Poll on the forum denizens views on evolution

[Maia]

I will explain 'this', again, and hopefully some, or more, will understand it 'this time'.

The answers, or what is the actual Truth, can only, and I mean ONLY, be 'the answers' and the Truth, when 'it' aligns with absolutely EVERY one.

'The answers', which I talk about, only came to be 'the answers', and thus 'the Truth', because absolutely every one could agree with and accept 'them'. Which, in and of itself, makes 'those answers', actually 'literally' irrefutable. And, it is only what is 'irrefutable', which is what the actual Truths are, in Life.

Now, 'you' are absolutely free to think, and believe, absolutely any thing. But, only after 'the answers' that I have, and will provide, have been questioned and challenged, fully, can the actual irrefutable Truth come-to-light.

Also, if what so-called 'works for you' does not 'work for another nor every one', then that is the clearest sign that 'what works for you' are not the actual True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct answers, in Life, obviously.

Furthermore, why are you, already, believing, absolutely, and thus have already concluded that 'what works for me' is not going to 'the same' that 'works for you' nor for 'anyone else'? What, exactly, has led you to come to such a fixed position and belief?



That is absolutely great. But, just telling 'us', here, 'your beliefs' and what you are 'currently' believing is true, without providing absolutely any thing that could nor does back up and support your own 'currently' existing beliefs and/or presumptions, are not helping you in any way at all, here.



There is, supposedly, still a vast amount, for you, to do, and to find out, and learn about, in regards to 'what', exactly?

And, if 'the vast amount that you still have to do, find out, and learn about', does not involve the 'now' so-called 'big questions' about the Universe, then okay, but let 'us' not forget:

1. It was you who brought up the issue about how it was you who still does not yet know the answers to the eternal questions about the universe, here, and not me.

2. This thread is about 'evolution', which some may well consider would or could involve so-called 'big questions' about the Universe, itself.



But, contrary to your belief, some already know, and thus already have, 'the answers' to 'those questions', about the Universe.


Once more, some already have 'the answers', to 'them'.

Why do you just keep believing, absolutely, that 'the answers' are not already known?

you sound like one 'trying to' claim that we, or may not, ever know if 'we' live in a 'geocentric system' or a 'solar system', when there were already some who already knew 'the answer'.

Once again, 'the answers' to if the Universe is eternal or not, what the Universe fundamentally is made up or consists of, and how the Universe actually works is ALREADY KNOWN, among other things, here. But, obviously, not yet by every one, here.

Perhaps you could try and summarise, as succinctly as possible, what you believe this ultimate truth to be, then?

Firstly, once more, I do not believe any thing, here.

Now,

One of the so-called 'ultimate' Truths, out of many, many so-called 'ultimate Truths', in Life, is;
The Universe, when defined as, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, is infinite, and eternal.

Is that succinct enough for you?

Another so-called 'ultimate Truth' is;
The Universe 'created' It-Self, HERE-NOW, through 'evolution'. (But, please do not take the past tense nature of this claim to imply that it means 'creation', itself, stopped. 'created' is of course compatible with 'and still creating'.

Was 'this' succinct enough for you?

Now, once again, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question me over these claims, then allow 'us' to have A discussion.

I wouldn't dispute either of those.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Perhaps you could try and summarise, as succinctly as possible, what you believe this ultimate truth to be, then?

Firstly, once more, I do not believe any thing, here.

Now,

One of the so-called 'ultimate' Truths, out of many, many so-called 'ultimate Truths', in Life, is;
The Universe, when defined as, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, is infinite, and eternal.

Is that succinct enough for you?

Another so-called 'ultimate Truth' is;
The Universe 'created' It-Self, HERE-NOW, through 'evolution'. (But, please do not take the past tense nature of this claim to imply that it means 'creation', itself, stopped. 'created' is of course compatible with 'and still creating'.

Was 'this' succinct enough for you?

Now, once again, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question me over these claims, then allow 'us' to have A discussion.

I wouldn't dispute either of those.

I would. I niggle. The first can be deconstructed to standard modern English and is correct. I would use the term nature to encompass it. Nature is infinite in at least 4 dimensions of spacetime. Time doesn't exist independently or preveniently of space. It's just another dimension. A number line. The majority theory of time is eternalist; that all time, 'past'. 'present' and 'future' is co-equal, coeval. We have to accept that, although I am a minority presentist; only now exists. For every Planck length at every Planck tick. Which cannot be synchronized. The 'Universe' beyond the expansion of our observable universe, i.e. beyond the observable universe now, but previously within it, is not infinite. The 'Universe' beyond that is, whatever form that takes. Most rationally the hyperspace of universes. The multiverse. Nature on the greatest scale.

In which case nature makes itself is a minimal rational deconstruction of the second statement.

The inifinty of nature is the greatest single fact.

[attofishpi]

I'm just creating this poll out of curiosity. I'm sure we all know, truth isn't decided by vote, but it's still interesting to know I find.

I'm sure I'll get flack for my poll options for a variety of reasons, but I've tried to account for the majority of views people here might have.

This might not be worth specifying, but please don't take the past tense nature of the questions to imply that that means evolution stopped. "Happened" is of course compatible with "and still happening".

It's a good poll - set of options.

I am somewhat torn between:

1. Evolution happened, except for humans - humans were created

AND

2. Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being


There is little difference between the two, except that of the 'human' part in option 1. IF this divine being decided to bamboozle us with more doubt, then primates, lineages appear - rather than BOOM! have a human!! Links appear missing..

I have to admit I am not certain that things "naturally" evolve. I use quotes around that term because I believe since GOD exists, that IT too is natural.

I would go with:

3. Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being with the ultimate goal of forming a lineage of highly intelligent self aware beings, humans.

Ergo, humans were created (as all lifeforms were, even if via guided evolution)

So, reluctantly I am going to have to select your option 2. although if my version 3 were available i'd take that.

What I find confronting in all of this, is that since this intelligence is at the backbone to our entire reality - evolution of MAN was never required - so truly I should opt for 1.

But I am not certain ---- thus will abstain for lack of evidence probable or other.


PS. That was thinking out loud!!

[Maia]

Firstly, once more, I do not believe any thing, here.

Now,

One of the so-called 'ultimate' Truths, out of many, many so-called 'ultimate Truths', in Life, is;
The Universe, when defined as, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, is infinite, and eternal.

Is that succinct enough for you?

Another so-called 'ultimate Truth' is;
The Universe 'created' It-Self, HERE-NOW, through 'evolution'. (But, please do not take the past tense nature of this claim to imply that it means 'creation', itself, stopped. 'created' is of course compatible with 'and still creating'.

Was 'this' succinct enough for you?

Now, once again, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question me over these claims, then allow 'us' to have A discussion.

I wouldn't dispute either of those.

I would. I niggle. The first can be deconstructed to standard modern English and is correct. I would use the term nature to encompass it. Nature is infinite in at least 4 dimensions of spacetime. Time doesn't exist independently or preveniently of space. It's just another dimension. A number line. The majority theory of time is eternalist; that all time, 'past'. 'present' and 'future' is co-equal, coeval. We have to accept that, although I am a minority presentist; only now exists. For every Planck length at every Planck tick. Which cannot be synchronized. The 'Universe' beyond the expansion of our observable universe , i.e. beyond the observable universe now, but previously within it, is not infinite. The 'Universe' beyond that is, whatever form that takes. Most rationally the hyperspace of universes. The multiverse. Nature on the greatest scale.

In which case nature makes itself is a minimal rational deconstruction of the second statement.

The inifinty of nature is the greatest single fact.

I think it has to be infinite, really, as nothing else makes sense. I realise that the concept of multiverses is pretty popular, redefining the term universe to mean something other than everything that there is, but I'm using it in its older sense. So what it boils down to is, is everything that there is infinite, or limited in some way? It has to be the former, in my opinion. And yes, I would definitely call all of this nature.

[Age]

Firstly, once more, I do not believe any thing, here.

Now,

One of the so-called 'ultimate' Truths, out of many, many so-called 'ultimate Truths', in Life, is;
The Universe, when defined as, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, is infinite, and eternal.

Is that succinct enough for you?

Another so-called 'ultimate Truth' is;
The Universe 'created' It-Self, HERE-NOW, through 'evolution'. (But, please do not take the past tense nature of this claim to imply that it means 'creation', itself, stopped. 'created' is of course compatible with 'and still creating'.

Was 'this' succinct enough for you?

Now, once again, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question me over these claims, then allow 'us' to have A discussion.

I wouldn't dispute either of those.

I would. I niggle. The first can be deconstructed to standard modern English and is correct. I would use the term nature to encompass it.

And, you absolutely free to choose to use absolutely any term you like, and you can use any term in any way you like also, by the way. But, how can you, logically, use another term to encompass the term that is encompassing all?

But, if you want to say and claim that 'Nature' 'created' It-Self, HERE-NOW, through 'evolution', then this obviously still works.

Nature is infinite in at least 4 dimensions of spacetime.

Once again I will suggest that if people want to come into a 'philosophy forum' and say and claim things, then they, at least, have what will back up and support their words, beliefs, and claims, absolutely, before they express their views, ideas, beliefs, and claims.

Now, what is 'spacetime', exactly?

Time doesn't exist independently or preveniently of space.

What is 'space', and, what is 'time', exactly?

It's just another dimension. A number line. The majority theory of time is eternalist; that all time, 'past'. 'present' and 'future' is co-equal, coeval. We have to accept that,

you human beings do not have to accept any thing.

although I am a minority presentist; only now exists.

Having a view, or even a belief, will never ever make 'you' some thing like a so-called "presentist", nor anything else, at all.

For every Planck length at every Planck tick. Which cannot be synchronized. The 'Universe' beyond the expansion of our observable universe , i.e. beyond the observable universe now, but previously within it, is not infinite.

This is another claim, which obviously could never ever be backed up and supported. But, by all means, feel free to explain why you believe, absolutely, that the Universe, Itself, is not infinite, and, what the 'edge', 'boundary', or whatever else you want to call 'the end' of the limited Universe is made up of, exactly, and, what is 'it', exactly, which is on the supposed 'other side' of 'that limit'.

The 'Universe' beyond that is, whatever form that takes.

Just out of curiosity how could you possibly 'know' what, exactly, is beyond what can be observed, here?

Most rationally the hyperspace of universes. The multiverse. Nature on the greatest scale.

Once again, Why replace an old world, with its definition, with a new word, with the exact same definitions?

What could possibly be the purpose of doing 'this', exactly?

Also, that you have already proved that you are not able to provide an actual definition for the word 'universe', now, shows just how ridiculous your views are, here.

In which case nature makes itself is a minimal rational deconstruction of the second statement.

The inifinty of nature is the greatest single fact.

'Nature', like 'Life', like 'Existence', and like 'Universe, is infinite, and eternal.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Aye @Maia. There is an infinity of finite observable universes in the All, the 'Universe'; cosmos, the multiverse, nature.

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe".

wiki

It is meaningless, irrational for nature to be finite.

[Maia]

Aye @Maia. There is an infinity of finite observable universes in the All, the 'Universe'; cosmos, the multiverse, nature.

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe".

wiki

It is meaningless, irrational for nature to be finite.

Cosmos is a good word. I'll have to start using it more.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yes @Maia! I've always like it in the classical, not modern scientific, sense.

[Age]

Aye @Maia. There is an infinity of finite observable universes in the All, the 'Universe'; cosmos, the multiverse, nature.

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe".

wiki

It is meaningless, irrational for nature to be finite.

For any one who wants to claim that there is, or even could be, any number of so-called 'finite observable universes', then just define what a 'universe' is, exactly, and, then explain what is 'it', exactly, that separates one 'universe' from 'another universe'?

Also, explain how far from what is 'observable', to where the, supposed, 'limit' could be.

Then, 'we' can move onto all of the other things, here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'm just creating this poll out of curiosity. I'm sure we all know, truth isn't decided by vote, but it's still interesting to know I find.

I'm sure I'll get flack for my poll options for a variety of reasons, but I've tried to account for the majority of views people here might have.

This might not be worth specifying, but please don't take the past tense nature of the questions to imply that that means evolution stopped. "Happened" is of course compatible with "and still happening".

It's a good poll - set of options.

I am somewhat torn between:

1. Evolution happened, except for humans - humans were created

AND

2. Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being


There is little difference between the two, except that of the 'human' part in option 1. IF this divine being decided to bamboozle us with more doubt, then primates, lineages appear - rather than BOOM! have a human!! Links appear missing..

I have to admit I am not certain that things "naturally" evolve. I use quotes around that term because I believe since GOD exists, that IT too is natural.

I would go with:

3. Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being with the ultimate goal of forming a lineage of highly intelligent self aware beings, humans.

Ergo, humans were created (as all lifeforms were, even if via guided evolution)

So, reluctantly I am going to have to select your option 2. although if my version 3 were available i'd take that.

What I find confronting in all of this, is that since this intelligence is at the backbone to our entire reality - evolution of MAN was never required - so truly I should opt for 1.

But I am not certain ---- thus will abstain for lack of evidence probable or other.


PS. That was thinking out loud!!

So, attofishpi, like Kierkegaard, your unquestioned belief, not knowledge (I'm being kind there, in epistemological terms : ), comes first, all else follows that constriction.

[attofishpi]

So, attofishpi, like Kierkegaard, your unquestioned belief, not knowledge (I'm being kind there, in epistemological terms : ), comes first, all else follows that constriction.

All I have been made aware and certain of since 1997 is that there is a 3rd part intelligence that is the backbone construct to our perceivable reality. From my analysis of empirical observation this entity, most refer to as GOD, I am of the opinion that IT operates at or below the Planck scale.

Whether this entity created MAN outside of evolution - I am not certain of.
Indeed, whether evolution of species is entirely natural, not guided by this being, again - I am not certain of.

Comprehende?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So, attofishpi, like Kierkegaard, your unquestioned belief, not knowledge (I'm being kind there, in epistemological terms : ), comes first, all else follows that constriction.

All I have been made aware and certain of since 1997 is that there is a 3rd part intelligence that is the backbone construct to our perceivable reality. From my analysis of empirical observation this entity, most refer to as GOD, I am of the opinion that IT operates at or below the Planck scale.

Whether this entity created MAN outside of evolution - I am not certain of.
Indeed, whether evolution of species is entirely natural, not guided by this being, again - I am not certain of.

Comprehende?

Of course! And believable. But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know. And yes, knowledge is a subset of belief; the coherent, justified true subset. That's what it's shorthand for. None of what you believe, none of your uncertainties is in that subset, nor extrapolated from it by reason. What happened to you 28 years ago?

[attofishpi]

So, attofishpi, like Kierkegaard, your unquestioned belief, not knowledge (I'm being kind there, in epistemological terms : ), comes first, all else follows that constriction.

All I have been made aware and certain of since 1997 is that there is a 3rd part intelligence that is the backbone construct to our perceivable reality. From my analysis of empirical observation this entity, most refer to as GOD, I am of the opinion that IT operates at or below the Planck scale.

Whether this entity created MAN outside of evolution - I am not certain of.
Indeed, whether evolution of species is entirely natural, not guided by this being, again - I am not certain of.

Comprehende?

Of course! And believable. But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know. And yes, knowledge is a subset of belief; the coherent, justified true subset. That's what it's shorthand for. None of what you believe, none of your uncertainties is in that subset, nor extrapolated from it by reason. What happened to you 28 years ago?

1. Do you understand that i stated SINCE 1997. So it's not merely what happened to me 28 years ago - it's ever since then, and I will state A LOT has happened courtesy of this entity you have no belief in.

2. What of your statement..."But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know." Descartes pretty much had the utlimate and only statement pertaining to what we can be certain of, to what we know - cogito ergo sum. Regarding belief and your reluctance to believe should only be reflected in something you find implausible in the concept, in this case GOD or at least, some intelligence being the construct to our perceivable REAL_IT_Y.

Is it implausible that an intelligence operates at or below the Planck scale and is the construct to our perceivable reality?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

All I have been made aware and certain of since 1997 is that there is a 3rd part intelligence that is the backbone construct to our perceivable reality. From my analysis of empirical observation this entity, most refer to as GOD, I am of the opinion that IT operates at or below the Planck scale.

Whether this entity created MAN outside of evolution - I am not certain of.
Indeed, whether evolution of species is entirely natural, not guided by this being, again - I am not certain of.

Comprehende?

Of course! And believable. But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know. And yes, knowledge is a subset of belief; the coherent, justified true subset. That's what it's shorthand for. None of what you believe, none of your uncertainties is in that subset, nor extrapolated from it by reason. What happened to you 28 years ago?

1. Do you understand that i stated SINCE 1997. So it's not merely what happened to me 28 years ago - it's ever since then, and I will state A LOT has happened courtesy of this entity you have no belief in.

2. What of your statement..."But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know." Descartes pretty much had the utlimate and only statement pertaining to what we can be certain of, to what we know - cogito ergo sum. Regarding belief and your reluctance to believe should only be reflected in something you find implausible in the concept, in this case GOD or at least, some intelligence being the construct to our perceivable REAL_IT_Y.

Is it implausible that an intelligence operates at or below the Planck scale and is the construct to our perceivable reality?

It's unnecessary. And leaves no trace whatsoever. In you in 28 years or in nature from forever.

[attofishpi]

Of course! And believable. But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know. And yes, knowledge is a subset of belief; the coherent, justified true subset. That's what it's shorthand for. None of what you believe, none of your uncertainties is in that subset, nor extrapolated from it by reason. What happened to you 28 years ago?

1. Do you understand that i stated SINCE 1997. So it's not merely what happened to me 28 years ago - it's ever since then, and I will state A LOT has happened courtesy of this entity you have no belief in.

2. What of your statement..."But not by me. I don't believe. I can't. I can only know." Descartes pretty much had the utlimate and only statement pertaining to what we can be certain of, to what we know - cogito ergo sum. Regarding belief and your reluctance to believe should only be reflected in something you find implausible in the concept, in this case GOD or at least, some intelligence being the construct to our perceivable REAL_IT_Y.

Is it implausible that an intelligence operates at or below the Planck scale and is the construct to our perceivable reality?

It's unnecessary. And leaves no trace whatsoever. In you in 28 years or in nature from forever.

What's unnecessary?

Traces abound, GOD has left fingerprints.