Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call  Of course, but there's only four sides of the coin mate (wait, four? lol). If not "The universe exists so it had to exist" then either "The universe doesn't exist so it had to exist" or "The universe exists so it didn't have to exist" or simply "The universe doesn't exist so it didn't have to exist".
1st side; Makes sense to me.
2nd side; Let's just skip that one.
3rd side; I'm confused. But at least we know the universe does exist, why it still was triggered if it didn't have to, yeah, that's quite random, just as the "random"-theory itself.
4th side; But obviously the universe does exist so this side has to be wrong, or am I seeing it wrong here?
Please notice any flaws in this way of looking at it. But from what I can see here then the 1st side makes the most sense, even if it is a circular argument. Therefore, in the beginning of time the Big Bang simply was initiated without a cause- the universe just had to be. |
The key assumption here is that A necessarily follows B. So the heart of the issue seems to be the assumption of a necessary cause as implied by the existence of the thing being caused. Which is valid, if you accept the laws of cause and effect. But you've also suggested that the existence of the thing
is the cause. Not so valid
btw (3) might be less confusing if worded as, "The universe exists but it didn't have to exist." In that case A is related to but independent of B. That's what I believe. Something caused it, but I have no idea what, and because I don't know I can't say that it necessarily had to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call Sadly, I see what you are getting at. I didn't consider this. However, I still want to run by the notion that this point of view could be a damn good way to look at things. But maybe that just means I'm stubborn. |
Yes, yes that's probably what it means
I guess a more important question is what does this view do for you? And what do you
want it to do for you? Make you happy? Provide an answer? Provide more questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache 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. |
So? Many individuals in many cultures have denied the existence of the gods their culture believes in. And it's beside the point. So to bring it back, from what I understand of what you've said, a transcendent god as designer provides a simpler explanation of the universe than coincidence. Is that right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache However, you seem to want to reject design out of hand which I don't believe is reasonable. |
Nope. That would be unreasonable. What I reject is the claim that design is a
better explanation. It specifies an undefinable entity working through undefined means as part of the 'explanation', which is no explanation at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache 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. |
Hmm yeah, I don't understand why it's a hard problem (I need to study it more I think). We understand how perception, awareness, attention, memory and emotion work, at a neural level. We have explanations for all of them. In concert they explain how we perceive something and why we experience them as we do. Psychology and neuroscience have all the bases covered {edit: not
completely covered, but at least covered well enough that the fundamental details are all that remain, as well as a complete theory which combines it all}). Where's the problem {edit:is it the lack of a comprehensive theory}?
It is like what it is like to see the colour blue because our retina detects light of a certain wavelength, and generates and sends signals to our visual processing centres. We attend to those signals, either because the blue thing is something we have chosen to focus on, or it's something that has triggered a sense of alertness (perhaps it's a blue ball flying towards our head). That attention signals our memory and may construct a recollection of previous experiences of that or similar blue things. Accompanying those memories are emotional responses which help shape the immediate emotional response. And on top of all that is the awareness of those various processes, which is a function of attention. (note that I've left out a hell of a lot of detail because, well, that would take a few books to cover)
And the question of
why all of that happens is answered by evolution (or design). It happens because it helps us survive (blue fruits that look like the blue fruit Barry ate before he died are bad. I feel queasy just looking at them. I'd better leave them alone). Or it happens because God wanted it to happen that way (which is good enough for some, but not for me)
I truly don't understand where the problem is...