The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change t — ZhouBoTong

Yo bonghits,

There is a little irony in your parody.!

Are you thinking you could be the majority?

LOL

A big part of the problem we are dealing with here...is the seeming reluctance of so many people who just will not utter or write the words "I do not know" in any meaningful form. — Frank Apisa

Well said Frank. It's pretty simple, yet seems esoteric to some if not many. Of course, that's one thing Existential philosophy taught us...among other things. Perhaps the so-called sin of pride rears its ugly head here.

our only hope of escaping this dilemma is if there is someone out there with the powers of God; a divine being who has the reality-making power to go beyond the limits of the human condition. — rikes

Well said. Existentially, ( see the book of Ecclesiastes) there are obvious limits to understanding things. Same with Cosmological paradox (and other phenomenon).

Since you sort of broad-brushed your OP, I will do the same by suggesting faith, hope and love.

And that's the toilet calling the bathroom sink white having Bill OReilly say atheists are angry. He was a bully, often angry and screamed over guests on his shows apart from the things he did to women and people lower down on the staff of Fox and elsewhere. — Coben

Yep. Absolutely. He could be projecting some inner Gilligan's there. Then on the other hand, it seems, so are the angry atheist's.

Thank for your contribution. Listening is important. Challenging the status quo is another issue altogether... . The same energy should be directed toward uncovering the hypocrisy and false paradigm's…not to mention all the other political baggage and psychological 'pathologies' associated with same :yikes: .

I think that is a fascinating question! Thanks for positing same.

Ironically enough, I was just contemplating a similar phenomenon in another thread where it seems the take-away, as you suggest, is the we 'crave something outside' ourselves.

I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance. — Possibility

Okay. But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear?

The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. — Possibility

I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer).

In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’. — Possibility

Well, it's really reciprocal. Which is to underscore relationship's, and the need to integrate awareness and understanding of them. There is indeed an interconnectedness (good analogy).

That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents?

I think that deserves special attention. I'll respond to your other points shortly, thanks.

This thread is about ID, not the EOG. For example, we are talking about Metaphysics and Phenomenology. You seem preoccupied with EOG topics.

I suggest you start another thread on EOG and not troll this one like Malice has.

Just an observation, if you are an atheist, why are you so concerned with the EOG. I mean dude, is your belief system that weak. LOL

No, your examples are more like saying that the philosophy of time came before anyone's experience of time, which would indeed be absurd. But that is not what I am saying. Please explain how there could be any change in a timeless reality without violating the principle of contradiction. — aletheist

No. that's what you are saying. Just to clear this up once and for all, you tell me where you stand on the following question:

1. Change in nature came first, then human's figured out how to measure it using sun dials, analog clocks, digital clocks, Planck time, etc.
2. Clocks and said measuring devices came first, then change in nature.

Now if I'm mistaken please provide correction. You have been arguing #2, is that correct?

As far as your last question, I'm not arguing 'change in a timeless reality' as you say. I'm suggesting that time and change are mutually exclusive . And you seem to be saying that change and time are not mutually exclusive, hence:

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously. — aletheist

Just to one-o-one it, here are the common definitions for your convenience:

1. Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2. Change: the act or instance of making or becoming different.

Do you see the difference? — aletheist

Unfortunately I don't. That's okay we'll just agree to disagree.

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously. — aletheist

I think that's a bit absurd. That's like saying mathematic's came before the Giza pyramids. Or music theory came before the sounds of music.

If you're unable to see that the phenomenon of change relates to why we figured out how to measure it, then it would make any arguments about the concept of time irrelevant. Time relates to change in nature.

We didn't invent change we invented time.

With all due respect, it actually appears to be the exact opposite.

For example, I asked many existential questions for which you've responded with one-liner's, tantamount to, if you don't mind me saying, equivocal double speak and/or rhetorical gibberish.

For example, specifically, you initially touted the fact that you could provide empirical evidence to support your claim that, in this instance, metaphysical phenomena and other mental constructs such as mathematical abstracts, can be explained (through natural selection). Now I am asking for specific answers to specific questions.

And thus far, you've provided no evolutionary support, let alone any empirical evidence from cognitive science, to help explain these properties or features from consious existence.

I'm indeed concluding that your goal is to troll this thread.

I'm shocked !! Are you saying you have no answers to these questions?

It would infer the likelihood that time is more arbitrary than not, no?

for McTaggart, i guess i'll have to read a 10 page essay to see how i feel about that paradox and then one month later, — christian2017

This is just a 3-min. synopsis of the illusion/paradox particularly related to past present and future/ McTaggart Example: is the present really real.

https://youtu.be/vh-IW9Y1htA

I lean toward the latter; if there were no time, how could there be any change? We can imagine an unchanging state of things persisting through time--in fact, we routinely identify prolonged states of things by attributing properties to substances that persist through time--which suggests that time is more fundamental than change. — aletheist

This is confusing. You were saying on the one hand change is subordinate to time, yet on the other hand you are saying time is an arbitrary construct. So which is more real, change or time?

And I'm saying time is subordinate to change. Meaning, change occurs naturally in the phenomenal world we just arbitrarily project the human construct of time measurement to it. And of course you agreed with the notion of arbitrary time measurement in the phone call-time zone example. Do you see where the confusion is?

You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming. — Malice

But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able...

already told you my view. What else do you want to know? — Malice

Well you just said, in so many words, that more or less it's because that's what you thought. But no objective analysis. Or did you support it empirically through emergent or evolutionary processes? I didn't see where you did.

Let me try to summarize, and then if you can, plug in your scientific method:


Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking [survival] questions (about being hungry and thirsty)?

Does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment?

How should wonderment evolve?

What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something?

What would be examples of those some thing(s)?

Too, since I'm thinking you must have these answers, go ahead and empirically explain other Metaphysical phenomena like Love and the Will as well, if you are able:

How does Love provide for survival when instinct is only needed to procreate?

How does the Will provide for survival when an animal survives on instinct?

Maybe try a logical syllogism, I think that would be the most succinct way to make your case.

Just trying to help LOL

So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed?

And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL

I lean toward the latter; if there were no time, how could there be any change? We can imagine an unchanging state of things persisting through time--in fact, we routinely identify prolonged states of things by attributing properties to substances that persist through time--which suggests that time is more fundamental than change. — aletheist

Well, that would contradict your statement earlier when you said that placing a phone call through different time zones was an arbitrary use of time. No?

I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... .

tic toc tic toc

You can try it though.

Great! And so, why would you try it, when it's not needed to avoid the hypothetical falling object?

Sorry for the redundancy, I'm still trying to seek clarification from the statement you made.

I'm just asking for clarification, again: So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? You said it, I didn't.

I feel the need to be pedantic and point out that begging a question is a logical fallacy, a form of circular reasoning; it involves assuming that which one is trying to prove. What I take you to mean is that this raises or prompts at least one question, and the answer depends on how we define the terms. What do you mean by "change"? by "precede"? by "time"? — aletheist

No. It's not a logical fallacy. Instead, it's an Existential question about Time and change.

If you are unable to answer the questions, just say so, it's ok and quite acceptable.

Perhaps another way of thinking about those questions, in a similar context is (going back to the video), in your view, is every moment present? In other words, if change is an ongoing part of existence, and time and space are continuous, does that not render static phenomena non-existent?

If there is any truth to that, then perhaps change itself, is paramount over the human construct of time. Change precedes time, much like the existential ethos of: existence precedes essence.

Isn't that one unresolved paradox associate with time? So, the question is, which came first, change or time?

Because you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut. Now, if you want to make good use of a catapult in a war, then you'd be on to something. — Malice

You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish?

What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences. — Malice

We're not talking about experience are we? You seem to know about how the intellect has evolved, so I ask you again, how are metaphysical constructs, such a wonderment, have Darwinian survival value? Did I miss something?

If you cannot answer that one, perhaps the Will or the phenomenon of Love would be an easier metaphysical construct to unpack, yes?

Because legs a versatile and space is 3-dimensional. You can step back, lunge forward, or dodge to the side. — Malice

Great! Then why are mathematical abstracts needed?

I'm sorry, let me try again more succinctly

1. Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects; one abstractly and one spacially. And explain the purpose of thinking abstractly to us... ?
2. Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment.

tic toc tic toc

Then prove to us the laws of gravity are necessary for survival in the jungle! LOL

Anyway I'm sorry were you able to answer the metaphysical questions regarding the sense of wonderment and why human's have such properties from consciousness?

Tic tic tic toc

LOL

contrast, I tend to look for ways to resolve paradoxes, but I try to acknowledge and accept them when this is unsuccessful. — aletheist

Indeed, but unresolved paradox or otherwise brute mystery tells us something.

present is not a thing that affects other things or is affected by them, it is a general determination of time, which is a real law that governs the changing of things. — aletheist

It doesn't seem to be correct, we just discussed that time is arbitrary viz time zones, etc. No?

Yes, but time is precisely the aspect of reality that makes this possible. — aletheist

That's an interesting statement! That begs at least one question, does change precede time?

I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you explain that better then?

Or how about starting with the metaphysical questions first, if you can... LOL

I think there is evidence from quantum physics which indicates that time is likely composed of discrete units — Metaphysician Undercover

But our perception of things in consciousness deny p and -p, no? (Conscious and subconscious mind working together apprehending past present future.)

The modern inclination is to affirm that activity is real, states are artificial descriptions, — Metaphysician Undercover

And are those artificial descriptions time itself?

I'm sorry, were you not able to answer the questions empirically, like you suggested earlier?

Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:

Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle?

Otherwise go back and research those metaphysical questions if you care to, since those are more germain to the thread topic, no?

But it could...

"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"

"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?

"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"

Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions?

Otherwise, does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment? How should wonderment evolve? What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something? What would be examples of that some thing(s)?

I hope you find those questions intriguing. Those are just a few questions for you to research concerning the Metaphysical nature of conscious existence.

That is the theory of time known as eternalism. — aletheist

Hi aletheist!

No. I am using the Block-universe illustration as a metaphor in trying to describe Mc Taggart's view that present tense of Time is an illusion, and paradoxical. And as such, thinking of how small that interval of time actually is (Planck time if you like), when looking at it graphically from the Block-universe illustration. (That slice of time as it were.)

Considering then, how small the-now really is, aren't we referring to intervals and duration of time itself, not the phenomenon of change in and of itself, correct?

For instance, you and I discussed time zones being an arbitrary measurement of time. Ok we agree. And we certainly have a general understanding of Einstein's Relativity and the associated fluctuations in time thereto. So, how can time really help us here? How should time really exist?

All we do know for sure is, that change exists. For example, we know consciousness requires change for it to cognize. We know giving birth requires change for its existence. And we also know that nature requires change for it to even exist, and function properly. But the distinctions of Time (past, present, future), is what we are trying to reconcile, with change.

And so in the context of change, my concern is how the present tense effects that ongoing change, that appears to be logically necessary. I think that change has effects on the present; the present doesn't effect change. Conscious thought and the process of cognition has proved this.

Consider a flow of water from a hose or the flow of electromagnetic waves. Then consider that we ride that flow. What if the flow stops? What happens to the present tense of existence then? Does it cease to exist?

If the present moment is static, how can it even exist? I believe that is what the video was trying to illustrate. It was trying to show the present is simply trying to divide past from future.

We know from physics that space and time are considered to be continuous. I submit, we now need to focus our thought on change. The phenomenon of change; of being, of becoming, of cognizing.

Again, the subject matter is very intriguing, however, my philosophy is to look for paradox. When I find paradox, I know truth exists.

But that has no biological survival value.

Wonderment is much like love and the will. Iit's a metaphysical property of consciousness. Otherwise try to explain your sense of wonder in concrete terms using your notion of empirical evidence.

That's ironic, sounds like an Existential crisis to me!!!

LOL

Again, please provide your definition of "illusion" in this context. — aletheist

Basically, Einstein's' block universe is where there is really no present; only one static-flow of time (my interpretation). Meaning, if you were to stand outside the universe—outside both space and time—and look at your life, you would see your birth, your death and every moment in between laid out as distinct points. From this angle, time does not flow, but is static and fixed (which ties with McTaggart's view/the previous video).

In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with... . If it's not a false dichotomy, it's an irony. Actually, it's probably both.

Either way, you carry the burden of explaining the nature of your own sense of wonderment from your consciousness. What purpose does it serve? And why should you care?

Can we summarize for one second, ha:

Past= real or allusion or... ?
Present=real or allusion or... ?
Future=real or allusion or... ?

( And eternity= real or illusion?)