possibletarian
Active Member
- Dec 27, 2016
- 262
- 105
- 63
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, I am a classical theist, so I would say that there are some constraints on what God can and cannot be, though they mostly revolve around the fact that God cannot be a creature in the same way that we are, or his existence would also need to be grounded in something external, and he would therefore not be God.
I do not think we are actually suggesting that nothing existed before, though. For me, the question is manifold: are scientific laws observations about the way the universe works or explanations thereof? In either case, their explanatory power is a bit lacking, as they beg the question of why reality is predictable at all. I am also a convinced anti-materialist, so must ask what the nature of reality is that consciousness could ever arise in it at all? Toss in my postmodernism and the idea that reality is subjective rather than objective, and you're left with the question of ultimately subjective to what?
I do not expect that part to make sense to anyone else, though. I had to fight my way out of agnosticism and took a couple of strange detours. But I see too many reasons to think that the cause of the universe is mental, if in some ineffable way, to throw up my hands and say I have no idea whatsoever. I get accused of being theologically slippery, since I do not like making stronger claims than "ineffable something," but it is what it is.
As someone who's been around a longer time than yourself Silmarien, I can confirm you will continue fighting your way around the meaning of the universe (images of old Monty Python and Red Dwarf episodes suddenly appeared in my head). Isn't it odd that minds work so differently, I see absolutely no reason to invoke a god to explain the universe, especially the ridiculous ones in holy books around the world, the reason being I simply do not know what existed before this universe came into being. so can make no judgement on what if anything before the natural world there would need to be.
I do however understand why people create gods of all different variety, they have a wondrous universe that needs explaining what better way than to create a super powerful being that made it for us. Of course we would have to create that god as eternal.. otherwise who created god.. and so and so forth.
Which traits in specific? There are orthodox approaches to Christianity that avoid most of them. The only additional trait I'm willing to attribute is Goodness, since I do not think it psychologically healthy to deny that human concepts of good and evil are intrinsically valueless, and if something like the Christian God exists, denying yourself as made in the image of God does seem like it could have some ugly consequences above and beyond that. That is basically a Pascalian Wager, but I think a very powerful version.
Anger, jealousy, love, hate, vengeance, patience, faithfulness, a whole range. Then you get all the god-only extras omnipotence, immutability, omnipresence all of which are unverifiable of course. I would say gods are made in the image of man with all the powers man could think of as extras.
I don't know, but all things considered, certain possibilities look more likely than others. I think that naturalism as presently understood cannot properly account for reason and thus shoots itself in the foot, and it also has an amusing tendency to refuse to even address any of the interesting questions about existence, so I see no reason to play by its rules and stay on the fence in the absence of incontrovertible proof. Taking that approach is picking a side while pretending you haven't.
I think certain possibilities look more likely, form different viewpoints. I don't have to account for reason other than to acknowledge it is there, to attribute a reason-giver though is just a step too far for me.
For me though i have fought to get out of the habit of attributing what we don't know to a higher being, especially as many thing we now consider natural events were once considered whole domains of various gods. It still amazes me though how people still attribute natural events or disasters to a god, I look at the blood moon posts and on news of a flood 'the end is nigh' proclamations and have my head in my hands.
Scientistic evidence? If the science does not seem to fit the current popular metaphysical framework without some serious twisting, I take that as evidence that the framework is false. I have many more problems with materialism than naturalism, but I am admittedly not fully convinced that matter exists at all! I am an energyist, I suppose.
Wow, I would love to hear more about that. and .. does that mean my delicious creams scone and strawberries are not real !! And seriously I would love to know what an Energyist really is
But if science does not make sense except in something of a teleological scheme (in the Aristotelian sense that effects are built into the nature of reality--evolution may or may not be guided, but it certainly is not random), I would count that as evidence for teleology and question whether that is more compatible with atheistic or theistic intuitions. I do not think that is technically scientific evidence, though, since it's in the realm of philosophy of science.
No it's not random on that I would agree at least in the sense that one thing cannot suddenly become another but that it is built upon previous builds.. as it were. I also think it's fair to say evolution itself is a young science and there is much more to learn.
I do not know of anyone who denies that consciousness is influenced by phyical processes, though I will point out that meditative techniques and their influence on the brain indicate that the relationship is not one-sided.
I find that interesting, yes indoctrination shows that a mind can be altered there is no denying that. You only have to look for at the genocide around the world to see how easily you can get people to believe almost anything.
The brain just like a computer can be trained to believe almost anything, and meditation is just like that, relax believe you are at peace, there are many variations and people make lots of money doing just that, Life coaches, Meditative practices, Spiritual leaders, Political propaganda the list goes on. There is no doubt at all that the brain can be manipulated, and you can even do it yourself as you suggest through meditation.
The sounds coming out of radio are dependent upon the wiring and settings of the radio, but we know how radios work and understand that the radio is not singlehandedly producing music. We do not understand how consciousness works, and as we can only really study the material aspect of it (i.e., the brain), we have dogmatically decided that this is all that is really going on.
I understand what you are saying, I've heard various versions of that arguement, certainly it feels as if we are a person. The difference is though until we can show that consciousness comes from elsewhere or give a good enough reason to speculate it does then why add complications. It's very interesting to think out of the box (pun intended) on this one as it were and I admit to doing it myself even wondering about why i wonder !!
I frankly find this a much more problematic position than some of the alternatives, since it involves either handwaving away the question of how physical processes alone could ever give rise to mental processes or denying that the mind exists at all, and the motives for doing so are clearly based on preexisting commitments to materialism. Nothing that's going on here is scientific.
I don't think simply throwing a creator into the process of discovery is helpful, no one is hand waving, so far we have not discovered or had any real reason to believe that consciousness does not reside in a brain. There is even some research that shows a chemical process takes place before we have a thought even. I found these articles interesting, though there are many others.
There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-free-illusion-biologist.html
You have a delightful approach to the world around you Silmarien, never settle for belief, there are always too many questions around the corner.
Last edited:
Upvote
0