zedvictor4

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.

As far as I am concerned, marketing is marketing and good or bad isn't really the issue.

Nonetheless, a church and it's associated and variable requirements of infrastructure, therefore necessitate variable levels of promotion and marketing....Horses for courses as it were.

The truly devout will pray in the kitchen.

Simply, basic human instinct turned into human fantasy...It's how we function.

Religious fantasy or pornography, it's the same basic process of manipulating data and making subjective decisions.

Prude or porn star, theist or atheist, it's your choice.

Well, tongue in cheek for the benefit of our more devout debaters.....Though the sentiment was serious enough.

And Adam and Eve knew because they were instilled with awareness.

It's a pseudo erotic human tale that turned the act of human reproduction into an act of human pleasure and therefore into an act of assumed human sin against an assumed god....No god actually required....We actually made all this up for ourselves.

The people that control Trump obviously have a greater influence than Trump does himself.

I would suggest that there are currently other Presidents that  wield greater absolute power.

Though the collective power of technology and media is somewhat superseding the power of the individual.

It could also be argued that the Corona Virus is currently the most powerful thing. (Though the jury is out on whether a Virus is actually living or not).

Universally...Who knows?....What about this supposed god bloke?

As for the Pope....Well I think that the power of the Catholic Church has always been fragmented and also that the Pope is only a nominal Head....  Nice guy though.

The serpent is the penis....Biblical pornography.

And the juicy fruit!.....Yum Yum.

Nope. 

Nothing strange about a religious forum....I never said there was...That's your own inference.

"Strange" was simply presented as a description of the Sun's activity.

I merely attempted to point out that "strange" is a human descriptive and not the ongoing activity of the Sun.

As for the intelligent design argument, which I think is what you are alluding to.....I have never disagreed with this hypothesis....Considering the nature of the question that we are attempting to address, it is just as possible or impossible to assume purpose over chance as it is to assume chance over purpose.

Though one does find popular theistic hypotheses somewhat harder to swallow.

Nonetheless, the god principle is a valid option....But I prefer something a bit more logical than the myths and legends of the Bible.

And "mind" as far as we can be  minded is the physiological condition we attribute to ourselves...The condition that allows us to create more or less fantastical but unprovable hypotheses.

So story tellers tell you things.

Stuff of classic fantasy tales and yet accepted as true.

So a story teller told us of a place called Middle Earth.  Are we therefore expected to accept Middle Earth as fact also.

Happiness is not continuously sustainable.

Contentment is what we should strive to achieve.

Though on a more philosophical note, I would suggest than the purpose of human life, is it's role in the perpetuation of material development and evolution.

Fair enough.

I would suggest though,  that what you initially refer to, is trend, relative to social pressures, inspired by global integration.

Your latter white supremacist  remarks are probably more indicative of yourself rather than of the global reality.... Industrially and technologically , power is shifting more to the East, where in fact, I think it's fair to say, it all started in the first place.

It's a big world for sure but rapidly becoming tighter knit and slowly becoming more racially integrated....I'm only guessing that you are of the U.S.A, which ironically is one of the youngest and consequently  one of the  most diverse nations in terms of "race" ….Nonetheless it is still true that certain groups strive for insularity, which in a large Country such as the U.S can easily be achieved. Here in the U.K where we've been forced to homogenize for centuries you will find that the racial bigots are now a tiny and inconsequential majority and "racial" integration and equality is the generally accepted norm. 

And most of how we live our lives today is based upon "construct", that's the human condition.... Though ironically once again, race is in fact a perceivable difference both physiologically and geographically, though that's not to say that we do not also construct differences...The good thing is, differences can also be deconstructed and this is undoubtedly happening, albeit more slowly in certain regions.

Q.  What makes a White Jew not a White Jew?

A.   A Nazi.

@Melcharaz.

Read or not it's your choice.

I simply comment when I think a comment is appropriate, as I believe this is a fairly public forum rather than someone's  private conversation.

True.

The Sun, Stars, and Moon do what they do....(Though that's not to say that said celestial bodies think about what they do).

It's people that think and do strange things and also strangely worry about things that seem strange but actually aren't strange.....Things like gods and praying and considering that the sun is in lockdown for instance.

Men assumed authority because that was what men did. And up until not so very long ago that was what men generally did.....Male chauvinism, hence the biased textual content.

And what has the current reality of paying your taxes got to do with  the myths of the bible? 

So Jesus had his men friends but he also had his woman, maybe that was simply a biblical metaphor for swinging both ways.

And most tales tend to have a love interest built in....The charismatic thinker and the besotted socialite...Works for me.

@Melcharaz

What is a holy man?

Other than a fairly clever bloke that attempts to convivence the gullible of the fantastical....A story teller in other words.

Scripture is simply a written account of the said story.

Nope. A story told by men subsequently written down by men....A god being the central character....A common narrative the world over...Lets be fair and call it a naïve hypothesis...Though some of us are able to realise that human knowledge as somewhat exceeded the original hypotheses.... Nonetheless, the god principle is still sound in terms of an unknown choice between purpose and chance....But definitely not in terms of an ethereal, bearded Caucasian guy in flowing white robes....And no I'm not referring to Gandalf....That's another fantastical story.

Interesting how you perceive race as a Black and White issue....Why is this?

Absolutely true....Religious belief is a prime example. 

@Melcharaz

But gods don't say anything

When have you ever actually witnessed a god saying something?

The words of gods are the words of men.

@Melcharaz

More correctly, lucifer does have a relationship to Venus….The myth based on the perceived reality,  rather than the opposite.

What or who do you think is doing the simulating?

Or are you suggesting that everything is self simulating?

Or Is this really just about the god principle?

Notwithstanding these questions, I would suggest that the limited duration of the event negates conciseness of understanding.

Though, philosophically we can imply anything we wish to, so within this context the evidence is therefore evidence.

Yep I can read well enough.

But what were the implications of the text.