The Eternal Authority

THE ETERNAL AUTHORITY

During political upheaval in ancient Mesopotamia, a psychological watershed took place and, as a result, the god Marduk—astrologically associated with planet Jupiter—was placed at the top of the Babylonian pantheon, representing the ideal which can apprehend chaos and establish order. He is depicted as having eyes all around his head, symbolising heightened awareness, and has the power of speaking magical words or, in Buddhist prose, 'correct speech'. Marduk is the only one that can successfully confront Tiamat, the goddess of primordial chaos depicted as a sea serpent; when the former captures the latter with a net, we have a symbolic conceptualisation of chaos in consciousness, meaning that the potential for disorder in the world has been identified and can be dealt with.

The sci-fi comedy adventure 'Sonic the Hedgehog' is a good example of the typical story of good versus evil repeating itself with strikingly familiar archetypal imagery, where Sonic is advised by his guardian Longclaw the Owl—a bird symbolically associated with clear vision, intuition and protection—to hide his powers for his own safety. Sonic, however, does not remain hidden for long and embarks on a hero's journey in the unknown territory that is planet Earth, where he travels to San Francisco's Transamerica Pyramid to recover a portal-opening ring and ends up facing the evil genius Dr. Robotnik, a narcissistic villain who despises and looks down on everybody.

A particular scene in the film shows the malevolent roboticist pursuing the heroic alien through the Egyptian desert and wreaking havoc in his wake; chaos is literally following the blue hedgehog as the villain fires in his direction, destroying the Sphinx but missing the pyramids! The Sphinx is a mythical creature which possesses the body of a lion (beastly impulses), the wings of a falcon (recognition that new heights are possible), and the head of a human (a being who is fallible but intuitive and aware of a hierarchy of values—the pyramid symbol to be remembered and guarded. Psychologically speaking, if the Sphinx is hit, the individual's hierarchy of values is threatened and destructive evil forces may cause the victim to experience doubt and perhaps a momentary loss of faith. But what lies at the top of that proverbial pyramid is true for all time and as long as the struggling hero is alive, there is a chance to overcome the immense challenges that chaos brings; in other words, as long as the possibility to do one's best remains despite unfavourable circumstances, he who believes there is still a chance to surmount the incoming threat will continue to strive for new heights. So, as long as Sonic is still breathing, he will continue to run to safety until there is a chance to counterstrike and avert the enemy's efforts.

The archetypal imagery and narratives seem to convey the inner workings of the human brain and its concurrent psychology—where mythical beasts speak for primeval parts of the brain and godly ideals along with honour, dignity and moral virtue can be meticulously formulated in the neocortex. The hippocampus inhibits emotional sensitivity whereas the amygdala heightens it which is why people who develop PTSD undergo a shrinkage of the former and a growth of the latter. Antidepressants increase serotonin levels and cause the hippocampus to grow back, and when you feel better, the more you feel like a punctilious winner, willing to tackle anything that life throws at you with confidence and alacrity.

Does God exist?

If you just asked my left-brain hemisphere, it would most definitely say, 'No.' If you asked my right-brain hemisphere, it would probably say, 'Yes.'

What does this mean? Logically, given what we understand and don't understand about the world, and seen as our epistemic awareness of reality originates from physical stimuli as far as we can tell, there is absolutely no way to tell if the universe was created by a godly entity of some sort. In science, it is called the God Hypothesis, which has not made any progress since its conception. In the realm of science, a 'hypothesis' is inferior to a 'theory'. The latter, unlike the former, is backed up by a body of empirical or evidential work which supports a proposition—such as evolution by natural selection, gravity, cosmic inflation, etc.; in other words, a scientific theory can be a 'fact' if it survives the test of time. The hypothetical, on the other hand, is mere speculation even if it sounds philosophically plausible. The de facto atheist stance adopted by the likes of Richard Dawkins is quite tenable because if the proposition lacks convincing evidence then there is no reason to accept it as a truism. To be an atheist is merely to disbelieve in God or gods/deities until proved otherwise. Until then, God, as an objective entity, is deemed to be as probable as real magic, a gnome, fairy or ghost—that is to say: highly improbable. Such logical stance is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which sees the proposition as being more in the 50% chance and thus speak from extreme uncertainty.

The holistic brain region tends to think outside the box, as it were, thus connecting dots outside of what is deemed to be reasonable by its cerebral counterpart—hence the reason why even the right hemisphere of an atheist would generally claim that God exists. If we can conceive of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being, or even imagine an unattainable ideal—which can inspires us all to reach new heights and conscientiously make progress—and associate that imaginary apex with the word 'God', then it is true enough to make a real difference in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summerlander

THE ETERNAL AUTHORITY

there is absolutely no way to tell if the universe was created by a godly entity of some sort....

---

False.

Creation implies a creator.

Left side hot, right side cold. The faucet does not know where the hot or cold water comes from. Forget knowing where the water ITSELF comes from. I would not depend on either Left or Right side of the brain for much regarding Truth. It is like asking the faucet where the water comes from. (Good luck with that approach).

Note, the brain is a mechanical device. It does not think thoughts. It receives them.

Creation might imply a creator, but you do know that this statement simply means that creation suggests rather than explicitly referring to a creator according to the definition of the word 'imply', right?

This tells me that you are also making an unconscious admission that you are prepared to accept that possibility that whatever created the universe was a creative principle indeed, but one that isn't necessarily sentient nor intelligent. It is possible for complex things to have simple and humble beginnings, and since this is so, you must admit that you cannot rule out the possibility that the cosmos had a minimalistic birth.

Furthermore, the notion that the brain is a receiver of thoughts is only hypothetical, not conclusive. Until you know all there is to know about how the universe works within a theory of everything, including the most complex organ we know, you have no basis for making the assertion that cerebral matter cannot generate thoughts and therefore must receive them from an external source.

If it is true that the brain is a receiver, one is pressed to wonder about the external origins of the horrid schizoid thinking experienced by those afflicted by the relevant mental pathologies.

Yes. "Imply" is a different word than "explicit" and it is used in this context for a reason.

Trying to describe the intelligence of the Creator borders on silliness. It is like the proud owner of a 1965 Mustang wondering if the Sun has any real power because he never heard anyone explain it in terms of horsepower or torque. Human intellect is highly overrated. For all practical purposes the Creator is Omniscient and Omnipotent (relatively speaking) and trying to encapsulate that in some arbitrary measure of intelligence is ridiculous. It is like triangles in Flatland trying to understand the 3D Artist/Creator in terms of how many sides It might have.

Understanding the brain as a receiver does not have to be conclusive, just functional. A deeper understanding of the larger process is enabled once this aspect is grasped. The brain does not think thoughts any more than it stores memories. A poorly functioning receiver is easily observed to distort signals it is receiving. There is nothing wrong with the signal when the receiver needs a trip to the repair shop.

This reminds me of an interview with Bing Crosby talking about that particular sound of his voice and the backup singers in those early recording days and he said he could take no credit for it. He said he and the ladies were singing away in the studio and hitting wonderful high notes and just giving it their full range best. The sound engineer in the studio stepped in and said, "Look, you guys sound fantastic to my ears but keep in mind that no one out there in radioland is going to hear any of it because my equipment can't capture those extremes". Bing said that "sound" in the early days was not so much a creative musical talent effort but a real world capitulation to the quality of recording technology of those times.

The purest and most highly refined human thoughts are a brutish reflection of the original.

I still don't see your proposal getting past the realm of hypotheticals despite its plausibility according to the analogies you provided. Analogies do not constitute any sort of proof and in this case the only thing I'm getting from your counterargument is, it could be like this.

My stance remains unassailable while we still don't know enough about our physical reality to ascertain the impossibility of the physical producing a first-person ontology as well as memories of past sensory input. Moreover, your hypothesis leaves a lot to be answered—including the nature of memory itself—as to render it unfalsifiable ...

Firstly, why would we need an external source to tell us about our own past experiences by manner of transmission when the brain has been directly collecting sensory input data throughout the span of its existence?

Secondly, how can your unproven premise even begin to be useful in any way when, by its own admission, it has already given up in trying to determine the nature of memories? (If memories are transmitted from somewhere else—beyond the physical realm, which is the only thing we can scientifically work with—their origin will forever lie outside the human scope or purview.) If all you have is the anthropic evidence of 'brutish reflection', as you say, how can you claim to know about the much more refined original? How can you claim to know that the source must transmit perfectly and not exactly the same as received? It sounds like a bad argument from Platonic Realism. Also, why not create better infallible recipients with which to receive the message if the creator wishes to be understood? I'm only trying to remain epistemologically consistent, Labyrinthus. Your hypothesis is weak by way of speciously and suspiciously presenting with full of holes, but feel free to elaborate ...

Thirdly, if memories cannot have a physical origin, how do they interact with a physical receiver? In other words, why does it have to be a specific physical receiver such as the brain in order to receive the transmission? Doesn't it imply a physical mechanism which must, by necessity cover the mnemonic element? How can something non-physical work with something physically complex? And note that here your radio/TV receiver analogy falls apart because both the apparatus and the wave signals are physical and can be measured. Your proposition is starting to look untenable and belonging in the realm of the apocryphal.

I could just as well draw a pertinent and far more realistic analogy to show that, countless times, humankind has been proven wrong in their assertions that this or that will forever remain mysterious or unknown by subsequent breakthroughs and sheer discovery. You see, all I'm getting from your counterargument is that we can't yet explain X with what we know so far, therefore God must be responsible for X, ergo the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe. This is, in essence, the God of the Gaps fallacy. It just doesn't wash ...

Meanwhile, it has already been concluded that memories are not archived in the brain like this one is some sort of concrete and infallible repository of garnered information about the world. To say that this is what contemporary neuroscience claims is a strawman. It appears that memories are more likely to be reconstructions of past events in the present—meaning that every time you remember something your brain is guessing what happened before when it was impacted by sensory data at a specific time; this inevitably leaves room for inaccuracies or even false recollection, hence false memory syndrome and the high unreliability of witness testimonies. The fact that we tend to encounter inaccurate bedroom replicas in wake-initiated lucid dreams—especially after employing OOBE-styled 'separation' techniques—speaks volumes ...

Nobody is saying that there is no limit to how much a human being can come to understand about reality, but it is also a mistake to prematurely assume that we will never come to fully comprehend certain aspects about nature and the world we live in—the history of our development as a civilisation can attest to this. It is better to keep trying to shine a light in the dark ...

Why should I forget wanting to know where the 'water' comes from? Unlike the faucet, I have the property of curiosity as I am a far more complex conglomerate of atoms. I want to know where the water comes from ...

"Meanwhile, it has already been concluded that memories are not archived in the brain like this one is some sort of concrete and infallible repository of garnered information about the world."

Forget "strawman" -- this red herring is more like totally neurotic deep denial.

You see, there probably is an infallible repository. Much research has shown incredible feats of recall approaching perfection (see Jeopardy champions :) Just because most humans have hugely fallible memories does not mean a nearly infallible one does not exist. But the stultifyingly dull materialists simply can't accept this. So they ignore the bulk of the data and obsess over the lowest common denominator while ignoring the reality of high functioning recall in many cases. Pitifully neurotic....

50% of the brain matter removed but nearly perfect (accurate) detailed recall of minutiae from decades ago remain intact. [Deal with it].
This touches on the almost universal arrogance that deists routinely find in the common atheist character.

Not only is the position of the atheist-materialist eminently assailable but it borders on just plain absurd, even within the non-compulsory restraints of materialistic logic. I have already explained it with the analogy of the cartoon characters running around the cartoon collecting cartoon data with cartoon instruments claiming they are proving there is no cartoonist. Some even require that the cartoonist must have cartoonish characteristics (Humanoid-cartoon character type intelligence) in order to be acceptable or believable (absurd). My premise will always remain unproven to the pseudo-intellectual materialistic Dullards of Atheistville. They will never get it any more than you will ever get 100 monkeys to write a novel. They are like Homer Simpson who can't let go of the soda can to get free of the soda machine.

" why does it have to be a specific physical receiver such as the brain in order to receive the transmission? "
It doesn't have to be. I never said that.

Long story short, you are making the error of conflating non physical with non dual. Memories may be processed on a physical level but stored and retrieved from a non physical location. We know this from compelling empirical observation. Once the idea of this memory retrieval from a non-physical "cloud" is understood or even just allowed as viable speculation it is not too big of a stretch to reasonably surmise that thoughts can originate within duality but beyond the physical. The Creator is beyond duality and is thus "Unknown and Unknowable" given that knowledge and thoughts are "created" things of a dualistic nature (in and of the cartoon).

Atheists used to rest on their "singularity" laurels as the source of Creation. The singularity thought is a created thing. Granted it is a very pristine, uber primordial sort of thing, but it is still a created thing. (What created the singularity?) It is also no longer in vogue and materialists are floundering about in search of a more unified theory that might explain the MASSIVE ENERGY that just spontaneously came outta nowhere... and now the beautiful mathematical perfectness of their false Singularity god has fallen into disfavor. There is nothing noble about a squirrel in a squirrel cage making the cage go around.

The non-dualistic Eternal Being associated with a dualistic mental machine and physical body will never understand Its origins beyond the human form as long as it remains attached to the human form. It becomes like the fish demanding the frog show a piece of the dry desert to prove the existence of a desert, but the proof is contaminated/eliminated the moment it enters the water that the aqualistic fish is limited to.
The atheist is demanding that an impossible form of "proof" be presented. (Prove that the completely non-cartoon Cartoonist exists using cartoon data). Those who clearly understand the purely egotistical and childish absurdity of the silly atheist's request aren't losing any sleep over it. When the atheists broaden their perception horizons they will begin to understand. Then and only then will they even begin to get a non physical, non-materialistic clue. (Now the deist's turn to be arrogant if they so choose).

This understanding can only come for those who make the effort required to pierce The Cloud Of Unknowing.


Addendum;

"Firstly, why would we need an external source to tell us about our own past experiences by manner of transmission when the brain has been directly collecting sensory input data throughout the span of its existence?"

It is not an external source. It sounds to me like you are asking, "why do the intestines need the stomach?"

The purely physical form would cease to function without the nonphysical (yet purely dualistic) counterpart and hierarchy.

I'm detecting several holes in your rebuttal ...

First of all, let me point out that there are a few types of memory—such as episodic, semantic, sensory, implicit, eidetic, etc.—and there are also a lot of people out there performing amazing acrobatics with mnemonics (Jeopardy Champions aren't the only ones). There are individuals recalling lengthy sequences of random numbers pages long which seems like an impossible feat until one learns how they do it; it wasn't necessarily because they were born with savant syndrome or mnemonic propensities, but rather, instead of the usual rote learning that many of us employ to memorise mere telephone numbers, such exemplars employ mentalist tricks from simple acronyms to more elaborate mental maps and memory palaces whereby each integer represents an element in an interesting narrative that is encoded in the sequence. So, these people will be the first ones to outright tell you that no divine or higher source is sending them accurate information about the past they were exposed to, but instead, their accurate recall is due to a blend of paying attention, associative imagination and the hard mnemonic work they put in. This has nothing to do with having an infallible repository of information in their heads. Most people (save for those with real mental deficits) can boost their memories with practice and dedication to these mental exercises. High functioning recall does not get ignored at all by the scientific community. In fact, The Mind, Explained is a documentary currently on Netflix which covers, in part, the research that has been done with mnemonists.

By the way, I will deal with your vague claim about having half of the brain removed with the preservation of memory as fallacious if used as a counterargument with the pretext for disclaiming decades of neuroscientific research. Seen as you provided no citations, I will cite you the case of Henry Molaison with a link and excerpt:

'A new examination of the brain of Patient H.M. — the man who became an iconic case in neuroscience when he developed a peculiar form of amnesia after parts of his brain were removed during surgery in 1953 — shows that his surgeon removed less of his brain than thought.

'At age 27, H.M., whose real name was Henry Molaison, underwent an experimental surgical treatment for his debilitating*epilepsy. His surgeon removed the medial temporal lobe, including a structure called the hippocampus.

'Thereafter, H.M. was unable to*form new memories. His case brought about the idea that the hippocampus may have a crucial role in retaining learned facts, replacing the notion that memories are scattered throughout the brain. H.M. became the focus of more than 50 years of memory research, working closely with the researchers who had to introduce themselves every time they met.'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...tem-brain.html

As you can see, it doesn't matter even if more than 50% of the brain has been removed, but what does matter is what parts of the brain have been removed—such as the hippocampus—and seen as you've cited nothing with your claim it means jack. In Molaison's case, there was even some post-death controversy about how much of his brain had been removed in contrast with early hyperbolic claims, particularly from the sensationalist media. So be careful with what you swallow there, Labyrinthus! I also find it side-splitting the fact that you've just labelled the brain as a recipient of memories and blabbed on about poor signals and brutish versions of the original if the receiver is faulty or imperfect and yet contradict yourself by presenting me with a vague scenario where all of a sudden half of the receiver is enough for a near enough decent signal ...

From where I'm standing, your line of reasoning is inconsistent or you are failing to express it without contradictions. What exactly are you trying to claim?

Your cartoon analogy explains nothing apart from residing in the realm of what-ifs. Reality is not a cartoon nor an artistic animation. Cartoons don't have minds that wonder about who made them or how they came to be; we do. So this analogy is rendered moot. You may invoke the brain in a vat or the simulation scenarios of Nick Bostrom, but these are just hypotheses and their hypothetical creators of worlds are far from being gods or supernatural entities when they are described as technologically advanced lifeforms. Again, it could be like in the movie The Matrix but that's besides the point—the notion that the world is a giant computer simulation does not take away from the notion that we live in a godless reality.

Also, your analogy comes with another strawman about what science really says regarding God and betrays your misunderstanding between Richard Dawkins's sensible de facto atheism and Penn Jillette's fallacious stance that God definitely doesn't exist. Scientists don't claim that their observations, instruments and experiments prove that God doesn't exist—this is a gross misconception on your part of the God Hypothesis in science. As I said before, a hypothesis lacks evidence, which is the reason why the existence of God is yet to be empirically verified. Until then, there is no reason to believe in God, much less a personal one, just as there is no reason to believe in ghosts. Atheism is merely a reasonably tentative (as opposed to dogmatic) stance of disbelief and therefore subject to change. If you claim that a god exists and created the cosmos, the onus is on you to describe such entity and the hows and whys besides demonstrating conclusively that such is the case. If you can't do that and merely claim it to be indescribable or ineffable because you are only human, then your proposition is unfalsifiable and as good as the musings or ramblings of a crackpot; you said it yourself: 'My premise will always remain unproven ...'—but you never stop to think that perhaps your premise isn't worth much or your rationale is simply intellectually defunct in the grand scheme of theories. Is it that it's unfalsifiable or perhaps your failure to convince others of your conclusion? Why is it that your argument is insufficient to convince others that it is the right one? I don't think you have considered these questions for your benefit and to merely besmirch nonbelievers by calling them dullards is a cop-out and borders on an ad hominem, which is the hallmark of a debate loser.

Quote:

---

'Long story short, you are making the error of conflating non physical with non dual. Memories may be processed on a physical level but stored and retrieved from a non physical location. We know this from compelling empirical observation. Once the idea of this memory retrieval from a non-physical "cloud" is understood or even just allowed as viable speculation it is not too big of a stretch to reasonably surmise that thoughts can originate within duality but beyond the physical. The Creator is beyond duality and is thus "Unknown and Unknowable" given that knowledge and thoughts are "created" things of a dualistic nature (in and of the cartoon).

---

No, you don't get to invoke 'non-physical location' without saying and demonstrating where it is localised. A 'location' implies a where in the physical universe, within the space-time fabric. If you say it lies outside it, you are dealing in hypotheticals and surmising something undemonstrated to be the case to prematurely fill in current noetic gaps. That approach is pseudoscientific, unfounded, flawed and fallacious. You should bear in mind that what you find compelling as an armchair philosopher isn't necessarily compelling from an expert standpoint. Your conjecture, which is what it is, presents an inexact subterfuge for the mutual exclusivity between the physical and non-physical. It does not explain how something physical can interact with something immaterial (and it can't because the latter is hypothetical, anyway) and conveniently avoids having to deal with the origin and formation of memories by claiming, without any real foundation, that it occurs beyond human purview in some 'non-physical cloud'. What the hell is a non-physical cloud? Are you saying it is like a cloud? Because if you are, let me remind you that clouds are features of the physical universe as they are made of matter occupying space and moving through time, having dimensional properties; the adjective 'non-physical' before 'cloud' thus creates a problematic oxymoron when the former negates space-time, which is required for the dimensions of an object such as a cloud to exist in: if there is no space, the dimensional properties of a cloud cannot manifest, and if there is no time, well, nothing has time to happen, ergo, no function manifests. In essence, your stance is merely a flight of fancy which gives up on doing any further scientific research.

Quote:

---

Atheists used to rest on their "singularity" laurels as the source of Creation. The singularity thought is a created thing. Granted it is a very pristine, uber primordial sort of thing, but it is still a created thing. (What created the singularity?)

---

Not all atheists subscribe to singularities as some are even taking Sir Roger Penrose's cosmological ideas of a looped universe seriously. Others conjure the notion of eternal inflation constantly producing countless bubble universes. Some say we live in a kind of Hilbert space. I couldn't give a toss about what they say because, ultimately, they will all be wrong or incomplete and such is the nature of scientific claims which are constantly under revision—that's how science works! Remember that we are insignificantly tiny and living on a rock that is akin to a mote of dust in an unbelievably gargantuan universe that only constitutes the observable. So no use speculating on what we think is and isn't based on what little we currently know and observe. There is more work to be done and we should be epistemologically consistent which requires us to be intellectually honest and humble in our conclusions. Forget the singularity!

What (as opposed to who) created what we see today is the real question! The answer is: I don't know and I refuse to prematurely conclude it was something sentient and intelligent. My best guess as to what makes more sense to me? Here goes: The laws of physics can be thought of as restrictions to what matter can do based on its properties but, in the beginning, there were no laws, and if there were no laws there were no restrictions, therefore, everything was permitted, hence the Big Bang (as evidenced by the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is, in essence, its afterglow). This is the best logical answer to the profound question of why there is something rather than nothing. Because nothingness, on a quantum level, is highly unstable as to render it impossible by the stretch of human imagination. We can only imagine nothing by conjuring something because it is an absence—and if there is an absence between two fingers they must necessarily meet in continuity because nothing exists between them, there is just something. Because the probability for something to emerge is so great that the real miracle would be if nothing ever existed at all. This is also congruent with cosmic expansion, dark energy etc. So here's a reasonable explanation that isn't necessarily the be all and end all but which can be proffered without involving an imaginary Creator.

Materialism isn't exactly a word that I am fond of, by the way. The world isn't just materials when we know that at the subatomic level wood and metal are no different and the universe, beyond its distinct elements, also presents us with forces which are invisible to the human eye but measurable nonetheless and their effects are observable. They are, after all, physical forces. This is why I much prefer the term physicalism.

Quote:

---

The atheist is demanding that an impossible form of "proof" be presented. (Prove that the completely non-cartoon Cartoonist exists using cartoon data).

---

String theory, which invokes hidden dimensions to explain gravity on a quantum level, has a similar problem but, unlike the theistic and deistic suppositions, isn't almost entirely unfalsifiable when a large enough hadron collider the size of our solar system and far more powerful could potentially prove or disprove such stringy proposition. I'm sorry to break it to you, Labyrinthus, but you can't just bypass the Popperian principle and expect everyone to embrace your premise. You have not demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt with your philosophical reasoning which constitutes empty analogies given the context. Your stance doesn't get past the level of what-if—and this is not good enough if that's how you arrived at your conclusion. That's what happens when you start speaking from absolute certainty ...

Quote:

---

This understanding can only come for those who make the effort required to pierce The Cloud Of Unknowing.

---

This is a bit cryptic, don't you think? A cloud? Sounds a bit obscurantist or in the least verging on the limiting idea that some things should remain mysterious for the sake of maintaining that awe of the unknown. Is this where you are coming from? Because if it is, I would advise against it. And how can one 'pierce' such 'cloud'? Unless you mean that we should unlearn what we think we know, but that happens everyday in light of new discoveries and where the refinement of theories is concerned. Or you are simply talking about coming to know the unknowable, which is oxymoronic but it does seem to be where you are coming from with your Cartoonist-like Creator hypothesis.

Quote:

---

"Firstly, why would we need an external source to tell us about our own past experiences by manner of transmission when the brain has been directly collecting sensory input data throughout the span of its existence?"

It is not an external source. It sounds to me like you are asking, "why do the intestines need the stomach?"

The purely physical form would cease to function without the nonphysical (yet purely dualistic) counterpart and hierarchy.

---

You are the one who implied an external source when you initially provided the radio/TV analogy—after all, signals come from an external source. (Which is the complete opposite to the reality where parts of the digestive system mutually exist within the same organism.) Again, your analogies fail you.

Quote:

---

"Labyrinthus, but you can't just bypass the Popperian principle and expect everyone to embrace your premise. You have not demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt with your philosophical reasoning which constitutes empty analogies given the context. Your stance doesn't get past the level of what-if—and this is not good enough if that's how you arrived at your conclusion. That's what happens when you start speaking from absolute certainty .."

---

Yeah... no kiddin'. Which is why I am not speaking from absolute certainty. I already stated this outright in a prior thread. It is either dishonest or insincere for you to ignore recent communication where I stated outright that I can't prove non physical reality in strictly materialistic terms, and I AM NOT even trying to do that. For you to put words in my mouth and then refute something I never said is grossly deceptive... at best.

Actually yes, I can bypass the Popperian principle outright and I am stating such up front and I have already explained exactly why I have chosen to do so. For you to keep claiming, "you can't do that" is so lame. My entire point begins with the simple logic of "Creation implies a creator". Flimsy as it may seem to you, it is still valid and remains the thorn in the side of the purely materialistic atheist. The rest of my opinionating is just my humble opinion based on my own personal experience. If I tell someone who has never stood on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon that that thing is really deep -- that's my story and I am sticking to it... because I have been there. If you want to reply with some nonsense about canyons on Mars... I couldn't frikkin care less.

I can reject the Popperian principle (for materialistic zombies) if I so choose. I have never expected everyone or even anyone to accept my premise. I am merely sharing my viewpoint, which I have developed from personal observation. Not only have I not demonstrated my opinions beyond all reasonable doubt... I have not even tried to claim any such brain dead thing. For you to even consider couching your reply in such outrageous exaggerations of things never said is beyond ridiculous (that's the nice way of putting it).

If I say that "the brain is a receiver" it does not mean in any way shape or form that I am throwing down the Materialistic Atheist gauntlet and stand ready to debate the matter in purely logical fashion within the common garden variety restraints of the typical atheist's purely and physically measurable universe of purely physical observation. That is just plain stupid (and I think you know it). Everything I have said heretofore plainly demonstrates that not only am I not trying to do that but I am saying outright that it is not even possible to do that!

Quote:

---

"Again, your analogies fail you."

---

Actually my analogies serve me well and will continue to do so as long as I am only trying to communicate with a sincere and honest listener who wants to understand and is willing to make a small effort to grasp a new viewpoint.

In order to proceed you may need to make an effort to understand the difference between non-physical and non-dual (and kick your ethics game up a notch). If you continue to pat yourself on the back for making a rock-solid rebuttal to a claim no one has made things will bog down.
It seems like you are continuing to demand that the frog/salamander bring dry sand to the blind cave fish in order to prove that a desert exists. Not only does the dry sand have to remain dry underwater but Fat Bastard The Blind Cave Fish must be able to *eat* the dry sand in order to understand... which he never will, given the absurd requirements.

The only way the "Creator" camp can make any progress here is if and or when the arrogant, egotistical atheists up their ethical game a little and admit that the "Creation implies a Creator" argument is at least valid to some degree... just not sufficiently compelling for FatBastard The Blind Atheist Cave Fish. That creature may not care that it is a valid logical argument, because for some reason it must also be good for a blind cave fish to eat. It would be nice if atheists also stop wasting everyone's time refuting arguments that haven't been made (and if they would stop egotistically acting like they are scoring points by refuting points no one has made, so much the better).

Yes, I say this universe is very much like a cartoon. It is way way more like a cartoon than most of the zombies pretending to think realize. Some actually have the capacity to genuinely think, but rarely do so. Not very many planet Earth denizens do any real thinking. They usually just download the Zietgeist and roll with that. Even the ones who think they are really smart. The fact that you would say, "which is oxymoronic but it does seem to be where you are coming from with your Cartoonist-like Creator hypothesis" is a screaming out loud underscoring of your refusal to face what I am actually saying. (Note; It's not a hypothesis. I know darn well you understand the difference between an analogy and a hypothesis so ... why did you do that?). Sometimes it sounds like you may understand a little but you simply don't want to go there. It also looks a little like your Left/right brain comments were merely a mean spirited trick to bait an unsuspecting Creationist into a sucker's contest.

For some dumb reason I was hoping you would type "The Cloud Of Unknowing" into your search bar and maybe spend an hour (or a year or two) going, "whoa!" and then coming back and say, "Now I understand". I do not expect you to agree. Merely park your ego somewhere else and simply express understanding... or ask an honest question if you can manage it.

Yes, people have developed ways to improve their memory. Just because a small handful of people take their receiver in for regular upgrades does not change that fact that the receiver is still a receiver. (Please think about this for a few moments before making a completely lame pseudo-rebuttal referencing completely irrelevant nonsense). Absolutely NOTHING I said implied any sort of "Divine" intervention in this memory and recall function. A wide range of exercises can improve the way the receiver functions. A wide range of exercises can improve consciousness as well. If you insist on channeling FatBastard the Blind Cave Fish there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Also I am not feeling inclined to provide links to findings about people who had half their brains removed when you and I both know perfectly well that we are both cognizant of these historical findings and the surprisingly intact memory capability subsequently demonstrated. I am not going to link to a source showing that the sun rose in the east this morning either. If that is the game you wanna play?... adios muchacho. Your hippocampus brain removal reference completely ignores the point I was clearly making about and entire hemisphere being removed and your long winded hippocampus example is completely IRRELEVANT. (and I suspect you half-knew what you were doing and you did that on purpose... OK, time to forget communicating, even just a silly façade of winning uber alles!)

My point was that the materialists (physicalists... whatever) looked at that and started hemming and hawing and going "um, gee yeah... well maybe the memories are not actually stored in the brain cells (which is what they were actually claiming), and maybe they aren't between the synapses and gosh, hmmm -- they must be semi-algorithmically recreated and rebuilt on demand" (almost instantly, in absurdly unbelievable fashion... somehow... uggghh) -- thus conveniently explaining false memories, errors, etc. Okay... Gimmee a break! I guess the squirrels gotta spin that squirrel cage.

And then you demanded that I stop mentioning the false Singularity god when I was never the one who worshipped it in the first place! I was pointing out how it USED TO BE the holy grail for atheists but now it has fallen into disfavor. I do not even know how to begin to deal with this little wrench you tried to throw into the works. Completely bogus. I only brought that example up in response to your heart-warming appreciation of the whole "science marching forward" theme. I do not share this adoration of a group clinging to ignorance as hard as they can, due to their fear of letting go of pure materialism. I guess after retiring from a career in the hard sciences I remain a little jaded about the capacity for materialistic science to make progress in the field of non-physical reality.

Just my humble opinion, the "scientific" community is wayyyy overrated. Sure, they manage the rare breakthrough (See Newton) but Engineers are doing all the heavy lifting. ;)

Labyrinthus, I believe you are falling prey to an apocryphal and ill-defined justification for religiosity born out of faulty logic of a particularly spurious brand which you derived from 14th-century Christian mysticism I was not familiar with but now you are probably going to wish you hadn't mentioned it at all; I looked up the risible title The Cloud of Unknowing as you wished me to—even though you could have courteously cited it as an ancient religious text—and discovered an onslaught on reason itself where the insufficiency of self-surrender and contemplation as substitutes is delusorily hailed as a virtue in the place of intellect. I had pegged you as having enough nous to be able to see right through that mystical claptrap. Anonymous mystical blather? Seriously? Modern Christianity in the form of organised religion has muddied the waters enough but the obfuscation from the Middle Ages that you presented is even worse and not worthy of further consideration for the reasons that would make Karl Popper turn in his grave which you would not deny!

The only way the Bible makes any realistic and ethical sense is if one posits the constituents of its parables to be psychological referents presented metaphorically—including God, which biblically stands for the potentially useful abstract idea of God as the Telos of all summits that can be conceptualised in a human mind.

Take the parable of Job, a good man who started out as a happy and faithful follower of the Lord. Along comes Lucifer who proffers that Job's loyalty to God is contingent upon his blessings, and that without them, even such exemplary man would renounce his faith and die. Disconcertingly, the Almighty takes the Devil up on his wager, resulting in Job enduring terrible losses and afflictions. We are pressed to wonder how could God allow such maladies to befall a man who remained faithful to Him until we eventually come to the only logical conclusion that both the Deity and his dark angel cannot be regarded as objective entities in order for the whole exemplum to make sense as a narrative describing a psychological process and an undeniable truth: bad things happen to good people! If you insist on a strictly literal interpretation where its Biblical characters are actual beings then the more cryptic and mystifying God's rejoinder to a befuddled Job begging for answers will appear:

'Where were you when I Iaid the foundations of the earth? Have you ever in your days commanded the morning light? Where does light live, or where does darkness reside? Can you lead out a constellation in its season? ...'

Carl Jung would have said that God would have to be unconscious to Job's predicament as perceived through mortal eyes, or else the man morally thrashes his Lord hands down—so the parable ostensibly prepares for or leads to the birth of Christ, where the Father tries to understand the human perspective through the Son whilst simultaneously setting a good example for everyone. I prefer to go one step further and entertain the absence of God as an objective reality altogether and cut the poetry!

Quote:

---

Yeah... no kiddin'. Which is why I am not speaking from absolute certainty. I already stated this outright in a prior thread. It is either dishonest or insincere for you to ignore recent communication where I stated outright that I can't prove non physical reality in strictly materialistic terms, and I AM NOT even trying to do that. For you to put words in my mouth and then refute something I never said is grossly deceptive... at best.

---

Dishonest or insincere? Wow! Not much choice between the two ... I couldn't care less what you stated in a prior thread; what is in this thread is what I'll take into consideration and, based on the language used, anybody would tell you that your statements convey certainty—beginning with the fact that you outright call atheists 'dullards' without proffering a scintilla of reasoning behind it apart from the unfalsifiability of your claims. To admit that you can't prove the non-physical is tantamount to saying you have no evidence for it—so why should anybody consider what you yourself called a premise? They are your words, not mine! You vehemently reject reasonable disbelief in anything beyond perceived reality yet demand serious consideration of your proposal above all else without empirical or testable substance. It sounds like you want to have it both ways—here's a figure of speech to reinforce what I was saying earlier with my hermeneutics: Labyrinthus wants to have the cake and eat it, too.

Quote:

---

Actually yes, I can bypass the Popperian principle outright and I am stating such up front and I have already explained exactly why I have chosen to do so.

---

Why the tautology, then? Do you think that repeating an affirmation to yourself and others will make it true or will sound more convincing to whoever hears it? You've already mentioned the analogy of the non-cartoon cartoonist who cannot be evidenced by elements from the cartoon world and I've already explained where that fails you and why it is insufficient.

Quote:

---

For you to keep claiming, "you can't do that" is so lame. My entire point begins with the simple logic of "Creation implies a creator".

---

You sound like a teenager who's just been told it's not reasonable or wise to follow a particular course of action. Boohoo! 'Sorry you don't like it, kiddo' would be my natural response but I believe you have to be older. I don't think it's productive to go round in circles either. As I pointed out before, the keyword is 'implies'.

Quote:

---

Flimsy as it may seem to you, it is still valid and remains the thorn in the side of the purely materialistic atheist.

---

Don't kid yourself. Stop embarrassing your potentially wiser future self. It is clearly invalid (just carefully review my posts), my friend, and easily refuted. You are dreaming—do a reality check.

Quote:

---

The rest of my opinionating is just my humble opinion based on my own personal experience. If I tell someone who has never stood on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon that that thing is really deep -- that's my story and I am sticking to it... because I have been there. If you want to reply with some nonsense about canyons on Mars... I couldn't frikkin care less.

---

The nature of the Grand Canyon is verifiable by anybody who visits it and the existence of Valles Marineris on Mars can also be verified by anybody with a telescope or a space probe, and soon, by actually going there as an astronaut or in a futuristic space colony context. Both places are physically real and verifiable by just about anybody. It is possible for anybody to confirm their existence (or their absence, if you prefer) by being there (their alleged location) or sending probes to take pictures and samples!

Now, by contrast, your godly cartoonist, as you've admitted earlier, cannot be empirically verified as He hypothetically lies outside the 'cartoon world'. Once again, your analogies fail you. You've just lost a good opportunity to keep your gob shut. (Pardon my British!)

Quote:

---

I can reject the Popperian principle (for materialistic zombies) if I so choose. I have never expected everyone or even anyone to accept my premise.

---

Of course you never expected everyone to accept your premise—I could have told you that! But you would like me to agree with you all the same otherwise there wouldn't be a slew of ad hominems on your part. But I'm not here to just agree. I am here to see where participants are coming from and then, if it needs be, I'll disagree—it makes for a more productive discourse.

Quote:

---

make a small effort to grasp a new viewpoint.

---

I sincerely tried. Sorry it didn't work out, buddy. The 'new' viewpoint is not even new if it's rehashed twaddle from the Middle Ages. In essence, your premise is tantamount to the following abridgement—and I believe I'm steelmanning it (so I'm doing you a favour):

The world is like an elaborate cartoon. Cartoons REQUIRE a cartoonist. The world is not quite like a cartoon, ergo, creation IMPLIES a creator. I can contemplate such creator so He CAN exist. Anyone who denies, doubts or is sceptical of this proposition in the slightest is simply a lame, dishonest dullard.

Nice.
Lovely.

Quote:

---

In order to proceed you may need to make an effort to understand the difference between non-physical and non-dual (and kick your ethics game up a notch).

---

Nice try with this piece of irrelevant, semantic casuistry. Do you know the difference between dichotomy and division or the difference between polarity and contradiction? Consider honestly answering this question. (And kick up your contemplative game and personal experience a notch.) I'm serious!

Quote:

---

Yes, I say this universe is very much like a cartoon. It is way way more like a cartoon than most of the zombies pretending to think realize.

---

I must be a philosophical zombie, then. And this philosophical zombie is telling you that you might as well subscribe to a digitally made animated solipsism without foundation other than sheer contemplation.

Quote:

---

It also looks a little like your Left/right brain comments were merely a mean spirited trick to bait an unsuspecting Creationist into a sucker's contest.

---

And this looks like paranoia to me but I won't jump to such conclusion as my left and right brain parts are usefully at loggerheads most of the time. The brain hemispheres are mentioned in my original post and I had no idea you would eventually comment on it. Relax: nobody is out to get you.

Quote:

---

Yes, people have developed ways to improve their memory. Just because a small handful of people take their receiver in for regular upgrades does not change that fact that the receiver is still a receiver.

---

What I pointed out went completely over your head. The upgrades you speak of were to point out to you the different types of memory in contradiction to your oversimplification of said phenomenon. It was to show you that one's mnemonic powers can be tremendously enhanced by way of a little imagination and meaningful association. Especially when attempting to recall dull numerical sequences. Nothing to do with a hypothetically transmissible revelation and everything to do with brain exercise and mnemonics. And again, you have no basis to claim as factual that the brain is a receiver of memory. Mnemonic exercises may not rule out such hypothesis—and it could be playfully and unfalsifiably entertained that the brain might be a recipient for some types of memory—but it does not evidence it either. Mnemonics actually point in the opposite direction to your flight of fancy, if you ask me, or, if you prefer, neuroscientific evidence implies that the cortex is not the receiver you imagine it to be. It receives sensory input, such as light through the eyes, and contains electrical signals, but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Absolutely NOTHING I said implied any sort of "Divine" intervention in this memory and recall function.

---

And nobody said you did. But you might as well have said it because your premise is just as implausible. It implies it. It was akin to the New Age belief in the Akashic records actually. The cartoonist draws the speech and thought bubbles. His pencil and brush intervene with the paper. It's quite comical because I can do this all day.

Quote:

---

Also I am not feeling inclined to provide links to findings about people who had half their brains removed when you and I both know perfectly well that we are both cognizant of these historical findings and the surprisingly intact memory capability subsequently demonstrated.

---

Pfft! Where are these apocryphal anecdotes? I've come across a few and the sources are risible and usually of a sensational or pseudoscientific slant. And I wish you would stop shooting yourself in the foot with glaring contradictions. First the brain is a mnemonic receiver that needs to be intact in order to function properly in its receiving role or one gets dementia, schizophrenia etc. Next, the brain is not needed as a whole in order for the signal to be intact. Make up your meretricious mind. Or, you could simply admit it to yourself that you don't know how memories are formed and it's okay to not know, Labyrinthus. Be humble in what you don't know instead of filling those noetic gaps with flights of fancy in a bid to make yourself look cleverer than you actually are.

Quote:

---

I am not going to link to a source showing that the sun rose in the east this morning either. If that is the game you wanna play?... adios muchacho.

---

Sounds rather convenient to me, Labyrinthus. Nothing to show for yourself to back up your claims as usual. You could go ahead and entertain me but I don't think it would be very productive. Citing work that has already been done isn't necessarily playing a game—it is often done with the aim of enlightening, educating or familiarising interlocutors with technically relevant information in case they are in the dark about such matters—but I guess 'playing a game' is how it looks to those who arrogantly believe they have everything sussed out. It's not about pointscoring über alles to me insofar as it ostensibly is for you. Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be projecting from the shadiest recesses of your mind? I'm surprised that your contemplation is yet to bring you to deeper realisations. You might actually discover that you are not God as it turns out to be a complex ...

Quote:

---

And then you demanded that I stop mentioning the false Singularity god when I was never the one who worshipped it in the first place! I was pointing out how it USED TO BE the holy grail for atheists but now it has fallen into disfavor.

---

Do you even know who Georges Lemaître was? He was a sharp Catholic priest who famously defied Albert Einstein's static universe model and was the first person to theorise an expanding universe before Hubble discovered galactic recession. (Which is why Hubble's law is also known as Hubble-Lemaître's law.) Lemaître also devised the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'—essentially, a precursor of the Big Bang theory—which he regarded as 'the beginning of the world'. The pope at the time was jumping with joy as he pronounced it as evidence of a Creator, a move regarded by Lemaître as premature. Theists had regarded it as a holy grail, in fact, much to Einstein's chagrin. Lemaître was a theist. A theist essentially came up with the singularity, Labyrinthus. Look him up and weep.

By the way, Einstein's cosmological constant had also fallen out of favour at the time (when the scientist deemed it to be his biggest blunder) and now it's back into favour as there might be something to it based on recent breakthroughs in cosmology and theoretical physics. These ideas fluctuate in the realm of science and it says absolutely nothing towards what is conclusive because the method of enquiry itself is revisional, progressive and not dogmatic. If you don't know that a good scientist will weigh his or her theory down by rigourously testing it in an attempt to falsify it before it can take flight you don't understand science.

Quote:

---

I do not share this adoration of a group clinging to ignorance as hard as they can, due to their fear of letting go of pure materialism. I guess after retiring from a career in the hard sciences I remain a little jaded about the capacity for materialistic science to make progress in the field of non-physical reality.

---

Perhaps it is your fear of letting go of immaterialism and the aforementioned group in fact clings to a sincere pursuit of knowledge. Deep down the thought that there is nothing beyond the physical universe terrifies you—your existential terror could overwhelm you in the face of nihilism where you are nothing more than a biological robot bound and predetermined by cause and effect.

I don't know why you felt the need to mention that you retired from the hard sciences as though you are employing the ethos mode of persuasion to some effect, but let it be known that Rupert Sheldrake was once a proud member of the scientific community who turned into a loon and committed career suicide because he refused to let go of his 'morphic resonance' concept.

Quote:

---

Just my humble opinion, the "scientific" community is wayyyy overrated. Sure, they manage the rare breakthrough (See Newton) but Engineers are doing all the heavy lifting.

---

In the 19th century, the philosopher Auguste Comte categorically stated that we would never come to know the chemical composition of stars. He was wrong ...

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2010JAHH...13...90H

His contemporary, Joseph von Fraunhofer, discovered dark absorption lines in light spectra which matched types of atoms in the chemical composition of the sources—giving birth to the field of stellar spectroscopy—and now we are able to tell what the Sun and distant stars are made of based on the light they radiate. Science working in beautiful and elegant fashion. Fraunhofer might have fiddled with optical devices but he was primarily a physicist, and knowledge in this field is what caused him to notice the relationship between spectral barcodes of light and the number of electrons in atoms. Today we have sophisticated and powerful radiotelescopes; sure, we need engineers, but these also need clever maestros, so to speak.

Wow. That sure escalated fast. The anti-Christian bigotry and hatred that flowed in your last response was pretty thick. Do you wanna take any of that back?
(Almost 3000 word reply... heh. Christmas is usually a slow day. Maybe I'll grind through it then).

In the meantime... at this point I have one question, Summerlander. Are you aware of patients with half their brains removed (hemispherectomies ) and the subsequent lack of impact on memory and personality? Or are you genuinely not aware of this?
I am quite confident that you are now and have been for quite a few years now.
Yes or no....

Well, you can grind through this, too. It'll be a long Christmas ... :D

Anti-Christian bigotry? That's a new slur on the atheism you so readily despise to add to your ad hominem list. The irony is that I am probably more of a believer in Christ than you for the psychological reasons and a somewhat Jungian exegesis already explained which is germane to the topic of useful abstractions and ideals. I see you fraudulently appealling to the ethos and pathos modes of persuasion while my reasoning does its best to be consistent with the logos from a sound, epistemological foundation. I may not believe in the objective existence of a bearded man in a red suit who lives with elves in the north pole and rides a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, but I do believe in what the image of Santa Claus represents as inspired by Nicholas the Wonderworker, a kind and virtuous Christian bishop who lived in Roman times. (He must have done something right to have earned such reputation and you know what they say: Action makes a man!—especially in those times.) In a sense, everybody who celebrates Christmas and provides for their kids during this season believes in the 'spirit' of Santa Claus. The zeitgeist in December is the Christmas spirit which manifests in the festivities. Pragmatically, if you don't believe in the Christmas spirit you simply don't celebrate it let alone go out on a limb to purchase gifts and decorate your abode for guests.

Do I want to take back what I said? You wish! Not a chance. All my points are valid and apparently you can't handle a barrage of irrefutable verities seen as you are yet to address multiple questions I posed to you as well as produce anything of substance as a counterargument; and yet, you expect me to buckle down to a single deficient question which I will tackle anyway just to show you that I am way ahead of the game you're playing ...

Not only am I aware of hemispherectomies, I have also covered callosotomies ad nauseum years ago on forums for the purpose of demonstrating how feeble dualism and theism really are! In case you haven't read my OP properly (ain't I a darling for making this discussion even more pertinent? :D):

Does God exist?

If you just asked my left-brain hemisphere, it would most definitely say, 'No.' If you asked my right-brain hemisphere, it would probably say, 'Yes.'

And again, I must point out that you have gone from the position that the receiver must be fully functional in order for the 'signal' to be properly delivered to haIf the organ is enough for sufficient mnemonic delivery to occur. This says nothing about a non-physical realm and only speaks for the evidence that, sometimes, one brain hemisphere can make up for the other—and it depends on which is affected, too! (But you always ignore the devil in the details out of convenience, don't you Labyrinthus?) If the dominant half is intact, by the way, it is logical that there will be a lack of deficit. I recommend that you read My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey by Jill Bolte Taylor and I'm surprised that someone who's worked in the hard sciences isn't familiar with this work which also demonstrates, from an expert's personal experience with a brain bleed that disabled half her brain for nearly a decade, how what we think of personality is part of a narrative inextricably tied to the language centres of our brain. I can categorically state here with great confidence that removing or disabling half of one's brain does not prove in any way whatsoever that the brain is a receiver of memory. Moreover, hemispherectomies are almost exclusively performed on children as they have greater neuroplasticity—increasing the chances of recovering from deficits incurred from such procedure which I am pretty sure you're reluctant to mention—and it isn't like they have much past experience as well as a fully formed personality relative to an adult. By the way, a lack of impact doesn't equate with an absence of impact. Capisce? :wink:

Sorry, matey, but your inconsistent arguments and casuistry don't work on me. The more you type against the voice of science and reason, the more conspicuous your fraudulence. I'm getting the impression that you are not really interested in factual information nor honest epistemology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summerlander

Does God exist?
...In the realm of science, a 'hypothesis' is inferior to a 'theory'. The latter, unlike the former, is backed up by a body of empirical or evidential work which supports a proposition—such as evolution by natural selection, gravity, cosmic inflation, etc.; in other words, a scientific theory can be a 'fact' if it survives the test of time. The hypothetical, on the other hand, is mere speculation even if it sounds philosophically plausible. The de facto atheist stance adopted by the likes of Richard Dawkins is quite tenable because if the proposition lacks convincing evidence then there is no reason to accept it as a truism. To be an atheist is merely to disbelieve in God or gods/deities until proved otherwise. Until then, God, as an objective entity, is deemed to be as probable as real magic, a gnome, fairy or ghost—that is to say: highly improbable.

---

You two seem to be having fun!

I always wonder why anyone cares to try and convince another on this topic. A sense of spirituality is by its nature a personal thing of the inner self. Why would the atheist care how many people believe in magic or souls? Why would the theist care about trying to make someone accept what they see as a truth? The only good answer here is simply the fun of having deep conversations. And that is great! I could play with the idea a bit, but must get it out of the way that I simply do not care to convince anyone of anything.
I have not seen that Summerlander has taken a stance on this (though I only skimmed much of the posts) but has stated a concept as put forth by a certain atheist. First the stuff about hypothesis vs theory is correct. No discussion of spiritual stuff will ever move past hypothesis. What is unclear is why the leap to disbelieving a hypothesis simply because no current methodology can construct a proof? I may see a hypothesis stating that it is a given that life exists elsewhere in the universe. To me this is so logical I will jump right ahead to belief. As a man of science I am not obligated to disbelieve this hypothesis simply because it can not be proven. Something being unprovable does not require one to believe the negative. That is seemingly a complete irrationality the adherent is reserving for a pet distaste. It is ok to believe in aliens but not God? There is no science in that. It is simply stating what one thinks is true and wrapping it in jargon to sound authoritive. Atheists can believe God is not true, but it is not because they automatically disbelieve hypothesis as a principle.

Lumping the likelihood of one unknowable with another is disingenuous. If you say believing in ESP is the same as believing that the land of Narnia as described by C.S. Lewis is real, you are being unfair. While one may think ESP is fake it has far far more merit than a clear fabrication/ fiction. To say the likelihood of a God like force and the likelihood of gnomes is the same is about as ridiculous as this example: it is just as stupid to think an undiscovered 9th kingdom of life (I am including slime molds, and water molds) exists as it is to think that 9th kingdom is responsible for my missing socks.

Let me pose two hypothesis and you explain how they are unreasonable. 1) forms of energy still exist that we do not have a way of detecting. 2) consciousness is a phenomena that may exist without a biological matrix.

Both sound plausible to me. If an atheist can contemplate a self aware AI in the form of a computer is it a big leap to picture a self aware AI in the form of something spanning perhaps thousands of lightyears formed of some construct beyond our understanding? I find one no less questionable than the other. Hypothesis: consciousness may exist on a much grander level in the universe than we can understand from our limited perspective.

Now if we are allowing for the unknowable to perhaps exist (life on another planet ~ disembodied consciousness) then which is more likely to work of the following? 1) an infinite amount of hydrogen exists, and gravity randomly causes it to pool and move, one thing leads to another and suddenly you have penguins. 2) an infinite amount of hydrogen exists, and gravity randomly causes it to pool and move, a consciousness causes certain outcomes to be more likely by subtly directing events to happen in a manner conducive to form penguins and before long you have penguins.

Hi, sivason!
Thank you for your input ...

Quote:

---

Hypothesis: consciousness may exist on a much grander level in the universe than we can understand from our limited perspective.

---

The key word for the beginning of scepticism in your hypothesis is 'may'. It may indeed be the case. But it also may not. Why should I favour one over the other? We have little understanding of consciousness beyond the certainty that it is real and every reason to be agnostic about its nature.

As I said before, nothing can be said with 100% certainty for epistemological reasons—it was true in the time of Socrates and it is true now. Just to clarify, spiritual matters and the hereafter may be entirely subjective and currently hypothetical but in no way is this a claim of certain nonexistence of said phenomena; my stance is merely one of belief suspension until convinced by something that I am thus far at a loss to imagine. Let me categorically append here that, to me, atheism is merely a suspension of belief in God or any gods and doesn't say anything further about what atheists collectively agree on—trust me, there are atheists who believe in an afterlife because they intuit that such metaphysics do not require a spiritual hierarchy with an almighty overseer at the top. Conversely, there are theists who reject the hereafter in favour of the notion that we are merely finite manifestations of the only being that can be eternal: God.

I appreciate your honesty about not having read everything I posted here, sivason, so I will reiterate in different words what I covered which pertains to the points you raised. Laplace, upon completion of Newton's astronomical work regarding the laws of gravitation, had to explain to a curious Napoleon that God is not required to explain planetary motion—just as Krauss and Holt point out the plausibility of cosmogony working without having to postulate a godly creator; therefore the probability that there are physical energies yet to be discovered is still higher for similar reasons to the ones I gave above with the necessity of a large hadron collider the size of our solar system in order to uncover more about dimensions near the Planck scale.

There is, of course, no point in trying to convince the other person of an argument if the material is not convincing enough, but it is certainly not useful to denounce people who hold different views as 'dullards'. Ad hominems never contribute and are not fun for anybody if the goal is to have a productive and interesting discourse. I also think anyone, not just atheists, should care about what other think and believe precisely because some beliefs and ideologies can invite bad or dangerous behaviour, particularly in leadership. The theist, on the other hand and especially if they come from an Abrahamic denomination, will tend care whether someone holds the same religious views or not based on the doctrine they believe is the only path to salvation. Now, it's fine by me if they want to hold on to a dogmatic view as long as they don't attempt to proselytise everyone they meet especially by way of making them feel inadequate in the process. I'm not advocating for atheistic states, by the way, but I am all for secularism—whereby there is freedom of and from religion in a country like the USA where the state is separate from the church (or supposed to be).

Yes, I put forth a stance very much adopted by possibly the most famous atheist in the world, but it is only because his opinion on the subject did in fact resonate with me. But I also value, say, Jordan Peterson's Jungian input even though he would disagree with Dawkins on minor details and semantics. I take, in fact, what resonates from both. More to the point, science is the best method of enquiry that human beings have devised thus far and if something doesn't reach the theoretical threshold and remains hypothetical, it simply does not warrant belief on my part. After all, evidence, when deemed sufficient, is there to convince us of the validity of a thesis from which a sound conclusion can be reached. Why believe in something that has not been empirically or otherwise solidly validated?

The reason why propositions are proffered in science for acceptance or rejection is a useful one: to help us establish what is true about the reality we inhabit. There is no use in making assumptions, however intuitive they seem to be, when we have countless examples where nature has often proved to be counterintuitive. Jumping the gun on what is ostensibly sagacious or fanciful can also lead us to premature conclusions where there is a danger of confirmation bias by way of making the data fit the fallacious premise to the detriment of real information—and this requires a healthy dose of scepticism! This brings me to highlight hypotheses which speculate about extraterrestrial life: I would class aliens as more probable than a divine Creator of the universe because this one is unbelievably vast and there are only so many ways in which matter can be arranged according to the laws of physics—and given the uniformity that has been detected about our cosmos, it isn't a great leap to suppose that there will be repetitions and similarities on a stellar, planetary or even galactic scale. But I also still wouldn't conclude that there is intelligent life out there for sure within our observable universe apart from us because it could be rare and, by chance, we could be alone—these are still possibilities, however counterintuitive, when we take into account the Fermi Paradox and incisively elaborate possibilities put forth by geniuses such as Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist who has actually expounded upon Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory, creating a scenario of multiple universes where some are devoid of life whilst others are teeming with it; we could still live in one where we are the only ones as space is eerily quiet. I could barely steelman the work of such cosmological giants so I will provide a link here for anybody who is interested, and I also recommend Our Mathematical Universe as it is a great read:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cosmosm...-the-universe/

We simply don't know and it is best to be humble and reserve belief until it is truly justified. It is in line with epistemology. I'm sorry but I wouldn't jump right ahead to belief (even though I am certainly inclined to believe that we cannot be alone given the cosmic immensity that surrounds us). I'm sure you can understand that there is always that possibility where perhaps we are not as justified as we think in our propensities and biases, and if you examine my posts thoroughly, you will see I am not even asseverating that the unfalsifiable requires belief in the opposite (I know you are not claiming this is my argument as it would be a strawman but, to be clear and reinforce the message, I simply can't let this one slide), I am simply saying that an absence of evidence is apparent to me and therefore I won't commit to whatever is being proffered from the realm of what-ifs. Yes, what I disbelieve could be true—and if ever proven I shall acknowledge its existence—but it could also be false! The same applies to fairies! Pictures of the Cottingham fairies by Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths were hailed as proof until the cousins confessed to forgery—however, until their deaths, the women maintained that the fairies had been real but could not be photographed, prompting them to hoax the world in order to be believed. Taking David Hume's line of reasoning, I would say that if they were honest about seeing the fairies, it is more likely they collectively hallucinated—or the eldest cousin, who was considerably older, deeply impressed upon the youngest with a fantasy. I believe Daniel Love has also spoken about his active imagination and daytime hallucinations in his childhood which were personally impressive!

What is the truth for sure about fairies? We cannot say with absolute certainty. Human beings cannot deal in absolutes when impressive illusions are unveiled everyday and we only evolved to perceive a narrow band of the spectrum of reality which we are currently trying to expand with extended technological phenotypes. Who are you to say, with absolute certainty, that fairies don't exist as a genuine objective phenomenon? Such 'Earth spirits' could be real and currently undetected by scientific probing! But even so, it is still reasonable to disbelieve because any Joe can claim that anything ostensibly absurd exists. We simply cannot take at face value individuals who demand you to believe in flying pigs because they claim to have witnessed one as a plethora of possible mundane explanations have to be ruled out first besides lying. In a nutshell, disbelieving is not necessarily dismissing as you can still say, 'Show me (what you are talking about)' or 'Convince me.' A sceptic can still be open to a claim in a bid to ascertain, with accuracy, the true nature of a perceived phenomenon. Even something like the land of Narnia could exist a gazillion parsecs away by mere coincidence; it is even mathematically plausible that the fictitious events in Sons of Anarchy are veridically taking place in a galaxy far, far away—on an Earth analogue—because the universe is that vast, let alone a multiverse which is increasingly probable according to cosmic inflation. As for the nature of consciousness, I really couldn't tell you anything beyond what has already been written. It is a genuine mystery which perhaps transcends the physical universe, but, in the same vein, it may also be generated by physical configurations as we are also still trying to figure out what matter is and how the universe works. There is one thing we can be sure of: a severe blow to the head can greatly impair our awareness or distort our perception of reality. (This is as much as we can epistemologically claim.)

I didn't even want this thread to be another theism vs atheism debate. I would have preferred to have discussed religious symbolism, how it's tied to our psychology, Biblical exegesis, and how the idea of God—as a Telos or an inspirational ideal—has its pragmatic uses. Whether God is entirely subjective or objective shouldn't have entered the equation, but I understand that it is still inextricably pertinent to the topic and why people would want to have their say about it. We got this far. C'est la vie ...

On evolution and how heavier elements such as carbon aggregate to form unicellular and then pluricellular organisms with Darwinian change, I recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, where a theoretically rich scenario is described in which lifeforms in the course of long spans of time end up looking tailor-made to their environments, ostensibly intelligently designed as a compelling illusion, when in actual fact living beings are the product of blind natural forces where a cosmic consciousness is not warranted or not required to be behind such display of cause and effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summerlander

Hi, sivason!

I didn't even want this thread to be another theism vs atheism debate. I would have preferred to have discussed religious symbolism, how it's tied to our psychology, Biblical exegesis, and how the idea of God—as a Telos or an inspirational ideal—has its pragmatic uses. Whether God is entirely subjective or objective shouldn't have entered the equation, but I understand that it is still inextricably pertinent to the topic and why people would want to have their say about it. We got this far. C'est la vie ...
.

---

You are obviously someone with a high IQ. I can agree with virtually everything you have said. I certain feel that Religions and doubly so Abrahamic religions can cause trouble and lead us far away from open minded exploration, while pounding obviously (to me) ridiculous narratives in place of reasoned thought. I could never be convinced that religious narratives that attribute high meaning to a human have it correct. I also could not be convinced that a divine being cares deeply about a specific set of rules in a specific book.
However, in the way of talking about the subject you wished to explore that last point is clearly one of the obvious pragmatic uses of religion. In my case I believe very very deeply (two verys worth in fact, lol) that I am observed at all times and that my ridiculously blessed life is gifted and requires I maintain 100% virtuous behavior. This belief keeps me in line, a totally lawful good paladin to use gaming terms. Now my own situation is not based on dogma so I decide what must and must not be done, but basically if I know it is wrong I can not do it. Let's extend this to a much simpler version of human behavior, that is convincing the masses that rules should be followed even if no secular consequences are likely. Many members of our species do acts they see as good and do not do bad things (either off a dogmatic list or free form) because of the faith they have that a divine being likes people who do certain things and that the divine being is omniscient. That certainly seems like a pragmatic use for religion. I have had an atheist say that was insulting because an atheist could still have a sense of right and wrong and out of general distaste for certain things like corruption be every bit as honorable as a religious man. Well of course that is possible just as a religious man can be very wicked. However, in my case there has been many times where human weakness, selfishness, and greed would have had me be dishonorable, but I could not because I honestly believe I would loose certain profound blessings. It was clearly my belief in religious concepts that caused my virtue to be say 98% as opposed to say 78%.

As far as symbolism one thing that comes to mind is how patriarchal a society is comes through in their religious symbols and iconography. It seems Abrahamic religions almost despise women in any role other than virgin or mother. Some religions where woman had more social value had very noble images of Goddess often even taking warrior roles.

That is a quick attempt to contribute to the conversation you wished to have, but you would have to give me some guidance to where the conversation could go.

Not to go back to theism vs atheism but simply to make a point about something you asked (Why believe in something that has not been empirically or otherwise solidly validated?): One can never know that another is not lying about fairies and such, for sure, but if you are the one who has met the fairies and are sure you were not suffering hallucinations you would certainly be in a better position to believe in fairies. In my case I could never say anything to you about my experiences that should convince you. I certainly do not care, and have never got why anyone cares. But just to address your question as to why believe, in my case I started studying the yogic system of kundalini (mystical energy manipulation) as a pre-teen, devoting myself to yogi levels of prayer and seeking divine contact, and paladin like good / honorable behavior. Well, it worked. I mastered kundalini and attracted the interest of some sort of divine being. I am willing to say the divine being may be a far step short of creator of the universe, but it is wonderful and God-like. Stick with me, not trying to convince. I am now 50 and have been at what may easily be master level for perhaps 25 years. The fact is magical events are boringly common place in my life. Magic not meaning ignoring physics, but meaning mind numbing manipulation of probability. Nothing ever happens that can not be attributed to a lucky 1 in a 1000 chance. Having witnessed 100s of unbelievable coincidences exactly when I wanted them to happen helps me believe. Being able to experience mystic energy as clearly as any other sense like touch or sound helps me believe. Now a less clear thing is communication and connection with this divine being. To me it is clear and real and beyond question that when I "commune" the thing listens and responds (though I often only vaguely grasp what is convied). So for me when asked why believe in something that has not been empirically or otherwise solidly validated, I would say it has been proven. Proven to me in a way I can not share with you. Proven in a way that only serves to convince me. I think because this sort of proof requires prayer and devoted effort basically begging to understand, perhaps this proof will never be presented to someone who is already biased against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labyrinthus

Creation implies a creator.

---

You assume we are talking about a creation at all. When you use the word creation, you do not "imply" or "suggest" a creator: you have already revealed your worldview. Instead of "creation", you might talk about "the universe" or "what is" which do not inherently imply a creator. The "creation implies a creator" line of thinking leads nowhere because it also implies a creator of the creator... and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sivason

You two seem to be having fun!

I always wonder why anyone cares to try and convince another on this topic. A sense of spirituality is by its nature a personal thing of the inner self. Why would the atheist care how many people believe in magic or souls? Why would the theist care about trying to make someone accept what they see as a truth? The only good answer here is simply the fun of having deep conversations. And that is great! I could play with the idea a bit, but must get it out of the way that I simply do not care to convince anyone of anything.

---

People care because it has an impact on our lives. It influences politics and the law. It influences our relationships. It's scary the consequences when people deal with the unknown via faith (trusting what feels true so intensely). Politically. Intimately. But if I'm honest, I am only here for the conversation.

Anyway, when I think of empirical knowledge of a divine entity or simply a non-material entity, it wouldn't have to be measured physically: it is not physical. What bothers me is that it cannot be observed even in the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. If these entities do not have a physical relationship with the world, in communicating with them, do we not at least hope to connect with them, to have a relationship with them. I simply do not see evidence in the soft sciences for a relationship between people and entities beyond the relationship of people with their own spirituality.

Sivason's description of his relationship with a divine entity reminds me of an aspect of my own spirituality. Certain coincidences, synchronicities and improbable events that just seem to be too convenient (or inconvenient) tend to induce a feeling of connectedness with "the universe" or something. In those moments, it seems only natural that I have a spiritual relationship with the universe or a divine entity. I even long for those moments not for any benefit other than this feeling of connectedness. The flaw here is that this remains a feeling and despite the seemingly improbability of these moments, I remain ignorant, and in between these moments, there is also a feeling of disconnectedness. Because after all, even in the moments where there is a sense of a relationship, there is never the knowledge of whom the relationship is with if any.

Assuming I have a relationship with an entity, given that it is defined by so much ignorance, if the entity has any wisdom, they could only reasonably expect me to disbelieve. In this sense, I feel that disbelief is an integral part of my relationship with this entity if our relationship is to have any semblance of honesty. There is no reason for me to "worship" a god in any way because there is no knowledge of what kind of relationship this or these entities want if any at all.

If anything is obvious to me is that this/these entities can't or don't care to have clear communication with us, or me anyway. So knowledge and belief seem to be unimportant parts of this relationship, which is characterized by ignorance. Faith is another layer of ignorance obscuring the relationship. For example, the words "eternal authority" have implications that might obscure my relationship with a god. Who said they seek my "obedience" whatever that may imply? Not them. If we are only talking about symbols, then I don't find much meaning in it: sure, this universe comes with limits and I am by definition under the "authority" of the laws of nature but this means nothing more than what we know "there are limits" and there is no suggestion of whether I should respond to these limitations by submitting to them or by rebelling myself against them. That's why, I am sorry, I have tired of the Jordan Peterson way to talk of God in symbols and stories. Order and chaos. So what? Just simple concepts decorated in pretty colors. I like it, but I am put off by the seriousness. Going into the unknown is scary, but no need to call it God as if these concepts absolutely all need to be symbolized by God. That, I can't get behind.

All I know, is that by leaning into it, I can really induce particular feelings. When I see coincidences in that way, I feel connected. In my time visiting the Hare Krishna movement, I was taught to (in order to reduce Karma) to live for Krishna. That is, if you make food, to not make it for those who will eat it, but do it as a gift to Krishna. And the way I interpret this is that somehow, I can gift my conscious experience to Krishna. I can gift my subjective experience of making food, of giving food, of eating food to a god. Like, I guess in the sense that they could live vicariously through me as I might do by watching TV or reading a book. Whatever critique one might give to this practice, I can really induce a particular spiritual feeling from doing this. In the end, inducing feelings of a relationship with an entity/entities, does make me feel a particular way and that's all I know. I don't know a relationship with whom, I don't know if a relationship at all, but I like the feeling of it and I know the feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

You assume we are talking about a creation at all. When you use the word creation, you do not "imply" or "suggest" a creator: you have already revealed your worldview. Instead of "creation", you might talk about "the universe" or "what is" which do not inherently imply a creator. The "creation implies a creator" line of thinking leads nowhere because it also implies a creator of the creator... and so on.

---

Here's what I think, and you're welcome to disagree (not just in response to Occipitalred, but I do want to use your quote).

Something can't exist without it having been created. That doesn't mean it's created by an external God person, but it does have to arise from somewhere. Otherwise all that is would be nothingness. Why is there anything at all? So, you could say the universe was created by the Big Bang, or whatever the current scientific theory is. Of course, that leads to the rationale, if the Big Bang created the universe.. then what created the Big Bang? You could call it a never ending cycle, but then again... how is this cycle created? Why is there a cycle at all and not nothingness?

The idea that if a creation has a creator, then a creator must have a creator leads to the answer. We can't make something from nothing. There's only one solution. The creation is the creator. All that is. You can't define God / Source energy because when you do, you also define what God / Source is not. But that's again impossible. Something cannot be made from nothing, and therefore everything must be of the creator. And the creator must be everything. Undefinable. The people around you that you view so differently are nothing more than you, in a different body, experiencing life from a different view point. But they are still you. And, the world you view with your eyes is also you, experiencing consciousness from the perspective of being an it.

A good question is why are we experiencing life at all? I've heard some interesting answers. My favorite one is this - we experience life as an ego point of Source so that we may know Ourself (Source). If Source is everything, it is in relationship with nothing, therefore it can't know itself. The only way to know oneself is to be in relationship with "other" than self. So, Source creates ego points (illusions of separation) to experience relationship with other, and therefore know Itself, and to experience all things.

Wow! A few replies while I've been away. Thanks for your input guys! I will have to consider all when I have more time but I will address sivason's by saying that I've never taken an IQ test so I don't know. Hehehe!

I do think the way in which the Abrahamic monotheisms are generally interpreted and adhered to today is a far cry from what was originally intended—and I'm going back at least as far as ancient Egypt regarding the wisdom literature that influenced Christianity and Jewish mysticism. The foundational scripture of Kabbalah elaborates on 'Ein Sof' (without end) or God (whose name translates as 'I am that I am') in the following way:

'Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point... But after He created the form of the*Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name "YHWH".'~the Zohar

The paladin is the embodiment of the heavenly man because, come what may, he is able to transcend it by doing all he can in finite form—appealing to righteousness and inspired by that which is eternal, the Ein Sof.

For now let me say that, from skimming through Occipitalred's post, I certainly resonate and he has rightfully pointed out that assuming an intelligent creator aggravates the cosmogonic problem with unnecessary infinite regress and then you are left with the pseudo-problem of how something as hypothetical as an intelligent creator came into being. So you end up right where you started. You might as well focus on how the universe came into being alone because that is all you know. Perhaps, as I pointed out above, the answer lies in the high improbability of nothingness which seems impossible to human minds. As Holt would have it, if physical laws are restrictions and there were none initially, then everything was permitted ab initio—so voilà: the Big Bang and rapid inflation where space constantly emerges out of nowhere.

We also don't know how long inflation has been going on; perhaps our Big Bang is localised and part of an eternal inflation in a multiversal sea of bubbles and if there was a beginning, it happened so long ago that all traces of it are long gone, so we, the forensics team, have arrived very late. The scene is contaminated. Whatever the case, we still don't have proof of God in the slightest as cosmologists like Holt and Krauss can come up with scenarios that do NOT require a creator at all. Universes plausibly create themselves.

Well, as promised, I have had time to read everybody's posts and decided to elaborate on where I am coming from ...

Humankind is possessed by an inveterate religious impulse which might be described as a profound psychological relic of a meme that once served us well in building communities and providing tentative answers to a largely unknown and challenging world. The original message of ancient religious texts might have been lost with the passage of time to be replaced by egregiously twisted exegeses with the aim to manipulate and control contemporary masses; occasionally, I suspect, the real moral of those archaic religious epics is atavistically retrieved or archetypally captured—as Jung would put it—by, say, stories like John Fusco's The Shack, which end up being regarded as heresies by modern theologians and bishops for implying that soul-searching and finding God is an entirely psychological process where the 'trio of strangers', Sophia or Sapientia (as the wisdom of God) and the Ancient of Days Himself are nothing but Jungian archetypes residing in the human unconscious and psychically brought to the fore as an individual is recuperating from a mental breakdown.

Mack, the protagonist, challengingly asks the female character that represents God why She abandoned him in his darkest days, and She replies: 'I never left you, I was always with you.' Now, if we imagine someone in trouble beseeching an objectively omnipotent being—supposedly omnibenevolent!—to intervene during a traumatic event, and this One is invisibly present and merely watches, we are pressed to conclude, as Epicurus did, that the Almighty is either sadistically callous, indifferent or powerless to help. But if we regard God as the subjective experience of the concept of an absolute ideal undergirded by a hierarchy of values in an individual's mind and nothing more, we can make sense out of a narrative where, even in great turmoil, what Mack looks up to the most never left him—it never left his mind however deeply unconscious he was to it whilst suffering! It was there, if you will, as a potential for him to see a way out or at least look for the best possible solution to counter with a perceived quandary; and the strength, courage and wisdom can be mustered through our best conception of the Telos (personal ideal) or an integrated self (Jungian individuation) which can come from a combination of three distinct recourses: the Father (knowledge/wisdom learned from parents and ancestors), the Son (the hero in us who confronts the unknown with courage and a problem-solving attitude and hopefully saves the day), and the Holy Spirit (self-reflection and acknowledgement of all personal aspects in relation to everything else including the coniunctio where consciousness and the unconscious and anima and animus harmonise).

Now, I'm not saying Carl Jung stumbled upon the correct and original hermeneutics of the Holy Writ as was initially intended, but the psychoanalyst's abstract inference certainly makes more sense to me than the fallacious takes in modern exegeses and expositions that can't decide between what should be literal and what must be a metaphor. Perhaps, if Christianity is to survive, its expositors ought to heed a more pragmatic view of Scripture which is undeniably tied to the human psyche and the reality we inhabit. In Jewish mythology, the demoness Lilith was Adam's first wife who was banished from the Garden of Eden for her insubordination to the first man. Now, this might be seen as a misogynistic parable where females always bring chaos to the man's life (and we see this happening later with a conniving Eve leading Adam astray), but the coin flips to reveal an enlightening take on the demoness as a heroine striving for fairness and equality when she is depicted as a symbol of feminist rebellion in the works of Enid Dame. Lilith suddenly seems to represent a challenge to the young and immature man (Adam, the first man) who believes he has what it takes to impress women, only to be told by one of them that what he exhibits isn't enough—throwing him into chaos and forcing him to grow and create a new and better order! The stubborn young buck might ignore the first lady who tries to bring out the best in him, but this makes enough of an impact that he will eventually listen to the next one who invites or dares him to 'eat from the Tree of Knowledge'. As the saying goes, behind a great man is a great woman. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Sapientia, who stands for the wisdom of God and often thought to be the Holy Mary (mother of God), is a woman. Clearly, these stories have a lot more to say about human psychological development than being in any way revelatory about secrets of the universe.

I could, of course, make a compelling case from Platonic Realism by proffering that there is a divine reality which is our home and humankind, as a collection of avatars, represents God in the physical world—and the reason why we perceive this grossly lower (imperfect) reality is due to the need for the Almighty to be aware of the finite and the imperfect, therefore He understands such limitations, trials and tribulations through the anthropic purview. But I would be dishonest if I claimed that it can't possibly be any other way and that such Platonic world view is the only take which explains why some of our ideas can be so edifying and productive when expressed. I am pressed to admit that what I've described is hypothetical and most likely unfalsifiable precisely because I am yet to fully comprehend, as a human being, how the world works to produce all the phenomena that we see.

This fits my understanding of religious stories, but does not lessen my belief in a divine world with conscious disembodied forces. There are two schools of thought on Hinduism that are worth pointing out. One is the simple follower who thinks the stories are true and little thought is put into it. If a god supposedly has an elephant head and is the son of another god, they think somewhere out there this god gave birth to a baby god and the baby had an elephant head. It is literal. The other school of thought which in my experience and opinion is the valid one as far as the intent of the myths and stories, is that what ever the divine source is, it is beyond the physical world and thus unknowable to anything that's existence is based here, disembodied or not (out side of all of this). The thought goes like this, "what are the first things we can observe about the nature of the universe and consciousness as part of that, We will divide it into more graspable sections. A godlike force that directs the placement of the stars is not the divine source and will be unable to truly grasp it themselves. But maybe we can get close to identifying attributes to some of these God-forces. One is that something is existing as the solid matter (a type of energy) Something is causing that matter to move in patterns (creation of more complex systems when energy is added) Something is causing the change and decay of advanced systems when energy is withheld (entropy). They assign a force to each of these as the top gods then try to break down each into lesser gods, using symbolic items to record the main thoughts. The conclusion the Hindu came to is that each of these forces seem to have invisible hands acting with consciousness directing them. Basically they would embrace science and quantum matters, but would believe powerful forces that act with intent and individual personalities are influencing what forms from the three primary Gods existing (matter exists and forms complex systems when energy is added and decays into simply matter when energy is withheld).
The point being the stories and symbols are used to share ideas about aspects of these forces. One of them is Ganesha who is shown with the elephants head. They noticed that if one was worthy and such that fate could intervene on your part before you knew there was a problem. This force was named "that which goes before you to remove obstacles from your path. They pictured how an elephant walking before you could throw a fallen log out of the way before you even knew a log had fallen. Add that the trunk move in a non-linear way weave about things to find the best angle to deal with the obstacles. Great symbolism but a little deep for much of the masses. You make up a figure with an elephant head and add other symbols in the painting or sculpture so when story time comes you can explain how this force seems to work, but of course people are to darn literal and now you are stuck with some simple people thinking there is a big dude with an elephant head out there,
The symbolism goes future into explain human awareness as it is believed by observing what we can we can postulate about the way these forces may function and even benefit from self examination

Ganesh could also be a symbol for proactivity, a quality that enables one to preclude problems, obstacles, snags etc.

The trinity concept also exists within Hinduism—in the form of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva—even though, unlike the Abrahamic religions, it is a polytheism. (Arguably, Christianity has an ostensibly polytheistic function with its numerous canonisations and pending beatifications which allow adherents to venerate the saintly deceased.) But as much as we find similarities, we should not discount how much theistic faiths can problematically contradict one another on a national as well as international level. Christianity, for instance, contains the commandment, 'I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no other gods before me', which is at odds with the Constitution whereby freedom of religion and the separation of church and state are amendmental precepts. If the United States were truly a Christian nation, there would be no freedom of expression for other religious denominations and devotions to other deities, say, Ganesh would be outlawed. Real freedom comes from a secular constitution whereby citizens of multiple backgrounds are free to practise their faiths. Thomas Jefferson, as a founding father of the nation, was a deist, meaning that he venially found it more plausible the existence of a laissez-faire Creator than a god who cares about and interferes in human affairs. The Pledge of Allegiance, since its '50s alteration, thus stands in violation of the Constitution and Jefferson rolls in his grave every Flag Day since, so to speak.

Now, I'm inclined to interpret the religious claim that if one follows Christ, or stands with God, one lives forever as: those who emulate the hero ideal become exemplars and their names are likely to be immortalised (living in the hearts and minds of generations to come), especially if they are willing to die for a great cause which they absolutely believe in—thereby making them synonymous with an eternal, archetypal truth precisely because they have exhibited the qualities that make a paragon of virtue. This, to me, is the real afterlife—not one where the dead necessarily live on in a spiritual realm, but rather, an after living where the individual is remembered for what they did. The resurrection is the act of remembrance! If you make enough of an impact—as Confucius, Marcus Aurelius and Alexander the Great did—then you will be immortalised in this way throughout the ages; a real apotheosis or deification: it means that your words and actions will have resonated with generations throughout aeons as an epitome of heroism to look up to and follow, especially in troubling times.

But it isn't easy to carry the cross (burden) because it requires sacrifice. In fact, it is next to impossible to be like Christ, the Saviour. He is also known as the Redeemer because, if you have perpetrated an objectionable deed for which you are judged harshly by others and have become known for it for some time, your opprobrium is immediately retracted and overruled once you do something impressively heroic and virtuously good—this action and personal improvement will also provide others with hope for a kind of salvation for their past sins or where their reputations also precede them. We are social beings who want to be accepted by everyone including ourselves—this is the main driving force behind seeking absolution.

I'm curious Summerlander.

There's a thing that confuses me. And we've sort of have had this discussion before.

If I start from what Sivason just said about two approaches to myth: literally divine, or covert divine. I understand that Sivason, favoring the latter approach, sees the Ganesh story and feels that it describes something divine (like literally a divine force that removes obstacles before we are aware of them, just not a literal elephant). But it seems to me you have a third approach, lets call it covert secular. It's not a divine force that removes obstacles but "proactivity, a quality that enables one to preclude problems, obstacles, snags etc." The eternal afterlife in Heaven is a relatively persistent legacy.

What confuses me about the covert secular approach to myth is that it seems to glorify/deify simple secular/humanistic ideas. We can have a conversation about proactivity, foresight, legacy without using myths. It's like if people on the Weather channel talked about Uranus, Zeus, and other sky deities instead of the secular/scientific vocabulary.

Actually, I love stories, myths, symbols and you know, discussions about what elements of a story represent. It's poetically satisfying. It's beautiful, it's fun. I'm sorry to bring Jordan Peterson again, but he's a big proponent of this "covert secular" approach and it annoys me because through this approach, you can dogmatize your fun interpretation of myths. He'll use a story to support a political claim, and somehow, it's more justified now, because it's the way to God. And it's like wait, why are we talking about God amidst a discussion about human politics. It'd be one thing if we were talking about a divine God, but this approach does not believe in a divine God. In the covert secular approach God represents the secular concept of the higher virtues. That really bothers me. It feels very disingenuous, I think for non-believers to use myths to deify completely secular ideas and somehow give them some false weight in this way.

Otherwise, I really don't have a problem with trying to find or add secular meanings in religious myths. It's interesting. But I think a line needs to be drawn. If Ganesh represents something divine, it's not just proactivity, unless proactivity is more divine than we know. I just mean, those are two different conversations and I think a secular conversation covertly hidden under religious and mythical jargon is only hurting itself, as well as actual conversations about the divine.

Maybe I'm just confused and I'm sorry if at any moment I misinterpret someone's thoughts. This is my understanding as of now and my feelings about it.

I'm absolutely with you, Occipitalred, and I completely understand your annoyance with Jordan Peterson's approach.

I do think Peterson takes Jung's collective unconscious and 'unus mundus' approach too seriously to the point of politically weaponising it—but perhaps the man can't help his bias as an unorthodox, conservative psychologist. (Ultraconservative in some respects as he subscribes to archaic meanings of words such as 'believe', which he has tried to revive, and is clearly phobic of linguistic evolution.) Jung appeared to subscribe to an unfalsifiable Platonic reality where archetypes have their own existence and psychically influence human behaviour. Despite the fact that I recognise the merit of the morals conveyed by such mythological stories, I can't bring myself to claim that they are more than just stories from which people derive value and meaning.

Yes, in a sense there is 'a hero with a thousand faces' as Joseph Campbell put it and we may call it the hero archetype, but such has no other reality, as far as I can tell, apart from being a persistently successful meme. We like heroic qualities because we are human beings, creatures who experience fear and would like to be brave enough to face danger and explore the unknown, so it really is no surprise that we admire the noble and virtuous. So I would say I'm closer to, say, Sam Harris than Jordan Peterson in this respect—which is to say that if the latter is a covert secularist, I guess I am purely secular. On this note, I absolutely admonish the way religions are and were practised through the ages even if I suspect their texts were originally intended to be figuratively read.

I also share your concerns in dogmatically glorifying ideas from secular humanism, or otherwise, precisely because we are prone to human error and moral philosophy is still a work in progress. Everything should be open to scrutiny and revision. We should also be careful with the language we employ to describe things in order to avoid confusion, after all, Einstein's poetic take on the wonders of the cosmos led many to erroneously conclude he was a theist.

I am actually glad that we have began to draw the line between that which is logically valuable to human beings and what the pious mean by 'divine'.

Hi.

I am new hereabouts, and have skimmed this thread. There are some very interesting expressions.

My understanding and response to the question of proving a "creator" exists comes from walking a certain path - and arriving at similar conclusions as Sivason and MoonageDaydream have expressed in this thread.


Is the universe the ongoing product of an intelligent mind?

Is there a way in which one can test the hypothesis and in doing so, elevate it to an accepted theory?

If there is a mind behind creation, wouldn't it be possibly to interact with said mind? Wouldn't it be possible for said mind to interact with the individual?

And if interaction did occur, wouldn't that represent data which can be compiled and from that process, a clearer overall picture formed, backed up by said data?

Yeah, this has been an interesting discussion to follow. :P

Honestly I haven't participated in it up until now because the scope here is generally a bit beyond me. You just brought up some interesting points yourself, which I think others maybe touched on too? However, I'd like to put out some of my thoughts of caution (so to speak) regarding the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VVilliam

And if interaction did occur, wouldn't that represent data which can be compiled and from that process, a clearer overall picture formed, basked up by said data?

---

Data may represent facts, but data is still human abstraction of what we can consider "truth", a term which I use very loosely here. Maybe for that reason, we sometimes find that data can be erroneous and misrepresent what that data is actually about, possibly revealed as such when a subject is investigated once again by different people or with different assumptions; a hypothesis can fall apart if they made the wrong assumptions at first, even if there was much data collected. As such, data means nothing on its own without someone or something to interpret that data, a process that is in itself backed by what assumptions are being made.

And if the data is collected solely on the basis of invisible interactions by a single person (even if this happens as repeated and separate samples), then this data is subjective and becomes difficult or impossible to corroborate. This is why invisible illnesses are particularly tricky to deal with from a medical standpoint, as the "data" given by the patient(s) is mostly subjective and often cannot be proven (so far as our means allow). Some symptoms may be a fact of life for a sufferer of an invisible illness, but that doesn't and can't automatically make it true for a medical professional who examines the patient. In this example, it could be at that point in which assumptions might come in too, to allow for investigation of the problem.

I would say that your reasoning about being able to use data for backing up a claim is logical, but if the data cannot be confirmed to be reliable, or if the way it's been interpreted leaves room for error or guesswork, then it probably won't do much good when trying to make an unfalsifiable claim, which has to rely on objective data.

Hopefully I haven't misconstrued something you meant, feel free to let me know otherwise. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Yeah, this has been an interesting discussion to follow. :P

Honestly I haven't participated in it up until now because the scope here is generally a bit beyond me. You just brought up some interesting points yourself, which I think others maybe touched on too? However, I'd like to put out some of my thoughts of caution (so to speak) regarding the following:



Data may represent facts, but data is still human abstraction of what we can consider "truth", a term which I use very loosely here. Maybe for that reason, we sometimes find that data can be erroneous and misrepresent what that data is actually about, possibly revealed as such when a subject is investigated once again by different people or with different assumptions; a hypothesis can fall apart if they made the wrong assumptions at first, even if there was much data collected. As such, data means nothing on its own without someone or something to interpret that data, a process that is in itself backed by what assumptions are being made.

And if the data is collected solely on the basis of invisible interactions by a single person (even if this happens as repeated and separate samples), then this data is subjective and becomes difficult or impossible to corroborate. This is why invisible illnesses are particularly tricky to deal with from a medical standpoint, as the "data" given by the patient(s) is mostly subjective and often cannot be proven (so far as our means allow). Some symptoms may be a fact of life for a sufferer of an invisible illness, but that doesn't and can't automatically make it true for a medical professional who examines the patient. In this example, it could be at that point in which assumptions might come in too, to allow for investigation of the problem.

I would say that your reasoning about being able to use data for backing up a claim is logical, but if the data cannot be confirmed to be reliable, or if the way it's been interpreted leaves room for error or guesswork, then it probably won't do much good when trying to make an unfalsifiable claim, which has to rely on objective data.

Hopefully I haven't misconstrued something you meant, feel free to let me know otherwise. :)

---

I agree with you that the interpretation of data can be problematic. because of the personal subjective spin one might place upon it.

The system I am developing, which generates messages, allows for that as a natural aspect of being in the human situation.

I also use the system in relation to data which is incontrovertible evidence.

Both systems focus on human language and are related to the idea that true random does not exist.

In that, the implication is that this universe is not the product of a mindless chaotic process, [materialism] but rather one of mindfulness, which itself implies a creation and therefore a creator/creators [theism].

In relation to the Big Bang Theory then, whatever the object was which exploded, can be seen as the Seed of Origin, and as with all seeds, held within it all the information which - upon germinating - unfolded [and continues to unfold] as the object that we are experiencing, and we too are part of in the now.

The data of that event has barely been surfaced-scratched by human beings and our interpretations re the data suffer from personal bias, depending upon the nature of the positions we each hold, and this has lead to bitter battles between the 'tribes' of non-theism and theism, neither side able to make the deciding blow which would take out the other.