Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 168 of 3694 (897260)
09-01-2022 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by GDR
08-31-2022 8:09 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
The thing is the discussion is about having a moral or loving motivation as opposed to a discussion about simply the best course of action.
My point for all this was to show that "having a moral or loving motivation" can come from a mundane, or "materialistic" (if you prefer) environment.
If we want "positive outcomes" and put our motivation into "attempting to get the most positive outcomes... as defined by the ones affected by those outcomes" then this is a mundane way to create a "loving motivation" or to "follow Love." No inner conscience telling us what's Right/Wrong is necessary - we just ask those we are going to affect. And if we can't ask, we guess, and be humble enough to allow those who are affected to correct our assumptions for future situations.
In one sense it is about what does this so called consciousness want from us and I suppose my signature is a not bad partial answer - humble justice and mercy. However, the broader answer is simply sacrificial love.
I'm really lost on what you're referring to as the "so called consciousness" - God?
My point is that there is no "so called consciousness".
My descriptions show that there's no need - it's all internal to us anyway.
It's quite possible that someone goes through this process without understand that they're actually doing each step... just as you agreed with my description after I wrote it all out. And then, such a person may ascribe certain aspects of this process to some sort of "so called consciousness" - but that isn't proof of anything other than "not all humans are interested in the details of morality" and "humans are very creative and imaginative."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by GDR, posted 08-31-2022 8:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 4:25 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 180 of 3694 (897276)
09-01-2022 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by GDR
09-01-2022 3:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I believe that caring does evolve but I also believe that there is an external loving intelligence that is the root behind it and continues to influence us in that direction. However ,I see the evolution of caring as distinct from physical evolution.
I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you'd like.
But this sort of idea is a discussion-ender for me.
If you don't want to deal with reality - what the evidence is telling us - then I'm not going to be able to say anything on a simple forum that will ever convince you otherwise.
What you're saying is equivalent to:
"I do believe rocks crumble from mountains and some end up underwater but I also believe that there is an external intelligence that is the root behind rocks being underwater and it continues to influence rocks in that direction."
That, as well, is something that I cannot argue with.
What is the physical evidence for that other than just the observation that it happened?
Over 160 years of archeological evidence.
Even more, really... but at least that last 160 years (since Darwin) has been focused in the more-correct direction.
I can't explain this to you in a forum post.
All I can say is that all this evidence shows that evolution occurs, it affects living things and it affects all aspects of living things.
Consider gravity - you've likely heard about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? These are aspects of gravity that currently have us stumped. We know they have "something" to do with gravity, but they don't fit "well" within our current understanding. This doesn't mean Newton's Theory or Einsteins Theory is wrong... it means there's more to learn, and once we learn it a bunch of other "kind of strange" areas of the Theory of Gravity will fall into place.
Now consider evolution - there is no more Dark Matter or Dark Energy in The Theory of Evolution. There used to be areas like this... but we figured them out and grew the theory accordingly. Which is why Darwin's theory is only a pale shadow of the one we use today.
If you type "mechanisms of biological evolution" into Google Scholar... you don't get 10 articles or 1000. There are over 4 million hits to this. Understand all that, and I'm sure you'll see. But I don't understand all that. I'm sure that no single person on the planet is an expert in all of it.
Here's the basic concept:
quote:
Mechanisms of evolution
Key points:
  • When a population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for a gene, it is not evolving, and allele frequencies will stay the same across generations.
  • There are five basic Hardy-Weinberg assumptions: no mutation, random mating, no gene flow, infinite population size, and no selection.
  • If the assumptions are not met for a gene, the population may evolve for that gene (the gene's allele frequencies may change).
  • Mechanisms of evolution correspond to violations of different Hardy-Weinberg assumptions. They are: mutation, non-random mating, gene flow, finite population size (genetic drift), and natural selection.

Do you understand what's going on there? It's easier to say when evolution is not happening than it is to list all the ways it can happen.
All the ways evolution can happen are listed by identifying when "evolution is not happening because we don't see this".
And these are only categories of the ways evolution can happen. There's no room to list them all here.
But, each and every single one of them, with their evidence, is written about, studied, and understood within those 4 million scholarly hits.
People dedicate their entire lives to studying and being-an-expert in a small fraction of those papers.
At some point, either you trust the self-correcting and corruption-protecting ways of science to be correct... or you can start to believe in conspiracy theories. It's up to you.
Remember... USA has scientists. Europe has scientists. China has scientists. Japan, Australia, Iran, Turkey.... Probably every country on the planet. All with differing religious beliefs, politics and family values. Yet they all agree on science. If that's not a reason to trust in science... I don't know what is.
Can you show that it’s not possible for there to be an outside influencer?
Can you show that it's not possible for there to be an outside influencer moving rocks underwater?
Of course not - buy why would anyone have any reason to do this, if we understand how rocks get underwater so well? (Plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, other geological mechanics...)
Why would anyone have any reason to suggest there's an outside influencer acting on biological evolution when we understand evolution so well?
I'll tell you what, though: If you ever do find evidence that suggests an outside influencer exists, or is even needed... there's a Nobel prize in it for you and you'll become the most famous scientist of them all!
-this goes for evolution, rocks-being-underwater, and all other aspects of reality as well
Simply put, this point exists - but has no persuasive power.
Just like considering Santa Claus puts rocks underwater has no persuasive power. Sure - can't disprove it... but with what we know there's no need to suggest it.
All of the evidence is physical and you presumably, (I could be wrong about this), that there is nothing but the physical. I concept of their being a cosmic intelligence does not present physical evidence.
I think you're maybe using the wrong word. But science deals with the non-physical all the time.
Types of forces
Please note the two main categories "Contact" and "Action-at-a-Distance"
Those listed in the Action-at-a-Distance are non-physical forces. That is, they do not contact things. They affect physical objects, but the forces themselves are non-contact... non-physical.
However, you and others simply keep presenting that as evidence that there is nothing outside of our physical world.
Science has been dealing with things outside our physical world (Gravity, Magnetism...) for centuries.
Science is well aware that things exist outside the physical world.
Science doesn't care if something is physical or not. It only cares is there's evidence to show that it actually exists. That's all.
The science beyond that went over my head, but there is evidence that there is more than what we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Only a tiny amount of extremist-atheists would limit themselves to thinking that "the physical is all there is!" When, clearly, it is not.
Scientists have also known that we have more than 5 senses for a long time. There's no consensus yet... but scientists have evidence-based arguments for humans having between 22 and 33 senses.
Perhaps it is not science that is stuck on a single idea and refusing to move into uncharted territory as new information comes to light?

Edited by Stile, : Heh... forgot the words "no more" in "Now consider evolution - there is no more Dark Matter or Dark Energy"... and it made reading that area very confusing. So I added in the words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 3:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by GDR, posted 09-02-2022 6:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 192 of 3694 (897298)
09-02-2022 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by GDR
09-01-2022 4:25 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
I'm not understanding:
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
My point for all this was to show that "having a moral or loving motivation" can come from a mundane, or "materialistic" (if you prefer) environment.

The example again, that I’ve used several times, is the idea of letting someone into traffic ahead of yourself and then they are more likely to do the same thing for someone else.
I don't get your point here.
I state that my point is to show that having a moral/loving motivation can be mundane and not require God and your thought is to cite an example of letting someone into traffic ahead of yourself (which the next person may also very well do.) Which, to me, is just another mundane (no God required) example.
It seems you're proving my point?
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
My point is that there is no "so called consciousness."
Yes, that is your belief.
Seems like equivocation to me.
If you want to call my conclusion, based on evidence "a belief" the same as your conclusion, based on your desire for it to be true also "a belief." Well... that seems like you're glossing over a very big point.
One agrees with all evidence we've learned from humanity learning things.
While the other adds in extra entities that have never been verified.
Those two things don't seem equal to me - but you may label them as you wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 4:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by GDR, posted 09-03-2022 2:54 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 326 of 3694 (897478)
09-06-2022 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by GDR
09-02-2022 6:10 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I can’t accept the belief that intelligence and morality can evolve from mindless origins. I can accept that evolution started from an intelligent creator without need for further involvement leaving only natural processes.
Fair enough, and this may just be contextual wording so I'm going to ask: Can you be like Puddleglum?
quote:
I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.
-Puddleglum
Your statement says "I can't accept the belief that intelligence and morality can evolve from mindless origins."
Puddleglum's says "I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."
Puddleglum seems to say "I don't care if Narnia doesn't exist... I can accept that Narnia doesn't exist... but I'm going to live as a Narnian anyway"
Can you be like Puddleglum and accept that intelligence and morality can evolve from mindless origins (if it were so...) but just live as a God-Follower anyway?
I think there's a crucial difference here.
As I can accept that a God can exist.
A God can be shown to exist tomorrow - and I would immediately accept it - and live my life following Love (and not God) anyway.
But, if you cannot even accept "mindless origins" even if it were true, and still believe the way you believe... then perhaps you're beliefs and your idea of "truth" are entangled. Puddleglum's beliefs and "truth" were entangled as well, but he was able to separate them - can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by GDR, posted 09-02-2022 6:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by GDR, posted 09-07-2022 5:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 460 of 3694 (897805)
09-12-2022 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by GDR
09-03-2022 2:54 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
It is an open question as to whether that is the result of a mindless universe with our consciousness simply evolving through mindless particles or is there an intelligence that is responsible.
I wouldn't really call it an open question.
That sort of implies that there's no knowledge one way or another about it.
But there have been many, many other similar "open questions" in evolution (evolution of the eye, evolution of whales... the list is really, really long.)
All of these questions that received answers have all shown that "evolution does it" on its own - no external intervention.
No external intervention from anything supernatural, and also no external intervention from anything natural even.
That is, the process of evolution (changes of inherited traits occurring as generations continue) has been identified to be more than enough to allow for such novelties over and over again.
It's so impressive that we've even used evolution to model our own creations of AI - which has been able to answer questions we couldn't before.
As all this evidence builds up, more and more points to evolution being quite capable of evolving through mindless particles to eventually evolve consciousness.
It would, in fact, be extremely jolting to the science of evolution if it was identified that even an different natural mechanism was required in order to evolve consciousness... let alone an external supernatural intelligence.
Either way, it is belief and we will disagree I imagine on which is the most probable.
Although I do agree we'll disagree on which is more probable, only one side contains the requirement of belief. I'm simply attempting to use the available evidence to follow the same prediction curve that's worked for everything else that was deemed "impossible" until the study of evolution showed that evolution takes care of it just fine.
It's like seeing the results of a dice and we don't know how many sides it has.
It's rolled over and over again... over hundreds of thousands of rolls... and it's always been a random distribution between the values 1 through 6.
You can say "Stile has faith in the scientific system that the next roll will still be between 1 and 6 - assuming a 6-sided dice is all we have!"
You can say "GDR has faith in a supernatural intelligence that the next roll could even be a letter of the alphabet!"
Sure... the word faith/belief can be used to describe both.
But, clearly, the words do not mean the same thing when describing both "sides" of this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by GDR, posted 09-03-2022 2:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by GDR, posted 09-12-2022 9:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 481 of 3694 (897839)
09-13-2022 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by GDR
09-12-2022 9:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I still maintain that materialism is a belief.
That's okay.
I will continue to maintain the same analogy against such an idea:
quote:
It's like seeing the results of a dice and we don't know how many sides it has.
It's rolled over and over again... over hundreds of thousands of rolls... and it's always been an even-but-random distribution between the values 1 through 6.

You can say "Stile believes in materialism that the next roll will still be between 1 and 6 - assuming a 6-sided die is all we have!"
You can say "GDR believes in a supernatural intelligence that the next roll could even be a letter of the alphabet!"
Such sentences can be constructed in the English language. But I think it's a bit odd to use the same word to describe such obviously different ways of coming to a conclusion.
I think saying "GDR believes..." is fine in this context, but the other statement should be changed to:
"Stile uses the historical evidence to predict that the next roll will still be between 1 and 6 - assuming a 6 sided die is all we have!"
I don't even have to be "materialistic" to do this. I certainly can do this, as it seems the most reasonable in this situation, and still believe in God.
I can even believe that God provided the die that's being rolled.
There's just no evidence or "reasonable logic" to support doing such.
I still don't even get the point of believing God "kicked off the process" of evolution or not.
Who cares?
The process exists - it appears to be fully natural. It doesn't seem to have any reason to suggest that any part of it is required to be supernatural.
So why care if God kicked it off or not?
What happens if God didn't kick it off?
Is God not strong enough to exist without planning for humans from the beginning?
Are humans not strong enough to consider a God that exists that doesn't care about humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by GDR, posted 09-12-2022 9:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by GDR, posted 09-15-2022 4:45 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 533 of 3694 (897935)
09-16-2022 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by GDR
09-15-2022 4:45 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Well, if God exists then we might want to ask the question of why he bothered to bring us into existence.
An excellent starting point.
Let's grant that God exists.
Why not consider that we aren't a part of God's plan at all?
Maybe God doesn't even know we're here? Perhaps we're so insignificant, and such a tiny by-product that we seem no more than a speck of dust landing in the corner of an attic no one ever enters?
After all, everything we actually know of the universe implies it's been created to make stars. Not people.
Other than humanity's desire to have questions answered... can you name a single thing that we know about reality (as well as we can know anything... with evidence...) that reasonably indicates that God "bothered" to bring us into existence?
It seems reasonable and even logical that there would be a purpose to it...
"IF" God actually did bother to bring us into existence, purposefully, then yes. This is certainly an interesting question. At least on a curiosity level if nothing else.
But going from "God exists" to "God intended to create humans with a purpose" seems a really big jump - given what we've been able to learn about the universe.
I don't see it a case being strong enough at all, unless it's a pride thing. I'm concerned with truth, knowing that it is belief and faith.
Are you sure you're "concerned with truth?"
You seem more concerned with protecting your beliefs and letting yourself feel like your beliefs are true rather than searching for truth itself.
Wouldn't being concerned with truth include:
-looking at the universe the way it is
-understanding how vast the universe is and how small/insignificant humans are within it
-understanding how no part of the universe shows us any intervention from any "God" in any way
-if a God exists and kicked off the universe, and it ended up this way... was His aim off and He "got lucky" that a tiny, immeasurably small portion of His universe was able to support humans as He desired?
-or is it more likely that if a God exists and kicked off this universe... that His aim was spot-on and lots and lots and lots of stars exist - creating beauty for Him beyond anything a human is capable of... and humanity is just something that needs to be endured within a tiny, immeasurably small portion of the canvas God painted?
One of those is closer to being "concerned with truth" (as it is understood as best we can today, anyway.)
The other is closer to being "concerned with protecting personal beliefs/feelings" (regardless of our best attempts to ascertain the truth of this universe.)
The point is... if you actually are concerned with truth... why not be honest about saying "Yeah, well, it certainly appears that God isn't involved in this world... and all evidence seems to point that way... I just hope it's wrong because I would personally prefer a universe where I'm a direct, intended product of a creator God."
Seems to me that such a statement would display an overwhelming sense of "being concerned with truth" as well as "having massive amounts of faith."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by GDR, posted 09-15-2022 4:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 2:54 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 592 of 3694 (898314)
09-22-2022 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by GDR
09-19-2022 2:54 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
"IF" God actually did bother to bring us into existence, purposefully, then yes. This is certainly an interesting question. At least on a curiosity level if nothing else.
But going from "God exists" to "God intended to create humans with a purpose" seems a really big jump - given what we've been able to learn about the universe.
All can I really say that if God bothered to bring us into existence, (even if all that He did was to introduce consciousness into the world), then it makes sense that He wouldn't do it without some purpose in mind.
Yes - I agreed with that part, that's equivalent to the first sentence I wrote.
My point is that there's a huge difference between "God created humans (accidentally - possibly without even knowing that He did it. That is - not "bothering" with it and it just sort of happened regardless of His main intentions) and "God bothered to create humans (on purpose - with a specific reason in mind.)"
I don't see you acknowledging that huge jump.
You seem to simply assume that if God exists - then He definitely created humans, on purpose.
I see three levels:
1. God exists
-maybe God doesn't exist
2. God created humans
-maybe God didn't create humans and humans were created by something else (naturally? a bigger/different God?)
3. God created humans on purpose (ie - "bothered" to create humans.)
-maybe God didn't want to create humans, but had to. That is, perhaps in order to create all the stars He wanted in the way He wanted to, God had to accommodate for the low possibility of humans also being created. And then setup a contingency that for when human-creation happens they are contained to a very small portion of the universe.
To me - going from "if God exists, then He definitely created humans and it was definitely on purpose" is just a really big jump in itself.
There's no evidence for God, no evidence for God creating humans, and no evidence for God bothering to create humans on purpose.
GDR writes:
I am very concerned with truth, realizing full well that it is a belief, and not absolute knowledge.
That very well may be, but it still seems like your belief is a higher priority than your concern for truth - even if both are high priorities.
Writers on this forum, and pretty much stated as fact, say the consciousness simply evolved as part of the evolutionary process. What is the physical evidence of that. Consciousness exists.
Consciousness existing is not the physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally.
The physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally is that it appears to be exactly the same as everything else we know to have evolved naturally.
And that other aspects of life we used to think "couldn't possibly evolve naturally" - we have learned more about evolution and identified that, actually, they did evolve naturally (like "the eye" and "fish -> mammals -> whales" and every other creationist issue that used to not have a natural answer and now does.)
Consciousness existing, alone, isn't evidence of anything other than its own existence.
There is A LOT of physical evidence for evolution and things evolving naturally. Consciousness is just another "thing" that looks like all the other "things" we know to have evolved naturally.
I am not knowledgeable enough to argue either for or against that but it does give a different POV to what gets expressed here.
Are you sure? I read through that and it seems to agree completely with a natural evolutionary emergence of consciousness.
Here are some key points that jumped out at me:
Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? writes:
...philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but instead is a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as panpsychism.
Sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks—have incredibly simple forms of experience, and the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived from the experience of the brain’s most basic parts.
Again - sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
Philosophers of science have realized that physical science, for all its richness, is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter, what it does.
I've never heard a scientist say this.
I do hear philosophers say this a lot. Seems to me like it's philosophers that try to say this sort of thing in order to "keep their job."
Science is not confined to telling us about the behavior of matter.
Science is only confined to one thing -> following the evidence.
If the evidence shows that panpsychism is real, then science will tell us that this is so.
If the evidence shows that panpsychism is not real, then science will tell us that this is so.
If there is no evidence about panpsychism being real or not, then science will ignore it just like science ignores God, unicorns, Santa Claus and all other unevidenced, imaginary ideas.
Consciousness, for the panpsychist, is the intrinsic nature of matter. There’s nothing supernatural or spiritual, but matter can be described from two perspectives.
Again - sounds a lot like saying consciousness is natural and no God is required for it to exist.
Do you foresee a scenario in which panpsychism can be tested?
You can’t look inside an electron to see whether or not it is conscious, just as you can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. We know that consciousness exists only because we are conscious.
Well - this seems wrong.
We know that consciousness exists because we observe different experiences from the same stimuli.
That is - we know "rocks" have no consciousness because all rocks always react exactly the same from the same stimuli (ie - if you move a rock, it will move and be stationary wherever it's left, until moved again.)
We know "humans" have consciousness because we can react differently from the same stimuli (ie - if you move a person, some will move while others resist. Once in a location, some will remain and others will move on their own accord.)
We know "bacteria" have (some level of) consciousness because they can react differently to the same stimuli (ie - if you move a bacteria, some will move while others resist. Once in a location, some will remain and others will move on their own accord.)
The point is - we don't need to look in someone else's head and we don't need to look inside an electron.
All we have to do is see how they react to stimuli.
Seems to me like Mr. Goff is avoiding describing a test, even a theoretical one, because he fears that it won't come out in favour of his pet theory.
Why is a particular feeling correlated with a particular pattern of brain activity? As soon as you start to answer this question, you move beyond what can be, strictly speaking, tested, simply because consciousness is unobservable.
If you move beyond what can be tested, for any reason, you don't "turn to philosophy" for answers. You understand that "answers" are currently unknowable.
Philosophy may provide answers.
Religion may provide answers.
Uncle John may provide answers.
Looking at the stars/bones/cards may provide answers.
But... all those answers are just as good as any other: meaningless if you're concerned with truth as the answer is currently unknowable.
We have to turn to philosophy.
Again - sounds like someone who doesn't understand truth or science and just wants to keep their job.
Science gives us correlations between brain activity and experience. We then have to find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations.
This isn't true.
We don't "have to" find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations.
The correct answer is:
We "can" find the philosophical theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find the religious theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find Uncle John's theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
We "can" find the stars/bones/cards theory that best explains those correlations for us personally, and understand that this theory is not "truth" as there's no way to know if it is or not.
Or: we can personally accept that an unvalidated theory isn't needed in the slightest and some things "are" just because they are, and move on with finding more truth that we can validate and actually "know."
So - it seems to me that this panpsychism idea complies exactly with the "idea that's expressed here" that consciousness is natural, evolved naturally, and no God is required in any way for its existence. Then, panpsychism extends itself into the realm of unverified imagination and creates a comforting blanket of "an answer" for a question that doesn't really have an answer right now. For some - that's great, enjoy. For those concerned with truth - this is at best meaningless and at worse "in the way" of searching for the actual truth of the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 2:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by GDR, posted 09-22-2022 7:36 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 985 of 3694 (899463)
10-14-2022 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by GDR
10-06-2022 9:34 PM


How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
...as humans we seek for goals in our lives, goals for our kids etc. From a theistic POV I suggest that it is reasonable that would also be a characteristic of a deity. From an atheistic POV then there really isn't a possibility of an ultimate purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree that from a theistic POV it is reasonable to expect purpose to come from a deity.
But this isn't ultimate purpose. This is secondary purpose (it came from a deity - that "coming from" inherently makes it second-hand and not "ultimate.")
An atheistic POV, creating our own purpose, inherently makes those "ultimate."
I don't understand how you're confusing what "ultimate" means to think that some thing that gains strength in being subjective, is somehow "ultimate" if it is objectively prescribed.
Objectively prescribing things like that can only (if lucky) match creating them yourself, and is likely to weaken it - like forced marriages prescribing "love."
What could possibly make you think that a purpose provided from a God is "ultimate" in any definition of the word?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by GDR, posted 10-06-2022 9:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 990 by GDR, posted 10-14-2022 4:42 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1009 of 3694 (899654)
10-17-2022 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 990 by GDR
10-14-2022 4:42 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
I am talking about God's ultimate purpose so it isn't indirect.
How so?
I thought you were talking about human's ultimate purpose.
If you're talking about human's taking on God's ultimate purpose - how is that not indirect? It seems to be the very definition of indirect.
Certainly it gives purpose to our lives...
Certainly? I don't even understand how it gives purpose to our lives [i]at all.[i]
Can you explain?
The only way it seems to automatically-provide-purpose for humans, is if we're tools or robots.
But I was under the impression that we are free-thinkers - no?
I understand how it provides an option for purpose to a free-thinker... and we can choose for it to be a purpose in our lives.
But, well, that's the same as an atheist being presented with many options for purpose in their lives and choosing one as well.
It's just matching... not greater. And if it's not greater, it's certainly not "ultimate."
...but that is in order to facilitate God's ultimate purpose which is a renewal of all things based on self giving love.
Exactly. God has God's ultimate purpose - just as any individual free-thinking being can create their own ultimate purpose.
How does one free-thinking-individual's purpose given to another free-thinking-individual's purpose make that purpose "greater" than any other purpose for the receiving free-thinker in any way?
If anything, it lessens that free-thinker's ability to think of their own purpose.
Firstly I used the term ultimate in that I see this life as being a preliminary to a renewed existence that is not confined to our one dimension of time.
I do not understand how "this life being a preliminary to a renewed existence that is not confined to our one dimension of time" implores you to use the term "ultimate."
Ultimate to what? How is it greater/better than the alternatives?
What makes a renewed existence greater than a single existence? (Doesn't a second go-round lessen the purpose of the first one that we're currently in?)
What makes an extra dimension greater than even more dimensions beyond that?
If all life as we know it ends, where is the ultimate purpose then?
Life ending makes the purpose we create for ourselves here and now even more powerful and strong and meaningful to ourselves. What could be more meaningful to ourselves?
Think of a sunset - is it beautiful because it's there all the time?
Or is it beautiful because when it's gone... it will never be there ever again?
Finite time makes subjective things greater, not weaker.
Why do you think "ultimate purpose" would be so shallow as to care what other people/beings think of you?
If other people/beings/God think you should jump off a cliff - would that be your "ultimate purpose?"
The way you describe "ultimate" purpose, it comes off as very superficial. I wouldn't associate the word "ultimate" with anything like what you're describing. I would think ultimate would include ideals like better/greater/honourable/respectable. Which are all associated with deciding one's own purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by GDR, posted 10-14-2022 4:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1019 by GDR, posted 10-17-2022 5:21 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1024 of 3694 (899718)
10-18-2022 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1019 by GDR
10-17-2022 5:21 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
The master stone mason approaches a novice stone mason and asks him to carve a stone in a very specific way. The novice doesn't know why but completes the task. Later the master stone mason comes by and takes the stone away. Some time later the master comes by and leads the novice to this beautiful castle and there up in the corner is the stone carved by the novice as a part of this beautiful edifice.
This gets right to the point I was addressing.
Are we free-thinkers, or not?
If the novice stone mason became a stone mason because he wanted to... doesn't that mean the novice stone mason already, personally, chose to have "his stone masonry work" be his ultimate purpose individually before the master put the stone on the castle?
If so... this seems to align with what I'm saying... the purpose coming from the master only matches the purpose coming from the novice. It's the novice's decision to be a stone mason that is his "ultimate purpose."
If the novice stone mason was forced to become a stone mason... I think the analogy fails as it's quite possible for the novice to not give two shits what happened with the stone he carved... as he quite possibly wouldn't care.
I think the more apt analogy is the one I provided: arranged marriage.
Can arranged marriage work? Absolutely.
Can arranged purpose work? Absolutely.
Can free-choice marriage work? Absolutely.
Can free-choice purpose work? Absolutely.
Is arranged marriage better than free-choice marriage?
-no, but it can match it, if those involved in the arranged marriage happen to (or learn to) freely choose to love each other as well.
Is arranged purpose better than free-choice purpose?
-no, but it can match it, if those involved in the arranged purpose happen to (or learn to) freely choose to desire that purpose as well (like the novice stone mason.)
The thing though is that our individual purpose is the call to love sacrificially.
How are you coming to this conclusion? I don't see how our individual purpose is the call to love sacrificially.
I don't see how our individual purpose is defined as any one thing for all of us in any way.
It seems like all historical attempts to provided a single purpose for "all people" has always failed - failed spectacularly. Because it never, ever addresses all people. Because people are different. I learned that in kindergarten.
Why do you think you simply get to claim that a single purpose is "for everyone" no matter how good you (and I) think that single purpose is?
It seems extremely arrogant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by GDR, posted 10-17-2022 5:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1028 by GDR, posted 10-18-2022 4:26 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1116 of 3694 (900232)
10-25-2022 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1028 by GDR
10-18-2022 4:26 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
I suppose you can only go so far with any metaphor but just because he chose stone masonry wouldn’t mean that he would choose this project.
Perhaps I don't understand the metaphor at all.
If he chose to be a stone mason - what's the point of being surprised that he's happy his stone work was used in something important? Wouldn't any stonemason appreciate that... because that's why they chose to be stonemasons?
I just don't see how this applies as a metaphor to humans and God providing/arranging purpose.
What is it trying to say?
I don’t think that analogy works. The outcome is the same whether or not the arranged purpose is subsequently freely chosen or not.
The point isn't that one can reach something that the other can't.
The point is that one has a much better chance at reaching the highest level than the other does.
If 100% happy marriage or 100% ultimate purpose is the goal... would you want it to be arranged or chosen?
Arranged can get there... but only if the people involved "happen to" choose the same as the arranged decision.
Freely-chosen ones can get there... and it's more likely... because it's chosen by the one who's happiness matters in the first place.
Also in the case of the stone mason we can more safely assume that he/she well be committed to the project whereas that is not the case in an arranged marriage.
I would agree... if the stone mason apprentice freely chose to become a stone mason... because this aligns with my analogy of free-choice marraige as opposed to arranged marriage. (Arranged marriage would be as if the stone mason apprentice didn't choose to become a stone mason.)
As far as Christianity goes IMHO God, on the assumption that He did have a choice, would not have wanted robots and wanted to ultimately have a world where sacrificial love is the freely chosen norm.
That may very well be true.
And, if true... it only makes sacrificial love God's ultimate purpose and His ultimate hope for humans.
And if that's what you mean... I wish that would be what you say instead of "ultimate purpose comes from God!" Because this has nothing to do with what humans' ultimate purpose actually is.
If God assigns an ultimate purpose to humans... this is God writing a robotic code-command into humans... which you're saying God wouldn't want.
Which means humans' ultimate purpose cannot come from God. It may align with God's hope... but doesn't come from Him.
Remember again, the novice freely chose to be a stone mason prior to the metaphor even beginning.
This is MY point.
Free choice (purpose derived from within) is more important/greater-than/ultimate.
The novice freely choosing to be a stone mason.
Marriage by choice rather than arranged.
Ultimate purpose comes from within and can be anything.
It can match someone else's "ultimate purpose"... but this is irrelevant to it being that original person's ultimate purpose.
God doesn't "give anybody" ultimate purpose.
God has a purpose and we all individually come up with our own purpose.
God wants us to match His purpose.
You want to match God's purpose.
Therefore... for YOU... this is your ultimate purpose.
But that absolutely does not mean that your purpose or God's purpose is all of humanity's "ultimate purpose."
If I chose to be a stone mason and make bad ass building ornaments... that would be my "ultimate purpose" regardless of it matching God's or yours or anyone's.
Maybe God wouldn't be happy.
Maybe you wouldn't be happy.
But I don't care - I'm a bad-ass stone mason making my bad-ass ornaments. - I'm happy.
That's how purpose works.
That's what makes it "ultimate."
Me (in my bad-ass stone mason example) following sacrificial love would be a lesser purpose - it would take away from my bad ass ornament creation.
If you say human's "ultimate purpose" is sacrificial love because that's what God wants... it's nothing more than showing that you have no idea how purpose works, why it matters, and completely goes against all this "freely-choosing-to-be-a-stone-mason" stuff you're talking about.
Firstly, what does a single purpose of sacrificial love look like.
I don't know - you're the one who brought it up as a purpose "for everyone."
What does it look like?
I've just been trying to use your language to follow in your thought process as closely as possible.
It would look different for everyone.
I fear - not different enough.
It would look different for everyone. It is a heart thing and is not specific to any particular action.
What sort of "heart thing?" Something about helping others?
What if my bad-ass stone-masonry example of Stile doesn't want to help others? Let's say I don't want to hurt them... but I have no desire to help them either. I just want to make bad-ass stone masonry. If other's like it - I don't care. If other's hate it - I don't care. I just want to make it, and screw everyone else.
Are you saying that me being happy making bad-ass stone masonry, while not hurting anyone... is a bad thing?
Are you saying I should actually take time away from my bad-ass stone masonry to actively help others so that you feel better about a purpose you picked for yourself... and even though this makes ME incredibly unhappy (because I'm not focusing on bad-ass stone masonry...) this is my "ultimate purpose" because you and God like it better?
That's messed up.
I’m curious to know what example you would use of an attempt at a single purpose that failed.
-Hitler's attempt at having "blue-eyed blondes" being a single purpose for everyone - failed
-Church's attempt at having "believing in God" being a single purpose for everyone (Crusades) - failed
-Rome's attempt at having "the world be Roman" - failed
-North Korea's idea of "love the Leader" for everyone - failed
-Idea of "being gay is bad" for everyone - failed
-Idea of "transgender is stupid and assigned gender at birth" is for everyone - failed
-Idea that "640k RAM is plenty for everyone's computer" - failed
-Your idea of "sacrificial love" for everyone; but it doesn't work out for bad-ass stone masonry Stile - failed
Can you name any single purpose "for everyone" that actually works "for everyone" other than "discover/create your own purpose?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by GDR, posted 10-18-2022 4:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1154 by GDR, posted 10-28-2022 7:27 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1277 of 3694 (901005)
11-03-2022 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by Phat
11-01-2022 11:08 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
In your mind, there is no absolute truth.
Would this be the sense you're talking about here? absolute truth being something that humans cannot change... it just simply "is."
Skeptics certainly do have such a thing... it's called reality.
The difference between you and the skeptics you denounce is:
Phat seems to think that ? can define what "absolute truth" actually is and no one can argue with it.
? = The Bible?
? = Phat?
? = Phat's trusted advisors on what the Bible means?
? = Phat's interpretation of God?
? = Phat's acceptance of trusted advisor's interpretation of God?
Skeptics seem to think that no one can define what "absolute truth" actually is - and reality will show us and no one can argue with it.
Which do you think is closer to "absolute truth?"
-the one who thinks they can define it and know it completely and can't be wrong?
-the skeptic who thinks it's unknowable, but willing to admit when they're proven wrong about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by Phat, posted 11-01-2022 11:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1278 by Phat, posted 11-03-2022 3:36 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1279 of 3694 (901010)
11-03-2022 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1154 by GDR
10-28-2022 7:27 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
I'm really confused on this Stone Mason stuff.
You seem to be saying this about the point of the Stone Mason analogy.
GDR writes:
The point is that God will take every little act of kindness and self giving love that is done, and use it in the renewal of the world to come where the wolf lays down with the lamb.
Which seems entirely irrelevant to when you brought it up originally Message 1019
GDR in MSG 1019 writes:
Stile writes:
I thought you were talking about human's ultimate purpose.
If you're talking about human's taking on God's ultimate purpose - how is that not indirect? It seems to be the very definition of indirect.
N T Wright has a good analogy IMHO.
I'll try to paraphrase it.
The master stone mason approaches a novice stone mason and asks him to carve a stone in a very specific way. The novice doesn't know why but completes the task. Later the master stone mason comes by and takes the stone away. Some time later the master comes by and leads the novice to this beautiful castle and there up in the corner is the stone carved by the novice as a part of this beautiful edifice.

In this life our ultimate purpose is to carve the one stone and we do this by living with a heart that leads to acts of sacrificial love. God's ultimate purpose is the castle representing His New Creation or the Renewal of all things.
We were talking about purpose... and I was saying direct purpose (making it yourself) was more powerful than indirect purpose (getting a purpose from God) because that's how purpose works. You seemed against this position, and I thought you were bringing up "a good analogy" in order to show how getting a purpose from God is actually direct... or even though it's indirect it's actually better than making the purpose yourself.
But... it seems like the analogy is only about how God takes everyone's purpose and makes it fit/work-with God's purpose? Which is nice... but irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. It doesn't make it a better purpose and therefore cannot be seen as "ultimate purpose."
I'm staring to think that I didn't explain my original position well enough and you started talking about something else in the confusion I created.
So I'll just scrap it all and start over:
1. A purpose feels strong and good and right if it is something you personally hold as a priority.
-the more the purpose aligns with your own personal feeling on it's priority, the stronger the sense of "this is right" will be
2. If you can find a purpose that aligns with something that you personally hold as the highest of all priorities, this will then be your "ultimate purpose" because you will be taking action in directions that align with your highest of all possible priorities.
-like bad-ass Stone Mason Stile making bad-ass ornaments
-like GDR and sacrificial love
-like Roman leaders and trying to "bring Rome to the world"
-like baseball-lovers trying to get everyone to play baseball
3. My point is: It's possible to become aware of a purpose from an outside source that matches your personal feelings on priority. But with the nuance that comes along with "personal feelings of priority" it's highly likely that it's not going to match exactly or possibly not match at all.
However, if you do some inner-soul-searching and discover for yourself exactly what your personal feelings on priorities actually are... and then create a purpose for yourself that matches your highest priority... it will, by definition, match EXACTLY, and therefore have a much greater chance (100%, actually) of being your "ultimate purpose" rather than any other purpose found from any other external source (even an all-powerful, creator God.)
This is the context I'm coming from when I'm saying God's purpose can only match our own "ultimate purpose" and can never exceed it. Because "purpose" comes from our own feelings on priorities. God can provide an idea that matches our own feelings on priorities... but never exceed them, since ultimate-purpose/feelings-on-highest-priorities come from within.
This is where I'm coming from when I say that claiming other-information can be an "ultimate purpose" simply doesn't understand what purpose actually is.
If you do not agree, and still think ultimate purpose can come from any external source (even God,) I would expect something along showing me that #1 or #2 is wrong above, and that isn't actually what "purpose" is and "purpose" is something else.
-this would involve you actually defining/identifying what "purpose" is and how your explanation is more accurate (closer to reality) than mine.
That is mostly correct but what I mean by ultimate is when this world is fully recreated sacrificial love will be freely chosen as the norm.
If you want to argue that "ultimate purpose" is "ultimate nice/love/sacrificial-love..." on some made up scale (even if made up by God Himself) I find that argument easily shown to be incongruent with reality as many people have "ultimate purpose" in things that do not involve people at all (like my example of bad-ass Stone Mason Stile) and this is immediately disproven if you have any respect for how many people live their lives in reality.
To me, this reads as "what I think is best is ultimate for everyone because I really like what I think is best."
-it's nothing but arrogance and ego
-it's easily proven to be false
-why should anyone agree with you unless they already happen to agree with you before you even talk to them?
-it is entirely unpersuasive from an objective, outsider position

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1154 by GDR, posted 10-28-2022 7:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 2:32 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1280 of 3694 (901012)
11-03-2022 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1278 by Phat
11-03-2022 3:36 PM


If you say so
Phat writes:
But allow me to redefine the first example.

-the one who believes they have met Him and believe in Communion spiritually with Him and yet are NOT Him and don't know it all. In which case, we both can be right.
This has the possibility of being acceptable. However, your past track-record tells me that you do not actually believe in what you've said here.
This isn't the first time we've had this similar conversation.
If you actually believed this "redefinition" you've made, then you'd never actually say:
quote:
The problem with skeptics is that many of you knowingly or unconsciously look for contradictions. You crave them You need them. All that we are trying to get through to you is that the message is true and real. Granted we ignore many of your contradictions because in our minds the truth wins out eventually. In your mind, there is no absolute truth.
But you did say it.
And you say such things a lot.
And you'll (likely) say such things again.
Saying such things proves that you actually do not believe the statement you've written to me.
Saying this means you, in fact, do "know it all" enough to make the above quoted statement.
So, my acceptance on us "both being right" is if you actually believe what you've said, take it to heart, and stop repeating these foolish ideas you spout on skeptics.
However, my guess is that there's a 90% chance you only wrote those words to "appease Stile" and not because you actually meant them. In which case - no, we can't "both be right" and I will continue to correct you when I see you reverting to how you actually believe again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1278 by Phat, posted 11-03-2022 3:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024