ooman:


@bold - what is the meaning, purpose and order you speak of in a world where meaning and purpose to life is not inherent.
And there is nothing like order as we understand it in the quantum world, its an unpredictable world. Quantum explains the universe. So read some books ehn.

Your comment is completely out of context.

That which you quoted, does not touch on the revert to gave: nor does it make any statement on the meaning or source of the universe. It does not even state that meaning and purpose are inherent: it states that people would choose meaning and purpose in their lives, over the spectre of a "chance" life and "chance" universe. It does not even state either to be true or false.

And no, quantum does not explain jack, it, so far, further mystifies, rather than explain the universe.

Deep Sight:

Your comment is completely out of context.

That which you quoted, does not touch on the revert to gave: nor does it make any statement on the meaning or source of the universe. It does not even state that meaning and purpose are inherent: it states that people would choose meaning and purpose in their lives, over the spectre of a "chance" life and "chance" universe. It does not even state either to be true or false.

And no, quantum does not explain jack, it, so far, further mystifies, rather than explain the universe.

That which your mind comprehend is little. My post was not to attempt to give meaning to life or explain the universe, rather to tell of the fact that reason and purpose are not inherent to life, and so life does not have a thoughtful beginning.

Quantum theory explains the universe, what we haven't found is the source of the universe, and calm down, that shall be found.

Joshthefirst:
cause/kôz/
Noun:
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
Verb:
Make (something) happen


I believe you see enough to realize that a change of state had to be caused. Non-consciousness cannot give rise to consciousness, even in the smallest degree.

A change of state had to be preceded. e.g what causes a block of ice to melt when left on a table? You'll notice that your answer doesn't require some sort of person doing anything.

Deep Sight:

Why is the idea of a transcendent mind so scary to you?

Anyway, you can ignore that. It's a rhetorical question.

Don't worry, I'll take it seriously. It isn't scary to me, it is simply incoherent to me because minds generally require bodies. Unless you're able to demonstrate a mind without a body, or explain how it can happen, I see no reason to accept that premise.

Deep Sight:
Your position, which you have canvassed extensively on this board, is that the universe as it is "may be the default state" of existence, or "universe-like" objects. You were very happy to ignore the question as to why this is the "default state": to wit: why something, instead of nothing, as the default state. It is instructive that you are willing to countenance this magical proposition, whilst regarding similar magic propounded by religion as delusional and illogical.

You still don't get it. Why should nothing be the default state? I'm actually on better grounds with saying that something is the default state. Especially when you can't demonstrate nothingness.

thehomer:

A change of state had to be preceded. e.g what causes a block of ice to melt when left on a table? You'll notice that your answer doesn't require some sort of person doing anything.

yes, what causes temperature and pressure differences that cause the particles to be further energized? What causes the cause of these differences, and the cause of the cause of this differences? What set this laws and established these effects as natural order? Why are we not in infinite randomness and why are the electric impulses in our brains directed and how are we able to think?
We land at the end of all things, and the beginning of all things; we arrive at the vastness of a creator.

Excuse me.

thehomer:

Don't worry, I'll take it seriously. It isn't scary to me, it is simply incoherent to me because minds generally require bodies. Unless you're able to demonstrate a mind without a body, or explain how it can happen, I see no reason to accept that premise.

Is everything demonstrable? Is everything physical? Is man entirely physical? Is consciousness physical? Can consciousness be proved by your material scientific laws?

thehomer:
You still don't get it. Why should nothing be the default state? I'm actually on better grounds with saying that something is the default state. Especially when you can't demonstrate nothingness.

this is where it starts. Nihilistic thinking I think. We'll start trying to define nothingness as something and something as nothing and end up having headaches.

Deep Sight:

Right.

Following on from this. But before I do, I should make a brief comment on strangeness.

Most people live their lives within a "normalcy" that allows them to be completely oblivious of just how absolutely strange and odd this world, this existence of ours, is. I do not. Although it is a dysfunction of some sort, and troubles me a great deal, I live every day with an acute consciousness of the strangeness of life and of our existence: the strangeness of everything about us. Indeed, the strangeness of our very own lives.

For this is exactly what has happened, as far as we know:

In what appears a stagnant void, existing, for all observable purposes, eternally in the past, a sudden burst of matter and energy occurred. This sudden burst, as far as we know, took place about 14 billion years ago, in terms of our current measurement of time. From a single point of virtually infinite energy, the origin and nature of which is unknown, an expansion of matter and energy proceeded, the size and scale of which is absolutely unfathomable to the human mind. The size of the observable universe (not to speak of the universe, whole) is unbelievable and out of all proportion to that which the human mind can visually grasp or comprehend.

Any person who does not regard this (the sudden blossoming into existence of the universe from the point of a singularity) as a pretty strange thing to occur in a seeming void, will have to be pretty strange himself. But wait, that is only the beginning of the strangeness which I tried to convey in such light words in the intro contained in my OP.

It gets stranger. Within the same universe, there, from chemical interactions, at some point in time, supposedly, something quite special and different emerges. Something different from the dead matter about it - living organisms. These organisms grow and evolve over time. Along the way, plant life emerges, also, conscious, feeling, breathing creatures, animals. Ultimately, mankind come forth - self-conscious, thinking, feeling intelligent beings with a sense of past, present and future, and with such very strange tendencies as art, science, music, philosophy, and even cosmological philosophy, religion, as well as moral and societal codes and laws.

In this interaction, in their societies, they create galaxies of knowledge, of new learning, of ideas without limit. But, as with all other living things about them: notwithstanding the high extent of their minds, the loves and passions of their lives, their extensive pursuits: at some point - they die.

And what does this death mean. That every single man, woman and child walking on this earth, floating around the sun, within the larger universe - will lie motionless in death, and rot away. You, me, everyone.

From the first mystery of the big b.ang, what triggered it, what powered it, why it happened at all, to the mystery of first life, and then on to the mystery of self-conscious intelligent life, and on to the mystery of death, it is all a really, really odd thing that has happened, that is happening, and that continues to happen. The existence of the universe, the existence of life, and the existence of us.

Thus people seek meaning in their lives, for otherwise it is perplexing. The sheer futility of compulsory and unavoidable death, the enigma of it all, is enough to compel man to seek meaning in his life: however it is also sufficient to render man renegade, not caring one way or the other. For if all things end in death, why should man seek any ideal higher than to enjoy himself within this brief stay under the sun.

When the atheist thus preaches to the religionist, asking the religionist to forsake the coagulation of ideas which give him purpose and meaningfulness in his otherwise perplexing existence, the atheist should be ready to offer a purpose and a meaningfulness higher and better, in lieu of the purpose and meaning of the life of the religious.

The atheist would do well to understand that few people would choose the seeming perplexing meaninglessness and randomness of "chance" life, in a "chance" universe, over a meaning, a purpose and an order. Such meaning, purpose and order, the atheist should inculcate into his evangelism, before seeking to deconvert the theist.

An unenviable task, given the strangeness of all things about us, as described above. . . .

Ignoring obvious problems with your post as on mobile. Eg assuming this universe is an atypical one off, ignoring that perhaps it simply couldn't be any other way, assuming we're the only beings on this rock with a sense of time, the implied assertion that consciousness of our sort or any other sort is inherently good/special and thus some magical being would go out of its way to create it etc etc, ignoring these for now, make up your mind. Which god are you talking about?

When we criticise folk, it's usually Yahweh believers and for very good reason. We are not the ones incapable of descerning reality from poor high fantasy. We do not deny gheys rights and toss children out out of homes because of some silly delusions.

So which god are you talking about? If you're talking about your somethingness nothingness do tell how many of us have tried to take that away from you?

If beliefs cause cancer, they need to be pointed out. Very simple. If the core of those beliefs needs to be attacked in order to drive home the point, then it will be done.

If they dont want these attacks, then they should keep them in their pants. I am not going to hold back because it harms ones worldview. One expecting that is rather selfish imo. Think of a muslim bemoaning attacks on his faith because he wouldnt get pedo anymore, or one that simply pretends thetes no problem because he wants to get into heaven.

And if these 'attacks' really bothered one that much i would think their conviction lacking

Joshthefirst: yes. Don't you believe it too?

Not just that I believe, the state and nature of this universe screams that fact to us.

I'm curious. Name three such uncaused things.

texanomaly:

I'm curious. Name three such uncaused things.

I take the creator to be the only uncaused ma'am. I meant that the nature of the universe implies its creator$

Joshthefirst:
cause/kôz/
Noun:
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
Verb:
Make (something) happen


I believe you see enough to realize that a change of state had to be caused. Non-consciousness cannot give rise to consciousness, even in the smallest degree.

Spoken like a true dummy.

Can a sperm that gradually develops into a fully conscious human be said to be conscious?
It only contains protein DNA, which in the final analysis are just unique arrangement of chemicals.

The earth, which you religio-heads see as a non-conscious pile of rock, gives birth to countless conscious living things.
How do you explain that?

Joshthefirst: the creator is uncaused. Or else he is not the creator. Simple logic. Think.

Merry Christmas.

Religious logic , you mean.

Can please explain in simple english the meaning of uncaused, and perhaps help us understand how an uncaused cause must always be the cause of everything that exists.

Joshthefirst: yes, what causes temperature and pressure differences that cause the particles to be further energized? What causes the cause of these differences, and the cause of the cause of this differences? What set this laws and established these effects as natural order? Why are we not in infinite randomness and why are the electric impulses in our brains directed and how are we able to think?
We land at the end of all things, and the beginning of all things; we arrive at the vastness of a creator.

What do you mean when you ask for the cause of different temperature and pressures? Do you think it is someone who is altering temperature?

Sorry but your leap from ice melting to a creator is very suspicious. Would you mind going through the steps for me?

Joshthefirst: Excuse me.


Is everything demonstrable? Is everything physical? Is man entirely physical? Is consciousness physical? Can consciousness be proved by your material scientific laws?

Consciousness is a process that has been labelled.

Consciousness is demonstrable. That is what Descartes demonstrates when he says "I think therefore I am".

Joshthefirst:
this is where it starts. Nihilistic thinking I think. We'll start trying to define nothingness as something and something as nothing and end up having headaches.

I'm not defining something as nothing. If you think nothingness had to exist then we had the universe, then you're the one trying to define nothingness as something.

Joshthefirst: I take the creator to be the only uncaused ma'am. I meant that the nature of the universe implies its creator$

Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

thehomer:

Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

Yeah.

Everything was created , except the creator.

They just don't know how childish and ridiculous that sounds.

thehomer:

You still don't get it. Why should nothing be the default state? I'm actually on better grounds with saying that something is the default state. Especially when you can't demonstrate nothingness.

I do not, and have never stated, that nothingness should be the default state. If anything I have always argued that nothingness by definition is non-existent, and as such no such thing as "nothingness" has ever existed anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Somethingness, is the default state.

What I have always disputed, is the idea that that default somethingness, is matter, because matter is mutable. I think we have discussed this at length several times, and you never absorbed this simple point, and I see no reason to think that you would absorb it now.

However, it just occurs to me that perhaps you can reflect on this simple fact, and perhaps it will assist you in grasping the point - >

What is meant by "default" state in this context, and would it be eternal in the past, and if so, how could "default" be mutable? Is there not a contradiction in saying that a default eternal state, is also mutable?

^^^^
If there is a process that makes nothing into something, or turns non-existence into existence, then that process also must have created the supposed creator.

thehomer:

Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

plaetton:

Yeah.

Everything was created , except the creator.

They just don't know how childish and ridiculous that sounds.

The choices are between a self existent creator and a self existent universe: either way, you cannot escape one thing or the other being self-existent. Thus, self existence, by itself, is not a concept to be mocked: whichever side wins the debate, one thing or the other must be self-existent. This is inescapable.

plaetton: ^^^^
If there is a process that makes nothing into something, or turns non-existence into existence, then that process also must have created the supposed creator.

Ah, but the existence of any "process" already is something. It is not nothing. It would mean that something already exists.

So, no, you still cannot make such a statement.

Deep Sight:

I do not, and have never stated, that nothingness should be the default state. If anything I have always argued that nothingness by definition is none existent, and as such no such thing as "nothingness" has ever existed anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Somethingness, is the default state.

What I have always disputed, is that that default somethingness, could not possibly be matter, because matter is mutable. I think we have discussed this at length several times, and you never absorbed this simple point, and I see no reason to think that you would absorb it now.

However, it just occurs to me that perhaps you can reflect on this simple fact, and perhaps it will assist you in grasping the point - >

What is meant by "default" state in this context, and would it be eternal in the past, and if so, how could "default" be mutable? Is there not a contradiction in saying that a default eternal state, is also mutable?

Why must the default state be immutable?
The fact that matter is mutable makes it the perfect default state.
Matter is always changing, change is the only constant in the universe.
So, there has never been a state where the universe was static, even for a nanosecond.

But why do we go on this circular arguments when we all know that :

1. Energy is the only thing that exists.
2. Energy and matter are inter-convertible. Viola!
3. Therefore, Matter that makes up the universe is simply condensed energy.

Therefore, there are only two issues worth debating here:

1. If you disagree with 1,2, 3 or all
or ,
2. How did or how could self-existent energy come to exists?

This is so simple, yet the problem with people like Deepsight is this little thingy of " Purpose".
His mind cannot get around this idea of impersonal and purposeless pulsating energy as being the source for everything.
He desperately needs purpose and order, a plan.

That is the problem why we have to invent such a laughable oxymoron as an uncaused creator who consciously created and directs the universe.

Deep Sight:

I do not, and have never stated, that nothingness should be the default state. If anything I have always argued that nothingness by definition is none existent, and as such no such thing as "nothingness" has ever existed anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Then why did you say:

Your position, which you have canvassed extensively on this board, is that the universe as it is "may be the default state" of existence, or "universe-like" objects. You were very happy to ignore the question as to why this is the "default state": to wit: why something, instead of nothing, as the default state. It is instructive that you are willing to countenance this magical proposition, whilst regarding similar magic propounded by religion as delusional and illogical.

Deep Sight:
Somethingness, is the default state.

If you accept that somethingness is the default state, then why do you complain when I accept that it is? I said it may be the case. Asking me why when I'm not sure that it is the case to me is just hasty. Also, thinking that you have the answer by fiat doesn't make your answer correct.

Deep Sight:
What I have always disputed, is that that default somethingness, could not possibly be matter, because matter is mutable. I think we have discussed this at length several times, and you never absorbed this simple point, and I see no reason to think that you would absorb it now.

Sorry but your argument doesn't help. Telling me that it can't be matter because matter can change isn't helpful unless you know what actually is the case. After all, matter can change into energy and I've not said that the somethingness has to be matter.

Deep Sight:
However, it just occurs to me that perhaps you can reflect on this simple fact, and perhaps it will assist you in grasping the point - >

What is meant by "default" state in this context, and would it be eternal in the past, and if so, how could "default" be mutable? Is there not a contradiction in saying that a default eternal state, is also mutable?

What do you mean by "eternal in the past"? Is it that this something was before time? If it was, why does it have to be eternal when it changed as time extended? I've not said anything about a default eternal state.

Deep Sight:



The choices are between a self existent creator and a self existent universe: either way, you cannot escape one thing or the other being self-existent. Thus, self existence, by itself, is not a concept to be mocked: whichever side wins the debate, one thing or the other must be self-existent. This is inescapable.

No, the only option is somethingness.

Why should a self existent creator be an acceptable choice? Self existence of a person I think is to be mocked. If you wish to say that this creator isn't a person, then I can start agreeing with you.

plaetton:

Yeah.

Everything was created , except the creator.

They just don't know how childish and ridiculous that sounds.

That I think is why we must keep pointing out that questionable assumption.

plaetton:

Spoken like a true dummy.

Can a sperm that gradually develops into a fully conscious human be said to be conscious?
It only contains protein DNA, which in the final analysis are just unique arrangement of chemicals.

The earth, which you religio-heads see as a non-conscious pile of rock, gives birth to countless conscious living things.
How do you explain that?

Sir, you're destroying your own argument by asking me this question.

And is it the earth that gives birth to life? Using your own premise, why is there no life on rocks similar to our own?

Is it the zygote that "synthesizes" human consciousness? And does the sperm cell not even show its own "life processes" to a certain degree? What is the source of consciousness and life? Non-conscious piles of rock? No.

The answer to your bolded question is the source of life: God(why do you have a problem with this? Can you create consciousness and life? Even in its littlest form? even non-conscious things we cannot make. The scientific community has never been able to make a single grain of sand. The only thing we have forcibly synthesized from enormous energy is subatomic matter and antimatter particles.)


Even if the earth were the source of life and consciousness, what then is the source of non-conscious piles of rock? Energy? Where did the energy come from?

thehomer:

Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

aside from what DS has said, what do you mean by isn't good enough? Do you mean isn't convenient for you? As I have said, someBEING, must have been self-existent, uncaused, that gave rise to the universe we see around us, its not what I like to think, its what is obvious and implied and ascertained from observation of our known world.

thehomer:

No, the only option is somethingness.

That is my position as well. Nothing else can be countenanced.

Why should a self existent creator be an acceptable choice?

For the simple reason that the universe does not disclose itself as self existent:

1. It is mutable

2. It evidentially commenced from a point

As such, it is logical to infer that the universe is not self existent.

Self existence of a person I think is to be mocked. If you wish to say that this creator isn't a person, then I can start agreeing with you.

The creator would not be a person in the sense of being a human person.

thehomer:

What do you mean by "eternal in the past"? Is it that this something was before time? If it was, why does it have to be eternal when it changed as time extended? I've not said anything about a default eternal state.

Really? THEN please tell me what a "default state" means, in terms of our discussions on same?

If it was not always the state (i.e: eternal in the past) then how is it to be said to be the "default state", hmmmm?

If it only became the state of things at a point, then it is hardly "default", no?

This speaks for itself. I think you need to do some thinking both on the substantive issues here, and the words you have deployed in the past - as well as their implications - because it is hair-raising-shocking that you have, all this while, not recognized the implication of "default state" with reference to eternity in the past. Very shocking and discouraging. It would mean we argue while passing ideas on very different wavelengths and it would therefore be no surprise that we never understand one another.

thehomer:

Then why did you say:

If you accept that somethingness is the default state, then why do you complain when I accept that it is?

Because we refer to different "somethings" - as I have explained above, there are logical grounds to hold that that default "something" could not be the universe. If those grounds hold true and consistent, as they do indeed, then we are ineluctably left with a default something which is not material, or of this universe.

When I ask you "why something instead of nothing" - it is because of the logical impossibility and inconsistency of the notion of material self-existent somethings.

Besides, friend, you might really want to take a very deep look into what you mean when you say that matter or energy of this universe just exists - absent cause.

Joshthefirst:
Sir, you're destroying your own argument by asking me this question.

And is it the earth that gives birth to life? Using your own premise, why is there no life on rocks similar to our own?

How do you know there is no life on the billions of other planets in the galaxy?

Joshthefirst:
Is it the zygote that "synthesizes" human consciousness? And does the sperm cell not even show its own "life processes" to a certain degree? What is the source of consciousness and life? Non-conscious piles of rock? No.

The answer to your bolded question is the source of life: God(why do you have a problem with this? Can you create consciousness and life? Even in its littlest form? even non-conscious things we cannot make. The scientific community has never been able to make a single grain of sand. The only thing we have forcibly synthesized from enormous energy is subatomic matter and antimatter particles.)

The fact that we can't do it yet doesn't mean it had to be done by your God. We can't create galaxies yet does that then mean your God did it?

Joshthefirst:
Even if the earth were the source of life and consciousness, what then is the source of non-conscious piles of rock? Energy? Where did the energy come from?

You may want to take a look at the Big Bang theory for up to date information.

Joshthefirst:
aside from what DS has said, what do you mean by isn't good enough? Do you mean isn't convenient for you? As I have said, someBEING, must have been self-existent, uncaused, that gave rise to the universe we see around us, its not what I like to think, its what is obvious and implied and ascertained from observation of our known world.

No, I mean it isn't satisfactory given what we know about people, the universe and other things. If you explain lightning as Zeus throwing thunderbolts while accepting that you're merely asserting that there's a Zeus out there and he happens to throw thunderbolts, then you can see why such an explanation isn't satisfactory given what we currently know.

Since it is so obvious to you, why don't you show me what you've seen that helped you arrive at this conclusion?

Deep Sight:

That is my position as well. Nothing else can be countenanced.

Then why do you keep proposing some other person? Or isn't this creator of yours a person?

Deep Sight:
For the simple reason that the universe does not disclose itself as self existent:

1. It is mutable

2. It evidentially commenced from a point

As such, it is logical to infer that the universe is not self existent.

How does it then follow that a creator person is needed from your premises?

Deep Sight:
The creator would not be a person in the sense of being a human person.

So it would be a person in what sense?

Deep Sight:

Really? THEN please tell me what a "default state" means, in terms of our discussions on same?

A default is a starting state. A default setting can be changed.

Deep Sight:
If it was not always the state (i.e: eternal in the past) then how is it to be said to be the "default state", hmmmm?

It was a starting or preceding state.

Deep Sight:
If it only became the state of things at a point, then it is hardly "default", no?

Actually, it can be. e.g the default state of a newly purchased phone is a state that doesn't have any contacts. Even if during testing, contacts were added and later deleted.

Deep Sight:
This speaks for itself. I think you need to do some thinking both on the substantive issues here, and the words you have deployed in the past - as well as their implications - because it is hair-raising-shocking that you have, all this while, not recognized the implication of "default state" with reference to eternity in the past. Very shocking and discouraging. It would mean we argue while passing ideas on very different wavelengths and it would therefore be no surprise that we never understand one another.

Declaring that I must be or should be shocked does nothing to bolster your argument or your claims. You would need to tell me what I should be shocked about and why is should be shocked about it.

Deep Sight:

Because we refer to different "somethings" - as I have explained above, there are logical grounds to hold that that default "something" could not be the universe. If those grounds hold true and consistent, as they do indeed, then we are ineluctably left with a default something which is not material, or of this universe.

Actually, you've not provided logical grounds, you've only provided assertions. I've not said the default "something" is the universe.

Deep Sight:
When I ask you "why something instead of nothing" - it is because of the logical impossibility and inconsistency of the notion of material self-existent somethings.

So you jump to immaterially existing somethings? As far as language is concerned, an immaterial existing something is an oxymoron.

Deep Sight:
Besides, friend, you might really want to take a very deep look into what you mean when you say that matter or energy of this universe just exists - absent cause.

I've looked deep enough to realize that I would be better off leaving that to experts to figure out.

While I admit I'm learning from the discussion and its intellectually stimulating, these sort of discussions are usually boring.

Make I go bash religion abeg