About a deity full of love and compassion

[strikeviperMKII]

But they surely still exist even if we don't understand them.

Are you including knowledge of existence in the word 'understand'? Because if you are, you are begging the question. Logical fallacy. If you are not, then I would say that no, they do not exist if we do not understand them enough to know that they exist.
Example. I have never tasted a kiwi, but, I can understand that kiwis do in fact have a taste of some kind, if only by asking someone who has had a kiwi. Therefore I now understand that a kiwi has a taste, even though I do not know it. Before I asked someone, the kiwi was just a thing, which did not have the quality of taste. Thus taste did not exist for the kiwi for me.

There is also an element of perspective here. When you say exist, I assume you mean a universal existence. But still, I must ask universal to whom? Us? Humans? Or a more general universal existence?

 

[ellenjanuary]

I think there's a whole lotta something being made outta nothing.

Lemme define ellen, make it simple: I am a simulation. Mind, from brain; all natural, no extras. What's the difficulty? Two hundred thousand years of natural programming to accomplish a single feat - I - which occurred through the blind watchmaker. Evolution isn't direction, it is testing parameters for fitness. "I" wouldn't be here if somehow "I" wasn't a fit parameter for the natural environment. But programmers have direction, goals, agenda; deadlines for beta testing. If one sees "intelligence" as direction, one is bound to program "skynet" from Terminator. But it isn't direction so much as resultant. Seeing it as resultant, calling god the stimuli, accomplishes even less.

What, we get god on the line... "Hey, uh... we're down here messing with things we shouldn't, but ah... you know us! Think you could give us some tips?" Seems like we'd just get rocks falling on our heads, and another lecture about the graven image bit. Accepting god as stimuli is failing god, is the way I see it. For me, being the "image of god" is doing things godlike, making the old man proud.

And in the Book of Job, where does god point; for example? To nature. We know precisely zero about Auroch and Leviathan; but if we do, how will we know? Evolution. Who can straighten that which god has made crooked? Well, if we're talking something like the Mississippi; flooding its banks, turning into a big ol' lake... that'll be Mother Nature.

Gaia programmed Gaia. We know of stellar formation, and the remnants likely to form planets. We know of gravitation and plate tectonics. And we know of life from saying "I live" and investigating a three point eight billion year heritage of life, here, on Earth.

But we gotta stop thinking "artificial intelligence," and start thinking "natural resultant," is my two cents. I'd help, but my job is "religious fanatic."

 

[Koldo]

There is also an element of perspective here. When you say exist, I assume you mean a universal existence. But still, I must ask universal to whom? Us? Humans? Or a more general universal existence?

A more general universal existence completely independent from perception to exist, as in being part of reality.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

A more general universal existence completely independent from perception to exist, as in being part of reality.

And yet such an exsistence does not exist until someone percieves it. That is to say that this idea that things can be part of reality that we do not percieve was not existent until someone had the idea. It both proves and disproves itself in the same stroke.

 

[PolyHedral]

A reality is a logical necessity, and it is assumed to be external as a matter of convenience. That is what is meant by the statement "It exists:" it has an existence separate from the viewer, and would continue if the viewer was not there to observe it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

A reality is a logical necessity, and it is assumed to be external as a matter of convenience. That is what is meant by the statement "It exists:" it has an existence separate from the viewer, and would continue if the viewer was not there to observe it.

Does reality become irrelevant when there is no observer? I would think it does.

 

[Koldo]

Does reality become irrelevant when there is no observer? I would think it does.

Irrelevant to what?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Irrelevant to what?

To the observer.

 

[Koldo]

To the observer.

And why is 'relevancy to the observer' relevant to your argument?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Someone may have some mysticism in his QM, here...

The measurement problem occurs because "the act of observation" adds energy to the system of the experiment, i. e. a "real observer" is not required for wavelength collapse...

As you were.

 

[Willamena]

A reality is a logical necessity, and it is assumed to be external as a matter of convenience. That is what is meant by the statement "It exists:" it has an existence separate from the viewer, and would continue if the viewer was not there to observe it.

"Convenience." How poetic.

If reality is "external" that is "it exists," does "internal" (the observer) exist?

 

[Koldo]

"Convenience." How poetic.

If reality is "external" that is "it exists," does "internal" (the observer) exist?

I find those labels ,"external" and "internal", being used to define the reality and the observer respectively to be most unappropriated.

In the concept of reality, the observer is also part of it. It is just the relation of dependence that changes drastically.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And why is 'relevancy to the observer' relevant to your argument?

Because we are the observers.

 

[Koldo]

Because we are the observers.

I am lost in your argument.
What is the relevancy of this?

 

[Willamena]

I am lost in your argument.
What is the relevancy of this?

Reality only exists for the observer. They are co-dependent: in being aware of something, there is something being aware.

 

[Koldo]

Reality only exists for the observer. They are co-dependent: in being aware of something, there is something being aware.

If we accept what PolyHedral defined as 'reality', then it would be completely arbitrary to consider your proposed stance. Reality is a label used to describe exactly what an observer is ,neither specifically nor necessarily, being aware, but still exists completely independent from observers.

 

[Autodidact]

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God unto life, to all who believe in it; whether first they are of the Jews, or whether they are of the Gentiles.
Rom 1:17 For in it is revealed the righteousness of God, from faith to faith; as it is written, The righteous by faith, shall live.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God from heaven is revealed against all the iniquity and wickedness of men, who hold the truth in iniquity.
Rom 1:19 Because a knowledge of God is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it in them.
Rom 1:20 For, from the foundations of the world, the occult things of God are seen, by the intellect, in the things he created, even his eternal power and divinity; so that they might be without excuse;
Rom 1:21 because they knew God, and did not glorify him and give thanks to him as God, but became vain in their imaginings, and their unwise heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 And, while they thought within themselves that they were wise, they became fools.
Rom 1:23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness to the image of a corruptible man, and into the likeness of birds and quadrupeds and reptiles on the earth.
Rom 1:24 For this cause, God gave them up to the filthy lusts of their heart, to dishonor their bodies with them.
Rom 1:25 And they changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the created things, much more than the Creator of them, to whom belong glory and blessing, for ever and ever: Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to vile passions: for their females changed the use of their natures, and employed that which is unnatural.
Rom 1:27 And so also their males forsook the use of females, which is natural, and burned with lust toward one another; and, male with male, they did what is shameful, and received in themselves the just recompense of their error.
Rom 1:28 And as they did not determine with themselves to know God, God gave them over to a vain mind; that they might do what they ought not,

Did you have a point?

 

[Willamena]

If we accept what PolyHedral defined as 'reality', then it would be completely arbitrary to consider your proposed stance. Reality is a label used to describe exactly what an observer is ,neither specifically nor necessarily, being aware, but still exists completely independent from observers.

It's a contrasting view.

But okay.

 

[Willamena]

I'm confused. Why is an illusion undoubtable?

If illusion didn't exist, it could make no impression on you.

If "I" is "real", then what other patterns are real? Are planets somehow more than large rocks? Are books somehow more then paper, binding and ink?

But is the movie/universe still there even if there is no audience? Saying there is something special about "seeing" the universe means we would have to work out what things can "see" and which can't. Does a computer count as the audience to the universe's movie, or is something more complicated needed?

What necessitates reality? Affirmation of existence in actuality. Is a promise real? It has the power to move us to do things we wouldn't necessarily ordinarily do, yet it's just a pattern of words/thought. It's as real as it gets. Is the tea cup orbiting Mars real? Only if we looked would we ever know. (Is a metaphoric tea cup oribiting Mars real? Sure; metaphor doesn't require us to move to affirm its existence.) Without affirmation, reality is meaningless; and once it takes on meaningfulness --even if it be in mathematical equation or through interpretation of instruments --it has been affirmed.

If it's "something," it's been "seen." (Both/either a literal/metaphorical seeing/understanding.)

But they surely still exist even if we don't understand them.

Imaginatively, speculatively, extrapolatively, assumptively... potentially; else, we're simply addressing the unknown. 'Actually' stands in contrast to 'potentially'.

 

[Skeptisch]

If illusion didn't exist, it could make no impression on you.

Is Reality Relative?

“Now some would like to think reality is relative. That is, what is true for you may not be true for me, and vice versa. This is a polite way to run away from discussions, but what if I do not think the relativity of truth is not true for me? The proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand suffers the same end regardless of whether it sees the lion coming upon it or not. To be morbid, no scientific experiments have shown that toxic pollutants had no more or less effect on unsuspecting people than on warned people. If truth was relative, then "ignorance is bliss", and "what they don’t know won’t hurt them." -but we know otherwise”.

http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/RelativismAndTruth/Reality.htm