Reply
Thu 10 Oct, 2013 11:20 am
How few of us speculate She, the Universe, God, as a natural phenom, according to a yet unexplored theme that "nothingness" is impossible, entailing contradiction and paradox; in other words, things are the way they are because that's the way they haven to be; "creation" unnecessary since She has always existed in one form or another. And whether or not one attaches the term "God" to this Great Megillah is merely a matter of preference
Thus in the viewpoint of the rare apodictical existential pantheist the Entire Machine we might suppose progressing through various phases of a purely evolutionary cycle wherein big, heavy chunk of elemental substance, undergoing the Big Bang eventually develops into what we have today
……but of course eventually degenerating into a large number of rapidly cooling particles rushing away from one another until grav again takes hold and we have the Big Crunch. This of course culminates into that tiny spot (perhaps of zero diameter but infinite mass) before the next Big Bang ad infinitum. It's all evolution, devolution, etc
Doesn't mean we shouldn't refer to It as "God". Clearly some aspects of Its development we don't yet understand, maybe almost entirely abstract, will eventually take on this nomenclature. Thus the Universe will be seen, eg, as Her body and all the activity therein as Her mind at work
Still mysterious is the apparently special instance of its most complex development, namely us: Man's existence intuitively seems essential since the Entire Operation would seem so pointless without us to appreciate and understand it, in some cases tweaking constants within a fraction of one precent so as to permit the evolution of the humanoid
Most puzzling of all is the essential q how and why everything seems to have been especially "adjusted" to a staggering complexity, given our tiny, almost helpless status
Your pertinent input fellow a2k, much appreciated
@dalehileman,
Quote:Man's existence intuitively seems essential since the Entire Operation would seem so pointless without us to appreciate and understand it
This very night when I looked out into the night sky, across all those infinite stars, it made me realize how insignificant they are.
The evanescent lucency petered cooking the evening meal.
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:Most puzzling of all is the essential q how and why everything seems to have been especially "adjusted" to a staggering complexity, given our tiny, almost helpless status
The chance that any given snowflake will take the particular shape it does, is nearly infinitely small. And yet, if some form of tiny life were to evolve in harmony with the structure of any particular flake, those beings would think their flake had been "tweaked" just perfectly to support them. When in fact, they are simply not aware of all the other flakes, or that other forms of life may match different flakes.
So the question of why the Universe was tweaked to support us isn't puzzling at all, its simply an anthropocentric (or Universepocentric) view in which the denizens of the Universe think that our flake is special because we have no idea what else is possible outside its borders.
@rosborne979,
Quote:When in fact, they are simply not aware of all the other flakes, or that other forms of life may match different flakes.
Yea Ros that's a most profound observation and I can only counter it by offering the shopworn observation that the likelihood of a prop proving true is proportional to the amount of evidence, and where there's no evidence whatever, it's probably false
@Miss L Toad,
Quote:The evanescent lucency petered cooking the evening meal.
Miss T, I love it
Becoming so literal in my old age I interpret (assuming a missing comma after "petered,") this means a realization that the relatively short life of an average star compared to that of the Universe itself dwindles in comparison with the rush evinced by the complexity of antecedents making possible just your evening meal
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:When in fact, they are simply not aware of all the other flakes, or that other forms of life may match different flakes.
Yea Ros that's a most profound observation and I can only counter it by offering the shopworn observation that the likelihood of a prop proving true is proportional to the amount of evidence, and where there's no evidence whatever, it's probably false
That's not a counter, that's a confirmation. There is no evidence for a "tweaking" of the Universe, so your own conclusion must be that the "tweaking" is probably a false assumption. And I agree.
@rosborne979,
Quote:...so your own conclusion must be that the "tweaking" is probably a false assumption. And I agree.
I conjecture an absolute necessity for evolution of the humanoid, The Entire Megillah being a natural phenom as it has to be, is also the result of an evolutionary phenom. But what's so puzzling, considering his tiny and relatively ineffectual presence, how this necessity might have arisen
Inasmuch as She, It, the Universe, is Her body and all the activity therein Her mind at work, somehow this necessity has intervened. It's this intervention I'd like to explore
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:Inasmuch as She, It, the Universe, is Her body and all the activity therein Her mind at work, somehow this necessity has intervened. It's this intervention I'd like to explore
Conjectures are supposed to be used as a starting point for testing to see if the conjecture fits the evidence, not as unsupported assumptions from which to begin exploring even more unsupported assumptions (unless you're getting ready to write a fantasy novel or something).
And it's pretty clear that once you apply this conjecture you immediately get more conflicts (with evidence) and questions than clarity and answers, so it invalidates itself right out of the gate.
@rosborne979,
Quote:And it's pretty clear that once you apply this conjecture you immediately get more conflicts (with evidence)
Thank you Ros for your interest. But specifically which aspect of my conjecture conflicts with what evidence
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:And it's pretty clear that once you apply this conjecture you immediately get more conflicts (with evidence)
Thank you Ros for your interest. But specifically which aspect of my conjecture conflicts with what evidence
This one...
dalehileman wrote:I conjecture an absolute necessity for evolution of the humanoid
conflicts with all the evidence and our basic understanding of biological evolution.
And then you leap right along and conclude that some He/She/It has intervened to accomplish that necessity (which you imagine) and you want to explore that intervention.
@rosborne979,
dalehileman wrote:
I conjecture an absolute necessity for evolution of the humanoid
Because, Ros, the Entire Megillah seems so meaningless without us. Admittedly purely intuitive
@rosborne979,
Quote:And it's pretty clear that once you apply this conjecture…….. it invalidates itself right out of the gate.
What you're suggesting, Ros, is that we quit before we even start
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:Because, Ros, the Entire Megillah seems so meaningless without us.
Congratulations, that's the most blatantly unsupported anthropocentric reasoning I've ever seen.
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:What you're suggesting, Ros, is that we quit before we even start
That's what you do with an idea that's a non-starter.
I'm changing my tags on this topic from Science, to Faith and Religion because it seems that all you're trying to do is explore your own faith and particular religion. You're not trying to evaluate anything scientifically, or even follow scientific reasoning or logic.
@rosborne979,
Quote:blatantly unsupported anthropocentric reasoning
But Ros I didn't so represent it but instead as intuitive. I suppose you could support its definition as a form of subliminal reasoning but that wasn't my intention
Nonetheless intuition is powerful and shouldn't be dismissed offhand. Einstein's theory is thought to have arisen largely from his intuition
@rosborne979,
Quote:That's what you do [dismiss offhand] with an idea that's a non-starter.
So Einbstein should have shelved his absurd proposal
Quote:…..all you're trying to do is explore your own faith and particular religion.
Who, me
Quote:You're not trying to evaluate anything scientifically, or even follow scientific reasoning or logic.
These abstractions are inseparably intertwined, according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else
Nonetheless Ros your interest in my musings is appreciated
@dalehileman,
The thinking of a genius does not proceed logically. It leaps with great ellipses. It pulls knowledge from God knows where.
Dorothy Thompson, American journalist 1894-1961
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace