Curtis, I don't really get my need for God either. I'm pretty sure it was how I was raised and that I'm just "working it." A theory.
I'm convinced that there's the divine dichotomy -- the transcendent and the manifest. It's my everyday experience that there's something and that there's also a "nothing" that's not there but nevertheless is. And I'm thinking that the manifest is the transcendent's bitch -- but not by dint of a determinate causality. I'm thinking the universe is much more holographic in that every part of it contains the whole if one but had the laser eyes to enliven it. The seer is not seeable, merely be-able, but the manifest's fealty to causal laws is the long form birth certificate "proof" of the existence of the seer who, according to every single person who every lived, unlike things, has free will. I'm thinking it's logical to say that the seer is necessarily a priori to the manifest in that the manifest is ever changing while the seer is beyond any yet-discovered instrumentality. How the manifest is an emergent phenomenon from the measureless was Brahma's quest, and He failed, so I'm not eager to try the same by attempting to logic-force you down the same stalk. As if I could, eh? To me, since every scientist THAT HAS EVER EXISTED has found STRUCTURE WITHIN STRUCTURE FOR FRICKING EVER, that such empirical data necessarily supports the concept that the quantum foam too is structured and "somehow causal." To think that structure stops at some point when there is exactly zero examples of suchlike, just seems bonkers to me. It's just this ineffability of subtlety that allures. When does consciousness become conscious and all that. And exchanging views with you about this is psychic gold to me. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > That is really interesting Edg. But I don't really get the need for a God? > Unless he is being used as metaphor for the deepest level of matter. I am > inclined just to give a primacy to matter itself and drop the God idea as > unnecessary. Is that how you are using the idea, as a metaphor? > > I think most God ideas were useful before we had better answers. And > although I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics or the concept of > "quantum foam" I share your faith in scientific religiosity. Mainly because > the method attempts to limit how much of my natural bullshit religiosity can > get involved in the process! > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > In light of the concept "quantum foam" it's become difficult for me to > > believe in "nothing." Every where, every time we look, we find some > > THING.....even if it's not "there" long enough to say it was "here" with > > our timing apparatus that's limited by the uncertainty principle. A > > particle appears as if out of nowhere from the foam, but we know it was but > > an artifact of a more subtle field's processing. No one is speculating > > that the quantum foam has yet a more subtle field supporting it, but it > > would be a good guess that it's elephants and turtles all the way down > > unendingly. > > > > To me, this is the physical basis of the omnipresence of God -- meaning: > > there's structure and thingness no matter how subtle the eyes of the looker > > -- this is the lesson of the metaphor of Brahma going down the lotus stalk > > and finally giving up on ever having found the source -- Vishnu. Out of > > that structure (laws obeyed) in the quantum foam, I'm expecting that one > > day they're going to find ABSOLUTE linking between the qualities of those > > structures and the grossly manifest. That is: we can follow the flap of > > the butterfly's wings all the way to the hurricane hitting Miami. And I'm > > guessing that all our eternal truths will be upheld by that structure -- > > that's my faith in my scientific religiousity, plain and simple. > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the first > > > > premise. If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I > > > > don't think you can straddle the fence on this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I do not accept the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. Now we know where you stand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.> > B.> < If so, how can anything or something come from nothing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know. This is yet another assertion that lacks any > > > > > > > context. In my creative life this is exactly what happens on a > > > > > > > daily basis.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you give us a specific example of what happens to you on a > > > > > > daily basis that describes the condition above? > > > > > > > > > > Sure. I sit down to write a song fearing that I will never write a > > > > > song again because I have no ideas. Then as I am noodling around on > > > > > the guitar a riff emerges and then words emerge that seem coherent > > > > > enough to work with to create a song. > > > > > > > > You wrote a song. The cause of the song is you since you created it. > > > > The tune and lyrics came from you. They did not come from nowhere. > > > > > > > > This example only supports the first premise of the KCA. So, > > > > effectively you have not provided adequate support for your > > > > disagreement with the first premise. > > > > > > I think you are right, this is not a good example of something coming out > > > of nothing. Although that is how creativity is experienced, it does in > > > fact rely on a lot of experience contained in our brains. So not only is > > > this not a good example of something coming from nothing but it also may > > > refute the idea that ANYTHING cane begin to exist. As I said before the > > > universe itself may not have just changed its form from an eternal state > > > of matter. We can't assume that the singularity that is postulated to > > > have existed before the big bang ever began to exist. It may have always > > > been. So we also take care of the second assertion that the universe > > > began to exist. How do we know this? All we know in science that the > > > expansion of the universe in its current from has an historical point of > > > origin. > > > > > > You are offering a universal that the universe itself may be a > > > counterexample of. The universe doesn't need a cause in order to exist. > > > The first premise is not necessarily meaningful if we can not find > > > anything that BEGINS to exist. And neither is the second. You haven't > > > made any case for it. > > > > > > So accepting that something can't come out of nothing which may in fact > > > be a principle of matter and energy in the universe takes away the > > > possibility that something begins to exist or the the universe began to > > > exist. > > > > > > So we don't seem to have any use for postulating causes. In science it > > > is the intrinsic laws of matter that dictated the behavior of the > > > expansion of the big bang. No outside agency is needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C.> < It should be understood that common experience> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the appeal that some of the promoters of the idea are > > > > > > > pitching but it is simply not true. We are not discussing common > > > > > > > experience here you are asserting universals.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, there is a close connection between the two fields of > > > > > > experience. > > > > > > > > > > We don't experience universal statements we infer them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D.> < and scientific evidence confirm the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No scientific evidence worthy of the name uses inductive logic in > > > > > > > this manor. As far as I am aware this assertion is not only not a > > > > > > > result of any "evidence" nor is it an axioum of first principles > > > > > > > in any branch of science.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, scientific evidence follows the laws of cause and effect. > > > > > > > > > > Not always. Scientists are well aware that simultaneity does not > > > > > assure causation. In fact not assuming that this intuitive principle > > > > > is in play is one of the most difficult things about doing good > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E.> But I could be wrong, what are you referring to?> > > > > > > > > > > > > We're still trying to understand what is your true position > > > > > > regarding the first premise. So far, you appear to vacillate on > > > > > > your position. > > > > > > > > > > Really? Here is an attempt to make it simple: no. > > > > > > > > > > My true position on the first principle is to NOT accept it as a > > > > > first principle that needs no proof. > > > > > > > > > > And because it is being used out of any context it carries the > > > > > intellectual precision of "blibity blab is always snickerdy nick but > > > > > is NEVER bumbledy bump." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > F.> I don't know what you background is in philosophy John, but > > > > > > mine is meager. An undergraduate degree from some small college in > > > > > > the Midwest whose name eludes me at the moment but it begins with > > > > > > an N...no...wait it is an M, definitely and M.> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not a philosophy major. But I have taken a few courses in > > > > > > philosophy while in college. I have a degree in accounting at a > > > > > > university here in San Francisco, CA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > G.> What is going on here is that an old school rationalist > > > > > > argument is being proposed based on an unproven assumption. This > > > > > > is not a self-evident first principle. It just sounds truthy to > > > > > > you. When people get serious about first principles to base an > > > > > > argument on they start with as Socrates did "all I know is that I > > > > > > know nothing at all" or Decarte's famous "I think therefore I am." > > > > > > These are self-evident principles that most people agree with. > > > > > > They are not scientific statements of truth and were not derived > > > > > > from experiment they are assertions like your first one. But they > > > > > > are not universals you notice, and they aren't chock full of > > > > > > assumptions about how the world works that science has not proven.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're still waiting for your true position on the first premise of > > > > > > the KCA. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this > > > > > > > > > > > > premise is resolved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "created," > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eternal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invalid, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
