Anthropomorphic Godhead

[Illyrius]

6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I am writing a parody of the Biblical creation account. Do you know what a parody is? I'm citing the fact that I support the science of evolution as opposed to biblical creationism (note that this doesn't mean that I support a purely naturalistic/materialistic form of evolution, I don't, I support a spiritually guided form of evolution, but it's evolution nonetheless). I'm also citing the fact that most (if not all) of the specific deities in various religions are man-made inventions, nothing more. This does not mean that I oppose the notion of there being some sort of 'God'. I don't. I think that God's existence is a genuine possibility, merely that the Abrahamic God specifically does not exist. And lastly here, I stated how mankind has killed each other and waged holy wars over their different ideas of who God is. That is a fact.

I know what a parody is. But two last lines of that parody were somewhat controversial.

 

6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

This ^ is a comedic concept called: 'exaggeration'. Of course I don't believe that just 'some dude' came up with science. Only a complete moron would believe that.

This is your explanation now. You say that it was a comedic concept of exaggeration. Ok so you were exaggerating. Fine, you were exaggerating. Got it now.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Illyrius]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Of course I don't believe that just 'some dude' came up with science. Only a complete moron would believe that.

And i suppose only a very clever man writes such beautiful parody lines.

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That was what I thought, just suggesting a reason why I don't think that's the case (in addition to the obvious fact that 99%+ of the universe is very inhospitable and fatal to most life).

I totally agree with this ^ point. It's a valid point to make in opposition to the idea of there being an infinite creator deity who directly created the universe. However at the same time I find the idea that these specific fundamental laws of the universe are too coincidental to be specified in this way by sheer accident.

I personally believe in the concept of an evolutionary universe that starts at lower level of consciousness and works it's way up to ever-increasingly higher forms of consciousness. This would help explain the fine-tuning of nature for life, as well as point that you made as to why the whole universe isn't simply made for life. Rather than a top-down system of order, I prescribe to a bottom-up system to explain complexity.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

And i suppose only a very clever man writes such beautiful parody lines.

A very clever man would actually listen to and understand what I said in my explanation, and wouldn't keep making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

A very clever man would actually listen to and understand what I said in my explanation, and wouldn't keep making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Now, would you say please, without any parody, and in all seriousness. What is your view of Science? Is it the only right outlook to have - on Universe?

[Aquila King]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Now, would you say please, without any parody, and in all seriousness. What is your view of Science? Is it the only right outlook to have - on Universe?

Science isn't an 'outlook', it's a process by which we discover things about the world around us.

If you truly believe science to be an outlook, then I'm afraid that it's you my friend who has been brainwashed by materialist dogma.

[+Liquid Gardens]

42 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I totally agree with this ^ point. It's a valid point to make in opposition to the idea of there being an infinite creator deity who directly created the universe. However at the same time I find the idea that these specific fundamental laws of the universe are too coincidental to be specified in this way by sheer accident.

I guess I have a more macro issue with fine tuning regardless of the theological implications (to be clear, based on my admitted significant ignorance of physics). 

'Coincidental' many times implies something about probabilities, and I'm unaware that we have any information on those probabilities.  At a high level, fine tuning will argue something like, 'if scientific constant 'x' differed from its observed value by a very small percentage, than life/structures would not form in this universe'.  This argument seems to rely on two, big to me, assumptions:  scientists can have confidence that they know how universes with different constants will operate, and that these constants can actually have different values than they do in our universe.  If the probability of the supposedly fine tuned scientific constants having the same values they do in this universe in other universes is 100%, then it seems to me that fine tuning disappears.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Liquid Gardens

[Aquila King]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This argument seems to rely on two, big to me, assumptions: 

1) scientists can have confidence that they know how universes with different constants will operate

2) that these constants can actually have different values than they do in our universe.

I'm with you in my admitting that I know very little of physics, however one thing I do know is that most physicists agree that there is no necessity for the 'constants' to be what they are. That's why they come up with things like 'multiverse theory' in the first place, to explain this problem of fine tuning.

1) I don't think it has as much to do with knowing how other universes would operate, as much as it is in simply stating that the fundamental 'constants' show no signs of necessity in being what they are. There's no evidence to suggest this, and really it's an infinite regress to try and explain this anyway. What laws were put in place that necessitates the laws being what they are? And what necessitates those laws? So on and so forth.

2) If there's no necessary reason to believe that these laws are what they are by necessity, then the only other logical conclusion would be that they could have different values, if not be entirely different to what they are.

[+Liquid Gardens]

30 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

1) I don't think it has as much to do with knowing how other universes would operate, as much as it is in simply stating that the fundamental 'constants' show no signs of necessity in being what they are.

I guess the issue with that is that 'fine-tuning' implies something much more than just 'why do the constants have the values they do'.  I may be blending two concepts that shouldn't be so intermingled: 'fine-tuning' in a strictly scientific sense and 'fine-tuned universe', tied in with the anthropic principle, which is used as an argument for theism.  That latter argument does seem to rely on how other universes would operate, from wiki on 'fine-tuned universe":  "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."  The part that I've underlined does seem to rely on knowledge of how other universes will operate, and is obviously used as an argument for the necessity of a god to 'tune' these constants.

39 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

If there's no necessary reason to believe that these laws are what they are by necessity, then the only other logical conclusion would be that they could have different values, if not be entirely different to what they are.

Good point, but I don't believe the converse statement is any better supported, that there is any necessary reason to believe that these laws/constants must differ.  I'm pretty sure we have zero evidence supporting these constants/laws being variable.

 

[Aquila King]

10 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I guess the issue with that is that 'fine-tuning' implies something much more than just 'why do the constants have the values they do'.  I may be blending two concepts that shouldn't be so intermingled: 'fine-tuning' in a strictly scientific sense and 'fine-tuned universe', tied in with the anthropic principle, which is used as an argument for theism.  That latter argument does seem to rely on how other universes would operate, from wiki on 'fine-tuned universe":  "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."  The part that I've underlined does seem to rely on knowledge of how other universes will operate, and is obviously used as an argument for the necessity of a god to 'tune' these constants.

I don't make the same fine-tuning arguments that theists do, as I find it just plain silly to suggest that the laws of nature must by necessity be what they are for life of any kind to exist. It's certainly not beyond imagination to intelligently design a universe with the fundamental laws of nature being totally different yet much more conducive for life to exist.

I'm simply stating that given the number of totally different possibilities regarding the nature of these fundamental 'constants', I personally find the probability of possible universes that aren't conducive to any kind of life to be a much higher percentage then the number of possible universes that are. Therefore I find the possibility of at least some sort of conscious goal-directed activity in this universe to be a high probability. Of course I don't have exact figures, so if someone were ever to do the math and prove me wrong I'd gladly concede.

20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Good point, but I don't believe the converse statement is any better supported, that there is any necessary reason to believe that these laws/constants must differ.  I'm pretty sure we have zero evidence supporting these constants/laws being variable.

To that we can both thoroughly agree.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I'm simply stating that given the number of totally different possibilities regarding the nature of these fundamental 'constants', I personally find the probability of possible universes that aren't conducive to any kind of life to be a much higher percentage then the number of possible universes that are. Therefore I find the possibility of at least some sort of conscious goal-directed activity in this universe to be a high probability. Of course I don't have exact figures, so if someone were ever to do the math and prove me wrong I'd gladly concede.

Good point, I've thought along the lines also, but it always falls apart for me as I have nothing to base the probabilities on.  I have no information about possible universes except this one, I don't know what is impossible, I don't know what the probability distribution for the values of the constants/laws are so I have no way of saying universes with life are more likely than those without.

I've been trying to think of analogy, which is tough due to the unknowns about universe creation.  Let's say you and I can create universes (but we're not gods, how the universes operate will follow the physics based on how the constants are set, we're not creating the way the science works).  We decide to roll a pair of dice to determine the value for a scientific constant in that universe that governs the emergence of life, let's call it 'The Life Constant'.  We create a universe and we roll a 12 for TLC on our pair of dice, and this universe evolves people who are in the same relative knowledge and perspective situation as we currently are.  The physicists of the created universe discover and study TLC, note its value, and state that based on their science the universe is finely tuned for life because if TLC was any larger, or less than one-sixth of it's value, life could not exist.  They find no reason why TLC 'necessarily' has to have the value it has among all 'the possibilities', and thus posit multiverses and/or gods as possible answers, because they don't realize that TLC cannot be any larger than 12 or less than 2 because of what dice are.  If their science is correct about the necessary values of TLC for life, they think it's fine tuned when it's actually the opposite, life is inevitable for any universes where dice are used to determine that value. 

It's a far out analogy, but the point is I don't think we in our universe have any more information about why the constants have the values they have, or even it is possible for them to be any different, any more than our created universe's denizens know about the nature of dice and their relationship to TLC.

[Illyrius]

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Science isn't an 'outlook', it's a process by which we discover things about the world around us.

Oh yes, pardon me, that is correct I meant to say religion. My bad - but you view it as a process - ok, ok... So we don't have to go into loop on that one - we have a completely different perspective of the particular woo in question.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Aquila King]

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Good point, I've thought along the lines also, but it always falls apart for me as I have nothing to base the probabilities on.  I have no information about possible universes except this one, I don't know what is impossible, I don't know what the probability distribution for the values of the constants/laws are so I have no way of saying universes with life are more likely than those without.

I've been trying to think of analogy, which is tough due to the unknowns about universe creation.  Let's say you and I can create universes (but we're not gods, how the universes operate will follow the physics based on how the constants are set, we're not creating the way the science works).  We decide to roll a pair of dice to determine the value for a scientific constant in that universe that governs the emergence of life, let's call it 'The Life Constant'.  We create a universe and we roll a 12 for TLC on our pair of dice, and this universe evolves people who are in the same relative knowledge and perspective situation as we currently are.  The physicists of the created universe discover and study TLC, note its value, and state that based on their science the universe is finely tuned for life because if TLC was any larger, or less than one-sixth of it's value, life could not exist.  They find no reason why TLC 'necessarily' has to have the value it has among all 'the possibilities', and thus posit multiverses and/or gods as possible answers, because they don't realize that TLC cannot be any larger than 12 or less than 2 because of what dice are.  If their science is correct about the necessary values of TLC for life, they think it's fine tuned when it's actually the opposite, life is inevitable for any universes where dice are used to determine that value. 

It's a far out analogy, but the point is I don't think we in our universe have any more information about why the constants have the values they have, or even it is possible for them to be any different, any more than our created universe's denizens know about the nature of dice and their relationship to TLC.

Plus, we don't even know if the 'constants' are actually 'constant' at all. Who says that they have to be constant in every universe? Heck, who says there can't be a universe with billions and trillions of different constants that aren't even constant?

I truly do think that's a brilliant analogy, and you're right, at the end of the day we just don't know. The only rational positions we can take on this topic are those of inclinations towards one view over another. Uncertainty is ultimately the name of the game here. This whole topic is essentially a debate over what is most probable, not necessarily what's possible. Anything is possible, but not everything is probable. It's possible for an invisible leprechaun to be dancing on my shoulder right now. It's just highly, highly, highly improbable, based of course simply on the information we currently have.

Having said that, I think I have some rather solid reasons as to why I'm inclined towards one position over another. Of course, this is all postulation, philosophical reasoning, etc. I have no real data to back any of this up. Just, thinking out loud if you will. Giving my personally reasoning behind this concept. So hang tight with mere here. I can't promise this won't turn into a complicated word salad, as these kinds of concepts are difficult enough to comprehend, much less put into words. But regardless I'll try to explain my position as best I can...

So then what info do we have about the fundamental constants of nature, as well as any other universes? Basically what we know is that they exist, they appear to have existed in a relatively constant state since the universe's beginning (thus the name), there are 'x' amount of them (that we know of so far), and they behave in an 'y' manner. Notice how all these things we know about them are merely descriptions of what is? They are in no way prescriptions of how they ought to be. Sure, they may be used to reasonably predict that if they behave as 'x' then we should be able to do 'y' and get a specific effect. That's essentially how all of science is done. But none of this tells us how the universal constants could behave, merely how they do. So we can therefore deduce, that so long as it doesn't violate any philosophical dilemmas, that scientifically speaking, all possibilities in regards to the laws of physics in other universes are on the table.

On another topic: In regards to what would counts as 'life', we can only go by what we currently understand about it in this universe. This could be a debate topic in and of itself in that, 'How do we define life?' One could make numerous cases for life in other universes that's no more complex then our simplest of microbes. But if I were to make a simple vague description of life based on what we currently know, I would say all other forces of the universe merely act and react according to it's fundamental nature, where as life is unique in it's ability to interact with these forces in it's environment in at least a somewhat intelligent way, and that it arises from these fundamental forces, and also dies by them. Even microbes are able to receive information from their environment and then alter their actions to fit their environment, if not even in the slightest of ways.

Now, if all of the above is the case, then imagine with me for a moment what possibilities are out there in regards to physics and the existence of life. In order for life as described above to exist, then the fundamental laws of physics that governs that life would have to remain at least somewhat relatively constant. Otherwise that life wouldn't be able to maintain it's 'form', and would simply die. And those forces that govern this said universe would also have to be the 'right' forces that could allow for this life to arise from it. Meaning that there would be plenty a universe with just forces, no life. They could however bring forth 'material forms' by which life could arise from, but the forms themselves would be incapable of allowing for complex forms able to interact with it's environment with any level of intelligence. Since those forces could literally be anything and any number (we're accounting for all possibilities), then the number of forces that act upon other forces yet actually bring 'material form' to nothing (no atoms, or particles, or independent materials of any size) are categorically more likely to exist then those that do. Follow my logic here: the vast majority of our own universe is made up of these blind forces affecting each other. Actual forms, or 'things' (matter), made from these forces is relatively scarce in comparison to the rest of the universe, and this is with our currently known physics being 'fine tuned'. We already know through mathematical calculations that if our own constants were altered just slightly, that any material forms couldn't exist. It would merely be forces acting upon each other. So if these forces could be literally anything with any number of them to any degree, then having a solid 'thing' made out of these forces would be unlikely based on what we currently know, as the vast majority of universes out there would be universes with nothing but forces acting upon each other but building little to no actual 'forms' by which life could arise from.

So with all this in mind, let's do the math simply based on what we've deduced so far.

• If the number of universes whose fundamental laws remain constant and those whose laws don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/2 of the available universes.
• If the above conclusion also had laws that were either 'just right' for material forms to arise from them and those whose laws don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/4 of the available universes.
• If the above conclusion also either had laws capable of bringing forth life arising from those material forms and those that don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/8 of the available universe.

This means that in all possible universes, life has only a 1/8 chance of existing. And I'd personally say, that that's being rather generous.

Now this of course has dealt only with the number of possible universes, not the number of actual universes. For all we know, this universe could be the only one there is. And as of yet we essentially have no proof of multiple universes actually existing anyway.

So essentially what this all means is, that the chance of this universe randomly developing the just-right fundamental constants to support life is (based on generously made, somewhat self-admittedly speculatory, estimates) 1/8.

I mean, this could be the case. We may simply be rather lucky to have ended up in the lucky eighth. But either way, the odds are against us existing. Therefore I find it more reasonable to suggest that given these odds, that perhaps there was at least some sort of conscious goal or objective in the formation of our universe. As to what, or who, or how, and all that however, I have no clue...

I hope this gives at least some clarity to my position, rather then just scramble your brain, lol.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Mr. Argon said:

Oh yes, pardon me, that is correct I meant to say religion. My bad - but you view it as a process - ok, ok...

Dude, I know you don't think it, but I'm a spiritualist. I'm mostly on your side.

Why do you insist on having an anti-science position? I don't find science (real science) at all conflicting with spirituality, so why do you?

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Dude, I know you don't think it, but I'm a spiritualist. I'm mostly on your side.

Why do you insist on having an anti-science position? I don't find science (real science) at all conflicting with spirituality, so why do you?

The answer to that is pretty simple. I see a STRONG tendency of majority of scientific establishment to DENY the existance ot the Unknown, while at the same they have very wooish explanations about the nature of Ultimate Reality.

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

The answer to that is pretty simple. I see a STRONG tendency of majority of scientific establishment to DENY the existance ot the Unknown, while at the same they have very wooish explanations about the nature of Ultimate Reality.

Your problem is with materialism my friend, not science. And I'm right there with ya on that.

I would recommend this guy: Rupert Sheldrake

He's a brilliant scientist who's done tons of work in regards to the spiritual and the unknown. He's taken on the materialist establishment in the mainstream scientific community for nearly his whole career, and continually pushes for scientific advancement in the field of spiritual studies.

Hopefully he could help you bridge the gap.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

I would recommend this guy: Rupert Sheldrake

I know very well about Rupert Sheldrake. He is one of the rare true scientists.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

I know very well about Rupert Sheldrake. He is one of the rare true scientists.

I'm a total nerdy fanboy of his, I'll admit.

[Illyrius]

This is perhaps something worhty of consideration. Maybe not directly on this topic, but interesting as one of the things which is connected to this subject.

[Illyrius]

Recently several books written by prominent authors have been published that attack religious belief as merely a natural phenomenon at best, and a pernicious delusion at worst. The four most prominent authors are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who collectively are often called the "new atheists" [Dawkins2006; Dennett2006; Harris2006; Hitchens2007]. One of the key criticisms that these authors level against religion is that it cannot withstand a withering investigation by the methods of modern science. Richard Dawkins mentions "the great prayer experiment," a 2006 study where prayers were offered on behalf of patients undergoing surgery at several U.S. hospitals, but failed to find any significant difference in outcome, as proof positive that no God exists [Dawkins2006, pg. 85-90]. In this same vein, Daniel Dennett, asks for a "forthright, scientific no-holds-barred investigation of religion as one natural phenomenon among many" [Dennett2006, pg. 17].

 

For anyone interested in a rest of the article here is the

source.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Illyrius]

In the light of that article I view modern science as "scientific materialism" - and not the true OBJECTIVE science. That is my position and the reason I have a problem with such a worldview.

[Aquila King]

And I would agree with you.

I simply wish to not come off as anti-science, because I support the original objective method of inquiry.

I simply reject materialist dogma disguised as science.

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

And I would agree with you.

I simply wish to not come off as anti-science, because I support the original objective method of inquiry.

I simply reject materialist dogma disguised as science.

Hopefully then this discussion (at least between you and me) will proceed in a less antagonistic tone.

That method of inquiry is excellent, when it applies only on the material plane.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Hopefully then this discussion (at least between you and me) will proceed in a less antagonistic tone.

Hey man, that's just how things roll here. Better get used to it. Happens all the time.

Can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen.

Some of the people I've had the biggest disagreements with on here have become the closest of friends, so nothing's ever personal. Promise.

6 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

That method of inquiry is excellent, when it applies only on the material plane.

We can however use it to measure the spiritual plane's effects on the material plane.

Though yes, there are undoubtedly limits to this while confined to the material world.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

We can however use it to measure the spiritual plane's effects on the material plane.

This is very interesting, and i am intrigued, you can send me some links about this in my mail not to be too agressive to other people who do not view that as interesting. Thanks.