Causal Argument, Introduction

@salima,

salima;101169 wrote:

Shostakovich;101137 wrote:
salima;101119 wrote:

Quote:

i am stymied at the end where you mention there being will. you say will arose out of B attaining to A. the only rationale i have that there could be an intent or will in a supreme being is because we as individuals (though i dont believe we are individuals at all) seem to feel that we have will and power. so how can it be that we would have something the absolute would not have?

If B is defined as I have it, a dynamic foce of Mind, it would have all the capacities of thought that we have, but to an Absolute degree.

Quote:
i do not see the supreme being as omnipotent

The omnipotence/omnisience are attributes justifiable by means of the Principle of Equal Relation.

This Absolute Mind transcends yet envelops the material universe and all that it contains. It can embody the most fundamental particles in the universe, and shape them according to their design, and this Absolute Mind, can read your mind and every thought that goes through your mind.

This is an unavoidable conclusion of the Principle of Equal Relation. But you have to think about it. The Absolute Mind that comes out at the end of the series has again, I'm repeating, Absolute control over everything in the universe --including, yes, our minds.

There is quite literally, nowhere for us to hide.

Quote:
one of the things i read in philosophy and i forgot who said it, was that the painting is greater than the idea of the painting in the mind of the artist.

I also paint, in acryclics, mostly; and I can always say, the end result is better than what I had in mind. Why? Because it has actually been realized, and it exists physically, not just in my imagination. And I can even improve on it over and beyond what I first had in mind. I think this is what the person who said that meant. But I'm guessing.

Quote:

suppose all our sorrows, all our hopes and dreams and trials and losses are jointly owned by this one being who is even more aghast at what we have done than we are, as far as war, crime, ruthlessness and apathy, etc. and all our joys and loves and triumphs and breakthroughs as well...you can see how my thoughts tend to babble on...but i doubt i am helping you any with your argument, much as i would like to.

I think they are jointly owned by this one Being ... so we cannot even begin to understand how aghast such a Being is, at all our collective fumbling.

This is why I believe this Being will return one day, to set humaity straight.

This brings us back to the question of evil.

Why is it allowed?

Because, we are being taught a lesson.

The lesson: We can only go so far on our own before we blow all of ourselves up in some nuclear catastrophe, or by ripping our planet off with our insatisble greed.

When this Being returns, he'll return only at the last moment, before we completely self-destruct.

He'll then set up his government, worldwide, and show us the way; and we won't have any reason, or excuse, to say: "We don't need you. We can do better on our own."

With the proof of our fumbling behind us, the door will be open, at least on my part, for accepting Jesus when he returns. That's if I'm still alive; which I probably will not be.

@Shostakovich phil,

Quote:

I think they are jointly owned by this one Being ... so we cannot even begin to understand how aghast such a Being is, at all our collective fumbling.

This is why I believe this Being will return one day, to set humaity straight.

This brings us back to the question of evil.

Why is it allowed?

Because, we are being taught a lesson.

The lesson: We can only go so far on our own before we blow all of ourselves up in some nuclear catastrophe, or by ripping our planet off with our insatisble greed.

When this Being returns, he'll return only at the last moment, before we completely self-destruct.

He'll then set up his government, worldwide, and show us the way; and we won't have any reason, or excuse, to say: "We don't need you. We can do better on our own."

With the proof of our fumbling behind us, the door will be open, at least on my part, for accepting Jesus when he returns. That's if I'm still alive; which I probably will not be.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;101233 wrote:

well it certainly seems that the three of us have widely different perspectives on the big picture.

i havent come to a conclusion yet, and i am not sure there is one-it may be a work in progress. sometimes i think the whole thing is just an experiment gone wrong and the chemist has fallen asleep while the laboratory is about to become engulfed in flames.

other times i think the supreme being is living the same lives we are and striving for higher meaning and purpose yet facing frustration at every turn and sometimes losing hope and sometimes beginning all over from another angle.

but i really dont think about it all that much-my ideas just keep changing to fit new life experience as i go along.

but i do suspect that humanity is evolving now to a new level both physically and mentally as well as spiritually. there are a whole host of innate faculties we havent yet mastered that are being developed and once discovered will open up more information than we could ever dream of before.

@salima,

salima;100796 wrote:

i have difficulty in applying labels to ideas, such as whether or not they are deterministic and i also wonder if it is worthwhile to try and decide what is an illusion and what is real when these are all only concepts and words and definitions of conditions that are really beyond our ability to comprehend in their fullness of reality.

But I don't understand why you write that what is illusory or real are "only concepts and words". Mirages are hallucinations, but hallucinations are not just words. People do have hallucinations, don't they? And they also have illusions. For instance, there is the illusion that railroad tracks converge when looked at from a distance. And aren't real diamonds different from fake diamonds, or real money different from fake (counterfeit) money? So can you explain what you mean when you say that illusion and real are only words?

@salima,

The roving perspective works for me too.

Perhaps learning is an uncovering phenomenon. Once we realize something, it may seem that that understanding was always there.. waiting for revelation.

The subjective naivete of the student is still dramatic and at times traumatic. If I'm never really learning anything new, that doesn't lessen my stress.

Stress is creative. The patella, or knee cap, only grows when the stress of learning to walk stimulates its development. The adult has to have patellas to walk.

I came across an idea once that goes like this: a plant grows from a seed into full bloom. We see the process in steps, but all the steps exist in a "spacious now." So the blooming you're headed toward already exists. If you've already bloomed and your flower head is getting ready to make seeds... those seeds already exist and are sprouting. It's all happening simultaneously, but we see in as a progression because that's how our minds create our understanding. Time is part of the pattern of human perception.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101256 wrote:

But I don't understand why you write that what is illusory or real are "only concepts and words". Mirages are hallucinations, but hallucinations are not just words. People do have hallucinations, don't they? And they also have illusions. For instance, there is the illusion that railroad tracks converge when looked at from a distance. And aren't real diamonds different from fake diamonds, or real money different from fake (counterfeit) money? So can you explain what you mean when you say that illusion and real are only words?

sorry-
all words are only words, i mean, and it is the definitions that are difficult. on this forum we have yet to agree on a definition for the word 'consciousness'. and i would imagine the same thing would happen with 'deterministic'.

for instance, to me money isnt ever real, it is only a piece of paper-so it is considered to be 'real' or 'counterfeit' but i dont see the difference. there is a difference in the purpose of each, one you could get arrested for and the other you can take to the bank. so for simple things, words and concepts arent as far off as for the really important stuff, like when you get into 'truth', 'beauty' 'justice' etc.

it seems like the more complicated or meaningful an idea is, the more difficult to convey it from one person to another using language. i was only commenting on the linguiswtic difficulties of distinctions, not the process of making judgements.

@salima,

salima;101379 wrote:

all words are only words, i mean, and it is the definitions that are difficult. on this forum we have yet to agree on a definition for the word
it seems like the more complicated or meaningful an idea is, the more difficult to convey it from one person to another using language. i was only commenting on the linguiswtic difficulties of distinctions, not the process of making judgements.

The series of posts following what I posted to begin with bears this out beautifully.

Is beautifully, the right word?

I've quoted Bergson on another thread: I'll post the same quote here as I think it is appropriate (I had quoted this in an earlier version of the Causal Argument but have since deleted the reference):

"But the truth is that our intelligence can follow the opposite method (to the scientific method). It can place itself within the mobile reality, and adopt its ceaselessly changing direction; in short, can grasp it by means of that intellectual sympathy which we call intuition. This is extremely difficult. The mind has to do violence to itself, has to reverse the direction of the operation by which it habitually thinks, has perpetually to revise, or rather to recast, all its categories ..." [From his Introduction to Metaphysics.]

If this forum lacks one thing, it is this intellectual sympathy that Bergson wrote about. There seems to be no merging of different minds, and much conflicting opinion, even when the issues seem to be very clear (not to say the argument I've posted falls into the very clear).

Berson was spot on. We have languages made up of words that are abstract ... and the only way to get around the stumbling blocks that abstract terms place before us, is to keep open minded, and perhaps avoid jumping to the assumption that we know exactly what the writer or user of a certain word has in mind. This may require in many instances, especially where philosophical issues are debated, that intellectual sympathy Bergson mentions, more than a simple practical knowledge of the meaning of words.

@Shostakovich phil,

in short, there are a lot of ways to think...if we stick to what we always have done we will miss out on a lot-intellectually and intuitively. it's a global problem really-nationally and culturally people seem to want to notice what is different instead of what is similar. very often we can take completely different paths to reach the same conclusion-if we argue about the path we will never notice we are actually in agreement.

@salima,

salima;101379 wrote:

sorry-
all words are only words, i mean, and it is the definitions that are difficult. on this forum we have yet to agree on a definition for the word 'consciousness'. and i would imagine the same thing would happen with 'deterministic'.

for instance, to me money isnt ever real, it is only a piece of paper-so it is considered to be 'real' or 'counterfeit' but i dont see the difference. there is a difference in the purpose of each, one you could get arrested for and the other you can take to the bank. so for simple things, words and concepts arent as far off as for the really important stuff, like when you get into 'truth', 'beauty' 'justice' etc.

it seems like the more complicated or meaningful an idea is, the more difficult to convey it from one person to another using language. i was only commenting on the linguiswtic difficulties of distinctions, not the process of making judgements.

But whether or not money is "real to you", money is accepted by merchants for goods, and counterfeit money is not. And, if you try to pass counterfeit money, you will be arrested. There is a great deal of difference between what you believe is real, and what is real. Just as there is a big difference between believing some thing is true, and its being true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101404 wrote:

But whether or not money is "real to you", money is accepted by merchants for goods, and counterfeit money is not. And, if you try to pass counterfeit money, you will be arrested. There is a great deal of difference between what you believe is real, and what is real. Just as there is a big difference between believing some thing is true, and its being true.

i do understand what you are saying.
i am not one of those people who says whatever a person wants to believe is true is true, i am only saying that for the sake of understanding the meaning behind the words, sometimes it helps to think abstractly and nonverbally when trying to communicate. there is a lot of room for misunderstanding even between two people who speak the same language.

take law for instance, the legal language is so precise by necessity that it is laughable and so bulky few people can understand it well enough to verify that it even makes any sense. at the same time, it has its purpose and for the sake of contracts things must be spelled out as best as possible.

but in the case of philosophy and metaphysics especially it helps to have a less rigid thinking process. ideally one should be able to think and communicate both ways and any number of other ways as well-but few people would be able to master every type of human communication. that would be most useful to mediators. it can be extremely important in bridging the gap between the young and the old for instance-any two types of people who are on different levels of understanding.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101404 wrote:

But whether or not money is "real to you", money is accepted by merchants for goods, and counterfeit money is not. And, if you try to pass counterfeit money, you will be arrested. There is a great deal of difference between what you believe is real, and what is real. Just as there is a big difference between believing some thing is true, and its being true.

Money is an Abstract concept with real consequences, just that...Its extraordinary to think that when you use your credit card you pay with electrons !...

@salima,

salima;101426 wrote:

i do understand what you are saying.
i am not one of those people who says whatever a person wants to believe is true is true, i am only saying that for the sake of understanding the meaning behind the words, sometimes it helps to think abstractly and nonverbally when trying to communicate. there is a lot of room for misunderstanding even between two people who speak the same language.

take law for instance, the legal language is so precise by necessity that it is laughable and so bulky few people can understand it well enough to verify that it even makes any sense. at the same time, it has its purpose and for the sake of contracts things must be spelled out as best as possible.

but in the case of philosophy and metaphysics especially it helps to have a less rigid thinking process. ideally one should be able to think and communicate both ways and any number of other ways as well-but few people would be able to master every type of human communication. that would be most useful to mediators. it can be extremely important in bridging the gap between the young and the old for instance-any two types of people who are on different levels of understanding.

What does "real to me" mean (as contrasted with just plain old "real")?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101454 wrote:

What does "real to me" mean (as contrasted with just plain old "real")?

Things are more or less tangible, maybe that's it...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;101460 wrote:

Things are more or less tangible, maybe that's it...

What is the "to me" for?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101462 wrote:

What is the "to me" for?

depends on subject perception and Cosmogony...and its Holistic\gestalt consequences...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;101463 wrote:

depends on subject perception and Cosmogony...and its Holistic\gestalt consequences...

I somehow doubt it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101465 wrote:

I somehow doubt it.

Good ! it works for me to... :a-ok:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101454 wrote:

What does "real to me" mean (as contrasted with just plain old "real")?

what is real to me has been realized by me. you can read about childbirth but you wont know what it is like until it has been experienced. and yet it is not entirely the same for every woman. who has 'really' experienced it?

some people write so well you can feel what you are reading is real. is it? dreams seem to be real, memories are real. real has to be pinned down and agreed on. does it mean verifiable objectively? does it mean not counterfeit or imitation?

when i say money is not real to me, i mean the whole concept of 'legal tender' is involved. but there is no gold in a bank anywhere that this paper can be redeemed for, and a change in the economy can make it worth half what it is today or nothing at all. and behind all of this is the fact that humanity has put some value on gold-i put no value on gold whatever. to me water is far more valuable. but i dont think like most people. in order to get along in the world i keep in mind how most people think though, and i normally dont say to a shopkeeper 'this money is meaningless' when i am buying something. it is just a game we play...a word game.

but i am afraid we are way off topic now.

@salima,

salima;101467 wrote:

what is real to me has been realized by me. you can read about childbirth but you wont know what it is like until it has been experienced. and yet it is not entirely the same for every woman. who has 'really' experienced it?

some people write so well you can feel what you are reading is real. is it? dreams seem to be real, memories are real. real has to be pinned down and agreed on. does it mean verifiable objectively? does it mean not counterfeit or imitation?

when i say money is not real to me, i mean the whole concept of 'legal tender' is involved. but there is no gold in a bank anywhere that this paper can be redeemed for, and a change in the economy can make it worth half what it is today or nothing at all. and behind all of this is the fact that humanity has put some value on gold-i put no value on gold whatever. to me water is far more valuable. but i dont think like most people. in order to get along in the world i keep in mind how most people think though, and i normally dont say to a shopkeeper 'this money is meaningless' when i am buying something. it is just a game we play...a word game.

but i am afraid we are way off topic now.

I still don't know what you think is the difference between "real to me", and just, "real". A fake diamond may be real to me. But it is not real. The dagger hovering over Macbeth's head (in the play) was real to him, but it was an halluncination. So it wasn't real.

Philosophy Forum

Causal Argument, Introduction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know