Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is actual and reasonable evidence ...

PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

None of this is proof of anything, but it's all reasonable evidence for the existence of that which we generally define as 'God": a mysterious conscious entity that originates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 6:30:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

None of this is proof of anything, but it's all reasonable evidence for the existence of that which we generally define as 'God": a mysterious conscious entity that originates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists.

Notice that believers never actually provide any evidence for their gods existence, other than what they contrive in their over active, irrational imaginations.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
existence is an expression of order.
order implies intent.
existence IS THE PURPOSE
existence as we know it manifests transcendence. matter and energy transcends "life" transcends into conscious awareness.
it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur
whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at least, as self-aware as we are

Okay, so equally:

1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;
4. All life and consciousness decays; its undocumented knowledge, lessons and experiences are lost and not recovered;
5. There is therefore no reason to conjecture that further realms of existence, if they exist, are accessible;
6. There is no evidence therefore that any intelligent origin of existence is compassionate, ethical, concerned about or accountable to its creations;
7. There is absolutely no evidence that worship, propitiation, grovelling and special pleading to an unknown, inaccessible, indifferent creator of deliberate entropy is useful now, and no reason to suppose it would be useful ever;
8. There is therefore no reason to believe that anyone who conjectures otherwise is not living in vain and superstitious denial, or that anyone who claims to know otherwise, is not lying for their own advantage.

This isn't an argument I favour, because I believe the epistemology in your argument is invalid, Pure (you're reasoning from biased intuitions, not independent observations.) But if you accept one as valid, well-evidenced and likely, then the other is equally valid, and shows itself better-evidenced and hence more likely.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:09:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:30:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Notice that believers never actually provide any evidence for their gods existence, other than what they contrive in their over active, irrational imaginations.

What I noticed is that you were completely unable to counter a single point of evidence that I offered. I should think you'd be embarrassed by having nothing to offer the conversation but a mindless snide remark.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:01:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

Okay, so equally:

1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;

I can't totally agree with this. You are proposing that the sole purpose of the phenomenon of existence is it's final result. Rather than it being the fulness of it's expression. This is not logical, and appears to me to be philosophically biased in favor of nihilism.

4. All life and consciousness decays; its undocumented knowledge, lessons and experiences are lost and not recovered;
5. There is therefore no reason to conjecture that further realms of existence, if they exist, are accessible;

This is not a warranted conclusion to draw from the observations being offered. When I consider the fact that I will die, and everything that I am will be disintegrated and forgotten, I could certainly view this as an expression of nihilism. But this view would be biased solely by my own desire for self-preservation. Because I could also view it as an expression of the existential value of variety over individual longevity. The fact that individual forms of being are continually disintegrating, and their matter and energy is being absorbed in the creation of new forms of being, simply implies to me that the purpose of existence seems to favor persistent variety over individual longevity. My individual being is not the primary purpose of existence. That doesn't mean, however, that existence is primarily nihilistic in nature, unless I'm viewing it through the lens of my own desire to continue my individual existence.

6. There is no evidence therefore that any intelligent origin of existence is compassionate, ethical, concerned about or accountable to its creations;

I didn't propose that it was. However, if we assume that the purpose of existence is to allow for maximum variety, i.e., possibility of forms, each existing for as long as they are able under the same existential conditions, we could begin to recognize a kind of egalitarian generosity in that, if we so chose.

7. There is absolutely no evidence that worship, propitiation, grovelling and special pleading to an unknown, inaccessible, indifferent creator of deliberate entropy is useful now, and no reason to suppose it would be useful ever;

This really has nothing to do with anything I posted.

8. There is therefore no reason to believe that anyone who conjectures otherwise is not living in vain and superstitious denial, or that anyone who claims to know otherwise, is not lying for their own advantage.

This isn't an argument I favour, because I believe the epistemology in your argument is invalid, Pure (you're reasoning from biased intuitions, not independent observations.) But if you accept one as valid, well-evidenced and likely, then the other is equally valid, and shows itself better-evidenced and hence more likely.

Not necessarily, and I have explained why.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

None of this is proof of anything, but it's all reasonable evidence for the existence of that which we generally define as 'God": a mysterious conscious entity that originates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists.

I eagerly await your evidence for other realms of existence.
Eagerly.

Quote: "gives purpose to all that exists".

What is the purpose of a supernova?
When a male lion kills his own offspring because he longs for the lioness to re-enter heat, what is the purpose of that phenomenon?

Say the Multiverse hypothesis is true.
Three fourths of your whole argument instantly nullified.

Just review your text. Count the number of assumptions - and, look and behold, always in your favour - that you start with, leap from or to, or end at, and consider its exorbitance, that it has no place in any sound argument.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:57:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 8:21:31 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I eagerly await your evidence for other realms of existence.

The fact that you can demand "evidence for existence" suggests that you can conceive of things that do not exist in the way you are demanding evidence of. So what would you call that 'other way'? The realm of imagination? The realm of that which doesn't otherwise exist? Yet that realm exists, too, or we wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't exist physically. It exists ideologically. As part of the realm of consciousness.

Instead of arguing about the terms, why not try and understand the concepts? They won't bite you, even if you don't agree with them in the end.

Quote: "gives purpose to all that exists".

What is the purpose of a supernova?
When a male lion kills his own offspring because he longs for the lioness to re-enter heat, what is the purpose of that phenomenon?

The proposition that the nature of existence infers that existence has a purpose does not include, nor require, that I know what that purpose is.

Say the Multiverse hypothesis is true.
Three fourths of your whole argument instantly nullified.

No, the "multiverse' just extends the definition of existence beyond our universe, to others. That doesn't change anything that I've proposed, because this universe is the only expression of existence that we know anything of. So to propose multiverses as some sort of counter to the evidence posed by the existential nature of this universe would be intellectually dishonest.

Just review your text. Count the number of assumptions - and, look and behold, always in your favour - that you start with, leap from or to, or end at, and consider its exorbitance, that it has no place in any sound argument.

Assumptions are how we humans live. They are how we understand the world around us when our actual knowledge is so profoundly limited. As it always is. I am posing some observations about the nature of existence that could be taken as reasonable evidence in support of theological proposition. The fact that they involve assumption is irrelevant, as every theory involves assumption. As does every human being's concept themselves, and of reality, itself. It's unavoidable.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 9:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 8:01:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Thank you for being brave enough to post an argument here, knowing how rude some members would be. :) That's certainly not my intention.

Okay, so equally:

1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;
I can't totally agree with this. You are proposing that the sole purpose of the phenomenon of existence is it's final result.

The argument is more sophisticated than that, Pure.

If purpose is designed intelligently, shouldn't operation express intent in every particular? What then do you make of the death of stars, the extinction of 99% of historical terrestrial species, the destruction of other hominin species that had art, abstract thought, language and buried their dead? The extinction of civilisations and their loss of their language, art and philosophy? The natural processes rendering adjacent planets like Mars uninhabitable? The imminent collision between our galaxy and Andromeda in around four billion years? The death of our sun in five billion? Galaxies accelerating apart so rapidly that by the time our sun dies, nobody will be able to see the night sky we have, nor guess how our cosmos had arisen, nor that those galaxies had ever existed?

When a project has an intelligent, intended purpose, does it waste time and resource on needless matters, and does it run past its fulfillment? Or are resources not more intelligently all focused toward the same end, deviations corrected, and the project terminated when that end is fulfilled?

On balance of evidence, when will the existence you impute to be a project terminate, and what will terminate it? What will have happened by that time, and what information does that imply about imputed purpose?

Rather than it being the fulness of it's expression. This is not logical, and appears to me to be philosophically biased in favor of nihilism.
I'm not a nihilist, but when you try to impute purpose from natural observation with full accountability for evidence, and without regard for one's own preferences and presuppositions, I can't see how you'd infer otherwise.

4. All life and consciousness decays; its undocumented knowledge, lessons and experiences are lost and not recovered;
5. There is therefore no reason to conjecture that further realms of existence, if they exist, are accessible;
The fact that individual forms of being are continually disintegrating, and their matter and energy is being absorbed in the creation of new forms of being, simply implies to me that the purpose of existence seems to favor persistent variety over individual longevity.
And the constant attrition of hard-won information, which was my point. You've just rendered consciousness and reason as valueless, PureX, not transcendent. By your argument, it's better your body exploded into a myriad new kinds of amoeba than that your present metabolism sustain a mind whose thoughts and inferences, if they are not documented, shall be lost upon your death.

6. There is no evidence therefore that any intelligent origin of existence is compassionate, ethical, concerned about or accountable to its creations;
I didn't propose that it was. However, if we assume that the purpose of existence is to allow for maximum variety, i.e., possibility of forms, each existing for as long as they are able under the same existential conditions, we could begin to recognize a kind of egalitarian generosity in that, if we so chose.
But no society would use that principle to form morality or ethics -- so under your conjecture, your imputed creator has deliberately produced and exterminated multiple self-aware species, producing (for now) a self-aware species whose moral and intellectual needs do not well fit the existence into which it was born, allowed it to be shattered into countless inconsistent languages and schismal traditions with no basis for reconciliation -- and then abandoned them to that fate.

7. There is absolutely no evidence that worship, propitiation, grovelling and special pleading to an unknown, inaccessible, indifferent creator of deliberate entropy is useful now, and no reason to suppose it would be useful ever;
This really has nothing to do with anything I posted.
It has a great deal to do with calling a creator a 'god' -- or as you put it, a creator, sustainer and source of purpose with the implication that it is benign and should be revered.

Why revere any being so amoral, unethical, unjust and cruel that its nature is entirely unsuited to promoting the welfare of human families, children, the human species, or human thought? Why not treat it as a conjecture of horror rather than hope?

8. There is therefore no reason to believe that anyone who conjectures otherwise is not living in vain and superstitious denial, or that anyone who claims to know otherwise, is not lying for their own advantage.

What you are doing here, Pure, is retracing a well-trodden line of existential reasoning that began with Christian Enlightenment scientists excitedly seeking natural evidence of divine order, briefly forayed into Deism, and ended up either agnostic or atheist. :D

As I said, I don't think it's sensible to construe moral order from natural order in the first place, but if you do, I think nihilism is a more credible conclusion than some sort of Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull fairytale. :)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 9:52:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:09:50 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:30:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Notice that believers never actually provide any evidence for their gods existence, other than what they contrive in their over active, irrational imaginations.

What I noticed is that you were completely unable to counter a single point of evidence that I offered. I should think you'd be embarrassed by having nothing to offer the conversation but a mindless snide remark.

But, you have not offered any evidence, all you offer are baseless assertions that wastes our time. All you deserve for lying are snide remarks.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 3:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 9:51:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:01:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Thank you for being brave enough to post an argument here, knowing how rude some members would be. :) That's certainly not my intention.

Okay, so equally:

1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;
I can't totally agree with this. You are proposing that the sole purpose of the phenomenon of existence is it's final result.

The argument is more sophisticated than that, Pure.

If purpose is designed intelligently, shouldn't operation express intent in every particular?

I don't know, should it? What if the purpose involves an exploration of possibilities? What if the purpose involves those levels of transcendence achieving realms of being that we are as yet completely unaware of? I don't know what the purpose of existence is. I don't even know that there is a purpose. All I'm saying is that purpose is being implied by the existential necessity of order.

And I'm not arguing for or against "intelligent design". I'm only pointing out that order implies purpose. Order IS design, and design implies purpose.

What then do you make of the death of stars, the extinction of 99% of historical terrestrial species, the destruction of other hominin species that had art, abstract thought, language and buried their dead? The extinction of civilisations and their loss of their language, art and philosophy? The natural processes rendering adjacent planets like Mars uninhabitable? The imminent collision between our galaxy and Andromeda in around four billion years? The death of our sun in five billion? Galaxies accelerating apart so rapidly that by the time our sun dies, nobody will be able to see the night sky we have, nor guess how our cosmos had arisen, nor that those galaxies had ever existed?

When a project has an intelligent, intended purpose, does it waste time and resource on needless matters, and does it run past its fulfillment? Or are resources not more intelligently all focused toward the same end, deviations corrected, and the project terminated when that end is fulfilled?

Again, we don't know what the purpose of existence is, or even that it has one. It is merely implied by the nature of existence, that it is intended. For what, and by what, is a mystery. You're arguing that existence is too inconsistent to be intelligently intended, but I'm not proposing intelligence because I have no idea what intelligence would mean relative to that which creates a universe. It does seem to me, though, that existence is very consistent. It's consistency, however, does not favor the longevity of individual forms. It seems to favor the constant integration and disintegration of individual forms. And as individual forms, ourselves, we may not like this aspect of existential expression, and we may perceive it as "irrationally nihilistic", but that's clearly a matter of our own bias.

On balance of evidence, when will the existence you impute to be a project terminate, and what will terminate it? What will have happened by that time, and what information does that imply about imputed purpose?

I don't really see why you think I should be able to answer these questions. Nothing I proposed suggests that I should.

Rather than it being the fulness of it's expression. This is not logical, and appears to me to be philosophically biased in favor of nihilism.
I'm not a nihilist, but when you try to impute purpose from natural observation with full accountability for evidence, and without regard for one's own preferences and presuppositions, I can't see how you'd infer otherwise.

I am not "accountable" for this evidence. I am simply pointing it out, and that it is reasonably logical.

You've just rendered consciousness and reason as valueless, PureX, not transcendent. By your argument, it's better your body exploded into a myriad new kinds of amoeba than that your present metabolism sustain a mind whose thoughts and inferences, if they are not documented, shall be lost upon your death.

We have no reason to believe that consciousness or reason have been lost simply because individual conscious life forms disintegrate. Life and consciousness both still abound, even just on this one tiny planet. And how many other places could these also exist in the vastness of the universe?

Also, we have only very recently discovered forms of matter and energy that we never knew existed, before, and that we know nothing about. Neil Degrasse-Tyson has estimated that 87% of what can be known about the universe is still completely unknown to us. So the ultimate dispensation of transcendency (such as life, and consciousness) is still a very open question.

But no society would use that principle to form morality or ethics -- so under your conjecture, your imputed creator has deliberately produced and exterminated multiple self-aware species, producing (for now) a self-aware species whose moral and intellectual needs do not well fit the existence into which it was born, allowed it to be shattered into countless inconsistent languages and schismal traditions with no basis for reconciliation -- and then abandoned them to that fate.

That's an absurdly myopic observation given the subject of this discussion. And it's based almost entirely on the biased assumption that the function and purpose of existence should be to serve the individual needs and desires of we individual, conscious, living beings.

7. There is absolutely no evidence that worship, propitiation, grovelling and special pleading to an unknown, inaccessible, indifferent creator of deliberate entropy is useful now, and no reason to suppose it would be useful ever;
This really has nothing to do with anything I posted.
It has a great deal to do with calling a creator a 'god' -- or as you put it, a creator, sustainer and source of purpose with the implication that it is benign and should be revered.

Why revere any being so amoral, unethical, unjust and cruel that its nature is entirely unsuited to promoting the welfare of human families, children, the human species, or human thought? Why not treat it as a conjecture of horror rather than hope?

We can treat it however we like. I don't see what this has to do with the subject at hand. I'm only offering reasoned evidence for the existence of "God". I am not suggesting anyone revere or worship or grovel or whatever, about anything.

As I said, I don't think it's sensible to construe moral order from natural order in the first place, but if you do, I think nihilism is a more credible conclusion than some sort of Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull fairytale. :)

I have not posted a word about "moral order". You seem to be projecting a lot of religious intent into my posts that isn't actually there. I am not a religious theist.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 4:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 8:57:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:21:31 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I eagerly await your evidence for other realms of existence.

The fact that you can demand "evidence for existence" suggests that you can conceive of things that do not exist in the way you are demanding evidence of. So what would you call that 'other way'? The realm of imagination? The realm of that which doesn't otherwise exist? Yet that realm exists, too, or we wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't exist physically. It exists ideologically. As part of the realm of consciousness.


You're dabbling with semantics. There is an acute difference between those modes of existence.

I eagerly await your evidence on the existence of a realm of conscience as a separate and, presumably, non material domain.

Instead of arguing about the terms, why not try and understand the concepts? They won't bite you, even if you don't agree with them in the end.


Don't know where you got that impression. Just know that I am not accountable for the impressions and gut feelings of yours.

Quote: "gives purpose to all that exists".

What is the purpose of a supernova?
When a male lion kills his own offspring because he longs for the lioness to re-enter heat, what is the purpose of that phenomenon?

The proposition that the nature of existence infers that existence has a purpose does not include, nor require, that I know what that purpose is.
~

So you assert that there is a purpose but can't name it?
Why, that is interesting.

Say the Multiverse hypothesis is true.
Three fourths of your whole argument instantly nullified.

No, the "multiverse' just extends the definition of existence beyond our universe, to others. That doesn't change anything that I've proposed, because this universe is the only expression of existence that we know anything of. So to propose multiverses as some sort of counter to the evidence posed by the existential nature of this universe would be intellectually dishonest.


How can you possibly know that?
You have no idea whatsoever what the properties of those universes are.
Stop asserting what you cannot possibly know.

Just review your text. Count the number of assumptions - and, look and behold, always in your favour - that you start with, leap from or to, or end at, and consider its exorbitance, that it has no place in any sound argument.

Assumptions are how we humans live. They are how we understand the world around us when our actual knowledge is so profoundly limited. As it always is. I am posing some observations about the nature of existence that could be taken as reasonable evidence in support of theological proposition. The fact that they involve assumption is irrelevant, as every theory involves assumption. As does every human being's concept themselves, and of reality, itself. It's unavoidable.

Your argument is glued with spit.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 4:28:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 4:04:09 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:57:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:21:31 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I eagerly await your evidence for other realms of existence.

The fact that you can demand "evidence for existence" suggests that you can conceive of things that do not exist in the way you are demanding evidence of. So what would you call that 'other way'? The realm of imagination? The realm of that which doesn't otherwise exist? Yet that realm exists, too, or we wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't exist physically. It exists ideologically. As part of the realm of consciousness.


There is an acute difference between those modes of existence.

Of course. That was my point. They are DIFFERENT realms of existence. The material realm, and the conceptual realm.

I eagerly await your evidence on the existence of a realm of conscience as a separate and, presumably, non material domain.

Well, just re-read the post.

So you assert that there is a purpose but can't name it?
Why, that is interesting.

Been to a hardware store lately? Ever come across an object that you think is a tool but don't know what it's used for? Well, it's the same idea. And your not knowing what it's used for does not invalidate your conjecture that it is a tool.

Say the Multiverse hypothesis is true.
Three fourths of your whole argument instantly nullified.

No, the "multiverse' just extends the definition of existence beyond our universe, to others. That doesn't change anything that I've proposed, because this universe is the only expression of existence that we know anything of. So to propose multiverses as some sort of counter to the evidence posed by the existential nature of this universe would be intellectually dishonest.

How can you possibly know that?

Through a thought process called 'logic'.

You have no idea whatsoever what the properties of those universes are.
Stop asserting what you cannot possibly know.

Ditto. That was my point. The "multiverse" argument is 100% make-believe.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 4:48:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 4:28:13 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/3/2016 4:04:09 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:57:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:21:31 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I eagerly await your evidence for other realms of existence.

The fact that you can demand "evidence for existence" suggests that you can conceive of things that do not exist in the way you are demanding evidence of. So what would you call that 'other way'? The realm of imagination? The realm of that which doesn't otherwise exist? Yet that realm exists, too, or we wouldn't be discussing it. It just doesn't exist physically. It exists ideologically. As part of the realm of consciousness.


There is an acute difference between those modes of existence.


They're so different that is disingenuous to label them the same.

Of course. That was my point. They are DIFFERENT realms of existence. The material realm, and the conceptual realm.


Neo-platonism?

In the early stages of the history of the universe, tell me, when mankind wasn't even around to have ideias and hold concepts, did said realm exist?

I eagerly await your evidence on the existence of a realm of conscience as a separate and, presumably, non material domain.

Well, just re-read the post.

I had and I did.
Nothing of value.


So you assert that there is a purpose but can't name it?
Why, that is interesting.

Been to a hardware store lately? Ever come across an object that you think is a tool but don't know what it's used for? Well, it's the same idea. And your not knowing what it's used for does not invalidate your conjecture that it is a tool.


Flawed analogy.
There is evidence that the tool exists. I can test it and verify it for myself, put it to use. Nothing comparable applies to what you describe.

Say the Multiverse hypothesis is true.
Three fourths of your whole argument instantly nullified.

No, the "multiverse' just extends the definition of existence beyond our universe, to others. That doesn't change anything that I've proposed, because this universe is the only expression of existence that we know anything of. So to propose multiverses as some sort of counter to the evidence posed by the existential nature of this universe would be intellectually dishonest.

How can you possibly know that?

Through a thought process called 'logic'.


Bwahhh.

You have no idea whatsoever what the properties of those universes are.
Stop asserting what you cannot possibly know.

Ditto. That was my point. The "multiverse" argument is 100% make-believe.

You cannot rule that out.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 7:42:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 3:34:58 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 9:51:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:01:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Okay, so equally:
1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;
I can't totally agree with this. You are proposing that the sole purpose of the phenomenon of existence is it's final result.
If purpose is designed intelligently, shouldn't operation express intent in every particular?
What if the purpose involves an exploration of possibilities?
Then you'd expect diversity to override consequence, even when consequence would normally eliminate it.

What if the purpose involves those levels of transcendence achieving realms of being that we are as yet completely unaware of?
Then you've abandoned your own stated intent of reasoning from natural evidence.

I don't know what the purpose of existence is.
You were initially arguing that you could be confident there was purpose, yet now you're arguing that you couldn't recognise it if you saw it. So there's nothing now stopping any implied purpose from being self-contradictory and therefore invalid.

I don't even know that there is a purpose. All I'm saying is that purpose is being implied by the existential necessity of order.
If existence can imply any purpose without constraint, it can also imply self-contradictory purposes. You've just confessed to a reductio ad absurdem.

And I'm not arguing for or against "intelligent design". I'm only pointing out that order implies purpose. Order IS design, and design implies purpose.
And this illustrates why I treat appeals to intuition as invalid, Pure. Intuition is loaded with presuppositional bias ("When I order things it's for a purpose"), and unable to detect its own failures of evidentiary burden. ("Nevertheless there is no evidence of moral direction, nor intelligent convergence toward a single outcome, and therefore toward a benign and competent, morally-ordering principle worthy of reverence.")

Again, we don't know what the purpose of existence is, or even that it has one. It is merely implied by the nature of existence, that it is intended.
No, you have implied it, and asserted that it's objective. Yet it fails the fundamental test of objectivity: that the conclusion should not depend on the observer. It's not just atheists who reject these implications, Pure. it's Buddhists, animists, and virtually every polytheist who ever walked the planet. It's because you were raised in a monotheistic cultural tradition that you presuppose it.

You're arguing that existence is too inconsistent to be intelligently intended,
Actually I've argued no such thing. I've simply pointed out that your methods, which I consider invalid, lead more credibly to conclusions you don't desire than conclusions you do.

I have no idea what intelligence would mean relative to that which creates a universe.
Yet under your own method of intuiting universal rules, only intelligence turns purpose into coherent action. So now you've wounded your argument a second time; the first when you acknowledged that any purpose could be self-contradictory, the second when you argued that any intelligence is unrecognisable.

As I said, you're arguing not for a benign monotheistic creator, but a horror-show conceived by HP Lovecraft: a cosmological work of fiction with a blind, demented, amoral, fecund All-Devourer nobody sane should look upon, much less worship. (Pretty pic of Lovecraft's Azathoth at right [http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net...])

When will the existence you impute to be a project terminate, and what will terminate it? What will have happened by that time, and what information does that imply about imputed purpose?
I don't really see why you think I should be able to answer these questions.
Claims of knowledge should predict accurately; else they're just rhetoric.

I'm not a nihilist, but when you try to impute purpose from natural observation with full accountability for evidence, and without regard for one's own preferences and presuppositions, I can't see how you'd infer otherwise.
I am not "accountable" for this evidence.
By selecting the evidence to which you'll let your argument be accountable, your argument risks respecting your preconceptions more than it does the reader.

You've just rendered consciousness and reason as valueless, PureX, not transcendent.
We have no reason to believe that consciousness or reason have been lost simply because individual conscious life forms disintegrate.
We have strong reason to believe it, Pure. By your own method of intuiting rules: life can transmit its knowledge directly to other life while it lives, yet cannot do so after death. If order implies purpose because that's how we always do it, then by the same argument, death implies dissolution of knowledge because that's what always happens to it.

Also, we have only very recently discovered forms of matter and energy that we never knew existed, before, and that we know nothing about.
Are you now arguing not from what we know, but from evidence you hope to find? So your argument isn't valid today, but might be tomorrow?

But no society would use that principle to form morality or ethics
it's based almost entirely on the biased assumption that the function and purpose of existence should be to serve the individual needs and desires of we individual, conscious, living beings.
What point arguing purpose at all, except to claim the moral authority of faith?

Yet you've already discredited all theology, Pure, by admitting that claims of intelligent design and knowable purpose aren't supported by natural evidence. And now you're struggling to meet even the claims of Deism -- intentional creation by a single, benign intelligence -- since you've already admitted that intelligence and benign intent aren't evident.

As I said, I don't think it's sensible to construe moral order from natural order in the first place, but if you do, I think nihilism is a more credible conclusion
I have not posted a word about "moral order".
An ordered existence indifferent to the suffering and concerns of its creations is a definition of nihilism, Pure. And you've not only argued that the conclusion of an ordered existence is inescapable, you've admitted there's no refuting that it's also indifferent to suffering and human moral concerns.

You seem to be projecting a lot of religious intent into my posts that isn't actually there. I am not a religious theist.
Firstly, "God" is a theological term with a range of moral implications you embraced when you defined God as a "purposeful creator and sustainer". You then moved from claiming intentional sustenance to accepting possible indifference and deliberate destruction.

Secondly, you set out to argue purpose without ever admitting how malignant purpose can be. You inherited the cultural blindness of monotheism, Pure, hence my Devil's Advocacy.

My concluding suggestion: absent the unevidenced cultural prejudice of a benign creator, arguing intentional creation of a cruel, entropic and murderous universe is more appalling than rejecting intentional creation in the first place.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 7:42:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2016 3:34:58 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 9:51:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:01:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:58:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Okay, so equally:
1. Existence is also an expression of entropy;
2. If order implies intent, its unarrested erosion does too;
3. If existence has purpose that purpose is fulfilled by its destiny. The purpose of existence is therefore its own destruction;
I can't totally agree with this. You are proposing that the sole purpose of the phenomenon of existence is it's final result.
If purpose is designed intelligently, shouldn't operation express intent in every particular?
What if the purpose involves an exploration of possibilities?
Then you'd expect diversity to override consequence, even when consequence would normally eliminate it.

Not necessarily, as there could be more than one purpose, and they could even be contradictory. You appear to be working at finding a way of invalidating my observation. Why are you doing that, rather than just considering the possibility?

What if the purpose involves those levels of transcendence achieving realms of being that we are as yet completely unaware of?
Then you've abandoned your own stated intent of reasoning from natural evidence.

That doesn't logically follow at all. What we're discussing is a concept of existence, not of nature. We are not bound by "natural evidence".

I don't know what the purpose of existence is.
You were initially arguing that you could be confident there was purpose, yet now you're arguing that you couldn't recognize it if you saw it. So there's nothing now stopping any implied purpose from being self-contradictory and therefore invalid.

First, what appears self-contradictory in purpose, to us, does not invalidate the observation of implied purpose. Is a photon a particle or a wave? It's both, and yet it's neither, depending on how we observe it. But how can that be? According to the law of non-contradiction, photons are an "invalid" phenomena. And yet, the phenomena exists as an integral part of the whole. So apparently, existence can appear to contradict itself, to us, and yet remain a cohesive, inter-related whole. Sometime we understand how that is so (as with the Doplar Effect, for example), and sometimes we don't. So that the appearance of contradiction is not the determining factor in assessing the validity of an observation.

I don't even know that there is a purpose. All I'm saying is that purpose is being implied by the existential necessity of order.
If existence can imply any purpose without constraint, it can also imply self-contradictory purposes. You've just confessed to a reductio ad absurdem.

- See previous response. - Paradox is the result of the limited (binary) way our brains perceive and cognate the information it receives from the world around us. Paradox does not "invalidate" reality.

You're arguing that existence is too inconsistent to be intelligently intended,
Actually I've argued no such thing. I've simply pointed out that your methods, which I consider invalid, lead more credibly to conclusions you don't desire than conclusions you do.

How you are determining validity is invalid. :) Because it overlooks the legitimacy of paradox, and the natural limits of human cognition.

I have no idea what intelligence would mean relative to that which creates a universe.
Yet under your own method of intuiting universal rules, only intelligence turns purpose into coherent action. So now you've wounded your argument a second time; the first when you acknowledged that any purpose could be self-contradictory, the second when you argued that any intelligence is unrecognisable.

First, I am not posing an "argument". And second, I am offering a reasoned observation as evidence, not an intuited observation. Your pasting the label "intuition" on it so you can further invalidate it in your own mind is a little bit disingenuous, though I understand that from your ideological perspective, it may appear somewhat intuitive.

Claims of knowledge should predict accurately; else they're just rhetoric.

Knowledge is just the information we gain from our experience of being. What you're referring to is a conjecture of truth based on probability, not knowledge. You are mislabeling the relative truthfulness of our understanding of this acquired information with the information, itself. I understand that in common language use these different terms and concepts are constantly being inaccurately intermingled, but that's an unfortunate human habit that perpetuates a lot of ignorance and confusion. "Knowledge" is what we acquire through our senses from our experience of being in the world. "Reality" is the intellectual construct that our minds have assembled from all that acquired information. And "truth" is the perfected alignment of that intellectual construct with existence, itself. And empiricism is one of the tools we can use to align our concept of reality with the truth of existence. But it's not the only tool we have. Nor the only tool that works.

By selecting the evidence to which you'll let your argument be accountable, your argument risks respecting your preconceptions more than it does the reader.

I am offering several reasoned observations as evidence in support of a concept. You are resisting these based on an unreasonable bias in favor of your concept of 'empiricism'. Order implies intent because order generates a specific result. Chaos does not imply intent, but can generate no result but itself. That's it. It's not rocket science, and it's not religion. It's a simple logical observation that supports the concept of "God" as we modern humans generally define that concept.

You've just rendered consciousness and reason as valueless, PureX, not transcendent.
We have no reason to believe that consciousness or reason have been lost simply because individual conscious life forms disintegrate.
We have strong reason to believe it, Pure. By your own method of intuiting rules: life can transmit its knowledge directly to other life while it lives, yet cannot do so after death. If order implies purpose because that's how we always do it, then by the same argument, death implies dissolution of knowledge because that's what always happens to it.

Consciousness is both individual and collective. When the individual passes away, the collective remains, with some of the individual's contribution, intact. It then infuses and influences succeeding generations of individuals. Thus the collective consciousness continues, and increases in knowledge and awareness, even as the individuals pass away.

Also, we have only very recently discovered forms of matter and energy that we never knew existed, before, and that we know nothing about.
Are you now arguing not from what we know, but from evidence you hope to find? So your argument isn't valid today, but might be tomorrow?

I'm only reminding you of the unpredictable and ever-present possibilities innate to existence.

What point arguing purpose at all, except to claim the moral authority of faith?

Faith is a practical necessity. Moral authority is an ethical proposition. Neither are a part of this discussion, that I can see.

Also, you are ignoring the other bits of evidence I offered. What about the question of the origin of order, the reality of transcendence, and the fact of existential self-awareness?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:52:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 3:23:49 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/3/2016 7:42:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2016 3:34:58 PM, PureX wrote:
What if the purpose involves an exploration of possibilities?
Then you'd expect diversity to override consequence, even when consequence would normally eliminate it.
Not necessarily, as there could be more than one purpose, and they could even be contradictory.
In my day-job I work on projects like that, Pure, but they are not conducted by a single individual, nor intelligently.:D It seems to me that you're straining the definition of 'purpose' beyond all recognition so as not to forfeit it. But why do you need to claim it at all, if not to claim moral authority thereafter? Yet conflicted purpose has no moral authority. Nobody follows a ditherer, so that ship ran aground before it left harbour. :(

You appear to be working at finding a way of invalidating my observation. Why are you doing that, rather than just considering the possibility?
Because you are exercising increasingly odd interpretations of 'reasonable' and 'actual evidence' -- in fact, I'm wondering whether you've forgotten that these were your commitment.

Apparently the rules of your argument are that you're free to generalise and intuit metaphysical rules from any natural observation you choose and presume them true by default, while also being free to conjecture around rules anyone else intuits from general natural observations you don't like. Were Applied Cognitive Bias an engineering subject, I'm sure this project would get an A, however it doesn't meet any interpretation I can recognise for 'reasonable' or 'actual', because both imply independence from the thinker -- and such cherry-picking of evidence and excuses clearly isn't.

What if the purpose involves those levels of transcendence achieving realms of being that we are as yet completely unaware of?
Then you've abandoned your own stated intent of reasoning from natural evidence.
What we're discussing is a concept of existence, not of nature. We are not bound by "natural evidence".
Your commitment was to 'actual and reasonable' evidence', which at the very least ought to be independent of your own biases. So I believe you need to draw in an ubiased way from what anyone can observe, and explore all the implications, not just the ones you favour.

You not only haven't done that, you've avoided my Devil's Advocate attempt to help you do that, and rather than welcoming it, have become increasingly frustrated by it.

I don't know what the purpose of existence is.
You were initially arguing that you could be confident there was purpose, yet now you're arguing that you couldn't recognize it if you saw it. So there's nothing now stopping any implied purpose from being self-contradictory and therefore invalid.
What appears self-contradictory in purpose, to us, does not invalidate the observation of implied purpose.
It destroys the claim of reasonable implication, which obligation you inherit from your Subject line. Meanwhile, such evasion destroys any hope of further insight -- I think we're now on a quest to find excuses to patch flawed argument.

I don't even know that there is a purpose. All I'm saying is that purpose is being implied by the existential necessity of order.
If existence can imply any purpose without constraint, it can also imply self-contradictory purposes. You've just confessed to a reductio ad absurdem.
Paradox is the result of the limited (binary) way our brains perceive and cognate the information it receives from the world around us. Paradox does not "invalidate" reality.
Are you not offering actuality or reason now, so much as blaming the reader's inadequate mind for your inability to supply them?

You're arguing that existence is too inconsistent to be intelligently intended,
Actually I've argued no such thing. I've simply pointed out that your methods, which I consider invalid, lead more credibly to conclusions you don't desire than conclusions you do.
How you are determining validity is invalid. :)
I didn't say validity is invalid, Pure. I said I believe your methods are. I believe this exercise in Applied Cognitive Bias demonstrates precisely how a bright and reasonable mind using careless methods, can lose focus, accountability and credibility through incremental quality-failures that the mind itself may not detect. (I don't blame you for that, btw -- it's the methods themselves.)

But see how far you've now moved from your initial intention. You began by offering observation and deduction, but are now reduced to defending ignorant mystical paradoxes, which, had you begun by assuming them, would have had no use for observation or deduction in the first place. :(

I have no idea what intelligence would mean relative to that which creates a universe.
Yet under your own method of intuiting universal rules, only intelligence turns purpose into coherent action.
I am not posing an "argument".
Yes you are. This entire thread is your argument that construing a monotheistic creator/sustainer/purpose-giver is reasonable, and based on actual evidence. That was the claim you set out to demonstrate.

I am offering a reasoned observation as evidence, not an intuited observation.
Your intuitions come into play whenever you generalise an observation to a metaphysical rule, or construe exceptions to rules drawn from observations. You are using intuitions (which I view as arising from a mixture of limited lived experience and cultural and psychological bias) to decide what is reasonable and valid, and hoping others will agree.

Your pasting the label "intuition" on it so you can further invalidate it in your own mind is a little bit disingenuous
I don't need to further invalidate it in my mind, Pure. In my view, these methods were never valid, should not be used, and I told you so from the outset. The sinking bars of reasonability and actuality in this argument are evidence I'm right.

Claims of knowledge should predict accurately; else they're just rhetoric.
Knowledge is just the information we gain from our experience of being.
This argument demonstrates why the information produced by that definition of knowledge is so lacking in quality assurance, it can't be trusted.

By selecting the evidence to which you'll let your argument be accountable, your argument risks respecting your preconceptions more than it does the reader.
I am offering several reasoned observations as evidence in support of a concept. You are resisting these based on an unreasonable bias in favor of your concept of 'empiricism'.
You're blaming a more rigorous standard of knowledge for the biases, inconsistencies and poor QA in your own standard?

Well, if it's my fault for being unable to deduce effectively from paradoxes, I guess it's my fault too for construing an obligation for rigour, accountability and independence from the words 'actual and reasonable evidence'. :(

Consciousness is both individual and collective.
The Darwinian cruelty of that proposition aside, your imputed Creator extinguishes civilisations and languages as readily as individuals and species.

Also, you are ignoring the other bits of evidence I offered. What about the question of the origin of order, the reality of transcendence, and the fact of existential self-awareness?
As a writer of fiction, I love them. :)

Yet I'm not clear why you think some intuitive abstractions are evidence, while others are not. If you can construe metaphysical evidence from order, an imputation of transcendence and consciousness, why cannot I construe it from entropy, fragmentation, the decay of memory and the wanton destruction of cultural knowledge?
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Order and chaos are false dichotomies. I think chaos is just when a person is confused, or a simple lack of organization. But you know dark matter exists too, so the statements you are making might not be true for dark matter for how its organized. Also even if it were proof of organization, to presume whats at the top is still just an assumption, there needs to be a direct link. But some do say for instance light having a maximum speed might mean our universe is a simulation. It might not matter though because if the knowledge of it doesn't help with our immediate environment its just not useful and we could get into infinite debates about which style of matrix it is too. Its silly to attempt.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:16:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
(Apologies to Pure, and not to derail an interesting thread, but I nearly choked on my morning coffee when I read AtheistBrony.

Thank you, O thank you, Internet.)
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 8:32:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

None of this is proof of anything, but it's all reasonable evidence for the existence of that which we generally define as 'God": a mysterious conscious entity that originates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists.

Things have order because they operate according to forces and forces have patterns. For example gravity tends to pull things in and that is why we see matter organized into stars and planets. We don't need God to explain order.

We also have naturalistic explanations like the big bang, stellar formation, and the theory of evolution that explain order and complexity in the universe without any reliance on there being a God. Also how do we explain the amazing existence of a being so power and intelligent like God? You have to resort to a non-design explanation to explain his existence. So non-design can explain quite a bit.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:08:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

That is a very narrow observation of order because the universe is not as fine tuned as originally thought. Out of the billions of earth like planets life appears to exist on only one. To be exact that is a 8.8 billion misses.

"If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life."

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The better question would be. What is the purpose of creating billions of planets hostile to life and only one planet where life exist only to discover the explosive growth of life is not sustainable on this one planet?

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

That is an over simplification of the origin of life.
Life originated on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago, but high intelligence did not develop until about half a million years ago which suggests intelligence is a process of evolution and not of design/creation.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

Transcendence is an aspired goal. Most humans are driven by animalistic instincts for survival. Transcendence does not guarantee the survival of the species. As a Hindu I speak from experience. We lost to every foreign invasion much as we transcended our enemies.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

The battle for existence is between lower and higher organism. Super bugs is one example of how species survive and regroup.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

Humans have explored every avenue possible for self awareness and the best they could come up with is a physical, materialistic and deterministic existence, unless you are some Buddhist monk meditating is oblivious bliss.

None of this is proof of anything, but it's all reasonable evidence for the existence of that which we generally define as 'God": a mysterious conscious entity that originates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists.
God has a higher bar to cross today than He did millenniums ago and what was adequate proof then does not meet the skeptical threshold today. But can God up his game?
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:32:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 12:08:30 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

That is a very narrow observation of order because the universe is not as fine tuned as originally thought. Out of the billions of earth like planets life appears to exist on only one. To be exact that is a 8.8 billion misses.

The organization I was referring to is the organized expression of energy as an inter-related set of quantum phenomena that we now call elementary quantum particles. And how these organized expressions of energy result in primary forces of nature: space-time, gravity, Strong force, weak force, matter, light, and so on. It is the organized expression of energy that enables and defines existence as we know it. And that ultimately enables existence to transcend itself from the material realm to the realm of life, to the realm of consciousness. And to whatever further realms that may occur that we are as yet unaware of.

And as to your assertions about the rarity of life, we have no way of verifying the existence or non-existence of other life forms even on the planets in our own solar system, yet. Let alone on the billions of other planets in the universe that share a similar cosmic history and environment as Earth. You are falsely assuming that our not knowing that life exists elsewhere means that life does not exist elsewhere. That's a pretty blatant error in logic.

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

That is an over simplification of the origin of life.

It was not referring to the origin of life, but to the origin of existence, itself. Life is just one transcendent aspect of existence.

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

Transcendence is an aspired goal. Most humans are driven by animalistic instincts for survival. Transcendence does not guarantee the survival of the species. As a Hindu I speak from experience. We lost to every foreign invasion much as we transcended our enemies.

I was referring to metaphysical transcendence: from matter and energy, to life, and from life to conscious awareness.

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

The battle for existence is between lower and higher organism. Super bugs is one example of how species survive and regroup.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I've posted.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

Humans have explored every avenue possible for self awareness and the best they could come up with is a physical, materialistic and deterministic existence, unless you are some Buddhist monk meditating is oblivious bliss.

Oh, I doubt very much that we have explored every possibility of transcendent awareness.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 9:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 8:32:30 PM, distraff wrote:

Things have order because they operate according to forces and forces have patterns. For example gravity tends to pull things in and that is why we see matter organized into stars and planets. We don't need God to explain order.

We also have naturalistic explanations like the big bang, stellar formation, and the theory of evolution that explain order and complexity in the universe without any reliance on there being a God. Also how do we explain the amazing existence of a being so power and intelligent like God? You have to resort to a non-design explanation to explain his existence. So non-design can explain quite a bit.

No offense, but you're not looking deep enough into the mystery.

Those "forces": phenomena like gravity, the weak and strong force, space-time, and so on, are the result of the energy of the "big bang" having inherent limitations to the way it could and could not express itself. And those limitations resulted in an organized expression of that energy as phenomena that what we now call "elemental quantum particles". You can look up all sorts of charts and diagrams depicting the complex relationships between these "particle" groupings. And though we don't know exactly how, they are responsible for those "forces" that you are referring to, that have shaped the nature of existence as we know it.

Yet we have no idea what originated the energy of the big bang. And we have no idea why that energy has those inherent limitations within it, that determined how it could and could not express itself. Yet it is this energy, and it's innately organized expression, that creates and defines all that exists.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 10:04:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:32:45 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/5/2016 12:08:30 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:
Another thread was asking for "specific evidence" for the existence of God. But as all these threads seem to do in this forum, it immediately devolved into silly bickering. And probably so will this one. But I like contemplating the questions, so thought I'd give it another go.

As those of us who are still bound to some semblance of reason know, there is no proof of the existence of "God", unless we accept the existence of everything else as proof of the existence of "God". ("God" being generally defined as the conscious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.) That, however, would be a tautological argument; proving itself, by itself, but offering us no real insight.

But there is, I believe, reasonable evidence for the existence of "God", even though there is no reasonable proof.

And the primary piece of evidence is that existence is an expression of order. It did not evolve from an explosion of random, chaotic energy. Because energy is not random or chaotic. It is organized in it's expression by an inherent set of limitations, the source of which is a complete mystery to us (as is the energy). That source, however, is responsible for everything that exists, and for HOW it all exists as it does. That being the very definition of "God".

That is a very narrow observation of order because the universe is not as fine tuned as originally thought. Out of the billions of earth like planets life appears to exist on only one. To be exact that is a 8.8 billion misses.

The organization I was referring to is the organized expression of energy as an inter-related set of quantum phenomena that we now call elementary quantum particles. And how these organized expressions of energy result in primary forces of nature: space-time, gravity, Strong force, weak force, matter, light, and so on. It is the organized expression of energy that enables and defines existence as we know it. And that ultimately enables existence to transcend itself from the material realm to the realm of life, to the realm of consciousness. And to whatever further realms that may occur that we are as yet unaware of.

And as to your assertions about the rarity of life, we have no way of verifying the existence or non-existence of other life forms even on the planets in our own solar system, yet. Let alone on the billions of other planets in the universe that share a similar cosmic history and environment as Earth. You are falsely assuming that our not knowing that life exists elsewhere means that life does not exist elsewhere. That's a pretty blatant error in logic.

The Fermi Paradox put to rest such wishful thinking.
"Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability extraterrestrial civilizations' existence and the lack of contact with such civilizations."

The second bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is that this order from which all that exists, springs, implies intent. Order cannot occur in chaos without some sort of limitation within that chaos to allow anything BUT chaos to occur. It's a logical necessity. Which means that pure chaos does not exist. Because it can't exist. Existence, by any definition that we can comprehend, requires order. And order can't occur in pure chaos. There has to be some imposed limitations within the chaos to allow any sort of order to occur. And it's the origin and nature of those limitations that determines the existential result. Not only begging the question of the origin of this imposed order, but also implying that existence IS THE PURPOSE of the imposition of those limitations (and the order that occurs as a result). For existence to exist, order had to be imposed on the chaotic energy that fuels it. Thus, logically implying that the purpose of all this energy, and of the limitations within it that orders it's expression, is the existential result. (I realize this is also somewhat tautological, but it is reasonable, and there is no reasonable alternative that I know of.)

The order that enables existence to occur not only begs the question of it's origin, but also logically implies existential intent on the part of that origin.

That is an over simplification of the origin of life.

It was not referring to the origin of life, but to the origin of existence, itself. Life is just one transcendent aspect of existence.

Which you admit is a tautological argument. Why bother?!!

A third bit of evidence for the existence of "God" is the fact that existence as we know it manifests the phenomenon of transcendence. That is that under very specific conditions and circumstances, realms of being that manifest one set of possibilities and that adhere to one set of controlling factors transcend themselves into new realms of being, complete with a whole new range of possibilities and a whole new sets of limitations that order and shape their 'nature'. For example, the realm of matter and energy, under very specific conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into the whole new realm of being that we call "life". And that realm, under a very specific set of conditions and circumstances, transcends itself into another whole new realm of existence that we call "consciousness". Or conscious awareness.

Transcendence is an aspired goal. Most humans are driven by animalistic instincts for survival. Transcendence does not guarantee the survival of the species. As a Hindu I speak from experience. We lost to every foreign invasion much as we transcended our enemies.

I was referring to metaphysical transcendence: from matter and energy, to life, and from life to conscious awareness.

There is nothing metaphysical about life evolving to conscious awareness.

Prominent scientist sign declaration that animals have conscious awareness, just like us.

http://io9.com...

If these various realms of existence can transcend themselves into new ones, and thereby existence itself has become self-aware (through us), it seems reasonable to surmise that further transcendent realms of existence might occur, or already have occurred, that we are as yet completely unaware of. Perhaps the conscious awareness of some other life form in the universe has already transcended itself into a whole new realm of being that is beyond our ability to perceive, or even imagine. In much the same way as an unconscious life form is oblivious of our self-awareness. Or in the way a non-living form of matter and energy is oblivious to the existence of life.

The battle for existence is between lower and higher organism. Super bugs is one example of how species survive and regroup.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I've posted.

The goal of existence is not transcendance but survival. There might be different realms of consciousness or levels starting with consciousness of self, our surrounding and finally the universe. But that is a journey of the mind into spirituality transcending the physical boundaries which is achieved through meditation.

And finally, if existence itself has become self-aware, though us, then it seems reasonable to me to imagine that whatever the origin of existence is, that it, too, would be at the least, as self-aware as we are. And would likely be of a state beyond that, that we are as yet oblivious of.

Humans have explored every avenue possible for self awareness and the best they could come up with is a physical, materialistic and deterministic existence, unless you are some Buddhist monk meditating is oblivious bliss.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/4/2016 6:52:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:23:49 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/3/2016 7:42:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2016 3:34:58 PM, PureX wrote:
What if the purpose involves an exploration of possibilities?
Then you'd expect diversity to override consequence, even when consequence would normally eliminate it.
Not necessarily, as there could be more than one purpose, and they could even be contradictory.
In my day-job I work on projects like that, Pure, but they are not conducted by a single individual, nor intelligently.:D It seems to me that you're straining the definition of 'purpose' beyond all recognition so as not to forfeit it. But why do you need to claim it at all, if not to claim moral authority thereafter? Yet conflicted purpose has no moral authority. Nobody follows a ditherer, so that ship ran aground before it left harbour. :(

I am not interested in establishing any moral authority, here. The only idea of moral authority I can comprehend would be based on the individual/collective desire to continue existing. And that is clearly a subjective bias on our part. Since I have no reason to assume that existence as a whole is particularly concerned with our individual continuance, I don't think it's relevant to this discussion's observations.

You appear to be working at finding a way of invalidating my observation. Why are you doing that, rather than just considering the possibility?
Because you are exercising increasingly odd interpretations of 'reasonable' and 'actual evidence' -- in fact, I'm wondering whether you've forgotten that these were your commitment.

Well, the more we go back and forth, the farther afield we are likely to range. That's not surprising, is it? It's not like we're circling inward to some inevitable and unavoidable consensus. :)

Apparently the rules of your argument are that you're free to generalise and intuit metaphysical rules from any natural observation you choose and presume them true by default, while also being free to conjecture around rules anyone else intuits from general natural observations you don't like. Were Applied Cognitive Bias an engineering subject, I'm sure this project would get an A, however it doesn't meet any interpretation I can recognise for 'reasonable' or 'actual', because both imply independence from the thinker -- and such cherry-picking of evidence and excuses clearly isn't.

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you do not believe that order implies intent when order dictates a specific result.

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you think it's wrong for me to assert that intent would imply purpose.

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how I am wrong in pointing out that our conscious conception of reality is a transcendent expression of existence, complete with it's own set of possibilities (that did not previously exist) and it's own set of limitations that serve to determine it's "nature".

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how a consciously self-aware universe is NOT evidence of a "universal consciousness". (One of the attributes ascribed to the "God" ideal.)

Your commitment was to 'actual and reasonable' evidence', which at the very least ought to be independent of your own biases.

Please explain to me how these observations are not reasonable, and how you see them as being biased (besides the fact that you don't want them to stand as evidence for "God").

I don't know what the purpose of existence is.
You were initially arguing that you could be confident there was purpose, yet now you're arguing that you couldn't recognize it if you saw it. So there's nothing now stopping any implied purpose from being self-contradictory and therefore invalid.
What appears self-contradictory in purpose, to us, does not invalidate the observation of implied purpose.
It destroys the claim of reasonable implication, which obligation you inherit from your Subject line. Meanwhile, such evasion destroys any hope of further insight -- I think we're now on a quest to find excuses to patch flawed argument.

No, it doesn't. You keep making this claim, but you aren't backing it up. I don't have to know the purpose of something to recognize that it has one. I see objects in the hardware store all the time that I can reasonably surmise to have a purpose but that I do not know what that purpose, is. Nor do I know how many different purposes it may have. But as someone who uses tools and materials, often, I do know that many of them have more than one purpose. In fact, they are often designed to be multi-purposeful. So your assertion that because I don't know what the purpose of existence is, or that it may appear to be at cross-purposes, does not, to my mind, invalidate the reasoned observation that it has a purpose. Now it's your turn to explain, clearly and succinctly, why my reasoned observations, here, are wrong, if you believe they are.

Why doesn't the existence of a specific order, resulting in a specific outcome, imply intent? Even though we do not know the source of that order, or the specific intent, beyond it's expression, itself?

I am not posing an "argument".
Yes you are. This entire thread is your argument that construing a monotheistic creator/sustainer/purpose-giver is reasonable, and based on actual evidence. That was the claim you set out to demonstrate.

I am only posing what I consider to be reasonable evidence in favor of the human ideal referred to as "God". I am offering it for your consideration, not because I'm trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I'm not even convinced, myself. I am an agnostic, taoist, non-religious, Christian idealist. Believe me when I say I am not promoting any particular theological concept. I am simply posing what I see as reasonable evidence against atheism. Because most of the theists here seem to be totally incapable of doing that. And most of the atheist's arguments, here, are absurdly naive and poorly thought out.

Knowledge is just the information we gain from our experience of being.
This argument demonstrates why the information produced by that definition of knowledge is so lacking in quality assurance, it can't be trusted.

But that's the nature of human 'knowledge'. It can't be trusted. That's why the various "quality assurance" processes are necessary. And why they must be applied to the knowledge that we've acquired. As or after we acquire it.

Mostly this is a semantic debate at this point. I'm OK with your calling knowledge 'information'. I just want there to be an awareness of the difference between "refined knowledge" (what you call knowledge) and knowledge as acquired information (what I call knowledge).

I am offering several reasoned observations as evidence in support of a concept. You are resisting these based on an unreasonable bias in favor of your concept of 'empiricism'.
You're blaming a more rigorous standard of knowledge for the biases, inconsistencies and poor QA in your own standard?

In this instance, the "quality assurance" methods you are applying to the observations I have offered have been ineffective. I appreciate their thoughtfulness. and I appreciate the various tangential avenues of thought that they've inspired. But so far, they have not validated nor invalidated my reasoning.

I admit my reasoning is dirt simple, obvious, and generalized nearly to the point of being non-existent. But that's philosophy for ya (It's the goal, in fact!). And yet so far I have seen no one offer ANY reasonable alternative view, nor any reasonable objection to mine.

My door is still open. :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 6:08:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:34:24 PM, PureX wrote:
<Stuff which, for reasons not Pure's fault, I can't presently read.>

Pure, with apologies, I'm ill at the moment with some Winter malaise and have a headache so bad I'm having trouble making sense of your sentences (though probably not just yours.) I believe I'll do a better job replying to them after my eyes focus on them correctly, and so must apologise that there may be some delay while I recover, and they remember which way to point.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 7:14:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/6/2016 6:08:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/6/2016 5:34:24 PM, PureX wrote:
<Stuff which, for reasons not Pure's fault, I can't presently read.>

Pure, with apologies, I'm ill at the moment with some Winter malaise and have a headache so bad I'm having trouble making sense of your sentences (though probably not just yours.) I believe I'll do a better job replying to them after my eyes focus on them correctly, and so must apologise that there may be some delay while I recover, and they remember which way to point.

I sincerely hope you will soon feel better.

And this business, here, is just for our entertainment and perhaps some slight enlightenment, so don't sweat it. I do greatly appreciate your intellect, however, so please relax and take care of it. :)
Pandit
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 7:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Isn't existence of a Cosmos itself a proof that a greater force is at work . Now call it God , Divine , Force , Nature bla bla bla ..........Does it really matter .

How many of us in this day and age will believe , even if a God himself gives a proof of his existence ?

Sun is God ^^ remember that . It has the capacity to create and also to destroy ^^
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 1:14:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Pure, thank you for your earlier kind words. I'm pleased to report that analgesics and caffeine have effected more than concentrated squinting and groaning. I'm now going to try and reply cogently. :)

At 7/6/2016 5:34:24 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:52:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:23:49 PM, PureX wrote:
Why do you need to claim [a purpose prescriber] at all, if not to claim moral authority thereafter?
I am not interested in establishing any moral authority, here.
Then why insist on a universal prescriber of purpose? What other use has it? Subjective passions, interests and values can prescribe any purpose of their own, whether it's collecting tiddlywinks, or carving an ice menagerie. Posit an external prescriber of universal purpose and then either the prescribed purpose will conflict with subjective interests, or else only reinforce them with moral authority they don't need. The first case is an example of doctrine crushing spirit, which I understood you to deplore. Yet the second is mere conceited sanctimony -- it adds nothing passion didn't originally provide, and can only confuse whatever other moral sensibilities one might have.

You are exercising increasingly odd interpretations of 'reasonable' and 'actual evidence' -- in fact, I'm wondering whether you've forgotten that these were your commitment.
It's not like we're circling inward to some inevitable and unavoidable consensus. :)
I'm not trying to gain consensus, Pure. :D I would just like accountability for the frame under which you can simultaneously declare 'actual' and 'reasonable' as universal absolutes while insisting that all knowledge is subjective and arises from lived experience. To me that seems both circular and self-contradictory. Are you truly claiming that this argument should accord with everyone's lived experiences? Because I can cite an endless array of polytheistic and nontheistic spiritual beliefs that would disagree with you.

Apparently the rules of your argument are that you're free to intuit any metaphysical rules you choose and presume them true by default, while also conjecturing around equally intuited rules you don't like.
Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you do not believe that order implies intent when order dictates a specific result.
You haven't demonstrated that: you've only shown that order rarelycorrelates with life and sentience. But I can also show that order alwayscorrelates with eventual death and dissolution of knowledge. So which generalisation of intent is more significant?

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you think it's wrong for me to assert that intent would imply purpose.
Empirically it's invalid to declare intent and purpose without first defining the minimum evidence that would verify them. [I can share what my minimum criteria are, but you wouldn't like them as they'd invalidate your entire claim. :)]

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how I am wrong in pointing out that our conscious conception of reality is a transcendent expression of existence
Same deal, Pure: empirically, conjectures are only valid as hypotheses when defined by minimum observable evidence.

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how a consciously self-aware universe
Same again, except there are also epistemological complications with dealing with the universe as an empirical subject in its own right.

Your commitment was to 'actual and reasonable' evidence', which at the very least ought to be independent of your own biases.
Please explain to me how these observations are not reasonable
Empirically they're invalid. But you've yet to define what 'actual' and 'reasonable' mean to you, because you clearly aren't using empirical definitions.

I don't know what the purpose of existence is.
I don't have to know the purpose of something to recognize that it has one.
You have to know something about intent if you're claiming 'actual' and 'reasonable' -- unless they 'actual' 'reasonable' and 'knowledge' mean something different to you than they do to me. (Which is not a rhetorical alternative:I think it true.)

I see objects in the hardware store all the time that I can reasonably surmise to have a purpose but that I do not know what that purpose, is.
Yes. A) that's a conjecture. B) it's easy to make an hypothesis since you can make predictions that are easy to test. Archaeologists do this all the time. So it would be reasonable to either (i) conjecture a vague purpose without claiming knowledge, or (ii) hypothesise a specific purpose recognising that testing will produce knowledge that it is or isn't likely.

But calling vagueness knowledge is dishonest: pure seduction of reason. Great for art, comedy and creative inspiration; lousy for education, civics, science, engineering, manufacturing, medicine, journalism, law, professional services, public policy, personal and corporate ethics, and social debates. :)

Why doesn't the existence of a specific order, resulting in a specific outcome, imply intent? Even though we do not know the source of that order, or the specific intent, beyond it's expression, itself?
I hope I've now addressed that -- if only in sketch.

I am only posing what I consider to be reasonable evidence in favor of the human ideal referred to as "God".
A narrow Deist subset of it, with the additional suggestions modern Deists don't normally entertain -- that their Creator both sustains and gives purpose to life.

I don't object to choosing that subset, though I mildly object to giving it a theistic name and asserting purpose while denying claims to moral authority. To me that seems like a bulemic stockpiling ice-cream, while denying there's a problem. :)

I am offering it for your consideration, not because I'm trying to convince you or anyone of anything.
I don't accept that because one implication of claiming actual and reasonable evidence is that atheism is either a delusion, or unreasonable. Meanwhile, theists already accept the conclusion so they don't need the premise, and agnostics can dismiss it as conjecture. So you're submitting argument pretty much only for atheist consideration. I believe you're very much aware of its implications. I can't imagine any atheist being offended by the attempt to make the argument. I just think it's a pity you won't acknowledge its intent.

This argument demonstrates why the information produced by that definition of knowledge is so lacking in quality assurance, it can't be trusted.
But that's the nature of human 'knowledge'. It can't be trusted.
So you never catch an aircraft because you don't know how well-trained the pilots are? You do all your own dental-work because you can't trust dentists? Or else you agree that trust in knowledge is trust in the quality of the processes by which it has been produced?

I'm OK with your calling knowledge 'information'.
I don't believe they're equivalent. Information is the answer to a question. Knowledge is information that has been shown to predict accurately.

In this instance, the "quality assurance" methods you are applying to the observations I have offered have been ineffective.
I wonder what QA you'd accept on this, Pure. What, other than the subjective prejudices of people who already agree with you, would you accept as independent validation and verification?

So far I have seen no one offer ANY reasonable alternative view, nor any reasonable objection to mine.
You have still yet to define 'actual' and 'reasonable' in any way that makes you accountable for placing that claim on your argument. So far as I've seen, all you've done is test the argument against your own intuitions, without first checking whether that's the best assurance you could provide, and whether that's the most it needs.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:34:24 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:52:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:23:49 PM, PureX wrote:
Why do you need to claim [a purpose prescriber] at all, if not to claim moral authority thereafter?
I am not interested in establishing any moral authority, here.
Then why insist on a universal prescriber of purpose? What other use has it?

I am not insisting on it. I am merely pointing out that there is reasonable evidence implying universal consciousness, intent, and purpose.

I'm not trying to gain consensus, Pure. :D I would just like accountability for the frame under which you can simultaneously declare 'actual' and 'reasonable' as universal absolutes while insisting that all knowledge is subjective and arises from lived experience.

And yet you still have not been able to explain why you think my 'evidence' is not reasonable, or not actual. Existence is the 'actual' result of an ordered expression of energy. This order implies existential intent, and intent implies purpose. Please explain why you think this observation is unreasonable.

As to the fallibility of our knowledge (information, to you), that's a given. So I am not making any absolute proclamations. I am simply posing reasonable evidence based on the information we currently have.

To me that seems both circular and self-contradictory.

That's because you are working very hard to make it seem so.

Are you truly claiming that this argument should accord with everyone's lived experiences? Because I can cite an endless array of polytheistic and nontheistic spiritual beliefs that would disagree with you.

I have no control over, or particular interest in what people do with these observations, or what conclusions they draw about reality and truth from their own acquired knowledge.

Apparently the rules of your argument are that you're free to intuit any metaphysical rules you choose and presume them true by default, while also conjecturing around equally intuited rules you don't like.

I have offered no "rules", metaphysical or otherwise. I've only pointed out that there are transcendent realms of existence, each with their own new set of possibilities, and their own determining limitations. And that by definition, the realm of consciousness could be considered "metaphysical".

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you do not believe that order implies intent when order dictates a specific result.
You haven't demonstrated that: you've only shown that order rarelycorrelates with life and sentience. But I can also show that order alwayscorrelates with eventual death and dissolution of knowledge. So which generalisation of intent is more significant?

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, why you think it's wrong for me to assert that intent would imply purpose.
Empirically it's invalid to declare intent and purpose without first defining the minimum evidence that would verify them. [I can share what my minimum criteria are, but you wouldn't like them as they'd invalidate your entire claim. :)]

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how I am wrong in pointing out that our conscious conception of reality is a transcendent expression of existence.
Same deal, Pure: empirically, conjectures are only valid as hypotheses when defined by minimum observable evidence.

Please explain, clearly and succinctly, how a consciously self-aware universe is not a form of 'universal consciousness'.
Same again, except there are also epistemological complications with dealing with the universe as an empirical subject in its own right.

Your commitment was to 'actual and reasonable' evidence', which at the very least ought to be independent of your own biases.
Please explain to me how these observations are not actual or reasonable.
Empirically they're invalid. But you've yet to define what 'actual' and 'reasonable' mean to you, because you clearly aren't using empirical definitions.

You have failed to do as I asked: that is to explain clearly and succinctly why you think my observations are not reasonable evidence in support of the "God" ideal ("God" being the conscious source, sustenances, and purpose of all that exists). You have not explained why you don't agree that existence is the result of an ordered expression of energy. You have not explained why that ordered expression of energy does not imply an intended result, or why that implied intent wouldn't also imply purpose. And you have not explained why you don't think universal consciousness is a valid conceptualization of reality, and of the reality of transcendence.

Can you do this, or can't you? And if you can't, why are you working so hard at trying to dismiss this evidence in your own mind, by whatever means you can muster?

Asking for proof is unwarranted as I never proposed these observations be taken as proof. Asking for evidence for the evidence is just plain nuts. And trying to apply charges of incoherent contradiction through some sort of absolute relativity accusation is just an age-old and over-ripe 'red herring' often tossed around by confused absolutists. So where's your real opposing argument? Where's your conceptual alternative? What glaring misunderstanding have I overlooked ?

My door is open.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 2:48:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:18:24 PM, PureX wrote:

It seems your evidence can be summarised as:

1.) That existence must have an overall cause; and the properties of that cause has the same definition of God.

2.) Order implies intent.

3.) That combinations of the physical can transcend their "physical" nature and become conscious, extrapolating this means that all of existence could be conscious.

Is this accurate?

Now, I'm going to start off with defining "Evidence", in the dictionary, this is cited as:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

I wanted to elaborate on what this means, as many people are very sloppy with their definitions.

At a crime scene, the DNA that applies to a set of identical twins is found; neither of the two have alibis, nor can either of them account for their DNA present at the scene. Both have significant motives to have committed the murder, and either would be charged with the crime had they not been identical twins.

While all of this is "evidence" that one of the two twins committed the murder; none of it is evidence that twin A committed the murder over twin B or vice versa.

To be evidence, the points of data must not simply be "consistent with" a given outcome, it must be "indicative of" that outcome over the other.

IE: that fact combined with it's salient related evidence must point to one outcome over another to be considered evidence.

The grass being wet is not evidence of it having rained over, for example, the grass being watered, there was a flood, or someone dropped a drink: additional facts are required in order to indicate rain over other explanations.

So, going back to your three points. I will go in reverse order:

3.) Is not evidence.

What you are saying is "evidence", is just a speculative explanation. IThe nature of reality you are using to justify this position could be equally true for there not being a God too; as a result the facts do not positively indicate this outcome. Ergo: it is not evidence.

2.) Is not evidence.

This is actually an unsupported assumption. Intent can create order, but so can non-intentional processes. That planets are round, crystals are formed, that it's hot during the day and cold during the night, that molecules are constructed from the same material, that with breeding and reproduction more complex organisms can arise from less complex ones, are all examples of order arising without intent.

The things human do create are ordered, but the nature of that order is not repeated in things that humans have not created; and any comparison invariably breaks down to fundamental differences between human order, and natural order that are not considered by this statement.

As a result, the justification that order implies intent, is due to incorrect comparison of human order with natural order that can't be sufficiently made logically.

1.) Yes; the existence of the universe implies it had a cause to some degree at some level.

However, the requirements of this cause are based of our observations; it has to be sufficient to be able to bring about existence; and no more. Given that we don't have a foggiest clue how this could be possible, all we can say is that there needs to be a cause sufficient to be able to bring about existence.

This requirement does not include consciousness, agency, intent, or being in any shape or form, and can be reasonably (and just as factually based) explained by any number of speculative explanations, including God, but in and of itself is indicative of none of them without additional evidence.

So, for that reason, as none of the three elements are indicative of God, two of them are speculative, and one of them is based on a faulty assumptions and thus none are evidence.