'The Forces of Social Evolution' - Three Times Great et al

[Unity1]

@Xunzian

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/

Worth a read if you are into that sort of thing. It presents a pretty compelling (and lay) case for how ‘more is different’ and ‘emergent properties’ that can inform a lot of the assumptions you are bringing to the table.

There has never been any saviour of the world,
Nor deities, nor emperors on which to depend.
To create Mankind’s happiness
We must entirely depend on ourselves!

As for the old apologetic saw about the ‘uncaused cause’ . . . let’s accept that premise for a moment. How does that, in any way, relate to the divinity that you are describing without referring back to an authority that your target audience, by definition, doesn’t accept? It can be used as a tactic to reinforce faith amongst those who have it, but in terms of convincing those without a theistic paradigm to accept one, well, it is literally nonsensical.

Why do you call this book ‘lay’? Have you published anything that isn’t ‘lay’? What makes what you say Gospel and this book ‘lay’?

What assumptions have I brought to the table?

That God exists?

This is not an assumption, this is hard fact.

Sorry what specifically about my view are you saying is wrong?

What is your evidence?

[matty]

@Unity1

@matty

@Unity1

Don’t even try to tell me the Universe is finite.

That very much depends on the definition of “universe” and “finite” that is deployed. There may be some semblance of logic in what you say, but I see nothing to suggest it is other than speculative: it is very difficult for it to be otherwise when one is positing an arche.

There is only absolute logic in the phrases:

only absolute existence exists
non-existence doesn’t exist

Tell me precisely what you think is speculative and I’ll tell you why it is not.

There is no such thing as “absolute logic” - or at least if there is it is inaccessible to us as finite, situated beings. What you have there are tautological statements that tell us nothing about the transcendent you are positing. In order to get to “God” from that you have clearly had to speculate, which is fine, but you could at least be honest (to yourself) about it.

[Unity1]

1. There is no such thing as “absolute logic” - or at least if there is it is inaccessible to us as finite, situated beings. What you have there are tautological statements that tell us nothing about the transcendent you are positing. 2. In order to get to “God” from that you have clearly had to speculate, which is fine, but you could at least be honest (to yourself) about it.
   [/quote]
2. Utter nonsense. A ≡ A. Tautology. Absolute.
3. I will say it again:

If an infinite Universe it its entirity exists, which it does (the only thing that exists is infinite existence; to state otherwise is illogical), then something which possesses all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty must also exist. The only thing that can possess all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty, can be an infinitely perfect spiritual existence i.e. God.

If logic is speculation, which it is not, then the above statment is speculation.

Because logic is not speculation, and the above statement is entirely logical, the above statement is not speculation.

Why do I have to spell everything out…

[Xunzian]

The book is ‘lay’ because it can be readily read and understood by a non-specialist audience. Which is why I suggested it for you to consider.

As for assumptions, you have:

U1) God exists (you can call it a ‘hard fact’ if you’d like but if that falls under the purview of ‘hard fact’ then I am not sure what doesn’t . . .)

U2) Linear causality holds true in all cases. Not a bad assumption, actually – but not one that is universally shared either. Some of the big Humeans on the board will take you to task on that one. People who deal with integrated systems will also have some pause at that assumption since they routinely encounter networked environments where linear causality is too simple to accurately model the system.

U3) The God of revealed religions applies to the first cause (holds better in some cases than in others).

U4) Revealed religions accurately transmit knowledge/represent an accurate source of knowledge/represent a valid authority.

---

Insofar as evidence is concerned, you are demanding an absence of evidence as opposed to evidence proper, as has already been pointed out. While there are plenty of skeptics arguing against your point, skepticism only goes so far before it eats itself. But it is possible for someone to hold worldviews which reject and, or all, of the assumptions I’ve listed above (and more!). For example, I do not share U1, U3, and U4 – and I only think that U2 can be said to exist on a local, defined level. shrugs We can talk around those assumptions, or I can ask you why you hold the ones you do.

I can outline my atheism and my counter-narrative, if you’d like. Here you are:

Well, my personal reasons for atheism are tri-fold:

1. As a scientist, God is a cop-out answer. It’s purely aesthetic. When you are studying a principle, you can say ‘God did it’ and be done. The problem with this is that, since it is impossible to prove the nature of God, your solution is un-provable. That is, quite simply, bad science. Granted, this allows for natural theological explanations, which are possible and acceptable. So, basically put 1 point down for agnosticism.

2. As someone who studies Confucian texts and is greatly influenced by that religio-philosophical tradition, I think this quote sums it up best:

When Adept Lu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, the Master said: “You haven’t learned to serve the living, so how could you serve ghosts?”
“Might I ask about death?”
“You don’t understand life,” the Master replied, “so how could you understand death?”

So, another point for agnosticism.

3. Good ol’ Brecht:

A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behaviour would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.”

I don’t feel my behaviour would change. I live a good life and if God is petty enough to punish me for not groveling before him, then God is not the kind of being I want to associate with.

So, aesthetically, I don’t like the idea of the Divine, philosophically I am disinclined to study it because it is not relevant and personally it does not affect me. Given these, I see no reason to even admit that there might be a God, anymore than I might admit to any other unprovable agent. It is possible? Sure. But it is also possible that we are living in the Matrix, or that I am a figment of my girlfriend’s imagination. I don’t entertain these thoughts because they aren’t useful and, frankly, boarder on the absurd.

I would also like to point of the idea of holism, whereby in creating a diety that is outside of the system the interconnectedness of the system breaks down and you are left with little more than nihilism. I pretty much agree with Mary Evelyn Tucker’s take on Tu Weiming’s interpretation:

Naturalistic Cosmology
Chinese naturalism as a primary ingredient of Confucianism in its broadest sense is characterized by an organic holism and a dynamic vitalism. The organic holism of Confucianism refers to the fact that the universe is viewed as a vast integrated unit, not as discrete mechanistic parts. Nature is seen as unified, interconnected, and interpenetrating, constantly relating microcosm and macrocosm. This interconnectedness is already present in the early Confucian tradition in the I Ching, or Book of Changes, and in the Han correspondences of the elements with seasons, directions, colors, and even virtues.

This sense of naturalism and holism is distinguished by the view that there is no Creator God; rather, the universe is considered to be a self-generating, organismic process.1 Confucians are traditionally concerned less with theories of origin or with concepts of a personal God than with what they perceive to be the ongoing reality of this self-generating, interrelated universe. This interconnected quality has been described by Tu Weiming as a “continuity of being.”2 This implies a great chain of being, which is in continual process and transformation, linking inorganic, organic, and human life-forms. For the Confucians this linkage is a reality because all life is constituted of ch’i, the material force or psycho-physical element of the universe. This is the unifying element of the cosmos and creates the basis for a profound reciprocity between humans and the natural world.

This brings us to a second important characteristic of Confucian cosmology, namely, its quality of dynamic vitalism inherent in ch’i. It is material force as the substance of life that is the basis for the continuing process of change and transformation in the universe. The term, sheng sheng (production and reproduction), is used in Confucian and Neo-Confucian texts to illustrate the ongoing creativity and renewal of nature. Furthermore, it constitutes a sophisticated awarenessthat change is the basis for the interaction and continuation of the web of life systems—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. And finally, it celebrates transformation as the clearest expression of the creative processes of life with which humans should harmonize their own actions. In essence, human beings are urged to “model themselves on the ceaseless vitality of the cosmic processes.”3 This approach is an important key to Confucian thought in general, for a sense of holism, vitalism, and harmonizing with change provides the metaphysical basis on which an integrated morality can be developed. The extended discussions of the relationship of li (principle) to ch’i (material force) in Neo-Confucianism can be seen as part of the effort to articulate continuity and order in the midst of change. Li is the pattern amidst flux which provides a means of establishing harmony.

Now, you are under no onus to accept the particular narrative that I have provided (though I do think it better models reality than the theism of revealed religions as well as theism in general).

Now, you’ll ask me to support for what has been asserted above. That is fine.

X1) The universe is constantly engaged in the process of change and motion. From the smallest particle engaged in brownian motion to ourselves as we pass through time, nothing can be said to be constant. Only the illusion of an unchanging entity exists because we will it so. Regularly followed models can be created, of course. But any given measurement will differ from that model due to a variety of factors beyond the control of the measurer, and that the model itself does not take into account. That is why statistics are so vitally important to science. So support for this assertion can be said to exist.

X2) Easily established agency. The universe can be seen as an organic holism because agency can be readily attributed in a sane fashion. We can look at the patterns that emerge and understand them. If there was something beyond/outside the universe, you would expect certain observable events to have incongruent agents, right? That is how something outside the universe would behave in its interaction with the universe. The absence of those sorts of events coupled with the massive amount of events that affirm the hypothesis presented here would seem to affirm organic holism very much at the expense of supernaturalism. So support for this assertion can be said to exist.

Given A1 and A2, you have a networked system constantly engaged in change. If U2 still holds true on a defined level, you now have something that connects elements in the networked system not only to each other but to themselves as the process of change manifests itself.

[Wonderer]

@Unity1

I don’t care if you are a seasoned veteran of Seattle Mud Wrestling.

I am glad your view accomodates mine, which makes it more adequate in itself.

There is no evidence that God exists to you. this does not mean there is no evidence. Everything tiny little thing that exists proves there is a creator. Simple as that.

It is true. It can be no other way. This is absolute evidence.

no it’s not. i exist and in no way does that infer the existence of a divine malevolent creator.

my experience tells me this, and if your experience tells you otherwise, then i would ask you to explain how existence alone proves the existence of God

@Unity1

Just because it is not evidence to you does not mean it is evidence.

There is plenty of evidence God exists and no evidence He doesn’t.

this is just your opinion

@Unity1

My view is more inclusive and adequate for the larger part of reality than the atheists view because I can materially prove athesit truth and the truth of creation to exist at the same time (whether the atheist recognises this truth or not is irrelevant).

this proof you speak of is in your head, not mine.

@Unity1

Why are you talking about Christianity.

Tell me what you think I have assumed and I will tell you why it is not an ‘assumption’.

There is plenty of evidence in favour of God and none against him.

No guesses here.

The proof is all around you, you just don’t recognise it.

I didn’t claim to know why God exists. I claimed to know his purpose for Humanity.

I have much evidence.

You view is just as valuable as mine.

Everyone finds their own truth.

everyone has their own views, some peoples are more coherent than others.

And i don;t eman that as an insult, i just awnt you to know wthat the things you have expressed are not philosophical or logical arguments, but personal astethic reasons which simply cannot be shared.

you claim to know Gods purpose for humanity, and so does a million other people all with different ideas about what God wants.

[matty]

Unity, in my view a logic is always bounded, it only applies to a particular frame of reference and therefore an alternative can always be envisaged. Therefore, there is no chance of constructing an “absolute” logic. Clearly there is no way we will ever agree about that, so let’s just leave it at that.

However, the statement you have below is not logical because it has an inherent contradiction, or at the very least a rather gaping hole:

@Unity1

If an infinite Universe it its entirity exists, which it does (the only thing that exists is infinite existence; to state otherwise is illogical), then something which possesses all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty must also exist. The only thing that can possess all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty, can be an infinitely perfect spiritual existence i.e. God.

If, as you claim, “the only thing that exists is infinite existence”, how is it possible for something to exist that is “at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty”? Further, I do not see how it is guaranteed that this thing which exceeds infinite existence (even if we accept that as possible) is “an infinitely perfect spiritual existence” - this is a speculative assertion for which there is no known means of verification.

To convince anyone other than yourself of this “logic” you have constructed would require a much more rigorous approach than what you have so far offered in this thread. The way you responded to Xunzian’s efforts to engage such an extension do not bode well.

[spyderjoe]

From a methodological point of view a Divine Consciousness responsible for the orientation of the temporal evolution in living systems is a bad hypothisis. Because this is something which we have no experience, its an ad hoc hypothesis and does not add to the understanding of the system, moreover it prevents us from doing deeper research into the physical chemistry of living organisms. Is also implies the impossibility of newness and unexpectedness and in the end a negation of time because the future is determined by a conscious plan which itself is nothing more than a projection of the past, even if there is some modification. Thats why assuming a consciousness at work in living systems has very important disadvantages. Among others.

[matty]

@Xunzian

The universe can be seen as an organic holism because agency can be readily attributed in a sane fashion. We can look at the patterns that emerge and understand them. If there was something beyond/outside the universe, you would expect certain observable events to have incongruent agents, right? That is how something outside the universe would behave in its interaction with the universe. The absence of those sorts of events coupled with the massive amount of events that affirm the hypothesis presented here would seem to affirm organic holism very much at the expense of supernaturalism.

I think this is exactly where the problem lies, Xunzian: that just because something cannot be explained scientifically (and even that is debateable, of course) means that it can be attributed to some kind of deity. Like you, I have absolutely no taste for such a “logic”, it’s a closed system that, as Joe suggests, doesn’t take us anywhere.

[Xunzian]

Indeed. If I had to pick just one reason I’m an atheist, I’d go with the aesthetic one. “God did it!” is such an ugly, unproductive answer.

[Unity1]

@Xunzian

X1. The book is ‘lay’ because it can be readily read and understood by a non-specialist audience. Which is why I suggested it for you to consider.

As for assumptions, you have:

X2. U1) God exists (you can call it a ‘hard fact’ if you’d like but if that falls under the purview of ‘hard fact’ then I am not sure what doesn’t . . .)

X3. U2) Linear causality holds true in all cases. Not a bad assumption, actually – but not one that is universally shared either. Some of the big Humeans on the board will take you to task on that one. People who deal with integrated systems will also have some pause at that assumption since they routinely encounter networked environments where linear causality is too simple to accurately model the system.

X4. U3) The God of revealed religions applies to the first cause (holds better in some cases than in others).

X5. U4) Revealed religions accurately transmit knowledge/represent an accurate source of knowledge/represent a valid authority.

---

X6. Insofar as evidence is concerned, you are demanding an absence of evidence as opposed to evidence proper, as has already been pointed out. While there are plenty of skeptics arguing against your point, skepticism only goes so far before it eats itself. But it is possible for someone to hold worldviews which reject and, or all, of the assumptions I’ve listed above (and more!). For example, I do not share U1, U3, and U4 – and I only think that U2 can be said to exist on a local, defined level. shrugs We can talk around those assumptions, or I can ask you why you hold the ones you do.

I can outline my atheism and my counter-narrative, if you’d like. Here you are:

Well, my personal reasons for atheism are tri-fold:

X7. 1) As a scientist, God is a cop-out answer. It’s purely aesthetic. When you are studying a principle, you can say ‘God did it’ and be done. The problem with this is that, since it is impossible to prove the nature of God, your solution is un-provable. That is, quite simply, bad science. Granted, this allows for natural theological explanations, which are possible and acceptable. So, basically put 1 point down for agnosticism.

X8. 2) As someone who studies Confucian texts and is greatly influenced by that religio-philosophical tradition, I think this quote sums it up best:

When Adept Lu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, the Master said: “You haven’t learned to serve the living, so how could you serve ghosts?”
“Might I ask about death?”
“You don’t understand life,” the Master replied, “so how could you understand death?”

So, another point for agnosticism.

3. Good ol’ Brecht:

A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behaviour would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.”

X9. I don’t feel my behaviour would change. I live a good life and if God is petty enough to punish me for not groveling before him, then God is not the kind of being I want to associate with.

X10. So, aesthetically, I don’t like the idea of the Divine, philosophically I am disinclined to study it because it is not relevant and personally it does not affect me. Given these, I see no reason to even admit that there might be a God, anymore than I might admit to any other unprovable agent. It is possible? Sure. But it is also possible that we are living in the Matrix, or that I am a figment of my girlfriend’s imagination. I don’t entertain these thoughts because they aren’t useful and, frankly, boarder on the absurd.

X11. I would also like to point of the idea of holism, whereby in creating a diety that is outside of the system the interconnectedness of the system breaks down and you are left with little more than nihilism. I pretty much agree with Mary Evelyn Tucker’s take on Tu Weiming’s interpretation:

Naturalistic Cosmology
Chinese naturalism as a primary ingredient of Confucianism in its broadest sense is characterized by an organic holism and a dynamic vitalism. The organic holism of Confucianism refers to the fact that the universe is viewed as a vast integrated unit, not as discrete mechanistic parts. Nature is seen as unified, interconnected, and interpenetrating, constantly relating microcosm and macrocosm. This interconnectedness is already present in the early Confucian tradition in the I Ching, or Book of Changes, and in the Han correspondences of the elements with seasons, directions, colors, and even virtues.

This sense of naturalism and holism is distinguished by the view that there is no Creator God; rather, the universe is considered to be a self-generating, organismic process.1 Confucians are traditionally concerned less with theories of origin or with concepts of a personal God than with what they perceive to be the ongoing reality of this self-generating, interrelated universe. This interconnected quality has been described by Tu Weiming as a “continuity of being.”2 This implies a great chain of being, which is in continual process and transformation, linking inorganic, organic, and human life-forms. For the Confucians this linkage is a reality because all life is constituted of ch’i, the material force or psycho-physical element of the universe. This is the unifying element of the cosmos and creates the basis for a profound reciprocity between humans and the natural world.

This brings us to a second important characteristic of Confucian cosmology, namely, its quality of dynamic vitalism inherent in ch’i. It is material force as the substance of life that is the basis for the continuing process of change and transformation in the universe. The term, sheng sheng (production and reproduction), is used in Confucian and Neo-Confucian texts to illustrate the ongoing creativity and renewal of nature. Furthermore, it constitutes a sophisticated awarenessthat change is the basis for the interaction and continuation of the web of life systems—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. And finally, it celebrates transformation as the clearest expression of the creative processes of life with which humans should harmonize their own actions. In essence, human beings are urged to “model themselves on the ceaseless vitality of the cosmic processes.”3 This approach is an important key to Confucian thought in general, for a sense of holism, vitalism, and harmonizing with change provides the metaphysical basis on which an integrated morality can be developed. The extended discussions of the relationship of li (principle) to ch’i (material force) in Neo-Confucianism can be seen as part of the effort to articulate continuity and order in the midst of change. Li is the pattern amidst flux which provides a means of establishing harmony.

Now, you are under no onus to accept the particular narrative that I have provided (though I do think it better models reality than the theism of revealed religions as well as theism in general).

Now, you’ll ask me to support for what has been asserted above. That is fine.

B1. X1) The universe is constantly engaged in the process of change and motion. From the smallest particle engaged in brownian motion to ourselves as we pass through time, nothing can be said to be constant. Only the illusion of an unchanging entity exists because we will it so. Regularly followed models can be created, of course. But any given measurement will differ from that model due to a variety of factors beyond the control of the measurer, and that the model itself does not take into account. That is why statistics are so vitally important to science. So support for this assertion can be said to exist.

B2. X2) Easily established agency. The universe can be seen as an organic holism because agency can be readily attributed in a sane fashion. We can look at the patterns that emerge and understand them. If there was something beyond/outside the universe, you would expect certain observable events to have incongruent agents, right? That is how something outside the universe would behave in its interaction with the universe. The absence of those sorts of events coupled with the massive amount of events that affirm the hypothesis presented here would seem to affirm organic holism very much at the expense of supernaturalism. So support for this assertion can be said to exist.

B3. Given A1 and A2, you have a networked system constantly engaged in change. If U2 still holds true on a defined level, you now have something that connects elements in the networked system not only to each other but to themselves as the process of change manifests itself.

X1. That was my perception.
X2. Hard fact is not an assumption. Everything is true for the person who perceives it.
X3. Just because the causality can be expressed linearly does not mean it is not outside of linearality.
X4. God is the first cause prove he isn’t.
X5. Prove me wrong.
X6. The proof of God is the existence of creation. The proof that He requires a perfect society is that He can only be perfect and therefore his purposes can only be perfect.
X7. A truly scientific scientist would accept God. God exists because the creation exists. He requires a perfect society is that He can only be perfect and therefore his purposes can only be perfect. God should be an ‘assumption’ in all scientific endeavours.
X8. This is what I think about you X -

When Adept Lu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, the Master said: “You haven’t learned to serve the living, so how could you serve ghosts?”
“Might I ask about death?”
“You don’t understand life,” the Master replied, “so how could you understand death?”

X9. That is your personal view which I can integrate and respect.
X10. Absurd? Keep an open mind young man.
X11. something cannot come out of nothing. That is absurd.

B1. What does this show other than we do not understand the complexity of the universe?
B2. I quantum mechanics congruent? What about randomness?
B3. OK so something came out of nothing. What about evolution what force directs that? And life, what is life? What is emotion? What is consciousness? What is the essence of being?

[Unity1]

@Wonderer

@Unity1

I don’t care if you are a seasoned veteran of Seattle Mud Wrestling.

I am glad your view accomodates mine, which makes it more adequate in itself.

There is no evidence that God exists to you. this does not mean there is no evidence. Everything tiny little thing that exists proves there is a creator. Simple as that.

It is true. It can be no other way. This is absolute evidence.

no it’s not. i exist and in no way does that infer the existence of a divine malevolent creator.

my experience tells me this, and if your experience tells you otherwise, then i would ask you to explain how existence alone proves the existence of God

@Unity1

Just because it is not evidence to you does not mean it is evidence.

There is plenty of evidence God exists and no evidence He doesn’t.

this is just your opinion

@Unity1

My view is more inclusive and adequate for the larger part of reality than the atheists view because I can materially prove athesit truth and the truth of creation to exist at the same time (whether the atheist recognises this truth or not is irrelevant).

this proof you speak of is in your head, not mine.

@Unity1

Why are you talking about Christianity.

Tell me what you think I have assumed and I will tell you why it is not an ‘assumption’.

There is plenty of evidence in favour of God and none against him.

No guesses here.

The proof is all around you, you just don’t recognise it.

I didn’t claim to know why God exists. I claimed to know his purpose for Humanity.

I have much evidence.

You view is just as valuable as mine.

Everyone finds their own truth.

everyone has their own views, some peoples are more coherent than others.

And i don;t eman that as an insult, i just awnt you to know wthat the things you have expressed are not philosophical or logical arguments, but personal astethic reasons which simply cannot be shared.

you claim to know Gods purpose for humanity, and so does a million other people all with different ideas about what God wants.

That is just your opinion.

[Unity1]

@matty

Unity, in my view a logic is always bounded, it only applies to a particular frame of reference and therefore an alternative can always be envisaged. Therefore, there is no chance of constructing an “absolute” logic. Clearly there is no way we will ever agree about that, so let’s just leave it at that.

However, the statement you have below is not logical because it has an inherent contradiction, or at the very least a rather gaping hole:

@Unity1

If an infinite Universe it its entirity exists, which it does (the only thing that exists is infinite existence; to state otherwise is illogical), then something which possesses all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty must also exist. The only thing that can possess all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty, can be an infinitely perfect spiritual existence i.e. God.

1. If, as you claim, “the only thing that exists is infinite existence”, how is it possible for something to exist that is “at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty”? Further, I do not see how it is guaranteed that this thing which exceeds infinite existence (even if we accept that as possible) is “an infinitely perfect spiritual existence” - 2. this is a speculative assertion for which there is no known means of verification.

2. To convince anyone other than yourself of this “logic” you have constructed would require a much more rigorous approach than what you have so far offered in this thread. The way you responded to Xunzian’s efforts to engage such an extension do not bode well.

1. The only thing that exists is infinite existence. The thing that is infinitely outside infinite materialty is infinite existence.
2. You have to accept each part of the hierarchy. If something exists something created it. The creator must be beyond of the nature of the creation. The nature of the creation is material. The nature of the creator must be beyond materiality.
3. There are at least 6 million people who accept this exact logic. Only 16% of the entire world does not believe in God.

adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

That means 5.67 billion people do believe in God.

Most of these would agree that He is spiritual.

[Unity1]

@spyderjoe

1. From a methodological point of view a Divine Consciousness responsible for the orientation of the temporal evolution in living systems is a bad hypothisis. Because this is something which we have no experience, its an ad hoc hypothesis and does not add to the understanding of the system, 2. moreover it prevents us from doing deeper research into the physical chemistry of living organisms. 3. Is also implies the impossibility of newness and unexpectedness and in the end a negation of time because the future is determined by a conscious plan which itself is nothing more than a projection of the past, even if there is some modification. Thats why assuming a consciousness at work in living systems has very important disadvantages. Among others.

1. That is not my hypothesis exactly.
2. It doesn’t need to. Science is still science.
3. Only in the mind of God.

There would be a certain amount of ‘freedom’ i.e. the freedom kids have at school (although they are only free in that they can act upon they’re own wishes and desires which are caused).

[spyderjoe]

“God did it!” is such an ugly, unproductive answer.

Now hold on. Can God be spiritually productive?
Yes Spiritually!
Body and Mind must work in conjunction with Spirit.
Some people who are vary spiritual dont always assume a God or gods.
Compassion comes from the source of our humanity.
Compassion is the source of our humanity.
Some people are not to overly conscious of good
And not to overly conscious of evil.

You can’t force your goodness on some one through force.

Spirituality is useful and productive. yes.
Spirituality can sometimes be harmfull and useless. yes.

[Unity1]

@matty

@Xunzian

The universe can be seen as an organic holism because agency can be readily attributed in a sane fashion. We can look at the patterns that emerge and understand them. If there was something beyond/outside the universe, you would expect certain observable events to have incongruent agents, right? That is how something outside the universe would behave in its interaction with the universe. The absence of those sorts of events coupled with the massive amount of events that affirm the hypothesis presented here would seem to affirm organic holism very much at the expense of supernaturalism.

I think this is exactly where the problem lies, Xunzian: that just because something cannot be explained scientifically (and even that is debateable, of course) means that it can be attributed to some kind of deity. Like you, I have absolutely no taste for such a “logic”, it’s a closed system that, as Joe suggests, doesn’t take us anywhere.

Something cannot come out of nothing. If you have a problem with this logic you have a problem with logic.

My system is not closed in any sense.

It completely accepts the reality of science.

The universe can be completely explained scientifically.

However science has not yet done this and science will eventually accept the existence of God as an ‘assumption’.

Logic is a science.

I have scientifically shown the need for an infinitely perfect spiritual creator.

Whether you accept this infallible logic or not does not negate the truth of it.

[Impenitent]

@Unity1

Whether you accept this infallible logic or not does not negate the truth of it.

“infallible” logic indeed…

it is defined as such in the origins of language, so it must be so because that is simply how it is…

what a solid proof of god.

anselm would be proud.

-Imp

[spyderjoe]

Something cannot come out of nothing. If you have a problem with this logic you have a problem with logic.

This logic can prove that God cannot possibly exist as well. You cannot have an nonmaterial spirit effect change in the material world because of The law of the conservation of energy.

[Cyrene]

Nothing comes from nothing unless its the tagteam of god and the universe existing forever. Its no wonder you asked for polite replies, you didn’t want anyone to make implications about the computational power behind the systems producing those claims.

[Unity1]

@spyderjoe

“God did it!” is such an ugly, unproductive answer.

Now hold on. Can God be spiritually productive?
Yes Spiritually!
Body and Mind must work in conjunction with Spirit.
Some people who are vary spiritual dont always assume a God or gods.
Compassion comes from the source of our humanity.
Compassion is the source of our humanity.
Some people are not to overly conscious of good
And not to overly conscious of evil.

You can’t force your goodness on some one through force.

Spirituality is useful and productive. yes.
Spirituality can sometimes be harmfull and useless. yes.

True spirituality can never be harmful.

[Unity1]

@Impenitent

@Unity1

Whether you accept this infallible logic or not does not negate the truth of it.

“infallible” logic indeed…

it is defined as such in the origins of language, so it must be so because that is simply how it is…

what a solid proof of god.

anselm would be proud.

-Imp

Yes it is infallible.

The fact you think otherwise shows your fallibility.

The proof is indestructible, as shown by the lack of any proof of its fallibilty in this thread.