Christianity

[seeds]

seeds wrote regarding the acorn:

epitomizes the very meaning of teleological impetus, for its DNA is absolutely pregnant with an intended goal of not only producing a tree, but also maintaining its existence throughout its life cycle of shedding and growing leaves and subsequent seeds of itself.

I agree about acorns and subsequent oaks being teleological creatures, however their impetus is unpremeditated. Beautiful but unpremeditated.

I strongly disagree, B...

I suggest that the teleological impetus which eventually led to the manifestation of beautiful oak trees, was present in the "seed-like" kernel of reality from which the entire universe grew...



In other words, the tiny dot that my little guy is pointing at was imbued with every possible ingredient necessary (including the teleological goal) to produce the (pre-meditated) perfect setting from which oak trees (and all of the earth's living creatures) could then emerge into existence.

An acorn shell full of salt is not a teleological creature even when the salt is in process of dissolving in the rain.

I imagine God intends salt to be as salt does despite salt's lack of teleological impetus.

B, how can you not be conscious of the fact that by imagining what "God intends," you have just identified the source and reason for the universe's teleological impetus?
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

B, how can you not be conscious of the fact that by imagining what "God intends," you have just identified the source and reason for the universe's teleological impetus?
_______

I do not know if nature is not God, or if nature is God. I am being pragmatic in choosing that nature is not God. I choose the atheist stance because, although I don't know, I see that people who believe God is intentional(i.e. teleological) often have claimed to know the will of God in ridiculously detailed codes and set themselves up as His true prophets. I oppose idolatry.

When I wrote "God intends------" I hypothesised that , unlike nature, He is teleological. And even if He were teleological it would be odd if He scorned salt which is an essential component of His own laws of nature.

[Immanuel Can]

God is clearly asking or commanding another entity, not declaring. A declaration would be as such "I declare there is light."

No, I don't think that's "clear" at all.

If I parallel your objection, a "commanding another entity" would be, "I command you to make light."

It seems obvious to me that, considered by itself and without context, the locutionary act in question could be taken to be either a command or a declaration; but we have a strong consideration against the first, namely that there is no other apparent entity to whom the words could be addressed. So it doesn't seem reasonable to say that God is commanding some other being to jump to the task...no other such is even suggested in the context of the subsequent verses.

Reasonable!!?

What is reasonable about thinking a man is talking the planet and stars into existence?

"A man"? Nothing.

But God is not "a man."

[seeds]

Let's accept that atheists trivialise theists. How does that advance your argument?

Which argument are you referring to?

No matter what interpretation you look at, they all imply that the underlying fabric of reality is composed of an infinitely malleable, informationally-based substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable",...



...just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

Right. So what I understand you to mean is the universe is made of a substance, and information is any deformation in that substance. If so, I think that is probably true.

"...information is any deformation in that substance..."

Geez, uwot, can you make it sound any duller than that?

What I mean is that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based" substance that, depending on the arrangement of its informational (waveform) patterns, you get a wombat in one instance, or a French Horn in another instance, or a laser in yet another instance, etc., etc...

...(Shall we peruse the world's encyclopedias for a more comprehensive list of what variations in the substance's informational parameters can create?)

Or, in still yet another instance, you get the manifestation of these words appearing on your computer screen after streaming through space in an unrecognizable form and inaccessible context of reality that physicist David Bohm would call the "Implicate Order," or what Werner Heisenberg would call in a state of "potentia," of which physicist Nick Herbert would consider as being "...no more substantial than a promise...", and finally, what Kant would call its "noumenal" state of being.

And the point of all of my pretentious appealing to authority (forgive me) is that there is a lot more to it than what your little "...information is any deformation in that substance..." remark implies, for, again, it is a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable".

Hence, my insistence (granted, my "interpretation") that quantum physics seems to be confirming idealism.

Where we differ is that for you the cosmos is so perfectly created for human life, there must be an intelligence orchestrating it.

Trust me, uwot, I have more reasons for believing in the existence of an "orchestrating intelligence" than just the fine-tuning argument.

Granted there is a thin layer on a small planet that does sustain human life, but in a universe reckoned to be 90 odd billion light years in diameter, I don't see 'chance' as being so unlikely as you do.

"...a thin layer on a small planet that does sustain human life..."

uwot, me old Internet mate, you have a knack for trivializing the miraculous.

...I expect you to follow-thru with some speculative suggestions as to what you mean when using the term "miraculous." Otherwise, all you are doing is echoing the sentiment expressed in this amusing cartoon...

Not quite. In my version, the miracle is step 1. Why is there either a universe, or a god that created one?

Now that is something we can both agree on 100%.
_______

[uwot]

Let's accept that atheists trivialise theists. How does that advance your argument?

Which argument are you referring to?

Specifically the one immediately before the words you quoted.

seeds, you are trivialising atheists. It is not anthropomorphism we are not persuaded by; it is the hypothetical "intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe".

And you don't think that atheists trivialize theists?

Let's accept that atheists trivialise theists. How does that advance your argument?

Your argument (honestly, in philosophy an argument is not always a blazing row) is that us atheists are not convinced by your hypothetical "intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe" because we have been deterred by anthropomorphic representations of it. More broadly your argument is that there is an actual "intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe" which, (Do I really have to point this out?) you have represented in a fundamentally human form, albeit with an eyeball for a head.

"...information is any deformation in that substance..."

Geez, uwot, can you make it sound any duller than that?

What I mean is that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based" substance that, depending on the arrangement of its informational (waveform) patterns, you get a wombat in one instance, or a French Horn in another instance, or a laser in yet another instance, etc., etc...

Granted waveform is a prettier word than deformation, but do "informational (waveform) patterns" account for all information?

...there is a lot more to it than what your little "...information is any deformation in that substance..." remark implies, for, again, it is a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable".

Let me expand then. Like you I think the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some sort of stuff, is that the universe is made of some sort of stuff. Suppose I compare this stuff to a duck pond; a completely flat surface contains no information. Drop a duck in it and there will be ripples and waves which, if I understand you correctly, are analogous to information. That being so, we are in agreement. I would add that there may be eddies and whirlpools, and rather than anything imaginable being possible, we already know enough about what this substance actually becomes, quarks, atoms, light and whatnot, to have some idea of the constraints on our imagination.

Hence, my insistence (granted, my "interpretation") that quantum physics seems to be confirming idealism.

Well hang on; if you are an idealist, you don't believe in a "substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable"."

Where we differ is that for you the cosmos is so perfectly created for human life, there must be an intelligence orchestrating it.

Trust me, uwot, I have more reasons for believing in the existence of an "orchestrating intelligence" than just the fine-tuning argument.

I don't doubt it. What have you got that will convince me?

"...a thin layer on a small planet that does sustain human life..."

uwot, me old Internet mate, you have a knack for trivializing the miraculous.

It's a gift.

[promethean75]

Excerpt from 'Collected Ironies of an Atheist', aphorisms and epigrams, 2022

Promethean's Razor; If the purpose of positing a 'god' is to really relieve ourselves of having to find answers to difficult questions about the universe - what are the chances, why is it so complex - that seem to demand such extraordinary theory to be understood and accounted for, then it seems immediately absurd to make the premise and subject of your explanatory theory, more complicated and extraordinary than the phenomena you are trying to explain with it. For if the purpose of the hypothesis is to simplify as much as possible an understanding of some phenomena, a fellow who uses a 'god' to do so, makes of himself a certain remissent fool in his endeavor.

Recent edit: changed 'awkward' to 'remissent' from the French 'remettre'. It sounds much more intellectual.

[Immanuel Can]

...it seems immediately absurd to make the premise and subject of your explanatory theory, more complicated and extraordinary than the phenomena you are trying to explain with it.

Nope.

The human genome has 2 billion base pairs, according to Havard -- vastly more complex than "one human being" they compose. But the explanation for the one human being is found in the immeasurably vast complexities of the genome.

All the works of human beings -- their arts, architecture, technologies, writings and so on, are not as complex as the human being himself, who is the correct explanation for the existence of all these comparatively simple things.

So that's a very poor theory...well, so bad that it's obviously wrong.

[seeds]

Your argument (honestly, in philosophy an argument is not always a blazing row) is that us atheists are not convinced by your hypothetical "intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe" because we have been deterred by anthropomorphic representations of it.

Perhaps you (and Dubious) might be a couple of rare birds that are exempt from my accusation (though I can't help being drawn back to your "...beardy bloke in the sky..." comment).

Nevertheless, if you take note of the recent post by promethean75, you can almost see the sneer on his face as he no doubt envisioned some sort of anthropomorphic nonsense as he...

(without any comprehension of what the word "God" means to me)

...indirectly called me a "fool" for invoking a "god" to account for the order of the universe.

Now that, my dear uwot, is a prime (and real-time) example of what I was getting at in my original complaint.

More broadly your argument is that there is an actual "intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe" which, (Do I really have to point this out?) you have represented in a fundamentally human form, albeit with an eyeball for a head.

Oh come on now, uwot, in what way does the eye image at the top of this illustration...



...resemble a human form?

And furthermore, it's not an eye "ball" as you so ungenerously proclaimed it to be. No, it's the best metaphorical representation of the "eye of the mind" that I could come up with at the time of creating the illustrations.

You, of all people, should be aware of how difficult it is to present abstract ideas in a visual format.

"...information is any deformation in that substance..."

Geez, uwot, can you make it sound any duller than that?

What I mean is that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based" substance that, depending on the arrangement of its informational (waveform) patterns, you get a wombat in one instance, or a French Horn in another instance, or a laser in yet another instance, etc., etc...

Granted waveform is a prettier word than deformation, but do "informational (waveform) patterns" account for all information?

I don't know, uwot. Probably not for something like mind and consciousness, but it sure seems to be the basis of physical matter, as is suggested by what Schrödinger's equation applies to, for one example.

...there is a lot more to it than what your little "...information is any deformation in that substance..." remark implies, for, again, it is a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable".

Let me expand then. Like you I think the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some sort of stuff, is that the universe is made of some sort of stuff. Suppose I compare this stuff to a duck pond; a completely flat surface contains no information. Drop a duck in it and there will be ripples and waves which, if I understand you correctly, are analogous to information. That being so, we are in agreement.

No, uwot, you don't seem to understand me correctly.

I have tried to demonstrate what I mean many times in my hologram illustrations,...



...wherein the patterns of quantum information that underpin the 3-D phenomenal features of the universe are analogous to the patterns of information that underpin the 3-D images of the hologram.

In which case (and speculatively speaking, of course), If you could somehow change the static patterns of information stored in the photographic emulsion of the hologram, you could, theoretically, change the key, the die, and the paperclip into something totally different (into the image of a duck, for example).

The point is that (according to my trick knee) the same scenario applies to the dynamic patterns of information that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe.

In its rawest state...

(what Heisenberg called raw "potentia")

...the informationally-based substance from which the stars, planets, bodies, and brains are created, is "up for grabs," so to speak, and can be used to create, again, anything "imaginable" (again, just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created).

Where we differ is that for you the cosmos is so perfectly created for human life, there must be an intelligence orchestrating it.

Trust me, uwot, I have more reasons for believing in the existence of an "orchestrating intelligence" than just the fine-tuning argument.

I don't doubt it. What have you got that will convince me?

I would never assume that I could convince you of any of my nutjob blatherings.

However, I'm in the process of creating a ("testimonial") thread where I will address that specific request and reveal the full depth of my lunacy.
_______

[attofishpi]

No, I don't think that's "clear" at all.

If I parallel your objection, a "commanding another entity" would be, "I command you to make light."

It seems obvious to me that, considered by itself and without context, the locutionary act in question could be taken to be either a command or a declaration; but we have a strong consideration against the first, namely that there is no other apparent entity to whom the words could be addressed. So it doesn't seem reasonable to say that God is commanding some other being to jump to the task...no other such is even suggested in the context of the subsequent verses.

Reasonable!!?

What is reasonable about thinking a man is talking the planet and stars into existence?

"A man"? Nothing.

But God is not "a man."

I foresaw that would be an eventual reply. There are so many tangents that one could now take to attempt to consider anything rational about this entity that you believe spoke the planet Earth, the Sun and other stars into existence.

I'll start at the obvious. Why did God use words, indeed language that man communicates with to create Earth and suns?

[Immanuel Can]

Why did God use words, indeed language that man communicates with to create Earth and suns?

We don't know what language God spoke at Creation. Some might guess it was Hebrew; but that would be a guess, and not one based on any evidence. But "word" is a very complex concept in Scripture, and one loaded with meaning, and one often mentioned, so there's a lot we do know about that.

[Gary Childress]

Why did God use words, indeed language that man communicates with to create Earth and suns?

...so there's a lot we do know about that.

Like what?

[promethean75]

"Why did God use words, indeed language that man communicates with to create Earth and suns?"

Bro. Any time you create earths and suns and stuff, you use words. Every god knows that. What, do you think he put it all together with some shit he had laying around in his garage? He's god, dude. All he has to do is say it.

[Immanuel Can]

Why did God use words, indeed language that man communicates with to create Earth and suns?

...so there's a lot we do know about that.

Like what?

Well, "Word" means not just "a word," like a single unit of utterance, but also a whole lot more than that.

For example, we use the phrase, "Give me your word." That doesn't mean just one "word," but rather, give me your guarantee of something. Or we use the phrase, "A word from the throne," meaning, "a message delivered authoritatively, on the basis of the one who is giving it." Or we speak of somebody "keeping thier word," meaning that they have fulfilled what they declared they would do...

All these and more are implied by the word "word" in Torah and in the New Testament. So one must think carefully about what possible sense(s) are being meant when Genesis says, "And God said..." It apparently doesn't simply mean that God issued one mere linguistic unit. Rather, this was what Alston has called, "a locutionary act," meaning a declaration with action behind it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Like what?

The idea behind *word* and Logos as the beginning of things likely artecedes the Hebrew notion of it.

The notion of a divinity that brings the manifest world into existence with word or utterance is greatly expanded in Vedic metaphysics. The idea behind 'recitation of the name of God' as a means to link one with God, as well as the notion that what one says has power in this our world, is the idea behind mantra. The idea that the words (promises, commitments) of a man of his word depends on his general truthfulness is an ethical idea that operates very strongly for all of us -- still.

Thus again the idea that 'all speech is sermonic', that all speech either links with truthful things or falls away from truth, is one important idea that Richard Weaver worked with. The interesting way to validate this is to consider all the uses of the word -- of speech, of rhetoric -- as means of deception and trickery. For example in advertising and, certainly today, in propaganda and political speech. It is more fair to say that we are immersed in lies & deceptions than that we live in clarifying truths.

Just now we are being subject to extraordinary political lying and deception surrounding Ukraine to the degree that it is nearly impossible, if it is not impossible, to actually know the truth of the matter. .

On what does all this depend? In essence the manipulation of thew word, of speech, of the organization if ideas. Thus words can be used to control and ensnare people. A science of lying.

But if that is true then the opposite is posited: words and notions and concepts can, and should free up. Who speaks the truth? How can the truth be stated? It is interesting to consider this idea of truth when confronting a given person whose life has gone off the rails. When a person gets so involved in mistruths that he (or she) does not even understand what he has done to himself or what has been done to him. All processes of personal rectification always have to do with stating what really is in the clearest terms. So inevitably one must return to truth-telling.

It seems to me that this is one of the most salient features of the time we are in: no matter what topic there is a miasma of differing opinions and assertions about what is true.

Clear idea, ideas based in sound logic and in sound premises (and based on sound first principles), thoughts and ideas that do not entangle a person but free and empower a person, not to mention the idea behind affirmative, potent prayer that has the power to empower the individual and move the world, it is in this arena that confusion reigns. What is true? What is real? What is valuable?

All of these things depend on logos, obviously, in the sense of *careful truthful definition* and *guiding idea*. And it seems that this is exactly the area where the individual is attacked. Thoughts turn mushy. Emotions run in to those domains of logos that should be free of them and then things get terribly muddled.

The idea, therefore, of God's utterances and certainly the idea that the whole Universe is pervaded with logic (idea that manifests all that we see, know and are) is certainly an archaic idea more proper to scholasticism. That is to say the old way of visualizing life and reality. Yet though the scholastics got so much wrong it seems to me that the basic idea is sound.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No idea why those paragraphs appear in italics.