chess online
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
leo_london 01-Sep-06, 08:33 |
 God, creation, the universe..everything. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 01-Sep-06, 08:40 |
leo... " What particular miracle of nature caused God? Is there a meta-God who called God into existence? Is God infinitely recursive? Does the God at the top (that's a trick, if God is infinite) care about the God at the bottom? How does that impact us? Is it truly any more astonishing to conceptualize a Universe that simply came to be from a super dense mass that got a little excited on it's first day of existence than it is to hypothesize the existence of a being that pulled the metaphorical trigger? " This super dense mass was presumably the singularity. A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the known laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background. The singularity was the first " anything ", it was not just the first " something " to appear.. it was the beginning of existence itself. It was the earliest state of the Universe and the beginning of " being ". I only mention this because some people have a notion of matter coming into being in " nothingness "..there would not even have been nothingness. Where I would take issue is with atheists who quote quantum mechanics as " proof " for the existence of particles coming into being from nothing ( and without cause)..therefore " disproving " the existence of a God. Particals may indeed have been observed to come into existence, under laboratory conditions within say.. a vacuum. However, that is within the known Universe, it is something entirely different to say that existence itself came into being. Even theories about matter/anti-matter, particles and anti-particles do not solve or answer the ultimate question.. existence itself. If antimatter or void is to be given any attribute at all, then it must be something (by claiming the existence of void or antimatter means that they are something which exist) - so where did that "something" come from? This Theory does not explain existence at all, because it is based on illogical foundations. What about non-existence ? Non-existence cannot beget existence because non-existence can never have existed and can never exist. Non-existence is a concept at best and it can never have existence by definition. Non-existence and absolute nothingness are synonymous, and they remain self-negating intellectual concepts and nothing more. Non-existence and absolute nothingness have no reality. If we do not believe in a cause ( or God ) we must believe the entire universe simply comes out of nowhere, completely in accordance with the laws of physics, and creates along the way all the matter and energy needed to build the universe as we now see it. I find it no easier to believe the scientific explanation for our existence than to accept the idea of some creative force. In fact the alternative.. our universe exists without cause or without explanation, we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing..is pretty depressing. I think I need a drink |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 01-Sep-06, 08:43 |
Kem... Heh... I didn't see anything in the Terms of Service about not posting the work of another author. If it's in there, and I missed it, my apologies. The following is an "inspired" piece of work by a guy named Leon Lederman. Among other things (like discovering the muon neutrino, being one of the first scientists to violate parity [sounds dirty, doesn't it *grin*], and winning the Nobel Prize), he's involved in the Right-side Up Science movement... which has the central goal of restructuring the curriculum of high school sciences to put physics first, and then teach biology and chemistry on the foundation setup by the physics classes. (An interesting concept: it makes perfect sense for accelerated students who have already had a good foundation in Algebra by the 8th grade. Not so much sense for the students who struggle with math already, I think.) As busy as this guy is, it just so happens that he's also a fantastic writer. Anyway, hope everyone enjoys this as much as I did. For those of you who don't like science and are afraid that a piece of work by a Nobel Laureate might be too much to handle, relax. You're in good hands here. Go grab a drink and enjoy it. And above all, don't panic. **** And the Lord looked upon Her world, and She marveled at its beauty -for so much beauty there was that She wept. It was a world of one kind of particle and one force carried by one messenger who was, with divine simplicity, also the one particle. And the Lord looked upon the world She had created and She saw that it was also boring. So She computed and she smiled and She caused Her Universe to expand and cool. And lo, it becomes cool enough to activate her tried and true agent, the Higgs field, which before the cooling could not bear the incredible heat of creation. And in the influence of Higgs, the particles suckled energy from the field and absorbed this energy and grew massive. Each grew in its own way, but not all the same. Some grew incredibly massive, some only a little, and some not at all. And whereas before there was only one particle, now there were twelve, and whereas before the messenger and the particle were the same, now they were different, and whereas before there was only one force carrier and one force, now there were twelve carriers and four forces, and whereas before there was and endless, meaningless beauty, now there were Democrats and Republicans. And the Lord looked upon the world She had created and She was convulsed with wholly uncontrolled laughter. And She summoned Higgs and, suppressing Her mirth, She dealt with him sternly and said: 'Wherefore hast thou destroyed the symmetry of the world?' And Higgs, shattered by the faintest suggestion of disapproval, defended thusly: 'Oh, Boss, I have not destroyed the symmetry. I have merely caused it to be hidden by the artifice of energy consumption. And in so doing I have indeed made it a complicated world. Who could have foreseen that out of this dreary set of identical objects, we could have nuclei and atoms and molecules and planets and stars? Who could have predicted the sunsets and the oceans and the organic ooze formed by all those awful molecules agitated by lightning and heat? And who could have expected evolution and those physicists poking and probing and seeking to find out what I have, in Your service, so carefully hidden?' And the Lord, hard put to stop Her laughter, signed forgiveness and a nice raise for Higgs. -The Very New Testament 3:1" (p. 342, The God Particle) ***** <<Where I would take issue is with atheists who quote quantum mechanics as " proof " for the existence of particles coming into being from nothing ( and without cause)..therefore " disproving " the existence of a God.>> You have a subtle mind. I wasn't actually referring to anything other than how spooky-weird science can get if you study it rigorously. I wasn't saying anything deep at all about the mysterious activation of energy levels at the level of the seriously small justifying the creation of the Universe out of nothing. I am seriously under qualified to defend any such argument. I stick to games I have some hope of winning. Speaking of which... your argument here has a fallacy contained in it. See also: affirming the consequent ( -> www.fallacyfiles.org ) I'll elaborate, because I know I was in a bit over my head the first time I was exposed to this one, and I'm not going to assume that everyone here is fluent in the language of logic. Where I would take issue with your concern here is how very *anti-scientific* the concept of disproving the existence of something is. How can you know that something exists unless it has first been proven to exist? If it has been proven to exist, who would or could disprove it? Science doesn't work that way. You've got it completely backwards. In science, you start with a hypothesis. i.e. God exists. You then work to prove your hypothesis. If you cannot prove your hypothesis, you move on to the next hypothesis. If not, you are committing the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam (specifically, a subset of that fallacy called Wishful Thinking). ( -> www.fallacyfiles.org ) You are assuming that God is a given, and then arguing that people cannot assume that God is not a given (for whatever reason... truly, it's irrelevant) because God is a given. Can you see how that collapses inward upon itself when you put subject it to close scrutiny? <<However, that is within the known Universe, it is something entirely different to say that existence itself came into being.>> But eventually, one must go back to a time "outside of time" (which, in turn, requires a time outside of the outside of time, meta-God upon meta-God) to a point where God must at some time be said to have come into existence (run that one by a group of English as a second language students for an analysis of verb tenses in hypothetical situations and see if their brains melt.) If not, then God does not exist. Ever read Gödel, Escher and Bach by Hofstädter? Infinitely recursive systems always have something outside of the system that feeds back into it and cannot be contained within it. This does not mean that God exists. But it does mean that IF God exists, God either came from nothing or was created by Something (presumably something greater than or equal to God). If He/She/It (see also: www.flyingspaghettimonster.com ) did not come from nothing (which, as you say, is improbable), then God must be infinitely recursive. How much more improbable is that? <<If we do not believe in a cause ( or God ) we must believe the entire universe simply comes out of nowhere, completely in accordance with the laws of physics, and creates along the way all the matter and energy needed to build the universe as we now see it. I find it no easier to believe the scientific explanation for our existence than to accept the idea of some creative force. In fact the alternative.. our universe exists without cause or without explanation, we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing..is pretty depressing. I think I need a drink..>> I appreciate the sentiment here. I've shared it myself, in the past. Douglas Adams put it best when he said, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Sit back, enjoy the garden. Have a drink. Hell, have three! Life's short enough without worrying about whether or not you can see the figments of other peoples' imaginations. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 01-Sep-06, 08:46 |
leo again.. So, there has always been existence but was there a beginning of matter, space and time, our universe ? If we say yes, then there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe since whatever begins to exist has a cause... this at least gives us the possibility of a God, or Gods, positive life force, call it what you will.. any outside influence you care to postulate about.Quantum phenomenon, even if an exception to the principle that every event has a cause, provides no analogy to something's coming into being out of nothing. Though physicists speak of this as particle pair creation and annihilation, such terms are philosophically misleading, for all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter or vice versa. Of course there have been powerful arguments against there being any true " beginning " of the universe, perhaps there has always been a universe undergoing an infinite series of expansions and contractions, the oscillating model. But there is a little problem there...that word " infinite ". Its a little late over here for me to destroy the idea of infinity as a concept regarding our universe..if indeed I need to ? Except perhaps to say that no model has ever been produced that would meet the laws of known physics..and believe me they have tried. I will expand further on that if anyone is interested. So, having made a brave attempt to establish there must have been a beginning, briefly back to the " cause ". If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is some outside agent that " chooses " to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, are we brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its Creator ? |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 01-Sep-06, 08:51 |
Or, we can just leave it..if you think the subject has been exhausted ? |
||||||||||||||
|
eldude 01-Sep-06, 10:13 |
You |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 01-Sep-06, 16:21 |
leo... the inescapable conclusion is that existence is necessary. It is necessarily true that something cannot come from nothing. Existence is the case. Therefore, we must conclude that existence is necessarily true. This means that existence is everywhere and has always been. This fits very well with physics. The big bang that led to our universe was not the creation of something out of nothing, but the rapid transformation of existence that has no doubt occurred infinitely many times and will continue to do so. There is also no reason to postulate an infinite regress of gods to explain existence. Existence needs no explanation, it necessarily is the case. What does need explanation is the nature of existence. This is the aim of science. One of the main discoveries of science is that existence can evolve into infinitely many and complex and wonderful forms. |
||||||||||||||
|
and i agree that existence is necessary and has always been... it is illogical to say non-existance ever could have happened or ever will... the big bang was not the creation of matter from nothing, it was the collapse of a super black hole, where all the matter in the universe was contained in one singularity... when all the matter was sucked into it, its total mass was sufficient to cause collapse, or explosion as an easier notion... so it stands to reason that when all matter has escaped the collapse, it will start to contract again... as the universe is expanding, i believe the big bang is still happening, and will do so until all energy from the singularity is exausted... then the big crunch... then the big bang again... for infinity... one thing that bugs me is... if this is true, will all the matter escape in the same manner each time, or will randomness dominate, and a different pattern prevail? if it was the same pattern, then are we living the same lives over and over and over? |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 01-Sep-06, 22:25 |
Based on... repetitions. This is because existence is everywhere and eternal so the probability that any event or organization of matter is eventually repeated at sometime and in some universe must equal 1 so long as the probability, p, of the event or organization of matter is p > 0. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 02-Sep-06, 18:03 |
Anyways, lets talk about Infinity and such concepts. The existence of anything can be traced to a cause or reason for its existence, and those to a prior cause. To say that something has no cause at all would be irrational, for if there is no cause, then it follows that there would not be existence. Adhering to the principal of sufficient reason, then for any single cause, there should be a previous cause, and for that cause, a cause previous, and so on.. this would create an infinite regress. We have another problem here, the term " infinite ". A potential infinite could be called a series of causes/events which are increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never get there. Such a series is really indefinite, not infinite. An actual infinite would be a series in which the number of causes/events really is infinite. Granted, in the conceptual realm of mathematics one can, given certain conventions and axioms, speak consistently about infinite sets of numbers, but this in no way implies that an actually infinite number of things is really possible. One might also note that the mathematical school of intuitionism denies that even such a number series is actually infinite (they take it to be potentially infinite only), so that appeal to number series as examples of actual infinites is a moot procedure. In the argument for an infinite past, the " beginningless " character of the series only serves to accentuate the difficulty of its being formed by successive addition. The fact that there is no beginning at all, not even an infinitely distant one, makes the problem more, not less, difficult. One of the paradoxes is the eternal counter, set to count the years of infinity, it would always have finished its task because it would have been counting for infinity. We can only have an infinite past by beginning in the present and regressing into the past, this merely confuses the mental regress of counting with the real progress of the temporal series of events itself. |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 02-Sep-06, 22:45 |
Every... existence. Therefore, there are no vicious infinite regresses and no paradoxes of existence having a cause. As I see it, it is a long historical and philosophical confusion of existence with the nature of existence. I'm not a mathematician, but I do have to use mathematics in my work. I'm not a realist or intuitionist regarding the nature of mathematics. I think I'm some type of formalist. In any case, it seems to me that if existence is necessary (and that seems to be the only logical conclusion we can draw) and if causes are transformations of existence (that is changes in the nature of existence) and not the reason for existence, then we must logically conclude that causes and effects have occurred without limit in the past and will occur into the future. It seems to me then that we can apply the mathematics of limits to reasoning about transformations of existence. That was the basic behind idea that if there are real probabilities of events occurring, they all will repeat. So, I think it is quite plausible to conclude worlds have repeated as well as infinitely many similar and dissimilar worlds--and this does not asume the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. " target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>plato.stanford.edu" target="_blank">-> plato.stanford.edu |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 03-Sep-06, 02:25 |
Some previous posts March 6, 06 What can we prove? There have been several arguments over the history of philosophy for and against the existence of god(s). None hold up to critical logical scrutiny. So what can we prove? The only thing metaphysical that can be proven is that existence is necessary. The reasoning is simple: there cannot be creation ex nihilo. That is something cannot come from nothing. There is existence, so in fact that there is means that existence is necessary. Because existence is necessary it must be at all times all places for otherwise it would not be necessary. Existence is eternal and everywhere (the everywhere means not necessarily confined to our universe). Metaphorically speaking (because time and space in physics don't make much sense in such metaphysical propositions) there may well be infinitely many universes in space and time. Science is not concerned with the metaphysical implications of necessary existence, but only with the investigation of what is. We simply aim to understand what exists and how its components interact to generate all the complexity that is (such as life). No god is needed because existence is necessary. There is nothing required to explain existence because it cannot be nothing. The complexity of what is, is another matter of empirical investigation. For example, we now know that certain molecules such as DNA can self-replicate and that larger complexes of molecules (cells) and organism can self-replicate. We also know that self-replication is not perfect and that mutations can be either advantageous or not. Over time, complex systems that have advantageous mutations evolve and that is where the ever changing variety and complexity of life come from. |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 03-Sep-06, 02:31 |
existence Any new form of existence comes from another form of existence. That is something is always caused by something else. It is impossible for something to come from, be created out of, or be caused by nothing. Once one understands that, it immediately follows that existence is necessary. There cannont be nonexistence. March 6, 06 The argument Premise 1: if there is something, it is impossible that it came from nothing. The word "came" is ambiguous, but it is clearly true that premise 1' must be true if premise 1 is true Premise 1': If there is something, it is impossible that there is nothing. Let's let P = possible, N = necessary, ¬ = not, and --> = implies. So, for example, ¬PA --> N¬A (i.e., if A is impossible, then necessarily not A). Now, for premise 1, A = something, B = nothing, so we have A --> ¬PB Premise 2: There is something (an obvious fact) Therefore, ¬PB from which it follows that N¬B That is, it is necessarily false that there is nothing, which implies there is necessarily something. Therefore, existence is necessary and nonexistence is impossible. Of course, another meaning of existence is to have a certain form or organization. For example, when we die, we as conscious beings go out of existence, but what we are made of does not go out of existence. It simply gets transformed into other forms of existence such as maggots. March 6, 06 I'm not trying to explain the origin of the universe, I'm simply pointing out that existence is necessary. Since existence is necessary, there can be no explanation of it. However, the origin of our universe, which is an episode in existence, could, in principle be explained by physics. >But I guess that is where the mystery grabs ahold of us. There is something, and it had to >come from somewhere. If it came from somewhere, that somewhere cannot be nowhere or nothing. So existence must alsways have been and been and will continue to be everywhere. >Religion tells us it comes from nothing, or that God created it with 'the word.' That's as good >an explanation as any. Certainly as good as saying it always existed. They are both crazy >ideas created from nothing. It is impossible that god created our world out of nothing, because if there is a god, then there already is existence. For surely if you believe in god, you believe god is something and not nothing? My only point is that whatever you believe about existence, there is one fact that we know about it and that is that existence is necessary, which means that it is eternal and everywhere. The question that most people are really interested in is how the complexity that we perceive in existence came about. Many people believe a god or gods create this complexity, however, gods cannot explain existence because they are already part of it if they exist. Others, like my self, believe that you can only begin to understand existence by oberving it and applying scientific methods to discover its laws. If you still like the idea of god, why not view all of existence as god. Evolution by natural selection is how god (i.e., existence) creates the infinite diversity of life we see. Of course, that makes us all parts of god, since we are all parts of existence. March 31, 06 perpetual something makes perfectly good sense, what doesn't make sense is something from nothing. >At first there was nothing. Does that mean no god? For if there was god, then there was not nothing. >Then God created the universe. Did god first come into existence out of nothing? Then God went back to the beginning and created himself. What is the beginning of nothing? If god created himself, then god must have existed before he created himself. Oh, the contradictions when we do not use logic. >Before that there was nothing. It makes perfect sense. But, you said god created himself. If god created himself, he must have been around to create himself, so there wasn't a time when there was nothing. So, the very idea of nothing makes no sense. I can only prove that existence is necessary, there are no proofs for what existence is. I believe that the best methods we have for discovering what existence is, are scientific methods, but of course others believe differently. There are at... least two meanings of existence. There is the existence of any particular thing such as a person or a planet. They come and go out of existence by changes in the organization of matter and energy. Then there is the question of whether there is anything. There is and it is essential that there is. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 03-Sep-06, 17:19 |
kop selection is how god (i.e., existence) creates the infinite diversity of life we see. Of course, that makes us all parts of god, since we are all parts of existence.>> Well said, kop. (That quote and others. You nailed the conundrum that I was trying to outline from a completely different angle... I was describing the folly of the notion of a God outside of space and time who created something out of nothing. I like your approach-- explaining the folly of nothing-- better.) If you were to pin me down to a definition of God that I can accept, this would be it. All approaches to God are equally valid/invalid because they are all attempts to define the big picture made by truly tiny pieces of a puzzle that is vast in a way that nothing else is. What's the point of all of these claims of supremacy or understanding of God's Will? Why not just sit back and enjoy those few things that we can say that we concretely understand and get on with things? That reminds me... I've got another one for the quote thread. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 03-Sep-06, 18:01 |
tugger Interesting metaphysical proposition. My understanding of physics would say that this is unlikely. Think Brownian motion on a truly cosmic scale, and you have some idea of the randomness involved. The probabilities against this being the case are staggering. *wanders off to go find a nice hot cup of tea* |
||||||||||||||
|
while it may seem unlikely, there is no way of saying either way... our understanding of physics can in no way incorporate what happened at the big bang... perpetual lives would go a long way to explaining strange phenomona, such as psychic abilities, and perhaps ghosts... of course, this is just speculation, i'm not suggesting anything there... i would like to think it isn't the case, as it would make life in terms of the bigger picture rather dull in comparison... i much prefer the notion that randomness will dominate... |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 03-Sep-06, 18:35 |
Nope. But it can and does incorporate what happened shortly after the big bang, assuming that theory is correct. Our understanding of physics includes a tendancy towards entropy, and randomness is built into the operating system. <<perpetual lives would go a long way to explaining strange phenomona, such as psychic abilities, and perhaps ghosts>> I'm from Missourri. Show me. (Sorry, that's an American-English thing... Missourri is called the "Show Me State", but if you're from the Midwest, it's also a nice way to express skepticism in a light-hearted way.) Seriously. There's a lot of money waiting to be claimed for anyone who can provide proof that these things exist. So far, the prize has yet to be touched. I suspect there's a reason for that, and it doesn't have much to do with a lack of incentive. en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org <<of course, this is just speculation, i'm not suggesting anything there.>> *grin* That's probably a good thing. I'd be liable to ask for proof. <<i much prefer the notion that randomness will dominate... >> Since that notion is very much in keeping with the laws of physics, I'm happy to say that the Universe would be extremely likely to bend to your will on this one. Might be a good time to go out and buy a Lotto ticket. |
||||||||||||||
|
are we to get into a discussion about the paranormal? while i accept ghosts have yet to be proven to exist, i have been told stories by those closest to me, in particular my mother, that lean towards paranormal conclusions. while i, nor she, can prove what she told me, i don't believe she is lying. the story she told me was from when she was living in a flat in solihull with my stepfather, around they time they married, nearly 20 years ago. both say this flat had a real negative vibe about it, to the point my stepfather tells me he used to stick his head out of the window to escape the oppressive atmosphere. anyway, one night they had a huge row, and a key was thrown at my mother, but missed. now, i understand the sensetive questions this could raise, but it should also be noted that my stepfather was well aware of my mother's violent past with my father, and has never shown a hint of physical aggression himself, not then, not now. so i don't for a second believe he threw the key. he claims he was in a different room, which my mother backs up. so how did it find its way from where it was to flying towards my mother? trying to understand ghosts and the spiritual world is futile. it's like trying to explain yellow to a blind man. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 03-Sep-06, 22:23 |
Leo Don't worry about it. kop took care of the situation by establishing the folly of imagining a time outside of time or a space outside of space. Thanks for bringing these back, Leo. I put some pretty serious work into that post at the beginning there, and I was sorry to see it left hanging when that which shall not be discussed was left up in the air. <<regarding our universe..if indeed I need to ? Except perhaps to say that no model has ever been produced that would meet the laws of known physics..and believe me they have tried. I will expand further on that if anyone is interested.>> *Known physics* being the key words there. We are far from know-it-all's when it comes to physics. <<So, having made a brave attempt to establish there must have been a beginning, briefly back to the " cause ". If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?>> Because nature doesn't always behave predictably. Occasionally, there are tsunamis and hurricanes. Although the forces that are responsible for these events may appear to be metaphysical to us because we lack sufficient understanding to figure it all out, this doesn't necessarily make them so. <<For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity.>> I understand what you're saying here, and why you would say it. I have to point out that you are assuming that we understand the laws of physics well enough to say that they are universal and constant under all conditions. We simply don't know that. In fact, evidence suggests that they break down in a molten heap of entropy at temperatures close to those which existed shortly after the big bang. Or at least that's what I thought I understood when I was reading Stephen Hawking while stoned out of my gourd. I may be mistaken on that one, and I'll look for the correction if I am. <<The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is some outside agent that " chooses " to create an effect in time.>> Or if some random occurance took place because random things happen in nature. Assuming that a self-aware entity existed alongside of everything else begs the question of where that entity came from. Random chance? If random chance was able to create an entity capable of creating a Universe, then why wouldn't random chance also be able to create the Universe? <<Thus, are we brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its Creator ?>> Only if we throw away Occam's Razor. It's one of the most useful tools in the laboratory in your mind. I reccommend holding onto it. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 04-Sep-06, 08:14 |
kem Right, leaving aside for a moment the idea of calling existence itself " God ". We all seem to agree on the necessity of " being " or existence. Existence is timeless, with no beginning, no mid-point and no end nor any point of reference. However, Kop has cleverly ( I think ) introduced the concept of a " transformation in/of existence " or a " change in the nature of existence "..this seems to open up the same old can of worms, so to speak. We are introducing an " event " ( it would be difficult not to call it an event ) into this timeless existence. As far as I can deduce, this would mean that existence always has/had a different nature, in fact it has/had every conceivable and inconceivable nature, it is/was a singularity of all possible forms of existence. Therefore there is no need to speculate about a " before " the big bang, the concept is meaningless. We can speculate about the end of our little patch of space/time (our universe).. but in " existence " our universe has already gone but is beginning as well, together with every other form of existence. My brain is beginning to hurt... |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 04-Sep-06, 08:54 |
It seems that way to me, too. <<Existence is timeless, with no beginning, no mid-point and no end nor any point of reference.>> Like God? <<However, Kop has cleverly ( I think ) introduced the concept of a " transformation in/of existence " or a " change in the nature of existence ">> I think it was clever, too. <<..this seems to open up the same old can of worms, so to speak.>> Of course it does, but it does so more simply. One for the price of one, as opposed to the two for the price of one that you get when you start to hypothesize some kind of anthropomorphized, self-aware conscience embedded in existence. Where did the conscience come from? I mean, I can see where being omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and all that jazz would have it's evolutionary advantages, but truly... what are the odds of an entity like that suddenly appearing in the pre-primordial stew or whatever it was that existed before the transformation? Why should we assume that such an extraordinary being is logical when a simpler mechanism (laws of physics which operate at a level beyond our ability to test, but don't necessarily involve a conductor waving his baton over the symphony of creation) could explain the exact same set of circumstances? <<We are introducing an " event " ( it would be difficult not to call it an event ) into this timeless existence.>> Timeless is a tough word. Are we certain there were no referrants in whatever laws of physics were going on before the string section became active in our neck of the woods? (I'm assuming you've got a background in string theory from previous posts... if the extended metaphor was too subtle for the lurkers, click here if you want to give yourself a massive headache. Brew coffee first... trust me on this one. 20theory%20for%20the%20rest%20of%20us%22 <<We are introducing an " event " ( it would be difficult not to call it an event ) into this timeless existence.>> Again, the assumption that timeless applies is one that we can't really make. In an alternate dimension, things could have been very much business as usual. Who knows what sparked the symphony? Honestly, who cares? Unless there is strong evidence to suggest that the hand that rocked the cradle of life is connected to a body of intelligence that can be reached by human thought, it's a bit of a moot point. (Please note that this is not the same as a God that can be touched by the human imagination. That's a completely different question, and one that I'm sure we'll bring up in this thread.) <<As far as I can deduce, this would mean that existence always has/had a different nature, in fact it has/had every conceivable and inconceivable nature, it is/was a singularity of all possible forms of existence.>> I think you're out on a limb there, Leo. That's not a deduction, that's speculation. Any conclusions you draw from it are a bit suspect. <<Therefore there is no need to speculate about a " before " the big bang, the concept is meaningless.>> Is it? How do you know? <<We can speculate about the end of our little patch of space/time (our universe).. but in " existence " our universe has already gone but is beginning as well, together with every other form of existence. My brain is beginning to hurt...>> Mine too, but then I reread that paper before hitting post, so that's perfectly understandable. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 04-Sep-06, 09:21 |
Funnily enough, I was reading about " renormalization " before I made my last post..lo and behold, went to your link and there it was again. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 04-Sep-06, 09:28 |
ALL my deductions are speculations and ALL my conclusions are suspect...gee, what do you expect for your money. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 04-Sep-06, 12:35 |
Heh. I get where you're coming from, but still... enlightened speculation based on evidence is one thing. Assumptions based on wishful thinking are another. God, at least the kind of God that exists in the collective unconscious (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient), belongs definitively in the latter of the two catagories. Either that or he's a complete and utter sadistic jerk worthy of my contempt, not my worship. It's an either or situation. |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 16:31 |
kementari... >completely different angle... I was describing the folly of the notion of a God outside of space and time >who created something out of nothing. I like your approach-- explaining the folly of nothing-- better.) >If you were to pin me down to a definition of God that I can accept, this would be it. All approaches to >God are equally valid/invalid because they are all attempts to define the big picture made by truly tiny >pieces of a puzzle that is vast in a way that nothing else is. What's the point of all of these claims of >supremacy or understanding of God's Will? Why not just sit back and enjoy those few things that we can >say that we concretely understand and get on with things? I would speculate that as human cultures evolved, the first notions of gods were simply attempts at explanations and predictions about events in the world. For example, the sun and the moon exhibit predictable patterns of behavior so it is not much of a stretch to see how early human attributed agency to them. Early humans could see that they could make tools and change the world around them. It seems straightforward that they would extend this anthropomorphic notion of causation to explain everythng that occurred in their world. Some being with more causal power than them causes rain, thunder, heat, etc. So, I would hypothesize that whenever and wherever intelligent life evolves, so do beliefs in gods. As languages, cultures, and conceptual frameworks become more sophisticated monotheistic beliefs can evolve. Therefore, I think belief systems in a god or gods are going to be found whereever intelligent life evolves. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 04-Sep-06, 17:04 |
Doesn't that rather take the " fun " out of a forum such as this ? How many things are there that we can say we " concretely " understand ?..sorry, I cant think of one, I dont even understand my favourite subject..myself. |
||||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 17:12 |
exactly what we should be trying to do: ask questions about existence. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 05-Sep-06, 19:58 |
well, there is that... When I retire, I want to be a missionary for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and travel the world to share his message of Noodle-y Love. (No joke, Aarrgh. www.venganza.org" target="_blank">-> www.venganza.org ) Seriously, though. There are too few people who have the sheer tenacity to spread this message and still be entertaining about it. Atheists aren't exactly in the majority, nor are we well-trusted. Plus, I'd look fantastic in full pirate rigalia at the age of 60. It's one way to keep in shape. To paraphrase Sam Harris (heavily), if religious moderation is the product of scriptural ignorance and secular knowledge, I'm out to make sure that the scriptural ignorance part of that equation is challenged. Part of that means discussing things like Occam's Razor-- not because I'm mean-spirited and out to destroy faith, but because I truly do feel that people should know what they believe and why they believe it. Curious people may also want to examine whether or not the sources they trust are reliable. To say that one person's speculation is more valid or more Holy than another's is to court war most bloody and interminable, and to say that all speculations are equally valid is to provide the context in which doctrines that are truly harmful to society can never be adaquately addressed. This is the Word of our Meatball. Ramen. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 05-Sep-06, 20:35 |
kop This is pretty straightforward, yes. <<For example, the sun and the moon exhibit predictable patterns of behavior so it is not much of a stretch to see how early human attributed agency to them. Early humans could see that they could make tools and change the world around them. It seems straightforward that they would extend this anthropomorphic notion of causation to explain everythng that occurred in their world. Some being with more causal power than them causes rain, thunder, heat, etc.>> And minotaurs and dragons and all that good stuff, too. Frankly, I thought the Greeks and the Norwegians were a heckuva lot more entertaining than the dry desert religions. And don't even get me started on Japanese myths!!! They are fascinating! <<So, I would hypothesize that whenever and wherever intelligent life evolves, so do beliefs in gods. As languages, cultures, and conceptual frameworks become more sophisticated monotheistic beliefs can evolve.>> I'd like to challenge that notion that monotheism is more sophisticated than polytheism. I think there's a built in cultural bias there that isn't necessarily true. What evidence, other than the prevalance of Christianity and Islam (religions with some pretty heavy elements of coercion/threat of damnation built into them-- which, I think, inspires parents to pass them down even if they aren't terribly devout) do you have to support this theory? <<Therefore, I think belief systems in a god or gods are going to be found whereever intelligent life evolves.>> There is an additional theory to support belief in God/focus on transcendental meditation as an advantageous trend in evolution here en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org . In fact, the last chapter of "End of Faith" (New York Times bestseller, fantastic read, whether you're an atheist in the strongest sense of the word or a devout xian with faith like a rock. Linkage here: ravingatheist.com" target="_blank">-> ravingatheist.com ) deals precisely with the mental processes involved in spiritual inquiry. It does indeed appear to be hard-wired into our brains, and there can be no doubt that spirituality does produce great levels of peace and serenity. How we approach it... aye, there's the rub. One of my favorite Harris quotes ever (and I have quite a few from him) is the following: "It is time we realized that we need not be unreasonable to suffuse our lives with love, compassion, ecstasy, and awe: nor must we renounce all forms of spirituality or mysticism to be on good terms with reason." Another: "Why does it feel so good to smile and laugh, and why do these shared experiences generally bring people closer together? Is the ego an illusion, and, if so, what implications does this have for human life? Is there life after death? These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers." Defining those terms and describing what that mature science of the mind might look like-- aye, that's where the fun lies. |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 05-Sep-06, 20:56 |
tugger <<are we to get into a discussion about the paranormal?>> Sure, why not? This started off with the Holy Ghost and Higgs, we may as well include the minor spooks as well. <<while i accept ghosts have yet to be proven to exist, i have been told stories by those closest to me, in particular my mother, that lean towards paranormal conclusions.>> Okay. <<while i, nor she, can prove what she told me, i don't believe she is lying. the story she told me was from when she was living in a flat in solihull with my stepfather, around they time they married, nearly 20 years ago. both say this flat had a real negative vibe about it, to the point my stepfather tells me he used to stick his head out of the window to escape the oppressive atmosphere. anyway, one night they had a huge row, and a key was thrown at my mother, but missed. now, i understand the sensetive questions this could raise, but it should also be noted that my stepfather was well aware of my mother's violent past with my father, and has never shown a hint of physical aggression himself, not then, not now. so i don't for a second believe he threw the key. he claims he was in a different room, which my mother backs up. so how did it find its way from where it was to flying towards my mother?>> Not sure. Those sorts of conditions are a bit difficult to recreate in a lab, contrary to what the cable television ghost stories might tell us. For every story like this, there's a story by James Randi or Penn and Teller about how easy it is for a person's mind to trick them into believing something impossible... it does make one stop and think very carefully about whether or not anecdotal evidence, compelling though it may sound, is solid evidence. Personally, I don't see a good reason to believe in ghosts simply because so many people have tried so hard to prove their existence and none have succeeded. There's one heck of a paycheck waiting for the person who can do it, that's for sure. This is not to say that they don't exist. It just means it's a hypothesis that's on the back burner for me until we have a better understanding of these sorts of occurances. <<trying to understand ghosts and the spiritual world is futile. it's like trying to explain yellow to a blind man.>> You and I could not possibly be more far apart on this issue. For one thing, the color yellow can be detected by "experts", who can even measure the wavelengths needed to produce it and explain/predict the conditions under which a person with specialized viewing tools will find it. Ghosts, on the other hand... not so much. If they truly were predictable and measurable by the experts, that $1,000,000 prize money would be snapped up in a New York minute. The other thing that I just want to say here is that trying to understand these things is not futile. Learning the limits of our understanding in and of itself has merit, and pushing those boundaries to see what else we can figure out is what life is all about. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Log in 
