GENIUS FORUMS

Nat, what you refer to, I term agnosticism. The atheist goes beyond lack of belief and into a position of certitude that denies the existence of mystery: that is, God as we are best able to conceive the concept. And who can deny the mystery of existence other than one who craves the comfort of certainty more than the comfort of the shared unknown?

Agnosticism is a specific form of atheism, in my view. Atheism is anything other than a belief in God. One either believes in a given conception of God or they do not. If they are not sure, they do not have a belief, although they may be open to one should circumstances change.

The difference can be clarified by imagining the proposition "there is a squirrel on your roof." While there might conceivably be a squirrel on your roof, until you have evidence that such is the case, you will probably not form a belief that there is a squirrel on your roof just because someone said there is.

Agnostics simply understand that there is a gap between the causal action we see in the universe and how such causal action commenced/continues.

If someone ever rationally answers this in a satisfying manner, most agnostics will immediately become atheists.

The atheist goes beyond lack of belief and into a position of certitude that denies the existence of mystery: that is, God as we are best able to conceive the concept. And who can deny the mystery of existence other than one who craves the comfort of certainty more than the comfort of the shared unknown?

What I completely deny the existance of is nothingness anywhere within (or illogically outside) the totality. It is simply not possible for nothingness to exist because nothingness cannot be caused and has no properties upon which external causality can influence, nor can it influence anything else.

The physical universe neither starts from nor grows into nothingness. Because every part of the universe is dualistic, then the foundation of every part is also dualistic. To step outside this statement is to step outside of logic. To step outside of logic is to be be delusional. People are delusional because truth is not emotionally acceptable to their memories.

Unidian wrote:Agnosticism is a specific form of atheism, in my view. Atheism is anything other than a belief in God.

My view is that atheism is active denial that anything approximating the concept of God exists. Agnosticism is fence-sitting.

Unidian wrote:One either believes in a given conception of God or they do not.

One could believe in multiple conceptions simultaneously - life's paradox reflected in the mind.

Unidian wrote:If they are not sure, they do not have a belief, although they may be open to one should circumstances change.

That is my definition of agnosticism, word-perfect. I would only add that my personal version of agnosticism appropriates the word God to mean "all that is deep about reality that I do not yet understand".

Unidian wrote:The difference can be clarified by imagining the proposition "there is a squirrel on your roof." While there might conceivably be a squirrel on your roof, until you have evidence that such is the case, you will probably not form a belief that there is a squirrel on your roof just because someone said there is.

If I appropriate the phrase "there might be a squirrel on my roof" as a metaphor pointing to "there is a mystery to my house" then I can meaningfully use it without need to consider evidence (assuming that I do in fact perceive a residential mystery). This is not to dismiss your point, but to add to it.

If they are not sure, they do not have a belief, although they may be open to one should circumstances change.

That is my definition of agnosticism, word-perfect. I would only add that my personal version of agnosticism appropriates the word God to mean "all that is deep about reality that I do not yet understand".

Yes because agnostics will change change to beleive in a Christian creator type god. They are far more open to the no-god scenario than the gods believed in by 80% of the human-animal population.

I'm a total athesist when it comes to any description of god. It is simply not logically possible for a god to form before space and time exist. Any form of being God must have evolved, so it is just a Being regardless of what powers it may be able to utilise. I also now regard any panethisistic type god as not a being that could possibly have had the plethora of properties required for any form of judgement, let alone creation, so therefore the Totality shoudl never be refererred to as a God.

Jamesh wrote:Because every part of the universe is dualistic, then the foundation of every part is also dualistic. To step outside this statement is to step outside of logic.

Logic is a useful power of expression used by (at least human) conscious life within the universe. That is not to say that it is necessarily the means by which we find ultimate realisation/insight on the universe, if such a thing is even possible. It might be that ultimate realisation has the nature of what in our current logical expression we would term contradiction. We might need to evolve new systems of reasoning before we are capable of realising and expressing the deeper meaning in life. I have no idea what form those systems might take except to draw inspiration from the concept of "doublethink" in George Orwell's 1984.

Jamesh wrote:I'm a total athesist when it comes to any description of god.

I wouldn't say that. You conceive of the possibility of an evolved/evolving God and therefore you are not denying the possibility of a God. Denying the possibility of God is to me the fundamental nature of the atheist. I would describe you as agnostic, like me.

Jamesh wrote:I also now regard any panethisistic type god as not a being that could possibly have had the plethora of properties required for any form of judgement, let alone creation, so therefore the Totality shoudl never be refererred to as a God.

Yes, the version of God preached by the totalitarianists (pantheists) is too restrictively materialistic to fit my definition too.

I wouldn't say that. You conceive of the possibility of an evolved/evolving God and therefore you are not denying the possibility of a God. Denying the possibility of God is to me the fundamental nature of the atheist. I would describe you as agnostic, like me.

No I am completely denying the possibility of any God that can create something from nothing or exist permanently. My point there was to say that any evolved God is just a being, and thus of no importance to us who are clearly on our own evolutionary path.

Yes, the version of God preached by the totalitarianists (pantheists) is too restrictively materialistic to fit my definition too.

Well, I’m a hard core materialist. I do not believe anything can exist without being just a facet or one of many outcomes of some physical entity. (though when I say "physcial entity" I mean the set of causal patterns existant in a particular spatial territory - there is no actual physicalness, just cuasal power).

Jamesh wrote:No I am completely denying the possibility of any God that can create something from nothing or exist permanently.
[...]
I’m a hard core materialist. I do not believe anything can exist without being just a facet or one of many outcomes of some physical entity.

At some point we reach the paradox of something from nothing. Why deny the possibility that the point rests in God rather than materialism?

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, I think we need to establish your criteria for "satisfactory" here, Laird. What constitutes a satisfactory answer for you?

Something that gives me an aha moment of the type that in itself explains why further aha moments are neither necessary nor possible.

In other words, an answer which provides no further need for learning. Ok. Agreed.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, I think we need to establish your criteria for "satisfactory" here, Laird. What constitutes a satisfactory answer for you?

Something that gives me an aha moment of the type that in itself explains why further aha moments are neither necessary nor possible.

In other words, an answer which provides no further need for learning. Ok. Agreed.

I'm tempted to simply ask "You have arrived at such an insight?" (please consider it asked) but I'm uncomfortable enough with the word "need" to add the following: I don't think that learning is necessarily a means to an end, but that it might be an end in itself. That is to say that there is creation and there is awareness of creative results; the process of gaining that awareness is learning, but since creative possibilities might be unlimited, so might learning be. It might be that we learn simply so that we can evolve and share our powers of creative expressivity.

Well, I don't really disagree with any of that, except that you're mixing contexts. In an empirical sense, the learning process and therefore imagination and creativity are only limited by the natural limits of human consciousness (whatever they might actually be). But we're not really talking about that, or, at least, I'm not. When it comes to fundamental issues regarding the nature of existence, learning ceases when certain questions are resolved, in the same sense that if you don't know what Sydney is and you happen to learn that it's somewhere you pass by on your way to Brisbane, then there's nothing left to learn.

You'll have to try and discern my point through that attempt at parochial humour.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, I don't really disagree with any of that, except that you're mixing contexts. In an empirical sense, the learning process and therefore imagination and creativity are only limited by the natural limits of human consciousness (whatever they might actually be). But we're not really talking about that, or, at least, I'm not.

What I would like to believe that we are talking about is what might be learnt not just by humans but by the products or branches of our own evolution, assuming that we have not somehow permanently stalled that process through our technological comforts.

Dan Rowden wrote:When it comes to fundamental issues regarding the nature of existence, learning ceases when certain questions are resolved, in the same sense that if you don't know what Sydney is and you happen to learn that it's somewhere you pass by on your way to Brisbane, then there's nothing left to learn.

How about learning that one of the most sublime experiences in Sydney is the night-time ferry trip between Circular Quay and Manly, standing beside the railing on the stern of the ship as a cutting wind sharpens your perception of the myriad fairy-lights of the harbour's residences emerging above the inky blackness of the leathery water?

Laird,

"I exist". Is that not the most unimaginably incredible, inscrutably incomprehensible, stupendously paradoxical and mind-bogglingly impossible statement that can be expressed? The theory of relativity has some awesome wow factor to it, but it's not even in the same league as this humble profundity. Who truly expects to be able to comprehend it? In my life I have not come close and totality knows (at least Kev does) that I'm open to the possibility. Do we sometimes forget how to marvel? Isn't part of the point of life to be wandering around with our figurative jaws wide open in awestruck joy at the whole how-in-the-heaven-ness of it all, even whilst we partake of practicality?

I proclaim on the contrary that totalitarianism does not meaningfully and to my satisfaction answer the question: "how is it that anything exists at all?"

I understand your marvel and sense of awe about the fact that things exist at all, but it is important to explore how these feelings are generated. At root, they are generated by a subconscious belief that nothingness should somehow be the proper state of affairs, that nothingness is somehow intrinsically more real than somethingness. If there was only nothingness, says this subconscious belief, then there would be nothing to explain. But since there is not nothingness, but rather somethingness, then suddenly there is a "mystery" which needs explaining.

From a strictly logical point of view, nothingness is no more real than somethingness. They are both equally real. Furthermore, Reality can only consist of one or the other. There is no other alternative. It just happens to consist of somethingness.

The somethingness which comprises Reality extends back forever, so it is no use asking where it came from or how it got here. Those questions are meaningless. Reality is simply what it is, and always has been.

To understand this point properly, it helps to see that the present moment is essentially identical to every previous moment stretching back into the beginningless past, and that what you and I are staring at each moment is essentially identical to staring at the very first moment of creation. Except that there has never been a first moment of creation. In other words, this moment and the beginningless past are the same. There is no "before".

-

David Quinn wrote:I understand your marvel and sense of awe about the fact that things exist at all, but it is important to explore how these feelings are generated. At root, they are generated by a subconscious belief that nothingness should somehow be the proper state of affairs, that nothingness is somehow intrinsically more real than somethingness. If there was only nothingness, says this subconscious belief, then there would be nothing to explain. But since there is not nothingness, but rather somethingness, then suddenly there is a "mystery" which needs explaining.

Thank you David, that was an interesting perspective that I had not yet considered.

Now, to be brutally honest and begging your forgiveness for wildly stripping your sentences:

David Quinn wrote:It just happens
[...]
Reality is simply what it is

This is the essence that I have come to understand of the totalitarian perspective: "things just are - get over it; stop asking." From my perspective you seem to be denying that it is possible to draw sustenance from the well of mystery, so to speak. And there is sustenance to be drawn and you and I, and I suspect every participant on this forum, does so - every philosophical wondering takes a morsel from God's bounty and those aha moments that we so earnestly crave are a heavenly feast.

David Quinn wrote:In other words, this moment and the beginningless past are the same. There is no "before".

So then do you conceive of time as an illusion where change operates in the eternal instant? That's the best that I can make of what you seem to be saying; unfortunately it still doesn't make much sense to me: whether time is an illusion or "absolutely true", we experience it.

Laird wrote:I defined "thing" as "a coherent proportion of existence"

Since the Totality is without limit, by definition, this means it is infinite. How "coherent" is, say, 10% of infinity?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:I defined "thing" as "a coherent proportion of existence"

Since the Totality is without limit, by definition, this means it is infinite. How "coherent" is, say, 10% of infinity?

Perhaps "proportion" is not expressive enough of my intentions. I would like to propose that we substitute "part" however I seem to recall that you and I likewise found a lack of expressivity in that word. Other possibilities are "amount" or "portion". I hope that one of these words effectively conveys my meaning to you.

You can't have a "part" or "portion" that is the whole - by definition.

Kevin Solway wrote:You can't have a "part" or "portion" that is the whole - by definition.

Ah yes, that was the expressive deficiency that we found.

I'd like you to imagine that you can. Perhaps one of these synonyms from dictionary.com will convey the concept: ration, allotment, quota, lot, dividend. What I'm trying to convey is the sense of a part that extends in the limit (as can be spoken of in calculus) to the whole, even when that whole is infinite.

Laird,

DQ: It just happens
[...]
Reality is simply what it is

Laird: This is the essence that I have come to understand of the totalitarian perspective: "things just are - get over it; stop asking." From my perspective you seem to be denying that it is possible to draw sustenance from the well of mystery, so to speak.

Firstly, before I address anything else, I object to your use of the word "totalitarian" to describe my perspective. It carries negative connotations and is unnecessarily insulting. It makes the process of pursuing reason and truth sound as though it were a Borg-like activity, which couldn't be further from the case. It also makes you sound a bit paranoid.

Now, when I said that "Reality is simply what it is", I was saying it in the context of another point, which was that Reality has no origin and therefore trying to discover how it originated (which is essentially what you mean by, "Why is there something rather than nothing?") will always be a meaningless, fruitless activity. Note that I wasn't asking you to accept something simply on face value. Rather, I was trying to prompt you into recognizing the irrationality of the question you were asking. There is a difference.

As for mystery, I personally consider being conscious of the nature of Reality to be far more interesting and awe-inspiring than wallowing in "mystery" - particularly contrived mysteries that deluded minds artificially create for themselves, such as those mentioned on this thread.

Ideally, the experience of mystery should act as a spur to deepen one's perspective and gain realization, to stimulate the mind into further rational investigation. Simply wallowing in it for its own sake only serves to turn it into a form of entertainment, rather like having a passive drug-experience.

DQ: In other words, this moment and the beginningless past are the same. There is no "before".

Laird: So then do you conceive of time as an illusion where change operates in the eternal instant? That's the best that I can make of what you seem to be saying; unfortunately it still doesn't make much sense to me: whether time is an illusion or "absolutely true", we experience it.

I'm saying that questions like, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "How did Reality come into being?", are misguided because they do not take into account that all of time is contained within Reality itself. There is no "before" or "after" outside of Reality.

-

Laird,

What I'm trying to convey is the sense of a part that extends in the limit (as can be spoken of in calculus) to the whole, even when that whole is infinite.

I have no idea what you are trying to say or prove. You're mangling the language in order to make your point, which makes it difficult for others to follow your line of thought.

How can something be a part of the whole and the whole at the same time, given that the word "part" is defined to be less than the whole? You brought up the example of a part that comprises 100% of the whole. But a part that is 100% of the whole can no longer be described as a "part", given the definition above. This means that a thing cannot be both at the same time.

If you want to think otherwise, then what's an example?

-

David Quinn wrote:Firstly, before I address anything else, I object to your use of the word "totalitarian" to describe my perspective.

What would you rather your perspective be denoted as?

David Quinn wrote:I was trying to prompt you into recognizing the irrationality of the question you were asking.

You charge irrationality, I charge paradox. Who is right? And how can we know? Is it not a matter of interpretation that we improve as insight affords us opportunity?

David Quinn wrote:As for mystery, I personally consider being conscious of the nature of Reality to be far more interesting and awe-inspiring than wallowing in "mystery" - particularly contrived mysteries that deluded minds artificially create for themselves, such as those mentioned on this thread.

Your position seems to be "it is as it is". My response is "there is more to it than that: how is it that it is?" Your counter is "the question is meaningless". I retort "it has meaning to my honestly seeking mind". We reach an impasse.

David Quinn wrote:Ideally, the experience of mystery should act as a spur to deepen one's perspective and gain realization, to stimulate the mind into further rational investigation. Simply wallowing in it for its own sake only serves to turn it into a form of entertainment, rather like having a passive drug-experience.

Is not the point of stimulation and investigation to improve one's capacity for pleasure and for stimulating pleasure in others? Do you find something objectionable in a passive experience that brings pleasure? If so, then what?

David Quinn wrote: DQ: In other words, this moment and the beginningless past are the same. There is no "before".

Laird: So then do you conceive of time as an illusion where change operates in the eternal instant? That's the best that I can make of what you seem to be saying; unfortunately it still doesn't make much sense to me: whether time is an illusion or "absolutely true", we experience it.

I'm saying that questions like, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "How did Reality come into being?", are misguided because they do not take into account that all of time is contained within Reality itself. There is no "before" or "after" outside of Reality.

You seemed to be making a more specific comment on the nature of time and momentariness which is a topic that interests me. What do you make of the current scientific model that posits a beginning of time? How do you conceive of causality outside of time?

David Quinn wrote:Laird,

What I'm trying to convey is the sense of a part that extends in the limit (as can be spoken of in calculus) to the whole, even when that whole is infinite.

I have no idea what you are trying to say or prove.

David, as I wrote in my original post, I'm trying to express paradox. How is it that anything can be, where that anything might be everything?

David Quinn wrote:How can something be a part of the whole and the whole at the same time, given that the word "part" is defined to be less than the whole?
[...]
If you want to think otherwise, then what's an example?

I think that I can best express it by allusion to set theory. Let me describe a thing as being akin to a cohesive set of reality. A set can include infinity.

This thread has, however, become focussed on what I had hoped would be incidental. To reassert my original topic for this thread in the hope of provoking a response: what are the likely implications of life's absolute truths - whatever you hold them to be - for your behaviour?

Kevin & David,

If a man can be a woman and a female can be a man, why can't 100% be a serving size?
.

2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it.
3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.

thing

Attachment to a particular definition is in contrast to what you have previously proposed. Stating that the Infinite is not a thing is a good pointer, but equally true or false to saying it is a thing. Actually, it is neither a thing nor not a thing.

I don't think that haggling over a definition of "thing" is crucial to Laird to understanding the point.
.