quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
Well, well. God is its "own cause and a primal cause for everything that follows"? That statement explains and answers a sum total of nothing. How odd that you demand so much of science and accept so little from your "religion" or theism.

---

To equate this 'thing' to God is another argument (or several). But this topic is not the place to discuss that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
God is its "own cause and a primal cause for everything that follows?

---

I was merely telling you the conclusion to many previous arguments of mine.
Basically: something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing.
Therefore; 'something' has always existed.
Therefore; whatever does exist is its own cause... is an effect of no-thing else.
Therefore; this 'thing' is the primal-cause of every effect which proceeds it.

To equate this 'thing' to God is another argument (or several). But this topic is not the place to discuss that.

---

But then we can rephrase what you have said, eliminate the god talk and make it more acceptable to science. I quote Lee Smolin because he says it better than I can and is more concise:
The universe "cannot have been made by anything that exists outside it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there can be nothing outside it. And, by definition, there can be nothing before the universe that caused it, for if anything existed it must have been part of the universe."

In other words, the god explanation is not a satisfying one. The answers can involve ONLY those things that exist in the universe. If you like, your god is part of the universe and will, in time, be understood and explained. Better still, do without god and the explanations will be even more satisfying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
The universe "cannot have been made by anything that exists outside it, for by definition the universe is all there is,
and there can be nothing outside it. And, by definition, there can be nothing before the universe that caused it, for if anything existed it must have been part of the universe."

---

quote:

---

In other words, the god explanation is not a satisfying one.

---

quote:

---

The answers can involve ONLY those things that exist in the universe.

---

quote:

---

If you like, your god is part of the universe and will, in time, be understood and explained.

---

quote:

---

Better still, do without god and the explanations will be even more satisfying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Lg:- I have to prove that science has not explained sensory-perception or life?
The proof is in the pudding. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.

- Are you blind, or are you just trying to be difficult? Don't you know that there is a difference between cannot and has not?

Jeez...

---

My statement is correct. Not only has science failed (thus far) to unveil the full causality-chain of any phenomena; it's also forever doomed from ever doing so.
You should realise that it's impossible for matter/energy to be the primal-cause of all changing-existence (time). For matter/energy to be the primal-cause of time, it would have to will itself to change (remember: we're talking 'primal-cause' here).
And if the causality-chain is infinite, then there are no origins. Consequently, no full explanations.
Any new scientific discovery, will always leave a host of new questions to be answered. If M-theory, for example, proves to explain the universe we know; it certainly fails to explain how a 2-dimensional membrane (an intangible concept) just happens to exist inside 'nothing' (a logical impossibility); or why it moves (the cause of its own movement) through 11-ish dimensions.

Endless questions. Clear limits. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.
Conclusion: Materialists are wrong to use science to support their beliefs.

---

And yet, "will" is a conscious thing; while you say that the "projection" of the universe is subconscious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahrkron:
Whatever science (or any possible discipline) states as a "causality chain" (a term which, btw, is already making assumptions), it is always possible to question its character as "ultimate explanation".

I think it is rather clear that all descriptive/explanatory frameworks (including science, philosophy, and even LG's own brand of argumentation) have this in common: that none explains the what LG calls "the full causality-line of any phenomena"

---

Well; I can reason to an omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent; and eternal 'entity' - better known as 'God'. God is its own cause... and a primal-cause for everything which follows.
That's what I would call a full causality-line.

---

No, you are going on the assumption that (and I quote) "God is it's own cause". You cannot prove this anymore than a materialist can prove that matter/energy is it's own cause (and there may be more proof for the latter).

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
I have a question for you, LG. It's about the topic:

Why is it that our minds are so influenced by scientific belief? I ask this because you postulate that the mind produces reality. So why is it that our minds never produce realities that "defy the laws of physics", so to speak? We're perfectly capable of imagining such realities, but they don't manifest themselves in the "real world".

---

You've asked this before. There is one Mind (subconcious) which projects the universe, and countless awarenesses of that universe. It is the subconcious which is the creative aspect of existence. Not awareness.

---

Oh, so God is not consciously in control of what He creates? That doesn't sound like omnipotence (or omniscience, for that matter - since He doesn't consciously know what He's creating) to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
Basically: something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing.

---

It doesn't have to. QM dictates that even a void is indeterminable, and thus, there was always something there.

Besides, BB theories all include the idea that the universe has always been there (whether as a point singularity, or the string theory-revised version).

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
That depends upon what Mr. Smolin defines the universe to be. If he thinks it's just the material realm, then I dispute what he says.
If he accepts the possibility that universe = 'God'; then no problem.

---

In other words, "as long as he agrees with my belief, I have no problem with him". Come on.

quote:

---

Yes. The answers are found in God = 'universe' = everything.
Like I said - it all depends upon how you wanna define the universe.

---

Exactly, and I think most of us are sticking to the dictionary definition; which, BTW, is "all that exists", not "all that permiates from the mind of God".

You keep saying that "God is everything" - but that is in contrast to your other stance (that "God imagines everything, and is therefore not part of the universe, but the cause of the universe). Please verify where you stand.

quote:

---

The answers just require a return to reason. Not science. I gave my explanation for this in my previous post to Tom.

---

Yes, and if you "reason" based on the same premise that you are "reasoning" on, we will definitely arrive at the same conclusion that you have.

quote:

---

If all things observed do originate from the mind, then...
1. We observe that we have hands.
2. We observe that our hands can manipulate other things.
3. Therefore, all things manipulated by the hands originates from an observation made by, and created within, the mind. Not to mention a will of that mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahrkron:
... it is rather clear that all descriptive/explanatory frameworks (including science, philosophy, and even LG's own brand of argumentation) have this in common: that none explains the what LG calls "the full causality-line of any phenomena"

---

Well; I can reason to an omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent; and eternal 'entity' - better known as 'God'. God is its own cause... and a primal-cause for everything which follows.
That's what I would call a full causality-line.

---

That makes it transparent: you will only accept a "causality-line" to be called "full" if it ends on "God".

i.e., it is just a matter of your definition of "full causality-line".

It is then clear that your statement "Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena" has your concept of god (and its existence) as an underlying assumption. The statement seems to be talking about the limits of science, but it is not; it is rather equivalent to

"science does not use 'god' as part of any explanation"

Which is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
My statement is correct. Not only has science failed (thus far) to unveil the full causality-chain of any phenomena; it's also forever doomed from ever doing so.

---

And as ahrkron has just pointed out, you only consider a causality chain "full" if it includes god. What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god?

quote:

---

You should realise that it's impossible for matter/energy to be the primal-cause of all changing-existence (time). For matter/energy to be the primal-cause of time, it would have to will itself to change (remember: we're talking 'primal-cause' here).

---

Why is a will needed?

quote:

---

And if the causality-chain is infinite, then there are no origins. Consequently, no full explanations. Any new scientific discovery, will always leave a host of new questions to be answered.

---

What if scientists could making a living thing via chemistry?
What if scientists could build a thinking machine with electronics?
What if scientists could formulate a theory of everything so precise as to be able to predict what I am going to think in one hour?

Would those not be scientific explanations of life and the mind?
If so, how can you be so sure that science will not answer them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
And as ahrkron has just pointed out, you only consider a causality chain "full" if it includes god. What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god?

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could making a living thing via chemistry?

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could build a thinking machine with electronics?

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could formulate a theory of everything so precise as to be able to predict what I am going to think in one hour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahrkron:
That makes it transparent: you will only accept a "causality-line" to be called "full" if it ends on "God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
And as ahrkron has just pointed out, you only consider a causality chain "full" if it includes god. What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god?

---

I consider the causality-chain 'full' when there are no more questions to be asked (concerning causality). That requires 'something' which is eternal to instigate the whole-chain of proceeding events; by itself, of itself, and within itself. That's the only way it can happen.

---

Then there is no such thing as a "full" causality chain, because your "Mind" raises questions, too.

How does a mind exist without a brain?
Why does this mind not interact with anyone?

Also, my question still stands: What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god? In other words, why do you believe that your criterion for "fullness" must be satisfied?

quote:

---

For example, let's imagine that z is the primal-cause of universal-events.
In order to fulfil this requirement, it needs to transform itself. We cannot (rationally, by definition) enter any other entity or force into the discussion, about a primal-cause.
So, if z is the elusive primal-cause of universal-effects, then we can say that z was totally responsible for transforming itself. z changed, and was responsible for that change.
Such an act is a self-act, and requires will to instigate the action, followed by the energy/power to effect the changes.

---

OK, but what if that is not the way reality is? That's the whole point of this thread. You are supposed to be explaining why science cannot account for these things, as opposed to promoting the way you think they are.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could making a living thing via chemistry?

---

That's just a manipulation of forces and energy. Something which I think God himself has already done. We'd need to be very smart to do it, but I don't discount that possibility.

---

That was exactly my point. If life can be created by nothing other than manipulation of forces and energy, then where does god fit in?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could build a thinking machine with electronics?

---

How do you make a computer transform data into experience-upon-awareness? How do you make a computer become independently-creative of the math which we feed it?

---

I don't know, but that's totally beside the point. The point is that you are claiming that this cannot be done. I am asking you how you know this (even though I already know that you do not know it).

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if scientists could formulate a theory of everything so precise as to be able to predict what I am going to think in one hour?

---

I'd be impressed. But the full causality-chain shall always evade us - in terms of matter. I did explain why, too.

---

The "full causality chain" shall always evade us because of the way you defined it. There is no explanation for existence that cannot be questioned further.

[/quote]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Then there is no such thing as a "full" causality chain, because your "Mind" raises questions, too.

1. How does a mind exist without a brain?

---

quote:

---

Why does this mind not interact with anyone?

---

quote:

---

Also, my question still stands: What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god? In other words, why do you believe that your criterion for "fullness" must be satisfied?

---

quote:

---

OK, but what if that is not the way reality is? That's the whole point of this thread.

---

quote:

---

That was exactly my point. If life can be created by nothing other than manipulation of forces and energy, then where does god fit in?

---

quote:

---

I don't know, but that's totally beside the point. The point is that you are claiming that this cannot be done. I am asking you how you know this (even though I already know that you do not know it).

---

quote:

---

There is no explanation for existence that cannot be questioned further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

.

---

Then there is no explanation for existence - unless we accept the reality of a primal-cause... and the full realisation of what a primal-cause is.

---

You appeal time and time again to reason but your god, Mind or life force, which simply IS and requires no explanation, is not a reasonable answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Then there is no such thing as a "full" causality chain, because your "Mind" raises questions, too.

1. How does a mind exist without a brain?

---

What do you mean by 'how'?
'How' asks of causality.

---

No, it does not.

You call this all-encompassing thing a "Mind", which suggests to me that it is supposed to think.

How does the Mind think without a brain? is the question.

quote:

---

If it can be shown that Mind/God is the primal-cause of existence; then you can reasonably see that it is meaningless to ask how it exists, or where it came from. It just is.

---

The meaninglessness is not in the asking, it's in your answer. That is no explanation for anything, and it is, in fact, open to further questions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why does this mind not interact with anyone?

---

The interaction is what it gives to 'you'.
Everything is drawn from that well of Mind, so to speak. Your reason; your emotion; your perceptions. In my opinion, 'you' are the product of the free-will which that Mind also gives you.

---

That is a formula for a religion if I ever saw one.

Let's get back to what it is that minds do: thinking. When I ask "Why does this mind not interact with anyone", I mean "Why does this mind not exchange thoughts with anyone?" By 'exchanging thoughts', I mean in much the same way as we are doing on this message board.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also, my question still stands: What if the 'real' causality chain does not include god? In other words, why do you believe that your criterion for "fullness" must be satisfied?

---

No offense, but I would have expected this question from Wuli:- A universe with no definitive cause?

---

No, I mean a universe with a cause that cannot be questioned.

quote:

---

quote:

---

OK, but what if that is not the way reality is? That's the whole point of this thread.

---

Are we to adopt 'imagination' as a means to our answers? Or reason?

---

Reason, of course. I have been asking you to give reason your assertion that science cannot explain it all.

quote:

---

I would say that if reality is 'unreasonable', that its effects should be too. Yet this universe is totally reasonable imo (ordered). So how did an unreasonable reality create this ordered existence which we share, if there is no reason to it?

---

No one except you is talking about "unreasonable reality". I am basically asking you one question in all this, and it is the question I posted above: How do you know that science cannot explain everything we know?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That was exactly my point. If life can be created by nothing other than manipulation of forces and energy, then where does god fit in?

---

Manipulating forces and energy is not the same as creating forces and energy (as well as manipulating them). That's where God comes into it.

---

We both agree that there cannot be 'nothing', so that means that 'something' must exist. In other words, this something exists because it has no alternative. Now, if there is a universe 'out there' and if all forces can be understood in terms of particle exchanges (which, remember have no choice but to exist), then that squeezes god out of the picture entirely.

What about that?

quote:

---

I know because it's impossible to mathematically-build a subjective existence.
You cannot transform data into 'pain', for example, with nought but data. The process requires independent-creativity. Not to mention a prior understanding/knowledge of that data.

---

Pure, unadulterated speculation on your part.

You still seem to be clinging to your analogy ("You can't get the color red from different shades of blue, because there is no red in blue .") and completely ignoring the one I presented ("You can get a readable post from a collection of pixels, despite the fact that none of the pixels contains the whole post").

What about that?

quote:

---

How does a brain decipher the data it is receiving, unless it understands total-physics prior to converting that data into experience? And how can it convert data into feelings, without a creative imagination?

---

I don't know. But then again, I am not the one claiming that science cannot explain them. You are. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

quote:

---

These questions aren't looking for answers from physics/mathematics. These questions are suggesting that physics/mathematics cannot explain 'experience'. They are suggesting a realisation of 'Mind' as being separate to the material-reality that it ponders.

---

Baloney. You're still speculating.

quote:

---

IMO, anybody of a reasonable persuasion would see the merit of my remarks. That's why I scoff at materialists who use science to explain such phenomena, with scant regard of such considerations.
Hence the relevance of the topic.

---

There is merit to your questions ("How does a brain create subjective experiences?" for example). There is no merit in your attempts to answer them, nor is there any merit in your attempts to argue that science cannot answer them. In both cases, you are not relying on logic but rather on ilogic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no explanation for existence that cannot be questioned further.

---

Then there is no explanation for existence - unless we accept the reality of a primal-cause... and the full realisation of what a primal-cause is.

---

Again, I ask: In what way is your requirement of fullness of the causality chain justified?

edit: typo

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know because it's impossible to mathematically-build a subjective existence.
You cannot transform data into 'pain', for example, with nought but data. The process requires independent-creativity. Not to mention a prior understanding/knowledge of that data.

---

Pure, unadulterated speculation on your part.

You still seem to be clinging to your analogy ("You can't get the color red from different shades of blue, because there is no red in blue .") and completely ignoring the one I presented ("You can get a readable post from a collection of pixels, despite the fact that none of the pixels contains the whole post").

What about that?

---

If after reading this post you still think there is nothing to think about, then please explain to me what is so simple about it that both LG, and I are missing.

Pain. An entirely subjective thing. But it must occur objectively. So what is it objectively? Well, reducing it to the cellular level and looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, it started when the selective pressure became obvious that any organism which avoided certain things, tended to survive better. To better facilitate this response, signals evolved which warned the organism of impending doom.

So, we have a situation where chemical messengers move around, so that the cell/organism responds in a particular way which avoids the initial cause of the release of that messenger chemicals.

Now, we know that cells can do this without consciousness. So why do we need this subjective experience of pain? Why can't our body just react accordingly? Why is there subjective involved in this objective event?

What is subjective? Where does it come from?

GW LG, you have got me thinking now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
If after reading this post you still think there is nothing to think about, then please explain to me what is so simple about it that both LG, and I are missing.

---

I'm about to go to bed, so I won't post much tonight, but I am not of the opinion that there is nothing to think about. I even said that LG's questions "have merit"--it's in his attempt to answer them that he goes screwy.

The whole aim of this line of questioning is to get LG to back down from the stance: Science cannot address questions of fundamental reality.

The statement clearly needs to be proven, and the fallacious appeal to incredulity ("I can't accept X, therefore X is false"--aka "Lifegazer's favorite logical fallacy") is not a proof.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
I'm about to go to bed, so I won't post much tonight, but I am not of the opinion that there is nothing to think about. I even said that LG's questions "have merit"--it's in his attempt to answer them that he goes screwy.

The whole aim of this line of questioning is to get LG to back down from the stance: Science cannot address questions of fundamental reality.

The statement clearly needs to be proven, and the fallacious appeal to incredulity ("I can't accept X, therefore X is false"--aka "Lifegazer's favorite logical fallacy") is not a proof.

---

OK, good point. This thread is about Science and that stuff, so lets move this line of discussion back into my thread on Objective Subjective (where it does make most sense).