A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 436
#361
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
To further an analogy EtrnlVw begun. If you ask what is 2+2, it's better to say I don't know than answer with 5.

But, my answer could very well be 4 and your skepticism that my answer could be accurate means very little especially when you have no answer to the equation at all. Which makes your doubt a bit irrational. 

#362
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

It IS perfectly logical to conclude that it requires thought and a mind to produce a process and a result, that is obvious and you can't show how they could occur without that factor. That is the strength behind the premise.
Unfortunately, it's not a strength it's another logical fallacy. It's an argument from ignorance 'you can't show how they could occur without that factor' isn't the same as saying they can't occur without that factor. If I were claiming they can occur without that factor you would have an argument, but that's not my position, my position is that you have not yet shown that they must have that factor. You still haven't in any way shown a logically sound argument that shows because processes can begin with an intelligence that processes must initiate with an intelligence. The above is a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance), you've also presented arguments from incredulity (to call it absurd without showing why it must be absurd is such an argument) and cited common sense (which I've addressed as having failed us before, it's good for a hypothesis, which should then be supported by logic and evidence, but it's not so reliable as support for logic).

Actually go back and reread that, it was thoroughly addressed. I gave you an answer as well as why it happens.
You never presented any way we can verify that it required an intelligence to happen, To break down the answer:

"Matter is intended to have a lifespan, where our experience of time is linear, that is the nature of matter it isn't eternal. So you won't find perfection really in creation, meaning things that last forever. The physical world will always be built for decomposing, it's built with material that doesn't last. This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes."

Notice nowhere does this give any way we can verify that the ageing process is the product of an intelligence. It does however make two claims it does nothing to support. Namely 'Matter is intended to have a lifespan' Can you show, not just claim, but show intentionality in the ageing process? And then another claim is 'This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes.' Can you verify any of that?

So, my question stands, can you show any way we can verify that the ageing process required an intelligence to initiate it? I understand that you believe it does, I understand that you find the alternatives to be absurd, but unless you can support them with facts and logically sound argument then you're presenting opinions, our opinions don't support a claims validity any more than others opinions don't invalidate it, only logic and evidence can do that.

Then it wasn't a hasty generalization.
It was by definition, a hasty generalization is a logical fallacy, if an argument commits the fallacy then it is a hasty generalization, regardless of how long you took to get to it. This is starting to look like a red herring semantics argument to avoid actually discussing the point though, so lets just be clear on my issue and you can address that. You haven't answered my question to you, why does the fact that processes can be initiated by intelligence mean all processes must be initiated by intelligence?

Not really, but does it warrant consideration rather than never knowing why processes occur at all?

I'm considering it now that's what this entire conversation is, I consider your proposition and present the logical fallacies. We would progress much better if you were to actually address the fallacies I present. Why not begin with the one above, it's important to note that you have to show that we can verify that your claim is sound, not simply that there's no other alternative that makes more sense, since that is an argument from ignorance (I'm sure you're aware of the logical fallacy in question).

You don't seem to be asking that I consider your position, but that I accept it as true, that is an entirely different request.

Fair enough as long as you're content with a premise that you don't know why or how that's your choice.
That's not the premise, that's the conclusion and it's logically sound. It's not about being happy, I don't base belief on what makes me happy, but on what is most likely to be accurate based on evidence and logic. When evidence and logic and be used to verify your premise then I'll believe it, until then I'll continue to make the logical conclusion that I cannot know if a creator was necessary or involved in the formation of the universe.


You haven't presented anything for me to believe it isn't sound.
I have presented a number of fallacies in your argument that you have simply ignored. That you seem to think you can resolve these with further claims or simply not address them doesn't resolve them or make them go away.

Lol round and round we go. 
Yeah, we'll keep coming back to this pesky question until you answer it as it's the crux of your argument. You act as though you've answered it but you haven't. You have presented a reasons you believe it, but not reasons that it's logically better to believe it than to leave it as an unknown. To show that it warrants belief, you must show evidence and/or logical arguments that show it is most likely true, you haven't yet. You have argued that you believe an answer is better than no answer. I disagree with this. I would say a correct answer in better than no answer, yet I've yet to be given any reason an incorrect answer is better than no answer. 2+2=5 doesn't seem to be better than 2+2=?

I would go so far as to say I believe questions to be better than incorrect answers. If you accept an unknown you will continue to work to understand and achieve a correct answer, if you accept an incorrect answer then you will simply believe something that's incorrect. So, can you in any way show that processes require an intelligence (and this is the important part), without logical fallacies in your argument?
#363
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
It may be interesting, but do we have any reason to believe it to be true?

Yes, the universe itself is an indicator of intelligence which produces intelligent processes. If processes occur and are produced, it is evident that thought was involved as it requires thought (intelligence/mind) to understand what it takes to develop a desired result or outcome and a mind to initiate a process itself. If that is the case then we have good reason to consider an infinite consciousness or awareness. Meaning all that we observe, are the products of an intelligent mind and all things come from that first foundation. We can support that notion with what the universe itself has produced...intelligent processes and intelligent sentient creatures, ecosystems which support that role. 
#364
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
But, my answer could very well be 4 and your skepticism that my answer could be accurate means very little especially when you have no answer to the equation at all. Which makes your doubt a bit irrational.
I haven't said that your answer couldn't be 4, but until it can be shown to be so it's not an accurate analogy. To present an analogy of my own. Let's say that we have a box, we don't know what's in the box, we've not seen inside of it and we cannot open it or otherwise interact with it for a week. Would it be logical to accept as true my statement that it contains a piece of art worth millions of dollars? Or would it be more logical to conclude that we don't know what's in the box? Would you be willing to quit your job for the box that might contain priceless art? Or would it be more logical not to make a conclusion until we know what's in the box? I would go with the latter. To continue to examine an uncertainty is often (not always, but often) better than accepting the only claim to come along.
#365
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
it's another logical fallacy

If you spent half as much time educating yourself what evidence entails and what a logical premise is rather than reading a book of supposed fallacies then this wouldn't be such a waste of time. 

It's not about being happy, I don't base belief on what makes me happy

If that's what you believe my motivation is then this indeed is a waste of time. 
#366
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes, the universe itself is an indicator of intelligence which produces intelligent processes.
How is it an indicator of intelligence? This seems to be begging the question (assuming your conclusion in the premise).

If processes occur and are produced, it is evident that thought was involved as it requires thought (intelligence/mind) to understand what it takes to develop a desired result or outcome and a mind to initiate a process itself.
This assumes intentionality in saying that certain results were 'desired' can you show this intentionality?

If that is the case then we have good reason to consider an infinite consciousness or awareness. Meaning all that we observe, are the products of an intelligent mind and all things come from that first foundation.

Again this seems to be dependent on natural processes having been initiated with a desired outcome, can you show that to be the case? Or do you conclude this because the outcome is one that you find desirous?

We can support that notion with what the universe itself has produced...intelligent processes and intelligent sentient creatures, ecosystems which support that role.
Ah, now this is a more interesting point. Are you arguing that intelligence couldn't have formed without an intelligence to have formed it? If so, can you show this claim to be verifiable?

#367
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I haven't said that your answer couldn't be 4, but until it can be shown to be so it's not an accurate analogy.

When there is an equation that has no other possible answer as there is only one useful and accurate explanation it has been shown already. 2+2 can only ever equal four, it has no other possible answer it's that black and white. It's as black and white as processes are associated with a mind...You could rattle off a dozen alternatives as to how intelligent processes could occur without a mind involved and I would consider each of them as long as they weren't illogical and absurd. As a matter of fact take that as a challenge, give me one or two other possible answers as to how inanimate forces could begin to produce results or why processes occur besides you don't know, or that they just do and I will gladly accept that my analogy is not accurate or that my answer may not be 4.
Otherwise the rest of your own analogy falls apart, because I'm not claiming we can't see what's in the box or know what it is. I'm giving you the only possible answer. You could prove me wrong of course.

#368
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
If you spent half as much time educating yourself what evidence entails and what a logical premise is rather than reading a book of supposed fallacies then this wouldn't be such a waste of time. 
I'm aware of what evidence is, it's a body of facts and information that support a claim. We've discussed supposed evidence, but so far you've not been able to present any fallacy free argument why any of the things you've presented support your claim. As for a logical premise, I know what one is, I also know that an unsound premise is extremely dangerous to make an argument on. As for reading a book of supposed fallacies, I haven't had to, I've just taken the time to grasp logic to a point that I can at times see logical flaws, I've also discussed enough to know what some of these common flaws are commonly called. If you could address the flaws I present then the argument wouldn't be a waste of time, so far you don't seem to want to.
#369
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
How is it an indicator of intelligence? This seems to be begging the question (assuming your conclusion in the premise).

By what it produces.

This assumes intentionality in saying that certain results were 'desired' can you show this intentionality?

By what it produces, all you have to do is look at the end results. We've been over most of these, the curious nature and dependence of stars, the arrangement of solar systems and the earths position, the eco-system, food, water, light and heat then the development of embodiments that utilize those sources.

Again this seems to be dependent on natural processes having been initiated with a desired outcome, can you show that to be the case? Or do you conclude this because the outcome is one that you find desirous?

Desirous in that you enjoy the beauty of earth and our solar system, you can live out your own desires and passions here. That you depend upon the very necessity of those factors to survive.

Ah, now this is a more interesting point. Are you arguing that intelligence couldn't have formed without an intelligence to have formed it? If so, can you show this claim to be verifiable?

Yes, I don't believe that an inanimate force could produce or create intelligence or produce anything. Can I show it to be verifiable? it's back to 2+2 could only ever have one possible answer. And this goes back to common sense as well.


#370
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
If that's what you believe my motivation is then this indeed is a waste of time. 
I never spoke to your motivations at all. You stated

'Fair enough as long as you're content with a premise that you don't know why or how that's your choice.'

I'm saying that my happiness is neither here nor there when matters of what is true and what I should believe are (they should be as close as possible the same thing). Honestly your motivations aren't that relevant to my conclusion and I wouldn't presume to know what they are.

#371
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I'm aware of what evidence is,

Then stop claiming that none has been presented. 

it's a body of facts and information that support a claim.

More accurately it's the available body of facts and information that indicate whether a proposition is true or valid. 

As for a logical premise, I know what one is,

And it has been presented. 

If you could address the flaws

I haven't been made aware of legit flaws. My premise is sound, it is logical and supported by evidence. 
#372
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Part of the problem is that you appear to not understand the terms of evidence and what it entails. 
Oh, I do, I just don't think what you claim as evidence indicates what you think it does. That's why I continue to question it.

It seems to me most people don't have a clear grasp how evidence is defined or how it's used to support ideas, or that evidence should only be some scientific study or demonstration that confirms how something works and that's not true. Evidence can be as simple as "anything presented in support of an assertion. There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)."

And while a person is free to categorize evidence as strong or weak it's still classified as evidence
Only if it supports the accuracy of your claim and is made of facts and information, an opinion isn't evidence for example.

For example, even though my pemise is supported by evidence (indicator) you ignore that evidence has been presented. 
Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or at least valid, and I've used correlation as that which indicates intelligent processes requires a mind or thought behind them to support my premise. Correlation being that we associate processes with intelligence or a production with a producer and the processes being those we observe in the universe through science such as the birth and death of stars, formation of planets, arrangement of solar systems, ecosystems and the evolution of embodiments ect ect and I went over some of that in more detail.  There is a very clear indicator (evidence) that the universe was produced by intelligence because that is what we see,  that is the outcome of what we observe. 

But your correlation isn't sound. It only works if you can show that because intelligence can be the initiating factor of a process then all processes must be initiated by an intelligence then you'd have a sound position. You correlate intelligence and processes, yet you cannot show this correlation in any natural processes, until you can why should we assume that there's correlation?

That premise above is supported by evidence. In this case we could classify it as obvious or evident evidence (intellectual evidence).

No, it's a claim. It would be evidence if you could show your correlation points to your claim, you can't at most you have shown that some processes are initiated by intelligences.
#373
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I'm saying that my happiness is neither here nor there when matters of what is true and what I should believe are (they should be as close as possible the same thing). Honestly your motivations aren't that relevant to my conclusion and I wouldn't presume to know what they are.

I'm not concerned as to what makes you happy per say but what makes you content and what is intellectually honest. Are you really content with not knowing when there is an answer to the equation? .....I've been trying to get you to consider a logical premise, one that is superior to yours, one that only has one possible scenario. In this case you don't have to walk around not knowing when the answer is black and white. 
#374
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Then stop claiming that none has been presented. 
Why? Nothing you have shown fits the requirement of showing your proposition is true or valid. You still have a long list of fallacies to address before that's the case.

More accurately it's the available body of facts and information that indicate whether a proposition is true or valid. 
And you haven't presented anything that shows your premise to be true or valid.

And it has been presented. 
I have addressed a long list of issues with the logical nature of your argument, until you address them, then your premise isn't logically sound.

I haven't been made aware of legit flaws. My premise is sound, it is logical and supported by evidence.
Unfortunately saying that doesn't make it so. At best you have evidence that intelligences can initiate processes, your premise is that all processes must be initiated by a mind or intelligence, nothing you have presented supports that logically. If you disagree then present the logical argumentation to show that because some processes can be initiated by intelligence all processes must be. You can't make that crucial link and without that your argument isn't logically sound. If we say that Processes (A) has the subset of human initiated processes (B) and natural processes (C) then what you have done is state Since B is a subset of A and C is also a subset of A they must share trait Y. I ask why must they? If you cannot show that natural processes require an intelligence then natural processes aren't an indicator that all processes require an intelligence.
#375
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1

By what it produces.
And why does what it produces suggest intelligence was necessary for its initiation? What is the reason for this conclusion?

By what it produces, all you have to do is look at the end results. We've been over most of these, the curious nature and dependence of stars, the arrangement of solar systems and the earths position, the eco-system, food, water, light and heat then the development of embodiments that utilize those sources.
And what reason do you have for concluding that they suggest the forces required an intelligence in their origin to achieve those results? Why does any of that indicate an intelligence behind it all?

Desirous in that you enjoy the beauty of earth and our solar system, you can live out your own desires and passions here. That you depend upon the very necessity of those factors to survive.
Can you show that there was a desired outcome behind any of this? Why does the fact that the outcome is good for me and the rest of life suggest in any way that it was planned to be so? Why is it an indicator of anything in regards to the existence of a creator?


Yes, I don't believe that an inanimate force could produce or create intelligence or produce anything. Can I show it to be verifiable? it's back to 2+2 could only ever have one possible answer. And this goes back to common sense as well.
And can you show this only has one possible answer and that it's your answer? If not then you're left with an assertion.
#376
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
When there is an equation that has no other possible answer as there is only one useful and accurate explanation it has been shown already. 2+2 can only ever equal four, it has no other possible answer it's that black and white. It's as black and white as processes are associated with a mind...You could rattle off a dozen alternatives as to how intelligent processes could occur without a mind involved and I would consider each of them as long as they weren't illogical and absurd. As a matter of fact take that as a challenge, give me one or two other possible answers as to how inanimate forces could begin to produce results or why processes occur besides you don't know, or that they just do and I will gladly accept that my analogy is not accurate or that my answer may not be 4.
No, see this is an effort to shift the burden of proof. You are claiming to have the answer. That answer is true or not regardless of if there is an alternative answer or not. You have done nothing to show that your answer is correct, you've provided no evidence (you have yet to show anything that indicates an intelligence is necessary for the initiation of processes, only that intelligence can initiate some processes), your arguments have had many logical fallacies, including this one, which is an argument from ignorance and an effort to shift your burden of proof.

Otherwise the rest of your own analogy falls apart, because I'm not claiming we can't see what's in the box or know what it is. I'm giving you the only possible answer. You could prove me wrong of course.
Can you show that the answer you're presenting is correct though? You haven't in any way done that. Question for you, why can't processes begin without an intelligence? What is absurd about it? Give details, explain your reasoning and present the logic that you use to make that argument. Don't assume that because you take that position it's true regardless of the lack of evidence or logic. That is frankly arrogant. I am happy to follow this each step back until we reach a point where we have an answer or can go no further and must conclude there is no way for us to answer, but I will not accept 'it's absurd' or 'it's common sense' as neither of these are reliable ways to determine if the claim is correct or not.
#377
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

I'm not concerned as to what makes you happy per say but what makes you content and what is intellectually honest. Are you really content with not knowing when there is an answer to the equation? .....I've been trying to get you to consider a logical premise, one that is superior to yours, one that only has one possible scenario. In this case you don't have to walk around not knowing when the answer is black and white. 
Firstly, my contentment also isn't the issue here, the only issue is what is true, what can we support with logic and evidence (you have yet to present anything that's an unbiased indicator of your claim, everything is dependent on considering the possibility of this universe being as it is without an intelligence absurd, you'd have to show that basis is sound before the universe is evidence of your claim). Since your argument doesn't provide those in any meaningful way, it doesn't warrant belief, even if it would bring contentment.

Secondly, I would say it's not obviously black and white, since your argument has repeatedly boiled down to 'it's common sense'/'it's absurd' the first of which is hardly reliable as common sense has been shown many times to be wrong and the second of which is merely your opinion unless you can give evidence and logical argument to show why a universe is definitely absurd?
#378
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
For a Creator to be more specific.
We really have to define what that means. Bc i don't believe it's most logical there is a sky being creating everything. This "creator" thing i believe is something way deeper. I'm more inclined to believe "consciousness" is everything. What the implications of that are is pretty wild, and many times outside of what i can know. Maybe it doesn't even know how it came to be bc it always existed and there was never absolute nothing. I don't know. Maybe things just are. But specifically with creating... if creating can be as simple as imagination becoming "a" reality... i don't see how that is impossible, and actually more likely since a consciousness that can create and imagine in an infinite platform has pretty wild implications. Imagine us being immortal, fully merged with technology, and able to create any simulation we imagine. What does "creator" mean at that point? A very little correlation to "a" creator... as proposed by many religions. It would be a collective, it would be individual, it would be anything we can imagine... times that to infinity, creation simply has a crazy definition. Although "creating" is happening... not in a single creator setting. If you are arguing about that, i would take your side. I would not take the side of any one single creator / power definition. However, i always mention "a" platform. This platform can be called god / creator.. but the platform is simply the hardware / software that allows for what is... so, it's really not a one thing either. With all that, i think it's more logical that there is this platform so i'll try to keep on track with that... BUT

Remember to tag me. lol. I just skim through this site now so i almost missed your reply if Etrnl wouldn't have tagged me. 

Yet this assumes time being more than a property of this universe doesn't it?
Why do we have to get so complicated? Sure, our intelligence is what defines time. We define time off what we see in the mass of the universe existing. Time is just going forward... it's simply that. Put whatever definition we want to it.. things are moving forward. If we lived in a magical universe where there were super-humans that can control time... it would have a different meaning. But whether you can mess with time, turn it backwards, or whatever... all those actions are just moving forward. My point with infinite regress is, without a mind... nothing should ever exist for it should never get to it in an infinite platform. So then we can just say our reality is the final point.. a finite universe, then... how long does that finite space exist? Yet, an infinite platform with a mind to traverse it... makes sense. For then it can be both infinite and finite for there is nothing outside of its imagination. This is one of a few things i would call evidence to lean towards "consciousness" being king in truth of "absolute reality"... When i say time... i simply mean moving forward. Nothingness, absolute, could have just been that until it became something... nothing can move forward as being nothing even if it doesn't have time as we would define it. Maybe there was once nothing, but now there is something. And i think adding a supreme consciousness to this space makes more sense than there not being one. 

To further an analogy EtrnlVw begun. If you ask what is 2+2, it's better to say I don't know than answer with 5.
I said this earlier, this is where we both sound similar. I agree with you. I don't pretend i know what the platform is, or do i pretend i know any of the pieces of how, when, where, etc. It's beyond me. The only thing i can be certain of is my experience. That is where things get interesting bc if my experience is one where little truths are revealed... then, i have some expertise of saying x+y = z. X being me, Y being the experience, z being reality. But, this equation is only good for me. Adding other experiences to it would change it. I see reality the way i do bc it works with my experience... are there truths in it? Sure, and there is also fallibility. Which is why i can't make any "proof" like claims, only that this is where is stand to help the picture form from the collective. Etrnl is a lot further along then most theists, but i don't think he has all the exact pieces either. Therefore, your conclusion of just not knowing... i'm with you there. But, like i argue with many people that think there is no intelligence to this... i just simply disagree there. It seems imagination, a piece of consciousness as we know it, when added to infinity... is something pretty wild and more logical when added to the mix. 

It may be interesting, but do we have any reason to believe it to be true?
I've caught myself on this many times now. Depends on how you define believe. I define believe a little different than the actual definition. To me it means i strongly suspect more than not... this is happening. So, i strongly suspect some kind of simulation theory mixed with some alcohol and weed, times infinity, is whats going on. What is that? Idk, all i know is i'm "one" of billions of characters that have existed in it. So, the only thing i should be focusing on is who my character is to this game. Everything else be damned. Bc in the end, the only thing that will have to deal with whatever it is... is me. Any other answer i simply wouldn't exist anymore. But if i do continue to exist, it's my character that i have to worry about. And personally, i've had some experience to reinforce that i am the center of this, and that there are things beyond what i've been told to be possible. So that's how i see reality now. I will never be an atheist by the strictest definition, but that's just my character and it makes sense bc i can't imagine being anything different.  

Not to be rude
You are just being you. I am not trying to change that, just add maybe something you haven't heard. In a way, making you better at being you. There is no evidence i can present to you, but i don't know why you would think there would be in this realm. If i saw an incorporeal being talk to me and tell me exact things to do that get me to certain places in my experience, how could i ever prove that to you? All i know is that it has proved itself to me for some weird reason. But overall, sure there should be ways of zoning into this personal experiences one day to provide collective proof that they happen. I just don't think we're there yet or should we ever be? I don't know the answer to that. I just chimed in bc you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. In regards to evidence, i can't give you this evidence if it was anecdotal... however, like i tell many people that ask for this evidence... isn't it evidence enough that there are people like me that say there is this evidence? 

Stuff has happened to me, a person i'd like to think with a logical head on his shoulders, that i cannot explain. They were "spiritual" in nature, they seemed to have intelligent implications, invisible forces... i just can't explain. But even if i take myself out of the equation, there are millions of reported cases of such experiences. Even if i ignore my own, even if i say all of them "but one" experience actually happened... just one being true holds crazy implications. I know this is some sort of logical fallacy... a majority one or something. But i'm not even saying that, i'm saying just one "ghost" sighting... if it actually happened, then that means ghosts exist. There are millions of reported events that go beyond what should be possible. Sure, i can say they are all mistaken identity... but, that's the thing, it's happened to me and i think bc of that... i actually started listening. So, ultimately it has me scratching my head. It most definitely doesn't point to a creator... but it does point towards something. I think what that something is is what we are trying to define as primitive apes at this point. 

Ultimately, i take your i don't know position. But i do favor / think it is more logical there is an intelligence beyond ours and at a way higher capacity than what we know. It just makes more logical sense by simple things as what we can create or little things like the infinite regress answer i stumbled on. But can i know? Nope at this point. Can i "prove" it... nope, no strong evidence. I think people like me and Etrnl are simply just saying you can't say there is zero evidence however... anecdotal accounts, ideas, arguments, all that favor something beyond, or evidence nonetheless... just not strong. Etrnl believes this stuff with more confidence than i do, but i respect him for being exactly that bc i personally need it to continue to be my agnostic self. I don't know how i furthered your conversation with him other than to say what he knows and his logic is evidence in my eyes. I don't let each point go just bc i may disagree down the line for thinking i'm a vampire to the platform that will torture millions one day (inside joke).  


#379
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
While Mdh2000 keeps presuming I have not made an argument or have not provided evidence I believe I've done both. 
I agree with your evidence, but since it's abstract... the very nature of it means he can disagree with why you believe what you do. That's the beauty of infinity. 
#380
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
 What does "creator" mean at that point? A very little correlation to "a" creator... as proposed by many religions. It would be a collective, it would be individual, it would be anything we can imagine... times that to infinity, creation simply has a crazy definition. Although "creating" is happening... not in a single creator setting. If you are arguing about that, i would take your side. I would not take the side of any one single creator / power definition. However, i always mention "a" platform. This platform can be called god / creator.. but the platform is simply the hardware / software that allows for what is... so, it's really not a one thing either.

You're right here in many ways...I'm not going to argue about religion, or make any claims the platform is a God coined through religion but Creator is a legit term to use. Because the worlds that exist prior to the soul existing  there, along with the seemingly infinite number of galaxies and planets were created, they were created before hand so that the soul has endless places to journey and exist. So how this works, is the worlds or planets are formed and brought into existence and then the soul plots or chooses which part of the universe it will exist. Sometimes it doesn't always choose though because it must learn something from an experience.

You're right though, there doesn't have to be a single Creator but there is a single platform if that makes sense. The platform is a singular unified Reality, out of which all mini-creators (you and I) originate. The co-creators are permitted to create whatever reality they dream of or desire as they progress in creation. What distinguishes us from the original platform is our individual perceptions and expressions which are formed through our experiences and embodiments. We basically become our own individual being as we move through creation. It's crazy how this works and is absolutely genius, that we could all originate from the same Reality yet become our own individual.

However not all souls are creators or world-makers, not all want to be. But at the same time all souls have complete freedom even though their world may limit or restrict that freedom. So in that sense you have souls that create realities where others souls may want to journey, it's kind of cool. In other words, you may see a world or a galaxy you think is totally bad-azz and spend a couple eons there if that's what you want. Or, you can create realities for other souls to sojourn. The point, is that there are endless places to exist....so that coupled with the fact we believe our experiences and lives to be temporal through perception, we always have something new to experience.

I call the platform Creator because that's what It basically is, that's where all mini-creators originate. Consciousness by nature, including the platform is creative by nature, it wants to express itself and can never be anything else. Consciousness doesn't want to be alone even though it has always been alone lol, it's very nature wants to share and to have relations that's why Creators are so important and why it's a good term to use.

When i say time... i simply mean moving forward....little things like the infinite regress answer i stumbled on

Here's the cool part that most people don't think about, "time and infinite regress"....in the physical universe time is simply a type of illusion even though it's relevant. Time, or what we label time is simply the material world passing, or matter deteriorating, in other words it's on a linear type scale of events. The platform or the ocean of awareness/consciousness we always talk about, the foundation out of which all comes from is a static reality, it's a fixed state of being. In this fixed state of being matter doesn't exist on a linear time scale because there is no passing of events, there is no aging process or a past and a future in terms of "time" so there is no time passing. So if you can picture the platform as a static Reality where linear time doesn't exist, in other words no passing of material matter this also solves the infinite regress problem because there is no infinite past since time ceases to exist in the way we understand it, there was just a unified fixed state of existence. If it helps, you can picture it as cyclical instead of static. I'm just giving you this bit of information so you can put more pieces together without getting hung up.

So it's almost like a picture play on top of a static screen if that makes any sense. Where you have the movie (movements of events and time) and the movie watcher (static background). The picture play obviously would be the physical universe and the watcher would be the platform, where there is a fixed state of being that precedes our moving universe of picture plays.

If you pay attention to quantum mechanics it always brings you back to the base fabric of everything, where it becomes a unified interconnectedness between all things. They don't call this base or fabric awareness yet, but that's just because they don't know it yet. But the base or foundation is fixed, it doesn't move. Only the things brought into existence dance, come into existence and go out of existence. Kind of like a static ocean in a way, and the waves that come in and out of that fixed water are what forms within creation are. Anyways I could go on and on about it lol, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. When you get it, you will see there actually is no infinite regress issue because if time passing is basically an illusion then there never was an infinite past in terms of the movement and aging of physical matter, albeit there indeed exists an eternal presence.

And I'm not trying to butt into your discussion either, you're just one of the few people I can collaborate with that aren't so limited in their thinking. It's kind of funny, even though we have similarities the way you are brings out a lot of my potential because you get it. Everybody else is still hung up on mistakes religions have brought about and I don't really care about that stuff lol. And atheists are still hung up on God, or the platform not existing so I never get to really stretch my wings. These forums are a blessing and a curse!

#381
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
I agree with your evidence, but since it's abstract... the very nature of it means he can disagree with why you believe what you do. That's the beauty of infinity. 

Hmm that's interesting and I'm glad to see you around here. That is the beauty of creation you're right, only thing I don't like about it, is that people can be blind to the full potential of what is actually going on. I guess that makes creation what it is, how we are able to focus on one life at a time and put all of our attention on it.
However, even though I would agree that connecting intelligence to the formation of our universe may be abstract, the actual processes are right in front of our faces and the processes alone should signify or indicate that intelligence was involved. Because the alternative would be to believe that processes occur all by themselves, but thought is required for a process to even begin lol, inanimate forces have no ability to bring about desired outcomes. It takes a mind and intelligence to understand what needs to happen and what directions to go. Even though the Creator uses materials and evolution to bring things into existence it's crazy to believe and accept that these materials did it all be themselves lol, that's like believing a painting painted itself or that a movie produced itself or that a building built itself into existence without a builder.  So in that sense it's pretty concrete, at the very least can give anyone confidence that "God" exists, excuse me that the platform of awareness exists. Awareness is why and how the materials of the universe work. 
#382
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Question for you, why can't processes begin without an intelligence?

The question itself is silly, that's why I keep calling it absurd yet you don't seem to get it. It requires thought to initiate a process, a process itself is the beginning of an idea or a desired outcome which brings about a result. It requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process, to understand what needs to be done and how, what materials need to be used to manifest that idea. Inanimate forces have no ability to think or understand something, they have no mind or awareness do you not see that? Like I said to Outplayz, that's like believing a painting painted itself or a building built itself into existence with inanimate materials and you're asking why I don't believe that lol. It's common sense, in other words me having to explain that to you makes me feel like I'm lowering my intelligence.
That's why I keep turning the question back to you, how can a process begin without a mind, how does it know what to do? how does anything develop or manufacture something without intelligence? why do intelligent processes occur in our universe? you not being able to answer that should signify to you that it's not possible, processes cannot spontaneously begin to produce things all by themselves. Again, thought and intelligence are required to know how a process should unfold, a mind is required to understand how to make that work and what is needed, what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be. 

#383
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Once we agree that at the very least, the post above is a logical premise we can make the next step in this conversation. 
#384
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw



EtrnlVw,

YOUR UP IN THE AIR QUOTE: " So in that sense it's pretty concrete, at the very least can give anyone confidence that "God" exists, excuse me that the platform of awareness exists."

Which one of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages God are you referring to?  You act like there is only one God that remains in the 21st century. Can you be more specific?



.
#385
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Which one of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages God are you referring to?  You act like there is only one God that remains in the 21st century. Can you be more specific?

God is a universal Reality with variations of interpretations of that Reality within the world. While the Reality of God and truth are constant the interpretations of that Reality vary among people. In other words it doesn't matter, those interpretations aren't relevant to the truth or this discussion. God exists independent of them. The processes of the universe signifying a Creator exists is not relevant to "which" God I'm referring to, or which God religions express. What matters, or the subject at hand is whether or not there is a Creator involved in creating the universe.

#386
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Outplayz
We really have to define what that means. Bc i don't believe it's most logical there is a sky being creating everything. This "creator" thing i believe is something way deeper.

I mean any intelligence force that created the universe. I don't see much point in discussing traits beyond the necessary until we can establish if there's reason to believe there is such an intelligence (or group of intelligences).

I'm more inclined to believe "consciousness" is everything. What the implications of that are is pretty wild, and many times outside of what i can know. Maybe it doesn't even know how it came to be bc it always existed and there was never absolute nothing. I don't know. Maybe things just are.
Pantheism then? I guess I'm half way there, I believe the universe exists. I haven't seen any reason to believe it's conscious or alive however.

But specifically with creating... if creating can be as simple as imagination becoming "a" reality... i don't see how that is impossible, and actually more likely since a consciousness that can create and imagine in an infinite platform has pretty wild implications. Imagine us being immortal, fully merged with technology, and able to create any simulation we imagine. What does "creator" mean at that point?
Someone or something that causes something to come into existence. I see no reason the term would change just because the complexity or scale of the creation had expanded.


A very little correlation to "a" creator... as proposed by many religions.
I rarely discuss specific religions, I tend to be of the mind that the question of the presence of a creator should be addressed before moving onto any traits not necessary for the discussion in question.

It would be a collective, it would be individual, it would be anything we can imagine... times that to infinity, creation simply has a crazy definition. Although "creating" is happening... not in a single creator setting. If you are arguing about that, i would take your side. I would not take the side of any one single creator / power definition. However, i always mention "a" platform. This platform can be called god / creator.. but the platform is simply the hardware / software that allows for what is... so, it's really not a one thing either. With all that, i think it's more logical that there is this platform so i'll try to keep on track with that... BUT
An interesting speculation, but nothing more than that from what I have seen.

Why do we have to get so complicated? Sure, our intelligence is what defines time. We define time off what we see in the mass of the universe existing.
I don't know as I'd agree that our intelligence defines time at all. I believe time is a property of this universe, but I see no reason to think that would change if the universe lacked any intelligent beings. It would simply be a property represented by the interactions of forces in the universe.

Time is just going forward... it's simply that. Put whatever definition we want to it.. things are moving forward. If we lived in a magical universe where there were super-humans that can control time... it would have a different meaning. But whether you can mess with time, turn it backwards, or whatever... all those actions are just moving forward.
Yet how do we determine that time exists beyond this universe? How do you propose to establish that time isn't simply a property of our universe and that beyond that (for want of a better term), there is no form of time as we comprehend it? What makes time more than a property of our universe like gravity or the strong nuclear force?

My point with infinite regress is, without a mind... nothing should ever exist for it should never get to it in an infinite platform. So then we can just say our reality is the final point.. a finite universe, then... how long does that finite space exist?
Again, this is all using standards built on ideas and traits within our universe, space and time are properties of our universe, but can we in any way establish it applies to anything that may be other than this universe?

Yet, an infinite platform with a mind to traverse it... makes sense. For then it can be both infinite and finite for there is nothing outside of its imagination. This is one of a few things i would call evidence to lean towards "consciousness" being king in truth of "absolute reality"... When i say time... i simply mean moving forward. Nothingness, absolute, could have just been that until it became something... nothing can move forward as being nothing even if it doesn't have time as we would define it. Maybe there was once nothing, but now there is something. And i think adding a supreme consciousness to this space makes more sense than there not being one.

Yet this still assumes time and 'moving forward', which in turn requires time. The trouble with trying to make a sound argument on any of this is that we've nothing to go on as to what variables are at play, what traits from our universe would apply outside our universe (again not a great term, but there doesn't seem to be a good one in this context), or what would be possible or even probable or inevitable in such a place/circumstance. We don't even have an example of nothing from which to build any idea of what can or cannot be applied to nothing. With such a large lack of information how can we hope to reliably draw any conclusions?

I said this earlier, this is where we both sound similar. I agree with you. I don't pretend i know what the platform is, or do i pretend i know any of the pieces of how, when, where, etc. It's beyond me. The only thing i can be certain of is my experience. That is where things get interesting bc if my experience is one where little truths are revealed... then, i have some expertise of saying x+y = z. X being me, Y being the experience, z being reality. But, this equation is only good for me. Adding other experiences to it would change it. I see reality the way i do bc it works with my experience... are there truths in it? Sure, and there is also fallibility. Which is why i can't make any "proof" like claims, only that this is where is stand to help the picture form from the collective. Etrnl is a lot further along then most theists, but i don't think he has all the exact pieces either. Therefore, your conclusion of just not knowing... i'm with you there. But, like i argue with many people that think there is no intelligence to this... i just simply disagree there. It seems imagination, a piece of consciousness as we know it, when added to infinity... is something pretty wild and more logical when added to the mix. 
Not knowing what experiences you're talking about I can't exactly give much opinion. Though again I have to say that if you believe that you+experience=Reality, then we've come back to subjective reality, which seems to be a pointless topic, since we'd have no logical common ground, there would be no fixed truth upon which to establish shared understanding or existence. Again, what's wild is immaterial, fun to think about, not sound basis for building beliefs. As for logic, I've yet to see an argument that makes it more logical that an intelligence be involved in the formation of the universe than not.

I've caught myself on this many times now. Depends on how you define believe. I define believe a little different than the actual definition. To me it means i strongly suspect more than not... this is happening.
Yeah, I don't have reason to strongly suspect anything about the origins of the universe, everything I've seen suggests it's still a complete unknown, not much in accepting either position as more likely than the other when it's a complete unknown as far as I'm concerned, I suspect (and discussions I've had would suggest) that would only lead to confirmation biases.

So, i strongly suspect some kind of simulation theory mixed with some alcohol and weed, times infinity, is whats going on. What is that? Idk, all i know is i'm "one" of billions of characters that have existed in it. So, the only thing i should be focusing on is who my character is to this game. Everything else be damned. Bc in the end, the only thing that will have to deal with whatever it is... is me. Any other answer i simply wouldn't exist anymore. But if i do continue to exist, it's my character that i have to worry about. And personally, i've had some experience to reinforce that i am the center of this, and that there are things beyond what i've been told to be possible. So that's how i see reality now. I will never be an atheist by the strictest definition, but that's just my character and it makes sense bc i can't imagine being anything different.  
Was the weed and alcohol involved in these experiences? because if so logic would suggest to me it may be worth considering hallucinations were involved.

You are just being you. I am not trying to change that, just add maybe something you haven't heard. In a way, making you better at being you. There is no evidence i can present to you, but i don't know why you would think there would be in this realm. If i saw an incorporeal being talk to me and tell me exact things to do that get me to certain places in my experience, how could i ever prove that to you? All i know is that it has proved itself to me for some weird reason.
If there is no evidence to support the idea, then why suspect it strongly? If there is no evidence you can possibly present to others to support what you believe has been proven to you, then how can you hope to convince or influence others?

But overall, sure there should be ways of zoning into this personal experiences one day to provide collective proof that they happen. I just don't think we're there yet or should we ever be? I don't know the answer to that. I just chimed in bc you seem to have a good head on your shoulders.
Perhaps, in time it's possible we'll have the answers. For now however it seems we've got no reason to conclude anything other than it's an unknown.

In regards to evidence, i can't give you this evidence if it was anecdotal... however, like i tell many people that ask for this evidence... isn't it evidence enough that there are people like me that say there is this evidence? 
Unfortunately considering how many times people have had strongly held convictions and beliefs that have proven to be wrong, even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything, especially when the experience you allude to isn't shared.
#387
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
I call the platform Creator because that's what It basically is, that's where all mini-creators originate.
I know what you're talking about. I'd encourage you to define it and explain it further with others... but i understand how it's really nuanced so it's annoying laying it all out to hit a wall of semantics and attacks. When you say "creator" people still think "god" ... and worse, here in the west, that you're Christian or something, limited in your beliefs. It's an annoying thing we have to repeat bc so many people are blinded by the fringes... a problem in more than just spirituality. 

What you said in this first paragraph is really interesting. I've changed my idea of spirituality a lot throughout the years, but it seems like you have come back to what i believed first. Mini-sources within a source platform. I didn't know how to say it that concise, but i read some of my earlier thoughts from DDO and that's basically what i was saying. I fell away from it a bit, but now i'm coming back to it again. It's def. an interesting platform. 

 These forums are a blessing and a curse!
Yeah, i've basically seen everything now throughout the years... which is why i'm a little bored of it. Every here and there you get someone that will have a good conversation. I think Mdh sounds like a reasonable person to debate with so far which is why i was curious to see his position a bit more. But to your last point... yeah, the whole infinite regress thing just stumbled in my mind one day. I thought, anyway you define time... in a linear sense, it hits the paradox. But with a mind, it doesn't. Actually, to be honest without sounding arrogant... i think i'm the only person that has stumbled on how this mind thing answers the paradox. I haven't been able to find anyone else that has seen it or talks about it. It's a really interesting correlation, so i'm glad you've dug deeper into it... i wonder if you learned it from me, or had the idea before... but in any case, it's one paradox that works within an infinite platform. 

That is the beauty of creation you're right, only thing I don't like about it, is that people can be blind to the full potential of what is actually going on.
I wouldn't say they're blind, bc we are kinda both blind to each others position. It's like not understanding how any guy could be gay bc i think males are sexually disgusting. The interesting part to me is that everything we can give a spiritual explanation of can be explained by physical means (and both having there own set of troubles). It's very interesting that this duality exists and creates so many different types of characters bc it exists. 




#388
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

The question itself is silly, that's why I keep calling it absurd yet you don't seem to get it. It requires thought to initiate a process, a process itself is the beginning of an idea or a desired outcome which brings about a result. It requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process, to understand what needs to be done and how, what materials need to be used to manifest that idea.
Then you assert that for something to be a process it must have been initiated by an intelligence? Can you provide proof that there is a single natural (not initiated by humans) process going by your definition? If not then your premise 1 'the universe is formed by processes' isn't sound as we can't identify a single natural process'. So your premise doesn't make sense.

If however you agree that natural processes are processes, then your second premise 'all processes are associated with a mind/intelligence' requires you to be able to directly show that processes must be initiated by an intelligence.

Your problem is that what you've got is basically a equivocation fallacy. You use the term processes in a single way when it should be used in different ways depending on context. For example when speaking about Natural processes you can define process as:


2a(1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result the process of growth
(2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function such life processes as breathing.

Nowhere in this definition would there be the need to insert an intelligence.

Alternatively, you may be arguing more along the lines of what's possible, but if that's the case, I ask how do you establish it's not possible for this universe to have formed without any intentionality at all? Why is it absurd to consider that? Give reasons please.


Inanimate forces have no ability to think or understand something, they have no mind or awareness do you not see that? Like I said to Outplayz, that's like believing a painting painted itself or a building built itself into existence with inanimate materials and you're asking why I don't believe that lol. It's common sense, in other words me having to explain that to you makes me feel like I'm lowering my intelligence.
No it really isn't. There are two flaws in this comparsion the first  is past experience. We have vast amounts of experience with paintings and buildings and how they come to be. Our experience tells us that people build buildings and paint paintings, yet in no way do we have any experience of anything creating universes, planets solar systems or anything else in nature for that matter. The second issue is that it's not like saying anything created itself. It's saying that forces interacted in such a way that these things formed. There is a big and important difference in that. Your argument seems to be a mere argument from incredulity 'I don't see how this can be so it cannot be'


That's why I keep turning the question back to you, how can a process begin without a mind, how does it know what to do?

Again you seem caught in your cage of assumed intentionality. You're still assuming an end goal to what the forces cause. If you don't assume that there is a plan then the forces don't need to know 'what to do' they simply interact and this is the result, no plan, no intentionality just forces interacting.

how does anything develop or manufacture something without intelligence?
I believe that you've already discussed how stars form? If so that works as an explanation. This works without an intelligence if you don't assume an intended outcome.

why do intelligent processes occur in our universe? you not being able to answer that should signify to you that it's not possible, processes cannot spontaneously begin to produce things all by themselves.
Not at all. It suggests to me there are things I don't know. I don't fill gaps in my knowledge with assumptions and call it done, instead I say 'I don't know how that works, let's question some more, see what we can learn' There are many things in this universe that we as a species don't know. I would also ask what you mean by 'intelligent processes' if you mean processes that are intelligent then I would ask what processes they are and how you can show they're intelligent, if you mean processes that are initiated by intelligence. I would say they exist because intelligence exists within the universe. Is there any reason that intelligence forming in the universe is in any way an indication of intentionality? Or is this simply something you can't believe could happen otherwise (argument from incredulity).

Again, thought and intelligence are required to know how a process should unfold, a mind is required to understand how to make that work and what is needed, what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be. 
And again you insist on intentionality. Why must there be a way the processes 'should' unfold, rather than simply the way they 'do' unfold. If you are looking at the end result then I ask why does it require a plan for the universe to be as it is? If you mean that they're consistent, then I would ask why's that odd? If they were unintelligent wouldn't you expect them to react consistently?
#389
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

Once we agree that at the very least, the post above is a logical premise we can make the next step in this conversation. 
I don't believe there was a premise presented in your previous post to me, there was an argument of sorts, but as I said above, it's all built around intentionality, can you show that the universe is the product of a plan? If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything, they simply act and in doing so this universe formed. Why must there be intentionality in any of that?
#390
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I mean any intelligence force that created the universe. I don't see much point in discussing traits beyond the necessary until we can establish if there's reason to believe there is such an intelligence (or group of intelligences).
Well, wouldn't you need to figure out more traits that are 'more' accurate to what it truly is in order to be able to establish ways of finding it out? For instance, maybe it doesn't create but more so manifest things. Like a chess game on a god level scale. It knows if it manifests x humans in x time it will lead to y humans today. Therefore, it's not creation but manifesting intelligence into this reality to steer it. That would be tested way differently than lets say a simulation type god that created everything on a disk. Another thing about "necessary" ... i don't know how you define that. I guess it's not "necessary" to have a creator... could things just be happening? I guess it could, but it also could be the other way around. It's just if it is something, the implications of understanding what that something is may be important. For instance if Christians are right, it's important to repent. Therefore, with what we have... i think yes it's necessary to try to figure the abstracts out. 

Pantheism then? 
I didn't know what pantheism was when i thought of this platform, but i think something on those lines is kinda what im getting at, but i think it's more complicated. I think the entire platform is a "mind" ... but that's not even the right word. I think it's just a platform with many minds. Just like this reality. Just imagine Stan Lee being the lead mind, however, not the one mind but one of the minds in his own mind living multiple realities. Oh man, that sounded like a headache lol. Maybe, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation... the start being the absolute simulation that is every other simulation at once. Idk, many ways to look at the platform. As to evidence of suspecting it... i guess we can get to that. 

Someone or something that causes something to come into existence.
So i would call this level one type evidence... we can do this, so why can't it be happening or have happened in other ways not known to us? Logically, if our minds exist, in an infinite platform, then each implication of our mind... intelligence, imagination, creation, etc... logically / probabilistic, has to exist. Let's say there once was a race of beings that created machines that they merged with, created a simulation, and are now living in infinite simulations in a cloud. That cloud is a god platform. Just simply being able to imagine this, and also seeing that there shouldn't be a reason why we can't do this one day, isn't it probable it has already happened? This is a simulation type argument, but it seems reasonable to suspect. 

I rarely discuss specific religions
I agree with you and have looked at it kinda the same... but it's the contents of other beliefs that need to be proven to me before i start thinking about the head guy... so i'm kinda coming at it in the reverse. Which is cool. You look at this similar but from a different angle which i can def. respect. 

An interesting speculation, but nothing more than that from what I have seen.
I will never be the one to say anything abstract i say is more than speculation... my personal hope is to come up with a platform that is as iron clad as i can get it as speculation. That's always been my goal anyways. I feel like for some reason my mind is hardwired to understand this abstract subject without knowing others... everything i say i've thought of on my own without much guidance. It's just a natural talent i have i guess... spiritual intelligence some others say, so i'll pride myself on certain things but never that i'm right bc i understand how i can be completely wrong if it turns out to be different or nothing. 

I believe time is a property of this universe, but I see no reason to think that would change if the universe lacked any intelligent beings.
Well, we do define what we see... but i understand what you're saying. All i'm saying is... if we are existence, existence as defined it exists. So we can draw implications from it. An interesting implication to me is an infinite regress paradox and how a 'mind' added to the infinity would make the paradox moot. Would it still exist without us? Sure, but that is an interesting question within itself... does anything exist if nothing can define its existence? I don't see how that is any different than having nothing. Which is kinda the same thing i do with infinity and finite... infinity just makes more sense, a mind added to this infinity makes more sense... but that doesn't mean finite isn't the answer.

Yet how do we determine that time exists beyond this universe? How do you propose to establish that time isn't simply a property of our universe and that beyond that (for want of a better term), there is no form of time as we comprehend it? What makes time more than a property of our universe like gravity or the strong nuclear force?
If you mean how can i prove it... i can't right? I don't know in what form it may exist outside of this... all i know is that it exists as we see it. That's enough. I've just added it to the equation now. We can use our imaginations from there to figure out platforms with or without it. Without out it... well, what would exist right? We can imagine nothing as something without time, but can we? If it use to be nothing, then something... then even nothing spent time being nothing. I'm just using what i know of time to think of this... which we can do. 

Here's one thing i don't agree with people that dissent from my view... that i can't anthropomorphize or use what i know exists in "this reality." Why not? Bc these are things i know exist. They are just tools. Bc if they exist here, then they would exist in something else... in another form? A little more of or less of? I don't know, but those are things i can think about. Comic book authors have really fine-tuned the implications of time... so, crap... there can be many implications, and why should i not be able to judge these implications in a probable way?

establish it applies to anything that may be other than this universe?
What would a universe without time be like? Is this just a dodge from my initial paradox answer or is it a real possibility to confront my speculation? Not being rude at all, just want to go with this thought experiment. I think something without time isn't anything... but, even nothing would be nothing moving forward... as we know, there very well could be no such thing as absolute nothing bc there is def. something right now... therefore, i don't think there is any reality without time. A "mind" navigating this infinite time just makes more sense then nothing being involved with the something... bc then we run into the paradox. Not saying my paradox answer is iron clad or anything, but these are many little evidences that lean me towards the possibility... so i'm listing them. 

With such a large lack of information how can we hope to reliably draw any conclusions?
I understand how you are looking at it, but i'm not trying to draw a conclusion... i just want to know which is more likely. See, i think the platform with mind idea is more likely, therefore, i've now started to define what that means for me. I don't really care about the intricacies of the platform, more so who i am to it. I just need to know if it's probable, and i think it is. That's what you are talking to me more about, is it probable. From observation and thinking, i think we can give it a tiny leap towards probable although we don't have a proven platform (other than this reality - which is important here) to compare it with. 

Not knowing what experiences you're talking about I can't exactly give much opinion.
I've explained my experiences in detail here and on other sites many times. I'm at a point where i don't really care to detail them anymore bc they are deep and i would have to write a lot. Let's just take one... asking something that is not there to move something, and it happens without a doubt. Whether it was a trick or something weird... the thing moved on demand, and while tested and provoked to do it multiple times. And btw, all of my experiences were sober... and if not, nothing in my system that would cause a hallucination, but i don't know. The mind is weird in how it works. The moving experience was with another however, so i can say it happened unless it was a duel hallucination... which is just a cop out at this point. Anyways, something moving something doesn't mean god, it just means something happened. The details of the experience are what's interesting to me. 

But to this experience point, i agree with you... many many people are frauds. They want attention, have some kind of mental instability, want greed/money... sex, etc. Humans lie a lot. But i'm not lying, and quite frankly, i wish i was. So, throughout the years, i probably ask more people about experiences bc i don't want to think i'm the only one... that would lead me to some kind of Solipsism belief which implications are terrifying imo. So, i've asked and heard many weird things. My point is... are they all lying? Are they all mistaken? Maybe, but i think the sheer number of experiences would count as evidence bc only "1" needs to have actually happened. I think the odds of one being true as it stands, even if i ignore my multiple experiences, points towards "spirituality." 

If there is no evidence to support the idea, then why suspect it strongly? If there is no evidence you can possibly present to others to support what you believe has been proven to you, then how can you hope to convince or influence others?
I personally strongly suspect it bc i have evidence... actually, through my eyes... it's hard evidence. It's proof at an individual level. I've done a lot of mental gymnastics to even ignore it on my own level and say it's weak evidence... but even at that point, things happened. But i understand why others can have a different position... i don't think you should strongly suspect it or suspect it at all. Remember, all i care about is "do i have an iron clad speculation." That's all i care about. I know i'm not at the iron clad level, but i like to think i'm on a reasonable level. The thing about my platform is ... i shouldn't be able to convince others. If i could convince Richard Dawkins of a god, he wouldn't be who he is anymore. All i care about is having a conversation with him where he says, "that's reasonable, but you're wrong." That's a W in my eyes.