8
   

The creation of everything... How?

 
 
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 06:09 am
@BillRM,
Usually we reserve the capital letter for cases where the reference is Being itself and not nature. That is why we call it "metaphysical" as opposed to "physical" or "supernatural" as opposed to "natural". The other way round, the "gods" with a small "g" are posited entities the existence of which needs to be decided using evidence and Ocham's razor.

In some sense true supernatural being has no nature or is in some sense distinct from the nature of things and that is what the capitalization is meant to refer to. Technically in my opinion you cannot properly say "a God" you must just say "God". In that sense God is not a posited being but the fact of being itself.

You can see the presence of supernatural being very simply. Just look at any object and then make the choice to consider not "what it is" but rather "the fact that it is". Once you do you are no longer considering its "nature". What you are considering is technically "supernatural".

The fact that you characterize it as the enemy of human understanding is because you do not understand the distinction I am making and do not understand the fact that a realization of Being is a necessary part of understanding.

To go to the heart of the claim there is no statement that there is "a" being or beings "behind" any lightening bolt. In fact that is the point. It is the fact that the nature of a lightning bolt is insufficient to explain its existence. It cannot happen merely because of what it is. That does not mean that it happens because of some other natural entity that also exists and causes it. That notion of causality - material causality - which is applied in time is incorrectly applied in this case and results in the infinite regress. The idea is creation "ex nihilo" or out of nothing not creation of something by something else which also exists. The latter idea leads to infinite regress. Theologically speaking God is not a creature and creation is not a temporal process. It is not the creation in time but rather the creation of time to quote a theologian who's name I have forgotten. Its just that at some point one needs to realize the necessity of supernatural Being which means to say one needs to realize that the fact or our experience is not a result of its nature but rather means something else. That is why the result is not an "explanation" that removes the "mystery" rather it is a realization of the mystery.

You have to be careful with the popular literature which I am afraid is intended to blur the distinction in order to attain notoriety and exploit it financially. That results in a kind of superficiality that really completely misses the point.
0 Replies
 
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 06:35 am
@BillRM,
Well that is not quite right. You see you can look up at the stars and ask whether there are planets around them without wondering over the fact that there might be. There are two experiences. You are equivocating the asking of a question with the notion of wonder. Wonder is necessarily related to a questioning but it is not present in all questioning or it is present to much lesser extent in some cases.

You can see it in your choice of example. You did not say "I was wondering whether I had enough money in my account to cover my check" You instead referred to your childhood which is full of wonder usually because things are being exposed for the first time and boredom has not set in and I think probably because of developmental biology. You also referred to looking up at the sky. The sky, the sea, large mountains, the desert. All of these historically inspire - and I use this word fully cognizant of its roots - this sense of wonder that is more than a question or rather refers to the specific question about how it could be. Much harder to be standing in line at the supermarket and be in wonder that such an experience could be happening.

With respect to "pack animals" in a sense I agree. I am just saying that the mechanism used to do the build in results in the experience I am describing. If you "build out" the experience you will probably loose what we call morality. It is evolutionary biology which causes in a material sense both the religious and scientific world views. The fact that you are able to recognize an object at all is a result of the build in and the fact that you are able to wonder at them is also part of it.

Morality is a difficult one. The problem is that it is related to the experience of the Good not in a simple way. In many if not all of its expressions is a realization or activation of this sense of wonder. I have not fully understood this connection yet but I think to say that it has no connection is wrong. Is it wrong to become the Borg I think might replace the question of whether to commit suicide as the most important question. Should we become more insect like. My intuition is no. But that means that there is something more that survival in morality.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 12:01 pm
@justintruth,
Quote:
Morality is a difficult one. The problem is that it is related to the experience of the Good not in a simple way. In many if not all of its expressions is a realization or activation of this sense of wonder. I have not fully understood this connection yet but I think to say that it has no connection is wrong. Is it wrong to become the Borg I think might replace the question of whether to commit suicide as the most important question. Should we become more insect like. My intuition is no. But that means that there is something more that survival in morality.


Morality have zero to do with a belief in a fairy tale.

If morality were base on the King James bible for example we would see nothing wrong with killing children who back talk parents, stoning to death a cheating wife, or a homosexual couple.

Morality in fact exists in large part in-spite of all the current religions not because of them.

The sense of wonder of any kind does not call for a belief that there is some intelligent force behind the universe either and any such claim in nonsense on it face.

In face placing an intelligent agent behind the universe just push the question one step back without gaining a damn thing and in fact ends up wasting tens of thousands of man years trying to understand a non-existing supreme being.
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 04:03 pm
@BillRM,
You seem to be very adept in describing what morality is not. Why not take a shot at describing what it is.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 05:35 pm
@justintruth,
My my such information is in any public library in the world along with the internet.

However, a short version is that once more it had zero to do with religion and everything to do with how pack animals of all types interact with each other’s inside of a pack.

When members of a wolf pack brings back food to feed a wolf that is now too old and or hurt to go on the hunt that is an example of pack morality.

Even semi-pack animals can react in a manner to promote bonding as when one of my cats had killed a rat and bring it to me as a food offering.

When a passerby jumped into a cold river and save a numbers of people, after a jet crash, he does not know from death and in the end at the expense of his own life that is actions driven by pack morals.

Morality is caring for others members of your pack and acting in very small ways and sometimes in very large ways in a manner to promote pack bonding and thereby the welfare of the pack.

The more on average pack members are moral the more likely any given pack will survive into the future and the less pack morality the less likely any given pack will survive.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 05:39 pm
@BillRM,
Simple, straight forward and clever...I can see we can agree on something after all.
0 Replies
 
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 11:16 am
@BillRM,
Why is it that the survival of the pack is experienced as the welfare of the pack? Why is the bonding of the pack worth anything at all? If there were no pack and a wolf were attacked would it not defend itself in spite of the fact that there is no pack? Why would the wolf defend itself? Do you not see that it would because it experiences its life as good and therefore wants to protect it? Or are you a pure behaviorist and believe that wolves (or people?) are completely described by their external behavior? Do you not believe that a wolf values its existence?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 11:47 am
@justintruth,
Because evolution selected those who have socially apt genes for helping each other...for the same reason it invented love and the bounding that distinguishes mammals from reptiles which are far more primitive...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 12:14 pm
@justintruth,
Quote:
Why is the bonding of the pack worth anything at all?


No pack and a single wolf would have a hell of a time bringing down large prey animals and would be many times more likely to be harm in so doing.

Once harm and unable to hunt for a time a single wolf would be doom not so a member of a pack.

Meaning that said packless animal would be far less likely to breed.

All of the above also apply to mankind.

Quote:
Why would the wolf defend itself? Do you not see that it would because it experiences its life as good and therefore wants to protect it?


Animals who did not defend themselves in or out of a pack was far less likely to breed so there are few animals in the world that will not defend thier lives as such genes was not carry onto the next generation.

We and other animals are hardwire by evolution.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 12:27 pm
@BillRM,
exactly...no more no less...
0 Replies
 
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:06 am
@BillRM,
Yes but don't you see that means that we are hardwired to see existence as valuable?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:28 am
@justintruth,
Quote:
Yes but don't you see that means that we are hardwired to see existence as valuable?


We and all other animals are hard wire to exist and defense ourselves just as we are hard wire to breath.

No more and not less.
justintruth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 07:42 am
@BillRM,
We are not hardwired to exist. We are hardwired to want to exist. That is the key. In fact we cease to exist - fail at the project of staying alive. Look at the sad faces at a funeral. I don't see why you are having trouble seeing this. Is it ideologically? Do you really believe that grief over death is not real? Don't you see the evolution has produced a "desire to be". It is not like breathing. That is an autonomous function. Or if you'd like not like normal breathing. But if I were to attack you and attempt to squeeze your throat you would try to stop me so that you could continue to breathe because you do not want to die.

This is not rocket science. It is a simple observation.

Evolution could have produced a mechanism that functions without desire at all. It hasn't. What ideology prevents you from making that simple observation?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 02:39 pm
@justintruth,
Being hardwired to want to exist IS being hardwired to exist. Wanting is only the mechanism, the means to the end of preservation. Nietzsche argued that self- preservation is only a prerequisite for the Will to Power, the urge to expansion, to growth, etc. If we look carefully we see that it is a general, if not universal*, drive among all species of things in Nature. The urge to survive is essentially a means to the achievement of "power."

*Even suicide can often be interpreted as an expression of the Will to Power.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 03:48 pm
@TheThinker,
Quote:
There is a theory on how this universe was created... It is called 'The Big Bang' However it is based on the fact that something happened billions of years ago and that before it happened there was 'nothing'...


"Bib Bang", like evolution, is another case of a dead theory walking. Nobody with brains or talent believes it anymore:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

The bullshit physics and cosmology of the 20'th century are rapidly going away. Big Bang doesn't pass any sort of a basic sniff test for common senswe or logic and was never based on anything better than a faulty interpretation of redshift data.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Likewise a certain number of gullible Christians who ought to know better hear about the big bang and decide they like it, that it's just another version of their own creation story, give or take a few billion years. That of course is bullshit: the idea of a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God suddenly deciding it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him in the infinite space of time prior to that is idiotic, and equally idiotic if the space of time is six thousand years or 14 billion years.

In real life, cosmic redshift cannot be interpreted as velocity or distance, the universe is not expanding, the big bang never happened, the universe, like God, is eternal, and the creation stories we read in antique literature refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment, and not the entire universe.

Ninety Nine point something percent of the universe is in plasma form. The one force in nature which can agglomerate plasma into solid objects including galaxies and strings of galaxies, stars, and planets, is the Z-pinch effect of the Birkland currents which move through cosmic plasmas.

The history of all stars and planets is basically governed by plasma physics phenomena.




Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 04:44 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
it's just another version of (...) creation story


The big bang theory is indeed another creation story. Ultimately any story or explanation of the origin of the universe is a matter of faith. In religion it's faith in god, in science its faith in ourselves, generally speaking.
So even if the universe is mostly in a state of plasma, or if it is "an internal negotiation of quantum potential", our inclination to accept these explanations as reality is closely related to our ability to grasp and conceptualize them.

Any explanation of existence that is any good cannot only satisfy our rational criteria, it must also satisfy our emotional and intuitional criteria to have the substance to serve as the metaphysical backdrop to our lives. But those connections are rarely addressed in scientific explanations, because science cannot dictate our emotional needs. So the connection between any story and our experience of reality itself involves our capacity for faith as well as our ability to conceptualize, which is a highly intuitive process.

That said, I am all for seeking better explanations. I am looking into quantum consciousness these days, but I would love a reference to wherever you got your ideas.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 06:40 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
That said, I am all for seeking better explanations. I am looking into quantum consciousness these days, but I would love a reference to wherever you got your ideas.


Ideas about plasma cosmology can be had by doing google searches on 'plasma cosmology', 'electric universe', 'halton arp', 'electric sun' and the like. There is also http://www.thunderbolts.info


The most major starting point for understanding consciousness is Julian Jaynes and you can find paperback copies of 'Origin of Consciousness' on Amazon for around $12, but I would recommend also google and youtube searches on julian jaynes.

Jaynes of course viewed life from an evolutionists prism and believed the things he had discovered amounted to pre-conscious societies being governed by what he called 'auditory hallucinations'. I believe that to be true of some of the societies Jaynes studied particularly after the time of David and Solomon, but I don't believe that was always the case.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 06:49 pm
@gungasnake,
Thanks for the link and tips for searchwords.

But when it comes to understanding consciousness I doubt psychology alone can give a comprehensive understanding. I am not sure it is even relevant to consciousness itself. At least not human psychology.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 07:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
But when it comes to understanding consciousness I doubt psychology alone can give a comprehensive understanding.


That for sure is not what anybody is talking about with Jaynes. What you're talking about with Jaynes and theories built around his studies is a part of the human brain which was used for communications in ancient times but no longer is, and about meaningful communication with the spirit realm.

All of the kinds of practices Jaynes describes involved trance states, all of them involved static electricity, and all of them stopped working before Alexander, some later than others.

One such practice in particular, idolatry, basically turned much of the planet into an insane assylum for nearly a thousand years. Crime in the old testament is of two varieties: (relatively) minor crime such as murder, rape, burglary, arson and the like, and major crime such as making up statues and little dolls and puppets to worship. The first commandment basically says "thou shalt not commit idolatry". Jaynes' book describes the reasons why.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 07:31 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
The big bang theory is indeed another creation story


BULLSHIT the universe had been map by using the background radio waves back to a few million years after the big bang to date in details.

This creation story is a rock solid as a full moon.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 05:27:46