A lot of irrelevant "maybes" there. And in light of what I (and classical theism in general) propose, a non sequitur.Greta wrote:Don't knock the idea because just because you don't like the most well known proponent. The title, as LK explained, was basically just marketing. I also doubt that Krauss would want to be associated with my later speculations so, if I am annoying to both sides then I probably have the balance about rightDark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Lawrence Krauss wrote Something Fom Nothing based on that idea and was soundly criticized for its misleading title, and recent experiments at CERN casts doubt on the theory and has scientists saying the universe shouldn't exist. And although this complicates things for vocal atheists like Krauss, it doesn't effect what I said at all.
Seriously, my point was that nothingness is not nothingness, rather it is a chaos of subatomic perturbations. "Something" requires order to emerge from the chaos. This theoretically can occur due to probabilities, and is one possible answer for infinite regression.
Why didn't antimatter and matter annihilate each other exactly equally? That's one for the physicists, but generally in nature nothing happens quite perfectly, eg. genetics. About 999,999,999 out of every billion particles annihilated, and we are amongst the one part in a billion matter particles that has not (yet) been annihilated by antimatter particles. Who knows? Maybe the span of universes takes as long as it takes for all the particle opposites to meet and destroy each other? Or maybe the antimatter is condensed in voids and isolated by magnetic fields?
Like "a universe from nothing", the "should not be here" byline quoted by media was, again, largely just marketing. They are basically saying that aspects of the CERN findings (amongst many other things in reality) are a mystery at this stage.
Does God Exist?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Does God Exist?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does God Exist?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does God Exist?
My intent is not to prove or disprove anything here - why would I know the ultimate nature of reality? Just workshopping. Not every post needs to be a conclusive stinger :)
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Does God Exist?
-- Updated November 4th, 2017, 4:02 am to add the following --
Weigh carefully your words, Greta. You're saying that in the unmanifest or unactualized universe there is an inherent power to be, to manifest in a multitude of ways. That power men call "God" (see video).
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does God Exist?
When they wrote headlines like "should not be here" I guess the writers assumed that the readers are aware that the universe is actually here. I suppose they assumed that readers are familiar with the general way in which laws of nature work: If our laws of nature do not match Nature, then it's not Nature that has got it wrong. It's the laws. So saying "the universe should not be here" is a shorthand for "we may have got something wrong in our descriptions of Nature and might therefore be about to discover something interesting."Why didn't antimatter and matter annihilate each other exactly equally? That's one for the physicists, but generally in nature nothing happens quite perfectly, eg. genetics. About 999,999,999 out of every billion particles annihilated, and we are amongst the one part in a billion matter particles that has not (yet) been annihilated by antimatter particles. Who knows? Maybe the span of universes takes as long as it takes for all the particle opposites to meet and destroy each other? Or maybe the antimatter is condensed in voids and isolated by magnetic fields?
Like "a universe from nothing", the "should not be here" byline quoted by media was, again, largely just marketing. They are basically saying that aspects of the CERN findings (amongst many other things in reality) are a mystery at this stage.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Does God Exist?
If we perceive God not as a being or personage, but rather as an entity such as "Power of Being itself", then do we still attribute characteristics to it such as it being "loving and kind" or "vengeful and evil"? Or do we look at God more like Nature, as being powerful system of processes? If there is an intelligent source of creation, because it is intelligent it is difficult not to make relative assumptions about it which gives it characteristics based upon the evidence we observe of reality – sometimes harsh and punishing, and at other times nurturing and beautiful. What could be considered a sign of universal intelligence?
---
Greta:
Perhaps what you say is a possibility. I think that as technology advances, science will eventually solve the mystery (or some of the mysteries) of the origins of the universe, but I'll be lucky if that occurs in my lifetime. I would be surprised (or turn in my grave) if intelligence was found as I think it's more likely that the universe is a result of the processes of Nature. I think that the BB seems like a possibility because everything in nature begins with a "seed" which if the conditions are right grows into something larger and vastly different in appearance and qualities from it's initial state. So perhaps in the chaos the "seed" capable of "growing" the universe experienced the right conditions to "grow" into the universe we now observe. Intelligence, doesn't seem like a requirement in such a process, just nature. I understand why intelligence is attributed to the creation of the universe, but I don't see any hard evidence of why that would be the case. Some may cite the existence of order rather than chaos as evidence of intelligence, but what we perceive as "order" may be the natural state of Nature as opposed to what we would observe as "chaos".
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Does God Exist?
The Universe Should Not Exist
-- Updated November 4th, 2017, 10:48 am to add the following --
"In the end we know God as unknown."
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Does God Exist?
Isn't that contradictory?Dark Matter wrote:"In the end we know God as unknown."
Note Meno's Paradox, i.e. how can you ever know that thing that you do not know in the first place.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Does God Exist?
I don't think that we can know anything about "God", such as to say God is like this or that, but religious ideals of God can be believed in by way of faith. If a person has faith that there's a God I think that's fine, as people are entitled to have beliefs, but through having faith believers may think that they have revealed knowledge of God – which I think encounters epistemological problems.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Does God Exist?
That was Aquinas' point. We can't know what God is, but we can know what he is not and make inferences based on what our senses tell us.Fanman wrote:DM:
I don't think that we can know anything about "God", such as to say God is like this or that, but religious ideals of God can be believed in by way of faith. If a person has faith that there's a God I think that's fine, as people are entitled to have beliefs, but through having faith believers may think that they have revealed knowledge of God – which I think encounters epistemological problems.
"Faith" and "God" are the most misunderstood words in the English language, though if Spectrum had his way, "perfection" would be equally misunderstood.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Does God Exist?
It's certainly not a science. I trust my senses up to a point, but I don't believe I can know what "God" is not. I may have some speculative ideas, but I wouldn't call them knowledge.That was Aquinas' point. We can't know what God is, but we can know what he is not and make inferences based on what our senses tell us.
Perhaps you're right. The degree to which our subjective inferences effect our understanding of terms can be huge. As people who enjoy philosophy we are careful about how we use terms, but we can still end up in pedantic, semantic debates. TBH I'm a little confused about Spectrum's use of the term "absolute perfection" as I think that may be colloquial. I made a comment about it anyway."Faith" and "God" are the most misunderstood words in the English language, though if Spectrum had his way, "perfection" would be equally misunderstood.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does God Exist?
There's at least a couple of ways at looking at this. Firstly, must that first move be made by something a sophisticated as a deity? Might it not be like the first awakenings of life - simple, mindless and with much potential?Dark Matter wrote:I agree, but let’s not compare apples and oranges.
Weigh carefully your words, Greta. You're saying that in the unmanifest or unactualized universe there is an inherent power to be, to manifest in a multitude of ways. That power men call "God" (see video).
Also, it's possible that movement has always been and that our perception of time is a survival mechanism rather than a true interpretation of reality. After all, isn't this ultimately what humans dream of - to be free from the almost tyrannical inevitability of the arrow of time?
-- Updated 05 Nov 2017, 16:02 to add the following --
As Steve mentioned earlier, since the universe does exist, then it's not nature that's made a mistake, but us. The findings call for rethinking current models, which is basically how science progresses, by being a little less wrong over time. The cumulative effect of this constant refinement over time has resulted in science being a whole lot less wrong about the nature of reality than our old guesses and intuitions.Dark Matter wrote:An interesting article:
The Universe Should Not Exist
-- Updated November 4th, 2017, 10:48 am to add the following --
"In the end we know God as unknown."
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Does God Exist?
You can know that God is not a being in the same sense a car or "flying spaghetti monster" are beings and you can know God cannot be be contingent. You can infer from what the senses tell us that the sheer power of being (God) imbues prime matter (pure potentiality) with intelligibility.Fanman wrote:DM:
It's certainly not a science. I trust my senses up to a point, but I don't believe I can know what "God" is not. I may have some speculative ideas, but I wouldn't call them knowledge.That was Aquinas' point. We can't know what God is, but we can know what he is not and make inferences based on what our senses tell us.
I admit that I am deeply disturbed by people having more faith in blind chance than the Source of their own power to be: “Know thyself,” they say, “but look no deeper than the shallows of your flesh.” “The brain excretes mind,” they say, “like the liver excretes bile” and “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Man, they argue, is simply an evolutionary accident. His fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter and the hostile and relentless has decreed pitiless doom as the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good. In short, they have educated themselves into imbecility. They are blinded by the confusion and distortion of complex learning and foolishly struggle on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy. A "firm foundation of unyielding despair" is praised “courage” and “faithists” are mocked as needing a crutch to face the cold, cruel realities of life.
I'm not a Catholic and do not always agree with the Church, but I cannot help admiring the depth, richness and beauty of many of its teachings.
-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 6:14 pm to add the following --
There's still the problem of contingency.Greta wrote: There's at least a couple of ways at looking at this. Firstly, must that first move be made by something a sophisticated as a deity? Might it not be like the first awakenings of life - simple, mindless and with much potential?
Also, it's possible that movement has always been and that our perception of time is a survival mechanism rather than a true interpretation of reality. After all, isn't this ultimately what humans dream of - to be free from the almost tyrannical inevitability of the arrow of time?
Science is not equipped to answer "why."As Steve mentioned earlier, since the universe does exist, then it's not nature that's made a mistake, but us. The findings call for rethinking current models, which is basically how science progresses, by being a little less wrong over time. The cumulative effect of this constant refinement over time has resulted in science being a whole lot less wrong about the nature of reality than our old guesses and intuitions.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does God Exist?
Why be disturbed about it? Different strokes for different folks. Some people believe that intelligence came first and imbued matter with itself, others think it more likely that intelligence emerged.Dark Matter wrote:I admit that I am deeply disturbed by people having more faith in blind chance than the Source of their own power to be: “Know thyself,” they say, “but look no deeper than the shallows of your flesh.” “The brain excretes mind,” they say, “like the liver excretes bile” and “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Man, they argue, is simply an evolutionary accident. His fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter and the hostile and relentless has decreed pitiless doom as the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.
Intelligence and wisdom is not measured against congruence with your beliefs. No point trying to shame people into agreeing with you. It never works anyway.Dark Matter wrote:In short, they have educated themselves into imbecility.
A biased comment. Let's get back to Marquess of Queensbury rules, so to speak.Dark Matter wrote:They are blinded by the confusion and distortion of complex learning and foolishly struggle on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy. A "firm foundation of unyielding despair" is praised “courage” and “faithists” are mocked as needing a crutch to face the cold, cruel realities of life.
Theists who are mocked for needing crutches tend to be fundamentalists who focus on evolution, gender, sexuality, abortion and mercy killing (while curiously having far less issue with inequality, violence, cruelty, neglect and war). They are mocked because they are superstitious, ill-informed and deeply self-entitled as supposed keepers of The One Truth.
The issue then is that sophisticated, deep thinking theists are tarred with that brush. Loony fringes magnified by a sensationalist media that's long exploited humans' negativity bias (with Murdoch being a pioneer in this area) and many have suffered for the sins of their more colourful, unhinged (perceived) peers.
Science only provides a baseline of reality - that which we are pretty sure. Anyone who believes that there is no more depth or strangeness to reality than today's current models is necessarily greatly underestimating reality. It's always been difficult for humanity to envisage a future for itself, and the usual tendency, found throughout history, is to assume that we are somewhere near "the end of days".
There is no doubt that at least some of what is today referred to as pseudoscience and woo will turn out to be true. However, there is no way of knowing which, amongst the plethora of unsubstantiated claims, is true. If I was to put my money on "unproven woo that will be proved true" it would be on the linking of QM and consciousness.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023