Nontheist

[Quintessence]

A mutual understanding cannot be achieved if the meaning of a word or term is not agreed upon.

Sure it can - terminological agreement isn't necessary to achieve understanding. If anything, believing terminological agreement is somehow necessary guarantees misunderstanding when we're dealing with topics with a high degree of cultural, ideological, and personal diversity. Words are polysemic, especially across (sub)cultures.

 

[F1fan]

A person should be able to logically explain how they are employing a term if they understand what they are saying. When someone turns to the dictionary as opposed to simply explaining the logic of their usage, I have to assume it's because they can't explain their own logic, or they don't care that it's illogical and/or misleading.

You are critical of the usage of others, and then don't offer what you think is proper. Is that logical?

"Objective existence" is a concept, not a "thing". And the inability to grasp this is the failure of philosophical materialism. The materialist keeps demanding something that, as a limited human, he cannot have. And when he doesn't get it, he claims it must not really exist.

"Objective existence" as a two word phrase is a concept, but the concept refers to actual, existing things. Hobbits and Elves have no objective existence, but humans do.

But what exists is the great mystery of being. And we cannot unravel it.

Your favorite sandals exist, are they a mystery?

Yet we have to live with it, and within it. And to do that we need to understand it well enough to control it, or at least to control ourselves in relation to it. The materialists have chosen to believe that existence is just a big elaborate physical mechanism. And that we can use science to figure out all the mechanical intricacies, which will then give us the knowledge/control that we seek.

Regardless of whether a person is lost in the mysterious (whether actual mysteries or elaborate self-confusion) we humans can function just fine. What make a difference in life has been technology, not the religious ideas we believe in. If anything religion has been less and less significant as modernity progresses.

But the rest of the world's people see existence as being more than just a big physical mechanism. In various ways and to various degrees they see existence as a singular whole, like an entity of some kind. An expression of being unto itself and within which everything that is, both resides and is being given form, and independence, and even in some cases, conscious self-awareness.

Will these people go to the temple and pray when they get sick, or to a hospital?

And with that awareness comes the ability to ask 'why?' (not just how) ... a question that we cannot answer, but that determines every other answer we think we possess. It's "meta-question". The one that theism (philosophy) tries to address.

Because science cannot.

Yeah, ask why your child got cancer but none of your friend's kids did.

 

[lukethethird]

You are critical of the usage of others, and then don't offer what you think is proper. Is that logical?

"Objective existence" as a two word phrase is a concept, but the concept refers to actual, existing things. Hobbits and Elves have no objective existence, but humans do.

Your favorite sandals exist, are they a mystery?

Regardless of whether a person is lost in the mysterious (whether actual mysteries or elaborate self-confusion) we humans can function just fine. What make a difference in life has been technology, not the religious ideas we believe in. If anything religion has been less and less significant as modernity progresses.

Will these people go to the temple and pray when they get sick, or to a hospital?

Yeah, ask why your child got cancer but none of your friend's kids did.

This is the thing, you say hobbits and elves don't exist and no one bats an eye, but say gods don't exist and next thing you know you'd think the sky is falling and oh, you're a believer, that's a belief, that's dogma, it's your religion, just like those extremists. It's like don't you dare point to the elephant in the room.

 

[ppp]

I don't see how naturalism is anything else but a philosophical intuition as well.

Which type of naturalism are you saying is a Philosophical intuition?


Naturalism is a philosophical perspective that encompasses various branches and (some) conflicting approaches.. Metaphysical/Philosophical and methodological are the ones that always pop to mind. There are at least half a dozen more.

 

[osgart]

Which type of naturalism are you saying is a Philosophical intuition?


Naturalism is a philosophical perspective that encompasses various branches and (some) conflicting approaches.. Metaphysical/Philosophical and methodological are the ones that always pop to mind. There are at least half a dozen more.

The metaphysical/philosophical belief that everything arises from natural causes without any need of intellect, and any purposes. That is the intuition

 

[ppp]

The metaphysical/philosophical belief that everything arises from natural causes without any need of intellect, and any purposes. That is the intuition

That isn't metaphisical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists. If a natural agent that transcended this universe were to exist, that would not be precluded by metaphysical naturalism. If one were to believe such an agent existed , one would be unjustified and irrational, but one could still be a metaphysical naturalist.

BTW, I have found very few people who are commited to such a metaphysical position. I mosly hear it from theists who overstate the positions of atheists.

 

[osgart]

That isn't metaphisical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists. If a natural agent that transcended this universe were to exist, that would not be precluded by metaphysical naturalism. If one were to believe such an agent existed , one would be unjustified and irrational, but one could still be a metaphysical naturalist.

BTW, I have found very few people who are commited to such a metaphysical position. I mosly hear it from theists who overstate the positions of atheists.

By what criteria is it unjustified and irrational?

 

[ppp]

By what criteria is it unjustified and irrational?

The usual. Non-fallacious reasoning. supported by demonstrable evidence that is significantly differentiating.

 

[osgart]

The usual. Non-fallacious reasoning. supported by demonstrable evidence that is significantly differentiating.

Now I've heard some scientists consider that the universe could be intelligent.

There are also logically sound arguments from Theists regarding the existence of God.

The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

Neuroscientist and author Bobby Azarian explores the idea that the Universe is a self-organizing system that evolves and learns.

bigthink.com

Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality?

NOTE: Today we kick off a six-part series by Karlo Broussard on a metaphysical proof for God's existence. The posts will run each of the next six Mondays. Part 1 - Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality? Part 2 - The Absolute Simplicity of Unconditioned Reality Part 3 - The Abs

strangenotions.com

What's one piece of evidence that significantly differentiates from intelligence and also agency?

To me you are relying on intuition to say that evidence is significantly differentiating. It convinced you, but certainly not everyone.

 

[ppp]

Now I've heard some scientists consider that the universe could be intelligent.

There are also logically sound arguments from Theists regarding the existence of God.

The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

Neuroscientist and author Bobby Azarian explores the idea that the Universe is a self-organizing system that evolves and learns.

bigthink.com

Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality?

NOTE: Today we kick off a six-part series by Karlo Broussard on a metaphysical proof for God's existence. The posts will run each of the next six Mondays. Part 1 - Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality? Part 2 - The Absolute Simplicity of Unconditioned Reality Part 3 - The Abs

strangenotions.com

I don't do homework until someone has made their own commitment and cogently argued their own point in their own right. I am happy to read supporting literature (to a point), but only after a cogent and considered commitment to their own position is evident from my interlocutor.. This is not an accusation. There have just been far too many posters who throw articles at me that they haven't read, don't understand, and fail to realize do not support the position that they hold.

That being said. I took a look at one of the articles. The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

• It suggests that the universe is a complex adaptive system based upon the observation that both biological systems and the universe contain a hierarchy of structures that are interconnected in some way..
• The the emergence of consciousness from complexity in biological organism is suggestive that another complex system would produce consciousness..
• It draws on similarities between physics and biology that are metaphorical, trivial, or both.
• It panders to the ego via human exceptionalism

I suppose that their may bhave been an argument or two in their, but didn't see amy that were sound. If you disagree, feel free to extract and construct the argument.

What's one piece of evidence that significantly differentiates from intelligence and also agency?

Significantly differentiates what from intelligence and also agency?

To me you are relying on intuition to say that evidence is significantly differentiating.

Have you seen me make such a determination. Can you detail (or even outline) my thinking process with any accuracy?
I do not think you have enough information to be qualified to have an opinion on whether or not I am using intuition.

It convinced you, but certainly not everyone.

What exactly am I convinced of?

 

[osgart]

I don't do homework until someone has made their own commitment and cogently argued their own point in their own right. I am happy to read supporting literature (to a point), but only after a cogent and considered commitment to their own position is evident from my interlocutor.. This is not an accusation. There have just been far too many posters who throw articles at me that they haven't read, don't understand, and fail to realize do not support the position that they hold.

That being said. I took a look at one of the articles. The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

• It suggests that the universe is a complex adaptive system based upon the observation that both biological systems and the universe contain a hierarchy of structures that are interconnected in some way..
• The the emergence of consciousness from complexity in biological organism is suggestive that another complex system would produce consciousness..
• It draws on similarities between physics and biology that are metaphorical, trivial, or both.
• It panders to the ego via human exceptionalism

I suppose that their may bhave been an argument or two in their, but didn't see amy that were sound. If you disagree, feel free to extract and construct the argument.


Significantly differentiates what from intelligence and also agency?


Have you seen me make such a determination. Can you detail (or even outline) my thinking process with any accuracy?
I do not think you have enough information to be qualified to have an opinion on whether or not I am using intuition.


What exactly am I convinced of?

At this stage it's a working hypothesis that I wouldn't throw away.


But does this perspective provide any additional explanatory or predictive power over previous cosmic models? Well, using this paradigm, Vanchurin was able to show how to reconcile the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics — a major problem.

Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of virtual reality, told podcast host Lex Fridman, “There’s been a zillion papers about how you can think of the Universe as a big neural net, or how you can think of different ideas in physics as being quite similar to, or even equivalent to, some of the ideas in machine learning, and that actually works out crazy well. That actually is kind of eerie.”


Those two statements struck me as worth the time to venture into.




You also said that you have significant evidence that significantly differentiates. I assumed you were talking about a way to refute agency and intelligence in nature. It appears to me that you claim to be able to refute such things as unjustified and irrational but I've heard no argument as to why.

 

[blü 2]

The mystery is not purely a concept. It is as real as anything we think we 'know', as it is what we don't know. To a human, not knowing presents is with vulnerability, and danger. Because as a species we survive and thrive by knowing how to anticipate and manipulate our environment, and ourselves in relation to it, to our advantage.

Well, yes, and believers have long treated God as a real entity without apparently noticing [he] never appears, says or does and has no description appropriate for a real entity. Even the unicorn is better off than God in that regard.

But God exists, and gods and other supernatural beings exist, solely as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. Search the world external to the self and there's no trace of them. Otherwise atheists would have nowhere to stand, and religion wouldn't be losing its fans in the First World.

Mysteries are a very real and important matter to us. And it's why so many of us seek help in dealing with our unknowing. Especially on such a profound level as our source, sustenance, and purpose. Theism is the way many of us choose to do that, philosophically. And religion, then, practically.

The world would be a dull place without mysteries. But at least from my point of view, we work to solve mysteries in order to understand them, whether they be local and personal, or those of world-class stage magicians, or about the nature and origin of the cosmos; and we only take pleasure in the sensation of being mystified (on those occasions when we might do so) while we're on our way to seeking to solve them.

 

[F1fan]

The metaphysical/philosophical belief that everything arises from natural causes without any need of intellect, and any purposes. That is the intuition

I suggest it is deduction.

 

[ppp]

At this stage it's a working hypothesis that I wouldn't throw away.

Well, it's a hypothesis. "Working" is a bit of a stretch.

But does this perspective provide any additional explanatory or predictive power over previous cosmic models?

No.

Well, using this paradigm, Vanchurin was able to show how to reconcile the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics — a major problem.

He was not able to show any such thing. He was able to idly speculate. Which is why this is a pop-sci article where no scientific
rigor is required. Nor present.

I assumed you were talking about a way to refute agency and intelligence in nature.

By nature, Iand from the context, I assume that you mean refuting an intelligent universe with agency. I am definitely not even trying to do such a thing. The burden of proof is on you who claim that the universe is an intelligent agent.

 

[osgart]

I suggest it is deduction.

Then you have a deductive argument in place. I hope so because I've never heard anyone on RF make an argument on the matter.

 

[F1fan]

Then you have a deductive argument in place. I hope so because I've never heard anyone on RF make an argument on the matter.

I offer the whole history of the sciences. If it has done nothing else it has made it clear that religious assumption, claims, and traditions of a supernatural are not justified.

 

[osgart]

Well, it's a hypothesis. "Working" is a bit of a stretch.

No.

He was not able to show any such thing. He was able to idly speculate. Which is why this is a pop-sci article where no scientific
rigor is required. Nor present.


By nature, Iand from the context, I assume that you mean refuting an intelligent universe with agency. I am definitely not even trying to do such a thing. The burden of proof is on you who claim that the universe is an intelligent agent.

So you are not making any claims and are just neither, nor on the proposition. To me this burden of proof goes both ways if you affirm with certainty that the universe isn't intelligent, and thus no agency involved. That means you affirm with certainty that the universe is nothing more than natural laws that operate completely without intelligence.

I never claimed the universe is an intelligent agent. I have a conviction that the universe is a product of ongoing intelligence fundamentally, and agency is responsible though not an attribute of the universe as a whole. The evidence would be fine tuning in the universe, DNA coding, and human form and function. The universe evolves so I don't claim design, nor ideal perfection. Whatever information is the universe runs on it.

 

[osgart]

I offer the whole history of the sciences. If it has done nothing else it has made it clear that religious assumption, claims, and traditions of a supernatural are not justified.

I don't defend supernatural claims, nor any holy books.

Natural agency, and an intelligently evolving universe is what I see.

 

[F1fan]

I don't defend supernatural claims, nor any holy books.

Natural agency, and an intelligently evolving universe is what I see.

If there is an intelligence guiding evolution would we not expect to see more balance and less brutality as time goes on?

And if there is an intelligence, why not create a perfect universe that is in equilibrium?

Agency means making deliberate decisions. How intelligent do you think the universe is, a 70 IQ perhaps? After all what's intelligent about birth defects? Cancers? Would you guide the universe in a wya that defects and cancers were a planned result?

 

[blü 2]

"Objective existence" is a concept, not a "thing".

As I see it, the universe is divided into two parts ─ me, on the one hand, and everything else, on the other hand. And I know about the 'everything else' part through my five senses. Humans have evolved to conceptualize, generalize, classify, abstract, relate, from the very dawn of learning language, where the infant is told that the thing the carer is pointing to is a car; and that also is a car and that also is a car, while there's only one Mom and only one Dad &c. In short, abstractions and generalizations and relationships (mom's car) abound in just about every sentence we speak.

But that car is real and Mom is real and that toy train is real, and dinner is an array of related real elements, and also a set of human procedures, and later we notice the air around me is real and so on. Things are real if they have objective existence ie are found as parts of the world external to the self (as distinct from the relationships we may unconsciously organize them into ─ a row of houses.

So for God to be real, God must, like the air, and mom, and the Higgs boson, be a perceivable element of reality, the world external to the self.

And the inability to grasp this is the failure of philosophical materialism.

You can't be serious? What on earth has religion contributed in the past millennium to equal ─ to take just one example ─ penicillin?

I'm not attacking the achievements of religion in the field ─ help and medical (or 'medical') treatments for the poor, and so on, but the welfare state has outstripped all of that in the last century.

The materialist keeps demanding something that, as a limited human, he cannot have. And when he doesn't get it, he claims it must not really exist.

What test do you use to determine whether something is real, exists in its own right, or not?

But what exists is the great mystery of being. And we cannot unravel it.

With all due respect, we've unraveled a great deal of it ─ cosmology, weather, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, medicine, psychiatry, on and on ─ and thanks to reasoned enquiry including scientific method, we continue to advance.

The materialists have chosen to believe that existence is just a big elaborate physical mechanism. And that we can use science to figure out all the mechanical intricacies, which will then give us the knowledge/control that we seek.

No, you sell us short. We've also enquired into human relationships and evolved morality, set up the UN and efforts for world peace, opposed Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, done our best for decency in the face of primitivist indecency.

But the rest of the world's people see existence as being more than just a big physical mechanism. In various ways and to various degrees they see existence as a singular whole, like an entity of some kind. An expression of being unto itself and within which everything that is, both resides and is being given form, and independence, and even in some cases, conscious self-awareness.

Where has that got them? Better ways of meditating?

And with that awareness comes the ability to ask 'why?' (not just how) ... a question that we cannot answer, but that determines every other answer we think we possess. It's "meta-question". The one that theism (philosophy) tries to address.

Because science cannot.

I think I've read this carefully, but I fail to understand ─ why what, exactly?