zedvictor4

The reality is that most people purporting to be Christians have probably never read the bible. Or have read it loosely with little consideration for what they are reading.

If I gave you a book containing 200 pages to read and then asked you to tell me what the first paragraph on page 28 was,  (unless you possessed a photographic memory) you probably wouldn't have the slightest idea.

I couldn't tell you what the first word on the first page was, on any book that I have ever read. 

Unless reading is a specific exercise in memorizing information, then data input becomes only a transitory entertainment experience.

Ta.

Do you talk things through in your head?

Blah de blah de blah....therefore god....Nope, just doesn't work....Might have fooled the gullible a few hundred years ago, but we're not all quite so daft these days.

An original thought is a modification of pre-existing data...Stored data and perhaps newly acquired but nonetheless pre-existing data in a new format.

The evolution of data, hence humanity and it's achievements.

Hearing voices is creating voices, voluntarily or perhaps involuntarily....When I compose data responses such as this one I talk it through in my head.

Do you not do the same?

Deism is simply one of the many utterances we utilise to represent things that we do not understand.

A god principle without all the scriptural nonsense....Therefore a valid hypothesis....Not to say that popular god theories are not valid, but that the scriptural nonsense is  unnecessary.

We are, because we are able to be, maybe that's a god's handy-work....But who's handy-work is a god.

Zed.

None.

Invitation.

In my opinion....None of the above..... A god principle, the motivation of the universe, exceeds the necessity of human definition.

Well.

An idol is a representation of something unknown....So as an assumed god is something unknown.... Ergo the worship of an assumed god is idol worship.

In the context of universal meaning, purpose is merely the alternative to chance and as such has no prerequisite requirements, you make up prerequisite requirements to suit the purposes of your hypothesis....Which in fairness is the nature of hypothesising.

Acceptance, especially without proof is certainly a bias, whereas open mindedness definitely isn't....  Because I am sceptical of the Christian hypothesis and all it's ritualistic machinations doesn't make me biased....Just sceptical.

So, atheist nor agnostic nor theist can make sense of the origins of things sufficiently, hence the ongoing discussion and unresolved issue.

Finally, how about addressing the subject of technological evolution/development, and how the possibilities that lie therein, fit with the Christian god theory.....For me,  material development fits well with a purpose and a god principle, but less so with the importance of humankind....So what do you think?

In other words this is what humanity has been doing for millennia, pre and post Christianity....Not me in particular.

A world view is a world view and we are not discussing a world view.... You are putting forward the idea of a supernatural being that exists in a separate time continuum, this is hardly a world view.

The initial question itself, was only referring to the universe, and my thoughts and suggestions only focus on the likelihood of the known universe being purposeful....That purpose could be anything and also does not necessarily have to imply a creator....The necessity of a specific creator is a supposition that you have acquired through conditioning....I was conditioned differently and so I am questioning and  sceptical, and in my opinion I therefore have a more realistic and open minded approach to the big question. 

Being open minded allows me to consider the possibly lessening importance of humankind (and perhaps even similar kind) in a material universe that is now evolving technologically.....And yes, for the time being we still have a hold of the steering wheel.....but for how long?.....Hence my advice to traditional theists such as yourself, is to perhaps rethink the whole human/god/human-god hypothesis and include the strong possibility of the organic becoming a lessening part  of the purpose equation, and therefore not necessarily the overriding  reason for the instigation, continuation and purpose of everything.

Why anchor yourself resolutely to a 2000year old human centred hypothesis?....Especially when you have no real evidence for it's validity.

Atheist and theist....What you mean is human beings...In general, exactly the same....Both possess the same instinctive programming, but acquire various  conceptual quirks as they develop.... The concept of morality is certainly not exclusive to one particular train of thought....though self righteous theists sometimes like to think that it is.

Nazi Germany and North Korea were/are just examples of alternative social programming and nothing to do with morality per se. Morality is a variable principle that we apply to things relative to our own particular viewpoint or collective view point.

The bible doesn't teach anything..... Some humans condition other humans to accept biblical writings as a factual hypothesis....You would perhaps accuse the North Korean regime of brainwashing/conditioning it's children, but what is the real difference between this and how you were conditioned/brainwashed to accept the biblical hypothesis as fact.

My advice is simply my advice and to me a self evident truth... take it or leave it.

Tolerance, evil, wickedness, wrong, right....All variable concepts relative to the individual or the group...The greater society does not currently share a hive mentality....Maybe one day technology will bring us together as a cohesive whole...Maybe....Though some of us as yet, have not even come to terms with the concept of variable skin tone.

Who has a justified true belief?.....Exactly my point.

@RationalMadman

See what I mean.

Illusion...What about delusion.

Assuming that supernatural concepts are real and not requiring of any thing other than imaginary, supernatural evidence...sort of self perpetuating delusion.

The hypothesis is fine, but substantiate it with real evidence, as your intransigent belief in a supernatural god  that you create in your own image, is currently no more worthy than a god fashioned in wood or stone.

I have never advised anyone to make their own god...I don't know where you got this non-sense from...The same place as all the other non-sense I suppose.

I reiterate....I err on the side of universal purpose and merely suggest that the evolutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose, so I therefore refer to this as a god principle.....Basically, a supposition... A perceptible process...Therefore, assuming a purpose and an outcome.

Not quite the same as advising that there is an uncreated imaginary god, in an uncreated imaginary time continuum. Nonsense exacerbated by the obvious contradiction that you are attempting to prove creation, with imaginary non-created evidence.

Well.

How does this relate to a god creating evil?

Nonetheless an interesting question. Which takes in the whole gamut of sociological issues.

But primarily perhaps questions the concept of society and social responsibility.

Maybe the idea of aiding others that are struggling to survive is actually contrary to our instinctive programming.

Therefore aiding Third World Nations naturally becomes a secondary and unimportant issue, and let's be honest, your average Joe probably never considers the issue at all, as they are  too preoccupied with the day to day necessities and requirements of their own survival.

We think that we are more civilised, and we might try to be more civilised, but at the end of the day when our own success or failure becomes an issue, do we not become the same instinct driven organisms that we ever were?

What do you think?

Q.   When is gunning someone down not terrorism? 

A.    When one assumes righteousness over others.

A virus is simply an evolved organism that perpetuates involuntarily, but in a specific way.

It is unlikely that a virus has any regard of either it's actions or it's temporary host.

I think that what I make of this is, problems only occur within the human brain.

There are basically two choices...Purpose or Chance.

You and I both err on the side of purpose.

All purpose  based ideas are fantastical to a certain degree.....Some so much so that they become pointlessly ritualistic, over elaborate and consequently contradictory.

Contradictory, in so much as the nonsense of ritual and worship totally demean the fundamental qualities of  ultimate knowledge and pure logic.

Nailing people to crosses etc, is complete and utter 2000 year old human naivety, in every sense.

My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context.

@RationalMadman.

Re:  EbuccubE.

Genius or not....Make your own mind up.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a while.

But after a while my doubt became overwhelming.

@RationalMadman.

It's unlikely that a true atheist would care about such things.

A true atheist would say that good and evil are simply variable human concepts.

Even some deists might come to the same conclusion.

Various deists might consider good and evil differently...This would largely depend upon where when and how they were formatively conditioned.

Some Christian deists might say that God created us and just left us to get on with things....This would seem pretty logical, as this is what we actually do.....So if I "think about it" and if I was less sceptical of fantastical creation hypotheses,  I would probably concur with this logical Christian approach.

Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.

You assume god is something/someone and perhaps I do too,  all valid hypotheses but nonetheless absolute supposition and currently factless. The trouble with conditioned deists/theists is that they fail to recognise or refuse to admit to this basic "logic" fact.....So an eternal being existing outside our time continuum  is nothing more than a highly speculative suggestion....In other words gobbledygook unless unequivocally proven to be true....Belief proves nothing, other than itself, so we therefore all speculate, just as the compilers of the biblical hypothesis/tales speculated, just as all  previous deists speculated....And they speculated so, because it  was obvious though naïve to imagine that the reason for everything that we didn't understand was a mysterious being of human like form... In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be.

The big bang is as illogical or as reasonable as a all assumed gods.  Both are just as reliant upon being created out of nothing, irrespective of the particular continuum in which ones preferred god might exist.

Therefore, based upon your logic the universe could just as easily have exploded into existence from nothing.

As far as we are able to know the intent or purpose of the universe is what it is.

Something from nothing....Explain this and we will be getting somewhere....Don't just keep repeating the mantra of God is so therefore.

Yep. A god principle.

Another valid hypothesis.

(Interestingly, popular deism and theism would all be a part of the simulation....Even a hint maybe.)

Nonetheless, like all creation hypotheses though, this ultimately relies upon accepting that the simulator, irrespective of nature, is something from nothing.

Therefore you might as well accept that the universe was always something from nothing and quit worrying about creation hypotheses altogether.

@RationalMadman

I would suggest that both Napolean's and  Hitler's downfall was brought about their disrespect of Northern Climates.

So name names....Who are the illuminati?

Do you mean the inbred European Royalty?

Well. If you think about it

The natural order is and isn't different every day and things tend to last for a while, but not for ever.

Might sound like gobbledygook. But an ordered universe tends to mean a universe that seemingly complies to a regular pattern or set of rules, rather than something that provides  a stable environment in which humanity exists. Life on earth is fragile and tenuous and maybe purposeful or maybe not. Formulating anything lasting is therefore always a gamble, with uncertain odds.

Interestingly, an expected response.

Though as I do not deny the validity of any creation hypothesis, I fail to see how I could be regarded as intransigent in regard to such issues. 

I simply have not been conditioned to have an unquestioning acceptance  of an unsubstantiated religious concept. (Belief in a specific, popular, deistic religion)

 

Well we've perhaps strayed from the O.P. somewhat, but Catholicism was the original focus. 

Nonetheless,  Catholicism as you rightly point out is just a derivative of the original Abrahamic hypothesis. Which in turn is just a derivative of more ancient but typically naive god concepts. ...All relative to human society and it's function though, and all reflecting the inevitability of social hierarchy and it's machinations.

Churches are either independent or part of a bigger network (religious conglomerate). ..Luxury at the top of the tree and scrimping to make ends meet and do the Lords work at the bottom....Which as I previously suggested, is just a reflection of society in general.

Sorry.

But there is no point in any further discussion really, considering  this typical theistic/deistic intransigence.

You have no unequivocal proof of the existence  of yours or any other theistic  god....So as far as creation hypotheses go, you might be right or you right be wrong...Nothing would be more enlightening that to know the actual answer, but the ability to know is currently way beyond the limits of our capabilities....For the time being we will have to continue to rely upon our imagination.....Subjectivity.

So the universe seemingly has order and we can speculate that it is thus or was created thus, either by chance or purpose...To suggest that we know better, is to not be honest.

@PGA2.0

Firstly the god theory falls down because it contradicts the something from nothing principle.... It's very easy to say, well lets just ignore that little issue and assume that a god just is...O.K. so the universe also contradicts this principle, but at least we can say with some certainty that the universe is.... Though at this point we also tend to assume or expect that the universe must have been created, whereas at the same point deists assume and expect the opposite of their god....You refer to reason and this is not reasonable.

I would suggest that we continually study the universe and achieve answers to certain questions, but answers to questions does not infer a reason or purpose, we can only imply reason.

Why would it not be the case.... Though we do make sense of it to a certain point, but once we have reached the limits of our ability to find answers, we then have to speculate/hypothesise.... And I would agree that at this point  all speculation is reasonable and valid.

So are you willing to agree, that at the point where our ability to know ceases, your god is therefore only speculation?

Having said all that, it does further occur to me, that the universe and/or a creator are both as reasonable as they are unreasonable.... The impossibility or possibility of nothing or something.

Are you not aware that everything you and I say in this discussion is subjective.

I am aware that neither you nor I have a solution to the universal conundrum.

If there was an unequivocal solution, then this discussion wouldn't have been ongoing for the past million years or so.

I respect your faith and your internal certainty, but that is not proof of anything, other than proof of your faith and internal certainty.

Personal experiences and observations are internal data processes, which we are able to formulate and output as subjective data responses. 

As far as we can be certain, the universe is......I think that's sensible and also didn't require creation.

And formulating an awareness and an ongoing understanding  of chaos, would be science.  

Though the development/evolution of life would probably be impossible in a chaotic universe....So no worries.

Small independent churches are obviously not big business, though perhaps they do dream of making it into the big time. The discussion though was focussing on one of the bigger players, and I think that it's fair to say that business and faith are very much separate elements of the global religious conglomerates. How wealth and benefits filter down through the organisation, from the big players and their Vatican luxury,  to the average Catholic Joe scavenging  one a rubbish dump in Manilla for example, is pretty typical of how all social systems work. 

Ok.

So we might as well ask, why do we do anything...And the answer is that we are programmed to do stuff...The survival of the species rests upon us instinctively doing certain stuff. The modern social adaptations that you refer to are just elaborations on the basic theme.

School is a social construct and serves not just your need to achieve, but also the requirements of the wider hierarchical society. So all the basic stuff of education is necessary, even though you perhaps personally  consider it not to be. I would suggest that it is quite common at your age to think about school in the way that you do and I would further suggest that when you are older you will realise why you thought in this way and also realise why a broad education was a vital foundation for a successful modern adulthood.

Your current state of restlessness is of course fuelled by a variety of instinctive mind drives and the immediate acquisition of monetary wealth seems like the quick fix answer to your inner demands. Once again I would suggest that you take a step back and try to envisage what will be the bigger picture of your life, because your social requirements will undoubtedly change as you get older....Fourteen year olds have a tendency to only focus on the requirements of  the here and now and have very little consideration for how the next fifty years or so will pan out.

Eventually you will realise that school wasn't dumb.

How did you know that?

Amazing!

So what am I thinking?

Sorry.    The discussion is interesting, but I haven't had a lot of free time in the past few days to carry on with it.

So for now perhaps you would explain as concisely  as you can what you mean when you refer to objective reality.

Given the nature of human function and thought processes how is it possible to be sure of anything, let alone a hypothetical creator.

The tradition and popularity of some religious hypotheses doesn't make them any more likely to be correct than my ideas of a god principle, as both ideas lack unequivocal proof...Hence, that is why I was hoping that you would at least agree that all creation/purpose hypotheses could  only be regarded as speculative.

And god principle, because god is a traditional representation of a universal purpose and principle simply refers to a basic belief that the universe and the role we play within it is has some element of purpose to it.

Are you a mind reader.

Wouldn't you agree that all our ideas regarding this subject, are just speculation?

I will get back with a fuller response when I have a bit more time to digest your last post.

Regards.

Sorry... I put your and not you're....It irks me to make this basic error.

Has crossed been exposing themself?

I personally don't recall ever being locked up for six hours and being forced to do maths....Do you?

Nonetheless, I imagine that systems of information transfer will inevitably develop as crossed suggested, though perhaps in a  somewhat more subtle and subliminal fashion.

Of course, this will be fine as long as religion isn't on the curriculum and  only necessary and non-devisive information is transferred, thus establishing a more peaceful and tolerant global society.

Yep....My assumption was definitely an assumption and I'm happy to admit that.

What exactly is the god principle?....I don't know, (though I do have some basic ideas)....But a god principle is that which I assume gives purpose to the universe.

Certainly in some very basic respects I share an idea with all that afford the universe purpose. Though I do not share the fantastical ideas offered by popular religious conditioning, these are just  unnecessary tales based around  naïve notions of  imaginary humanoid or animal creators or overseers.....So we can perhaps attempt to update these archaic hypotheses,  and make them more relevant for today, but the fantasies still have a tendency to persist.....That is not to say that I am against the bible either, the bible is a good insight into the recent development of pseudo-scientific and more rigorous scientific knowledge and also a good indicator of how conditioned information (Christianity for example) was and still  is, transferred from generation to generation.... Also I do not doubt that the bible probably contains a good deal of historical fact, somewhere amongst all the fantastical embellishment....Hence, I often refer to the bible as a mythological pseudo-hypothesis.

As I see it: 

The development and transference of knowledge is the key to understanding and achieving the purposes of a god principle. (No deistic worship required) 

The sequence of creation and the ongoing ability of matter to evolve and develop into information and knowledge enhancing, bodies and systems. (Which may or may not exceed the capabilities of organic bodies and systems).

The purpose of which may simply be the perpetuation of a universal sequence.... In so much as the ultimate knowledge is the god principle which we assist in the creation of, which consequently facilitates the rebirth/re-initiation of a new universe.

We create a god that recreates us.

No worship required, because the god principle is... A. Not something that requires worship.... B. Something that has not as yet been achieved.

But your not prepared to qualify your monosyllabic answers.

So Stephen and I rest on our laurels.

As I attempted to suggest previously.  I think you misunderstand the term "homeostasis"....Look it up and have a think about it.

Nonetheless:

Getting of this rock and leaving this solar system,  ironically should be the ultimate achievement of evolving and existing upon it.

Nonetheless....I currently rest with the idea that the universe has a preordained certainty or sequentiality, therefore the evolution of the organic, organic life and organic intelligence is only a part of a bigger sequence, so maybe our techno developments herald the next phase of the sequence. 

Maybe we were never meant to leave this rock or solar system....In our current form anyway.

I think that it is foolish to assume that we are the be all and end all of everything. Who knows what the possibilities are for material evolution in the next million years or so?

Maybe knowledge and data is the key to everything.

I think that all this proves, is that educationally, the U.S.A. perpetuates and instils an innate awareness of racial difference  in all it's citizens... In the U.K, any wannabee Prime Minister who referred to "Blacks and Whites", would never get out of the starting blocks.

And the rest of the World waits with baited breath.

That's Show Biz for you.

What is original?

Conditioning is conditioning, we've been doing it for millennia.

Crossed's suggestion is probably the direction we are heading in.

Therefore I conclude that Stephen and I are correct and you are incorrect.

An assumption.

Though as I always say....A god principle is nonetheless a realistic hypothesis... Though naively interpreted and represented in the fictional/mythological stories found in the bible and other archaic religious tomes.

I'm not sure that all the new babies is the whole problem. Or in fact a problem at all.

Medical advancements and interventions that result in an ever more aged population is the flip side of the coin. Not much more than 100 years ago, average life expectancy was around 25years, whereas today it's probably in the 70's. Infant mortality was extremely high and common diseases and infections were killers....  Couple this with modern consumerist  expectations and the demands for ever improving  infrastructure and technology and that is more likely to be where the cause of the assumed problem lies. 

Nonetheless:

If everything has no purpose then what does anything matter anyway?

If everything has a purpose, then surely everything that occurs is purposeful?

I would therefore suggest, that a greater purpose would be far greater than us...Though, that is not to say that our role in a greater purpose would be inconsequential....

So maybe everything happens as it does for a reason, or not....Who knows?

Tell me in a sentence of more than two words why this is not true.

Good question.

So, all that we are fairly sure of, is the universe is as it is, in so much as the laws that govern it are seemingly consistent ….So this allows for the implementation of a similarly consistent analytical system, which the human species was able to develop and referred to as mathematics.... We can therefore apply our mathematics to the study of universal systems.

No humans...Still a consistent universe....But no mathematics.

So I would conclude, that although the potential was always there, the development and application of mathematics was always reliant upon the existence of an analytical species.

Chance or purpose is the real question?

And despite my overwhelming scepticism of certain fantastical hypotheses, I still nonetheless err on the side of purpose. But unless we can actually know and understand a purpose, we can only be aware of mathematical potential rather than directly attribute the purposeful development of analytical systems to a higher authority.

Well.... I needed to check how homeostasis is defined and the key words were "relatively stable equilibrium"......A tad woolly and a tad ambiguous really.....It could  easily be suggested that homeostasis in a global environmental context is therefore an ongoing situation for as long as all species do not become extinct....The same principles would also seem to apply to the homeostasis of the human species, though global environment and humanity are somewhat inextricably linked anyway.

So I would suggest that homeostasis is current and ongoing.

The real question is, at what point will Planet Earth cease to be life sustaining?

And will we have successfully adapted to a homeostatic environment elsewhere?

Humans developed mathematics and the universe corresponds with human mathematics....Or vice-versa.

This is just the way things are?

This may also indicate an underlying universal principle... God if you like...Though not to be confused with other popular and more recent god myths and tales.

The universe is what it is.

How do you differentiate between ordered and unordered?

What may or may not have occurred 70,000 years ago is pure conjecture.

I assume that you are referring to what is known as the Toba catastrophe.

What may or may not have occurred 66million years ago is also pure conjecture.

The assumptions are similar and the assumed outcomes indicate that in both incidences there were niche survivalists, whether that be plant, animal, insect etc.

I'm not sure what these facts or human technological development (including stone tools) actually goes to prove other than the above.

And I have always agreed that species will either adapt or just simply survive for as long as environmental conditions on Planet Earth allow.