Creation

Philosophy has made many a man go insane; I feel as if you may become one of them. Just settle down. Further, creation can be supported by science because science has no explanation for the start of the universe (A CREATOR IS THE ONLY ANSWER.) Further, if you are correct, nothing really exist, then. Am I correct? Logic has it's limitations, so do not put all of your faith into it. The human mind is just a tiny grain of sand compared to our earth and even smaller for the grand universe. We can never hope to understand all of these questions.

So why do we perceive? Why do I feel, think, see, and understand? Explain.

Regards

ExPhilosophiae

Hello "EX"

If these questions really are important to you, why don't you find your own answers? There is a football game on television. I might go and watch that. By the way; "EX": you just got promoted to my ignore list. I understand that this iniformation isn't worth much. I just thought that I would let you know.

So why do we perceive?

All 'rationality', all 'logic', all 'meaning' is perceived as thought alone.
For there to be a 'why', you refer to thoughts. Thoughts are perceived uniquely differently by every Perspective.
Whatever 'why' thoughts I might perceive, there are guaranteed perceptions from the 'other side' of this 'thought'.
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
Where it 'all comes together', where all is Truth, the 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum' is that
we perceive!

Why do I feel, think, see, and understand? Explain.

Explain, please?
The 'why' is, truly, whatever you might think that it is! And so for all! The sum-total of all 'why's' is the complete Reality of 'why'!
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
As I see it, we perceive 'thought' just as we perceive 'color' or the night sky.
'Thought' is a real feature of Reality that is perceived from/by/as a multitude of Perspectives (us).
Feelings are 'thoughts' that we perceive (at times).
'Understanding' is a 'feeling' flavored 'thought'.
We perceive the sun, we perceive our dreams...
From Here, it all Is that We Are!
All 'why's' are true! All knowledge is true.
We are One Omni- 'Self!'!
peace

Further, creation can be supported by science because science has no explanation for the start of the universe (A CREATOR IS THE ONLY ANSWER.)

That is incorrect, a fallacy of logic.. (which one escapes me at the moment)
It is illogical to claim that science, or philosophy, supports your claim of giant unicorns spewing the Universe from their anuses, because they cannot explain any other perceived origin.
Just being the only theory, and it isn't, doesn't make it 'correct'.
Thus your assumption that "A CREATOR IS THE ONLY ANSWER" is premature.

Science has found that there can be no 'start', no 'beginning' to/in a synchronous timeless Universe. At least for those who got the 'update'! *__-
From a scientific and philosophical Perspective, your logic errs.
From a religious Perspective, it is impeccable! A whole different context. *__-
It's all True!

See, that is the problem with discussing what seems to be a 'belief' (in 'creationism').
'Beliefs' are inherently self-protecting and procreative/evangelical. Critical thought, philosophy, is not. Critical thought is quite mutable at the slightest valid data. Beliefs circle the wagons, sometimes attempting to mimic 'critical thought'... and the stronger the 'belief', the more that it would do for self-protection, no horror too abominable!
Throwing them both in the same arena usually either ends in the death of the messenger or the retreat of the 'belief'.

So why do we perceive?

All 'rationality', all 'logic', all 'meaning' is perceived as thought alone.
For there to be a 'why', you refer to thoughts. Thoughts are perceived uniquely differently by every Perspective.
Whatever 'why' thoughts I might perceive, there are guaranteed perceptions from the 'other side' of this 'thought'.
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
Where it 'all comes together', where all is Truth, the 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum' is that
we perceive!

Why do I feel, think, see, and understand? Explain.

Explain, please?
The 'why' is, truly, whatever you might think that it is! And so for all! The sum-total of all 'why's' is the complete Reality of 'why'!
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
As I see it, we perceive 'thought' just as we perceive 'color' or the night sky.
'Thought' is a real feature of Reality that is perceived from/by/as a multitude of Perspectives (us).
Feelings are 'thoughts' that we perceive (at times).
'Understanding' is a 'feeling' flavored 'thought'.
We perceive the sun, we perceive our dreams...
From Here, it all Is that We Are!
All 'why's' are true! All knowledge is true.
We are One Omni- 'Self!'!
peace

Further, creation can be supported by science because science has no explanation for the start of the universe (A CREATOR IS THE ONLY ANSWER.)

That is incorrect, a fallacy of logic.. (which one escapes me at the moment)
It is illogical to claim that science, or philosophy, supports your claim of giant unicorns spewing the Universe from their anuses, because they cannot explain any other perceived origin.
Just being the only theory, and it isn't, doesn't make it 'correct'.
Thus your assumption that "A CREATOR IS THE ONLY ANSWER" is premature.

Science has found that there can be no 'start', no 'beginning' to/in a synchronous timeless Universe. At least for those who got the 'update'! *__-
From a scientific and philosophical Perspective, your logic errs.
From a religious Perspective, it is impeccable! A whole different context. *__-
It's all True!

See, that is the problem with discussing what seems to be a 'belief' (in 'creationism').
'Beliefs' are inherently self-protecting and procreative/evangelical. Critical thought, philosophy, is not. Critical thought is quite mutable at the slightest valid data. Beliefs circle the wagons, sometimes attempting to mimic 'critical thought'... and the stronger the 'belief', the more that it would do for self-protection, no horror too abominable!
Throwing them both in the same arena usually either ends in the death of the messenger or the retreat of the 'belief'.

Look: I have things to do so I am not going to try and refute everything you just said. But I might later; so keep an eye on the thread. All I will say for now is that logic is limited to the intelligence of the being and we, as humans, are not that intelligent. I would not put any die-hard faith into logic to describe or find the origins to something so complex as the universe or reality because it is a system that we cannot even try to full understand.

Regards

Hello all; and especially "EX"

I decided to change my mind about ignoring your posts (or at least this one) so I would beg your pardon for being open-minded enough to do that:

Once again, as is my convention; and as I have nothing better to do: I am replying to quoted extracts from your post within the content and context, as I understand it:

All I will say for now is that logic BE: source: wikipedia: Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. is limited to the intelligence BE: "intellectual discipline" as quoted above; although admittedly intellectual discipline is a function of "intelligence". of the being and we, as humans, are not that intelligent. BE: I would respectfully correct this statement with the obvious observation that you as an individual human being are not that "intellectually disciplined". But by logical inference, that does not mean that nobody else is . . . I would not put any die-hard faith BE: Unquestioning, blind faith into logic BE: Of course not: Because there goes the intellectual disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science; for example. to describe or find the origins to something so complex as the universe or reality because it is a system that we cannot even try to full[y] understand. BE: With regards to science and the study of "physics", we can try: We may fail in the attempt to "fully understand" it. But we can still try. Most certainly as function of blind, unquestioning faith we cannot understand physical "reality" or the universe: But by by using the disciplined, intellectual logic . . . . of science, for example: We most certainly, demonstrably engage in the attempt .

So, unless you want to change your mind (after the fact) about what you said as quoted above: Where does that leave us in this conversation . . . .?

Hello all; and especially "EX"

I decided to change my mind about ignoring your posts (or at least this one) so I would beg your pardon for being open-minded enough to do that:

Once again, as is my convention; and as I have nothing better to do: I am replying to quoted extracts from your post within the content and context, as I understand it:

All I will say for now is that logic BE: source: wikipedia: Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. is limited to the intelligence BE: "discipline" as quoted above; although admittedly discipline is a function of "intelligence". of the being and we, as humans, are not that intelligent. BE: I would respectfully correct this statement with the obvious observation that you as an individual human being are not that "disciplined". But by logical inference, that does not mean that nobody else is . . . I would not put any die-hard faith BE: Unquestioning, blind faith into logic BE: Of course not: Because there goes the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science; for example. to describe or find the origins to something so complex as the universe or reality because it is a system that we cannot even try to full[y] understand. BE: With regards to science and the study of "physics", we can try: We may fail in the attempt to "fully understand" it. But we can still try. Most certainly as function of blind, unquestioning faith we cannot understand physical "reality" or the universe: But not by logic . . . . or science, for example.

So, unless you want to change your mind (after the fact) about what you said as quoted above: Where does that leave us in this conversation . . . .?

I mostly agree with you, actually; I have to disagree with the part about my intelligence, though -- but think what you wish.

Hi "EX"

Well, as the proof of the pudding is in the eating . . . . thank you.

Hi "EX"

Well, as the proof of the pudding is in the eating . . . . thank you.

May I ask you something: why do specifically reply to my posts and seldom reply to others (I have seen you reply to others, but not much.)

Hi "EX":

Ummm, a question or two here:

How many posts have I made in this forum?

How many of those posts have been made in direct reply to you?

So, once again: If the question really is important to you: Why don't you find your own answer?

Then we can discuss it's validity, if you like . . . .

So, back to you . . . . and I may choose to continue to ignore you, if I like . . . .

Hi "EX":

Ummm, a question or two here:

How many posts have I made in this forum?

How many of those posts have been made in direct reply to you?

So, once again: If the question really is important to you: Why don't you find your own answer?

Then we can discuss it's validity, if you like . . . .

So, back to you . . . . and I may choose to continue to ignore you, if I like . . . .

Well, to be honest, I do not think I am of the seldom few you addressed: but why do you respond to every post I make with such criticism? Aren't you open to other opinions?

Look: I have things to do so I am not going to try and refute everything you just said.

You imply that you 'could' if you had the time?
Why would you even try to refute everything that I just offered??
First you might try to understand what I am saying. Then, if you have troubles with something, be specific and I will clarify. If I cannot, and your questions are refutals, perhaps I would have to alter or reject the theory.

But I might later; so keep an eye on the thread.

As I said, I'd rather that you understood the truth of what i wrote before attempting to 'falsify' that truth (a dicey matter at best).

All I will say for now is that logic is limited to the intelligence of the being and we, as humans, are not that intelligent. I would not put any die-hard faith into logic to describe or find the origins to something so complex as the universe or reality because it is a system that we cannot even try to full understand.

Claiming that everyone is as unknowing as you are does not 'refute' anything, it is balm for the ego, though.
Saying that my rational (this is a philosophy (critical thought) site, no?) descriptions and definitions, my 'experience', cannot be true because 'philosophy' and Perspective is limited, doesn't even leave a stain on what i have offered. It is an impotent attack, why? It is fallacious to dismiss something because you have put it in a category of that which you can 'dismiss' without expending the energy of 'thought'! Rather like biggotry (or religion), you don't have to actually 'know' people as individuals, so ignorant biggotry remains unthreatened by 'knowledge'.

Perhaps if you actually understood, you might not find yourself automatically arguing, for whatever reason...
It is ALL True!
The trick is to find out how it is True!

It seems to me that your powers of critical thought and understanding what philosophical refutation is, is rather limited, as you say, so get back to me when you are ready to learn something instead. Perhaps we both will!
Win/win

Creationists often say that something as complex as universe, or life on Earth could not happen by accident and therefore must have been created by a higher intelligence called God.
What I do not understand then is: where does this 'God' come from? Did his existence happen by accident, did he come from nowhere or was he also created by even a higher intelligence? God is certainly more complex then the Universe, since he was able to design it, so I am just intrigued why for the creationists, the origins of the Universe and life do require an explanation, while the origins of it's creator do not.

If we would consider the history of the universe Keen and the prevailing scientific theories, the universe and its physical laws have beginning. Beyond this beginning is not subject at all to the Laws of Nature. Time would not apply to it. When do we stand when we evaluate existence? Man exists when the universe had already organized and at least most of the Laws of Nature had been established. We are then evaluating the universe from the standpoint of its later stages. Of course we can still see traces of or peek into the past by the signature energies and their corresponding colors with the use of our powerful instruments, but our standpoint will always be from the present. This is critical.

From the present, our awareness of existence is subject to the Laws of Nature. In the context of the present, we know how a thing exist. For example, we know a chair exist because we evaluate it and it satisfies the criteria of existence. These criteria that we know is subject to, presuppose, or have as an implication the Laws of Nature (at least the Laws of Physics).

So you may see, that our idea of existence follows the Laws of Physics at least. It would be pretty hard to imagine what "rest" beyond the beginning of the universe. If we have a time machine, it would be impossible to go beyond because a requirement for that would be to pass the stage where the laws of physics break down so that time no longer exists, as well as the time machine and us, they should no longer exist.

This point "beyond" (I have used it the beginning for convenience but I hope you understand how it starts to lose meaning as I progress) the beginning of the universe cannot be known in some absolute sense for knowing is dependent on the Laws of Nature. (It seems to me that one of the closest thing to God and to the beginning of the universe is energy, and we can know energy, at least it can be measured; and since energy cannot be created nor destroyed then possibly this would be a physical entity directly related to God, and one cannot go near to God because the energy will consume any material thing, but I would reflect more on these.)

Now in Judeo-Christian theology, God per se, the one who caused or created the universe cannot be known in some absolute sense. Exodus 33:20, it says: But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (So imagine nearer and nearer to God the break down of the Laws of Nature and the manifestation of pure energy that cannot be survived by anything; and so you may sense that moving towards "beyond" the beginning is like approaching a Big Bang) This God, since "It" created the universe is not subject to the Laws of Nature because as I have discussed above, we have at least an idea where the Laws of Nature would be formed if there is a beginning of the universe or if we are from the present traveling to the past, where these Laws would have to break down.

We learned from our standpoint, the present, that things have beginnings and end. Some things are created, some are destroyed and so on. We know these in the stage of the Universe we are in where the Laws of Physics are operative. Would beginnings and end also apply 'beyond' the beginning of the universe? We have an idea that the Laws of Nature does not anymore apply 'beyond'. This beyond is that which without beginning nor end. "It" is that which we cannot know absolutely (in some positive sense of knowing as when we know a chair exists for example) because of our limitation as observers living and following the Laws of Nature in the universe.

So if there is God, should God have a beginning? From the above you may notice that beginning does not apply anymore. That is why God said to Moses at Mt. Sinai: I AM WHO I AM! (Exodus 3:13-15). It is only God that can know "Itself" and it would be impossible for man to know God per se. Man can only know God through manifestations in existence (within the Laws of Nature), like the burning bush, love, righteousness and so on; but remember that the manifestations is not directly the provider of them. The manifestations are interfaces for God's communication to man.

Lastly, existence does not apply to God because of what I have said above, existence is subject to Laws of Nature. God, who originated the universe and thus the Laws of Nature, then is without origin. God is not complex, for complexity is a property of existence, of the universe. Beyond the Laws of Nature, complexity does not exist anymore.

CC,

You speak of God and existence as though they are beyond deifntion and limitation in one sentence and then in another it sounds as though you are saying that there are physics and facts that cannot be ignored.

What are your thoughts on this beyond you speak of? Do you suppose that there are aspects of existence that would be far beyond our comprehension and yet still very real?

Hey Pathfinder:

Watch the bait and switch, or bait and obfuscate game of intellectual hide and seek . . . Some of these guys are really good at it. But hey, you're big boy; I guess you can handle it . . .

CC,

You speak of God and existence as though they are beyond deifntion and limitation in one sentence and then in another it sounds as though you are saying that there are physics and facts that cannot be ignored.

What are your thoughts on this beyond you speak of? Do you suppose that there are aspects of existence that would be far beyond our comprehension and yet still very real?

In my terms Pathfinder, if you would read my discourse and I am expressing my beliefs, do not think of existence when you think of God. In my world, these are two distinct categories. All that pertains to God and used to "describe" God does not mean anything, or should I say does not mean in any positive sense. The positive sense is a meaning we give to those that which exists, like a chair for example. Existence has limits and the 'beyond' I am talking about does not include existence but is more properly attributed to God. Existence has boundaries, God has no boundaries. Observers are at least one class of the boundaries of existence. Pathfinder, existence is partly an emergent property resulting from the interaction of the activity of the nervous system with what is out there. Existence will always involve an observer, not for the reason that man creates it, but for the reason that all information will be filtered through the process of the nervous system. This does not deny what is out there. What is real, Pathfinder? Did you not realize that all that is real partly suggests the activity of the nervous system? No matter how accurate and objective our instruments, all the results will be viewed and interpreted via the nervous system. Real, my friend, is partly constructed.