Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Well it isn't 'scientifically demonstrable' at all because we can't go back in time and observe the big bang event.

That would be a good test, admittedly; but it's certainly not the only empirical evidence. We have the observable universe itself, which has in it observable things like the red-shift effect, a linearly-expanding universe, entropy, causal chains, and so on...all of which are both measurable and proof positive that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.

All we have is theory,

No. We have the other things listed above.

theory which best explains said phenomena (the red shift and the Doppler effect) that are 'scientifically demonstrable'. However, it is possible that there is a different theory that would explain said phenomena

There is none I know of, but if you know of one, offer that theory. I'm listening.

The acquisition of new information could at any time radically change the consensus among cosmologists and physicists regarding the history of the known universe.

Well, that's what happened with the red shift effect. As recently as the sixties, there were still scientists clinging to the possibility of a past-eternal universe. But new information killed any such hope. As Alexander Vilenkin, master cosmologist has concluded, "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." (Many Worlds in One, p. 176) I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that Vilenkin has a better perspective on this than you and I might.

It is true that an actual Infinity cannot be observed.

That's not what I said. You have to pay attention to the wording, to get the claim right.

It's not that "an actual infinity cannot be observed," which is true, but both obvious and trite. It's that an actual infinite regress of causes is impossible, for such a causal chain never commences. The fact that we do, obviously, have causal chains in our universe today is proof positive that the universe had a beginning...or else, they would not exist.

But none of this is necessary because the fact of the impossibility of actual infinites and the evidence of entropy, doesn't demand, yet, a theory such as a transcendent 'god' to explain anything.

You're expecting too much of this particular argument, and not recognizing that other arguments follow it -- because we haven't even discussed those yet.

What our conclusions so far do is only to show us this: that an initial event produced by an Uncaused Cause is the only viable explanation for our universe. We have not yet even entertained what the nature of such a cause might be, but we could do so now.

What do you accept as an Uncaused Cause that could potentially account for something as organized, complex and sophisticated as this universe? If you have a cause other than God to suggest, I'm very much open to hearing what it might be.

And i'ont think you r hearing me when I try to articulate the folly of theologians in promethean75's razor.

Well, to be fair, that's only because you got Occam's Razor completely wrong, and wrong in such obvious ways that I was immediately able to give you instances that show that, often, simple effects may require an elaborate causal explanation...remember the artist and the painting? A person is much more complex than paint-in-canvas. So it is not at all true that the simplest explanation for something is the right one. In fact, the opposite is obviously true.

Occam gave his rule as what they call a "ceteris paribus," meaning "all things being equal."

That means that if you have two theories, and theory one is an explanation adequate to account for phenomenon X, and theory two would also account for it, but theory two requires three factors but explanation one requires only two, then theory one is the one you should probably assume. However, the two theories have to BOTH be entirely adequate to explain the phenomenon, and even then, there is no absolute certainty that theory one is actually right; theory two could still be better or more complete than theory one -- especially if we have failed to account for something yet: because then, things aren't actuall ceteris paribus or equal. It's just that Occam thinks we should prefer theory one first, if all things are equal.

They rarely are.

Anthropomorphisists think this way tho; because one particular thing in the universe, the human being, is not only so incredibly complex, but also aware of this incredible complexity, it follows that whatever created it would have to be aware of complexity and self-awarness as well, and to be so would be like being human.

That's a backward way of thinking about what it really shows. What it really shows is this: if human beings are highly complex, intelligent, incredibly complex, aware creatures, it argues that whatever we posit for a cause for human beings must be immensely more sophisticated, intelligent, complex, and aware than they are. Were he not, he would no longer be a plausible explanation as to why humans have those advantages, of course.

From where do these assumptions about the nature of 'god', come?

The would come from God's self-revelation. For what we can certainly say is that no man, of himself, has special ability to say what God is like...unless God were actually to choose to reveal Himself to mankind. To speak, and to reveal oneself, are actions so simple that any human being can do them; they surely would not even present a slight difficulty to God...assuming He did want to speak or reveal Himself.

So the question only becomes, "Has God spoken?" If he has not, then nobody has a clue.

But if He has...

[Dontaskme]

What is known, and for certain, is that there must BE a First Cause in any causal chain. That's not even possible to doubt, rationally speaking.

The First Cause 'must' is known NOW as an idea...that's certainly known, and impossible to doubt.

What can be discussed is only what sort of First Cause could exist, what sort would be commensurate with the effect we are attempting to explain.

First Cause is an idea known NOW...so the only sort available is what is an idea now.

The effect we're trying to explain is the existence of a law-governed, highly complex, interrelated universe. So we need a proposal for a cause big enough and complex enough to account for that result.

What do you regard as a sufficient First Cause for that?

I'll put forward an answer to the question....knowing anything can only be known now as an idea... the existence of a law-governed, highly complex, interrelated universe is known now as an idea...there cannot be any other explanation other than that simple knowing.

All knowledge is but a Theory....the how's - where's - why's - and when's do not apply to NOW

Trying to explain the how's - where's - why's - or when's of causal chains would be like trying to jump over your shadow to get in front of what's behind...which is not how reality is. Reality can only be known now in the still unmoving centre of consciousness the only knowing there is, the only knowing available.

IC..how can you know yourself? ...you would have to split into two...a knower and the known.


.

[RCSaunders]

how can you know yourself? ...you would have to split into two...a knower and the known.

Mirrors!

[Immanuel Can]

The First Cause 'must' is known NOW as an idea...

I don't understand this sentence: "must is"? "known as an idea"?

What can be discussed is only what sort of First Cause could exist, what sort would be commensurate with the effect we are attempting to explain.

First Cause is an idea known NOW...so the only sort available is what is an idea now.

Your comment here seems unrelated to the point.

The effect we're trying to explain is the existence of a law-governed, highly complex, interrelated universe. So we need a proposal for a cause big enough and complex enough to account for that result.

What do you regard as a sufficient First Cause for that?

I'll put forward an answer to the question....knowing anything can only be known now as an idea... the existence of a law-governed, highly complex, interrelated universe is known now as an idea...there cannot be any other explanation other than that simple knowing.

Your answer makes no sense: "ideas," all by themselves, don't "cause" anything. An "idea" is non-physical.

So it's not an answer to the question. Do you have one?

[Nick_A]

There are some who distinguish between esoteric and exoteric Christianity. But if there are any here who have experienced the difference, it would be good to read how they understand this great paradox and how they value each.

It has often been said that there is a central paradox in the role of religion throughout history: on the one hand, religion has been the single greatest cause of war and suffering. On the other, religion has been the single greatest source of redemption, salvation, and liberation for humanity. How can we possibly make sense of this double-edged dagger? How can we reconcile the very best qualities of religion with the very worst?

Any meaningful discussion about religion must take at least two different dimensions of the religious experience into account. First, there is religion in its exoteric or “outer” form, largely consisting of the rituals, beliefs, and dogma of a particular tradition. This is what the majority of people think of when they hear the word “religion”, often associating it with old myths, pre-rational thinking, and obsolete ideologies. Whenever you hear Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or any of the other “new atheists” railing against God and religion, it is always this mythic exoteric form that they are attacking.

There is another side to religion which, by definition, is very often overlooked: the esoteric or “inner” core that invites us to actually experience divinity for ourselves. This esoteric core is almost entirely composed of vivid (and occasionally enigmatic) descriptions of spiritual devotion, transcendent truths, and timeless realities. But there is so much more than just poetry at the heart of religion—esoteric spirituality represents a very real technology of transformation, offering profoundly enriching practices of meditation and prayer to help us all experience these things for ourselves, rather than just taking it as a matter of faith.................

The exoteric caters to society as a whole while the esoteric is for individuals not caught up in the world but rather seek meaning which doesn't exist in the world.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart

Those who have experienced the inner vertical esoteric direction are in a difficult position. They cannot find meaning in the world, yet are unable to leave it. The Christ made it possible for them to actualize Christianity in themselves. I am not there yet but do appreciate both their suffering and their potential we cannot understand. That is why I celebrate the Russian Easter: Christ is risen.

[Dontaskme]

I don't understand this sentence: "must is"? "known as an idea"?

Yes, every known conceptual thing, was born of an idea appearing now. Even the idea there is a ''mind'' from which ideas come from is an idea forming Now....Now is the only place you happen, as an idea. You only happen NOW..and not in some past or future.
The conscious reality that can be known is made up of a bunch of ideas that are strung together like a necklace to form a whole story.

But when the mind is not active, as in the deep state of unconsciousness sleep, there is no story there, no ideas are forming. So what is there? what is here within the concious state? .. the answer is, ideas are here, what else could be here? as every known thing is formed of an idea.

Your answer makes no sense: "ideas," all by themselves, don't "cause" anything. An "idea" is non-physical.

So it's not an answer to the question. Do you have one?

So, the word ''cause'' in and of itself is an idea...is all I'm pointing to.

Where is the idea of ''cause'' in deep dreamless sleep? where is the idea of ''cause'' actually located?

Reality cannot be known...but it can be imagined, via thought, which is an idea.

The words you, me, I am reading are all formed of ideas...which are able to be vocalised via the capacity to interpret SOUND.... all sentient living organisms communicate to each other, through the sense known as sound.

All conceptual words known have their origins in SOUND...and then are copied and pasted as symbols to a surface, that look like what you and me and every one else are reading as words right here and now on this forum.


In the human brain, sound is heard as words, which form a story. Without the story, there is no thing at all. Not to confuse this no thing with nothing at all, or that reality does not exist, ...it does exist, but it's just void of a label.

[Dontaskme]

how can you know yourself? ...you would have to split into two...a knower and the known.

Mirrors!

The image of a mirror is inseparable from the looker...there is no split there.

[RCSaunders]

how can you know yourself? ...you would have to split into two...a knower and the known.

Mirrors!

The image of a mirror is inseparable from the looker...there is no split there.

Nonsense!

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, every known conceptual thing, was born of an idea appearing now.

So you are an Idealist, in the strict philosophical sense of that word? I that's what I thought.

Where is the idea of ''cause'' in deep dreamless sleep?

This isn't merely anti-intellectual, but anti-science as well.

But in point of fact, I think you probably don't mean to be either. Rather, like a Kamala Harris, you've assumed that word-salads are the same thing as intellectual discourse. Because word-salads sound impressive and intellectual to you, you're assuming they therefore must be impressive to everyone else.

I wouldn't be one of those people. I suspect most other people here are the same in that.

If you have a cogent idea, I'll hear it. If you have word-salads about how everything is a dream, I have no time.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, every known conceptual thing, was born of an idea appearing now.

So you are an Idealist, in the strict philosophical sense of that word? I that's what I thought.

Where is the idea of ''cause'' in deep dreamless sleep?

This isn't merely anti-intellectual, but anti-science as well.

But in point of fact, I think you probably don't mean to be either. Rather, like a Kamala Harris, you've assumed that word-salads are the same thing as intellectual discourse. Because word-salads sound impressive and intellectual to you, you're assuming they therefore must be impressive to everyone else.

I wouldn't be one of those people. I suspect most other people here are the same in that.

If you have a cogent idea, I'll hear it. If you have word-salads about how everything is a dream, I have no time.

Oh ok….


As is always the case, it is obvious that one will always be faithful and attracted to their own self bias.

Quite frankly, I’m not interested in intellectual arm wrestling with other peoples self bias….I just like to toss my salad out there like everyone else does..I speak only of my own self bias theory, just as you speak of yours. But don’t worry about having no time, as so far you’ve always been able to conjure some up when the time comes to defend your own salad from being tossed out of the spinner.

So see you next time. That is if your spinning time machine doesn’t run completely dried out on itself.


.

[Dontaskme]

Mirrors!

The image of a mirror is inseparable from the looker...there is no split there.

Nonsense!

Yup, pure unadulterated nonsense, straight from the sources mouth….I agree.

[Immanuel Can]

I just like to toss my salad out there like everyone else does..

Hmmm...I suspected that was the cause.

But the truth is that most people here aren't using word-salads. A few are, but most are not. My advice is that you replicate the behaviour of those who are not, not those who are.

Just because you don't understand something somebody says does not mean it's a word-salad. It might be, but it might not. It depends on whether they can actually re-explain their idea in simple terms that anybody can grasp. Those who cannot are just using word-salad. And they don't even deserve the time of day, because they're not speaking sincerely or truthfully, and there's nothing worth saying to such people...they're being Kamala Harris, which means "over their heads, and out of ideas."

I don't like salad. It's not interesting.

[Dontaskme]

I just like to toss my salad out there like everyone else does..

Hmmm...I suspected that was the cause.

But the truth is that most people here aren't using word-salads. A few are, but most are not. My advice is that you replicate the behaviour of those who are not, not those who are.

Just because you don't understand something somebody says does not mean it's a word-salad. It might be, but it might not. It depends on whether they can actually re-explain their idea in simple terms that anybody can grasp. Those who cannot are just using word-salad. And they don't even deserve the time of day, because they're not speaking sincerely or truthfully, and there's nothing worth saying to such people...they're being Kamala Harris, which means "over their heads, and out of ideas."

I don't like salad. It's not interesting.

IC …if I say something really interesting and really really intellectual, using big high sounding impressive words…will that make me rich and famous like Jordan Peterson? Will it make people adore me and follow me around like I’m some kind of special God that people just wish they were as clever as me.
Will people be inspired by me and be healed by me, and be forever changed and thankful for me, will they love and like me so much that I never have to worry about never being liked or having no friends ever again…huh?

[Dontaskme]

I don't like salad. It's not interesting.

No one is forcing you to like salad, your dislike is you own prerogative. I’ve simply got my own theory about the nature of reality just as you have yours….we’re simply spinning it out there. It’s not like we are playing the role of Vice President of America…so I have no idea why you brought her into this convo….Jesus crust, stop taking your self so seriously man, I’m just sprinkling around a few breadcrumbs here.

Oh, don’t tell me you don’t like bread now…how about meat and potatoes?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But in point of fact, I think you probably don't mean to be either. Rather, like a Kamala Harris, you've assumed that word-salads are the same thing as intellectual discourse. Because word-salads sound impressive and intellectual to you, you're assuming they therefore must be impressive to everyone else.

I do not wish to be disrespectful to DontAskMe's (somewhat muddle-sounding) mystical ideas. However, this is a philosophy forum and we must subject ourselves to hard analysis if we are to make progress and arrive at 'solidities'.

The reference to a topical event (Kamala Harris and the extremes of distorted political speech) is an interesting tie-in here. We all seek truth of the sort that we can *build* on it. If we are not seeking truth then we are, truthfully, in trouble because that means we are non-committed. My view is that all around us -- literally all around us -- there swirl mistruth, misstatement, lies and obfuscations whose purpose is to keep us from *realizing the truth*. Now, what does it mean when, and if, we ourselves get invested in 'lying discourse'? And yet it is likely that in some area or another we have been duped, or we dupe ourselves, n'est-ce pas?

I would say that it was not so much a word-salad as the sort of mystical speech one might have heard in the post-Sixties.

Here, I'll quote a part:

Yes, every known conceptual thing, was born of an idea appearing now. Even the idea there is a ''mind'' from which ideas come from is an idea forming Now....Now is the only place you happen, as an idea. You only happen NOW..and not in some past or future.
The conscious reality that can be known is made up of a bunch of ideas that are strung together like a necklace to form a whole story.

But when the mind is not active, as in the deep state of unconsciousness sleep, there is no story there, no ideas are forming. So what is there? what is here within the concious state? .. the answer is, ideas are here, what else could be here? as every known thing is formed of an idea.

It does make a certain sense if one assents to enter into its meaning. The question I ask about this sort of *discourse* is What is its purpose? To clarify? I find that I don't want to get into a critique of each presented idea (assertion really) because I will get muddled down into something that will end up being non-useful.

But I will say that there is a branch of mysticism -- sort of NewAge? -- that deals in these sorts of ideas. I have never been able to determine where these ideas lead though.

The image of a mirror is inseparable from the looker...there is no split there.

This however makes sense. It is a clear, direct idea that shatters a false-assertion (made apparently by RC). The image one sees in the mirror is, indeed, inseparable from the one reflected. Looking into a mirror in the sense of *being forced to look into the mirror* as a metaphor of hard self-examination, is simply self-awareness. That is, of what one chose not to see. But looking into a mirror can also be an activity in which one sees exactly what one attempts to project and nothing more. Thus vain regard of oneself, in a mirror, does not lead to self-examination or self-knowledge.

So, what that Macaw said (that is that Rochefoucauldian macaw) has a certain pertinence :

"We are so much accustomed to disguise ourselves to others, that at length we disguise ourselves to ourselves."

DontAskMe: "Reality cannot be known...but it can be imagined, via thought, which is an idea."

Obviously, there are some schools of thought that point out that all our instruments of perception are, by nature, imperfect. Everyone has, I suppose, encountered these observations. That the senses cannot reveal reality. But then *reality* is usually defined as transcendental.

However, it is true that any person who contemplates *the world* does so from within an 'imagined space' -- our unavoidable subjectivity. I do not think this idea is at all meaningless or unimportant. But it really has to do with 'world-picture' and to a general way of seeing. That is, how the world, life and existence are visualized not in immediate concrete senses but in 'macro' senses.