A Self-creating Universe with Purpose
Joseph Humming
Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
creating entity with purpose. Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
such entities - might be following a predesigned course.
To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
exceeds mere accident or chance.
What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
I'm sure others will find a better term.
Joseph Humming
Andre Lieven
> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> creating entity with purpose.
Unsupported ASSertion Alert.
Thus, what follows is garbage, due to the GIGO Principle.
Next !
"Go peddle crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here."
As Good As It Gets.
Andre
David Hare-Scott
> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> creating entity with purpose.
Is this an article of faith? If not how would you test your hypothesis?
Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
> There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
> such entities - might be following a predesigned course.
>
The problem is in finding any evidence for it.
> To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
How did you estimate this probability?
> What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
> are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
Why must it serve a purpose?
> And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
Such an non-observable agent would be a god by any other name.
David
SpaceMadness
> The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> exceeds mere accident or chance.
Watchmaker argument, how novel, complete with a mischaracterization of
how the complex processes governing -everything- actually work by
calling it " mere chance".
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming wrote:
> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > creating entity with purpose.
>
> Is this an article of faith? �If not how would you test your hypothesis?
falls as a plausible reading. Most "articles of faith", I would
suggest, have been received from local or family tradition. This is a
proposal based on some knowledge and not on any tradition. I don't
think people should feel afraid to assess its plausibility.
>
> Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
>
> > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> > path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> > child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> > a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
> > such entities - �might be following a predesigned course.
>
> The problem is in finding any evidence for it.
>
> > To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> > godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> > of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> > The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> How did you estimate this probability?
>
> > What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
> > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> > we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> Why must it serve a purpose?
stratagem that eventually leads to recognition of that stratagem then
I think it is fair to ask whether there is an inherent purpose, or
design, to that process. The process is so far from randomness as to
beg such a question.
>
> > And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> > manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> > doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
> Such an non-observable agent would be a god by any other name.
No. No god. An intelligence, perhaps; a force, even if only expressed
only as a sum of quantum imperatives; a prevailing truth; an inherent
condition that desribes the nature of existence.
Thanks for considered reply.
>
> David
Joseph Humming
If the misrepresentation of my proposal you display in this paragraph
is any guide then I should most certainly never depend on any watch
you might make :-)
SpaceMadness
How is it a misrepresentation? You propose there is an intelligence
working behind the scenes because otherwise "it just wouldn't have
happened". If that's not a try at the watch maker argument it's merely
personal incredulity and nothing but that. Cosmic ID "theory"? Great,
go at it, what is your evidence, how can it be shown to be wrong, how
did you calculate these chances?
You dont propose a god, but you propose a universe that is capable of
producing a godlike intelligence. by means of intelligently directed
laws of nature directed by an intelligence it itself must have created
itself?
Kent
Is this assuming a final cause in the Aristotelian sense? The other
option is that final causes do not exist.
Inez
The more I think about it, the more the idea of a meaningful ultimate
purpose seems absurd. Purposes only seem meaningful if you're doing
something for the greater good, for an ideal that is larger than
yourself. The whole universe doing something just seems silly. So
the universe expresses itself. To whom? And so what? And what
happens after?
David Hare-Scott
So what is your motive here? Is this an attempt to describe reality or to
manufacture some sort of "explanation" that makes you feel better?
David
Kent Paul Dolan
> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the
> Universe is a self- creating entity with purpose.
But of course, requiring, without evidence or logic,
that the universe should have purpose, which it
doesn't [Why should it?], is the first step along
the trail to the form of madness called "theism".
xanthian.
Eric Root
I think you mean "first cause." A final cause would be at the end of
everything, except, of course, for the final effect.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> Joseph Humming wrote:
> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > creating entity with purpose.
>
> Unsupported ASSertion Alert.
Sorry, people don't have to support assertions (note lack of excess
capitalization) of their own beliefs. Do you think he is not being
truthful about what he thinks?
(snip)
Note, I am not disagreeing that I think his ideas are bull.
Eric Root
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Small thinking Inez.
You are part of the greater good; and part of the universe.
John McKendry
I commend to your attention a book called "What We Believe but
Cannot Prove", and in particular the essay therein by Donald D.
Hoffman. The book is a collection of essays by various big-name
scientists, philosophers, and other pundits on just what the
title says. Hoffman is a professor of cognitive science,
philosophy, and information and computer science at UC Irvine.
His essay begins "I believe that consciousness and its contents
are all that exists. Spacetime, matter, and fields never were
the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been
among the humble contents of consciousness, dependent on it for
their very being."
Hoffman does not speculate on intelligent purpose, but I think
you might find his thoughts on the mind-body problem congenial.
John
raven1
>Small thinking Inez.
>
>You are part of the greater good; and part of the universe.
You didn't answer any of the questions.
Kalkidas
"Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> creating entity with purpose.
How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
existed, then there was no need to create it.
Inez
So what? How is any of that a meaningful purpose?
Caranx latus
You identified your own question as meaningless. Well done, Kalk.
TomS
Kalkidas stated..."
You are using typical Eurocentric concepts.
As if the Universe would create only those things it "needs".
As if the Non-Existent cannot create.
As if time is linear.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Caranx latus
> On Dec 27, 5:33 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> The more I think about it, the more the idea of a meaningful ultimate
>>> purpose seems absurd. Purposes only seem meaningful if you're doing
>>> something for the greater good, for an ideal that is larger than
>>> yourself. The whole universe doing something just seems silly. So
>>> the universe expresses itself. To whom? And so what? And what
>>> happens after?
>> Small thinking Inez.
>>
>> You are part of the greater good; and part of the universe.
>
> So what? How is any of that a meaningful purpose?
I've not seen any evidence to date that [M]adape understands what the
words "purpose" or "goal" mean.
All-seeing-I
Good. because I've not seen any evidence to date that you have an
ounce of common sense.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are saying 'nothing has a meaningful purpose unless it is for the
greater good.
What ever you do is meaningful because you are part of that greater
good.
All-seeing-I
These morons think all of the matter simply *proofed* itself into
existence.
raven1
I didn't see anything of the kind written above. Please elaborate on
where Inez said or implied such a thing.
>What ever you do is meaningful because you are part of that greater
>good.
Please define your terms. What do you mean by "meaningful" and
"greater good"?
Caranx latus
Excellent! I know what your definition of "common sense" entails, and no
rational person wants any of *that*.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you had common sense you would not say that.
[big toothy smile]
Vend
Disagree. Purpose may be also aimed at personal gain.
Of course, the idea of the universe creating itself for its own
personal gain doesn't make any sense.
Caranx latus
>
> [big toothy smile]
I know a dentist that could help you with that.
Ye Old One
Good point.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
Nope.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Kalkidas
news:9527b9c3-da51-42e4...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
It's amazing -- A cause that precedes itself! Another version of the
perpetual motion machine...
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
No, but not everything needs a cause. The universe doesn't need one to
start it, just a random quantum fluctuation.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Dan Listermann
An insult.
.
Dan Listermann
These morons think a deity *proofed* itself into
existence.
.
Inez
Misreadings of what I said aside (and I can see that I did not write
clearly) we're talking about the universe here, not me. I'm not
saying that people can't have a meaningful purpose. I'm saying that
if you see the universe as an entity and look for its purpose, you're
going to come up with something absurd or trite. I repeat- so the
universe expresses itself? To whom, and so what?
Inez
> On Dec 27, 4:01ïŋ―am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 12:41ïŋ―pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > creating entity with purpose. Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
> > > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> > > path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> > > child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> > > a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
>
> > > To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> > > godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> > > of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> > > The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> > > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> > > What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
> > > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> > > we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> > > And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> > > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> > > manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> > > doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
> > > I'm sure others will find a better term.
>
> > > Joseph Humming
>
> > The more I think about it, the more the idea of a meaningful ultimate
> > something for the greater good, for an ideal that is larger than
> > yourself.
>
> Disagree. Purpose may be also aimed at personal gain.
> Of course, the idea of the universe creating itself for its own
True, for a different sort of "meaningful" than I meant.
Andre Lieven
> On Dec 26, 3:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > Joseph Humming wrote:
> > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > creating entity with purpose.
>
> > Unsupported ASSertion Alert.
>
> Sorry, people don't have to support assertions (note lack of excess
> capitalization) of their own beliefs.
Not as long as they don't put their beliefs out *in public*, no.
But, that's not what he did. Make an assertion in *public*, and anyone
*should* expect that someone will ask "What's your supporting
evidence?".
>�Do you think he is not being truthful about what he thinks?
Absent any factual basis for his belief, and I cannot say that he
is lying, but I can say that he can't/won't support his claim.
> (snip)
>
> Note, I am not disagreeing that I think his ideas are bull.
And, one good public bull detector is the lack of supporting
evidence, with the definition of evidence being pretty much the
same as courts and labs use...
(I did say "pretty much...") <g>
Andre
All-seeing-I
If the universe did not "express itself" why would people want to
study it as they have done for thousands of years?
-the universe expresses it has cycles. Earth rotates around the sun,
etc..etc..
-everything on earth has cycles. life and death, etc..etc..
the cycles would be one expression.
Ye Old One
Knowledge. Strange as it may seem to you there are many people who do
things just for the knowledge.
>
>-the universe expresses it has cycles.
Does it?
> Earth rotates around the sun,
Yes, we finally managed to get that through the thick skulls of a lot
of bible bashers.
>etc..etc..
>
>-everything on earth has cycles. life and death, etc..etc..
>
>the cycles would be one expression.
You really are nuts.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Kalkidas
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:5f0gj5hhbh8gaqe57...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:17:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> enriched
> this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:9527b9c3-da51-42e4...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 27, 9:59 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>>>>
>>>> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
>>>> > creating entity with purpose.
>>>>
>>>> How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
>>>> existed, then there was no need to create it.
>>>
>>> These morons think all of the matter simply *proofed* itself into
>>> existence.
>>
>>It's amazing -- A cause that precedes itself! Another version of the
>>perpetual motion machine...
>>
> No, but not everything needs a cause. The universe doesn't need one to
> start it, just a random quantum fluctuation.
No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101. The
universe is an effect, not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody knows
what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who God
is.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:hhae2q$1nbo$1...@news.ett.com.ua...
>
>
> No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101.
> The
> universe is an effect, not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
> intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody
> knows
> what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who
> God
> is.
Anthropormorphizing the unknown and worshiping it is silly.
.
raven1
>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101. The
>universe is an effect,
Is it? How do you know that?
> not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody knows
>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who God
>is.
Oh. My.
May I suggest that you might want to take Logic 101 to supplement your
Philosophy course? Argumentum ad Numerum / ad Populum is such a basic
fallacy that it's embarrassing to see you pull it out here.
John Stockwell
can
create a "purpose detector" is the same league as looking at the
positions
of the planets and saying that " this configuration means that ...." .
Attempting
to assign meaning to natural processes and observations is the same
thing
as augury. You may as well interpret the "meaning" of a flock of birds
that fly
overt.
(He's Humming, because he still doesn't know the words.)
-John
On Dec 26, 1:41�pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
Kalkidas
news:msfhj55jei4t5vr27...@4ax.com...
I think you ought to take the course yourself. An argument from popular
opinion may be fallacious, but an argument from common knowledge is not. The
knowledge of God possessed by billions of people is not popular opinion, it
is common knowledge.
Sorry, you can't cheat an honest man.
And, if you really want to be on the side of the perpetual motion
"inventors", I will be happy to recommend some mental health facilities in
your area.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:5f0gj5hhbh8gaqe57...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:17:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> enriched
>> this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9527b9c3-da51-42e4...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Dec 27, 9:59 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
>>>>> > creating entity with purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
>>>>> existed, then there was no need to create it.
>>>>
>>>> These morons think all of the matter simply *proofed* itself into
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>>It's amazing -- A cause that precedes itself! Another version of the
>>>perpetual motion machine...
>>>
>> No, but not everything needs a cause. The universe doesn't need one to
>> start it, just a random quantum fluctuation.
>
>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause,
Nope. There are many things at the quantum level that do not.
radioactive decay being a good example.
> not every THING. That's philosophy 101. The
>universe is an effect, not of a "random quantum fluctuation"
The universe is a result of said RQF.
> but of an
>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being.
Oh?
> The proof is that nobody knows
>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who God
>is.
I blame the education system myself.
>
Try looking up "quantum fluctuation", it is not too difficult to
understand. Once you get it then just apply the idea to the start of
the universe - note, not to the Big Bang, that came much later :)
Greg G.
> "raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>
> news:msfhj55jei4t5vr27...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:07:17 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101.
> >>The
> >>universe is an effect,
>
> > Is it? How do you know that?
>
> >> not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
> >>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody
> >>knows
> >>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who
> >>God
> >>is.
>
> > Oh. My.
>
> > May I suggest that you might want to take Logic 101 to supplement your
> > Philosophy course? Argumentum ad Numerum / ad Populum is such a basic
> > fallacy that it's embarrassing to see you pull it out here.
>
> I think you ought to take the course yourself. An argument from popular
> opinion may be fallacious, but an argument from common knowledge is not. The
> knowledge of God possessed by billions of people is not popular opinion, it
> is common knowledge.
It used to be common knowledge that the earth was flat. It used to be
common knowledge that diseases had supernatural causes. There is a
difference between evidence-based common knowledge and faith-based
common knowledge. The former has been demonstrated and can be
confirmed. The latter is worthless for logical arguments as the
conclusions are as untrustworthy as the premises.
Kalkidas
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49c9e896-9eca-4d08...@n16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It still is. And in fact the earth is flat. To the brain damaged atheist it
appears otherwise, but that is due to degraded sense organs.
>It used to be
> common knowledge that diseases had supernatural causes.
It still is. And in fact diseases do have supernatural causes. Atheism is
such a disease. One symptom of atheism is the inability to perceive the
supernatural causes of disease.
> There is a
> difference between evidence-based common knowledge and faith-based
> common knowledge. The former has been demonstrated and can be
> confirmed. The latter is worthless for logical arguments as the
> conclusions are as untrustworthy as the premises.
There is a difference between claims made by brain damaged atheists and
claims made by healthy servants of God. The brain damaged atheist
hallucinates something called "faith" whereas the healthy servant of God
actually sees God by direct perception. Thus the brain damaged atheist
pursues faith-based delusions, whereas the healthy servant of God pursues
evidence-based reality.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> > It used to be common knowledge that the earth was flat.
>
> It still is. And in fact the earth is flat. To the brain damaged atheist it
> appears otherwise, but that is due to degraded sense organs.
Ok. That's it. You're a Loki. You have been pretty clever about it,
but there you crossed the line. No one can be that ignorant and still
be allowed out on the streets.
> >It used to be
> > common knowledge that diseases had supernatural causes.
>
> It still is. And in fact diseases do have supernatural causes. Atheism is
> such a disease. One symptom of atheism is the inability to perceive the
> supernatural causes of disease.
Oh... Nice...
<snip>
> There is a difference between claims made by brain damaged atheists and
> claims made by healthy servants of God.
And you're not one of them,
> The brain damaged atheist
> hallucinates something called "faith" whereas the healthy servant of God
> actually sees God by direct perception. Thus the brain damaged atheist
> pursues faith-based delusions, whereas the healthy servant of God pursues
> evidence-based reality.
Loki....
Inez
> On Dec 27, 8:39锟絧m, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > saying that people can't have a meaningful purpose. 锟絀'm saying that
> > if you see the universe as an entity and look for its purpose, you're
> > universe expresses itself? 锟絋o whom, and so what?
>
> If the universe did not "express itself" why would people want to
> study it as they have done for thousands of years?
Your reading comprehension seems poor this week, even for you. You
might try cutting down on the egg nog or something.
To answer your non-sequitor questions though, they would study it to
find out how it works, since it is where they live and such knowledge
could be useful or entertaining.
> -the universe expresses it has cycles. Earth rotates around the sun,
> etc..etc..
Really? Wow!
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:msfhj55jei4t5vr27...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:07:17 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101.
>>>The
>>>universe is an effect,
>>
>> Is it? How do you know that?
>>
>>> not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
>>>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody
>>>knows
>>>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who
>>>God
>>>is.
>>
>> Oh. My.
>>
>> May I suggest that you might want to take Logic 101 to supplement your
>> Philosophy course? Argumentum ad Numerum / ad Populum is such a basic
>> fallacy that it's embarrassing to see you pull it out here.
>
>I think you ought to take the course yourself. An argument from popular
>opinion may be fallacious, but an argument from common knowledge is not.
Yes it is, because common knowledge is rarely that common and if it is
it is usually not knowledge.
> The
>knowledge of God possessed by billions of people is not popular opinion, it
>is common knowledge.
Common delusion.
>
>Sorry, you can't cheat an honest man.
Are there any honest creationists? I've yet to meet one.
>
>And, if you really want to be on the side of the perpetual motion
>"inventors", I will be happy to recommend some mental health facilities in
>your area.
From personal experience.
--
Bob.
Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard all this bull before.
Joseph Humming
> On 27 dec, 01:30, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:30 pm, SpaceMadness <spacemadne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 dec, 21:41, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > > > The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> > > > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > > > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> > > how the complex processes governing -everything- actually work by
> > > calling it " mere chance".
>
> > If the misrepresentation of my proposal you display in this paragraph
> > is any guide then I should most certainly never depend on any watch
> > you might make :-)
>
> How is it a misrepresentation? You propose there is an intelligence
> working behind the scenes because otherwise "it just wouldn't have
> happened".
For starters...greetings again. Next up: go easy on the "quotes" when
they're not quotes.
If that's not a try at the watch maker argument it's merely
> personal incredulity and nothing but that. Cosmic ID "theory"? Great,
> go at it, what is your evidence, how can it be shown to be wrong, how
> did you calculate these chances?
>
> You dont propose a god, but you propose a universe that is capable of
> producing a godlike intelligence. by means of intelligently directed
> laws of nature directed by an intelligence it itself must have created
> itself?
Excuse me...but why do you KEEP talking about God? I have dispensed
with the concept. Indeed, as a concept it's not far removed from
Santa. I am saying - perhaps more correctly suggesting, because I
will never be able to prove it - that whatever force or fact produced
our universe has shown itself capable of marshalling events in a
manner conducive to the development of awareness of itself. I have
used the word "intelligence" in the absence of a more apposite term.
Joseph Humming
> On Dec 26, 12:41�pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > creating entity with purpose. Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
> > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> > path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> > child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> > a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
> > such entities - �might be following a predesigned course.
>
> > To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> > godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> > of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> > we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> > And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> > manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> > doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
> > I'm sure others will find a better term.
>
> > Joseph Humming
>
> The more I think about it, the more the idea of a meaningful ultimate
> purpose seems absurd. �Purposes only seem meaningful if you're doing
> something for the greater good, for an ideal that is larger than
Hmmm. The flower has a purpose. Everything it does is geared to ensure
its replication. Kind of a limited purpose, I suppose...but that's
what it's at. And hardly designed for the greater good.
The whole universe doing something just seems silly. �So
> the universe expresses itself. �To whom? �And so what? �And what
> happens after?
Why does this seem silly? Yes, it may be wrong. I may be SOOO wrong.
But - again - why does the notion that our universe might be some vast
effort at expression seem silly?
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 9:14 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Joseph Humming wrote:
> >>> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> >>> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a
> >>> self- creating entity with purpose.
>
> >> hypothesis?
> > I think you know I can't verify it. Initially, at least, it stands or
> > falls as a plausible reading. Most "articles of faith", I would
> > suggest, have been received from local or family tradition. This is a
> > proposal based on some knowledge and not on any tradition. I don't
> > think people should feel afraid to assess its plausibility.
>
> >> Sorry to be so long-winded, as usual.
>
> >>> There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> >>> path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> >>> child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in
> >>> positing a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and
> >>> location of all such entities - might be following a predesigned
> >>> course.
>
>
> >>> To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> >>> godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> >>> of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> >>> The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> >>> galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> >>> exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
>
> >>> What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind.
> >>> We are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that
> >>> human beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I
> >>> believe that we represent a significant component of any expression
> >>> it may seek.
>
> > If over 14, or so, billion years a process is seen to cohere to a
> > stratagem that eventually leads to recognition of that stratagem then
> > I think it is fair to ask whether there is an inherent purpose, or
> > design, to that process. The process is so far from randomness as to
> > beg such a question.
>
> >>> And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe
> >>> there is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in
> >>> existence. Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> >>> manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> >>> doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
>
> > No. No god. An intelligence, perhaps; a force, even if only expressed
> > only as a sum of quantum imperatives; a prevailing truth; an inherent
> > condition that desribes the nature of existence.
>
> > Thanks for considered reply.
>
> >> David
>
> So what is your motive here? �Is this an attempt to describe reality or to
> manufacture some sort of "explanation" that makes you feel better?
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The former, certainly. And probably the latter too. If a person
puzzles enough about something, or is the kind of person who seeks an
explanation for the totality of things, then the possibility of having
arrived at such an explanation might be a little comforting. Until
doubt creeps in again!
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming wrote:
>
> �> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the
> �> Universe is a self- creating entity with purpose.
>
> that the universe should have purpose, which it
> doesn't [Why should it?], is the first step along
> the trail to the form of madness called "theism".
>
> xanthian.
xanthian? Promising start! I don't "require" that the universe has
purpose. The belief that it has emerged quite slowly as I tried to
make sense of the extraordinarary directedness of cosmic events since
the beginning of our universe.
Joseph Humming
> On Dec 26, 8:15�pm, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 12:41�pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> > > path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> > > child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> > > a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
> > > such entities - �might be following a predesigned course.
>
> > > godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> > > of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> > > The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> > > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> > > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> > > we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> > > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> > > manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> > > doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
>
> > > Joseph Humming
>
> > option is that final causes do not exist.
I don't know enough about Aristotle to answer that. I tend to try to
stay away from people who mislead all inquiry for 2000 years. Why
study error? I do, however, like Aristotle's concept of things having
a particular potential. I surmise that the force or fact that gave
rise to our universe has the potential of eventually producing ...what
I don't know. Some replication? Some form of expression? I don't
know...
>
> I think you mean "first cause." �A final cause would be at the end of
> everything, except, of course, for the final effect.
>
> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
> On Dec 26, 3:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > creating entity with purpose.
>
>
> Sorry, people don't have to support assertions (note lack of excess
> truthful about what he thinks?
>
>
> Note, I am not disagreeing that I think his ideas are bull.
>
Excellent good sir!
Joseph Humming
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:41:06 -0800, Joseph Humming wrote:
> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed path
> > without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a child in
> > the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing a theory
> > that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all such
> > entities - �might be following a predesigned course.
>
> > To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a godlike
> > figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence of forces
> > and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure. The successive
> > delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, more
> > complex atoms, life...intelligent life far exceeds mere accident or
> > chance.
>
> > What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
> > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that we
> > represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> > And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely manifestations
> > of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is doubtless an
> > inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
> > I'm sure others will find a better term.
>
> > Joseph Humming
>
> Cannot Prove", and in particular the essay therein by Donald D.
> Hoffman. The book is a collection of essays by various big-name
> scientists, philosophers, and other pundits on just what the
> title says. Hoffman is a professor of cognitive science,
> philosophy, and information and computer science at UC Irvine.
> His essay begins "I believe that consciousness and its contents
> are all that exists. Spacetime, matter, and fields never were
> the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been
> among the humble contents of consciousness, dependent on it for
> their very being."
>
> �Hoffman does not speculate on intelligent purpose, but I think
> you might find his thoughts on the mind-body problem congenial.
>
> John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John, thank you. Hoffman's words are nectar to me. I will seek
further.
Joe
Joseph Humming
> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>
> news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > creating entity with purpose.
>
> existed, then there was no need to create it.
OK, fair point. Takes the conversation on a bit. When I say the
universe is "self-creating" I am not talking about its inception. I am
talking about its development - in other words, about the process of
aggrandisation - since the inception. As regards the inception
itself...well, I don't know, do I? I tend to feel - intuitively - that
the forces, or force, inherent in the universe's inception and
development must be central to what constitutes the underlying reality
to all existence and must therefore be enduring, not to say eternal
(tricky word!). How, or why, this force was prompted towards the
inception of our universe I don't know.
Joseph Humming
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
> >news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> >> Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> >> Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> >> creating entity with purpose.
>
> > How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
> > existed, then there was no need to create it.
>
Oh, Kalkidas and Caranx, please be as harmonious as your names....:-)
Dan Listermann
This "directness" might be more hindsight than anything else.
.
Joseph Humming
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:17:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> enriched
> this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:9527b9c3-da51-42e4...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 27, 9:59 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> >>> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> >>> > creating entity with purpose.
>
> >>> How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
> >>> existed, then there was no need to create it.
>
> >> existence.
>
> >It's amazing -- A cause that precedes itself! Another version of the
> >perpetual motion machine...
>
> No, but not everything needs a cause. The universe doesn't need one to
> start it, just a random quantum fluctuation.
OK, just a random quantum fluctuation......Any individual fluctuation
may be "random" but the fact that randomness is built into the system
is not itself random. And the consequences of any such fluctuation are
hardly random. The universe has had 14 billion years to say "Enough of
this randomness". The logical sequence of processes in that time give
the lie to randomness.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
> continuing to make a fool of yourself.- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
> On Dec 27, 1:27嚙緘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:04 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 9:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 12:41 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > > > > There are many entities in the universe that follow a pre-designed
> > > > > > path without being aware of same. A flower, for example. Indeed, a
> > > > > > child in the womb. A galaxy, even. I can see no problem in in positing
> > > > > > a theory that the universe itself - the begetter and location of all
> > > > > > such entities - might be following a predesigned course.
>
> > > > > > To be clear from the outset: I do not presume the existence of a
> > > > > > godlike figure directing this operation. The universe shows evidence
> > > > > > of forces and forms well capable of producing a coherent procedure.
> > > > > > The successive delivery of particles, protons, atoms, molecules,
> > > > > > galaxies, stars, more complex atoms, life...intelligent life far
> > > > > > exceeds mere accident or chance.
>
> > > > > > What purpose might the universe have? Self-expression of some kind. We
> > > > > > are certainly agents of such expression. I do not suggest that human
> > > > > > beings are the ultimate purpose of the universe - but I believe that
> > > > > > we represent a significant component of any expression it may seek.
>
> > > > > > And what might be the agent of any such self-creation? I believe there
> > > > > > is an inherent - and powerful (literally) - intelligence in existence.
> > > > > > Energy itself and the various forces of matter are merely
> > > > > > manifestations of this intelligent power. "Intelligent power" is
> > > > > > doubtless an inadequate depiction of any such reality.
>
> > > > > > I'm sure others will find a better term.
>
> > > > > > Joseph Humming
>
> > > > > purpose seems absurd. Purposes only seem meaningful if you're doing
> > > > > something for the greater good, for an ideal that is larger than
> > > > > the universe expresses itself. To whom? And so what? And what
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > > You are part of the greater good; and part of the universe.-
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > greater good.
>
> > What ever you do is meaningful because you are part of that greater
> > good.-
>
> Misreadings of what I said aside (and I can see that I did not write
> saying that people can't have a meaningful purpose. 嚙瘢'm saying that
> if you see the universe as an entity and look for its purpose, you're
> going to come up with something absurd or trite.
Why should this have to be the case, Inez? You've pushed the
conversation into a deeper realm - which is good. If the universe has
a purpose...if the forces that precipitated the universe...if these
forces were not merely acting blindly, or randomly...if, indeed, they
were replete with the potential for the creation and elaboration of
matter, say...if they had such a profound and powereful
potential...that, once loosed, once admitted into the theatre of
expansion and experimentation that is the universe, they must then
unavoidably and inevitably proceed towards the creation of which they
are capable. This is a purpose. It is a material elaboration of an
inherent algorithm. There is no who or "whom" here. There is no "what
comes after". There is only the vast miracle of creation. I suggest we
are part of this vast miracle. Indeed, I suggest that we - and
creatures similar to us - are a crucial part of the process.
Though...what use we makes of our part in the process is still to be
decided.
Joseph Humming
嚙瘢 repeat- so the
> universe expresses itself? 嚙確o whom, and so what?- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
> On Dec 27, 8:05�am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 3:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > > creating entity with purpose.
>
>
> > Sorry, people don't have to support assertions (note lack of excess
> > capitalization) of their own beliefs.
>
>
> But, that's not what he did. Make an assertion in *public*, and anyone
> *should* expect that someone will ask "What's your supporting
> evidence?".
Well, Andre, "he" is now answering you. My only "supporting evidence"
is a particular reading of the events of the last 14 bill years. There
can be no other evidence - as of yet. The painstaking construction of
a scenario whereby awareness of the entire process is possible, a
construction made all the more amazing by an unfailing compliance with
the laws of physics, is my only evidence for the claim I make.
>
> >�Do you think he is not being truthful about what he thinks?
>
> Absent any factual basis for his belief, and I cannot say that he
> is lying, but I can say that he can't/won't support his claim.
Ah, go on! :)
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Note, I am not disagreeing that I think his ideas are bull.
>
> And, one good public bull detector is the lack of supporting
> evidence, with the definition of evidence being pretty much the
> same as courts and labs use...
>
> (I did say "pretty much...") <g>
>
> Andre
Ah, go on, Andy, you're nearly there! Come on, Ireland!
raven1
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:msfhj55jei4t5vr27...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:07:17 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101.
>>>The
>>>universe is an effect,
>>
>> Is it? How do you know that?
>>
>>> not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
>>>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody
>>>knows
>>>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who
>>>God
>>>is.
>>
>> Oh. My.
>>
>> May I suggest that you might want to take Logic 101 to supplement your
>> Philosophy course? Argumentum ad Numerum / ad Populum is such a basic
>> fallacy that it's embarrassing to see you pull it out here.
>
>I think you ought to take the course yourself. An argument from popular
>opinion may be fallacious, but an argument from common knowledge is not. The
>knowledge of God possessed by billions of people is not popular opinion, it
>is common knowledge.
>
>Sorry, you can't cheat an honest man.
You can't bullshit a bullshitter either. I call Loki.
Joseph Humming
Yes, that's a fair point. We might well look at events and assert that
these events constitute a particular purpose - when, in reality, these
events may be just one out of a multitude of possible outcomes. But
the events in question - the pattern or outcome visible in cosmic
history - do seem to suggest a particular directedness. The transition
from sub-atomic particles to creatures capable of discovering these
particles does not - to me - suggest that a jumbled series of events
has been conferred with a undue significance. I cannot conceive of a
more significant "arc" that that from miniscule materiality to
profound consciousness.
raven1
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 12:56�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:17:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> enriched
>> this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9527b9c3-da51-42e4...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Dec 27, 9:59 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >>> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:e2c0897c-b04e-43cc...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> > Pleasant festivities to all...
>>
>> >>> > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
>> >>> > creating entity with purpose.
>>
>> >>> How did it create itself if it didn't already exist? And if it already
>> >>> existed, then there was no need to create it.
>>
>> >> These morons think all of the matter simply *proofed* itself into
>> >> existence.
>>
>> >It's amazing -- A cause that precedes itself! Another version of the
>> >perpetual motion machine...
>>
>> No, but not everything needs a cause. The universe doesn't need one to
>> start it, just a random quantum fluctuation.
>
>OK, just a random quantum fluctuation......Any individual fluctuation
>may be "random" but the fact that randomness is built into the system
>is not itself random.
How do you figure?
>And the consequences of any such fluctuation are
>hardly random.
How do you figure?
>The universe has had 14 billion years to say "Enough of
>this randomness". The logical sequence of processes in that time give
>the lie to randomness.
Please look up "post hoc rationalization".
Andre Lieven
thinner.loon> shat:
> On Dec 28, 3:50 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 8:05 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 3:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Joseph Humming wrote:
> > > > > Pleasant festivities to all...
>
> > > > > Anyway, the conclusion I have come to is that the Universe is a self-
> > > > > creating entity with purpose.
>
> > > > Unsupported ASSertion Alert.
>
> > > Sorry, people don't have to support assertions (note lack of excess
> > > capitalization) of their own beliefs.
>
> > Not as long as they don't put their beliefs out *in public*, no.
>
> > But, that's not what he did. Make an assertion in *public*, and anyone
> > *should* expect that someone will ask "What's your supporting
> > evidence?".
>
> Well, Andre, "he" is now answering you. My only "supporting evidence"
> is a particular reading of the events of the last 14 bill years.
IOW, you admit that you have NONE.
Then, that is the exact amount of consideration that I will grant
your lunacy... NONE...
> There can be no other evidence - as of yet.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Thus, I dismiss this latest BS claim of yours, too. <Flush>
> The painstaking construction of
> a scenario whereby awareness of the entire process is possible, a
> construction made all the more amazing by an unfailing compliance with
> the laws of physics, is my only evidence for the claim I make.
Wordy and totally meaningless bullshit.
> > > Do you think he is not being truthful about what he thinks?
>
> > Absent any factual basis for his belief, and I cannot say that he
> > is lying, but I can say that he can't/won't support his claim.
>
> Ah, go on! :)
Well, you proved me to have been exactly right.
> > > (snip)
>
> > > Note, I am not disagreeing that I think his ideas are bull.
>
> > And, one good public bull detector is the lack of supporting
> > evidence, with the definition of evidence being pretty much the
> > same as courts and labs use...
>
> > (I did say "pretty much...") <g>
>
> > Andre
>
> Ah, go on, Andy, you're nearly there! Come on, Ireland!
My name is Andre. There aren't many *living* people who have
ever tried to call me that diminutive.
At this point: Sod off. You're a rude and stupid fool.
Andre
Dan Listermann
Here is my response to such speculation. I don't know. I may never know.
But I will be damned if I am going to buy into some silly myth to just have
an "answer." You have to be able to deal with the unknown and resist the
strong urge to anthropomorphize and worship it. That is stupid and all too
common.
.
Dan Listermann
You do know that, while a variable may well be totally random, in every
sense of the word, an average of samples of the random variable will ALWAYS
have a perfectly Gaussian distribution ( bell shaped).
.
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Post hoc or not, when 14 billion years of randomness is seen to have
sedulously crafted the conditions which would allow the existence of a
seeing creature then this very notion of "randomness" might be called
into question.
Ye Old One
The consequences need not be.
> The universe has had 14 billion years to say "Enough of
>this randomness". The logical sequence of processes in that time give
>the lie to randomness.
I think you misunderstand. The random quantum fluctuation is not
random in our universe, it happened once and gave birth to our
universe. Within our universe we have random quantum fluctuations, out
universe is just a much larger version.
--
Bob.
If corn oil comes from corn, and olive oil comes from olives - where
does baby oil come from?
David Hare-Scott
>> So what is your motive here? Is this an attempt to describe reality
>> or to manufacture some sort of "explanation" that makes you feel
>> better?
>>
>> David- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The former, certainly. And probably the latter too. If a person
> puzzles enough about something, or is the kind of person who seeks an
> explanation for the totality of things, then the possibility of having
> arrived at such an explanation might be a little comforting. Until
> doubt creeps in again!
Given that there is no way to test your hypothesis the former isn't going to
have a big future is it? All you are doing is creating another entity that
adds nothing to our understanding and which itself requires explanation. If
I am wrong please explain how you are going to make progress with this
explanation. Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just say we don't know
and possibly will never know and turn attention to things that are
accessible?
David
Glenn
snip
>
> If corn oil comes from corn, and olive oil comes from olives - where
> does baby oil come from?
"" - Anonymouse?
Joseph Humming
Well, sir, I stand reproved. But I shall press on regardless...
You are perfectly correct. I don't know. I will never know. I shall
die not knowing. But I never claimed to know. I came to a
"conclusion". I read a few books and formed a view. The view I came to
- lest I have failed to make myself clear to date - is that the force,
or fact, or inherent situation, or prevailing presence, which
precipitated our universe is engaged in a vast enterprise of
expression. Posting to Inez this evening I surmised that this
aforesaid force might have the inherent capacity to produce a material
entity with intelligence and might, once let loose by the advent of
the universe, be compelled to pursue that purpose until the
intelligent entity emerged.
Now, this is merely a view. People may peruse it and go "Hmmm..". Many
have. I have had some very good correspondence. Or people may flee,
protesting - horrified, perhaps, that someone may have stumbled on the
truth.
Where do you belong?
raven1
bpuharic
>
>
>It still is. And in fact diseases do have supernatural causes. Atheism is
>such a disease. One symptom of atheism is the inability to perceive the
>supernatural causes of disease.
the supernatural exists because it exists....
uh...no wonder creationism has made no progress in 2000 years
>
>> There is a
>> difference between evidence-based common knowledge and faith-based
>> common knowledge. The former has been demonstrated and can be
>> confirmed. The latter is worthless for logical arguments as the
>> conclusions are as untrustworthy as the premises.
>
>There is a difference between claims made by brain damaged atheists and
>claims made by healthy servants of God. The brain damaged atheist
>hallucinates something called "faith" whereas the healthy servant of God
>actually sees God by direct perception.
really? then why does the bible say no one has ever seen god?
you religious fanatics might want to get together and get your stories
straight...
>
bpuharic
>
>I think you ought to take the course yourself. An argument from popular
>opinion may be fallacious, but an argument from common knowledge is not. The
>knowledge of God possessed by billions of people is not popular opinion, it
>is common knowledge.
which god? if there was a common god, jerusalem would be a paradise.
with christians, jews and muslims in close proximity, it would be a
model for paradise
how's it going there?
bpuharic
>
>
>No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101. The
>universe is an effect, not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
>intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody knows
>what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who God
>is.
>
ironic that this guy is so ignorant of those of his religion who've
added so much to quantum mechanics.
he's never heard of the 'casimir' effect because he religion won't
allow it.
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because - I suggest - the coming into existence of a creature capable
of overseeing the entire cosmic process is not just "any" random
result. I take your point completely about the temptation to attribute
significance to any outcome. But this is not just any outcome. We've
talked about the chances of monkeys randomly producing Hamlet. It
couldn't happen. Equally, I suggest, the possibility of the forces
present in the universe randomly producing a creature capable of
knowing the universe is non-existent.
alextangent
It has a probability > 0, hence it could. Unlikely, but it could.
> Equally, I suggest, the possibility of the forces
> present in the universe randomly producing a creature capable of
> knowing the universe is non-existent.
There's that dang non-existent thing again, and the word random. You
really need to ditch the latter and get a grip on the former; and you
need to understand probability a posteriori and a priori, and
differentiate the two.
Stuart
I agree.
However, nobody claims that is what happened. Certainly a lot of
random
events happened during the course of our evolution. But that doesn't
mean
evolution proceeds purely by chance.
Consider that many people drive to work using the random motions of
combusted
gas molecules.
Second when you say "a creature", what makes you think we are the only
one?
Stuart
Dan Listermann
You can never answer this question accurately. You can only speculate, but
you deeply need to keep reminding yourself that it is only speculation,
because as soon as it becomes more concrete in your mind, you will start to
develop all sorts of destructive superstitions.
.
Stuart
Well maybe somebody has stumbled on "the Truth".
However, it is not you.
Stuart
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, point taken. Thank you.
Joseph Humming
I don't think I ever suggested it did. There are multiple occasions
when chance will be the prime determinant of what happens. But, in
general, I think the role of chance is over-rated.
>
> Consider that many people drive to work using the random motions of
> combusted
> gas molecules.
>
> Second when you say "a creature", what makes you think we are the only
> one?
I don't. I hope we are - but I don't know.
>
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
I answered the question as best I can at this moment. Yes, I am only
speculating. But some people call the game better than others. So
maybe my speculation has some value. As regards "destructive
superstitions"...I hope not.
Dan Listermann
can live with not knowing something if the alternative is superstition.
.
Joseph Humming
an increased sense of the nature of existence.
David Hare-Scott
I belong in the garden admiring my tomatoes and pumpkins, sipping a cold
beer under a shady tree. Where I am is typing on a computer saying to you
by all means invent or adopt a god (whatever you want to call it) if it
makes you feel better but stop wasting time trying to justify it with
reason. You will be dead before that pathway succeeds.
You post essentially the same stuff every few months. It looks to me that
you are very keen for a higher power to be there. So go for it. Pick the
one you like best. Accept him, her, it or them and get on with doing
whatever their philosophy and catechism requires. I'll bet that whether it
is Allah or The Great Turtle you get there by faith not ratiocination.
David
Dan Listermann
.
Joseph Humming
Sir, I envy you your weather. A freezing wind howls outside my window.
Snow builds up in high banks. Were I to sit outside I should be frozen
by morning.
>
> You post essentially the same stuff every few months. �It looks to me that
> you are very keen for a higher power to be there. �So go for it. �Pick the
> one you like best. �Accept him, her, it or them and get on with doing
> whatever their philosophy and catechism requires. �I'll bet that whether it
> is Allah or The Great Turtle you get there by faith not ratiocination.
No, actually...it is YOU who posts the same stuff every few days.
There is no god in my system - but you keep insisting there is. Nor is
there a Turtle. My conclusion -and yes, it is an article of faith,
literally - is based on a study and a particular reading of events
since the inception of the universe. The nature of these events -
their regulated complexity, their creation of possibility, their
circumnavigation of difficulties posed by the laws of physics, their
complete adherence to these laws - inclines me to believe that such
developments as we have seen owe nothing to any deity (or turtle!) and
everything to the inherent disposition - and composition - of the force
(s) that gave rise to the universe.
John McKendry
You say that like it's a bad thing. Can you explain, without getting
all circular (i.e. without taking it as given that it's bad to
believe things without evidence or reason), why it's a bad thing
to believe things without evidence or reason?
Here's why I ask: I am a committed agnostic. I am convinced that
it is not possible to determine whether there is a God or not, for
a certain value of "God". The type of God about which I am agnostic
is a First Cause God, which means a force or being different from
the material universe which causes the material universe to exist
and to have the properties we observe it to have. I claim that there
is no observation we can make about the universe that can tell us
whether such a God exists.
I am perfectly happy with my uncertainty, but it seems to me that
if I chose to, I could equally reasonably choose to believe either
that such a God does exist, or that such a God does not exist. The
choice would make no discernible difference to my understanding of
how the universe works. The only difference would be that in one
case, I would be choosing to believe that there is some sort of
reason, beyond my understanding, for why the universe is exactly
the way it is and not otherwise, and in the other case I would
be choosing to believe that the universe is just the sort of thing
that happens now and then. (I think the "just the sort of thing
that happens" description is due to Martin Rees, but I can't
track it down right now.)
My point is that if I were to adopt one of those beliefs, it
would be an arbitrary decision, not based on evidence or reason.
Would you count both those beliefs as superstition? Is it inherently
a bad thing to believe either one? Why or why not?
John
Dan Listermann
"John McKendry" <jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
news:7pvucr...@mid.individual.net...
I would count ignoring the existence of something that shows no evidence as
not superstition, whereas creating something without evidence as
superstition.
.
Joseph Humming
Now, that's something. I had heard of the Casimir Effect - but didn't
know what it was. Now I discover it's yet another aspect of the so-
called vacuum - if even such a thing can be said to exist. How much
more do we have to discover about matter? Is it possible that in time
we will see that matter is redolent with form and purpose? Is it
possible - just an idea - that matter possesses something akin to a
gene to propel it in a particular manner....? It has been said in
these pages that I'm proposing a god as agent of change. Is it
possible that the true agent for change is inherent in matter itself?
bpuharic
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 2:34�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:07:17 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Every EFFECT needs a cause, not every THING. That's philosophy 101. The
>> >universe is an effect, not of a "random quantum fluctuation" but of an
>> >intelligent, uncaused, eternal living being. The proof is that nobody knows
>> >what "random quantum fluctuation" means, but billions of people know who God
>> >is.
>>
>> ironic that this guy is so ignorant of those of his religion who've
>> added so much to quantum mechanics.
>>
>> he's never heard of the 'casimir' effect because he religion won't
>> allow it.
>
>Now, that's something. I had heard of the Casimir Effect - but didn't
>know what it was. Now I discover it's yet another aspect of the so-
>called vacuum - if even such a thing can be said to exist. How much
>more do we have to discover about matter? Is it possible that in time
>we will see that matter is redolent with form and purpose?
no. purpose in nature is an ancient idea. it never worked and proved
to be useless. that's why it was abandoned.
John McKendry
> "John McKendry" <jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote in message
> news:7pvucr...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:03:17 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
<snip>
I know that's what you believe, but I was looking for an explanation
of how you arrive at that belief. From where I stand, it looks like
you call the belief you don't like 'superstition", and the one you
do like "good old plain common sense", or something like that. But a
reasonable person would not expect to see any evidence for the God
that I described, so why would a reasonable person think that not
seeing evidence should sway my belief in one direction or the other?
If you are going to argue that the only things that really exist
are things for which there is evidence, I'm going to ask you for
the evidence for that belief, incidentally. Just to save us some
time here.
John
Dan Listermann
beliefs, you are exposing yourself to chaos. In other words, you will be
willing to believe anything including a lot of nonsense. I choose to be a
bit more selective in my beliefs. Some, not so much . . . .
.
David Hare-Scott
It quacks, waddles and lays eggs but when I call it a duck you get
indignant. You really don't want to believe in god do you.
David
Joseph Humming
Not the slightest bit indignant, David. You do seem rather insistent,
tho. Maybe if you tried to address the issues I raise we could haver a
more fruitful exchange. For example...would you attribute anything
other than coincidence to the fact that the universe has produced at
least one creature capable of being aware of the provenance of fthe
universe?