A Conversation for An Amazing A-Z of Space

i like this but...

Post 21

Gnomon - time to move on

"Creation" is a meaningless word. It explains nothing.


i like this but...

Post 22

delafranklin

Let's see if I got this right.

If "creation" is a meaningless word in this context, then that implies there is no "Creator." God does not exist. The universe as we know it is uncreated. There is no meaning in regard to a purpose of the physical universe or life. Man is therefore the only measure of all things and the sole source of morality. There is no spiritual reality or life eternal despite evidence provided by psychic talents. The lives and revelations of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad were complete frauds with no meaning in that they all promoted a superstitious worldview.

What is there to gain from the study of the nature of the universe that would be of any interest as to how one should conduct his affairs? You have already limited the scope of your inquiries by rejecting any interpretation of facts or line of investigation that could imply the existence of a divine reality. Whatever is represented by your conception of God cannot exist (not realizing that knowledge regarding the true nature and essence of God is incomprehensible to the finite human mind). With dogmatic logic you have turned your back on God and rejected Him. As a result you choose to live in an existentialist hell. What is your reason to go on living?


i like this but...

Post 23

Cefpret

That it's fun to be here even without knowing where it all came from. smiley - smiley


i like this but...

Post 24

Gnomon - time to move on

Wow, you've accurately summed up my views, except for the conclusion! I prefer to think existentialist heaven, rather than existentialist hell. If there was any evidence of anything other than what we see around us, I'd be happy to include it in my world view. But if it is not detectable in any shape or form, then does it really exist?


i like this but...

Post 25

delafranklin

There are a multitude of realities which do not have physical manifestation. For example, can you touch or measure an idea? What about wisdom, freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, destiny, creativity, science, mathematics? Or truth, beauty, music, poetry, art. Or wealth, prosperity, poverty, power, courage, cowardice. Splendor, glory, mercy, honor, authority, sovereignty, dominion. Though some emotions may have physical manifestations, can you identify a physical source for emotional states such as love, hate, happiness, compassion, sadness, grief, curiosity, confidence, ambition, pride, conceit, greed, envy, jealousy, embarassment, indifference? What is the reality of dreams?

And how about radical existentialism? How do you know you exist? Is there a physical form that can be identified with personal integrity, the human I-am, personality, or ego complex? Consider that no human being can directly experience physical reality. All human knowledge consists of conceptual maps mediated through human sense mechanisms. Human vision is an extraordinary dynamic three dimensional map which is active only when our eyes are open and retinas are stimulated by light. How are these maps stored and referenced for processing by the human mind?

According to Douglas Hofstadter in "Godel, Escher, Bach" the human ego or self-identity is merely a composite of symbolic structures in the brain. Your perception of existence in a physical body is essentially the result of mapping processes of the mind. What the human mind perceives is a translation of sensory signals and biochemical states in the human brain. These signals are normally associated with inputs received from the human senses. If someone was somehow able to artificially stimulate the same signals in the brain, there would be no way for a person to distinguish between the natural signals and artificial signals. What is real? How can one distinguish between what is a reflection of the essence of reality and something that is pure fantasy or imagination?


i like this but...

Post 26

Gnomon - time to move on

You've got some good questions there. I was very taken with Hofstadter's view of the world in Gödel, Escher, Bach, and accept it as the most reasonable view of the world.

As for how do I know I exist in the real world? In the film "The Matrix", all humanity are actually living in a different world and what we perceive as the real world is being fed in as signals to us.

I think that the normal explanation is more reasonable. In general, go for the simpler explanation. It's usually true.

For example:

The world was created by a pre-existing omnipotent omniscient being that exists outside of time (since time started at the creation of the world).

or:

The world started.

I know which one I prefer.


i like this but...

Post 27

delafranklin

I would question assumptions in both of those alternatives. Especially the ideas that the world or universe has a beginning or that God exists outside of time.

I have doubts about the universe starting with a “Big Bang” considering scientists know almost nothing about the 90 per cent of the universe which they believe consists of dark matter/energy. Perlmutter’s discovery that expansion of the universe has not been slowed down by gravity should be evidence that an alternative to the standard Big Bang theory needs to be developed. You might want to check out “The Final Theory” by Mark McCutcheon. Since the ideas proposed in this book are at odds with the scientific establishment, it may be difficult to find in a book store. The author’s web site has links for purchase from the publisher over the Internet. (You can use Yahoo search to find it.).

As to the relationships between God, creation of the universe, and man, the following are quotes from John Hatcher in “The Purpose of Physical Reality”:

“The Bahá'í paradigm of physical reality logically begins with the concept of God as Creator. Because God is "immensely exalted beyond every human attribute" and "will remain in his Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men" (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 98), we are, especially in physical life, limited in what we can understand about the Creator. We know God through the Manifestations and through physical reality itself. As perfect reflections of the qualities of the Creator, the Manifestations dramatize God's spiritual image to us in their actions and reveal His guidance through words and laws. Physical reality likewise displays for us indirectly through analogues and symbols the qualities of the Creator.” (p. 46)

“Stated plainly, the Bahá'í teachings reject the views of both the creationists and the evolutionists as their theories are commonly presented. Instead, the Bahá'í writings affirm that since God has no beginning, and since one of his appellations is "the Creator," there has never been a time when creation did not exist. In other words, we cannot conceive of a Creator without a creation…” (p. 48)

God has always existed from time that has no beginning. Time as an aspect of the physical universe is a form manifestation of an essence of consciousness related to how sequences of events are registered. Time is a coexistent aspect with other form manifestations of essences of consciousness that are perceived as space and motion. Matter and energy are derivative properties of these coexistent aspects of reality. (Refer to “The Unobstructed Universe” by Stewart Edward White.)


i like this but...

Post 28

Gnomon - time to move on

Why are you quoting all this stuff at me? Do you think it will persuade me? It's a load of twaddle from people who:

1. Know the universe is expanding steadily but don't think there was ever a time when it was closer together.

2. Invoke a meaningless concept to explain the universe.


Key: Complain about this post