Critical thinking on the existence of God

@FBM,

Well there is two kinds of Holism...the foolish kind, and my kind...
When they spout nonsense about the whole being greater then the sum of its parts I am against...when Holism entails non linear complex relations in an abstract ecosystem involving reality being totally interdependent then I am in...

Anyway...I would love to hear Tuna speaking about the unnatural "metaphysics" of GPS systems... Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well there is two kinds of Holism...the foolish kind, and my kind...
When they spout nonsense about the whole being greater then the sum of its parts I am against...when Holism entails non linear complex relations in an abstract ecosystem involving reality being totally interdependent then I am in...

I can't find any significant flaw in this, insofar as I understand it. I don't see the whole as being greater than the sum of its parts in any other way than a metaphorical or poetic expression of hope or desire. An interdependent ecosystem as an abstraction is fine by me, too. As long as the abstraction is understood as a reification.

Quote:

Anyway...I would love to hear Tuna speaking about the unnatural "metaphysics" of GPS systems...

I haven't been focusing on Tuna lately, but I don't know of anything in the universe that can rightfully be termed "unnatural."

0 Replies

There is, perhaps, something interesting to be said about Philosophy and Science so to clear the waters...90% of what philosophy as produced throughout History is **** and 90% of what Science produced is of value...and yet the 10% have far greater importance then the other 90%...with that said one gets a very clarified picture distinguishing methodologies for thinking, from pure Reason...nurses are not doctors no matter how many PHD's they get. Public recognition is not a barometer either...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The kind of hurry up practical personality will do Science hands down, and if good it will hit a wall because he can see one.

The kind of guy who scavenges in the mud or in wrecks looking for treasures will do Philosophy... when hitting a wall he may have a chance at climbing it to see the next one.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I work with my "language" not with borrowed concepts.

I respect that. Jargon is a two-edged sword. It can reduce confusion. It can propagate confusion.

Do you know anything about Laplace's demon?

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Yes I am familiarized with the demon quest.

...funny detail there is expenditure of work...INFORMATION !

2 Replies

A tad off topic but this is interesting as a side note:

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...funny detail there is expenditure of work...INFORMATION !

Ah! Now you've said something.

Somewhat related:
If I understood you correctly, you were saying before that the whole is not greater than the parts? If not, how does that square with your quote above?

When I was young and fascinated with radios, I too thought the 'magic' was in the strange parts in the radios I tore apart. I eventually learned that the magic was in the arrangement and calibration of the parts, in other words, the information 'added' to the parts.

Is this a proper understanding or a contradiction of what you are saying?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Yes I am familiarized with the demon quest.

Awesome. It came up in a book I've been reading. I think I'm going to read Laplace's book. I have a long-standing fascination with probability.

0 Replies

Quote:

@Susmariosep,
I see you are seeking an intelligent discourse.

I don't believe I am the best when it comes to critical thinking, but I will do as best I can.

I believe that the current sensory layer that we exist in is just that - a layer. A sector on a grid of dimensions that overlap each other. This is where String theory (superstring theory) comes into play, as well as the world of quantum physics. When the Bible is talking about the spiritual realm, it is likely referencing a layer on the grid in which quantum beings (or beings made of something yet to be discovered) travel and reside. And because they (the realms) all overlap each other, that means wherever you travel in that other realm also equals where you travel in the physical realm, or the sensory realm, if you travel a certain way* *perhaps this only applies to one realm at which they can switch to, and not applicable to others, if there are any (I am, of course, not sure.)

Thus, the creation of the physical universe was just the formation of another layer of energy, and doesn't scientific observation profess that energy always has been and always will be, flowing into and out of form? This concept of layering explains how, in the Bible, angels can materialize, levitate, and affect physical matter in this realm and not get affected by anything in it (such as that one time a single angel destroyed an entire army of Assyrians: Isaiah 37:36 reads: "36 And the angel of Jehovah went out and struck down 185,000 men in the camp of the As·syr′i·ans. When people rose up early in the morning, they saw all the dead bodies"
JW.org New World Translation 2013

Also, taking into account this fact, it is important to keep in mind that God is in the very particles to which we are made up of. He is quite literally the Boson field which gives particles mass and shape, and as such he is in effect the (operator) of the universe, and his holy spirit is simply energy in the purest form, whatever that may be.

This is just a theory of mine based on what I have studied and meditated upon, but perhaps it contains some merit. Let me know, please, what you think.

That was a post I made earlier. I've only been gone a while, and people aren't using critical thinking at all and are trying to mock the existence of God by calling him something that resides in the universe rather than being the universe itself. It's as if my post doesn't exist.

This isn't directed at you people who are talking intelligently and sharing what you've read in books and seen on the internet (like the two people above my post) This is just a reminder for the people currently not participating in critical thinking on this topic and trying to turn it into another creation/evolution fest.

Remember, stick to the original topic.

1 Reply

@Nova Flare Q,

You see Dennet and you jump the gun how critical of you...interesting the point I was interested in from Dennet was about the tools for CRITICAL thinking not about evolution nor free will. Your "necktop" needs an update.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am not referencing the people who are participating in critical thinking, I am talking about the people who have posted here and have not participated in critical thinking, such as Setanta.

Could you please be more specific on what you are talking about? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

EDIT: I am trying to dissuade people from diverting it, like in some of
the last pages.

EDIT NUMBER 2: In fact, it only applies to some of the last pages.

2 Replies

@Nova Flare Q,

Quote:

(@ Fil Alb..) Could you please be more specific on what you are talking about? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Having the same problem. I can't decide if I'm on Fil's ignore list or he really doesn't give a **** whether anyone understands him or not.

0 Replies

@Nova Flare Q,

Well self important me thought that was very specifically aimed at me...never mind it then ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I think Q mistakes Setanta's creative scorn for a lack of critical thinking.
But we old folks know better.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Yeah Setanta is a fast ass and a pain in the but to, same with Farma...petty he can't think slower...
Slow thinking is good for knowledge.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

0 Replies

Change can't be changed...(no reason it just popped up)

1 Reply

Setanta does people the honor of insulting them to their faces (as opposed to delivering insults to the wall as if the insultee isn't worth speaking to directly.)

That's cool and it takes balls.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Change can't be changed...(no reason it just popped up)

Every event has only one outcome. But I didn't discover that through observation. I didn't watch the dice land and say "Hey! There was only one outcome!" No, I know it before my next encounter at the craps table.

What does what you're bound to think about the world have to do with how the world really is?

Kant.

1 Reply

Critical thinking on the existence of God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know