Ford Focus Forum banner

21 - 40 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Occasionally, trying to attach significance to an event to justify how special it is, reduces the actual significance to a state of triviality. To assume that our understanding of the origin of life is trivial because we don't feel the need to add in omnipotence for it to be possible, is odd. I don't think that observation of the universe by sentient beings is proof that the universe only exists because of the viewer, is evidentiary. It was humming along quite nicely without sentience(at least on this mudball) for 99.999999% of it's existence. My view doesn't reduce the significance of sentience or how interrelated the structure of everything inside of space time is. After all, without quantum effects, actual thought is impossible. I just don't need to apply a constructed constant to somewhat comprehend the universe.

As for skipping around and shouting "stardust", I haven't done that since last time I consumed toxic fungus and experienced hyper-food poisoning.


Sent from my iPhone using flares, semaphore and messenger goats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
Me too, and I never did understand why that is considered "toxic"...

For starts, it is a certainty that anywhere in the universe a planet exists with long-term liquid water, in significant quantity (unknown limit), there will be produced (in accordance with the universal laws revealed by our mathematical reduction/description of the physical universe) life. The universe is built on two opposing principles, Order and Chaos, from which all energy is derived in movement toward an equilibrium between them. Our Science shows evidence of "intent", in that there is a process of elimination inherent in the process of formation of chemical entities in the whole universe, and in biological entities on any planet containing sufficient liquid water. A similar intent is displayed in the formation of Black Holes; the universe is set-up to create them, just as it is set-up to create highly complex chemical structures (that become biological at some point).

It is my observation/belief/expectation that you put yourself at personal/spiritual risk if you separate yourself from the "intent" of the universe by discounting it's existence. Taking "the road traveled only by you" must result in being lead to a spot that only you can be in... taking the road traveled by the set of "all those who travel their own road", is equivalent... either is unlikely to result in harmony with The Way or the Great/Holy Spirit, or richness in positive Karma, or balance in your personal Ying/Yang, or support of Gaia. To deny the existence of processes beyond your perception is to place yourself too high on the ladder of causality, which ultimately means you are more likely to help create the world we have (one that is unsustainably driven by the follies of all), than you are to help create a world that will transcend our follies, since you will be unlikely to transcend your own.
 

·
****ney-4-Life!
Joined
·
3,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
The lights are off before you are born, then switched off when you die. The stuff you get up to in-between times and what you wish to learn is all subjective.





Religion.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
Funny. If you think that faker is bad, you should see some of our Televangelists... they define "hypocrisy", and those who are duped by them are dumb and/or crazy victims.

That said, cynicism may be an important first step toward wisdom or enlightenment, but it is only a first step. There is much more to be enjoyed and much more to understand than a cynical view can ever provide. The world just stays an angry place if cynicism is the goal.

The more you know the more you can see, the more you see the more you can know.
 

·
FJ Premier Sponsor
Joined
·
12,444 Posts
Trivial reductionist statements don’t enlighten anyone. Calling us “stardust” is as trivial and incomplete an explanation of how we came into being on our “lucky” little planet as if you were to call us “God’s children”.

Simply evoking one way of viewing the assembly of materials and the rise of life in the universe, does nothing to devalue the other way, thus, cannot be used as though it were some sort of proof of the fallacy of the other. It takes considerable study and training in observing the intricacies of the operations occurring in the universe to draw a conclusion about the mechanisms by which things happen, and it takes considerable attention and meditation in observing The Way, or the Ying/Yang, or the Karma, or the Spirit within any sequence of events, to make inferences about the intent of that sequence, or the universe’s creation, or even about whether or not “intent” is displayed.

Please, stop fooling yourselves into thinking that skipping around with your arms over your head, and gleefully repeating “we’re stardust, we’re stardust” (or any pop culture reduction of reality) means that you have somehow successfully argued in favor of the idea that the design and function of the universe is random and displays no intent. Such a self-delusion only displays a lack of credibility and insures that your statements appear as no more than ignorance.

And that last statement about being a number, and about how simple things are... all the facepalm gifs in all the internet can't quite express how silly that statement is... of course, we're only "one thing each", just as each atom in our body is only one thing each, but the assemblage of those atoms into an object (each of us), through which the universe can observe itself, is really, really, quite spectacular, and not "simple" in the slightest.
^^^
Perfect example of why I love reading your posts John. :thumbup:

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
Happy to oblige. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Me too, and I never did understand why that is considered "toxic"...

For starts, it is a certainty that anywhere in the universe a planet exists with long-term liquid water, in significant quantity (unknown limit), there will be produced (in accordance with the universal laws revealed by our mathematical reduction/description of the physical universe) life. The universe is built on two opposing principles, Order and Chaos, from which all energy is derived in movement toward an equilibrium between them. Our Science shows evidence of "intent", in that there is a process of elimination inherent in the process of formation of chemical entities in the whole universe, and in biological entities on any planet containing sufficient liquid water. A similar intent is displayed in the formation of Black Holes; the universe is set-up to create them, just as it is set-up to create highly complex chemical structures (that become biological at some point).

It is my observation/belief/expectation that you put yourself at personal/spiritual risk if you separate yourself from the "intent" of the universe by discounting it's existence. Taking "the road traveled only by you" must result in being lead to a spot that only you can be in... taking the road traveled by the set of "all those who travel their own road", is equivalent... either is unlikely to result in harmony with The Way or the Great/Holy Spirit, or richness in positive Karma, or balance in your personal Ying/Yang, or support of Gaia. To deny the existence of processes beyond your perception is to place yourself too high on the ladder of causality, which ultimately means you are more likely to help create the world we have (one that is unsustainably driven by the follies of all), than you are to help create a world that will transcend our follies, since you will be unlikely to transcend your own.
I'm wracking my brain for any science article about "intent" being shown through the study of the universe. I will concede that there are things that sure appear to have a systemic evolution that might inspire a relatively smart amoeba to see things within it that might create a sense of "intent" behind the curtains of the unknown. However, like most dust mites, our comprehension is limited by our perspective. So far, all we can do is shine our little flashlight in this dark room to see tiny patches of our surroundings, and guess at what lies in the dark surround.

My point, I don't need intent, or an omnipotent creator steering the evolution of the universe to tell me that pork is bad and to doff my scarf in the presence of the letter t. Spirituality is a function of sentience as opposed to a function of the universe. I'm the one who feels awe at the pillars of creation, they weren't put there to make me feel awe. Is the universe an organic being? That's for philosophers and existentialists to argue about, not physicists and astronomers. Does the universe impart a sense of wonder and amazement, even a sense of belonging, nope, that's all in the observer. Personal enlightenment is personal, not universal. My time here is finite, and as I am a product of universal constituents, darkness, flash, darkness is my existence, just like the bigger universe. I don't need transcendence to be supplied to me by any creator, I'll find it myself.

As for the limitations that you imply in my philosophy, wrong. I'm only limited by my biology, which is the stem of my imagination and source of my comprehension. A star doesn't need me to burn, but it's sure ****ing amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
I'm wracking my brain for any science article about "intent" being shown through the study of the universe. I will concede that there are things that sure appear to have a systemic evolution that might inspire a relatively smart amoeba to see things within it that might create a sense of "intent" behind the curtains of the unknown. However, like most dust mites, our comprehension is limited by our perspective. So far, all we can do is shine our little flashlight in this dark room to see tiny patches of our surroundings, and guess at what lies in the dark surround.

My point, I don't need intent, or an omnipotent creator steering the evolution of the universe to tell me that pork is bad and to doff my scarf in the presence of the letter t. Spirituality is a function of sentience as opposed to a function of the universe. I'm the one who feels awe at the pillars of creation, they weren't put there to make me feel awe. Is the universe an organic being? That's for philosophers and existentialists to argue about, not physicists and astronomers. Does the universe impart a sense of wonder and amazement, even a sense of belonging, nope, that's all in the observer. Personal enlightenment is personal, not universal. My time here is finite, and as I am a product of universal constituents, darkness, flash, darkness is my existence, just like the bigger universe. I don't need transcendence to be supplied to me by any creator, I'll find it myself.

As for the limitations that you imply in my philosophy, wrong. I'm only limited by my biology, which is the stem of my imagination and source of my comprehension. A star doesn't need me to burn, but it's sure ****ing amazing.
We both know that there are no science articles about “intent being shown through the study of the universe” and there never will be. Science is built on empiricism, therefore, any conclusion “science” directs us toward must be able to be tested to prove it (or a theory proposed that is built on logical/mathematical connection to things that can be proven by testing). Science can only test what it can observe and quantify, thus, there is no scientific study that can ever be used to either prove or disprove “intent”.

We can say that science attempts to show us mechanism (how), and religion attempts to show us motive or purpose (why). When the universe came into existence, it came in with a set of rules that govern all events, and those Rules have allowed/caused everything that has been created to unfold since the beginning. Order and Chaos, energy and anti(dark)-energy, matter and anti-matter, space-time and quantum space, gravity and electromagnetism, all dancing to a set of rules that guides the interplay of all things.

We can make no observation of the Creative Impetus of the Universe (God) directly, because the ultimate God we can imagine is either “The Rules”, thus, one step removed from what we can experience directly, or else “The Maker of The Rules”, thus, beyond all reason (obviously, not some corporeal being, like a semi-tangible “Santa Claus” floating in the clouds). The fact that there are rules that guide everything is why one of the above choices can be considered as correct. That’s the province of Faith, the place where testing and direct observation cannot succeed, but we know that area of reality exists, whether someone is comfortable with that knowledge or not.

No one is equipped to determine by experiment whether or not an “intent” (or a guiding principle, therefore, God) exists. But the observable fact that The Rules are such that some products of creation are included in any stream of causality and other products are excluded, shows (by logic) an intent that is inherent in the rules. Certain probabilities are expressed in perpetuity and others fail to remain. When conditions and circumstances favor more than one thing, a selection process some of us call “luck”, and others call “God’s will” becomes apparent.

Since “we” are one of the products of the way the Rules make things happen and behave in the universe (a product of the way the universe as a whole evolves), when we look up at the night sky, or around us at other life, or within the fact of our own being, we are acting as “the universe regarding itself”. [No trivial feat!] The oral-history/pre-writing person who first conceived the creation story that is written in Genesis was either a super-genius, or had a conversation with aliens or time-travelers, or was channeling someone from our time, or was inspired by God, because that sequence of events concerning the origin of the universe parallels the conclusions of our cosmological research. It is a mistake of Ego for anyone to believe that nothing exists that supersedes them… it follows that a world filled with people who credit themselves with that much importance is a world where compromise on critical issues is impossible and failure is certain… in that way it DOES matter what you, or I, or anyone believes.
 

·
****ney-4-Life!
Joined
·
3,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #31 (Edited)
Show off! ~~;)~~


This.. stops me dead in me tracks...

The light you'll see are of stars that have exploded and the light has taken 1billion years too reach your eyes.
 

·
****ney-4-Life!
Joined
·
3,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #32 (Edited)
you should see some of our Televangelists... they define "hypocrisy", and those who are duped by them are dumb and/or crazy victims.
*That was the point of the vid I posted... Being hoodwinked into a story..


Anyways..



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
The oral-history/pre-writing person who first conceived the creation story that is written in Genesis was either a super-genius, or had a conversation with aliens or time-travelers, or was channeling someone from our time, or was inspired by God, because that sequence of events concerning the origin of the universe parallels the conclusions of our cosmological research. It is a mistake of Ego for anyone to believe that nothing exists that supersedes them… it follows that a world filled with people who credit themselves with that much importance is a world where compromise on critical issues is impossible and failure is certain… in that way it DOES matter what you, or I, or anyone believes.

Picked this out for a particular "like", it IS a wonderment just how that story parallels physical reality as we've determined it to date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
I have zero issue with the concept of faith, where it falls apart for me is the whole "we exist because the universe needs validation through sentient observation". That strikes me as hubris. What I don't have issue with is drawing inspiration from our existence and the incredible wonders of the universe. I don't even have an issue with the system having an overall tendency to generate life, or even sentience. But a master puppeteer is not a necessity. We as a species, have existed for a minuscule mote of time relative to the age of the universe and are likely to be erased from existence by radiation, or comets, or some other cosmic event in an equally relative mote of time. In which case, if there is a grand plan, the universe has created humanity solely for the purpose of reducing it to ash. The very fact that we are a tentative creature in the grand scheme, is precisely why we are more precious a creature than a construct of some great scheme. It doesn't lessen our self perceived importance, quite the contrary, we need to transcend our current foibles, or else there is zero point behind our existence.

As far as genesis is concerned, it is a story derived from the ancient histories of humanity and its need to create meaning behind events. It is a compilation of creation myths and distant human experience. Most of which were written by the equivalent to modern astrophysicists. They weren't any more genius than the authors of the present physical laws of the standard model in physics, they just had a different language to express their perception of the universe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
*That was the point of the vid I posted... Being hoodwinked into a story..

Anyways..
...
There definitely are creepy people in the world, trying to make fools of others for their own gain, but as I've tried to say, there is a better story to be told. Thanks for the video.

I have zero issue with the concept of faith, where it falls apart for me is the whole "we exist because the universe needs validation through sentient observation". That strikes me as hubris.
Agree. That strikes me as the definition of "hubris", if we believe we are the ONLY sentient life form it the universe. On the contrary, there must be many, many examples among the 300 billion, or so, stars in our own galaxy, let alone the hundreds of billions of other galaxies. Life must be plentiful, although perhaps not so common, and sentient life as well.

What I don't have issue with is drawing inspiration from our existence and the incredible wonders of the universe. I don't even have an issue with the system having an overall tendency to generate life, or even sentience. But a master puppeteer is not a necessity. We as a species, have existed for a minuscule mote of time relative to the age of the universe and are likely to be erased from existence by radiation, or comets, or some other cosmic event in an equally relative mote of time. In which case, if there is a grand plan, the universe has created humanity solely for the purpose of reducing it to ash. The very fact that we are a tentative creature in the grand scheme, is precisely why we are more precious a creature than a construct of some great scheme. It doesn't lessen our self perceived importance, quite the contrary, we need to transcend our current foibles, or else there is zero point behind our existence.

As far as genesis is concerned, it is a story derived from the ancient histories of humanity and its need to create meaning behind events. It is a compilation of creation myths and distant human experience. Most of which were written by the equivalent to modern astrophysicists. They weren't any more genius than the authors of the present physical laws of the standard model in physics, they just had a different language to express their perception of the universe.
I partially agree. There seems to be no “necessity for a master puppeteer”, except that science does not rule that out. If we conceive of God as “The Maker of the Rules of the Universe”, then much is possible, since we are still in the process of discovery of many details about the universe, and constantly being exposed to new “surprises”. If we consider God to be “The Rules of the Universe”, then it would seem to be a static, one-shot thing, unless The Rules originally included provisions for more than just the obvious propensities to create Black Holes and sentient life forms. The rules could also include provisions for forms that exist in realms that are beyond the limits of our perception, the realm that has always been referred to as “spiritual”. Testing the contents of such a realm is daunting to scientific inquiry, which uses our perceptions (including the extremes that are outside our limits) as its basis for study. The quantum universe is just being scratched at, who knows, there may be scientific support for the existence of manipulating beings one day. In the meantime, the ancient teachings of many diverse populations point toward a spiritual realm, and/or spiritual beings that do intercede in the affairs of life. That is the realm of Faith, not Physics (at least, not yet).

While I can agree that those ancient authors of the first couple chapters of Genesis used poetic language (probably altered over time by translation inadequacies and repetition errors) I cannot disagree more with the rest.

The authors of present physical laws have the work of other giants in their field to build on, and they currently have access to technology (like electricity and electronic equipment) and a relatively vast array of devices to augment their perceptions, like visible, UV, IR, and radio telescopes, atom smashers with computer assisted sensing, and computer programs for calculations and modeling. Those ancient story tellers had nothing more than their five senses, intuition, and the inspiration of either unimaginable genius, or information from a knowledgeable source outside themselves, or from meditative communion with the Divine… take your pick. But they were obviously way beyond Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Plank, etc. in intellectual perception of reality. There is NO WAY for anybody ~4 thousand years ago to know about an energy fog that would condense into matter/anti-matter and produce EM radiation from the annihilations, later coalescing into vast, short-lived suns that would create substances (star stuff) that would, in turn, coalesce into planets where life would form, etc… at least not without aid or astonishing intellectual acuity. Please, give credit where it is due. Failing to do so makes your conclusions seem to be merely prejudice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
I'm in no way demeaning or limiting the mind of ancient poets or sages or priests, they were as you say, using the language of their times to record their intuitive observations of their universe. Their shoulders are the base for the giants that followed. But stating that they were given the gift of revelation is truly selling humanity short. That said, their intuitions only appear to offer divine insight, when the insight is purely human. The perception of the universe in all it's glory are still a human generated paradigm. Much as the present astrophysicist with all the modern tools, is still an interpreter of observation. Is their room for divinity, sure, but it is in the observer not the observed. Again, I'm not denying that the universe may have a tendency towards sentient beings, I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be a directed function of the universe to be viable. Evolution isn't limited to "living" things, it is the basic tenet of all things. First there was darkness, and it evolved into light, which in 10 trillion years will return to darkness. Intent isn't necessary for that to happen. I highly doubt we are the lone sentience in the universe, but the only gods there are, exist only inside ourselves.
 

·
****ney-4-Life!
Joined
·
3,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #38 (Edited)
Did I miss a meeting? Who exactly dismissed there being LIFE out-there? The sheer numbers speak 4 themselves.

??

We're not that dumb ............................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,090 Posts
... Intent isn't necessary for that to happen. I highly doubt we are the lone sentience in the universe, but the only gods there are, exist only inside ourselves.
I tried, but now I just feel sorry for you and anyone who places humans (a product of evolution in the universe) at the top of the ladder of causality... to believe the only way a superior being could exist is within our fantasy, is simply another definition of "hubris".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
I tried, but now I just feel sorry for you and anyone who places humans (a product of evolution in the universe) at the top of the ladder of causality... to believe the only way a superior being could exist is within our fantasy, is simply another definition of "hubris".
There are vast numbers of superior beings, just no supreme being. If you think that I'm placing humanity above anything, including the most minuscule paramecium, I have failed to make my point. Humanity isn't more special than any other life form, which by odds alone might hold sway over billions of earths, or only this one. Humanity is placed above only in its own mind. A mind that has vast potential, or it may be snuffed out in a flash. These points are why we could be amazing, if only we'd let go of gods, accept our fragility and become the caretakers that we need to be to make a go of it.

Feeling sorry for me? Don't.
 
21 - 40 of 79 Posts
Top