Before the Big Bang

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SeaPriestess
Student
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am

Before the Big Bang

Post #1

Post by SeaPriestess »

I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?


User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #51

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote:
These are of course simply interpretations. The brain is a vehicle, and depending on how the individual brain is, depends on how efficiently it can be used by the individuate consciousness using it.
I'm very glad you brought this up because this is a point that I had encountered many years ago and have dealt with in some detail.

There is a huge problem with this idea which basically amounts to not much more than an "theological apology" for Pantheism.

In fact, apologizing for a Pantheistic worldview is pretty much the only reason to even bring up an "excuse" like this for why a supposed "Cosmic Consciousness" becomes limited when possessing a human brain.

However, this becomes a huge problem because this then means that the physical brain ultimately "controls" what the consciousness that possesses it is capable of "consciously comprehending".

This then pretty much demands that the brain is then responsible for the level of consciousness. Thus forcing the pantheist to agree that the physical world has a profound influence on the level of consciousness available.

The idea then that this consciousness that possesses these brains is some sort of magical non-physical "stuff or entity" then becomes highly questionable. Why should a magical consciousness be dependent on a physical brain for an ability to be conscious?

In fact, in your previous arguments in the other thread where you claim God-Consciousness takes over an android, you simultaneously demand that the scientist who created the android had "Failed" to created a suitable brain. Yet no you are trying to argue that this "God-Consciousness" will necessarily be limited by the brain it possesses and reduced in conscious clarity by that brain. But in the case of the Android you wanted the God-Consciousness to be responsible for the androids level of intelligence and conscious awareness.

So your arguments aren't consistent. You will apparently just argue for whatever "pantheistic apology" seems to potentially apply in the moment whilst completely ignoring how this might affect other positions you have previously taken.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Before the Big Bang

Post #52

Post by Divine Insight »

EarthScienceguy wrote: So one can believe that the universe is everything and everything is the universe (Pantheism). You can believe that everything is hear by chance movement of energy (naturalism). Or you can believe that God created everything (theism). But all are beliefs.
I agree with this. However, I would also point out that there is more evidence for these various beliefs, and some are more reasonable than others.

For example, there is no compelling evidence for a pantheistic worldview. Period.

There is overwhelming evidence for a naturalistic worldview.

And when we talk about some specific "God" having created everything we can look into the claims and writings being told about that specific God and ask whether those claims and writings make any sense or are consistent, etc.

To date, there is absolutely no mythological God stories that hold up to serious examination. They all fail miserably and require a belief in utterly absurd behaviors and claims being made about their specific Gods.

So while all of these things can be categorized as "beliefs", there are still reasons why some of these worldviews simply make more sense than others and are therefore more reasonable to accept.

But ultimately you are right. We are all "Agnostic" (i.e. without sufficient information to confirm any speculations about how our world might have begun)

So what's wrong with accepting that we are Agnostic? And just own up to the truth that we can't say with certainty what might be true.

But even as Agnostics we can still rule out the absurd.

As Sherlock Holmes is quoted as having said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

At this current point in time Naturalism is winning based on this standard of evaluating evidence.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by William »

[Replying to post 51 by Divine Insight]
In fact, apologizing for a Pantheistic worldview is pretty much the only reason to even bring up an "excuse" like this for why a supposed "Cosmic Consciousness" becomes limited when possessing a human brain.
I can see how your own beliefs push you to use that unnecessary expression "apologizing for a Pantheistic worldview" and "excuse" because this is all that you can muster through the lens of your beliefs...so I understand your dilemma in that regard and won't take it as the personal slur it is intended to be.

I should remind you that Panentheism is not a stuck in the mud worldview and is philosophically open ended - because it couldn't play the role it does without being.

I have thought about the context of what is viewed as naturalism and what the brain is supposedly capable of doing and what it is not and why a cosmic consciousness would bother creating such a device, as it seems counter intuitive and pointless from a naturalistic world view.

Panentheists enjoy the challenge of such questions as this which you bring to the table.

The answer given depends on the approach taken.

For simplicity, I will take the naturalist approach which regards the theory all that exists is the physical universe and that this has been and will continue to be an eternal process.

Of course, I have already gone through the process with you before, and you have yet to respond to those. Your usual tactic is to ignore and respond to something other than what I actually say, and I have allowed the distraction based upon the presumption that you mean well and are not purposefully wasting my time.

So, what exactly are you saying in relation to a cosmic consciousness becoming limited by a human brain which somehow goes to show that this works against the idea of Panentheism?

For example, you state;
...this becomes a huge problem because this then means that the physical brain ultimately "controls" what the consciousness that possesses it is capable of "consciously comprehending"
In what way does this 'become a huge problem' in relation to the Panentheist world view?

I think what you are doing is confusing the fact that Panentheist worldview is a problem for the Naturalist worldview, therefore the Naturalist worldview must have to also be a problem for the Panentheist worldview.
The Naturalist worldview is NOT a problem for Panentheists.

You also stated;
This then pretty much demands that the brain is then responsible for the level of consciousness. Thus forcing the pantheist to agree that the physical world has a profound influence on the level of consciousness available.
The pantheists worldview re Panentheism is not forced into agreeing that the physical world has a profound influence on the level of consciousness available to the individuals awareness. Rather we accept that this is part of what is, and it is not any problem for that.

Since there are no requirements of Panentheism to create dogmatic philosophies in order to uphold the panenthiest outlook re possibilities, no 'forcing' is involved whatsoever.

Then you say this;
The idea then that this consciousness that possesses these brains is some sort of magical non-physical "stuff or entity" then becomes highly questionable. Why should a magical consciousness be dependent on a physical brain for an ability to be conscious?


Panentheism does not regard consciousness as 'magical' but 'natural', in exactly the same way in which it regards the existence of the current universe as natural.

Thus, there is nothing 'highly questionable' involved in the idea of consciousness imbuing what it creates, for the experience that is had by doing so.

Thus, I am unsure as to where you got the idea I was saying that 'consciousness is dependent on a physical brain for an ability to be conscious' as this is entirely the philosophy of 'consciousness is emergent of the brain' believers - such as yourself - and once more you have confused who is saying what in order to present an argument against something you think I said rather than what I actually have been saying.

I must say that this behavior from you has been quite prominent of late as your preferred style of argument, and it is somewhat concerning for that.
Do you think it is a fair or reasonable way in which to engage with me that I have to continually point it out to you, only to have you ignore me and then continue to take that approach?

If your intention is to simply wear me down by my having to constantly remind you not do to this, so that I simply give up and ignore you altogether because you are obviously not listening, then I am saddened by such tactic. It is disappointing DI and I ask you to sincerely think about changing your approach in this regard.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #54

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: I should remind you that Panentheism is not a stuck in the mud worldview and is philosophically open ended - because it couldn't play the role it does without being.
In other words it is necessarily an ill-defined philosophy that is still looking for possible answers. I get that. I also agree with this. In fact, this is precisely what the Buddha taught. The Dalai Lama takes this position as well.

I totally agree that this is the position of Pantheism.
William wrote: The Naturalist worldview is NOT a problem for Panentheists.
Well, of course it isn't and this is precisely because Pantheism is ill-defined and an incomplete philosophy. A work in progress. As we both agreed to above.
William wrote: If your intention is to simply wear me down by my having to constantly remind you not do to this, so that I simply give up and ignore you altogether because you are obviously not listening, then I am saddened by such tactic. It is disappointing DI and I ask you to sincerely think about changing your approach in this regard.
Ok then, what is it exactly that you want from me? :-k

Do you want me to say that Pantheism is a rock-solid complete and sound philosophy?

No, of course you can't expect this of me since you agree that it's "Open" and not a complete philosophy. It's still looking for apologies for all the problems it has yet to address. You've already agreed to this just now in your first quote in this post.

So I'm in agreement with you on this point. Pantheism doesn't have answers, it's still looking for its own resolution to many problems.

I agree that for a Pantheist naturalism wouldn't be seen as a problem, precisely for the reasons given above. Pantheism simply hasn't figured out how to deal with these problems yet so it's leaving itself open to possibly solving these problems at some future time. Therefore it doesn't see any current problems as "final". Someone might think of an excuse in the future for why what appeared to be a problem actually isn't a problem.

So I ask of you what exactly it is that you EXPECT from me? :-k

I'm totally familiar with the philosophy of Pantheism. You are absolutely wrong if you think otherwise. I agree that it's an unfinished (i.e. ill-defined) worldview. I agree that both the Buddha and the Dalai Lama support this view.

None the less, I still hold that a philosophy of Naturalism holds a higher overall score in terms of making predictions about reality, including predictions about what we observe in terms of how consciousness behaves in a brain.

So just what exactly is it that you expect from me William?

Do you want my approval of your desire to embrace Pantheism over Naturalism?

I'm afraid I can't offer approval on that because as far as I can see Naturalism wins hands down.

This isn't saying that Pantheism absolutely cannot be true. All I'm saying is that currently Naturalism has far more points in its favor. So it's the more logically rational worldview.

If you prefer an illogical irrational worldview, then by all means go for it. You could even argue that the universe itself appears to be illogical and irrational to you and therefore you accept that an illogical and irrational worldview might be more likely to be correct. I can even accept that.

But that's not the argument you've been making. You've been trying to rationalize Pantheism and argue why it makes logical sense. All the while ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for it at all. None whatsoever.

Why should we embrace any philosophy for which there is no evidence? Even a logically sound rational philosophy would not be appealing if there is no evidence for why we should believe it to be true.

Where is there any evidence for Pantheism?

You've suggested OOBE's but then chastised me when I pointed out that many of the claims made by people who have OOBE's are testable. You then tried to wiggle out of that by claiming that OOBE's can only be had of realms outside our universe.

I even told you that if you are going to demand that criteria then you have some work cut out for you going back over every OOBE testimony you have ever seen and tossing out any that claim to have had OOBE's in this earthly world. As far as I can tell this would include the vast majority of them.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Before the Big Bang

Post #55

Post by William »

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]
So what's wrong with accepting that we are Agnostic? And just own up to the truth that we can't say with certainty what might be true.
I agree with this because that is my position in relation to all theories.
But even as Agnostics we can still rule out the absurd.
Agnostics do not think of any theories as absurd. We see some are more likely than others, but the truth is that we can't say with certainty what might be true, so we don't like to stray from that. To do so is to adopt other positions as true, forgetting they are not, and forgetting that in doing so we can no longer refer to our position as agnostic.
As Sherlock Holmes is quoted as having said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"


Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character and therefore cannot be quoted as saying anything, as he is made up. Arthur Conan Doyle is the one who wrote that, so you are actually quoting him.

Incidentally, and even ironically - depending on ones own worldview position - Arthur Conan Doyle did not have a Naturalist worldview - he was a "Spiritualist" who saw something worthwhile studying which Naturalist scientists avoid doing, or perhaps are unable to do.

At this current point in time Naturalism is winning based on this standard of evaluating evidence.


As an agnostic I understand that there is no competition involved in working things out because truth is that I and my fellows can't say with certainty what might be true.

Even if the truth is to be regarded 'the winner', nothing so far can be said to be winning until the truth is absolutely established re the particular 'ism'.

The standard of evaluating evidence correctly and the accompanying interpretations being aligned with that, is something we can all hope to happen one day. At present, those interpretations are bias toward whatever 'ism' is doing so through the distorting lens of its adherents. Typically naturalism.

Naturalism of itself, as understood by the agnostic, is focused on physical evidence related to the process of science and the devices developed for that.
If the race was simply one which the physical universe alone can show the agnostic the truth, then it cannot be any other way, for that is exactly what naturalism is, so a naturalist would naturally enough determine that the evidence can only be physical and physically examined for it to be regarded as evidence. It is stacking the deck so that only naturalism can run the race, based on what the naturalism says are the race rules.

An agnostic of course, sees through that sleight of hand because we know the truth is that we can't say with certainty what might be true, and the truth is that which actually matters to us. Truly we are the detectives in that regard.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #56

Post by William »

[Replying to post 54 by Divine Insight]
Ok then, what is it exactly that you want from me?
As I have already said on many occasions over the past couple of weeks, I want you to desist with making interpretations of what you think I am saying and present these as something that i actually said.

The truth is, you cannot quote me saying such, because I never said them, even that you claim I do.

Rather, the better and honest approach is for you to quote me, and then offer your interpretation of that and ask me if your interpretation is correct or amiss. Presently you are simply making your interpretations out to be what I have actually said. They are not.

I showed the examples, so there is no excuse for continuing to do this, but you choose to anyway.
I should remind you that Panentheism is not a stuck in the mud worldview and is philosophically open ended - because it couldn't play the role it does without being.
In other words it is necessarily an ill-defined philosophy that is still looking for possible answers.
That is your interpretation of what I said re Panentheism. It is not what I said at all.

It does however show me that your grasp of Panentheism is not as 'expert' as you give the impression of, to the reader. Many wouldn't care about that as they have no particular interest and might take your word for it and accept your interpretation as being grounded in your knowing what you are talking about.
The Naturalist worldview is NOT a problem for Panentheists.
Well, of course it isn't and this is precisely because Pantheism is ill-defined and an incomplete philosophy. A work in progress.
Panentheism is no different from any other philosophy in that regard. However, due to it's position, Panentheism actually takes into account ALL the incomplete philosophies and fits them together as it can. This naturally makes for the most comprehensive 'incomplete philosophy' of them all.
The fact that you missed this shows the reader, you are not at all as expert on the subject as you claim.
Your claims as to what you say that I said about OOBEs are untrue, which explains why you gave no quotes. Again all I can do is ask that you desist with that tactic.

The rest of your post has been answered already in my previous post regarding agnosticism, another thing you are not as expert on as you would have the reader believe.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Before the Big Bang

Post #57

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: Agnostics do not think of any theories as absurd. We see some are more likely than others, but the truth is that we can't say with certainty what might be true, so we don't like to stray from that. To do so is to adopt other positions as true, forgetting they are not, and forgetting that in doing so we can no longer refer to our position as agnostic.
This would only be true if we also claim to be "Absolutists".

Just because we are agnostic on some questions and issues, does not mean that we need to take an agnostic position on everything.

Keep in mind that Agnostic simply means "a-gnostic" (i.e. without sufficient knowledge to answer the question at hand). It doesn't mean that we need to claim that we can know nothing at all. That would be an Absolute Agnostic.

We can be agnostic about some things, like pantheism for example, which even confesses itself to be an agnostic philosophy (i.e. even it doesn't claim to have compelling knowledge to say that its ideas are necessarily true)

However, we can still recognize and acknowledge that we can know other things.

This is why I often say that I'm agnostic when it comes to Pantheism, but I'm actually a "Gnostic Atheist" when it comes to the Biblical Mythology. This is because I feel that I have sufficient knowledge to know that the Bible is necessarily false. So I have no need to be agnostic with respect to the Biblical stories.
William wrote: Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character and therefore cannot be quoted as saying anything, as he is made up. Arthur Conan Doyle is the one who wrote that, so you are actually quoting him.
That's fine and dandy, but the quote is often attributed to the fictional character just the same. The point being that no matter who might have said it, it still makes a lot of sense. Arguing about who actually said it hardly addresses the meaning of it.
William wrote: Incidentally, and even ironically - depending on ones own worldview position - Arthur Conan Doyle did not have a Naturalist worldview - he was a "Spiritualist" who saw something worthwhile studying which Naturalist scientists avoid doing, or perhaps are unable to do.
So? Perhaps Arthur Conan Doyle didn't take words he put in the mouths of his fictional characters seriously. No problem there either.
William wrote: The standard of evaluating evidence correctly and the accompanying interpretations being aligned with that, is something we can all hope to happen one day. At present, those interpretations are bias toward whatever 'ism' is doing so through the distorting lens of its adherents. Typically naturalism.
William wrote: An agnostic of course, sees through that sleight of hand because we know the truth is that we can't say with certainty what might be true, and the truth is that which actually matters to us. Truly we are the detectives in that regard.
And so now you are the spokesperson for Agnostics?

What you seem to be totally ignoring is that as "detectives" Naturalism is winning hands down in terms of the evidence supporting it.

Now you may say that we can't know with certainty that Naturalism is then true. I agree. However, as "detectives" we should lean toward the "ism" that is most supported by the evidence right? :-k

This is all I've been saying all along. Naturalism is winning hands down in the department of having the most evidence to support it. Period.

This doesn't necessarily mean that it will come out being the winner in the end. But it's certainly way out front in the race to the finish line right now. So to bet on some other "ism" is to place a bet on a current underdog. Sure, you can do that. But my question is why bother?

The only motivation I can imagine there is the motivation of simply "wanting" that particular "ism" to be true. You're certainly not betting on it because it has the most evidence, because that's clearly not the case.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Before the Big Bang

Post #58

Post by William »

[Replying to post 57 by Divine Insight]
Just because we are agnostic on some questions and issues, does not mean that we need to take an agnostic position on everything.
If not, then one changes their position from agnostic to something other than agnostic.

Of course, one can 'revert' when one has used the technique to make a point, but the point is not then made from the agnostic position.

The positions themselves - whatever they are - are absolute in regard to that. One cannot say that one is arguing from an agnostic position if one is arguing from another position which is not absolutely an agnostic one.

Positions are based on absolutes. Shifting from one position to another is to leave the absolute of one for the absolute of another.

The absolute of the agnostic position is that 'absolute truth' is that I and my fellows can't say with certainty what might else might be true. We only know that this is the truth.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Before the Big Bang

Post #59

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: The positions themselves - whatever they are - are absolute in regard to that. One cannot say that one is arguing from an agnostic position if one is arguing from another position which is not absolutely an agnostic one.
Well, when we're talking about knowledge there are clearly things we can know and things we can't know.

All I'm saying is that a Naturalistic worldview encompasses far more evidence and explanations that we can know to be true than a Pantheistic worldview which requires accepting a lot of speculation and hypothesizing of things that we have absolutely no way to even investigate reliably much less have any compelling evidence for. Most of which are even proclaimed to exist in a realm that is even undetectable to us.

Surely you agree with this? :-k

After all, Pantheism is considered to be a philosophy or religion, right? In fact, the Eastern Mystics even refer to it as "Mysticism". They call it this precisely because it the whole idea is indeed quite a mystery that even they cannot explain.

No one has ever held Pantheism up as a reliable system of inquiry that has ever revealed verifiable truths or explanations about our world.

So how can you even begin to argue that Pantheism should be placed on the same playing field with Naturalism?

Why not accept the truth that Naturalism has an overwhelming track record of discovering verifiable truths about the world in which we live. And Pantheism has a track record of exactly zip, zero, zilch.

That's just the facts right?

Trying to make this into a war between philosophers who are going to argue that "My opinions are just as good as yours" simply doesn't hold water.

In fact, Stephen Hawking wasn't kidding when he said, "Pure Philosophy is Dead". It truly is dead because we have seen that pure philosophical guessing cannot make dependable discoveries about our world. Without science (i.e. Naturalism) no real progress could be made, and we could never determine whether our unconfirmed speculations could ever truly exist.

A perfect example is that from a perspective of "Pure Philosophy" we could imagine a physical universe that has always existed pretty much in its current state today. In fact, for many centuries this was believed to be the case. But then through the use of Naturalism (i.e. science) we discovered the truth of the Big Bang and the fact that our universe has existed for only about 14 Billion years.

So Naturalism wins in the ability to determine actual truth. Pure philosophy (i.e. any philosophy that is just going around stabbing guesses in the dark like Pantheism does), isn't going to produce anything that can be tested or verified. So there's really no point in giving those philosophies too much of our time and energy.

If you could provide verifiable evidence for Pantheism that would certainly bring it up a notch toward the level of Naturalism. But thus far no one had been able to provide any compelling evidence for it.

So that's just the way things are. Why fight it?

Why fight against Naturalism when it has produced so much evidence that it's correctly describing the reality in which we live?

It seems to me that this isn't even about Pantheism. This seems to be more about your refusal to acknowledge the success of Naturalism.

And it's certainly not about you and me, which you seem to be trying to make it out to be.

My opinions about Naturalism and Pantheism are basically moot. They both speak for themselves. And Naturalism clearly has more to say about the world we live in that can be verified. Pantheism does not. This is why Naturalism is called "Science" and Pantheism is called "Religion".
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply