The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

[Jason]

Yeah, plenty of things matter to me.

On the assumption you value your life and limb, I would've thought pain was an excellent indictor of reality....+ we use our senses+reason to know reality.....there's no other method.

Do you believe there can be pain in dreams?

[maestro]

I think Henri boy you are weak on logic, Instead of pointing out any hole in my A=A presentation, you resort to an Ad Hominem.

[Sapius]

Diebert,

Sapius, that's not really different from what I wrote. But the way you write about 'doubting consciousness' makes me feel you don't get my drift completely. It's not about "trusting" some reality the be "the most logically consistent". It's one step up: the awareness of trust, doubt and our process of inquiry constitutes the depth of experience and how much of a 'realist' we actually are.

I understand the perspective you are talking from, but however, that too has to remain logically consistent itself; and one has to trust in what one is “aware” of to begin with, for that is what constitutes ‘awareness’ itself, on which our reasoning is based on. Reasoning of A=A for example.

So to drive the point home: like a dream at nighttime works with the residue of experiences during the daytime, in a similar way is what some would describe as 'objective reality' just another type of residue but one we experience more deeper, more conscious than the residue at nighttime. During what is called lucid dreaming however we can easily demonstrate for ourselves how dreams can turn 'real' just by turning up the degree of consciousness. The same is available during our waking hours.

May be, but yet, when lucid dreaming I face terrible dangers, and since I am aware of it being a dream, I walk through them with out any harm. More than 90% of the time I’m aware that I am dreaming, as compared to… you know what. A heightened sense of awareness within wakefulness remains but conceptual in nature, that is, psychologically subjective, which does not have as much control over the environment as one experiences during it. In a dream, I have to but wish to fly and float away. Otherwise, I have to build a plane or some "flying" equipment.

To summarize and re-iterate: the reality principle is the degree of consciousness, therefore we can say that reality is not 'inside' our consciousness but nevertheless all reality takes form through consciousness, to various degrees.

I agree, but that does not mean that any degree of consciousness is NOT REALITY (Existence) itself.

Leaving what's out there to be real, unreal and neither at the same time.

Now this is what I can’t digest; neither this nor that does not seem consistent to me, and sounds meaningless, for in that one is denying the fundamental nature of consciousness itself, which is differentiation. A thing is exactly that which any consciousness experiences according to the various degrees that it is relatively conscious of. I believe, that what is out there AND what is in here is equally real at the most fundamental level since they are interdependent, giving rise to each other in the most fundamentally dynamic manner, which I would call existence, for one cannot be without the other. And I do not see this differentiation of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ as literally empirical and non-empirical, for that too is a ‘consciousness’ based differentiation, which is the fundamental basis of consciousness itself. Denying differentiation is denying consciousness in my books.

Further more, saying it is ‘neither this nor that’, is as against the DIFFERENCE of saying, ‘this is this, and that is that’. Same as saying 'all things are things', as against "totality" is not a thing'. Even in this, a conscious differentiation has to be maintained; otherwise either would not have any real meaning at all.

BTW, I do not consider anything “outside” of consciousness itself, or that someone could possibly step “outside” of consciousness and yet experience, but your's and mine are not one and the same thing; one should keep the ‘various degrees’ of consciousness in mind for not one is like any other, and I believe that there is no thing in and off existence, that is not interdependent on what consciousness is, as against what it is not. But saying that there isn’t an ‘outside’ and ‘inside’, is what is illogical in my opinion; and to say the least, it is but a poetical expression that I too may at times feel a need to express or feel, but I wouldn’t really pay much literal attention to, actually.

[DavidHenry]

DavidHenry,

You wrote:

I consider the universe as eternal......and we pop up later and use our consciousness to perceive and eventually know* reality, IOW, it's not one big ole dream state.*this means high level knowledge, not just bumping into trees.

Maestro's presentation of A=A challenges your idea.


What were you expecting - that your ideas would lie completely unacknowledged? This is a forum. Your thinking will be challenged.


For example, what do you mean by "eternal universe"? And - What is the "reality" that we "eventually know"?

Are you another dickhead Sue?.....do you know something about maestro that I don't?

Eternal universe means that the universe has always existed regardless of its dynamic form......and every other viewpoint will suffer a logical fallacy.
We use science and reason to know reality, so whatever we know or will eventually know about reality will be down to our use of science and reason, but not mysticism or any religious nutjob style insights.

A=A is a basic metaphysical fact.....it asserts that existence exists and that aspects of existence have identity.

[brokenhead]

Eternal universe means that the universe has always existed regardless of its dynamic form......and every other viewpoint will suffer a logical fallacy.
We use science and reason to know reality, so whatever we know or will eventually know about reality will be down to our use of science and reason, but not mysticism or any religious nutjob style insights.

The most current scientific reasoning, as exists in the rather recent branch of physics known as cosmology (modern cosmology dates back to the 1960's), says the universe is NOT eternal, but rather time AND space began together some 15 billion years ago. This is due to neither space nor time being an absolute, being a thing, but rather spacetime appears to be just so.

[Sum Contrapositum]

Eternal universe means that the universe has always existed regardless of its dynamic form......and every other viewpoint will suffer a logical fallacy.
We use science and reason to know reality, so whatever we know or will eventually know about reality will be down to our use of science and reason, but not mysticism or any religious nutjob style insights.

The most current scientific reasoning, as exists in the rather recent branch of physics known as cosmology (modern cosmology dates back to the 1960's), says the universe is NOT eternal, but rather time AND space began together some 15 billion years ago. This is due to neither space nor time being an absolute, being a thing, but rather spacetime appears to be just so.

About time somebody speaks my language. However, allow me to be the antagonist here. "The most current scientific reasoning," (brokenhead) in reference to your generalization of cosmology, is inaccurate. The theory you are referring to is more specifically "Big Bang Cosmology".

In fact there are multiple cosmological theories. The one I believe you are referencing (Big Bang Cosmology) premise's that the universe is a solution to the field equations of general relativity and that it emerged as a rapidly expanding mote of pure energy/space about 13.7 billion years ago. This is indeed a popular theory, and as you say, it claims the universe is not eternal.

There is also "Quasi Steady State Cosmology." This theory also premise's that the universe is a solution to the field equations of general relativity. However in this theory the universe has cyclical periods of expansion and is of indeterminate age and size. Matter is continuously created as either a by-product of, or driving force behind, universal expansion. New matter accumulates into stars and galaxies, expanding outward under the influence of antigravitational potential.

Another theory is "Plasma Cosmology." The premise here is that the universe is governed by electromagnetism, not gravitation. It is infinitely large and expanding. Its expansion is caused by a universal interaction between matter and antimatter. Interestingly, electrical currents define the universe's large-scale structures because plasma interactions cause the formation of stars, galaxies, and superclusters --the internal motion of galaxies is more in keeping with electromagnetic force than gravitation.

A more original theory is called "Machian Cosmology." In this cosmology the universe is arbitrarily large and not expanding. Matter is continuously created in areas of high density and its elementary character changes over time (which explains the redshift that other theories use to show expansion). At a certain age matter becomes unstable and disintegrates.

However the theory that I most wanted to bring to the table was published only last year (2007). It would be insufficient to call this a cosmology, though it explains everything a cosmology would, as it is bigger than that. This theory is known as "Null Physics".

Null Physics essentially agrees with what DavidHenry said about the universe being eternal. Null Physics also includes much more philosophy into its realms than do the other cosmological theories, at the same time claiming to address the foundation of reality logically, rationally, empirically, and completely. It not only seeks the "how?" behind reality but it seeks the "why?" Which is the reason I suggested its founder, Terence Witt, to be a guest on The Reasoning Show.

Its basic premise is that existence stems from and is a consequence of nonexistence.

[DavidHenry]

Eternal universe means that the universe has always existed regardless of its dynamic form......and every other viewpoint will suffer a logical fallacy.
We use science and reason to know reality, so whatever we know or will eventually know about reality will be down to our use of science and reason, but not mysticism or any religious nutjob style insights.

The most current scientific reasoning, as exists in the rather recent branch of physics known as cosmology (modern cosmology dates back to the 1960's), says the universe is NOT eternal, but rather time AND space began together some 15 billion years ago. This is due to neither space nor time being an absolute, being a thing, but rather spacetime appears to be just so.

As Sum Contra just pointed out, the Big Bang is one of many theories, all of which are wrong, and all of which are religious/mystical.
There's no evidence of God, so he's out+ something can't come from nothing, so existence from non-existence is also out.....IOW, all we can logically say about the universe is it must have always existed.

Is it just me.....or are some of the people at this forum a bit slow......I expected better from "The Genius forum", yet I'm confronted by stale and illogical thinking at nearly every turn.....I actually get the feeling that some of you are just disgruntled and opinionated,.....but most of you don't sound like real philosophers{people who take knowledge and logic seriously}.

[Dan Rowden]

I think people are just trying to flesh out your perspective. I suggest you back off with the insults. Anyway, the point about the infinite nature of the universe being the only logical option is one I find perfectly sound, but why do you assert that all the aforementioned cosmological models are wrong and of a religious nature? Big Bang, yeah, get that one, but why all of them?

[DavidHenry]

I think people are just trying to flesh out your perspective. I suggest you back off with the insults. Anyway, the point about the infinite nature of the universe being the only logical option is one I find perfectly sound, but why do you assert that all the aforementioned cosmological models are wrong and of a religious nature? Big Bang, yeah, get that one, but why all of them?

I haven't been to rude to anyone who hasn't deserved it, and I wasn't suggesting everyone at the forum is stoopid, but I'm here for serious discussions with serious individuals, not children trying to prove they're a genius by being aloof and ambiguous+ I like to know who I'm dealing with, and my confrontational attitude will flush out the "turds".
I hold the view that if all smartasses got a smack upside the head, we'd see a very polite society around us, LOL.

All the cosmological models are religious/mystical/magical as they either assert that God did it, or something can come from nothing.....neither of these two options is logical or possible, so that leaves us with no choice but to deal with the basic fact that existence exists, and it must have always existed if God didn't do it and something can't come from nothing, ie, I don't contradict myself when I make that assertion regardless of how many people will try and refute it with magical theories.

[Dan Rowden]

I think people are just trying to flesh out your perspective. I suggest you back off with the insults. Anyway, the point about the infinite nature of the universe being the only logical option is one I find perfectly sound, but why do you assert that all the aforementioned cosmological models are wrong and of a religious nature? Big Bang, yeah, get that one, but why all of them?

I haven't been to rude to anyone who hasn't deserved it,

Nice piece of ethical bootstrapping.

and I wasn't suggesting everyone at the forum is stoopid, but I'm here for serious discussions with serious individuals, not children trying to prove they're a genius by being aloof and ambiguous+ I like to know who I'm dealing with, and my confrontational attitude will flush out the "turds". I hold the view that if all smartasses got a smack upside the head, we'd see a very polite society around us, LOL.

Fine; I hope you're wearing a helmet.

All the cosmological models are religious/mystical/magical as they either assert that God did it, or something can come from nothing.....neither of these two options is logical or possible,

I can agree with that, but I can't agree that all cosmological models assert any such thing. The cosmology of Paul Marmet certainly didn't, for example (something of a variation of Plasma Physics). Perhaps we can simply say that any cosmology that requires a finite universe or a created one is logically unsound.

[maestro]

Despite all his chest beating DH is a bit dim, for he could not see my transparent lampooning of philosophy with A=A, even when I explicitly told him so (and a couple of posts above informed Sapius about my disagreement with the idea). What was even more hilarious was that Sue thought I was serious.

[DavidHenry]

I think people are just trying to flesh out your perspective. I suggest you back off with the insults. Anyway, the point about the infinite nature of the universe being the only logical option is one I find perfectly sound, but why do you assert that all the aforementioned cosmological models are wrong and of a religious nature? Big Bang, yeah, get that one, but why all of them?

I haven't been to rude to anyone who hasn't deserved it,

Nice piece of ethical bootstrapping.

You're a "turn the other cheek" man...?

[Dan Rowden]

No, I just thought your response was the equivalent of an assassin justifying themselves with, "I only ever killed people who deserved it".

[DavidHenry]

Perhaps we can simply say that any cosmology that requires a finite universe or a created one is logically unsound.

We can say this with absolute certainty.

[DavidHenry]

No, I just thought your response was the equivalent of an assassin justifying themselves with, "I only ever killed people who deserved it".

I don't know what maestro's up to, but he seems more interested in a good time, like when you go out to a night club and thrill seek the night away.

[brokenhead]

Perhaps we can simply say that any cosmology that requires a finite universe or a created one is logically unsound.

We can say this with absolute certainty.

No, you can say it with absolute certainty. Maybe you just do not grasp the reality of spacetime. This is normal, But if you are exposed to the math of general relativity and some of the consequences of the theory, you might think quite differently.

Physics does not need to become metaphysics for any reason. You do not have to believe in any kind of creation to understand the hard science behind the Big Bang. Neither space nor time are absolute (there are no "fixed stars" against which motion, either steady or accelerated - is measured, as Newton believed.) Rather, spacetime is absolute.

Physics cannot prove the Big Bang occurred. But it can verify that the equations which "predict" the BB are correct. The BB theory is a product of solving Einstein's General Rlativity equations, invoking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and measuring the uniform background radiation in the universe.

[brokenhead]

What was even more hilarious was that Sue thought I was serious.

Sue always seems serious.

[brokenhead]

All the cosmological models are religious/mystical/magical as they either assert that God did it, or something can come from nothing.....neither of these two options is logical or possible

Tough shit if it rankles you, DH, but many intelligent and serious thinkers - myself included - disagree with this assertion. Which is not to say anyone has proven - or even can prove - a Deity exists.

[DavidHenry]

All the cosmological models are religious/mystical/magical as they either assert that God did it, or something can come from nothing.....neither of these two options is logical or possible

Tough shit if it rankles you, DH, but many intelligent and serious thinkers - myself included - disagree with this assertion. Which is not to say anyone has proven - or even can prove - a Deity exists.

Give me a single piece of evidence that God as typically defined exists?
It'll be "tough shit" when you come up empty.

[JustinZijlstra]

*Laugh*

If all what one understands is 'empty'.
No words are needed.

Thus god cannot be thought about.


--
"A Journey to Hell" by Flaubert, Gustave (2 pages or so)

Could not find it in english on the web that quick.

Anyone?
--

The Theologian's Nightmare

by Bertrand Russell

from Fact and Fiction, 1961

The eminent theologian Dr. Thaddeus dreamt that he died and pursued
his course toward heaven. His studies had prepared him and he had no
difficulty in finding the way. He knocked at the door of heaven, and
was met with a closer scrutiny than he expected. "I ask admission,"
he said, "because I was a good man and devoted my life to the glory
of God." "Man?" said the janitor, "What is that? And how could such a
funny creature as you do anything to promote the glory of God?" Dr.
Thaddeus was astonished. "You surely cannot be ignorant of man. You
must be aware that man is the supreme work of the Creator." "As to
that," said the janitor, "I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but what
you're saying is news to me. I doubt if anybody up here has ever
heard of this thing you call 'man.' However, since you seem
distressed, you shall have a chance of consulting our librarian."

The librarian, a globular being with a thousand eyes and one mouth,
bent some of his eyes upon Dr. Thaddeus. "What is this?" he asked the
janitor. "This," replied the janitor, "says that it is a member of a
species called 'man,' which lives in a place called 'Earth.' It has
some odd notion that the Creator takes a special interest in this
place and this species. I thought perhaps you could enlighten
it." "Well," said the librarian kindly to the theologian, "perhaps
you can tall me where this place is that you call 'Earth.'" "Oh,"
said the theologian, "it's part of the Solar System." "And what is
the Solar System?" asked the librarian. "Oh," said the theologian,
somewhat disconcerted, "my province was Sacred Knowledge, but the
question that you are asking belongs to profane knowledge. However, I
have learnt enough from my astronomical friends to be able to tell
you that the Solar System is part of the Milky Way." "And what is the
Milky Way?" asked the librarian. "Oh, the Milky Way is one of the
Galaxies, of which, I am told, there are some hundred
million." "Well, well," said the librarian, "you could hardly expect
me to remember one out of so many. But I do remember to have heard
the word galaxy' before. In fact, I believe that one of our sub-
librarians specializes in galaxies. Let us send for him and see
whether he can help."

After no very long time, the galactic sub-librarian made his
appearance. In shape, he was a dodecahedron. It was clear that at one
time his surface had been bright, but the dust of the shelves had
rendered him dim and opaque. The librarian explained to him that Dr.
Thaddeus, in endeavoring to account for his origin, had mentioned
galaxies, and it was hoped that information could be obtained from
the galactic section of the library. "Well," said the sub-librarian,
"I suppose it might become possible in time, but as there are a
hundred million galaxies, and each has a volume to itself, it takes
some time to find any particular volume. Which is it that this odd
molecule desires?" "It is the one called 'The Milky Way,'" Dr.
Thaddeus falteringly replied. "All right," said the sub- librarian,
"I will find it if I can."

Some three weeks later, he returned, explaining that the
extraordinarily efficient card index in the galactic section of the
library had enabled him to locate the galaxy as number QX 321,762.
"We have employed," he said, "all the five thousand clerks in the
galactic section on this search. Perhaps you would like to see the
clerk who is specially concerned with the galaxy in question?" The
clerk was sent for and turned out to be an octahedron with an eye in
each face and a mouth in one of them. He was surprised and dazed to
find himself in such a glittering region, away from the shadowy limbo
of his shelves. Pulling himself together, he asked, rather shyly,
"What is it you wish to know about my galaxy?" Dr. Thaddeus spoke up:
"What I want is to know about the Solar System, a collection of
heavenly bodies revolving about one of the stars in your galaxy. The
star about which they revolve is called 'the Sun.'" "Humph," said the
librarian of the Milky Way, "it was hard enough to hit upon the right
galaxy, but to hit upon the right star in the galaxy is far more
difficult. I know that there are about three hundred billion stars in
the galaxy, but I have no knowledge, myself, that would distinguish
one of them from another. I believe, however, that at one time a list
of the whole three hundred billion was demanded by the Administration
and that it is still stored in the basement. If you think it worth
while, I will engage special labor from the Other Place to search for
this particular star."

It was agreed that, since the question had arisen and since Dr.
Thaddeus was evidently suffering some distress, this might be the
wisest course.

Several years later, a very weary and dispirited tetrahedron
presented himself before the galactic sub-librarian. "I have," he
said, "at last discovered the particular star concerning which
inquiries have been made, but I am quite at a loss to imagine why it
has aroused any special interest. It closely resembles a great many
other stars in the same galaxy. It is of average size and
temperature, and is surrounded by very much smaller bodies called
'planets.' After minute investigation, I discovered that some, at
least, of these planets have parasites, and I think that this thing
which has been making inquiries must be one of them."

At this point, Dr. Thaddeus burst out in a passionate and indignant
lament: "Why, oh why, did the Creator conceal from us poor
inhabitants of Earth that it was not we who prompted Him to create
the Heavens? Throughout my long life, I have served Him diligently,
believing that He would notice my service and reward me with Eternal
Bliss. And now, it seems that He was not even aware that I existed.
You tell me that I am an infinitesimal animalcule on a tiny body
revolving round an insignificant member of a collection of three
hundred billion stars, which is only one of many millions of such
collections. I cannot bear it, and can no longer adore my
Creator." "Very well," said the janitor, "then you can go to the
Other Place."

Here the theologian awoke. "The power of Satan over our sleeping
imagination is terrifying," he muttered.

[Steven]

All the cosmological models are religious/mystical/magical as they either assert that God did it, or something can come from nothing.....neither of these two options is logical or possible

Tough shit if it rankles you, DH, but many intelligent and serious thinkers - myself included - disagree with this assertion. Which is not to say anyone has proven - or even can prove - a Deity exists.

In your head.

The inability to explain existence is not proof of God.