ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't justify thinking it's magic (supernatural).So therefore phenomena on which it may require original and/or creative thinking to shed some light.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't justify thinking it's magic (supernatural).So therefore phenomena on which it may require original and/or creative thinking to shed some light.
It's a mystery.But said source can 'just be' without explanation.
Double standards or what?
So therefore phenomena on which it may require original and/or creative thinking to shed some light. This requirement frequently stumps the unimaginative, of course.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't justify thinking it's magic (supernatural).
We could disappear down a rabbit hole for hours, just trying to agree on a meaning of the term ‘supernatural’; and I don’t see much mileage in doing so.
The fact remains, we don’t yet have a scientific materialist theory for consciousness.
If we are prepared to consider the possibility that consciousness may be fundamental, at least to human experience, as time and space, or energy and matter, are fundamental, we may begin to develop new* perspectives on the material world and our place in it.
* actually not that new. Eastern philosophers have been thinking that way for centuries.
"In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated." UB 1955 IMOP
What we observe in nature, or the natural order of things is not God rather the habits of God. I don't know why it's not obvious to all this thinking that in order to observe the universe one must be apart from it. The 5th Way" of Aquinas is one man's observation of innate habits in nature. This doesn't prove anything other than someone observing something which other observers can agree is an observation.
I understand your criticism of my use of the word "Supernatural". However, there is the Hollywood version and then there is the reality version, which is supported by Quantum biology and the so-called spiritual experience of oneness. I doubt you have ever experienced oneness with the infinite.You appear to have forgotten to include the evidence or reasoning that for anything supernatural. If your example about our own awareness is supposed to be it, it's about as convincing as "wow, this is difficult to understand, it must be magic!"
Excuse me, but where did I ever such a thing? To me, it is an absurd notion, since I don't believe in anything "supernatural" at all.
I do find it funny when people tag on science terms to make vague, hand-waving woo sound more credible. Quantum biology really isn't a thing (at least not that supports any "oneness with the infinite"), as I explained when you did a thread about it:I understand your criticism of my use of the word "Supernatural". However, there is the Hollywood version and then there is the reality version, which is supported by Quantum biology and the so-called spiritual experience of oneness. I doubt you have ever experienced oneness with the infinite.
There is a higher dimension that the ancients spoke about. And is now supported by String theory.
But what is there to explain that evolution doesn't explain, whether any intelligence is found or not?
No, it's a claim that they do, a typical bit of Feser waffle, and the example at the end was an object manufactured to have a purpose.
Reality doesn't care what you think of it. Reality is what it is regardless of how you view it.
Ultimately, the "end" that any physical process is "aiming at" is the thermal equilibrium of the universe.
Why does this never seem to come up in these discussions (besides the fact that Aristotle didn't know about entropy)?
Patterns or regularities are not the same thing as goals or aims.It's not just a claim. There are objective patterns in nature studied by science.
Exactly. That's how objective patterns in nature are like.
In terms of consequences, not ultimate goals.So you admit there is an end?
I can assure you, logic has absolutely nothing to do with it.That's because you were not "chosen" to see. Nevertheless it's nothing a little logic can't fix.
It's a solid argument, but what does Aristotle really mean by "intelligence" as you put it.
If I were to make a top and set the top to spinning on a desk. Then the role of my intelligence in this end was that I had conceived the end before the end was (possibly) achieved.
Moreover, I would have taken action to cause the intended end.
From this, are we to understand that Aristotle means that the moon orbits the Earth because an intelligence (which we call God) conceived the notion of the moon orbiting the Earth, intended that the moon orbit the Earth, and took some action to bring about that end?
Neither does the theory of gravity or game theory or relativity &c &c. The fundamental relation of cause and effect is explained by their respective definitions.The theory of evolution doesn't explain the fundamental relation (final causality) of causes and effects.
Neither does the theory of gravity or game theory or relativity &c &c. The fundamental relation of cause and effect is explained by their respective definitions.