GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:Every truth requires at least three things: itself, its negation, and the thing experiencing or proclaiming it. In our case, the third thing is Man. I can conceive of a world containing life that does not also contain Man. As such, Man is unnecessary to life.

Yes . . .

So in this world, we have life and Man.

Yes . . .

That truth exists and is perceived by Man

Yes . . . it is perceived by any conscious being.

, indicates another Will as antecedent to both.

Why?

Just because truth can be perceived doesn't mean that we were created by an intelligent creator alien.

Laird: I don't understand this reasoning. Why can a good world not exist with a total absence of evil? Isn't that the traditional conception of heaven?

brokenhead: I think such worlds do exist, and that is the direction our own world is headed.

Many Christians seem to believe that at some point Christ will return to establish such a world. Do you share this belief? Or do you think that we're going to get there through an evolutionary process?

Laird wrote:My proposed solution to this is to drop the notion that God is all-powerful. If we are to consider a Christian-like conception of reality then I propose that a more likely model is a manichaeanistic world, where good and evil forces battle according to pre-existing rules, and where God as the ultimate protagonist of good, and Satan as the ultimate protagonist of evil, are relatively equally powerful. This at least would provide an explanation for suffering: God would detest it yet would not have the power to completely prevent it. This basic scenario could be expanded upon but I won't speculate further unless you're interested.

At best this would only solve the 'problem of evil' argument.

This seems to me what theologians have done for millenia;see a logical problem with the Abrahamic God,remodel 'God' to solve one particular problem and then move on.It's finger in the dyke stuff.

I'm sure in your philosophic travels you've come across the many arguments against Abrahamic God over the years.Do you not find these persuasive?

Laird:

Many Christians seem to believe that at some point Christ will return to establish such a world. Do you share this belief? Or do you think that we're going to get there through an evolutionary process?

Both. Only if Christ returns, it will be to strengthen the process that is already underway.

Again, what I believe is laid out in the Urantia Book better than I could ever do it myself. The plan is evolutionary by design. Christ's presence in person is wholly up to him; he may decide to send someone else at the proper time. The UB spells out the vast multitude of celestial beings created by him; it details who Lucifer, Satan, and the "Dark Prince" were/are. It's not an easy read, but it is nothing if not consistent. It has not been a simple matter for a skeptic like myself to give it the shrift that I have.

Laird wrote:My proposed solution to this is to drop the notion that God is all-powerful. If we are to consider a Christian-like conception of reality then I propose that a more likely model is a manichaeanistic world, where good and evil forces battle according to pre-existing rules, and where God as the ultimate protagonist of good, and Satan as the ultimate protagonist of evil, are relatively equally powerful. This at least would provide an explanation for suffering: God would detest it yet would not have the power to completely prevent it.

If you're going to make-up both a God and his equally powerful foe, the Devil, then you may as well make-up countless other fantasy characters as well, such as spiderman, the tooth-fairy, the virgin Mary, etc.

Ataraxia wrote:At best this would only solve the 'problem of evil' argument.

Would you be so kind as to outline what you see as the other problems?

Ataraxia wrote:I'm sure in your philosophic travels you've come across the many arguments against Abrahamic God over the years.Do you not find these persuasive?

I can think of two main arguments that I've come across that I can readily recall and that I find reasonably persuasive. The first one is the problem of infinite regress: that if we require a creator God for the universe then we must surely require a creator super-God for that God and then we must surely require a creator super-super-God for that super-God, on and on indefinitely, such that to avoid this problem we might as well just say that at the earliest point a creator is not required - that earliest point being the universe itself.

I write that this is only "reasonably" persuasive because I notice two problems with it. Firstly all it says is that it is not necessary for us to postulate a God, but this is a far cry from proving that such a God is impossible. There are on the other hand - as brokenhead has described - properties of the universe that suggest that it has been designed which should be sufficient cause for us to at the least consider the possibility of a God. I think that it's reasonable to at least consider brokenhead's "preponderance of evidence".

The second problem that I notice is that it does not explain how the universe exists - it simply implies or asserts that the universe does not require an explanation. QRS take this approach to the limit by further adding that the universe has no beginning and that it has always been here, and that this "eternal somethingness" does not require any more explanation than a "nothingness" would. I beg to differ here, because I see a fundamental difference between somethingness and nothingness: nothingness has no requirements. As soon as any "something" exists then there are - to use QRS parlance - "causes" involved, and this is fundamentally different from an "all-encompassing"[*] nothingness which does not involve any causes whatsoever and hence requires no explanation.

The other main argument that I've encountered against the Abrahamic God is that His character in the Old Testament is violent, jealous, wrathful and generally unbecoming of a spiritually enlightened man, let alone a perfect God. And yes, I find this argument quite persuasive, but more so against the authenticity of the Bible as a record of a supposed God's character and deeds than against the actual possibility of a personal God.

[*] I use the term "all-encompassing" to indicate that nothing other than nothingness would exist, but it's a bit misleading because the nature of nothingness is that it does not even exist and hence cannot really "encompass" anything.

brokenhead wrote:The UB spells out the vast multitude of celestial beings created by him; it details who Lucifer, Satan, and the "Dark Prince" were/are. It's not an easy read, but it is nothing if not consistent. It has not been a simple matter for a skeptic like myself to give it the shrift that I have.

I am quite a skeptic myself and before investing my concentration into such a book I would want to know what the source of its "details" is. From where did its author(s) come up with all of this explanation? Does/do he/she/they claim, for example, that it was revealed to him/her/they by divine sources? Why should you place your trust in this book? Is it simply because it's consistent and seems to make sense? Great authors can write great fiction that's consistent and makes sense. What leads you to believe that this is anything other than great fiction?

Kevin Solway wrote:If you're going to make-up both a God and his equally powerful foe, the Devil, then you may as well make-up countless other fantasy characters as well, such as spiderman, the tooth-fairy, the virgin Mary, etc.

That's right Kev, keep that mind tightly closed - you don't want to be accused of speculation or prevarication do you? You're quite the faithful monogomist - loyally wedded to your certain atheism.

Laird wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:At best this would only solve the 'problem of evil' argument.

Would you be so kind as to outline what you see as the other problems?

The main ones are covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God Under the heading Arguments against belief in God

It seems to me one only has to accept one of those arguments as persuasive and there goes God.

What would be interesting to me is to see one logical argument for the Christian God-25 years of searching, and I'm yet to see one.Maybe you know of one I haven't seen or considered.

I write that this is only "reasonably" persuasive because I notice two problems with it. Firstly all it says is that it is not necessary for us to postulate a God, but this is a far cry from proving that such a God is impossible.

As far as I'm concerned the 'Russels teapot' argument is enough to cover this.When you prove to me the tooth fairy is impossible, then I'll prove God is impossible.

Why would one spend his short time on this earth speculating on what exact form the unicorns,dragons or Lord of the Rings' Hobbits may constitute? Isn't remodelling a Christian God doing the same thing?

There are on the other hand - as brokenhead has described - properties of the universe that suggest that it has been designed which should be sufficient cause for us to at the least consider the possibility of a God. I think that it's reasonable to at least consider brokenhead's "preponderance of evidence".

I see no evidence in the universe that suggests it has been 'designed'.This is the type of argument that the creationist Behe proposed.Don't you consider evolutionary biologists like for instance Dawkins have well and truly knocked this argument for six?

It's an argument from ignorance falacy,or 'God-of-the-gaps.'

The second problem that I notice is that it does not explain how the universe exists - it simply implies or asserts that the universe does not require an explanation.

Well God doesn't explain it either.So why include it in your thinking? It's one extra problem you need to solve that need not be there. Ockams razor, and all that.

QRS take this approach to the limit by further adding that the universe has no beginning and that it has always been here, and that this "eternal somethingness" does not require any more explanation than a "nothingness" would. I beg to differ here, because I see a fundamental difference between somethingness and nothingness: nothingness has no requirements. As soon as any "something" exists then there are - to use QRS parlance - "causes" involved, and this is fundamentally different from an "all-encompassing"[*] nothingness which does not involve any causes whatsoever and hence requires no explanation.

I'm sympathetic to their view.I can't logically see how it can be any other way.Just to pre-empt a possible question,I considered this the case before i ever came across this forum.

Edit : Furthermore,if one is positing a Christian God,then he is effectively doing the same thing.Only the difference is the universe hasn't always existed,but God has.

May as well cut out the middle man ;)

Laird wrote:how the universe exists

It doesn't "exist" so the question of how it exists is a false problem.

If the Universe were to exist it would have to exist relative to something else - but there is nothing else - by definition.

That's right Kev, keep that mind tightly closed

As you know, I am perfectly open to the idea that there are intelligent beings somewhere in the causes of our observed universe.

If you can show me the evidence of such creator-aliens, then I will accept there are such creator-aliens.

But as for a causeless creator-alien "God" - that is simply impossible.

Ataraxia wrote:The main ones are covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God Under the heading Arguments against belief in God

Yes, there are some good ones there.

Ataraxia wrote:It seems to me one only has to accept one of those arguments as persuasive and there goes God.

I'd say it's more like "there go certain conceptions of God". The nature and origins of the universe are to me still a mystery, and where there's mystery I'm willing to entertain possible solutions, and God is a possible solution. Yes, many conceptions of God seem to be inconsistent but that doesn't mean that all of them are.

Ataraxia wrote:What would be interesting to me is to see one logical argument for the Christian God-25 years of searching, and I'm yet to see one.Maybe you know of one I haven't seen or considered.

Oh, I don't argue for the Christian God as He is traditionally conceived either, so don't look to me for an argument in His favour. I simply argue that no matter how you look at it, including the QRS viewpoint that you seem to agree with whereby the universe (or Totality) includes absolutely everything, there is an inexplicable uncausedness. There is also the mystery of why it is that anything exists at all whereas it seems to me, as I wrote in an earlier post, that nothingness is the natural state. I'm simply willing to consider that the answer to the mysteries of existence could involve something that might reasonably go by the identifier "God".

Laird: I write that this is only "reasonably" persuasive because I notice two problems with it. Firstly all it says is that it is not necessary for us to postulate a God, but this is a far cry from proving that such a God is impossible.

Ataraxia: As far as I'm concerned the 'Russels teapot' argument is enough to cover this.When you prove to me the tooth fairy is impossible, then I'll prove God is impossible.

Oh but the teapot has no explanatory value for the fundamental existential questions, whereas a God might.

Ataraxia wrote:Why would one spend his short time on this earth speculating on what exact form the unicorns,dragons or Lord of the Rings' Hobbits may constitute? Isn't remodelling a Christian God doing the same thing?

If you think that you already understand Life, the Universe and Everything then, yeah, speculation on the possibility, role and nature of a Christian-like God would be pointless. If, like me, you still see mystery in life, then any and all speculation is simply the pleasure of the quest for understanding. I've also had several strange experiences that I'm not going to reveal publicly and that I don't know how to explain, except that the existence of a Christian-like God and His antithesis would help to explain.

Ataraxia wrote:I see no evidence in the universe that suggests it has been 'designed'.This is the type of argument that the creationist Behe proposed.Don't you consider evolutionary biologists like for instance Dawkins have well and truly knocked this argument for six?

Hmm. I haven't read a lot of Dawkins - only The Blind Watchmaker. He doesn't address what I'm talking about in that book so I haven't seen him knock this argument for six. On the other hand, Paul Davies touches on the subject in The Mind of God and it's neither the first nor the last place that I've seen it mentioned. Let me try to find a site on the web that covers it...

...OK, after a bit of Googling I've found something. Check out Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe on www.godandscience.org. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information there - it was just the first halfway-decent page that I came across - but I can reiterate that I've seen similar writing by reputable scientific authors such as Paul Davies. Also check out some of the Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe that are linked to from that page.

Ataraxia wrote:It's an argument from ignorance falacy,or 'God-of-the-gaps.'

Ah, and I suppose that all of the gaps will one day be filled? Isn't answering "yes" to this question as much a leap of faith as belief in God is?

Laird: The second problem that I notice is that it does not explain how the universe exists - it simply implies or asserts that the universe does not require an explanation.

Ataraxia: Well God doesn't explain it either.So why include it in your thinking? It's one extra problem you need to solve that need not be there. Ockams razor, and all that.

I'm just unwilling to deny the possibility that some variation of the theme of God offers an explanation.

Ataraxia wrote:I'm sympathetic to their [QRS's] view.I can't logically see how it can be any other way.

As I've already written, I don't see how this position that you guys take solves any problems. You still end up with an entity (yes, I'm deliberately avoiding the word "thing") that is uncaused - a somethingness that has unsatisfied requirements and that therefore flies in the face of reason. That's what causes me to throw up my hands and say: "it's a mystery". You and QRS on the other hand seem to want to say "this is the best, and most likely scenario that we can conceive of, the only one that makes logical sense to us". Fine, it might be to you but to me it's still problematic and therefore just not an ultimate explanation. What is it that you don't like about admitting to mystery? Life is mind-bogglingly incredible - what makes you think that it even does conform to logic when it comes to ultimate explanations?

Ataraxia wrote:Edit : Furthermore,if one is positing a Christian God,then he is effectively doing the same thing.Only the difference is the universe hasn't always existed,but God has.

May as well cut out the middle man ;)

Yes, but proposing an intelligent creator has benefits too - we can explain how the universal constants came to be so finely tuned. Pros and cons, mate. Weighing up the evidence before conclusively rejecting a proposition.

Kevin Solway wrote:It [the universe] doesn't "exist" so the question of how it exists is a false problem.

I really can't understand how you can make such an assertion - it's quite ridiculous. You define the universe (the Totality) as "everything" and then assert that the universe does not exist. Therefore "everything" does not exist. Plainly, however, it does.

Let me try to come at it from another angle though: if you don't like the word "exists", then please tell me which word you find acceptable so that I can talk your language. In other words, please fill in the blank: "The universe _____".

Kevin Solway wrote:But as for a causeless creator-alien "God" - that is simply impossible.

And yet you're perfectly happy to advocate a causeless Totality...

brokenhead wrote:Every truth requires at least three things: itself, its negation, and the thing experiencing or proclaiming it. In our case, the third thing is Man. I can conceive of a world containing life that does not also contain Man. As such, Man is unnecessary to life.

How can you say that if you, Man, are necessary for conceiving that world? Unless you can conceive of yourself as being without any personality and then that being conceiving the world without Man. I can't see anything without personality doing any conceiving, though. And a dry, humorless, "lifeless" personality is still a personality, even if it has "no personality." ;)

Laird writes:

I don't understand this reasoning. Why can a good world not exist with a total absence of evil? Isn't that the traditional conception of heaven?

I think such worlds do exist, and that is the direction our own world is headed.

Those harmonious worlds with free will do exist in what we'd call the future, but in practical, linear terms they don't yet. Ours would be the first. What does exist now, linearly speaking, are worlds without free will. "Evil" is necessary for free will, and those heavenly worlds are not free to choose a whole lot. There's no need, since everything is already perfect as it is. Needless to say, not a lot happens; it's relatively boring, though peaceful!

Our world will find a practical, beneficial use for evil: mainly, growth through pleasure. It'll be like having things almost perfect, but not quite. There'll always be that itch to scratch, which is what evil essentially is. It feels good to scratch, yes? But when you don't scratch, the itch calls for your attention more and more until it gets unbearable. You have to scratch or else go insane. Or you could ignore it with enough concentration, but the itch won't really go away until you scratch. That's really where evil gets really nasty, in the unresponsiveness and the ignoring. But the evil itself is no more "evil" than an itch. You could call the unresponsiveness and ignoring the real evil, but they are really only youthful ignorance. Naivete.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:It [the Universe] doesn't "exist" so the question of how it exists is a false problem.

I really can't understand how you can make such an assertion - it's quite ridiculous.

On the contrary, it's ridiculous to suggest that it does exist. If it exists, it exists relative to what, exactly? Can you now see why the notion of its existence is ridiculous?

Therefore "everything" does not exist. Plainly, however, it does.

Plainly it does not. It exists relative to what?

And yet you're perfectly happy to advocate a causeless Totality...

"Causeless Totality" is a mistaken conception because the Totality is causelessness itself.

Laird wrote:Oh, I don't argue for the Christian God as He is traditionally conceived either, so don't look to me for an argument in His favour. I simply argue that no matter how you look at it, including the QRS viewpoint that you seem to agree with whereby the universe (or Totality) includes absolutely everything, there is an inexplicable uncausedness.

Not if it "has ever been thus"

There is also the mystery of why it is that anything exists at all whereas it seems to me, as I wrote in an earlier post, that nothingness is the natural state.

Well I don't know what 'nothingness' is.If there was such a state as 'nothingness' wouldn't there be a requirement of 'somethingness' to which to contrast it with?

I'm simply willing to consider that the answer to the mysteries of existence could involve something that might reasonably go by the identifier "God".

Only if by 'God' you mean utterly everything. Otherwise you run into the same arguments levelled at the Christian God.Solving the 'problem of evil' by positing an equal strength demon.What of the 'omnipotence paradox' for example?

Laird:
Oh but the teapot has no explanatory value for the fundamental existential questions, whereas a God might.

Well thats true.But it speaks to the question of proving impossibility.

"What can be asserted without evidence,can also be dissmissed without evidence"

I've also had several strange experiences that I'm not going to reveal publicly and that I don't know how to explain, except that the existence of a Christian-like God and His antithesis would help to explain.

I think everyone has had an unexplained event in their life.Strange lights in the sky,deja vu and so forth.This doesn't seem to me good cause to say it must/might be 'supernatural' just because it's not immediately answerable.How would it be any different to say an aboriginal dreamtime story to explain how the sun rises everyday-or that you've been visited by a UFO?

Why not just accept it's an unexplained event?

Laird wrote:I

Hmm. I haven't read a lot of Dawkins - only The Blind Watchmaker. He doesn't address what I'm talking about in that book so I haven't seen him knock this argument for six.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity

The basic refutation can be found under the heading : Reducibility of "irreducible" systems

On the other hand, Paul Davies touches on the subject in The Mind of God and it's neither the first nor the last place that I've seen it mentioned. Let me try to find a site on the web that covers it...
...OK, after a bit of Googling I've found something. Check out Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe on www.godandscience.org. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information there - it was just the first halfway-decent page that I came across - but I can reiterate that I've seen similar writing by reputable scientific authors such as Paul Davies. Also check out some of the Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe that are linked to from that page.

Paul Davies recently wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times.

These are some scientists blog sites responses to that if you're interested.The're none too flattering.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthought ... cience.php
http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007 ... _faith.php
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1905,n,n
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ite_fo.php
http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

Ataraxia wrote:It's an argument from ignorance falacy,or 'God-of-the-gaps.'

Ah, and I suppose that all of the gaps will one day be filled? Isn't answering "yes" to this question as much a leap of faith as belief in God is?

My answer to that would be "probably not".There will always be knowledge gaps.This no reason to stick god in there though.

Yes, but proposing an intelligent creator has benefits too - we can explain how the universal constants came to be so finely tuned. Pros and cons, mate. Weighing up the evidence before conclusively rejecting a proposition

.

The posit of 'multiverses' would solve that.We may even be lucky enough to see that shown within in the next few years.

Apparently one of the experiments they will be doing when that CERN Large Hadron collidor is up and running in May 2008 will be to attempt to send and observe a gravitron particle into parrallel universe.Wouldn't that be something :)

Much more exciting than 'God-diddit' in my view.

Laird:

I am quite a skeptic myself and before investing my concentration into such a book I would want to know what the source of its "details" is. From where did its author(s) come up with all of this explanation? Does/do he/she/they claim, for example, that it was revealed to him/her/they by divine sources? Why should you place your trust in this book? Is it simply because it's consistent and seems to make sense? Great authors can write great fiction that's consistent and makes sense. What leads you to believe that this is anything other than great fiction?

A very good question, Laird, to which I've devoted time and effort.

The thing is, great writers do not write like this. If you read it, you will see what I mean. I have read the great writers - a good number of them, at least - and I find nothing even remotely like the UB in style and content.

The books authors puport to be divine sources.

I have not placed my trust in the UB - the act of reading it seems to wrest it from me.

It is quite unlike anything I have ever read, the Upanishads perhaps coming closest. The first thing you notice is that the syntax is superb, the vocabulary off the charts (many terms are simply made up and defined) and the content strikingly consistent.

It is a thousand pages long. I wondered - if it is not what it purports to be, what could its motivation possibly have been? To make money? It's been around since the 1950's asnd has sold relatively few copies. Most people have never heard of it. Until it recently became public domain, it was printed and maintained by a foundation based in Chicago. No, if you want to make money, you don't sit down and write a book about everything that no one will read, you write a book about nothing like Harry Potter that everyone will read. Was it written to start a religion? There is no organized religion about it, although there are discussion groups and a web site.

The UB is presented as a series of papers issued by a commission of divine beings. The way these papers came to be is a fascinating story in its own right. They were dictated by a Sleeping Subject (SS) to a medical doctor (William Sadler) who was also a psychiatrist, from the 1910's through the 1930's. The papers were received by a forum of students and professional people picked by Dr. Sadler to review their contents, and put questions to the beings communicating through the SS. The SS himself was supposed to remain anonymous, the only things Sadler would reveal, since he was an ongoing patient, was that SS was a well-to-do businessman who had no recollection of speaking or writing anything in his sleep. Many people have since assumed SS was William Kellogg of the cereal Kellogg family.

Because I found the UB so striking, I have spent a good deal of time researching what little is known about it. Sadler himself remained skeptical that the Contact Commission (as the celestial beings collectively called themselves) was anything more than a psychological manifestation that neither he nor the literature had encountered before. He adamantly insisted it was not "chanelling." Nor was it the result of hypnosis or medication, nor did the SS dispay any signs of multiple personality or schizophrenia.

The UB has not attracted the attention of an Edgar Cayce. This is partly because it was not publicized during its "reception," each of the small group of people dealing with the SS - including the SS's wife and Sadler's own wife - were sworn to secrecy. The SS was determined to be "cured" of his nocturnal activities and to remain private.

All this has its amount of intrigue, I suppose, but it's the content that grabs one if one has the patience to wade into it.

Kevin Solway :

If you're going to make-up both a God and his equally powerful foe, the Devil, then you may as well make-up countless other fantasy characters as well, such as spiderman, the tooth-fairy, the virgin Mary, etc.

The Devil is not equally powerful to God. He is not even equally powerful to someone who believes in God.

And it was God who made us up.

Although he didn't make up Spiderman - that was Stan Lee.

Laird;

S: I wouldn’t mind being roasted for eternity, but not before the creator justified his non-interference in the miseries of the world that I came from; knowing just that would be worth aaaaany trouble

L: Now I suspect that Sapius was exaggerating for poetic effect because I can't imagine anyone who "wouldn't mind being roasted for eternity", but his point (or at least my interpretation of it) is a solid one:

Of course I was, but if you notice, there is a condition I expect to be honored to my satisfaction before I willingly step into the fire, and as things stand… for example…

L: The fact that in reality, we find a world where there is rampant suffering, is strong evidence that the traditional Christian conception of God is seriously flawed.

I doubt the all knowing cannot know that I will one day stand in front of him and ask such a question, ironically, because of his own gift of reason that wonders at his infinite tolerance in the face of his children’s sufferings, delivered through his own created beings or natural disasters. If he is The most Benevolent and loving, then contradictorily he is The most Insensitive too. What can I say...

If I am his most distant lost sheep, I’m sure he will be extremely glad to offer a justification and have me back. Am I not worth more of a concern to him than those that never went astray?

My proposed solution to this is to drop the notion that God is all-powerful. If we are to consider a Christian-like conception of reality then I propose that a more likely model is a manichaeanistic world, where good and evil forces battle according to pre-existing rules, and where God as the ultimate protagonist of good, and Satan as the ultimate protagonist of evil, are relatively equally powerful. This at least would provide an explanation for suffering: God would detest it yet would not have the power to completely prevent it. This basic scenario could be expanded upon but I won't speculate further unless you're interested.

Laird, I’m afraid that in such a case you will have to look for some alternative or may be even a new word for “God”, because that automatically suggests Omnipotent, ALL POWERFUL.

On the other hand, say an entity G (Good) and an entity E (Evil), but then, there could always be a possibility of may such entities, so what if we drop the idea of ‘entity’ and see if it still works?

Lets consider it as only the forces of good and evil battling according to "pre-existing"* rules, with the mind being the battle field, because obviously, good and evil don’t seem to lie beyond the mind, and hence most probably are an “internal” battle on a subjective level, where one might overpower the other, displaying the love or detest of either, but not totally devoid of either too.

It is I for example that sees an otherwise most normal and natural tsunami as “evil”, or any act that I see is judged according to the values I subjectively hold. So is it not reasonable to assume that each mind is a protagonist in its self. And in case of two “ultimate” protagonists, who exactly sets the rules of engagement? Saying “pre-existing” rules doesn’t solve the problem of how did they come about, and a third party may still be required for that.

* How did the rules come about?

Since there may not be an Ultimate protagonist, then asking “who” sets the rule may be unreasonable too. And hence, could it be that it grows gradually from rudimentary experiences of trial and error that are held in memory, that set certain parameters and rules that cannot be crossed? For example; Absolute Good or Absolute Evil in and of its self.

Well, just a thought…

Ataraxia quoting somebody:

"What can be asserted without evidence,can also be dissmissed without evidence"

And it often proves foolhardy to do so.

Einstein proposed General Relativity for reasons other than to account for empirical evidence, since there was none at the time.

People who reject the notion of a God - not a God who is everything, but is the Ultimate Source and Center of everything - derive some sort of satisfaction, some sense of superiority over gullible believers who quite childishly plug the "gaps" in their knowledge of the world with God-related explanations and ideas. I get this. I am by nature a skeptic, by education, a physicist, by profession an IT guy. Faith and science are not by nature antithetical; however, the more dogmatic about one you permit yourself to be, the less successful at understanding the other you necessarily become.

Einstein was not noted for being overly religious, yet it was his desire to know what the "Old One's" thoughts were that became a guiding principle, if not a guiding light.

People who reject faith in a God out of hand as unneccessary make me think of a person who refuses to use the headlights on his car because he can see just fine. That would be great, except now and again, it is necessary to drive at night. It is not my duty, as I see it, to be concerned for such a person's safety, inasmuch as my concern would almost certainly be unwelcome. At the same time, that person is not likely to be alone out there in the night. One of my loved ones could be out on the road, indeed, my most-loved-one could be (meaning myself, of course). You have to "watch out for the other guy," as the saying goes.

If this somehow seems patronizing or condescending, T.S. I can't help it. I'm not the one telling the confirmed atheist not to use all the tools at his disposal. In fact, just the opposite. I am no better than my neighbor because of my faith; it's because so many greater thinkers than I have sincerely wrestled with the idea of faith in a God that one has never seen that I see it as my intellectual duty to avoid merely dismissing the notion of a God at all costs.

Sapius:

I doubt the all knowing cannot know that I will one day stand in front of him and ask such a question, ironically, because of his own gift of reason that wonders at his infinite tolerance in the face of his children’s sufferings, delivered through his own created beings or natural disasters. If he is The most Benevolent and loving, then contradictorily he is The most Insensitive too.

This point of view I certainly understand and feel inadequate to repond to. It makes much more sense to hear someone say this than to hear someone conclude there is no God at all.

If I am his most distant lost sheep, I’m sure he will be extremely glad to offer a justification and have me back. Am I not worth more of a concern to him than those that never went astray?

That you can ask this shows you are plainly not his most distant, lost sheep. And his answer to the question has already been given by him, and it is a simple yes.

Kevin Solway writes:

On the contrary, it's ridiculous to suggest that it [the Universe] does exist. If it exists, it exists relative to what, exactly? Can you now see why the notion of its existence is ridiculous?

This is an example of those intelectual culs-de-sac that philosophical dialectic tends to produce.

Divne Focus:

brokenhead wrote:

Every truth requires at least three things: itself, its negation, and the thing experiencing or proclaiming it. In our case, the third thing is Man. I can conceive of a world containing life that does not also contain Man. As such, Man is unnecessary to life.

How can you say that if you, Man, are necessary for conceiving that world? Unless you can conceive of yourself as being without any personality and then that being conceiving the world without Man. I can't see anything without personality doing any conceiving, though. And a dry, humorless, "lifeless" personality is still a personality, even if it has "no personality." ;)

No, I am conceiving a world of which I am not a part, other worlds than this one, where life but not [yet ?] sentient life may exist. That's not so difficult to do, since the very world we inhabit was once such a place.

This point of view I certainly understand and feel inadequate to repond to. It makes much more sense to hear someone say this than to hear someone conclude there is no God at all.

I am simply saying that I have reasons to believe that any entity described as Ultimately Absolute is an impossibility. Just like you have reasons to believe otherwise. That’s all.

The UB is presented as a series of papers issued by a commission of divine beings. The way these papers came to be is a fascinating story in its own right. They were dictated by a Sleeping Subject (SS) to a medical doctor (William Sadler) who was also a psychiatrist, from the 1910's through the 1930's. The papers were received by a forum of students and professional people picked by Dr. Sadler to review their contents, and put questions to the beings communicating through the SS. The SS himself was supposed to remain anonymous, the only things Sadler would reveal, since he was an ongoing patient, was that SS was a well-to-do businessman who had no recollection of speaking or writing anything in his sleep. Many people have since assumed SS was William Kellogg of the cereal Kellogg family.


All this has its amount of intrigue, I suppose, but it's the content that grabs one if one has the patience to wade into it.

Devine beings? SS? Is there any connection or mention of Zenu? Or is this a much better and advanced version of Scientology?

Just asking, no offence.

brokenhead wrote:Divne Focus:

brokenhead wrote:

Every truth requires at least three things: itself, its negation, and the thing experiencing or proclaiming it. In our case, the third thing is Man. I can conceive of a world containing life that does not also contain Man. As such, Man is unnecessary to life.

How can you say that if you, Man, are necessary for conceiving that world? Unless you can conceive of yourself as being without any personality and then that being conceiving the world without Man. I can't see anything without personality doing any conceiving, though. And a dry, humorless, "lifeless" personality is still a personality, even if it has "no personality." ;)

No, I am conceiving a world of which I am not a part, other worlds than this one, where life but not [yet ?] sentient life may exist. That's not so difficult to do, since the very world we inhabit was once such a place.

What I mean is that you are doing the conceiving. The world is in your mind, so you are an intimate part of it as its creator. It would be impossible without you.

Devine beings? SS? Is there any connection or mention of Zenu? Or is this a much better and advanced version of Scientology?

Just asking, no offence.

None taken.

The UB has no connection with Scientology whatsoever, at least none that I'm aware of.
And I must say, I am personally in no position to defend its contents beyond what it itself declares. It is a fascinating gold mine of ideas, if nothing else. The popular mathematics writer Martin Gardner wrote an entire book to debunk the UB. If I were his agent, I would have strangled him - which is not to say I support all the claims made by the UB. Rather, IMO, Gardner came across much like Toto in the Wizard of Oz, pulling back a curtain on what he seems to say is a charade. He points to the book OAHSPE - to which he gives a lot of ink - and says pretty much "The UB and OAHSPE are the same kind of thing." That is, a thing to be dismissed. It takes an intelligent reader less than a minute to discern the difference between the two, the latter being hopelessly convoluted and unreadable. I have given neither short shrift, as the saying goes. But I simply could not read OAHSPE and so I dismiss it. The UB, on the other hand, while extremely difficult in spots, appears to me to be coherent and highly intelligently written. If you think the UB is nothing more than the ramblings of some hopeless schizophrenic, all you have to do is take a glance at OAHSPE to see what genuine incoherent religious babble is like.

Look, I'm not advocating anything beyond finding someone stalwart enough to actually read the UB as I have tried to do. Why wouldn't an enquiring mind want to know?

What I mean is that you are doing the conceiving. The world is in your mind, so you are an intimate part of it as its creator. It would be impossible without you.

It was possible enough up until 5 November 1956. I'm glad my arrival didn't somehow mess things up.

I mean the world without Man that you conceived, dumb-dumb ;). You conceived that world, so it is yours. Without you, it couldn't be. Someone else could conceive a similar world, but it would not be the same.

Kevin Solway wrote:On the contrary, it's ridiculous to suggest that it [the universe] does exist. If it exists, it exists relative to what, exactly? Can you now see why the notion of its existence is ridiculous?

This seems to be another genius/enlightened definition. The definition of "exist" that I'm aware of does not imply relativity but perhaps I'm simply ignorant, so let me look up the dictionary.com definition ... "to have actual being; be". Nope, no mention of relativity there - it's a pretty simple definition. So where does this idea that existence must be relative to something come from? You're a fan of absolutes - surely you can accept absolute existence?

You also ignored my request to provide me with another word to use in place of "exists" for the universe/Totality. Please give me something - I want to be able to communicate with you.

Laird: And yet you're perfectly happy to advocate a causeless Totality...

Kevin: "Causeless Totality" is a mistaken conception because the Totality is causelessness itself.

That sentence doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how the Totality being "causelessness itself" proves "causeless Totality" to be a mistaken conception.

Laird: Oh, I don't argue for the Christian God as He is traditionally conceived either, so don't look to me for an argument in His favour. I simply argue that no matter how you look at it, including the QRS viewpoint that you seem to agree with whereby the universe (or Totality) includes absolutely everything, there is an inexplicable uncausedness.

Ataraxia: Not if it "has ever been thus"

Yes, even then. The Totality itself can be considered to be an entire entity - a "block" as Kevin has previously expressed it. It is then this entity that is inexplicably uncaused.

Laird: There is also the mystery of why it is that anything exists at all whereas it seems to me, as I wrote in an earlier post, that nothingness is the natural state.

Ataraxia: Well I don't know what 'nothingness' is.

I tried to explain my conception of nothingness at the end of the thread "Naturalistic philosophy denies life" at Dan's questioning - you were involved in that thread so I presumed that you'd read my posts. If not then you can find them as part of the last few posts (currently) in that thread. To summarise: to me, "nothingness" is a complete absence of everything including space, matter and energy. Here's one way that might clue you in to what I mean when I think of nothingness: imagine a mathematical point (which has no volume) and then take away the point itself, and you are left with nothingness.

Ataraxia wrote:If there was such a state as 'nothingness' wouldn't there be a requirement of 'somethingness' to which to contrast it with?

Why would there be? I honestly don't understand. Sapius has presented similar arguments to me in the past and I find them a little incongruous on a forum dedicated to absolutes.

Laird: I'm simply willing to consider that the answer to the mysteries of existence could involve something that might reasonably go by the identifier "God".

Ataraxia: Only if by 'God' you mean utterly everything.

"Only". Where's that rampant imagination gone dude?

Ataraxia wrote:Otherwise you run into the same arguments levelled at the Christian God.Solving the 'problem of evil' by positing an equal strength demon.What of the 'omnipotence paradox' for example?

What of it? The modified conception of God that I posited did not involve omnipotence. I expressly removed that property from Him.

"What can be asserted without evidence,can also be dissmissed without evidence"

...although nothing is known of its truth value in either case - the assertion might be unwarranted but so might the dismissal.

Laird: I've also had several strange experiences that I'm not going to reveal publicly and that I don't know how to explain, except that the existence of a Christian-like God and His antithesis would help to explain.

Ataraxia: I think everyone has had an unexplained event in their life.Strange lights in the sky,deja vu and so forth.This doesn't seem to me good cause to say it must/might be 'supernatural' just because it's not immediately answerable.How would it be any different to say an aboriginal dreamtime story to explain how the sun rises everyday-or that you've been visited by a UFO?

Speaking of Aboriginal dreamtime stories, I once saw some very interesting hidden images in a photograph of the Three Sisters in a backpackers in Katoomba. I saw the faces of the sisters imprisoned in the rocks. And I'm not talking about vague, shadowy faces - I'm talking about vivid, lifelike images. It was sort of like those artificial images that start off looking like TV static but when you focus your eyes in the right way suddenly resolve into a 3D picture, except that it wasn't in 3D. It really spun me out. I tried to get a similar perspective on the actual rocks the next day to see if I could see the faces in real life but I couldn't do it. I can think of two likely explanations: some smart-arse for some random reason used technology similar to the 3D pictures to insert faces into that photograph, or there's something to Aboriginal dreamtime beliefs. Perhaps there are other explanations that I'm missing (my imagination's not all that rampant right now...).

Ataraxia wrote:Why not just accept it's an unexplained event?

Because I'm an inquisitive chap who likes to know the answer to mysteries, especially the big ones. Not least of all because it might have an effect on how I live my life but mostly just out of pure curiosity.

Laird: Hmm. I haven't read a lot of Dawkins - only The Blind Watchmaker. He doesn't address what I'm talking about in that book so I haven't seen him knock this argument for six.

Ataraxia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity

The basic refutation can be found under the heading : Reducibility of "irreducible" systems

Oh but that's something completely different to what I was referring to. I was referring to the "fine-tuning" of the universal constants; you're referring to a rebuttal of the notion that life exhibits irreducible complexity.

Ataraxia wrote:Paul Davies recently wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times.

These are some scientists blog sites responses to that if you're interested.The're none too flattering.

Yeah he left himself open to attack there - I don't think that he expressed himself all that well. Did you read his response to the criticisms on the final page that you referenced though (it was the last piece of writing on that page)? I think that he expressed himself a lot better there.

Laird: Yes, but proposing an intelligent creator has benefits too - we can explain how the universal constants came to be so finely tuned. Pros and cons, mate. Weighing up the evidence before conclusively rejecting a proposition.

Ataraxia: The posit of 'multiverses' would solve that.

Yes, it would. So we have two alternative propositions.

Ataraxia wrote:Apparently one of the experiments they will be doing when that CERN Large Hadron collidor is up and running in May 2008 will be to attempt to send and observe a gravitron particle into parrallel universe.Wouldn't that be something :)

Yep, it'd be pretty cool. Even cooler would be to receive a gravitron particle from a parallel universe.

Ataraxia wrote:Much more exciting than 'God-diddit' in my view.

Nah, I don't reckon. Imagine the coolest person that you know and then imagine that they were millions of times cooler - that's how exciting God would be. He would be able to make gravitrons out of nothing and destroy parallel universes with the click of His fingers. That's pretty darn exciting.

brokenhead wrote:I wondered - if it [the Urantia book] is not what it purports to be, what could its motivation possibly have been?

I've just read the Wikipedia page on the Urantia book. It makes good reading, but unfortunately I have no answer to your question.

brokenhead wrote:The UB is presented as a series of papers issued by a commission of divine beings. The way these papers came to be is a fascinating story in its own right.

Yes, it really is. See, it's stuff like this that makes me wonder. Also crop circles. Also stories of UFOs and alien abductions. There's so much strange stuff going on in this world. So much that I can't explain. So much that can't be lightly dismissed. Even the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life are hard to dismiss out of hand. Kevin is one of the most commited atheists that I know of and even he believes that Jesus was a real, highly spiritual man who performed at least some of the deeds documented by the Gospels. Sometimes I take awe from the mysteries of life but other times... well, other times I drown in paranoia. Am I some guinea pig in a gigantic game that everyone else is perpetrating upon me, deliberately confusing me with carefully tailored and impossible-to-reconcile stories? Have any of you read The Magus by John Fowles (it's my second-favourite book of all time)? That's the sort of thing that I sometimes imagine that I'm caught up in. Does anyone else ever feel this way? It probably seems a little narcissistic to other people that I sometimes feel like that but it's really not something that I seek out, it just injects itself into me at (often inopportune) times.

brokenhead wrote:All this has its amount of intrigue, I suppose, but it's the content that grabs one if one has the patience to wade into it.

Parts of it do seem quite interesting. I'd be interested to read the section on Jesus' life actually. The Gospels fascinate me. There's so much power and depth to them. I'd like to read more about Jesus.

Sapius wrote:Laird, I’m afraid that in such a case [manichaeanism with non-omnipotent God and opposing similarly powerful Devil] you will have to look for some alternative or may be even a new word for “God”, because that automatically suggests Omnipotent, ALL POWERFUL.

Oh, come now Sapius, there's a fine tradition on this forum of bending the traditional meaning of words. Am I somehow excluded from membership in this club of wordsmiths? (nevermind answering - I already know that I am excluded: for I am neither "enlightened" nor a "genius", at least not according to those on this forum who promote themselves as such... I'm something more of a chimpanzee I believe)

Sapius wrote:On the other hand, say an entity G (Good) and an entity E (Evil), but then, there could always be a possibility of may such entities, so what if we drop the idea of ‘entity’ and see if it still works?

OK, I'll run with you for a while.

Sapius wrote:Lets consider it as only the forces of good and evil battling according to "pre-existing"* rules, with the mind being the battle field,

I'm with you so far.

Sapius wrote:because obviously, good and evil don’t seem to lie beyond the mind, and hence most probably are an “internal” battle on a subjective level, where one might overpower the other, displaying the love or detest of either, but not totally devoid of either too.

Hmm, I don't agree that this is "obvious". I'm willing to entertain the possibility that good and evil exist innately in the world beyond the mind.

Sapius wrote:It is I for example that sees an otherwise most normal and natural tsunami as “evil”, or any act that I see is judged according to the values I subjectively hold. So is it not reasonable to assume that each mind is a protagonist in its self.

Yes, that's one possibility: that individual humans decide what is "good" and what is "evil" for themselves. There seem to be some things that most of us recognise as good or evil however. For example, the merciless torture of innocents is almost universally regarded as evil. The giving up of one's pleasure to alleviate another's suffering is almost universally regarded as good. So there seem to be some universals. It's not hard to posit from there that every act is, as you implied earlier, a mixture of objectively-defined good and evil.

Sapius wrote:And in case of two “ultimate” protagonists, who exactly sets the rules of engagement? Saying “pre-existing” rules doesn’t solve the problem of how did they come about, and a third party may still be required for that.

Indeed. That's the fundamental paradox of existence. No matter how I look at it I always find missing requirements. Bah. I don't think that I'll ever know. Not in this realm of existence anyway. It's what drives my philosophical tendencies though. If I could only know how something (me, you, the world, everything, anything) could ever exist (ultimately) then my questioning would fade to a dull murmuring. To suckle at the teat of ultimate understanding. But were I to know, would I then be satisfied? Or would demystification simply suck the enjoyment out of life? Reminding myself in this thread of how I've been banging my head against the wall in all of the philosophising I've ever done in my life. And unable to progress past it. Oh, the allure of certainty. To decide that I have all of the answers as you have done, Kevin. Or to decide that some revelatory scripture holds all of the keys. To sooth the red irritation-frustration of uncertainty. Feeling the mental restrictions and constraints of my existential incarnation, the hope of the overthrowing of which once tempted me into mind-altering substances. An abject failure. Worse even. Opening portals. The entry of evil. Yeah, I've had some personal experiences of evil.

Sapius wrote:Since there may not be an Ultimate protagonist, then asking “who” sets the rule may be unreasonable too. And hence, could it be that it grows gradually from rudimentary experiences of trial and error that are held in memory, that set certain parameters and rules that cannot be crossed? For example; Absolute Good or Absolute Evil in and of its self.

Do you mean that the Absolute has evolved?

Sapius wrote:Well, just a thought…

It was an interesting one.