God and the Universe

How did the universe come to exist? This question does not make sense to me. The universe entails all of space-time. Everything and any event or 'coming to' or 'happening' exists within time and or space in the universe.

Well, does this question make sense - How did the thing we call space-time come to exist?

Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

You are joking of course, Fred Hoyle developed the Steady-State Theory in 1948. Hardly an exception

Why would the idea that a conscious being of some sort created the Universe be more "intellectual" than any other theory?

In the sense that it affirms the ultimate reality of consciousness.

If one accepts materialism the conscious mind is essentially in denial of the reality that it is, ie mind. In other words it would be an unreality confirming reality, which is essentially self-refuting.

Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

You are joking of course, Fred Hoyle developed the Steady-State Theory in 1948. Hardly an exception

Try to concentrate. The issue is not science, but the propensity of scientists to get involved in religious matters.

Oisif Wrote:

Try to concentrate. The issue is not science, but the propensity of scientists to get involved in religious matters.

We could reverse this and say "Why do religious leaders leaders feel the need to be authorities on science"?
History is replete with examples of scientists being forced to recant on threat of death because the religious did not like what had been discovered.
This issue, like many things is culture dependent. This simply would not be in discussion if we were in Japan or China, for there it is not seen as conflict.
When religion makes definitive statements, everything that is seen as threatening, must be discredited.

Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

You are joking of course, Fred Hoyle developed the Steady-State Theory in 1948. Hardly an exception

Try to concentrate. The issue is not science, but the propensity of scientists to get involved in religious matters.

Take your own advice or alternatively do your homework, Fred Hoyle constantly got involved in religious matters.

Or better still get lost, talking to you is one sided anyway, you keep moving the goalposts as and when it suits.

Fred Hoyle absolutely presented Steady-State as the materialistic alternative to divine creation, I saw him demonstrate it.

Thank you for a confidently predicted post. There was the odd-ball exception that proved the rule.

You are joking of course, Fred Hoyle developed the Steady-State Theory in 1948. Hardly an exception

Try to concentrate. The issue is not science, but the propensity of scientists to get involved in religious matters.

Take your own advice or alternatively do your homework, Fred Hoyle constantly got involved in religious matters.

Indeed, he did- as I fully expected someone to say, knowing the state of internet philosophy forums.

I recommend we refrain from trying to debate with Oisif, as it seems nothing but thinly-veiled insults are to be gained. A pity, really, as I would have really liked an answer to the question of historic evidence for God.

In the sense that it affirms the ultimate reality of consciousness.

If one accepts materialism the conscious mind is essentially in denial of the reality that it is, ie mind. In other words it would be an unreality confirming reality, which is essentially self-refuting.

This seems to mean that if one accepts materialism, the conscious mind is completely deterministic and therefore a our consciousness is an illusion?

I have had a discussion about free will on another forum, and the bottom line was that a decision that is not determined by outside factors is random, and randomness is not free will.
The fact that a materialistic view makes us entirely dependant from outside factors does not diminish the validity of our observations. As long as we are aware that everything we do is shaped by who we are, and who we are is shaped by the world we live in, consciousness is not merely an illusion. It may be non-material, but it is just as real as a magnetic field. Consciousness is something other than just the parts it consists of, even if we do not regard it as something divine.

If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize and ask you to elaborate .

If one accepts materialism the conscious mind is essentially in denial of the reality that it is, ie mind. In other words it would be an unreality confirming reality, which is essentially self-refuting.

I'm always disappointed how often I see materialism so misunderstood by people who uphold a priori consciousness or other forms of Platonic thinking. To me, the statement above so blatantly begs the question about a priori consciousness that it ends up saying nothing at all of value.

I know quite a few materialists like myself. Contrary to the above statment's claim, we definitely are not "in denial of the reality that it [the conscious mind] is, i.e., mind" (although I question what value such a simplistic tautology has). We just deny that it has a priori existence prior to matter/energy. To us, the conscious mind is an emergent phenomenon of material complexity. Given an understanding of complexity theory, and the available physical evidence presented to us by the universe, it is a more reasonable philosophical position than positing a priori consciousness.

This seems to mean that if one accepts materialism, the conscious mind is completely deterministic and therefore a our consciousness is an illusion?

The participants to this discussion seriously need to read a primer on complexity theory which hopefully will suggest how mind per se, emergent from material reality, cannot be deterministic, even in principle. I recommend "The Cosmic Blueprint" by Paul Davies for its brevity and ease of reading.

If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize and ask you to elaborate .

A. The mind doesn't exist!
B. Who says so?
A. The mind.
B. Yeah right!

A. The mind doesn't exist!
B. Who says so?
A. The mind.
B. Yeah right!

It's just that materialism does not claim that there is no mind, we just differ on the question of what constitutes the mind.

@ A Poster He or I: I will see whether I find the time to read that book, but as of now I cannot see your point. What other option is there besides determinism? Randomness? I know Quantuum effects appear to be random, but the mind is still determined by outside factors, no?

Cronos988,

In the heat & enthusiasm of the moment I used the word "deterministic" in my last post but really should have said "unpredictable." I appologize.

The workings of material components may well be deterministic (I have no opinion on the matter because I find the whole determinism/freedom debate irrelevant). But the net effect at the emergent level is unpredictable even in principle, if we are to believe complexity theory. That's a good enough basis for free will as any, to me.