The idea that everything is set up just right for life on earth

[josh987654321]

Non-reified things can be true. The problem is not inherent the thing itself, but in the reification of it. Reification is the problem, not the underlying entity: truth, beauty, evil etc.

Without God there can be no real truth because it all becomes subjective. If our material self is all that there is and nothing more to us, than ‘everything’ becomes completely subjective doesn’t it?

No. The reification is the illusion:

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

My head just exploded lol jk

Is he saying that nothing ultimatly exists? lol

The material started at the Big Bang (the “M” in STEM stands for “Matter”). Since the Multiverse exists outside the STEM universe then the Mulitverse is also immaterial and so needs no cause.

No. As I said, Heisenberg and chaos theory. Heisenberg inevitably introduces small unmeasurable variations. Chaos theory amplifies some of those small variations into large variations. The butterfly causing a hurricane. Heisenberg provides the butterflies and chaos theory turns some of those butterflies into hurricanes.

So you would disagree with Dawkins assertion that we simply dance to our DNA (Determinsim)?

Bwahahaha! You think that my own personal beliefs can affect whether statements by a fully enlightened Buddha are true or not? You vastly overestimate my personal impact on the world.

rossum

?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Yawn!

1.I made the comment
2. You refuted it with the answer “chemistry”
3. I asked for clarification on the “how” and I got nothing.

On the contrary. You got a suggestion that you go away and learn something about chemistry. Start with the concept of valency. If you want personal tuition then there are better chemistry teachers around than me, and my rates are $300 per hour so I am not cheap.

I can easily support my comment. Empirical evidence. You mix lifeless things together everyday and after millions and millions of times done by millions and millions of people around the world and no one seen any creation of life

Now you need to go and learn some geology as well as some chemistry. In particular you need to learn about the Oxygen Catastrophe. Conditions on earth now are very different from conditions on the early earth when life first arose. 1) We have an oxidising atmosphere instead of a reducing one. 2) We have lots of bacteria ready to gobble up any thin that even gets close to being alive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

rossum;11670829:

What do you mean by “person”? What are its components?

A person is a rational being - with or without a body. Rational beings have no components unless they have a body because:

That I cannot accept. Four of the five components of a human person are immaterial: feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Buddhist analysis appears to differ from Christian analysis on this point.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Without God there can be no real truth because it all becomes subjective.

Why? It is perfectly possible to have an objective truth in the absence of God. Why is God requuired?

If our material self is all that there is and nothing more to us, than ‘everything’ becomes completely subjective doesn’t it?

Humans have five components in Buddhism. Our material self is only the first of the five.

Is he saying that nothing ultimatly exists?

No. He is saying that your idea of what things are is incorrect. A mirage looks like water. You may think that there is real water there, but there isn’t. There is no real water. However, a mirage is not nothing either. If we could see nothing, then it would not look like water, it would look like nothing. So a mirage is not water, nor is it nothing. It is a mirage. It is an error to think that a mirage is water. It is an error to think that a mirage is nothing. The correct way is to think that a mirage is a mirage.

The problem is not with the world, the problem is in how our brains see the world. We are seeing water where there is none.

As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

– Diamond sutra 32

So you would disagree with Dawkins assertion that we simply dance to our DNA (Determinsim)?

Yes. DNA does determine some things: two eyes, five fingers etc. It does not determine other things.

rossum

 

[Memaw]

Actually science is the use of hard data to form a theory that fits best to the knowledge we possess. Science changes as it knows more. No one advocating science here is saying the know for sure. They are defending the THEORY the find MOST logical through hard data.

“Knowledge we posess”, interesting statement. What about the knowledge we do not posess. Are “we” in control along with “hard data”? I don’t think sooo. It would take more “faith” to believe what your saying than it does for me to believe God is the Uncreated sourse of all creation and we will NEVER know all the answers cause HE knows so much more than we or our scientists ever will on this side of Heaven. In Eternity, we won’t question HIS power. I can wait for HIM to show me. God Bless, Memaw

 

[josh987654321]

Why? It is perfectly possible to have an objective truth in the absence of God. Why is God requuired?

Because without God, we are the end result of a mindless, unguided process, we are determined by our DNA. It means as you say “The universe only appears to be intelligibly designed.” therefore we also only ‘appear’ to know any truth, really it’s completely determined by our DNA, how can a mindless, unguided process, produce humans with free will able to speak about truth objectively like in science?

As C.S. Lewis say’s “It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Humans have five components in Buddhism. Our material self is only the first of the five.

I’m not to sure that answers my question, I’m saying that if we are nothing but chemistry, it means we are completely material, nothing supernatural about us, which means we are completely determined by our material make up (hence Dawkins saying we dance to our DNA), and this means that everything becomes completely subjective. How can anything be objective, if our material minds are the whole process? it would be absurd to claim anything as objectivly true if that were the case wouldn’t it? It would mean that ‘perception is reality’ wouldn’t it?

Which brings me to my question, why should you believe anything it tells you?

No. He is saying that your idea of what things are is incorrect. A mirage looks like water. You may think that there is real water there, but there isn’t. There is no real water. However, a mirage is not nothing either. If we could see nothing, then it would not look like water, it would look like nothing. So a mirage is not water, nor is it nothing. It is a mirage. It is an error to think that a mirage is water. It is an error to think that a mirage is nothing. The correct way is to think that a mirage is a mirage.

The problem is not with the world, the problem is in how our brains see the world. We are seeing water where there is none.

As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

– Diamond sutra 32

Thank you for the analogy, you are right a mirage only looks like water but it isn’t really water, so if we extrapolate that to everything else as you are saying, than why should we believe anything our minds tell us to be true?

Yes. DNA does determine some things: two eyes, five fingers etc. It does not determine other things.

rossum

Than what determines thought? do we have free will over our thoughts? and if we do have free will over them, than that is entirely supernatural and can only come from an intelligible creator, it can only be the case if we have a soul, if we are more than our material selves.

If anything is objectively true, than the only explanation is an intelligible creator in which we can appeal to objectively for truth.

What are you appealing to when you say something is really true? without an intelligent creator it can only be your perception that you appeal to in order to say it’s true, so why should you believe anything your mind tells you?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Actually science is the use of hard data to form a theory that fits best to the knowledge we possess. Science changes as it knows more. No one advocating science here is saying they know for sure. They are defending the THEORY the find MOST logical through hard data.

How can science know anything? Is science some kind of magical objective source of knowledge? without God, doesn’t everything we claim to ‘know’ come from our minds? which if our existance is an unguided, unintelligent process, than we are the determined product of our DNA. So why should you believe anything your mind tells you? why should you believe anything to be true?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Because without God, we are the end result of a mindless, unguided process, we are determined by our DNA.

Our bodies are mostly determined by our DNA. Other things are determined by our karma. Karma is neither DNA nor God. You are assuming Christianity here, and I am not a Christian.

I’m not to sure that answers my question, I’m saying that if we are nothing but chemistry, it means we are completely material, nothing supernatural about us, which means we are completely determined by our material make up (hence Dawkins saying we dance to our DNA), and this means that everything becomes completely subjective.

Our material bodies are nothing but chemistry. Material life is nothing but chemistry. Immaterial life is of course different, however that lies outside the STEM universe and is not confined to planet earth, as per the title of this thread. Immaterial life lives in the various heavens and hells as well as on earth, and this thread is not about those non-earth-like places.

Which brings me to my question, why should you believe anything it tells you?

You don’t. Your perception tells you that there is water in a mirage. Our senses are generally pretty good, but they can be fooled and they can miss things. We cannot smell as well as a dog can, so we miss a lot of information about our surroundings. We can only ever have a partial, and hence unreliable, picture of the world around us.

Thank you for the analogy, you are right a mirage only looks like water but it isn’t really water, so if we extrapolate that to everything else as you are saying, than why should we believe anything our minds tell us to be true?

Everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Accept it provisionally, but be prepared to change you mind if it turns out to be another mirage.

Than what determines thought? do we have free will over our thoughts?

Free will is not a problem for Buddhists. Our will is not free because we are all constrained by our pasts. I cannot lift a ton weight, no matter what I will, because I am born as a human and not as an elephant. We are only free to act within constraints.

If anything is objectively true, than the only explanation is an intelligible creator in which we can appeal to objectively for truth.

False dichotomy. Buddhism has objective truth and no “intelligible creator”.

What are you appealing to when you say something is really true?

I am appealing to results. That which is true leads to peace, happiness and nirvana; that which is false does not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That I cannot accept. Four of the five components of a human person are immaterial: feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Buddhist analysis appears to differ from Christian analysis on this point.

rossum

Persons are not made of bits and pieces like material objects. They are indivisible entities with powers and attributes.

 

[josh987654321]

Our bodies are mostly determined by our DNA. Other things are determined by our karma. Karma is neither DNA nor God. You are assuming Christianity here, and I am not a Christian.

May I ask what evidence you have for Karma? what you base the belief of Karma on?

Our material bodies are nothing but chemistry. Material life is nothing but chemistry. Immaterial life is of course different, however that lies outside the STEM universe and is not confined to planet earth, as per the title of this thread. Immaterial life lives in the various heavens and hells as well as on earth, and this thread is not about those non-earth-like places.

So if we are completely material and have no soul, than how do you reconcile that with saying we have free will (within the boundaries of our nature)?

You don’t. Your perception tells you that there is water in a mirage. Our senses are generally pretty good, but they can be fooled and they can miss things. We cannot smell as well as a dog can, so we miss a lot of information about our surroundings. We can only ever have a partial, and hence unreliable, picture of the world around us.

May I ask how you know that the universe you try to learn about in science is not a mirage? If we can only have an unreliable picture of the world around us, than science is ‘unreliable’ and your belief that there is no intelligible creator is also ‘unreliable’ isn’t it?

Everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Accept it provisionally, but be prepared to change you mind if it turns out to be another mirage.

How do you know the science you use to discover the universe is not a mirage?

Ravi Zacharias -

*Some years ago, I was having dinner with a few scholars, most of whom were scientists. They were a fine group of people and I was honored to be in their company. At one point, our discussion veered into the conflict between naturalism’s starting point - nature and nature alone - and supernaturalism’s starting point, which is that God is the only sufficient explanation for our origin.

I asked them a couple of questions “If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began (Which one can faily well grant, at least to this point in science’s thinking), may I ask what preceeded the Big Bang?” Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.

I paused, “But isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?”
“That is correct” was the answer.
“Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.”*

Free will is not a problem for Buddhists. Our will is not free because we are all constrained by our pasts. I cannot lift a ton weight, no matter what I will, because I am born as a human and not as an elephant. We are only free to act within constraints.

Christianity teaches the same, we have limited free will according to our nature as human beings, that’s why I said “free will over our thoughts” in other words, can you think freely? or are your thoughts completely determined by your DNA as Dawkins would say?

False dichotomy. Buddhism has objective truth and no “intelligible creator”.

Than who do you appeal to for objective truth? the unintelligable, unguided, uncaused universe?

You seem to be arguing materialism or naturalism to deny an intelligent creator of the universe in your arguments on one hand, while on the other arguing supernaturalism? May I ask how your views follow? Is there an ‘ism’ for your belief on the existance of our universe?

You seem to appeal to people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins earlier arguing against an intelligent design for our universe but these people all outline how the results of an unintelligible, unguided process for the existance of our universe is determinism.

I am appealing to results. That which is true leads to peace, happiness and nirvana; that which is false does not.

rossum

Which is entirely subjective if there is no God isn’t it? which means your truth is entirely subjective isn’t it? so how can it be true?

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of. Peter Huff

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Persons are not made of bits and pieces like material objects. They are indivisible entities with powers and attributes.

Your philosophy differs from mine. I suspect we will not resolve the question here.

rossum

 

[rossum]

May I ask what evidence you have for Karma? what you base the belief of Karma on?

On scripture.

So if we are completely material and have no soul, than how do you reconcile that with saying we have free will (within the boundaries of our nature)?

We are not completely material, we have one material component and four immaterial components. None of the four immaterial components is a soul. This is standard Buddhism.

May I ask how you know that the universe you try to learn about in science is not a mirage? If we can only have an unreliable picture of the world around us, than science is ‘unreliable’ and your belief that there is no intelligible creator is also ‘unreliable’ isn’t it?

Of course science is unreliable. That is why if you look at a scientific paper you will see the margin of error stated on any results given. Like opinion polls that have 3% error, scientific results also have error estimates attached.

How do you know the science you use to discover the universe is not a mirage?

It may be a mirage, but it is a consistent mirage. Every time I drop something it falls under gravity at a known acceleration. The mirage is consistent, so I will work with that consistency as much as I can.

Christianity teaches the same, we have limited free will according to our nature as human beings, that’s why I said “free will over our thoughts” in other words, can you think freely? or are your thoughts completely determined by your DNA as Dawkins would say?

Neither. We cannot think freely, since there are thoughts that we cannot think. Can you think of the nature of sensations a fish gets from its lateral line system? Can you think of what a bee sees when it detects polarized light? Can you think of what it is to walk like a millipede?

Than who do you appeal to for objective truth? the unintelligable, unguided, uncaused universe?

Again with the “who”. Why do you insist on personalising that which is not personal? I live in an intelligible, caused universe, and I guide myself through this universe. If you really want a “who” for the universe in which I live, then the “who” is myself. Different people see the universe differently, so in some senses we are all living in our own self-created universes. Some people live in a universe where President Obama is the anti-Christ, intent on destroying America; other people live in a universe where he is a reasonably good president hampered by an overly obstructive opposition in congress.

You seem to be arguing materialism or naturalism to deny an intelligent creator of the universe in your arguments on one hand, while on the other arguing supernaturalism? May I ask how your views follow? Is there an ‘ism’ for your belief on the existence of our universe?

For the material universe I look for material causes. For the spiritual universe I look for spiritual causes, but since I am Buddhist my spiritual causes are not the Abrahamic deity.

Which is entirely subjective if there is no God isn’t it? which means your truth is entirely subjective isn’t it? so how can it be true?

First, there are many more gods in my scriptures than in yours. One thing that Buddhism does not lack is gods. Why does the presence of one or more gods suddenly render subjective truths objective? What is the logical link?

rossum

 

[weller2]

The only reason why you say this can never happen with the creationist, is because you assume God doesn’t have omniscience. The designers of the internet did not have omniscience and could not forsee the complete result of their actions. How can the unexpected results (that we find) occur to the one who created the unexpected results?

Except that we have now arrived at deism. Since life can arise in the Universe by itself, then all that God HAD to do was to set down initial laws and initiate the Big Bang.

 

[weller2]

This is where what Jesus said and did comes into it. We can see beyond to an intelligent creator because he has revealed himself to us.

Yeah, but it’s not like there is any scientific evidence which necessisates the Creator. As far as science is concerned, the Creator is currently unverifiable.

That said, while I prefer Creator to the multiverse, I’m very sceptical that Christianity got the whole truth in this matter. More like a part of truth, and the complete truth is unknowable for a human anyway.

If you ever get a chance “Jesus among other Gods” by Ravi Zacharias is very good.

I’ll have a look, thanks. But the quote about Big Bang you’ve posted doe not fill me with much hope

It’s interesting that you say that is ‘most importantly’ I would have thought when it comes to a discussion about the existance of an intelligent creator that would be least important.

Oh, that’s just something I find terribly amusing when I look at Christianity as a complete system. I mean, you have God who is ultimately responsible for the entire Universe, with its galaxy collisions, black holes tearing starts apart, supernova explosions obliterating planets, gamma ray bursts wiping civilizations – and who, at the same time is greatly concerned that in galaxy #77881485647, on a planet #585451548560, lifeform #47912268951 is doing something inappropriate with its genitals.

 

[rossum]

Oh, that’s just something I find terribly amusing when I look at Christianity as a complete system. I mean, you have God who is ultimately responsible for the entire Universe, with its galaxy collisions, black holes tearing starts apart, supernova explosions obliterating planets, gamma ray bursts wiping civilizations – and who, at the same time is greatly concerned that in galaxy #77881485647, on a planet #585451548560, lifeform #47912268951 is doing something inappropriate with its genitals.

Yes, that puzzles me too. If He was that worried about it, then why did He give them that fourteenth tentacle to do inappropriate things with?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

]Yeah, but it’s not like there is any scientific evidence which necessisates the Creator. As far as science is concerned, the Creator is currently unverifiable.

As far as a reasonable person is concerned science tells us precisely nothing about the value, meaning and purpose of life or love.

That said, while I prefer Creator to the multiverse, I’m very sceptical that Christianity got the whole truth in this matter. More like a part of truth, and the complete truth is unknowable for a human anyway.

Which Christians claim to possess the whole truth?

Oh, that’s just something I find terribly amusing when I look at Christianity as a complete system. I mean, you have God who is ultimately responsible for the entire Universe, with its galaxy collisions, black holes tearing stars apart, supernova explosions obliterating planets, gamma ray bursts wiping civilizations – and who, at the same time is greatly concerned that in galaxy #77881485647, on a planet #585451548560, lifeform #47912268951 is doing something inappropriate with its genitals.

I find it highly amusing that you believe galaxy collisions, black holes tearing stars apart, supernova explosions obliterating planets, gamma ray bursts wiping civilizations and human ideas about genital activity demonstrate the absurdity of Christianity. It looks as if your “search” is very superficial - if it exists at all…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, that puzzles me too. If He was that worried about it, then why did He give them that fourteenth tentacle to do inappropriate things with?

rossum

Why were you given a mind which reaches so many false conclusions about God?

 

[Lokadottir]

Because without God, we are the end result of a mindless, unguided process, we are determined by our DNA. It means as you say “The universe only appears to be intelligibly designed.” therefore we also only ‘appear’ to know any truth, really it’s completely determined by our DNA, how can a mindless, unguided process, produce humans with free will able to speak about truth objectively like in science?

We don’t even have enough DNA for that. You are thinking in terms of classic computer programming start looking into artificial intelligence. There are computers that start with an INCREDIBLY simple program and then proceed to PROGRAM THEMSELVES.

 

[Lokadottir]

Science and the things you listed above really belong in different boxes.

 

[tonyrey]

We don’t even have enough DNA for that. You are thinking in terms of classic computer programming start looking into artificial intelligence. There are computers that start with an INCREDIBLY simple program and then proceed to PROGRAM THEMSELVES.

Did they assemble and programme themselves in the first place?