Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

The harmony between the order we perceive and the objective order is naturally selected.

"Naturally selected"? Are you trying to tell me that the universe "cares" whether or not it has intelligent creatures in it that can "read" its order, and so has "harmonized itself" with their cognitions? And it did that by accidental means, did it? It just-so-happened?

Because if not, then you've assumed your conclusion. You've taken order, or "natural selection," as if it were a teleological entity, and presumed its existence in order to explain its existence. That's not an explanation that solves the problem. It just pushes it back one step: why does the indifferent universe "care" whether or not intelligent entities exist at all, or that they survive?

In the sense that 'two' cares that one plus one equals it

So your answer is "mathematics did it?"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So tragic the way religious brainwashing stunts developing minds and moulds them into stupid, shallow shells of adults

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"Naturally selected"? Are you trying to tell me that the universe "cares" whether or not it has intelligent creatures in it that can "read" its order, and so has "harmonized itself" with their cognitions? And it did that by accidental means, did it? It just-so-happened?

Because if not, then you've assumed your conclusion. You've taken order, or "natural selection," as if it were a teleological entity, and presumed its existence in order to explain its existence. That's not an explanation that solves the problem. It just pushes it back one step: why does the indifferent universe "care" whether or not intelligent entities exist at all, or that they survive?

In the sense that 'two' cares that one plus one equals it

The universe does not care, but animals especially humans care.The universe does not create harmony/order. Animals and plants create harmony/order.

What does that have to do with my comment??

[seeds]

In hindsight, I should have kept out of it knowing well what your position is but you’re total dismissal of chance as a main factor in creation goes against everything I ever learned or studied. Your view makes no sense to me and seems to be a manifestation more of will than actual physics in how the universe came about.

Are you so set in your ways that you are completely incapable of at least being open to exploring the philosophical implications of modern physics?

Please forgive me for constantly repeating the same themes, but I'm talking about how quantum physics is clearly suggesting that all of the phenomenal features of the universe seem to be composed of a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (just like the substance that composes our thoughts and dreams).

And if you doubt that quantum physics is pointing to the notion that the foundation of the universe seems to be "mind-like" in nature, then you simply haven't given enough critical thought to the implications of quantum physics (of which I go into greater detail in this other thread: viewtopic.php?p=566345#p566345 in the Science forum.)

...you, Dubious, voluntarily step up to the plate and admit to being "...foolish enough..." to believe "...the utterly ridiculous nonsense..." that chance is the foundation upon which the unthinkable order of the universe is based.

Well, forgive me being foolish but I don’t think I said “that chance is the foundation upon which the unthinkable order of the universe is based.” I’m not in a position to say what its foundation might be; no one is...at least not yet and perhaps never!

First of all, someone (such as yourself) who seems to be a staunch proponent of hardcore materialism, does not have to directly utter the words...

"...chance is the foundation upon which the unthinkable order of the universe is based...”

...in order for it to be an obvious feature of their belief system.

And that's because it is implicit in their lack of belief in the existence of something intelligent being responsible for its creation.

And secondly, you freely assert that neither you, nor anyone else is in a position to say what the foundation of the universe might be, yet you are adamant in your insistence that it cannot be founded on the guidance of a higher intelligence.

That's quite the contradiction there, Dubious.

A scenario of pure chance I regard as unlikely as there being some divine agency or intelligence which preconceived it all...an argument as solid as sand sculpture when a tide rushes in.

Again, Dubious, with you being what seems to be a staunch proponent of hardcore materialism, then, if not "pure chance," then what other option are you open to? Describe it for me.

And if you reiterate your assertion of "...Entropy being the weaver and designer of complexity...", I will simply add that to my list of highly implausible explanations.

The universe is far more mystical and complex than having its origins and order identified by the incipient intent of some infinite IQ intellect. That, to me, is tantamount to a downgrade.

Yet, if you hold to the notion that the universe is "...mystical and complex...",...

(in other words, "opaque" in its ultimate origin and purpose)

...then why do you have such a closed-minded attitude when it comes to entertaining the possibility of there being something intelligent behind it all?

I get it that you're jaded and cynical about such issues based on the absurd anthropomorphic hogwash handed down to us from ancient minds via the world's religions. However, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater doesn't seem to be a logical strategy either.

If there were only chance, there wouldn’t need to be rules which establish what we see and everything we don’t see.

In your take on reality, where in the heck do "rules" come from? Do you actually believe that they are "designed" by entropy, as you stated in the next quote?

Almost nothing of what remains fundamental ever gets established by pure chance alone. Entropy being the weaver and designer of complexity sees to that. But within that process, chance is the arbiter which determines what comes into being including ALL that could have emerged into actuality but never did.

So then (as it pertains to the crux of my argument), what you are suggesting is that "entropy and chance" took hold of this raw and chaotic (post Bang) substance...



...and without the slightest way of "knowing"...

(as in no possible way of being able to see, or feel, or hear, or smell, or taste)

...what it was creating, nevertheless, wove that chaotic substance into the near infinite variety of beautiful and purposeful, multi-sensory phenomena implicit in this image...



I'm afraid we're back to "...utterly ridiculous nonsense..." again.

The idea of some divine Provokateur initiating causes based on its own volition is nothing but a remnant of ancient thinking that existence per se must have an overt Cause inflecting it... in effect that it was a much advanced version of a brain, not unlike ours which as yet is only capable of making time pieces not universes...in a manner of speaking.

If we can clearly see (right here on our little planet) how consciousness seems to be an ever-ascending process that appears to start with micro-organisms that eventually evolve into higher beings (higher minds) who are capable of creating skyscrapers, lasers, computers, telecommunication satellites, and Internets, etc., etc.,...

...then why are you so closed-minded to the possibility that somewhere back in the infinite depths of eternity itself, that consciousness (mind) may have evolved (ascended) to the point of no longer requiring a physical body to sustain its existence, while, at the same time, figuring out how to create suns, and planets, and bodies, and brains out of the living mental fabric of its very own being?

For crying out loud, Dubious, if you would just do some of that introspection I mentioned in my prior post, you would realize that you are carrying around what I suggest is an "embryonic" (as in not yet fully born) replica of such a being, right within your own skull.

Come on now, Dubious, where's your sense of wonder and introspection?

When trying to figure out how things operate in this universe, having a sense of wonder is only natural. Introspection, conversely gets you nothing.

Tell that to Einstein who allegedly stated:

"Imagination [introspection] is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
_______

Meditating on the universe usually returns a lot of mystical claptrap having nothing to do with the universe. Its true wonder far exceeds any of its humanly derived mythologizations.

There you go again, talking about the "wonder" of the universe, yet your mind is heavily shielded against allowing the intrusion of any "wondrous" ideas that do not square with everything you "...ever learned or studied..."

In other words (you curmudgeonly, untrainable [but beautiful] old dog ), your ability to think outside the box of "...everything you ever learned or studied..." has been adversely affected and diminished by "...everything you ever learned or studied...".

Indeed, I'm talking about a level of being that is not only capable of creating the amazing (informationally-based) order laid-out before our senses as seen, once again, in this amazing DNA derived structure,…

The human eye is often brought forth in these kind of conversations as exemplifying some kind of evolutionary perfection which it really isn’t. That has long been known. Here Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye to a creationist...who still doesn’t get it….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29gvNp3FXyo

Sure, set a man like Richard Dawkins on the surface of a fantastically ordered, fully-functioning bio-sphere, covered in DNA driven manifestations of reality, which are all powered by the perfect source of light, heat, and energy...



...and he can offer all kinds of plausible (reverse-engineered) explanations of how "this and that" might work.

However, ask him to provide a logical explanation as to how that fully-functioning bio-sphere with its perfect source of bio-driving energy, emerged from this...



...and he will be utterly lost and forced to default to the ridiculous chance hypothesis.

And seeing how you linked me to a Dawkins video, in return, here's one of my own favorite vids about Dawkins:

https://youtu.be/7b3EP4pB_3E

...as for these two pictorial comparisons, which you’ve often made, the one above wouldn’t exist without the one below which you consider random, confused, chaotic.





Some of the white noise in the lower picture denotes the remaining remnant of a once colossally hot universe (the Big Bang) coming into being and cooling to the point where it is now. What we see on that screen is its afterglow; it’s a signature of that incipience which created all that followed. Juxtaposing the two as if they were opposites is a false comparison.

It most certainly is not a "false comparison" of the two.

No, it is simply a situation where I am using some "available graphics" (nicked from the Internet) to demonstrate a purely metaphorical representation of how absurd it is to think that the former could emerge from the latter by sheer chance.

My question to you is would you observe the universe to be any less mystical and grand without a creator than how you imagine it to be with one at its core?

Would it change your perceptions any?

Well, seeing how like Bishop Berkeley I also believe that the universe is the mind of said creator, then if the owner and creator of the contents of said mind (universe) did not exist, then, clearly, the contents of said mind (again, universe) would never have come into existence.

So, yes, I'm thinking that my never having come into existence would have a drastic effect on my perceptions.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Please forgive me for constantly repeating the same themes, but I'm talking about how quantum physics is clearly suggesting that all of the phenomenal features of the universe seem to be composed of a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (just like the substance that composes our thoughts and dreams).

Who is writing on this theme? Where is it clearly suggested?

[promethean75]

I'd aks Berk how God can exist without being perceived if 'to be is to be perceived.'

[Nick_A]

So tragic the way religious brainwashing stunts developing minds and moulds them into stupid, shallow shells of adults

Yes, this is why college students become communists. It is the natural result of political brainwashing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So tragic the way religious brainwashing stunts developing minds and moulds them into stupid, shallow shells of adults

Yes, this is why college students become communists. It is the natural result of political brainwashing.

I suppose you think that's a brilliant piece of insight, when all you have done is reinforce my point. Sad

[seeds]

Please forgive me for constantly repeating the same themes, but I'm talking about how quantum physics is clearly suggesting that all of the phenomenal features of the universe seem to be composed of a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (just like the substance that composes our thoughts and dreams).

Who is writing on this theme? Where is it clearly suggested?

Hi Alexis,

I go into great detail explaining what I mean by that in the thread I created, titled:

"Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?"

If interested, here's the link to the OP:

viewtopic.php?p=566345#p566345
_______

[Nick_A]

"Where did the order which is a human brain-mind come from?"

An excellent question.

And as I was saying to B., now we also have to ask, how did that orderly brain also come to be so appropriately configured as to be able to detect order in our already-orderly universe?

Consider for a moment that what we call God is really the conscious ineffable source beyond the limits of time and space but containing all potentials. All the contents of consciousness appear in our universe within time and space and within the ONE. This raises the question if man and organic life is the cause of consciousness or are we receivers of consciousness at various levels of quality determined by its closeness to our source?

Christianity and the efforts of the Christ offered the means to consciously evolve from one quality of being we know of as Man on earth, into a higher quality of being or "the New Man."

[BigMike]

So tragic the way religious brainwashing stunts developing minds and moulds them into stupid, shallow shells of adults

I agree. I find it not only tragic but also terrifying. Christians increasingly resemble the Taliban in my eyes. They are completely insane, as though they never attended school. They are living in the dark ages.

[promethean75]

"They are completely insane, as though they never attended school." - Mike, Big

i know dude religious people are totally bizarre and sketched out.

a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

https://hintofdementia.blogspot.com/200 ... c.html?m=1

[Immanuel Can]

This raises the question if man and organic life is the cause of consciousness

Not possible.

Men are contingent beings. Consciousness is manifest in entities that lived before any particular man did, and will be manifest after every particular man or woman is long dead. So no particular person can be the source or creator of consciousness itself.

[promethean75]

my best spinoza impression.

by 'contingent' i mean that which not by necessity exists through and by something else of which it consists, and thereby not by necessity would it necessitate necessarily what is necessary in what consists, but contingent.

[Nick_A]

This raises the question if man and organic life is the cause of consciousness

Not possible.

Men are contingent beings. Consciousness is manifest in entities that lived before any particular man did, and will be manifest after every particular man or woman is long dead. So no particular person can be the source or creator of consciousness itself.

Quite true. Then do you agree that man is a receiver of consciousness rather then a creator of consciousness?