Arguments and empirical evidence that god(s) exist

Man, observing the shere complexity of his environment, made a classic assumption...that whatever causes that complexity must be even more complex. This assumption has followed man down thru history as one form of theism or another. Sometimes it is wise to question these assumptions themselves. For instance, we observe, (and you admit), how simple chemical combinations over time, and under specific, (and often, but not always),random conditions, converge and become more complex...naturally. Thus the initial assumption that the observable complexity necessitates an even greater complexity to account for the observation loses steam in direct proportion to the amount of new data gathered to support simple-to-complex cause/effect relations. Complex > complex is not only counter-intuitive but illogical when we consider the processes themselves.

Kindly provide an example of this outside of processes of evolution since that would be begging the question at issue here.

OT, "evolution" is not a process by itself at all, it is slow stage of the Dialectical development. We just apply the term "evolution" to the changes of the living organisms on our planet, but in fact these changes develop and appear in two phases - slow phase, evolution, involves the gradual accumulation of the quantitative changes and is always followed by the fast qualitative change, called revolution.

Dialectics insists that absolutely any development process has these two phases, changing one another. As soon as revolution is over, another slow phase of evolution begins, which allows to talk about "dialectical spiral of development".

In biological evolution of our specie the revolutionary stage was, say, us losing the tail, as a new QUALITY appeared as a result. Social development goes by the same rules - and slowly building up evolutionary quantitative changes in the social system are followed by the rapid revolutionary, qualitative change of this system into the next one up. A school pupil for the long 10-12 years evolutionary increases the knowledge, and then the revolutionary stage would be passing the tests and getting a certificate of Secondary Education... In no cases of this type any higher Conscience plans the process stages, it all goes its own natural way. These processes are all around us and we witness them every day, it is just necessary to have the eyes to see

Social development goes by the same rules - and slowly building up evolutionary quantitative changes in the social system are followed by the rapid revolutionary, qualitative change of this system into the next one up. A school pupil for the long 10-12 years evolutionary increases the knowledge, and then the revolutionary stage would be passing the tests and getting a certificate of Secondary Education... In no cases of this type any higher Conscience plans the process stages, it all goes its own natural way. These processes are all around us and we witness them every day, it is just necessary to have the eyes to see :)

Are you trying to imply that the education system is not intentionally designed by intelligent beings? What do all those creatures in departments of education all over the world do, then? You are trying to prove that evolution is not a designed process by showing how it is like a designed process. Hmmm. Interesting.

Or perhaps are you suggesting that learning itself is not a process that requires intelligence?

Do you honestly believe that the process of education was not the product of centuries of design through thoughtful consideration and research about child development, curriculum development, age appropriate content, metacognition, assessment and instructional methods?

So evolution is dialectical like the process of education, but it is not designed. Which point were you trying to prove?

Even if you are merely referring to the learning cycles of each individual student, I fail to see your point because there is a dynamic between the intelligently planned pedagogy and the child's own intelligence that results in learning taking place. So intelligence is not a byproduct it is an essential feature of your example. Or are you really claiming that education is a mindless activity?

You are correct thar we need eyes to see when and where intelligence is active in a process. Since you missed its presence in the process of education perhaps you likewise cannot see it in active in the process of evolution.

Man, observing the shere complexity of his environment, made a classic assumption...that whatever causes that complexity must be even more complex. This assumption has followed man down thru history as one form of theism or another. Sometimes it is wise to question these assumptions themselves. For instance, we observe, (and you admit), how simple chemical combinations over time, and under specific, (and often, but not always),random conditions, converge and become more complex...naturally. Thus the initial assumption that the observable complexity necessitates an even greater complexity to account for the observation loses steam in direct proportion to the amount of new data gathered to support simple-to-complex cause/effect relations. Complex > complex is not only counter-intuitive but illogical when we consider the processes themselves.

Kindly provide an example of this outside of processes of evolution since that would be begging the question at issue here.

Sure. Infinite regress and process refinement are two aspects of an alternative to Godidit. Evolution is just one layer. Dynamic equilibrium, contra-distinction, polar opposition and incidental consequence are additional layers in the causation process with explanatory power accounting for reality as we observe/experience it. There's no question begging but there is always a degree of circular reasoning in such matters. No way to avoid it, unfortunately.

I also don't understand why I can only respond to one post at a time? Can this feature be modified such that I can respond to multiple responders without having to wait for someone to respond to my posts one at a time? This is a feature of this message board I do not like. I guess I'll have to respond to multiple posters in this thread.

Kapra wrote: 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.

Yes, many cultures have developed their own specific gap stuffers but this is not evidence of anything except that cultures do not exist in a vacuum. Cultures and social structures inter-act, trade, war and align themselves with other cultures for various political gains as part of the survival drive. We can easily see how early man based his belief structures on his desire that his ancestors remain present somehow spiritually after death. This complexified into shamanism, ritual and cultural necessity. By the time the Hebrews arrived on the scene man's religious paradigm had been exceptionally developed. It is too easy to assume each individual culture autonomously invented its own version of theistic beliefs when it is more likely individuals journeying twixt cultures carried and conveyed these fables as part of his meanderings among the tribes. besides, if man's survivability is enhanced by asking questions and seeking answers, this should be true of all men and when the answers evade then ad hoc invention suffices. It's a psychological aspect of our survival equipment, universally across the board. Notice how the unknown produces fear? An explanation...any explanation that seems even remotely plausible relaxs the psyche enough to foster a sense of security which enables domestication and culturalization. Remember man was first a hunter/gatherer...a nomad figure wandering his environment and moving when resources demanded it. There is nothing extraordinary about multi-cultural theistic belief systems that would constitute empirical evidence for the existence of any of these imagined deities.

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.

Do you honestly believe that the process of education was not the product of centuries of design through thoughtful consideration and research about child development, curriculum development, age appropriate content, metacognition, assessment and instructional methods?

There are the processes of macro-level and there are their components, going on micro-level. Planning and organisation takes place on micro-level, and this planning is not done by a supernatural being but by the education professionals. It would be strange to suggest that, say, since Renaissance till nowadays there was some governing body, which had pre-planned the educational process the centuries ahead. On macro-level all processes are spontaneous and completely unmanaged by anyone. This is pre-determined by the short span of the human life, no one can run the business when already being dead.

Dialectics deals with the macro-level of the processes, this is a big scale and big numbers approach. These two levels should not be confused. In my example Dialectics was applied to the macro-level of an individual growing human - no one plans this growth, it happens naturally, so education only feeds this human with more and more layers of knowledge up until this human evolutionary becomes ripen enough to report all this knowledge as "absorbed", and this would be the revolutionary stage.

Do you honestly believe that the process of education was not the product of centuries of design through thoughtful consideration and research about child development, curriculum development, age appropriate content, metacognition, assessment and instructional methods?

There are the processes of macro-level and there are their components, going on micro-level. Planning and organisation takes place on micro-level, and this planning is not done by a supernatural being but by the education professionals. It would be strange to suggest that, say, since Renaissance till nowadays there was some governing body, which had pre-planned the educational process the centuries ahead. On macro-level all processes are spontaneous and completely unmanaged by anyone. This is pre-determined by the short span of the human life, no one can run the business when already being dead.

It is not true that the processes were spontaneous and completely unmanaged by anyone. There were various managers over time operating under an umbrella of "intelligence." Parents, communities, tradesmen, etc. were independently using reason, and thus intelligence, to guide the education of the children in the community and family for thousands of years. The intelligent guiding hand has always been there operating as objective reason in individual human beings.throughout history, informally perhaps, but still there.

Dialectics deals with the macro-level of the processes, this is a big scale and big numbers approach. These two levels should not be confused. In my example Dialectics was applied to the macro-level of an individual growing human - no one plans this growth, it happens naturally, so education only feeds this human with more and more layers of knowledge up until this human evolutionary becomes ripen enough to report all this knowledge as "absorbed", and this would be the revolutionary stage.

Speaking of the macro level and the micro level, this is purely a cautionary tale.

Imagine, if you will an alien species originating in a much denser galaxy and planet than the earth we find ourselves upon. Owing to the incredibly dense environment of their home planet, this species evolved senses and developed scientific equipment suited only to the observation, detection and analysis of only very dense materials.

Further imagine that this species travelled away from their planet and happened upon the planet Earth. With the particular senses which were part of their physiological makeup and the scientific equipment geared only to observation and analysis of the denser materials on the Earth such as iron, other metals, glass, concrete and a variety of inorganic minerals, these creatures became intrigued by the movements of certain entities on the surface of the Earth. Organic, carbon based beings such as plants, animals and humans completely escaped their detection.

These aliens became transfixed upon the cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, trains, etc. that moved about on the surface, air and waters of the Earth. Convinced as they were by the regular movements and somewhat predictable behaviours of the mechanical vehicles on the Earth, these aliens began to develop a theory of the evolution of the "life forms" on the planet.

The top scientists theorized that metallic based life forms on the earth evolved into more sophisticated forms based upon increments in speed, rather than survival. The higher evolved forms, such as airplanes, rockets and certain land based vehicles achieved extraordinary speeds - given their primitive mechanical structure - depending upon their efficient use of certain fossil based fuels which they sucked from underground or above ground metallic capsules, tubules or other stationary metallic lifeforms the aliens called "plants" because these did not move. The metallic animated forms would consume and be lubricated by undetectable compounds - it was speculated - which were extracted from underground by the stationary life forms, since these stationary forma often extended long tubules down into the crust of the earth into the hollow pockets that were found there..

Migration patterns of the mobile Earth life forms along certain asphalt or metallic pathways were tracked by the alien scientists over time. Certain patterns of behaviour were documented and generalized theories of how red colours affected these creatures by causing them to stop and green colours made them resume motion were published. The scientists generally agreed that Earth's life forms were primitive metal based organisms that acted quite predictably, but had evolved based upon natural selection for speed. Faster organisms were more successful because they moved away from crowded conditions into the air or less trafficked trackways.

The existence of animals, plants and human beings completely escaped their attention. Anomalies such as why collisions between organisms occurred were explained by metallurgical defects in the less fit specimens. Since collisions occurred less frequently with the airborne forms, these were deemed more advanced.

Nowhere in their theorizing did these alien scientists suggest that the life forms on Earth had evolved even a semblance of intelligence, since the behaviour of Earth's metal based inhabitants was quite predictable and "mechanical" in cause.
These scientist were convinced by the nature of their own sensory apparatus and of the equipment in their arsenal that intelligent life was not present on Earth. No where was there evidence of intentional planning, anticipation, creative or spontaneous behaviours that could be taken as signs of intelligence. The asphalt roadways and metal trackways grew "crystal-like" in the environment and the vehicular inhabitants took advantage of the pathways to bump up their speed.

More complex vehicles capable of higher speeds could survive whereas slower outmoded vehicles less capable of speed increases were naturally culled by increments in speed. They simply could not keep up so they meandered away from trackways into solitary existence where they gradually decomposed as a result of natural chemical processes such as rusting.

What these scientists had failed to notice, because of the limitations of their "scientific" gear and empirical faculties was that even though the mechanical motions of the devices in use by the real biological and intelligent life forms on the earth were predictable and explicable by cause effect analysis, the biological forms, that had escaped their attention, were actually piloting the mechanical devices and furthermore were engaged in a myriad of activities like writing books, doing scientific analysis, developing technology, etc. which were the intelligent underpinnings of the metal based devices that were missed. In fact, what the aliens mistook as primitive and unintelligent behaviours of mechanical vehicles was, in fact, merely the metallic wake of the more meaningful behaviours of the undetectable intelligent beings piloting the vehicles. Furthermore, the aliens missed completely the fact that the vehicles on the Earth did not evolve but were the calculated result of careful design and crafting by the intelligent soft life form that had completely escaped their attention.

Belinda, you have expressed disgust with the word supernatural. However, "supernatural" simply means above our understanding or capacity to experience of the real and complete "natural world" and since our understanding of the natural is limited by our sensory data and tools developed to analyze it, there could very well be an entire sphere of reality we are missing because, like the alien scientists, we assume there can be nothing else that warrants our attention - that our faculties and technology provide the complete picture, when they, in fact, do not. It is not the wisest position to believe we have a complete picture, then call everything else supernatural and promptly dismiss it as myth.

Furthermore, the alien scientists could very well have cited Occam's razor as a reason to not pursue any further the possibility of intelligence underpinning the movements of Earth's vehicular contraptions, since the "normal" patterns of behaviour were very well explained by cause effect physics. No need to invoke "spooky" ghosts inside the machines when simple general rules can explain the patterns of behaviour observed by the aliens.

Yet these scientists missed an entire intelligible world because they weren't looking for it and hastily dismissed any signs that pointed at entities controlling the vehicles that may have better explained why these vehicles behaved unpredictably at times. Since the incidence of unpredictable movements was relatively small, these were easily dismissed as anomalies rather than as critical pieces of data. Think Heisenberg here.

There were various managers over time operating under an umbrella of "intelligence." Parents, communities, tradesmen, etc. were independently using reason, and thus intelligence, to guide the education of the children in the community and family for thousands of years. The intelligent guiding hand has always been there operating as objective reason in individual human beings.throughout history, informally perhaps, but still there.

What happens with you - you select a process out of context, at will, and then you are trying to analyse it using the information, available to you... But if you try looking retrospectively, you would see that the other animals, which in our view have no "intelligence", also give the education to their cubs. A cat would teach the kittens how to fight, hunt, survive, liaise with the other cats etc. Same thing, just the complexity of the process is lower than in our case, no 3R or Physics. And also a kitten would be evolutionary accumulating knowledge up until it becomes able to go and get the first bird or mouse caught on its own, this would be "the test", the revolutionary stage of becoming a cat in full sense.

Alien story is far too complex for me to grasp its philosophical importance, I am not a big reader of science fiction and hardly can imagine myself as an alien. I got used to more mundane, more practical examples to illustrate a concept, however it is not really surprising that the aliens are needed to talk about Idealistic approaches

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".

They are practicing quantological research.

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.

Actually, engineering has done more to create the appearance of huge progress in science. Science is the discipline of discovery. Engineering takes those discoveries and produces practical mechanisms to serve someone's interests. Science is the only avenue we have to verify anything a philosopher might postulate. Science cannot discover anything about the non-existent except that it remains non-existent regardless of how much we might wish or postulate otherwise. Engineering provides the tools that enhance our senses making research and verification possible. If it actually exists, then it falls within the realm of empirical studies without limitations. I see no limitations to science in any of the examples you gave. However, since this thread is about arguments for the existence of God, 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.

I am currently working on a philosophical/metaphysical paper entitled the "Theory Of Supernature". In this theory I postulate the existece of "something" WITHIN the universe that drives all the processes of which science has currently observed only infintismal aspects during decay. I call this something "Supernature" (not to be confused with the supernatural). It is actual, and I predict will be discovered empirically in the years ahead, first by cosmologists and later, as we advance out into the stars, more directly by scientists. 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. 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. No Gods, no intelligent design, no purpose driven creation...just Incidental Consequence. The universe exists as an incidental consequence of Supernature within it, much the same way our shadow exists as an incidental consequence of our existence in specific circumstances, (standing between a light source and a solid surface)

To understand Contra-distinction analogously it is similar to placing similar poles of a magnet together and the repulsive force we observe inherent therein. Everything the universe was, is and will become is being driven in this direction, (whatever that happens to be), in Polar opposition to the attributes of Supernature. Supernature is unchanging; the universe is comprised of processes that are always changing. Supernature is inanimate material; the universe is process refining towards animate,living material. Supernature is non-aware/non-sentient; the universe is comprised of processes that are becoming self aware, sentient observers/participants in the refinement of these processes. Supernature has no purpose and creates nothing intentionally; the universe has evolved purpose driven mechanisms, laws, and processes that are capable of creating anything...all in Polar Opposition to the attributes of Supernature. The processes being driven by these contra-distinctions can, and has, produced sentient creatures capable of becoming players in the grand scheme of process refinement. There are no gods, no intelligent designers, (outside of ourselves and maybe other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe), no purposeful acts of creation...it's all a matter of polar opposition to the specific attributes of Supernature. The universe, mechanistically, exists incidentally to Supernature, and unfolds/process refines in direct opposition to the attributes of Supernature. Whatever we discover about the universe, we can infer about Supernature introvertedly. 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.

Now, as you can see, we have a theory that can be confirmed empirically, that accounts for/explains everything without recourse to mysterious gods with incomprehensible designs that fall outside human science. There are alternative explanations to existence and reality that don't necessitate living intelligent godlike beings. Supernature does not answer prayers or care if humanity survives or not. The universe will continue to roll along either way. It's up to us to determine our own destiny. If we, as a species, survive, I predict Supernature will be discovered and confirmed and even studied.

There were various managers over time operating under an umbrella of "intelligence." Parents, communities, tradesmen, etc. were independently using reason, and thus intelligence, to guide the education of the children in the community and family for thousands of years. The intelligent guiding hand has always been there operating as objective reason in individual human beings.throughout history, informally perhaps, but still there.

What happens with you - you select a process out of context, at will, and then you are trying to analyse it using the information, available to you... But if you try looking retrospectively, you would see that the other animals, which in our view have no "intelligence", also give the education to their cubs. A cat would teach the kittens how to fight, hunt, survive, liaise with the other cats etc. Same thing, just the complexity of the process is lower than in our case, no 3R or Physics. And also a kitten would be evolutionary accumulating knowledge up until it becomes able to go and get the first bird or mouse caught on its own, this would be "the test", the revolutionary stage of becoming a cat in full sense.

You would insist that the cat passed on the information to its kittens coincidentally and this enabled the cat to be a survivor in the process of evolution. As for me, this capacity of cats, like the behavior of cars in the alien story points to intelligence guiding the hand of change, just as intelligent humans guided the evolution of vehicles in the story, but these went unnoticed by the aliens because of the limitations of their scientific procedures.

Alien story is far too complex for me to grasp its philosophical importance, I am not a big reader of science fiction and hardly can imagine myself as an alien. I got used to more mundane, more practical examples to illustrate a concept, however it is not really surprising that the aliens are needed to talk about Idealistic approaches :)

Perhaps design theories are likewise far too complex for you to grasp, which is the reason you dismiss them. Aliens were needed only to point out that reality may be multilayered and that we may be missing critical understandings by disallowing knowledge obtained beyond the capacity of surface layer empirical observation to verify. We ought to be looking at the intelligible connections to ask if these may have occurred as a result of intent rather than accident. Dismissing that possibility even before considering it may stop us from uncovering the multilayered nature of reality. Plugging our ears and ignoring what we don't agree with seems a less than scientific or philosophical approach, but it certainly does explain some of your posts.

By the way, Whynot, your theory of Supernature was in fact postulated by one of the alien scientists who noted consistency in how vehicles seemed to develop and change over time, but realizing that intelligent life was not present on Earth, came up with the idea that vehicular evolution arose as the "wake" of the operation of Supernature on the planet; a kind of shadow cast off by the natural function of supernature, which he, too, expressly denied was supernatural. He didn't like the idea of unseen ghostly intelligences guiding the development of metallic life on Earth. He ended up winning the equivalent of the Nobel prize on his planet. But you can see, that he, too, missed the boat, so to speak.

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.

Otavern, your alien race analogy fails on the scientific front. Any biological species that is incapable of detecting anything unless it has a specific mass would not survive the journey to our solar system as there are far too many massless, yet deadly forces of energy in deep space for such a journey without preparation against these forces. Things like gamma rays and such. This contradicts your entire schematic for this species being unable to empirically detect humanity. I understand where you are going with this. Why do theists, unable to offer any rational argumentation for their God's existence, settle on disparaging science? Is it an attempt to deflect attention from their own insufficiencies? Just because science cannot reach inside your head and render your beliefs empirical is no reason to assert or suggest that science is inefficient.

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.

Well, I never claimed to be the original author of the term. It's a common term, but my usage is unique. Supernatural has religious connotations whereas my version of supernature does not. It is nothing more than a unique quantological state of anti-mattenergy in the center of the universe that both sustains the dynamic equilibrium of the universe and the process refinement of every existent thing within the universe. In the same way the moon affects the oceans tides on earth. There is no intentionality involved. The earths tides are a product of the moons mass in proximity to the earth. Nothing supernatural or spiritual about it.

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.

It is my understanding that theists often posit their God as being transcendant, (outside the universe). ID is just a theistic attempt to bootstrap their deity into existence on the coattails of those areas of science that remain to be articulated. You could quote a thousand authors who each posit their own version of accounting for reality. Weren't you telling me earlier how the philosopher works alone? I'm not much of a philosopher and have barely read a dozen books on this subject. There is a huge difference between supernature and the supernatural. I predict something akin to supernature will be discovered in the future because the supernature I am positing is entirely empirical. Already hints of supernature have been discovered recently at CERN where scientists have discovered certain quantuum particles prefer to exist in a state of matter vs. anti-matter a higher percentage of the time. This discovery is astounding in its breadth and scope and will become the subject of numerous philosophy of science papers in the near future. On the quantuum level it appears particles have an option and make a choice. I am positing that this is only an appearance...that the choice is made in the driving force behind supernature as a result of polar opposition to supernature's anti-mattenergy status.

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.

Of course, I am attempting to articulate a TOE (Theory of Everything) so it necessitates I incorporate known theoretics into the paper as well as introducing new theoretics to guide science in asking the right questions. In order to arrive at the correct answers one must first ask the right questions. Nothing new there. If you understand anything about particle/wave theory you would have some grasp of this subject. Supernature is analogous, (please note I said analogous, not equivalent), to the particle whereas the universe would be analogous to the wave.

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.

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.

You misunderstand how I apply this. Polar opposition, as used herein, has nothing to do with cataclismic changes to our planet. In my paper I have designated Supernature as OMS which is abbrev. for Ontological Metaphysical Supernature. Here is an excerpt that should clarify your misunderstanding about polar opposition.

"In order to connect the dots between OMS and the universe as the incubator of our reality I must first devise a working model of the universe. In as much as I have postulated the emergent qualities of the universe are in contra-distinction to OMS attributes, if I can devise a workable model of the universe consistent with this contra-distinction I have taken one step towards validating the existence of OMS which is crucial to the construction of a workable FOUNDATION for all of REALITY. I must start with the most current observationally supported theoretics relative to current models of the universe. There are many such models and all of them have some basis in empirical observation but none of them are complete or have been demonstratively efficient in predicting future observations. Let's establish some basic postulates to guide us in the development of this model.

1.Emergent properties of the universe are contra-distinctive to OMS attributes.
(a.) By contra-distinctive I mean in polar opposition to OMS attributes.

This observation about our reality is crucial and requires elaboration to facilitate understanding. This is the foundation of this theory and the philosophical guide to comprehension. There are IDEALS and there are REALITIES. There are ABSOLUTES and there are RELATIVES. All IDEALS have polar opposites. All REALITIES are measurable increments of these IDEALS in polar opposition to one another. All ABSOLUTES have polar opposites. All RELATIVES are defined in relation to their perceived distance to/from their ABSOLUTE. Both ABSOLUTES and IDEALS are mental constructs. If we can empirically establish their logical possibility, that is all that is needed to do science and develop theories. They may not actually exist independently of the sentient observer, but if they have an independent referent outside the mind, that is enough to establish their necessity.


For example, light and darkness. These are represented both as ideal and real. Light is the primary ideal. Dark is its polar opposite. Our measuring systems between these two ideals are based on light. Luminosity, brightness, etc. Our realities are therefor always somewhere twixt these two ideals. It is always helpful to establish a fixed measurement of the IDEAL but it is not necessary to do so to still function in reality. The IDEAL light would be the brightest most luminous light attainable. Thus, the IDEAL dark would be in polar opposition. But our REALITY lies somewhere between, so we devise systems of measurement, candlewatts and so forth to establish the RELATIVE distance from/to these IDEALS.


IDEALS are ABSOLUTE. REALITIES are RELATIVE to the IDEAL which is ABSOLUTE. Every functional system within our universe/reality is based on this philosophical premise. Our morals, science, politics, economies, cultures, classification systems, even our histories reflect this DUALISTIC philosophical premise. It is in the search for our HISTORIES that we discover/observe factors about our REALITY that lead to the devising of the IDEAL and/or ABSOLUTE. Science is seeking the ABSOLUTE starting place of our histories. It is a fruitless search. There is the PAST and there is potentially the FUTURE and then there is the present REALITY which is propelled into the future by past MOMENTUM.


This theory is designed to establish a FOUNDATION, not an historical timeline. I postulate an infinite regress of histories, based on a potentially eternal/infinitely regressive OMS/UNIVERSE duality. No beginning. No creation."

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.


Au contrare but abiogenesis has made tremendous gains in how inanimate matter, under specific conditions, begins to display characteristics of animation. There is no "production" involved. You appear to be hung up on a strained sort of cause/effect corellation that hinders you from comprehending the big picture here. With "infinite regress" you have infinite time to play with combinations, environments and theoretical laws/properties. Life was inevitable but not guarenteed to continue.

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 [i]just incidental.[/i]

Then you can provide us some rational argumentation for how you believe life materialized? Sans godunnit...? If memory serves me this thread was suppose to present argumentation for the existence of God. I am presenting argumentation that rebutts said arguments by presenting a more intuitively gratifying explanation that has the advantage of being empirically verified.

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.


The moon causes tides on the earth's oceans. This is non-intelligent, (unless you wish to argue the moon is purposefully doing so), and it is anything BUT randomn. In fact, it is so regulated as to be precisely predictable year in and year out. Does everything in your reality have to have some extraneous purpose other than what it appears to do? That's odd.

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.

I am positing it to be quantuum anti-mattenergy. A quantuum sea so vast and inexhaustible as to be infinite.


[/quote]Now it can be claimed empirically

No it is not confirmed empirically it cannot be confirmed empirically.

Are you a reporter or columnist? Taking one line out of context like this is disingenuous. I have predicted it will be empirically verified. Anti-matter has been ala quantuum mechanics. It is certainly posited as actually existing in a state that enables empirical verification...something the theist cannot and will not boast in.

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.

Sheer misunderstanding.


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.


Are you sure you want to read my thoughts? Let me ask you, why must life always be expressed as something beyond which our own purposes aren't enough to fulfill us? Confusing purpose with origins clouds the issues. I recommend you read more about evolution and see how much progress towards sentience was made on sheer incidental consequence. There is nothing wrong or profane with nature being what it is, as it is, and how it is.

As to your continual harping on aspects of this paper having been done before...when one is proposing a TOE, for it to be relevant it must explain everything contained in our wider body of knowledge in such a way as to bring it all together under one foundational accounting structure. Thus anything within it that has been spoken of or written about at some previous time is unavoidable and incidentally consequent to the nature of the TOE.

Otavern, your alien race analogy fails on the scientific front. Any biological species that is incapable of detecting anything unless it has a specific mass would not survive the journey to our solar system as there are far too many massless, yet deadly forces of energy in deep space for such a journey without preparation against these forces. Things like gamma rays and such. This contradicts your entire schematic for this species being unable to empirically detect humanity. I understand where you are going with this. Why do theists, unable to offer any rational argumentation for their God's existence, settle on disparaging science? Is it an attempt to deflect attention from their own insufficiencies? Just because science cannot reach inside your head and render your beliefs empirical is no reason to assert or suggest that science is inefficient.

The fact that this particular analogy may or may not fail is really irrelevant. The point is that any empirically based system of knowledge is limited by it's own capacity to gather data. Based upon their perspective and limitations the alien race could only construct a theory to explain the evolution of metallic vehicles that was internally consistent but missed the more critical aspects of the situation on Earth. This is an inherent shortcoming of empirically based systems of knowledge.

The point that I was making, that you apparently missed, is that ignoring this very shortcoming of the scientific method could very well lead to a closed, but internally consistent explanation/ understanding of the universe that leaves out a great deal of the reality. If that is not a problem for you, fine, but don't claim that your dismissive approach seeks a complete understanding of reality, only one that satisfies you, which not quite the same thing. A comprehensive explanation requires a complete analysis with no assumptions. In fact, all assumptions need to be ferreted out.

This is not disparaging science, it is coming to terms with the limitations of science. Science is a method of coming to understand reality. It is not the only method, and neither can it provide all of the answers. You seem unable to accept that these limitations of the scientific method do in fact exist.

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!

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 Kapra...minor oversight. I'm accustomed to a forum where you can respond to each individual separately without having to wait for a response...so I plead ignorance here. Unintentional consequent.

Otavern: The fact that this particular analogy may or may not fail is really irrelevant. The point is that any empirically based system of knowledge is limited by it's own capacity to gather data. Based upon their perspective and limitations the alien race could only construct a theory to explain the evolution of metallic vehicles that was internally consistent but missed the more critical aspects of the situation on Earth. This is an inherent shortcoming of empirically based systems of knowledge.

It would only be a shortcoming iff there actually was another level of reality wherein gods and spirits and such really exist. Because you assume their existence is no justification to make this particular criticism of science. The only inherent shortcoming in empirical systems, and the epistemic methodology that follows, is the limitations inherent in the instruments used to enhance our human senses.

The point that I was making, that you apparently missed, is that ignoring this very shortcoming of the scientific method could very well lead to a closed, but internally consistent explanation/ understanding of the universe that leaves out a great deal of the reality. If that is not a problem for you, fine, but don't claim that your dismissive approach seeks a complete understanding of reality, only one that satisfies you, which not quite the same thing. A comprehensive explanation requires a complete analysis with no assumptions. In fact, all assumptions need to be ferreted out.

Ok, then what means do you propose to verify the existence of your favorite deity? Do you believe in all claimed existent deities? Or are you atheistic when it comes to all but your own specific version? By what epistemic means do you determine which version to embrace? I understand that part of reality includes people who believe there are aspects of reality that are undetectable by any other means than faith. And that this faith guides their interpretations of events to assume confirmation of their faith to the exclusion of all other possibilities. And you speak to me of my worldview as being problematic?

This is not disparaging science, it is coming to terms with the limitations of science. Science is a method of coming to understand reality. It is not the only method, and neither can it provide all of the answers. You seem unable to accept that these limitations of the scientific method do in fact exist.

There is no better or more effective means of identifying attributes of reality than science. You speak of these other methods. Could you please elaborate? It isn't the case that I'm unable to accept limitations to science, it's just that you haven't provided me with any evidence that there might be levels of reality that are beyond the scope of science to investigate. That is, I believe, the subject of this thread...yes?

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.