if our subjective experience faithfully relates something of the objective pattern 'out there'. An example would be colour. We see different colours and these colours faithfully inform us of the electromagnetic pattern out there.

I think the limit of finitude is consciousness, but consciousness grows and can ultimately encompass the absolute.

I agree with Wittgenstein in the sense that the order of the mind is the order of the objective world. Our ability to reason is reflected in the fact that the world is objectively ordered: in our minds there is mathematics and mathemics, in the Platonic sense, seems to be also out there in reality.

But all of these issue from the origin, which is an agency of human consciousness. — Constance

That brings us to the question of whether there is an objective source 'out there' that maps into our consciousness.

there are periods (between lives) that we're not conscious — TheMadFool

Can you be sure we are not conscious in these times? We are conscious in dreams but don't generally remember.

time is not "out there" but in here, experience. Einstein knew this very well having read Kant when he was 13 or so. — Constance

It seems to me that there are many kinds of time. The most obvious is physical time. Another is mental time. Also mathematical time. Mathematics IS time of we define time as the relationship between objects in 'space'. There can be mathematical objects in abstract spaces. Logic is also time. Any order is time of one kind or another.

which is the essence of the ethical prohibition NOT to inflict it on others, or yourself. — Constance

For me the cornerstone of morality is the sacredness of life. One should not harm life because it is sacred (humanists - replace sacred with worthy, valuable, etc)

eternity is not some infinite succession of moments, but rather the absence of time — Constance

Physical time is a physical object just like a chair or table except it has an extra dimension. If physical objects disappear so will physical time. An analogy would be an oak tree and the molecules that make it. If the molecules that make it dissolve into atoms, the oak tree will evaporate and disappear.

the entire story of ethics and the self, rides on the simpler notion of causality. — TheMadFool

It seems that the self is bound up with consciousness. We are only a self in terms of consciousness which is our relationship with the world.

Is there nothing at all that IS the river? — Constance

Perhaps we have a self but it isn't much if it is not in a relationship to something. The ever changing river is the relationship between us and the world. That seems to be what the self is.

the self, the genuine self "behind" the empirically constructed self, if affirmed through ethics, that is, metaethics, the very thing Mackie denies. — Constance

It seems to me that the self - or a large part of it - is our relationship with the world. It is ever changing - you can't step into the same river twice...

As is often the case a correlates with b but there is a hidden variable x that is unknown, such that
x -> a -> b
or
x -> b
or
x -> a and x -> b

These hidden variables or factors can be the cause of much confusion.

I wouldn’t call “there is nothing to stop it” “necessary”. I’d just say “there is nothing to stop it”. “Necessary” usually means that there is a reason it must happen. Which is different from “there is no reason it wouldn’t happen”. — khaled

Alternatively you could say it necessarily exists because it exists. It could not have been otherwise because it is what it is and there is nothing else preceding it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Thanks. An existence that is not contingent on a previous state is necessary in the sense that there is nothing to stop it from existing. It simply is.

A starting point in time is not really an issue. What matters is that something must necessarily exist if something contingent is to exist; an oak tree is contingent because cells, molecules and atoms must exist if the oak tree is to exist. The question here is 'What is necessary existence?'

The necessary existence - that precedes all other things - is existence itself. It is not something that has the property 'existence'. It is existence itself because existence is not a property. Existence precedes all other contingent things and they inherit their existence from the necessary existence that is.

Very well. The difference between walking and doubting is that walking is an action performed outside of my brain whereas doubting is an action performed not only inside of my brain but performed by my brain.

But if I should say, "I doubt, therefore I am" would that not prove that I exist? — Ken Edwards

Walking is the same in this context as thinking because he cannot know he walks unless the knows - ie thinks - he walks. Even if he is not walking he thinks he walks therefore he thinks therefore...

So, I am interested in other people's thoughts on the question of what becomes of consciousness at death? — Jack Cummins

What happens a person's consciousness when they leave university? Not much. University is a concept or a context designed to bring about certain ends; educate the student for further things. Likewise with human life. As matter is a concept, rather than a substance, so is human life a concept - a physical, biological, social context and concept. (Matter is an idea, not a substance)

I believe that when the spirit leaves this university/concept/physical domain, it continues on.