Ontological Arguments (Humans)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 20:50 (5172 days ago)
I have found exactly what it is about David's, Adler's, and many other writers (Such as Graham Dunstan Martin) that is incompatible with my Epistemology. -I had heard of the original "Ontological Argument" before and dismissed it as easily as many other people had, but in stumbling across THIS article:-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/-I came to the sudden realization on what exactly it was that was incompatible. -I still can't accept these kinds of arguments. They try to make something from nothing... but I'm looking for challengers here that would be willing to do any one of these things:-1. Demonstrate something in my life that I regularly use that is an ontological-type argument... its possible that I have something like this in use somewhere in my framework. -2. Demonstrate why you think these kinds of arguments are valid; why should we accept them. Or more directly, "Why should I alter my epistemology in order to accommodate them?"-Or any other criterion that you think might persuade me. I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here... why is materialism wrong?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 21:09 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696
> 1. Demonstrate something in my life that I regularly use that is an ontological-type argument... its possible that I have something like this in use somewhere in my framework. > > 2. Demonstrate why you think these kinds of arguments are valid; why should we accept them. Or more directly, "Why should I alter my epistemology in order to accommodate them?" > > Or any other criterion that you think might persuade me. I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here... why is materialism wrong?-The easy one to pick right off the bat is the materialist cosmology models. i.e. No matter how far you go back, or which model you use, something had to come from nothing. Even with the latest 'quantum fluctuations triggered the Big Bang' line, what caused the quantum fluctuations? Eventually with that type of reasoning you will eventually get to a point where something came from nothing. And while in a way that doesn't fit the definition of Ontological, in a way it does. Perfect nothingness capable of creating something from itself(i.e. nothing) is no less a form of deism. But that is only my opinion.-The paragraph above also explains why they are valid. Something must exist in order for everything to exist. If something comes from 'nothing', then it wasn't 'nothing', it was something.-Belief in the manifest material universe around you is not 'wrong' per se. But to me, it is kind of like how we put blinders on horses so as not to scare them with the other stuff that is out there beyond their field of vision. Materialism, as an ideal, ignores what it can't comprehend. (No slight to you intended) For example, consciousness. This is something everyone is intimately aware of, yet it is not physical. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It can not be weighed, weighed, measured, or quantified. It simply is. Something either is conscious, or is not. And while there are degrees of consciousness, there are no intermediates between conscious, and not conscious.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 21:30 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance, thanks for taking a whack! > > 1. Demonstrate something in my life that I regularly use that is an ontological-type argument... its possible that I have something like this in use somewhere in my framework. > > > > 2. Demonstrate why you think these kinds of arguments are valid; why should we accept them. Or more directly, "Why should I alter my epistemology in order to accommodate them?" > > > > Or any other criterion that you think might persuade me. I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here... why is materialism wrong? > > The easy one to pick right off the bat is the materialist cosmology models. i.e. No matter how far you go back, or which model you use, something had to come from nothing. Even with the latest 'quantum fluctuations triggered the Big Bang' line, what caused the quantum fluctuations? Eventually with that type of reasoning you will eventually get to a point where something came from nothing. And while in a way that doesn't fit the definition of Ontological, in a way it does. Perfect nothingness capable of creating something from itself(i.e. nothing) is no less a form of deism. But that is only my opinion. > -I will start out that I'm a materialist by operational restriction; I don't assert that matter is all that exists, but I know that the only things that are studyable (as opposed to speculative) are material things. The only possible exception would be studying our inner minds, which is handled by consciousness (which you get to in a moment...)-As was pointed out here recently, the concept of a timeless universe with no discrete beginning isn't a dead idea, and really staves the problem you're poking at here; In Buddhism since the only thing that exists is "right now" and we all live in one universe, than any and all ideas of beginning and end are null and void. They are illusions we create to help us get by in the world. -But even if we assert the universe had a finite beginning, we still have no knowledge of it. We have models; but these are at best mere abstractions to what was really going on. -> The paragraph above also explains why they are valid. Something must exist in order for everything to exist. If something comes from 'nothing', then it wasn't 'nothing', it was something. > -This is only if we assert that the universe had a prime cause. It's a deeper question; if every effect had a cause, and every cause necessitates an effect, than what caused the prime cause? It's a logical conundrum. I think that existence is purely a tautology, which is why we can't make heads or tails of it; there's nothing to make heads or tails of if a statement is simply true and that's that. -> Belief in the manifest material universe around you is not 'wrong' per se. But to me, it is kind of like how we put blinders on horses so as not to scare them with the other stuff that is out there beyond their field of vision. Materialism, as an ideal, ignores what it can't comprehend. (No slight to you intended) For example, consciousness. This is something everyone is intimately aware of, yet it is not physical. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It can not be weighed, weighed, measured, or quantified. It simply is. Something either is conscious, or is not. And while there are degrees of consciousness, there are no intermediates between conscious, and not conscious.-No slight taken here. I told you when you came in that for operational reasons I tended to stay away from many such topics; because if I can't study it, isn't the attempt fruitless? I can study my consciousness, but have no access to yours, even though language. -In my case, I'm much more comfortable simply saying "I don't know, and I haven't the foggiest" when it comes to things such as consciousness. In some respects "self-evident truths" alleviates some of this.-But it still doesn't answer the question of why ontological arguments are valid. You seem to assert that they are valid, but from my view they make claims that can't be supported--and in some cases, barely justified. They are tautologies. "... as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them." This is also the case with tautologies.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 22:47 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
B-M: "Something either is conscious, or is not. And while there are degrees of consciousness, there are no intermediates between conscious, and not conscious."-I don't see this distinction. If there are degrees of consciousness then there ARE intermediates between conscious and not conscious. To cliam otherwise is just playing with words. There are differences in consciousness or awareness between animals and humans, and within an individual human such as myself during the period of a day or over the years.
--
GPJ
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:39 (5172 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I am not playing with words at all. Even a sponge, which has no brain, shows elements of consciousness(predictive action and anticipatory activities), however, a rock does not. That is the smallest gap between conscious and unconscious that I can think of at the moment. What you are referring to is one of those degrees of consciousness. Been a long day LOL.
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:25 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am not playing with words at all. Even a sponge, which has no brain, shows elements of consciousness(predictive action and anticipatory activities), however, a rock does not. That is the smallest gap between conscious and unconscious that I can think of at the moment. What you are referring to is one of those degrees of consciousness. Been a long day LOL.-Sponges do not have consciousness in any form. Those are automatic biochemically mediated actions.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 17:37 (5171 days ago) @ David Turell
David,-You're a prime target for the main topic of this thread. I really would appreciate it if you could jump in!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 02:12 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
David, > > You're a prime target for the main topic of this thread. I really would appreciate it if you could jump in!-I've been in. Look back two, three days ago. You're patient enough to do a better job.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 04:05 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > > > > You're a prime target for the main topic of this thread. I really would appreciate it if you could jump in! > > I've been in. Look back two, three days ago. You're patient enough to do a better job.-David, the only showing in this thread aside from your short burst about sponges is
avid Turell, 2010-09-27, 02:41-Where you tell dhw that "the best ontological argument is the last paragraph!"-Did a posting of yours get lost?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 05:16 (5170 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Did a posting of yours get lost?-No. I saw them posted. There is one where I explain that supernovas are young stars and don't fit his theory. He thinks all supernovas take 10 billion years to explode. b-m doesn't seem to understand that our sun will be a red giant, not a s-n.
Ontological Arguments
Matt is wrestling with "Ontological Arguments", and asks why we should accept them. I started ploughing through the list and got bored. Here is my definitive ontological proof that God exists:-All that is, is. God is all that is. Therefore God is. -As I see it, all these discussions revolve around language, and since language cannot grasp even known realities, let alone those areas of life we can't explain, we can play around with it ad infinitum and ad nauseam and make it mean whatever we want it to mean. Analyse my "proof" and you can argue that it's meaningless or crammed with meaning. -Far more important in my eyes is your final question: "I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here...why is materialism wrong?"-Forget ontological arguments, and ask yourself what are the most important realities in your life. I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll speak for myself, although B-M has already hinted at an answer by referring to consciousness. I just want to go a bit deeper. Far and away the most real and important thing for me is the love I feel for my family. The word "love" is totally inadequate ... as I said, language can't grasp realities ... and I have no idea how this extraordinary emotion can even exist, but it does, and if you think you can explain it in material terms, I'm afraid you don't know what love is. Here are a couple more inexplicable, non-material, personal realities: shelves full of books and plays that came out of my mind, though I have no idea how. I do not understand what force it is in me that creates these things, and if you say it's cells and chemicals inside my head, I'll ask you how and you won't be able to tell me. The same applies to the impact of music by Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius...something stirs very deep inside me, and it's not material. The list goes on, but I'm sure you've got the picture. I'll guarantee that every one of us has such essential realities in his/her life that are not explicable in material terms. You can't test them, so they fail to fulfil your scientific criteria, but they are your evidence that materialism is...well, not wrong, but hopelessly incomplete. It's good for some things and not for others, but since the others are what make my own life worth living, I'm damned if I'm going to close the door on the concept of the "spirit", or whatever is the opposite of the material body. You've argued that in this context you're more comfortable saying you haven't "the foggiest" and you stay away from such topics because you can't study them. I agree that you can't study them as you can study the material world, but that's your personal Catch 22: you can't see a chink in the armour of materialism because you stay away from anything that creates chinks in the armour of materialism!
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 22:32 (5171 days ago) @ dhw
Well said.
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 02:41 (5171 days ago) @ dhw
All that is, is. God is all that is. Therefore God is. > > Forget ontological arguments, and ask yourself what are the most important realities in your life. I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll speak for myself, although B-M has already hinted at an answer by referring to consciousness. I just want to go a bit deeper. Far and away the most real and important thing for me is the love I feel for my family. The word "love" is totally inadequate ... as I said, language can't grasp realities ... and I have no idea how this extraordinary emotion can even exist, but it does, and if you think you can explain it in material terms, I'm afraid you don't know what love is. Here are a couple more inexplicable, non-material, personal realities: shelves full of books and plays that came out of my mind, though I have no idea how. I do not understand what force it is in me that creates these things, and if you say it's cells and chemicals inside my head, I'll ask you how and you won't be able to tell me. The same applies to the impact of music by Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius...something stirs very deep inside me, and it's not material. The list goes on, but I'm sure you've got the picture. I'll guarantee that every one of us has such essential realities in his/her life that are not explicable in material terms. You can't test them, so they fail to fulfil your scientific criteria, but they are your evidence that materialism is...well, not wrong, but hopelessly incomplete. It's good for some things and not for others, but since the others are what make my own life worth living, I'm damned if I'm going to close the door on the concept of the "spirit", or whatever is the opposite of the material body. You've argued that in this context you're more comfortable saying you haven't "the foggiest" and you stay away from such topics because you can't study them. I agree that you can't study them as you can study the material world, but that's your personal Catch 22: you can't see a chink in the armour of materialism because you stay away from anything that creates chinks in the armour of materialism!-The best ontologic argument is that last paragraph!
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 04:01 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
All that is, is. God is all that is. Therefore God is. > > > > Forget ontological arguments, and ask yourself what are the most important realities in your life. I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll speak for myself, although B-M has already hinted at an answer by referring to consciousness. I just want to go a bit deeper. Far and away the most real and important thing for me is the love I feel for my family. The word "love" is totally inadequate ... as I said, language can't grasp realities ... and I have no idea how this extraordinary emotion can even exist, but it does, and if you think you can explain it in material terms, I'm afraid you don't know what love is. Here are a couple more inexplicable, non-material, personal realities: shelves full of books and plays that came out of my mind, though I have no idea how. I do not understand what force it is in me that creates these things, and if you say it's cells and chemicals inside my head, I'll ask you how and you won't be able to tell me. The same applies to the impact of music by Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius...something stirs very deep inside me, and it's not material. The list goes on, but I'm sure you've got the picture. I'll guarantee that every one of us has such essential realities in his/her life that are not explicable in material terms. You can't test them, so they fail to fulfil your scientific criteria, but they are your evidence that materialism is...well, not wrong, but hopelessly incomplete. It's good for some things and not for others, but since the others are what make my own life worth living, I'm damned if I'm going to close the door on the concept of the "spirit", or whatever is the opposite of the material body. You've argued that in this context you're more comfortable saying you haven't "the foggiest" and you stay away from such topics because you can't study them. I agree that you can't study them as you can study the material world, but that's your personal Catch 22: you can't see a chink in the armour of materialism because you stay away from anything that creates chinks in the armour of materialism! > > The best ontologic argument is that last paragraph!-lol, David, this wasn't an ontological argument at all! He was informing me that experience itself is something that cannot be encapsulated into language! -I fear I wasn't specific enough when asking why Materialism was wrong; I've long known that science isn't suited for exactly the kinds of things that dhw talked about here, but my question is driving at epistemology and why materialism is wrong in those terms, and not in the terms that are technically "beyond" epistemology.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 05:12 (5170 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > The best ontologic argument is that last paragraph! > > lol, David, this wasn't an ontological argument at all! He was informing me that experience itself is something that cannot be encapsulated into language!-I know that, but it is still the best agument for God. > > I fear I wasn't specific enough when asking why Materialism was wrong; I've long known that science isn't suited for exactly the kinds of things that dhw talked about here, but my question is driving at epistemology and why materialism is wrong in those terms, and not in the terms that are technically "beyond" epistemology.-That is the exact problem. Trying to get at God removes materialism from the stage. Science cannot handle consciouness with those feelings it engenders as discussed by dhw.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 22:06 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > The best ontologic argument is that last paragraph! > > > > lol, David, this wasn't an ontological argument at all! He was informing me that experience itself is something that cannot be encapsulated into language! > > I know that, but it is still the best agument for God. > > > > I fear I wasn't specific enough when asking why Materialism was wrong; I've long known that science isn't suited for exactly the kinds of things that dhw talked about here, but my question is driving at epistemology and why materialism is wrong in those terms, and not in the terms that are technically "beyond" epistemology. > > That is the exact problem. Trying to get at God removes materialism from the stage. Science cannot handle consciouness with those feelings it engenders as discussed by dhw.-So then, God escapes critical study by then vanishing into a cloud of consciousness? Sorry, it's not that simple. Any physical explanation that relies on God has to account for how a "mental" being in this case created the physical world. We return to an old claim of mine that ONLY an extreme deism serves as a valid explanation of what we have observed in terms of God. -Here is the challenge to the theists:-Any valid theistic foundation of the universe must account for how something that is claimed to be "unknowable" in the physical world can change and/or alter the physical world. This question can be alternately phrased as "How does the physical universe come into existence by means of mind?"[EDITE D] If God interfaces with the physical world at all then there will be a way to detect it. -This question at present seems just as insoluble as the consciousness problem posed to materialism, and is a prime motivation behind what has become my (surprisingly resolute) agnosticism.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 00:51 (5170 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Here is the challenge to the theists: > > Any valid theistic foundation of the universe must account for how something that is claimed to be "unknowable" in the physical world can change and/or alter the physical world. This question can be alternately phrased as "How does the physical universe come into existence by means of mind?"[EDITE > D] > If God interfaces with the physical world at all then there will be a way to detect it. - No there won't. Can you scientifically study your love for your wife (?), and don't tell me MRI with radioactive substances, several times removed. The same thing applies to Wagner, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, etc. The emotions in consciousness are beyond study directly, but they are as real as the brick from Romansh. The point of the book, 'A Concealed God', by Stephan Einhorn, 1998, is there are only two, not mutually exclusive answers: "Either God is a biochemical process in the human brain, the function of which is to protect the intellect from experiencing the world as insecure and meaningless---fellings that could have resulted in the downfall of the human race in an evolutionary perspective---or else there is a God.'-Godel's theorum: we can never prove everything. Much as you believe in the infallable ability of science to study everything, it can't, anymore than we can see outside this universe.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 01:47 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Here is the challenge to the theists: > > > > Any valid theistic foundation of the universe must account for how something that is claimed to be "unknowable" in the physical world can change and/or alter the physical world. This question can be alternately phrased as "How does the physical universe come into existence by means of mind?"[EDITE > > D] > > If God interfaces with the physical world at all then there will be a way to detect it. > > > No there won't. Can you scientifically study your love for your wife (?), and don't tell me MRI with radioactive substances, several times removed. The same thing applies to Wagner, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, etc. The emotions in consciousness are beyond study directly, but they are as real as the brick from Romansh. The point of the book, 'A Concealed God', by Stephan Einhorn, 1998, is there are only two, not mutually exclusive answers: "Either God is a biochemical process in the human brain, the function of which is to protect the intellect from experiencing the world as insecure and meaningless---fellings that could have resulted in the downfall of the human race in an evolutionary perspective---or else there is a God.' > -You are comparing an emotion I experience to the creation of matter; these are clearly two entirely different things. One is an emotion experienced by a human being, the other is... still an emotion? An experience? That bears some kind of explanation as well. I can't fathom it. You're the theist here, have a crack!-> Godel's theorum: we can never prove everything. Much as you believe in the infallable ability of science to study everything, it can't, anymore than we can see outside this universe.-I will repeat again; just as surely as consciousness cannot be fully explained by matter neither does theism explain the creation of matter. I should chastise you here: where did I say what you said I did? You are rapid to judge today.-What I have a problem with is your implicit assertion that matter can be created by nonmatter. Ultimately this is on you to explain if you choose to go the route of theism. It's an unavoidable question unless you decouple God from the physical universe. The only solution that makes any sense in that scenario IS extreme deism. -Basically David, you don't get to pick and choose; if you choose to say God created the universe, you need to legitimately address the core issues it raises. This being one of them. You don't get to just say "I don't know" without trying! At least we can credit Materialists for trying to answer within their means? Have we reached your limit? Are we beyond your creative will? Here at this site I've attempted to fathom a UI; I've contemplated various other oddball things pertaining to God and reality... lets probe a little deeper here!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 06:49 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
Ever since I was about 10, I have had a theory about 'God'. It didn't fit with religion, and I don't know how to prove it with science, but it is well and truly formed from a lifetime spent in studying many different disciplines. I will try and explain it, but as we have pointed out, sometimes words are just not adequate, and I am always leery of discussing it as people generally tend to be very judgmental in regards to topics of God.-The basic idea is simply and understatedly, God is energy. My theory is based off of a couple of things:-Energy and Mass are interchangeable. (I.e. if God is energy, creating mass is a non-issue) Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms, and therefore is eternal. Everything, in all places, is connected by energy. (interconnectedness of all things, including mankind's tenuous link to God) All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion.-There are some other things that I am less sure of, though they would seem to fit.-A)Energy can be manipulated by intent.(implying some kind of link between human thought processes and manipulation of energy beyond their physical body.) -B)If energy can be manipulated, then, as energy and mass are interchangeable, by association, mass must be able to be manipulated as well.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 11:40 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Ever since I was about 10, I have had a theory about 'God'. It didn't fit with religion, and I don't know how to prove it with science, but it is well and truly formed from a lifetime spent in studying many different disciplines. I will try and explain it, but as we have pointed out, sometimes words are just not adequate, and I am always leery of discussing it as people generally tend to be very judgmental in regards to topics of God. > > The basic idea is simply and understatedly, God is energy. My theory is based off of a couple of things: > > Energy and Mass are interchangeable. (I.e. if God is energy, creating mass is a non-issue) > Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms, and therefore is eternal. > Everything, in all places, is connected by energy. (interconnectedness of all things, including mankind's tenuous link to God) > All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion. > > There are some other things that I am less sure of, though they would seem to fit. > > A)Energy can be manipulated by intent.(implying some kind of link between human thought processes and manipulation of energy beyond their physical body.) > > B)If energy can be manipulated, then, as energy and mass are interchangeable, by association, mass must be able to be manipulated as well.-I actually agree with this. About the only thing shared throughout the entire universe is energy, even if there's more void than anything else. In your quest for defending the ancients you might also chalk one up for the oft-repeated phrase "God is Light," though I suspect that's more wordplay on my part. -At the same time, if God is energy, and energy and mass are (essentially) the same thing; how/where does the interface happen between God and universe? I'm into the 4th chapter of Martin's book, and though he hasn't gone into it, he resorts to extradimensionality as one argument. He appeals to this to describe what seems to be our unlimited memory capacity.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 15:30 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I actually agree with this. About the only thing shared throughout the entire universe is energy, even if there's more void than anything else. In your quest for defending the ancients you might also chalk one up for the oft-repeated phrase "God is Light," though I suspect that's more wordplay on my part. > > At the same time, if God is energy, and energy and mass are (essentially) the same thing; how/where does the interface happen between God and universe? I'm into the 4th chapter of Martin's book, and though he hasn't gone into it, he resorts to extradimensionality as one argument. He appeals to this to describe what seems to be our unlimited memory capacity.-NDE folks go 'to the light'. The Kaballah talks about the 'light' at length. Does God live in photons?
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 16:08 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
If God is energy, he could take any form that is comprised of energy. One of those forms is light.
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 17:41 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> At the same time, if God is energy, and energy and mass are (essentially) the same thing; how/where does the interface happen between God and universe? I'm into the 4th chapter of Martin's book, and though he hasn't gone into it, he resorts to extradimensionality as one argument. He appeals to this to describe what seems to be our unlimited memory capacity.-Why does there have to be an interface? If God is energy and both within and without the universe, He is part of everything. When I realized I had, to my satisfaction, proven God beyond a reasonable doubt, I had a feeling in my body like the two times that I found myself deeply in love. Faith and emotion are intertwined in the intellect; faith is part emotion. I'm like Spinoza, perhaps due to our background, but he thought emotion would overcome reason and I think reason can be separated at times.
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 18:15 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. -This thought had also occurred to me a long time ago, and to be honest, has been the one thing that has kept me from ever completely giving up on the existence of a God. I think at the end of the day it comes down to belief and understanding.-To take the last first, understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable and ultimately indestructible. Mankind has learned to change the state of matter and energy by using outside forces. I think we are meant to learn to alter the state of energy and matter using our minds. (Holds his breath and waits for the straight jacket...)-Our brains already manipulate energy to create our personal realities, how much of a stretch is it to think that same ability can not extend to our communal reality? I know things such as this are covered in Buddhism, though I do not know to what extent. But even in Christianity, the message is there. "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains." And Peter was able to walk on water until he lost faith. None of this would be possible with out energy i.e. God's help.- Just one of those late night ideas that has been growing over the last several years.
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 20:19 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. -Karen Armstring in, 'A History of God', describes exactly that distancing, culminating in Allah only being known thru his creation, and very distant.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:24 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. > > Karen Armstring in, 'A History of God', describes exactly that distancing, culminating in Allah only being known thru his creation, and very distant.-This makes me wonder if that doesn't mean that the early seeds of doubt hadn't slowly been planted and grown?-If you think of religious texts being a record of Man's relationship to God, one could also suggest that it is a record of the tension between faith and reason. When you read John it's difficult for me to take much of what Christ says on the Mount at face value. But According to John later in the NT, it "is only through faith and faith alone" that anyone can be saved.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:53 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am not really sure that it is an interface to god that is needed, though, at least in the Christian belief system that is exactly the role that Christ was supposed to play. (Sorry if I digress to theology for a moment, but it is for good reason)Earlier in the bible though, Adam, Abraham, Moses and others had a direct interface with him. Through the scriptures, there is a definite trend of withdrawal over time, kind of a disconnect with that direct line. At first, any angel could serve the purpose, then, only Christ through faith. I am curious as to how that would gradual disconnect stacks up in other religious texts though. > > This thought had also occurred to me a long time ago, and to be honest, has been the one thing that has kept me from ever completely giving up on the existence of a God. I think at the end of the day it comes down to belief and understanding. > > To take the last first, understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable and ultimately indestructible. Mankind has learned to change the state of matter and energy by using outside forces. I think we are meant to learn to alter the state of energy and matter using our minds. (Holds his breath and waits for the straight jacket...) > -*looks around*-<whispers> "They mostly come out at night. Mostly..."-> Our brains already manipulate energy to create our personal realities, how much of a stretch is it to think that same ability can not extend to our communal reality? I know things such as this are covered in Buddhism, though I do not know to what extent. But even in Christianity, the message is there. "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains." And Peter was able to walk on water until he lost faith. None of this would be possible with out energy i.e. God's help. > -Maybe in Tibetan Buddhism, but in the Zen I practiced for some years, the "communal reality" they reference is simply these facts:-1. There is only the here and now 2. If there is only "here and now" then there is only one reality. 3. The self is a psychological illusion that prevents us from living in the here and now. Therefore, the self prevents us from living in the only reality.-Though this is a little inaccurate to express in language, but it wouldn't be far off to say that Buddhism at heart asserts that since we all share the same reality and that the self is an illusion (going back to your previous comment of "brain as filter") that there is no *actual* difference between you and I. -I say its inaccurate in words because the goal of meditation is to put you in contact with "the here in now," or as David joked previously, "I am conscious, but we are consciousness." -> > Just one of those late night ideas that has been growing over the last several years.-It Jives. Though I also have a theory that people who had a very religious upbringing are more likely to not abandon their religion. Yeah, people might abandon it for awhile, but whole-life apostates are rare.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 00:08 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It Jives. Though I also have a theory that people who had a very religious upbringing are more likely to not abandon their religion. Yeah, people might abandon it for awhile, but whole-life apostates are rare.-I did not have a very religious upbringing. Very Reform Reform Judaism. Had to have a bar Mitzvah as the first male grandchild on both sides. Quit Sunday School at that point. Have never enjoyed going to services. the Litergy is boring. Have had a better time at Father Bryan's Catholic services. (He is my cousin by marriage.)His two hour ordination was fun to see.-I no longer practice Judaism in any form, except I still consider myself Jewish and accept only a Jewish theology. And I went from Agnosticism to my form of belief.
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 06:51 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell
I've been kind of wondering over the last few days if technology isn't the missing piece to this separation puzzle. At the beginning of a cycle, we are closer to God, more in tune mentally if you will. Then, as we progress technologically, we lose touch with that aspect of ourselves as we being to rely more and more on external objects. I'm not anti-technology, but at the same time, I can see some fairly distinct disadvantages. Written languages/literacy has shortened our ability to retain while increasing our ability to acquire. Graphical interfaces reduce our ability to imagine, while increasing our access to detailed imagery. Calculators reduce our ability to perform complex equations unassisted, while making the same equations more accessible and faster. Heavy machinery reduces our physical capacity/health while making tasks faster and achievable by less people. Medicine provides quick fixes while actively working against the processes that would keep us healthy to begin with. (i.e. antibiotics and long term affects on viruses and our immune system). More and more we have come to rely on things external to ourselves.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 23:35 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I've been kind of wondering over the last few days if technology isn't the missing piece to this separation puzzle. At the beginning of a cycle, we are closer to God, more in tune mentally if you will. Then, as we progress technologically, we lose touch with that aspect of ourselves as we being to rely more and more on external objects. I'm not anti-technology, but at the same time, I can see some fairly distinct disadvantages. Written languages/literacy has shortened our ability to retain while increasing our ability to acquire. Graphical interfaces reduce our ability to imagine, while increasing our access to detailed imagery. Calculators reduce our ability to perform complex equations unassisted, while making the same equations more accessible and faster. Heavy machinery reduces our physical capacity/health while making tasks faster and achievable by less people. Medicine provides quick fixes while actively working against the processes that would keep us healthy to begin with. (i.e. antibiotics and long term affects on viruses and our immune system). More and more we have come to rely on things external to ourselves.-I've often heard arguments like this, in varying forms. -"We've lost touch with nature." "We've lost touch with God." -Shifting gears slightly, being in computers I am at the center of some of what you're talking about. Graphical Interfaces prevent you from having to interact with computers like this:-http://www.winagents.com/screenshots/rhino-terminal/rhino-terminal1.gif-Letting machines do computations reduces error and allows us to spend more time on what machines ARE NOT good at doing, like interpreting the results. The moon landing would have been impossible without IBM. At the same time, without knowing how those results got calculated, you won't know how to interpret them--trust me. These guys get weeded out very quickly. -In terms of medicine--antibiotics are absolutely necessary, just not all the time. Having worked in Pharmacy I'm less likely to use drugs. -But I counter the idea that "more and more" we rely on things external to ourselves. Nietzsche wrote that man is powerless to change nature. All we can do is change how we experience it. -Previously, if we hurt badly, we would still go to the medicine man, and instead of a pill, we'd either get a root of some kind, or other various shamanistic cures. We're still relying on something external to ourselves. Even if we turn to God--God is still external. (If God were internal, we would be God.) -The only thing internal is ourselves, and it is in this light I can agree with you. We rely far too much on other people, and on other things. My view on this is skewed--I am an only child. Self-sufficiency was hoisted on me at an early age. Though this will be a loaded statement; the only thing you can rely on absolutely in your life is yourself. -Now, I'm married, integrate with teams with excellent feedback. So I'm not advocating we all be hermits; but at least with all the friends that I know, people give up on things too easily; they turn in on themselves with "I can't." Especially when it comes to medicine. America has become a "savior society," where we'll do whatever we want and then expect doctors to "come save me" when things invariably turn south. -Back when our societies were young and man communed with God daily; we had to fight for everything! Maybe God is disgusted that we've been becoming less and less self-reliant over time, less willing to take risks? -"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?" --Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 04:24 (5167 days ago) @ xeno6696
Ok, I know a bit of programming, mainly C++ and a touch of java, so I follow you. The question is, would the average Joe or Jane follow you? If all of our modern infrastructure came tumbling down, and no more food flowed over the highways and airlines to McDonalds and the supermarkets, how many people would starve because they do not know how to grow a garden or hunt an animal? I work with navigators who do well enough, as long as they have a computer interface, but give them a compass, a map, and some spanners and ask them to figure out how from from point a to point b, and they are clueless. I see people routinely who can not count out proper change if the machine doesn't tell them how much to give. And while I agree that to an extremely limited extent, antibiotics are useful, we have abused the ever-lovin hell out of them and now we are reaping the benefits in the form of weaker immune systems and rapidly mutating viruses. How many die in the U.S. every year because their AIR CONDITIONER breaks? Thats not even a necessity for pete's sake, they simply do not know how to live. They know how to exist, which is an entirely separate thing.
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 05:43 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
But this is only partly what I mean. As you pointed out, it is also about relying on yourself, reflection, introspection, and reasoning. A person that masters their own mind is rare, partly because of the fact that we are so outwardly seeking, and partly because most people can't stomach taking a long hard look at themselves and seeing their own flaws.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:30 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
> > At the same time, if God is energy, and energy and mass are (essentially) the same thing; how/where does the interface happen between God and universe? I'm into the 4th chapter of Martin's book, and though he hasn't gone into it, he resorts to extradimensionality as one argument. He appeals to this to describe what seems to be our unlimited memory capacity. > > Why does there have to be an interface? If God is energy and both within and without the universe, He is part of everything. When I realized I had, to my satisfaction, proven God beyond a reasonable doubt, I had a feeling in my body like the two times that I found myself deeply in love. Faith and emotion are intertwined in the intellect; faith is part emotion. I'm like Spinoza, perhaps due to our background, but he thought emotion would overcome reason and I think reason can be separated at times.-To me, there 'has' to be an interface if we're going to cite God as prime cause for physical matter; otherwise we have have an impossibility. -God as energy could simply be an assertion that energy in the universe itself followed a path of development. God's creating will was however limited.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:58 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> To me, there 'has' to be an interface if we're going to cite God as prime cause for physical matter; otherwise we have have an impossibility. > > God as energy could simply be an assertion that energy in the universe itself followed a path of development. God's creating will was however limited.-Why an impossibility? If God existed as energy and from His own energy created the universe as part of Himself, He would be within and withhout the universe in one continuum. And why limited? He went in His creation, as far as He wished.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 00:09 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
> > To me, there 'has' to be an interface if we're going to cite God as prime cause for physical matter; otherwise we have have an impossibility. > > > > God as energy could simply be an assertion that energy in the universe itself followed a path of development. God's creating will was however limited. > > Why an impossibility? If God existed as energy and from His own energy created the universe as part of Himself, He would be within and withhout the universe in one continuum. And why limited? He went in His creation, as far as He wished.-Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. -This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 00:26 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. > > This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed.-What if God can create more energy than was present in the beginning? You assume that the intial energy was all there is. How did we get something from nothing in the first place, thank you, Leibnitz? Remember I'm the guy who is most comfortable with God in and out of the universe.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 01:16 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Because if God IS energy, than we must admit that God is limited by it. If God itself is everything; the singularity until now, then clearly he didn't have the power to do what he want when he wanted. And, as I conjectured in a long-dead thread here, God's ability to influence the world slowly dies over time as energy becomes less and less concentrated. > > > > This is a little more "Process-oriented" than most would like, but it makes sense as what has been observed. > > What if God can create more energy than was present in the beginning? You assume that the intial energy was all there is. How did we get something from nothing in the first place, thank you, Leibnitz? Remember I'm the guy who is most comfortable with God in and out of the universe.-Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 01:26 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes.-I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 02:04 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Then you raise the spectre of "what caused God?" But to answer your question, we have no reason to believe that there was more energy than what is in our universe, unless you want to appeal to String theory and Branes. > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle.-What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 05:03 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle. > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates!-I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:57 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle. > > > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates! > > I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you?-Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. -Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:59 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle. > > > > > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates! > > > > I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you? > > Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. > > Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy.-Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 23:37 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > > I guess you don't like the old Greeks. I'll stick with Aristotle. > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? Heraclitus and Xenophanes predate Socrates! > > > > > > I don't know philosophic history, knowing a little about Plato and aristotle. What do H & X give you? > > > > Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. > > > > Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy. > > Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!-I tell you what, so little exists of his work... I don't know if I still have it, but there's a book that grabbed every known fragment of his. It's not an easy read by ANY imagination, but if I can find it I'd be willing to send it to you!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Thursday, September 30, 2010, 01:41 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes! > > I tell you what, so little exists of his work... I don't know if I still have it, but there's a book that grabbed every known fragment of his. It's not an easy read by ANY imagination, but if I can find it I'd be willing to send it to you!-Thank you. Yes!
Ontological Arguments
by BBella , Thursday, September 30, 2010, 04:28 (5167 days ago) @ David Turell
Xenophanes was the one who said that Homer got the Gods all wrong advocating one of the earliest forms of monotheism I'm aware of. His fragments agree with you more than Aristotle. > > > > Heraclitus took that further by declaring that the only thing in the universe that was true was that nothing ever stayed the same. He gave birth to process philosophy. > > Thank you. I'll look at xenophanes!-I agree with Heraclitus about the only thing in the universe that is "true" and I give him a hand for birthing process philosophy. Go Heraclitus!
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 15:24 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> The basic idea is simply and understatedly, God is energy. My theory is based off of a couple of things: > > Energy and Mass are interchangeable. (I.e. if God is energy, creating mass is a non-issue) > Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms, and therefore is eternal. > Everything, in all places, is connected by energy. (interconnectedness of all things, including mankind's tenuous link to God) > All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion. > > There are some other things that I am less sure of, though they would seem to fit. > > A)Energy can be manipulated by intent.(implying some kind of link between human thought processes and manipulation of energy beyond their physical body.) > > B)If energy can be manipulated, then, as energy and mass are interchangeable, by association, mass must be able to be manipulated as well. -Very close to my own thinking. In College our philosophy prof told us: consciousness is energy on the 'inside', 'matter' is energy on the outside. Stuck like glue to me. It has to be right.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:33 (5169 days ago) @ David Turell
> > The basic idea is simply and understatedly, God is energy. My theory is based off of a couple of things: > > > > Energy and Mass are interchangeable. (I.e. if God is energy, creating mass is a non-issue) > > Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms, and therefore is eternal. > > Everything, in all places, is connected by energy. (interconnectedness of all things, including mankind's tenuous link to God) > > All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion. > > > > There are some other things that I am less sure of, though they would seem to fit. > > > > A)Energy can be manipulated by intent.(implying some kind of link between human thought processes and manipulation of energy beyond their physical body.) > > > > B)If energy can be manipulated, then, as energy and mass are interchangeable, by association, mass must be able to be manipulated as well. > > Very close to my own thinking. In College our philosophy prof told us: consciousness is energy on the 'inside', 'matter' is energy on the outside. Stuck like glue to me. It has to be right.-I've always hated it when statements assert their own validity; that said, this is an intuitive way of looking at it.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 01:53 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
David,-As a correction, Godel's theorem doesn't say "We can't prove everything" it says that for any given axiomatic set there will always be one enumeration that won't appear in the set. What this means is that it is not possible to have a complete set of consistent theorems across all of mathematics. You can have pure consistency and be incomplete, or be complete with no consistency. -So are you saying that you prefer complete theories with no consistency?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 27, 2010, 04:21 (5170 days ago) @ dhw
Matt is wrestling with "Ontological Arguments", and asks why we should accept them. I started ploughing through the list and got bored. Here is my definitive ontological proof that God exists: > > All that is, is. God is all that is. Therefore God is. > > As I see it, all these discussions revolve around language, and since language cannot grasp even known realities, let alone those areas of life we can't explain, we can play around with it ad infinitum and ad nauseam and make it mean whatever we want it to mean. Analyse my "proof" and you can argue that it's meaningless or crammed with meaning. > -Agreed here. -> Far more important in my eyes is your final question: "I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here...why is materialism wrong?" > > Forget ontological arguments, and ask yourself what are the most important realities in your life. I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll speak for myself, although B-M has already hinted at an answer by referring to consciousness. I just want to go a bit deeper. Far and away the most real and important thing for me is the love I feel for my family. The word "love" is totally inadequate ... as I said, language can't grasp realities ... and I have no idea how this extraordinary emotion can even exist, but it does, and if you think you can explain it in material terms, I'm afraid you don't know what love is. Here are a couple more inexplicable, non-material, personal realities: shelves full of books and plays that came out of my mind, though I have no idea how. I do not understand what force it is in me that creates these things, and if you say it's cells and chemicals inside my head, I'll ask you how and you won't be able to tell me. The same applies to the impact of music by Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius...something stirs very deep inside me, and it's not material. The list goes on, but I'm sure you've got the picture. I'll guarantee that every one of us has such essential realities in his/her life that are not explicable in material terms. You can't test them, so they fail to fulfil your scientific criteria, but they are your evidence that materialism is...well, not wrong, but hopelessly incomplete. It's good for some things and not for others, but since the others are what make my own life worth living, I'm damned if I'm going to close the door on the concept of the "spirit", or whatever is the opposite of the material body. You've argued that in this context you're more comfortable saying you haven't "the foggiest" and you stay away from such topics because you can't study them. I agree that you can't study them as you can study the material world, but that's your personal Catch 22: you can't see a chink in the armour of materialism because you stay away from anything that creates chinks in the armour of materialism!-Maybe asking "why materialism was wrong" was the WRONG question. David's arguments about God (as they exist on this forum) was my target, and I fear that the experiential nature of our existence made too easy a fodder for you.-While I have no technical problem reducing my feelings of love for my wife to a burst of oxytocin in my brain; I fully realize that no language that exists encapsulates the feeling I get. -The deeper question I'm asking, perhaps is why I should accept David's argument for God's existence. (I'm thinking at this point I should just buy his book!) -From talking on this forum he's made quite apparent through his references to Adler what exactly his arguments for God amount to: but my only reason for not accepting them come down to a combination of certainty and a general criticism of Ontological arguments. Going back to Adler; his reasoning is apparent. David says he argues similarly... so why should I alter what I consider to be knowledge for David? Or Adler? It doesn't seem reasonable for me to settle that God exists for the general reasons David has outlined here...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2010, 05:21 (5170 days ago) @ xeno6696
The deeper question I'm asking, perhaps is why I should accept David's argument for God's existence. (I'm thinking at this point I should just buy his book!) -I'm not here to sell the book, but when people inquire, I mail a copy media rate for $18, signed.
)
Ontological Arguments
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 27, 2010, 10:20 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
Haha I might just take you up on that.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 01:55 (5170 days ago) @ David Turell
The deeper question I'm asking, perhaps is why I should accept David's argument for God's existence. (I'm thinking at this point I should just buy his book!) > > I'm not here to sell the book, but when people inquire, I mail a copy media rate for $18, signed.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
MATT: Maybe asking "why materialism was wrong" was the WRONG question. David's arguments about God (as they exist on this forum) was my target, and I fear that the experiential nature of our existence made too easy a fodder for you. While I have no technical problem reducing my feelings of love for my wife to a burst of oxytocin in my brain, I fully realize that no language that exists encapsulates the feeling I get.-MATT (to David): He [= dhw] was informing me that experience itself is something that cannot be encapsulated into language!-Um...no...actually I wasn't. The second section of my post is a direct response to your question why materialism is wrong, and that has nothing to do with language. It concerns experiences (like love, creativity, aesthetic appreciation) which we cannot attribute to any known materials. These experiences are a major factor in my own agnosticism, and I can understand why they might tip the balance for a theist, just as materialism tips the balance for an atheist. Of course you and David must sort out the ontological problem between you (good luck to you both!) but ... I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me ... I'd say you were asking the RIGHT question and are now skating away from your real problem, which is your reluctance to abandon materialism. I don't think your love for your wife is due to a burst of oxytocin in your brain, any more than your terror when confronted by a masked gunman is caused by the pounding of your heart. You query your own epistemology, but at the same time you shy away from things you can't study. Why? I would say that is "the deeper question".
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 02:24 (5170 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Maybe asking "why materialism was wrong" was the WRONG question. David's arguments about God (as they exist on this forum) was my target, and I fear that the experiential nature of our existence made too easy a fodder for you. > While I have no technical problem reducing my feelings of love for my wife to a burst of oxytocin in my brain, I fully realize that no language that exists encapsulates the feeling I get. > > MATT (to David): He [= dhw] was informing me that experience itself is something that cannot be encapsulated into language! > > Um...no...actually I wasn't. The second section of my post is a direct response to your question why materialism is wrong, and that has nothing to do with language. It concerns experiences (like love, creativity, aesthetic appreciation) which we cannot attribute to any known materials. These experiences are a major factor in my own agnosticism, and I can understand why they might tip the balance for a theist, just as materialism tips the balance for an atheist. Of course you and David must sort out the ontological problem between you (good luck to you both!) but ... I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me ... I'd say you were asking the RIGHT question and are now skating away from your real problem, which is your reluctance to abandon materialism. I don't think your love for your wife is due to a burst of oxytocin in your brain, any more than your terror when confronted by a masked gunman is caused by the pounding of your heart. You query your own epistemology, but at the same time you shy away from things you can't study. Why? I would say that is "the deeper question".-Would it be fair to say that I really don't know what to do? To be blunt, if you can't study it, how can you really talk about it? How can you share it? We already know that language is imprecise, especially when dealing with experience. The best thing we have is metaphor. About the only thing I could think of to handle this would be to post old song lyrics I've written in a former life? I don't know what you expect me to do; I don't have a tool to study experience. My time in Buddhism taught me much about "the present moment" but the core principle I learned there (and I still have in my heart) is that experience is right here, right now, and that's it. You don't get to talk about it or study it. You just feel it and it's gone. It's as fleeting as it is persistent. I've asked you a couple times how you handle these things, and at least on those occasions, you didn't seem to have an answer other than that you are open. How do you handle them epistemologically? That's my target here, and everyone seems to ignore it every time I ask it. Is it so obvious that you think I'm just dense? -I've never been closed to hearing about other things, but at the same time the topic makes me uncomfortable, not because it challenges materialism, but because the imprecise nature of dealing with experience pretty much means that the discussion isn't going to be terribly fruitful. We all agree that I can't communicate to you the experience of "red," so why do we insist? Why should we? When you talked about your experience with the juju, what is it about that that I could possibly get from that without having at least a similar experience? Do you understand a little better why I tend to just let these matters lie? -Another good possibility on why its so difficult for me is that for my entire life, I've lived in a mental world. As an only child to a single parent, you get quite a bit of time for reflection and internal model-building. Or, maybe the part of the brain that causes "ultra-religiousness" in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is downright the opposite direction in my head. There's an evangelical saying, "Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart." I can safely say, I've never felt that hole. Does that mean that the Evangelicals are correct, and I am broken? Or like the current Pope has said, that I am less than human?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Ontological Arguments
MATT asks how you handle experiences like love, creativity and aesthetic appreciation epistemologically. "That's my target here, and everyone seems to ignore it every time I ask it. Is it so obvious that you think I'm just dense?"-Ouf! Absolutely not, and I honestly thought we'd been discussing precisely this problem. Not having "a tool to study experience" doesn't preclude discussion, and our whole correspondence on consciousness, free will, identity etc. has revolved around what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know. It may be that I've completely misunderstood what you mean by handling experiences "epistemologically". My understanding of this is basically: how do we know whether something is true? Not even an epistemologist can give you the answer, but I would split "truths" up into objective, subjective and intersubjective, and I thought that by taking the latter (love, creativity etc. which we both consider real) I'd be on safe ground. I'm now a bit uncertain, though, because it may be that what follows is so obvious that you'll think I think you're dense. So forgive me if I'm the one who is dense!-I "know" that something in me sends out messages which determine the interaction between parts of my brain, sends electrical impulses all round my body to control my actions, thoughts etc., and engenders the inexplicable phenomena I've mentioned. Nobody knows what this something is. Material or non-material? How do I find out the truth? Well, you did suggest one method: try to build a human brain. If you succeed, and if it manifests ALL the attributes we associate with humans, you will know as far as can be known that the sum is greater than the individual parts, and the mysterious something is entirely material. If you don't succeed, it won't prove anything, because you can go on trying to build the brain, but the non-material explanation will remain possible. -So what do you do in the meantime? I myself move to subjective and intersubjective evidence for such a form of consciousness. I can't "know", but as with most other areas of life beyond the limits of objective scientific knowledge, I can make judgements or suspend judgement (e.g. about juju, NDEs, consciousness, love etc.) and still keep considering all the options and theories. That's what we're both doing. For instance, you agree with B-M's concept of God as energy (which also fits in precisely with BBella's, David's, and mine too, though I'd never have thought of it when I was ten years old!) If God exists, it's difficult to imagine him in any other form. I think we agree that the known universe consists of energy and mass/matter, and so B_M offers us a hypothesis: "All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion." Whatever questions remain unanswered by materialism (which may eventually answer them all ... though I remain sceptical) can only be "handled" in the here and now by just such hypotheses, which we accept, reject, or suspend judgement on. And that, as I see it, is as far as any of us can go "epistemologically" until something like your robot, or God himself, comes along to prove to our satisfaction which hypothesis is true. -My apologies again if all this is too obvious, or if I've misunderstood you.
Ontological Arguments
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 23:46 (5168 days ago) @ dhw
MATT asks how you handle experiences like love, creativity and aesthetic appreciation epistemologically. "That's my target here, and everyone seems to ignore it every time I ask it. Is it so obvious that you think I'm just dense?" > > Ouf! Absolutely not, and I honestly thought we'd been discussing precisely this problem. Not having "a tool to study experience" doesn't preclude discussion, and our whole correspondence on consciousness, free will, identity etc. has revolved around what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know. It may be that I've completely misunderstood what you mean by handling experiences "epistemologically". My understanding of this is basically: how do we know whether something is true? Not even an epistemologist can give you the answer, but I would split "truths" up into objective, subjective and intersubjective, and I thought that by taking the latter (love, creativity etc. which we both consider real) I'd be on safe ground. I'm now a bit uncertain, though, because it may be that what follows is so obvious that you'll think I think you're dense. So forgive me if I'm the one who is dense! > -No no no... not at all! But "intersubjective" is a completely new word for my vocabulary. I will have to explore that dimension. (Maybe I already know it under another word." -> I "know" that something in me sends out messages which determine the interaction between parts of my brain, sends electrical impulses all round my body to control my actions, thoughts etc., and engenders the inexplicable phenomena I've mentioned. Nobody knows what this something is. Material or non-material? How do I find out the truth? Well, you did suggest one method: try to build a human brain. If you succeed, and if it manifests ALL the attributes we associate with humans, you will know as far as can be known that the sum is greater than the individual parts, and the mysterious something is entirely material. If you don't succeed, it won't prove anything, because you can go on trying to build the brain, but the non-material explanation will remain possible. > > So what do you do in the meantime? I myself move to subjective and intersubjective evidence for such a form of consciousness. I can't "know", but as with most other areas of life beyond the limits of objective scientific knowledge, I can make judgements or suspend judgement (e.g. about juju, NDEs, consciousness, love etc.) and still keep considering all the options and theories. That's what we're both doing. For instance, you agree with B-M's concept of God as energy (which also fits in precisely with BBella's, David's, and mine too, though I'd never have thought of it when I was ten years old!) If God exists, it's difficult to imagine him in any other form. I think we agree that the known universe consists of energy and mass/matter, and so B_M offers us a hypothesis: "All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion." Whatever questions remain unanswered by materialism (which may eventually answer them all ... though I remain sceptical) can only be "handled" in the here and now by just such hypotheses, which we accept, reject, or suspend judgement on. And that, as I see it, is as far as any of us can go "epistemologically" until something like your robot, or God himself, comes along to prove to our satisfaction which hypothesis is true. > > My apologies again if all this is too obvious, or if I've misunderstood you.-No, not at all; I think in terms of systems, and for all of my supposed knowledge about philosophy, "intersubjective" may provide the avenue I need to allow me more foothold to reason.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"