Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  So if our models are incomplete, can you say with certainty that changes in the unknown parameters of reality which the models are based upon, would not allow some type of existence? |
Not for certain because certainty doesn't exist. I read a book a while back that I believe was called: Just Six Numbers. The book explains how cosmologists have arrived at six numbers that if altered just slightly would change the universe in a radically way making the existence of life (a tricky phenomena to begin with) extremely unlikely. A tiny deviation would make it impossible for stars to form for example. Cosmologists now take this for granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre That's your definition. It doesn't account for many others. Your concept of god is a transcendent one, but if there is a god, it might not be so. |
I have never heard of a single culture that does not conceive of a god as transcendent or doesn't conceive of a god at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Of course that doesn't mean it isn't. But from my perspective all those previous points apply, resulting in the dream world being rather useless as far as understanding reality is concerned. If I had any experiences or proof that the dream world is (or could be) superior to the real world in terms of understanding reality, then I'd probably agree with Steve. |
Continuity and consistency don't equal "real". Those are just assumptions. There is no objective reason to believe that waking reality is "superior" to dream reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre So seeming "circumstantially better" is a factor of individual circumstances rather than the circumstances of either religious or cosmological evidence or argument. |
Based on evidence design in nature is on an even playing field with naturalism. It is my subjective interpretation of the facts is what leads me to believe in design. So, you are correct. However, you seem to want to reject design out of hand which I don't believe is reasonable.
The concept of qualia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre The issue with that is that the thing which is blue can still be explained. Likewise the thing which makes the music. Also the thing which makes it possible for you to experience a colour or a tone (transmission of light or sound, nerve signals etc.). |
Yes, qualia. The hard problem of conscious is the fact that nerve signals, light and sound do not explain what it is like to see the color blue. That takes awareness. You wouldn't know what light and sound is if you hadn't experienced those phenomena. Which is why reality could just as easily be subjective rather than objective. Neural impulses do correspond with conscious states but a correlation is not a cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Or are you referring to infinite regression in the direction of a first cause? |
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre Sure philosophers still argue about them, yet it seems pointless to argue that motion doesn't exist when we experience it. (kinda like NDEs, ODEs, etc). |
It is a fact that we experience motion but motion could simply be an illusion. I'm not saying that we should just pretend we don't experience motion rather I was pointing out that space-time is finite. I also believe space-time is an illusion of a greater reality. If you shift your awareness away from the physical (astral travel) space and time become meaningless concepts (BTW this is just what I believe). In other words your perceptions make your reality( this is just what I believe as well lol so don't throw a fit
).