Why not

Man, observing the shere complexity of his environment, made a classic assumption...that whatever causes that complexity must be even more complex.

I am with you so far.

This assumption has followed man down thru history as one form of theism or another.

Not being a theist myself I disagree with your assumption. Theism is and can be innate, since ancient man and ancient time, man has in every culture prophesed without teachings, that there is a god or goddess or ultimate force. History proves your assumption unjustifiable.

Sometimes it is wise to question these assumptions themselves

Likewise, sometimes I question how philosophy ended up being science? It isn`t science. It has a branch called science.

random conditions

Random isn`t logical, random is unverifiable

I must go now, but I will return to address the rest of your posting whynot, as it is valid in some ways and invalid in others, but shows the differences in the way I see it to the way you see it, and the will to make this a productive not a deductive difference.

Hi Whynot I am revisiting your post42# you said.

The big "whys" are the theists last frontier.

I think the big "whys" include sciences last frontier. Or what are they doing at Cern with the Halogen Cylinder they are acting on their faith in their pursuit of discovery of their "whys".

Science has made progress rapidly this is because more and more scientists work as team, they discuss differences and problems and work as solving them. This is different for philosophers or theists, philosophers and theists are individuals coming from their individual perspectives, it takes a long amount of time to see where they agree and what on they agree. They do agree if you read over the history and can compare that on important thoughts they do agree. Science is a hands on objective practice. This is why it easier to see the progress. Philosophy is manifold and has many extensions to its progress. Philosophical progress is like looking at Saturn which moves slowly but purposefully as a planet compared to Mercury. Philosophy is man over the ages discovering his meaning his reasoning his spirit his beliefs his disbeliefs his arts and his sciences. I don`t agree that we can compare the rapid progress of science to the entire history of mans philosophy and mans discoveries and awareness these can`t be verified by a thermometer. These can`t be strictly verified mathematical science. Sciences final frontier ought to be that it recognises its own limits on things such as humanity, human thinking, and why things happen the way they happen in the world. Science is the best man has objectively. Science isn`t the best path for a more comprehensive understanding and knowledge of the human psyche or phenomon it can`t understand or quantify. There are such things that science would call science fiction, but that is dismissive and gets us nowhere to an agreement on what is acceptable to discover and research.

Whynot

Whynot
I call this something "Supernature" (not to be confused with the supernatural)

I don`t know why things you don`t understand are called supernatural but then what is wrong with calling them supernatural? Lyall Watson some decades ago, wrote a book on "Supernature". He has pipped you to the post.

Theory Of Supernature". In this theory I postulate the existece of "something" WITHIN the universe that drives all the processes

What`s the difference between that and theism? Theism postulates a God is that something within the universe that drives all processes . Also known by some as a living force with intelligence called Intelligent Design. (I.D.) This idea is nothing new to us. Rudolph Steiner produced his theory on the spirit within man and nature and the universe that drives all processes.

In this theory I posit the universe/reality exists as an incidental consequent of this Supernature; that both are infinitely regressive and quite likely eternal; that the universe, on a macro-evolutionary level, is emerging as it is in contradistinction to the attributes of Supernature

First you would need to explain to me what it is you mean by Supernature? It is my understanding that you are borrowing from evolutionary theory and other theories to make your own hypothesis. One point for you to consider, the universe is expanding we are told by scientists and not infinitely regressing. Evolution theory said life evolves and devolves and progresses and regresses. I understand that.

Polar opposition is the basic driver of Process Refinement, which is the basic explanation for all the macro-processes driving the emergence of reality as we experience it...including, but not limited to, evolution. Supernature is the answer to all the big "why" questions.

Graham Hancock wrote three books on his thesis of polar opposites and polar shifts that could bring cataclismic changes to our planet. You are borrowing your ideas from others.

No Gods, no intelligent design, no purpose driven creation...just Incidental Consequence.

Yet you take from all these concepts to build your theory, the only difference is your qualifier [which is irrational] Just incidental? The best scientists in our lifetime can`t show life is just incidental. Non living matter can`t produce life this is why this theory is just as deluded.

I am wondering if you are positing a disguised argument in favor of the possibility that a God exists and we ought not expect any empirical verification of this claim...just accept it on faith. This dog won't hunt.

No but I have a rational reason for keeping my mind open to all pathways of discovery and knowledge. The dog that doesn`t hunt is your belief and faith that a non living mechanism called supernature polar created life and that life is all just incidental.

The universe, mechanistically, exists incidentally to Supernature, and unfolds/process refines in direct opposition to the attributes of Supernature.

Thus far, the Supernature you theorise is not intelligent has no purpose other than it is the driver of all we have known as the universe and life. How can you show me what this driver is? What this driver means? And what makes you think a driver would be random [to have no purpose means random] Is this another Buddhic or Chaos theory developing? The theory that nothingness nirvana is all and what we are is just random incidental happenings from non matter. No it must be Chaos because Buddhism believes in the spirit.

All existent things within the universe are in a constant state of flux or change...Supernature is not. The only common denominator between Supernature and the universe is eternality. Supernature is eternal; the universe, as its metaphorical shadow, is likewise eternal.

I think many people would agree with eternality including atheists and theists. Now you posit Supernature as eternal ? Is it eternal non living matter or eternal spirit/force/energy if its energy and force it is complimenting the majority of theistic ideals.

[/quote]Now it can be claimed empirically

No it is not confirmed empirically it cannot be confirmed empirically. I am curious how you came to define a mechanism that can`t be empirically shown to explain life and I have read many books suggesting the polar shifts in nature will cause this planet to go through major upheavals wiping out entire civilisations it is sugggested this occurred to dinosaur.
I ask why do you want to think that life is just an incident and not something that has a deeper purpose even if you can`t understand the shadow [purpose] I am interested to read your thoughts. I don`t think going down the road of science alone to sell a new theory is expanding them. It has been written about decades now.

Whynot post #56 you addressed OTavern in your first paragraph, then proceed to address my questions to you and do not indicate you are addressing me. It reads like you are only addressing OTavern. Please try to be clear. Others read these postings. If I was new here and didn`t follow the entire thread, I would think it was OTavern`s question you addressed and not mine. Personally I find that insulting! and not giving due credit. When you quote me say my name! when I quote I say who I am quoting!

Sorry...minor oversight.

It wasn`t minor for me, I said the things you addressed and took my time to do so try to respect that. Borrowing others concepts then assert them as your theory isn`t minor either, at least cite them as influences.

Whynot said

I see no good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, need be anything more than a reflection of something completely basic from within the universe itself...This something need not be encumbered with all the standard theistic assignments, but must, in some way, be foundational to existence, space/time, sentience, evolution, physics, etc. It need not have willfully or accidentally caused anything. Only be the most basic source wherein everything else derives its being as an incidental consequent. Thus its attributes would be the influence upon the universe, incidentally, that set the stage for what we see now and how it came to be so. The one unifying factor that doesn't necessitate or imply purpose, volition or creation but still accounts for why these are reasonable inferences. Thus I envision a universe that unfolds to reflect the attributes of a most basic something greater than, but from within the universe itself. Nothing outside time, supernatural, transcendental, or willfull.

need be anything more than a reflection of something completely basic from within the universe itself..
IF as you think and asserted quite rudely that I don`t understand about wave particles and quantum physics you would be under the wrong presumption. I understand about quantum wave particles their behaviour under some test conditions and the findings in quantum theory, what you are now calling supernature is speaking about string theory. Only you prefer to call life the reflection of it, instead of what string theorists propose which is string theory reflects life and our living thoughts. You propose all living things including non living matter are just a consequence and incidental earlier in this thread you said this happened without intelligence without a purpose and within nature.
These are sweeping grandiose assertions without proper definitions and without any logical analysis. Your theory is asking for a faith I can`t lend to it. It brings me a certain satisfaction to read you hoisting yourself up on your own petard, when you trivialise the word supernatural [another word for undefined and unverifiable innate workings of nature ] then say there is a difference bewtween that and what you assert is supernature? I see no difference in what you are theorising, which is as much a matter of faith and smoke and mirrors as those theoristic ideals you say you are rebelling against.

Marabod

Kapra, for start this is not his/her theory!

Marabod I will advise you read Whynots post #53 in which they plainly assert it is their theory. I advise you not to advise me on your allegations of my misinterpretation`s when you haven`t once addressed or read what I am saying without misinterpreting and to interject incorrectly when you do.

Whynot

I am currently working on a philosophical/metaphysical paper entitled the "Theory Of Supernature"

Whynot the supernatural in its meaning is a study in philosophy and in its dictionary definition is understood full well. You seem to have a bias against the word yet don`t explain why you do?

In Philosophy a book called "Is Nature Supernatural: A Philosophical Exploration of Science and Nature"
Simon L. Altmann

William Lane Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,debates "Is The Basis Of Morality Natural Or Supernatural?"He has authored over a dozen books, as well as nearly a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Whynot there are limits beyond which your understanding does not presently go, both our perception and your thinking can be extended far beyond their momentary abilities. It is our feelings tell how the world affects us, our will tells how we would affect the world.

So what? He can work on whatever he wants to work!

And? Who is saying otherwise except you? Listen up dude, I am responding to Whynot postings not yours and if you can`t conduct yourself without inventing problems with my posts out of this, go find a yourself a quiet stroll around a park. Just one more point, I can reply to whoever I want!




"that which is natural is spiritual, that which is spiritual is natural" Philosophy of Freedom-Rudolph Steiner

Whynot
.

In response to your criticism that I am prejudiced against supernatural considerations I concur

No I observed you wrote you hate the word supernatural and asked you why it bothers you? Hate is such an emotive word and suggest to me a lack of reasoning on your part. I criticised your theory not you. I asked you to explain what you mean on some of the points. I then gave my opinion on it. You will get worse critics when you submit it. If you put it out here, expect a mixed reception and differing responses.

If what is meant by supernatural has anything to do with imagined deities and such I have no part.

Tell me, what qualifies you as the all knowing one to assert others imagine deities. Who can say they have all knowledge? Why discount what you don`t understand without at least listening to what they do understand? thats just irrational. Of course if all you want to do is rave on about how everything you don`t understand or think you have the right to claim is nonsense, then you will just go out of your way to ignore it and pretend to tolerate theists in the certainty that you are right and they are wrong and now some new theory in science will prove you correct. Okay, we will see. I say keep the door ajar, by slamming it, you shut out knowledge. A theist is no more interested in what science claims against their theism than a scientist is on what theists claim against his discipline in science. But both can discuss the meaning of life, discuss philosophical opinions politely without being condescending and use their imaginations and learn from each other.

I read your thesis part two, liked the wording, but as I dismissed biology as being anything but biology a living cell can`t come from non matter nature alone it has to have life to live. What is life? it includes nature, we see that in that trees grow and live and die and humans but no-one can say how they originated or what is life? no one can say what is after life, unless they have experiences and their own visionary experinces and see a ghost or know their god/spirit. This is the final frontier I am interested in and science hasn`t shown it, but theism has and does show it.

Death has always been, and remains for many people, the great mystery

No it isn`t eveyone knows they die. Its no mystery, what is the mystery for most is that they can`t die, except to the physical world and that their spirit lives on after death. It isn`t fear that holds man back from discovery its his blinkeredness to only believing in the physical.

Whynot

What makes you think I don't understand theism? It is precisely because I do understand it that I adhere to a strong atheism.

That isn`t what I said. I said the theist (not strong atheist) understands theism the scientist understands his science discipline, neither require validation from each other, both don`t really care if the other doesn`t believe what they believe or know what they know. Both can choose to communicate and learn from each other without condescensions. Leaving the door ajar lends itself to knowledge unrevealed being revealed, slamming it shut leads to blinkered thinking. Its up to you, I am saying I don`t slam doors to knowledge even if I can only see nonsense, it could be a lack in my understanding, not theirs, I find some maths illogical, nonsense, i don`t slam the door on its teachings, it could be my misunderstanding, then again I could be proven true that maths is nothing but nonsense when it gets to assert infinity exists but can`t show me it does physically. My question to you is what caused evolution? If a big bang happened what cause the big bang. we could keep going round in circles as you are using the circular logic of what caused god, I presently think that both theists and atheists use circular logic.

Another thing engineering isn`t as complex as you assert, some of the best engineers say it isn`t complex, but life is complex, an Amoeba is more complex than a computer, or anything you can build and the best scientists can`t reproduce life from non life from inorganic inanimate matter physically in test lab. My point is that both science and theism has the rational and the irrational. All human endeavor has the irrational and rational, logical and illogical and their facts and fictions. All deserve consideration. All have a truth and a wisdom to find within and that is what rational philosophers seek out.

OTavern wrote

Intention has a role to play ...The antecedents need not be physical in origin.

Need not be physical??? then you must Define this "intention" outside of humans is it alien or non alien is it robotic or non robotic is it what you call God if so define god is this god non physical and not a part of or creation of humanity? is it good or bad or indifferent? Is this what you think is the originator of life which isn`t shown by evolution or theism or humans in repeatable methodological physical science? If it is its the first I have heard of this and have read on it.

BTW this point is to Whynot and OTavern ---there is no evidence scientifically or in theism of a God outside of man or of evolution springing life matter from non matter or of cause or effect. Thats all your hypothesis without the empirical evidence you say you adhere to.

(Sorry if that seems like a lot of questions at once, but I have been reading an endless amount of threads from you both without answers. I don`t mind if you both say its your hypothesis but when you state as a fact something that is in essence only your independant opinion well then I will call you on it )

Whynot you didn`t address my analogy that you can physically show me there is evidence scientifically from evolution springing life matter from non matter or of cause or effect. Who or what would evolutionists claim are the cause and effect? this would lead to me asking you What was the first cause? Rationally speaking there would need to be a first cause to make an effect? its the same as theism saying without physical evidence that god is first cause or a prime mover.

Now I will address your post you say

I am impressed by the fact that a scientist will tell you when he doesn't understand something.

I don`t think scientists deny they know their science, why would they? it would make them look inept, some pretend they know things they don`t to cover this problem up. that doesn`t mean they know theism as they admit they don`t understand anything outside of their field. I haven`t heard a theist tell me they always understand everything about science either so what is your point exactly?

Whynot wrote the cause of evolution was

Process change

But that isn`t what I asked, I asked the first cause of non life becoming life I asked why life? I said a chemical or big bang explosion or any test under science lab conditions cannot produce living cells from non living matter or non living cells yet whynot trusts that evolution asserts it as true.

First cause is a moot issue in an infinitely regressive universe.

There is no infinite regress which I addressed to you many postings back on this thread. The universe is expanding not infinitely regressing. Further Abiogenesis isn`t a proven scientific theory anymore than creationism is a proven scientific theory. Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis and cell theory. And I will quote something I read which is to be considered.

A Multiverse violates Occam's Razor
-An Eternal Universe violates the second law of thermodynamics
-A quantum fluctuation violates the first of law thermodynamics
-Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, it lacks accountability for altruism, and it (arguably) lacks sufficent evidence.

Alun

I personally have plenty of beliefs which are not justified scientifically. These include religious beliefs. However, I do not see how these beliefs can be meaningfully communicated to others, because they are not justifiable by any communicable method of knowledge-seeking. To that end, how communicable is the knowledge which you say you have?

Ugh? You are communicating them on this forum. Beliefs don`t have to be justified scientifically. Beliefs are communicated to others. You can write a book there are many meaningful ways to communicate your beliefs. I think you are confusing communicate with experience. You experience something that others have said they experience or didn`t experience, its only strong atheists that say its all down to the subconscious and say you are irrational or brainwashed. You could be a truth bearer in talking about your experiences or you could be misguided and hallucinating and bearing false witness. Depends how badly you want to sell the book. Some beliefs are personal and only for the select few and inner circle. (if you want a copy of my new book on how to do this, send me cash and cheques in advance