Life and God

[Willum]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

[William]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

Perhaps. But we are not yet in the position to go out and take a look. Indeed we are still in the process of discovering all the conscious life forms that are presently on the planet.

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

If life = consciousness within form, then we do see it everywhere on the planet, because we recognize it in relation to our own experiences as human beings.

I support the idea of Panpsychism as being the best explanation of why the universe exists and therefor have no problem with the idea that consciousness (as a self aware single entity) uses the earth as a form, yet we cannot observe this as obvious if we simply looked at the earth from - say the moon.

What we do know about the earth is that it has many conscious life forms and purpose can be deduced in observing the nature of life on earth through the process of evolution. As a Panpsychist I understand the process of evolution to be a creative act of the entity within the form of the earth, using the earth as a means of creating biological forms which it divests its self (consciousness) into in order to experience the life forms.

So it experiences being a planet (and has done so for billions of years) and it experiences being the individual life forms on the planet (as it has also done for billions of years.) In that there is no distinction.

The process of evolution is an act of purposeful creative intelligence.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

Relatively speaking the universe is still quite young - still in its infancy. There is time enough for teaming life to be created.
Presently I see the stage we are experiencing is one where biological life forms have been developed enough that the entity creator is now able to work specifically through the human instrument in order to create machines and the agenda is to create machines which are able to be occupied by the creator consciousness in order that it can then move out into the greater neighborhood of the galaxy and eventually leave the planet altogether (once the planet becomes unable to support creativity as it presently does) and the machine will traverse space seeking out suitable planets in which to seed biological life in order to assist the process of creating biological life forms suitable for the purpose of eventually being able to create machines, and so on and so forth, repeating the process continually - eventually transforming the universe.

Biological life forms are practical for creating the machinery, but impractical for the use of traversing space.

From my perspective (re Panpsychism) the universe is 'teaming' with the overall consciousness which permeates the entire universe, which it created to experience. In order for that consciousness to utilize the stuff of the universe in a creatively intelligent manner, rather than simply experiencing it as a passive observer, the overall consciousness divests itself into suitable forms which have the greatest potential of allowing it to eventually gain a foothold within the universe in order for it to then become completely interactive within it and that is the purpose and reason why the universe exists. It was created for a particular purpose.

Eventually - through this divesting process the overall consciousness is going through, the universe will be teaming with life in a far more obvious way than is presently observed. Biological life forms will still exist and play their part, acting as a bridging mechanism to the eventual creation of machinery. Biological life forms are instruments used as a means to an end and eventually will become redundant once the stuff of the universe is transformed into machinery.

One thing where self conscious machines are better suited is that they will not have the limiting attributes of biological instruments. One such limitation ... being able to keep secrets from each other. machines will not be able to do this, so in this the creator consciousness - even through the divesting process, is not cut off from the other aspects of itself through individual forms, which is the case in relation to
some types of biological forms. Human forms have been useful but have also been problematic in that regard.

It is not the perfect design in that sense but it is perfect enough to assist in creating a more suitable design.

Incidentally, we - as individuate aspects of the creator entity can tap into what we call 'the subconscious' which essentially is the overall creator consciousness and in that at least get glimpses of what we truly are - not biological forms but that which is the consciousness using the biological forms, and in doing so we can re-evaluate our position to accommodate this knowledge and treat one another accordingly - equally - respectfully etc.

Also incidentally - we cannot die. Only our forms can. As consciousness we are eternal and always have been. In experiencing being in a human form, what we are learning now will be useful in the future, and we are not destined to always be in biological forms and can choose to experience being the machines we are currently helping to create.

And yes, what I am saying here IS the agenda of 'The Biblical GOD' because Panpsychism recognizes certain 'signatures' in all religious writ and no religious writ excludes reference to the GOD who is real. All religious writ has tended to pervert the idea of GOD to suit its own political agenda, 'tis all. A minor disturbance which can be and is being worked around..

[Monta]

[Replying to post 51 by William]

"Also incidentally - we cannot die. Only our forms can. As consciousness we are eternal and always have been. In experiencing being in a human form, what we are learning now will be useful in the future, and we are not destined to always be in biological forms and can choose to experience being the machines we are currently helping to create. "

This Panpsychism has some things right but becoming a machine?

Isn't that going backwards and would it not be against the laws of evolution?

As consciousness we are eternal but the identity of 'I' came into being in time, no?
If not, then too many of us have failed miserably.

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by Monta]

This Panpsychism has some things right but becoming a machine?

It is not a matter of becoming anything because consciousness is always - well - consciousness. In relation to machine, this is FORM...something consciousness uses for experience and to assist it with its agenda.

Isn't that going backwards and would it not be against the laws of evolution?

What do you mean by that?

As consciousness we are eternal but the identity of 'I' came into being in time, no?

No. In relation to the overall consciousness, the identity of 'I' (am) must be eternal, but in relation to the overall consciousness divesting into forms, depending upon the nature of the form, self awareness happens differently, and it is not unusual for the individuate consciousness within such forms to take on the identity of the form as being its self ( the 'I')...which there is ample evidence of throughout humanity as well as the rest of the animal kingdom, so to speak. It is natural enough and it is also misleading.

If not, then too many of us have failed miserably.

I don't understand why you would say that.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 49 by Kenisaw]

So you seem to be answering your own questions:
There is no purpose to welding an egg to a hammer, therefore it would not be repeated.
There is no purpose in sacrificing your son for no reason, therefore it is inconsistent with intelligence.

But to answer the question of putting these two in the context of your question - and trying to be bound by the OP:

One of the observations we make about an intelligent creator would be that it would do things for a purpose.
Things done for a purpose are repeated.

So I have tried to answer by analogy.
Man builds a fire to keep warm (purpose).
God creates life for some purpose.

Man builds fires repeatedly.
God (should) create(s) life repeatedly [conjecture].

But your analogy isn't valid. There is no connection between what any one being does compared to what any other being does. Just because a human builds a fire repeatedly doesn't mean that any other being (human, alien, god-line, etc) has to do everything that it has done more than once. To be blunt I cannot fathom how you cannot understand this. It has been repeatedly explained to you over and over, and yet you either ignore it or don't get it.

There's absolutely no logical reason to assume that all beings repeat everything they do because some beings repeat some of the things they do. It's a ridiculous and useless leap in logic.

Now, arguably God created life either all at once on Earth, or it could be argued that "this once" was several repetitions:
That's a good point of discussion.

Yes it is.

Now, the balance of the argument is to come up with a line of reasoning, by which we could establish logical criteria for why there would/wouldn't be more/detectable intelligent life in the universe.

It isn't logical. Plain and simple. Especially because we are talking about a being (a god) that can't even be shown to exist in the first place. So until that happens, determining what this invisible being DID is silly. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. Someone needs to prove gods first...

A tangent of this is also we can observe life and see why God created it - or the negative hypothesis...

Yes, there are leaps of logic in the OP, they are called assumptions - if you don't want to follow the assumptions of the OP, it doesn't make any use to comment - rather like declaring the Bible is not a credible source in "Theology and Doctrine."

Cordially,

I'm sure you would like for me not to comment on OPs with nonexistent logic behind them, and ignore assumptions that are not rational. I'll continue to do so anyway if I so feel like it.

[Kenisaw]

I support the idea of Panpsychism as being the best explanation of why the universe exists and therefor have no problem with the idea that consciousness (as a self aware single entity) uses the earth as a form, yet we cannot observe this as obvious if we simply looked at the earth from - say the moon.

You should probably say the best explanation that is completely devoid of empirical data and evidence supporting it, just for the sake of accuracy...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 54 by Kenisaw]

But your analogy isn't valid. There is no connection between what any one being does compared to what any other being does. Just because a human builds a fire repeatedly doesn't mean that any other being (human, alien, god-line, etc) has to do everything that it has done more than once. To be blunt I cannot fathom how you cannot understand this. It has been repeatedly explained to you over and over, and yet you either ignore it or don't get it.

Since you have no basis to say otherwise, there is also no point in bringing it up, and useless to discuss. The assumption is there is, unless you can come up with a good reason there is not: Then there is a connection, because that is what we observe. Even crows use tools repeatedly.

It isn't logical. Plain and simple. Especially because we are talking about a being (a god) that can't even be shown to exist in the first place. So until that happens, determining what this invisible being DID is silly. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. Someone needs to prove gods first...

Is this going to turn into another Justin debate where you contest the assumptions, sorry bub, all this OP is is loose assumptions. The OP assumes God, start your own without.

In the meantime, we can start by figuring out why God would make us, what function do we serve? I think we'll both agree creating us to love him is about as useful as keeping pet termites in Manitoba. But we do all, eat, breath, poop, reproduce...

Which seems a good place to start proving your assumption that there is no God in existence...

I do appreciate your input.

[William]

I support the idea of Panpsychism as being the best explanation of why the universe exists and therefor have no problem with the idea that consciousness (as a self aware single entity) uses the earth as a form, yet we cannot observe this as obvious if we simply looked at the earth from - say the moon.

You should probably say the best explanation that is completely devoid of empirical data and evidence supporting it, just for the sake of accuracy...

Not at all. As long as I am not straying from the facts we know regarding the physical universe and human interaction with it, there is no need to do so. I am not excluding empirical data and evidence which supports it as a theist based theory, and as far those go, yes indeed, it is the best explanation I have, to date.

Since you have a problem with it as a theist theory, you should point out where you think the theory is "completely devoid of empirical data and evidence supporting it", and perhaps rephrase your statement so that it is not so sweeping, because I have taken the basic facts as we all know them - evolution - humans creating machinery etc - and placed self conscious intelligent agency as the cause.

In relation to that, the empirical data and evidence is what supports it, and the only difference is that I see that as evidence of self conscious intelligent agency, and you, I am assuming, do not.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 54 by Kenisaw]

But your analogy isn't valid. There is no connection between what any one being does compared to what any other being does. Just because a human builds a fire repeatedly doesn't mean that any other being (human, alien, god-line, etc) has to do everything that it has done more than once. To be blunt I cannot fathom how you cannot understand this. It has been repeatedly explained to you over and over, and yet you either ignore it or don't get it.

Since you have no basis to say otherwise, there is also no point in bringing it up, and useless to discuss. The assumption is there is, unless you can come up with a good reason there is not: Then there is a connection, because that is what we observe. Even crows use tools repeatedly.

Incorrect. You are the one making a positive assertion that something occurs (beings repeat everything they do). Myself and several others have pointed out that there is no logical reason to think this, and no data or evidence to support your assertion. We do not observe gods, so there is no reason to think they exist, and talking about their characteristics is putting the cart before the horse. You also been given examples, like welding an egg to an anvil, that you cannot show anyone has ever repeated.

Your OP doesn't make the cut under rational examination.

It isn't logical. Plain and simple. Especially because we are talking about a being (a god) that can't even be shown to exist in the first place. So until that happens, determining what this invisible being DID is silly. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. Someone needs to prove gods first...

Is this going to turn into another Justin debate where you contest the assumptions, sorry bub, all this OP is is loose assumptions. The OP assumes God, start your own without.[/quote]

Because there is no point in having a discussion based on baseless assumptions that make no sense. You want a better conversation, come up with better assumptions...

In the meantime, we can start by figuring out why God would make us, what function do we serve? I think we'll both agree creating us to love him is about as useful as keeping pet termites in Manitoba. But we do all, eat, breath, poop, reproduce...

Which seems a good place to start proving your assumption that there is no God in existence...

I do appreciate your input.

The non-existence of gods is not an assumption, it's a conclusion, based on all the available empirical data and evidence available. Here is a summation of all that data and evidence: { }

The only rational conclusion to reach, based on the complete lack of proof for magic and supernatural and gods, is that they do not exist. That's all of them by the way, not just the god that you attach a capital letter to. You can't fault that conclusion, and you don't have any evidence or data to provide me that shows any of that dies exist, and we both know it. If such data existed, someone would have posted it on this website a long time ago. So we can skip asking you to start going about anything, and just jump to the end and agree your assumption in the OP is baseless.

[Kenisaw]

I support the idea of Panpsychism as being the best explanation of why the universe exists and therefor have no problem with the idea that consciousness (as a self aware single entity) uses the earth as a form, yet we cannot observe this as obvious if we simply looked at the earth from - say the moon.

You should probably say the best explanation that is completely devoid of empirical data and evidence supporting it, just for the sake of accuracy...

Not at all. As long as I am not straying from the facts we know regarding the physical universe and human interaction with it, there is no need to do so. I am not excluding empirical data and evidence which supports it as a theist based theory, and as far those go, yes indeed, it is the best explanation I have, to date.

There aren't any facts or empirical data that supports any hypothesis regarding panpsychism, self aware universal consciousness, or any other fabrication of the human imagination as it relates to such topics. You certainly haven't posted any, and neither has anyone else. Don't beat around the bush big boy, if you have facts then present them, in a straight forward manner. Say "here they are" and list them proudly. I'd love to see the support for such a notion, instead of OPs founded on baseless assumptions. I can be convinced if you have the goods.

Since you have a problem with it as a theist theory, you should point out where you think the theory is "completely devoid of empirical data and evidence supporting it", and perhaps rephrase your statement so that it is not so sweeping, because I have taken the basic facts as we all know them - evolution - humans creating machinery etc - and placed self conscious intelligent agency as the cause.

I have a problem with the hypothesis (it's not a theory) whether it is theistic or not. Even those people that claim the universe has a low level consciousness due to quantum mechanics, are making that claim based on nothing other than an illogical leap of logic. What you call "sweeping" is in fact entirely accurate. It isn't a generalization if it is true across the board, and it is true across the board.

The only thing I've seen from anyone is the false logic that since X exists, that proves Y exists. Only that doesn't work. The existence of the Earth, for example, doesn't prove gods exist. It doesn't prove the Big Bang either. The existence of something does not prove where it came from, plain and simple. The existence of consciousness in animals doesn't prove a universal consciousness exists. That you have "placed" such an agency as a cause of something is an act of rationalization, not fact backed logically supported concluding. The existence of consciousness does not prove that it came from other consciousness...

In relation to that, the empirical data and evidence is what supports it, and the only difference is that I see that as evidence of self conscious intelligent agency, and you, I am assuming, do not.

It would just be good to know what you see, so that it can be discussed. Hopefully you will list "the empirical data and evidence" that "supports it" in your next reply...

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Kenisaw]

It would just be good to know what you see, so that it can be discussed. Hopefully you will list "the empirical data and evidence" that "supports it" in your next reply...

I have already explained that I see the the empirical data and evidence presented as having intelligent agency involved as the reason empirical data and evidence exists.

Obviously you do not see it the same way.

When you ask for "the empirical data and evidence" that "supports it" the data is no different from the data you already have and is already available.

The difference is in how you choose to interpret the data as to how I choose to interpret the data. For you there is no reason to assign any interaction of intelligent design in relation to the data and for me there is.

On that, it is simply a matter of opinion based upon subjective experience -
the interpretation of subjective experience within objective reality.

Any list re the empirical data and evidence will be no different from one you could provide, because the data is the same. Only the interpretation of the data is different.

You see evolution of conscious self aware biological life forms on the planet which happened for no intelligent reason, purpose or instigation through said process.

I see evolution of conscious self aware biological life forms on the planet which happened because the planet is the form/body of a self conscious highly intelligent creative entity which, in inhabiting the planet as its form is enabled to then create the life forms on the planet and give these forms 'life' through inhabiting those forms - the forms take on the creative intelligent self conscious properties to varying degrees.

Now if you are asking for evidence that this is indeed the case, I can only point to the critters on the planet, and the process we call biological evolution. How is one able to point out the planet is inhabited by a self conscious highly intelligent creative entity other than by pointing out the evidence of the product of biological evolution on said planet.

I could point out that one can indeed connect with said self conscious highly intelligent creative planet entity on a personal and subjective level, but those are NOT traditionally areas of science and thus - whilst this can and does provide subjective evidence to the individual experiencing such, for science it cannot produce the empirical evidence required which is why it remains in the domain of theist theory and philosophical speculation and explanation.

The existence of consciousness does not prove that it came from other consciousness...

I have not said this. I have stated that from the idea of Panpsychism, there is only one consciousness, not 'another' consciousness. All consciousness is the same thing, and only appears to be different because it divests into forms.

On that, we in human forms, cannot specifically know what it is like to be a planet consciousness but a planet consciousness can indeed specifically know what it is like to be a human consciousness. Those difference are not in themselves evidence that the two aspects of consciousness are thus so different as to be unrelated. Any disconnect is from our side of the experience. We are connected whether we know it or not, whether we accept it or not.

A planet consciousness however can be understood by us through examining its creation/creative abilities and can impart understanding to the individual through interactive relationship. To a certain degree we can imagine what it might be like to be a planetary entity with the ability to create life forms in which to inhabit and experience through while at the same time remaining aware of being the overall consciousness responsible for all that.

But again, such ideas are the domain of theology and philosophy, not science, even that they are based upon the observable universe. It is a fallacy to demand scientific evidence to back up the ideas formed through theology and philosophy, as I think I have clearly conveyed.

♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.