Philosophical Questions

One more thing, do you really think that non-existence means undetectable and unknowable? These seem like very different concepts.
 
yeah we covered this in my Metaphysics class last semester and i wrote an essay on it.

it was a cool class, the lowdown on the course description was "Does Time Exist"
 
100 peoples pain < 1000 + lives

normal wouldn't be normal? your deeper voice would be normal

I'm not sure why we're struggling with this.
 
^ this is the one that really got to me. never thought of that, holy shit.

The only thing then peoples perception's of say... clothes that match, wouldn't be the same.

Although maybe certain colours only match because I've been told that they do. THE UNCERTAINTY.
 
Things that physically exist are things that can be measured. But since our universe is constantly expanding and we cannot determine how big it is, it technically does not physically exist either.
 
There very well could be gods that exists outside of all space and time. But that isn't the Judeo-Christian god. It's interesting to think about, but with the complete lack of evidence I can't take it very seriously. There could also be an omnipotent glazed donut that exists in the same realm.

If there were consciousness that existed outside of matter, it wouldn't be consciousness as we know it. It might behave very similarly, but it wouldn't be the same thing, just an example of cosmic convergent evolution.

I place the "outside of space, time, and matter gods" in the tier of so unlikely as to be unworthy of any serious consideration unless. The bible god remains in the 100% impossible though.
 
Yes, they're the same. By undetectable I don't mean existing in another realm or really far away. Because if something exists in reality, it's detectable and knowable. Perhaps not with our current technology and perhaps not by humans at all, but it could be detected or known. If something doesn't exist in reality, it doesn't exist. There's no alternative to reality.
 
This thread makes me cringe. A bunch of uneducated, self proclaimed teenagers. It's great though that you have interest in the field, but the amount of dogma flying around is horrendous. Arguing ethics and metaphsyics is very hard to do without studying it
 
The universe can be measured in many different ways. You can do it yourself. Ready? Grab a ruler. Now measure your arm. You have just measured part of the universe.
 
The math suggests that there is no farthest star. Think of the universe as you normally do. Now add another dimension. Yeah, it's hard for me to grasp too.
 
Glad we got that cleared up! The world needs dreamers who think and thinkers who dream. How's that for an attempt at a statement that on the surface looks like it might be deep, but collapses under the weight of even the slightest scrutiny?
 
I don't know jack shit about philosophy. I've been studying it independently for a lil while. I've been reading lots of the classic philosophical books (beyond good and evil, beyond the post modern, heaven and hell, etc.).

I'm planning on studying philosophy in college. I believe that it is a study I very much enjoy. I don't have the greatest understanding of it yet and I try to not act like I do. I think it's great there is a interest in many NSers. I'm just noticing many of the posts are far from pragmatic.
 
The way I like to look at it is that, even if I or anyone else in this thread is totally out to lunch on what we're saying, the fact that people are actually discussing ideas is great. As someone who's interested in philosophy, you know as well as I do that it's practically nonexistent in our culture- or any culture for that matter- at the moment. The more these ideas are talked about, the better off we all are.
 
I am of that very mindset. I am just afraid that one's interest in philosophy may be fabricated to give the impression that one is intelligent and sophisticated. I have done this in the past and I am trying to correct myself of this act. I want to be more honest.
 
I don't think the Judeo-Christian God necessarily exists within space and time, one could interpret Genesis as suggesting that God exists outside of space/time. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, Genisis 1:1. This passage could be interpreted as saying that 'before' God created the physical universe God existed (the implication being that God exists outside the physical universe and outside space/time). In addition to this any reference to God be eternal could imply God's existence outside of space/time. I don't mean to present this as a forgone conclusion but I don't think it can be ruled out categorically by referring to a "Judeo-Christian" God.

"If there were consciousness that existed outside of matter, it wouldn't be consciousness as we know it"

I don't see how not being "consciousness as we know it" would be different from consciousness or why it presents a problem.

How unlikely is an "outside of space, time, and matter God"? I don't think anyone has or could have the numbers figured out. I agree with you in that I don't believe that God exists in any meaningful sense, but I disagree that anything besides straw man arguments can be used to show God to be logically impossible. Sure I think the idea of a giant omnipotent man sitting on a cloud who created the world 4000 years ago to be extremely implausible (maybe not logically impossible but not worthy of serious consideration). However, questions about God in general, in my mind, are worthy of some conversation because the idea of God is one that is deeply engrained in human culture and experience.

Again I think the problem of evil is the best way to attack the position that some kind of God personally involved in the human experience exists.

 
When you say undetectable it sounds like you mean non-existent which I think is strange. I think a realm outside of space/time may be unknowable to people (or whatever else) within the realm of space/time. I don't know exactly what you mean by reality here but if you mean within the realm of space/time then I think this is a mistake. Just because something exists outside of space/time I'm not sure it follows that thing is not real or doesn't exist in reality (unless reality is synonymous with existing in space/time). In addition, it seems like God existence is both detectable and knowable (in principle at least) to God himself.
 
Correction on this. You wouldn't be morally wrong in killing your companion. With a gun to your head, morality goes out the window, it's a state of nature. The moral responsibility of you killing your companion would fall on the tribe, who is initiating the use of force.
 
The god in the bible interacts with space and time. So it can't be said to be completely outside of space and time. There are verses in the bible to support literally any belief humans can come up with.

If people want to say that their god is the Judeo-Christian god and that it exists completely outside of space and time, they're welcome to, but that's not supported by the bible.

Because consciousness is a function of matter. Consciousness without matter is like saying a forest without trees. If I'm mistaken and you know of a way to have a forest without trees, I'm open to it. But it seems to me like a failed concept from the get-go.

I can't put a number on it, but I can say that the chances of such gods existing is less likely than hermit crabs that exist outside of space and time, a delicious Italian dish that exists outside of space and time, or a AA battery that exists outside of space and time, because at least we already have direct evidence of those existing inside space and time.

It's definitely worth discussion, but I don't think it serves humanity to discuss it in a philosophical sense any more than it would serve humanity to ponder the other extra-cosmic entities I listed above. I think the discussion of gods is more suited to sociology, anthropology, and most importantly psychology. Of course there's nothing wrong with discussing it in a philosophical manner and if you enjoy it, it's no one else's place to tell you shouldn't. I just believe there are far more productive topics.

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about evil and how it relates to a personal god.
 
I must be communicating this in a confusing way so I'll try to lay out my thoughts as clearly as possible and you can let me know what you think.

Existence implies the possession of certain properties.

I'm fully willing to allow the existence of realm/s outside of space and time.

I'm fully willing to allow the existence of entities that exist in realms that exist outside of space and time.

I'm fully willing to allow that those things listed above are fully undetectable by humans or anything else that exists within space and time.

Now, let's pretend that such a realm and such an entity do exist.

Because they exist, they must have properties.

A property, here, is defined as that which is distinguishable from nonexistence.

In order for a property to be distinguished from non-existence, it must be detectable or known.

Therefore, if something is neither detectable or knowable, it cannot exist.

That's the first time I've written that out, so I'm sure it could use some corrections, but that's basically how I approach it. Also, the definition of reality I was using in my previous post/s was everything that exists, known or unknown.

 
There is no purpose of life. There are only goals and preferred behaviors. Just like there is no purpose of health, but if your goal is to be healthy there are certain things you have to do to attain it. For most people, religious and atheistic alike, the ultimate goal is happiness. What makes us happy is to some degree subjective, but we share a lot of things in common due to our biologically determined natures. Health is just one example of something most of us pursue in order to be happy.

 
I'm saying that God's existence would be both knowable and detectable to God. The property that he would have is existence (other properties too but all you need is one, maybe self-awareness or something if that sounds too circular).
 
I guess saying existing completely outside of space/time might not be the best way to put it. I would agree that to qualify as a Judeo-Christian God, God would have to be able to at least create the universe and step in and cause the occasional miracle. I'm wondering if God could interact with the spaciotemporal realm (finally remembered the right word for it) if he exists outside it?

I don't know very much about philosophy of mind stuff but a comparison to this issue would be something like the mind-body problem. The idea is that our consciousness only has mental properties and our bodies only have physical properties. It is difficult to see how these properties interact with one another if they do not share a common property or substance. I could see the relation between God and the spatiotemporal world being similar to this. If different substances (mental and physical) can interact with one another then there could be a way for whatever substance God to interact with and be a causal agent within the spaciotemporal realm while being composed of a different substance. This is a weird idea but it might not be logically impossible.

What I was getting at with the probability thing was that even if God's existence is less probable than some of those other things (AA batteries, etc.) you don't know the probability that those other things exist either so it would be hard to call it unlikely or likely.

Your right that what I'm talking about doesn't do society much good, I was just on a coffee fuel rant this morning.
 
Interesting point. But then again it determines what type of measurement you are talking about. Of course we can't measure it with a ruler, but with mass? Air is something that can't physically be measured but it most certainly exists. We are able to measure certain things within the universe, so in that sense we can determine that it does, and we will never be able to measure the size of it.

The universe is said to be expanding at the speed of light, but how can we possibly know that? How can anyone come up with that theory? It just baffles me, seeing as we are so incredibly significant within the universe. Even to a high school, or a large house, a human being is insignificant. Then there's towns, states, nations, and continents within our planet which only increases it. Maybe there is an end to the universe, but how will we ever know?

And then we all know that eventually the Sun is going to grow into a red giant and swallow Earth in the next couple billion years or so. That means that everything that mankind has done, all the evolution and progress every species has made will eventually be for absolutely nothing. So then the question arises, what is the meaning of life? Maybe it's just a tease, or a cruel joke. Maybe in a billion years war will be a joke, and lions and gazelles are having tea parties and shit, and global warming and pollution is eliminated. The world is perfect. But none of it matters, at all. So why progress? Why? It is just as insignificant and meaningless as our existance in the first place. //RANT
 
However, Utilitarianism is technically "what promotes the most happiness throughout the entire group." So in a sense, to utilitarians, they consider themselves to be genuine yes?
 
I agree. In addition. even if, the universe can't be measured, I don't see why that would suggest that it doesn't exist. Do ideas exist? These are almost certainly unmeasurable (in a physical sense) but it would be strange to say that they don't exist.
 
The atoms that make up air can be physically measured. I think it's too soon to say that we'll never be able to measure the universe.

We can measure the expansion of the universe through a variety of means. One way is by observing the redshift of distant galaxies and astronomical objects which tells us their distance and the speed at which they're moving away from us.

Humans have come up with the theory because, although if we compare our size to buildings, continents, planets, and stars, we're tiny; but we have something they don't, brains. If we look at component atoms, no we're not special, but if you look at what we're capable of, we're unique in the universe (as far as we know).

There's a lot of time between now and the end of our sun, the human race or its descendants could be in another galaxy by then. Nobody is forcing us to progress. Everyone is free to kill themselves if they want to. There's no purpose or higher meaning to life, life just is. It's a process of the universe and we're free to make of it what we will.
 
As far as we know, there's no conceivable way that anything could interact with the spaciotemporal realm (I'm glad you remembered that because it's a whole lot shorter to type) without existing as part of it. I mean, there's matter and energy that we know exists in it that doesn't interact with baryonic matter. I can't imagine something completely outside of it that's able to interact with it.

The mind-body problem, as far as I know, has been settled. The overwhelming consensus says that the mind is the body. There's no separation between the brain and the consciousness. Consciousness is a product of our bodies. So that wouldn't be evidence for a way in which an outside being could interact with the inside world. If something has an effect in the spaciotemporal realm, it has to be in some kind of contact with it. I don't see any way around that.

That's true, there's no number I can put on the probability. Though we can only use all of the evidence available to us. We have to consider what we know when determining probability, we cant use what could be. If new evidence comes along, we can include that in the calculation. Thus far, the probability is extremely low. That said, it may be extremely high, but we can't know that yet.

I hope that bit about helping the world didn't come off as a criticism, because I'm hardly up in a high tower existing solely for the betterment of society. I just get frustrated with the state that philosophy is in. Most people view philosophers as spaced-out bearded men who don't really create anything of value, and philosophers have brought that stereotype upon themselves. There are important issues people face every day, corrupt families, governments, war, and it's the job of the philosophers to attack those problems. But instead, there are academics still focused on whether or not we can trust our senses. It's like if doctors in the midst of a great plague spent all of their time and energy on a virus from space that will come down in an asteroid and infect 1 person every 1,0000,0000,000 years and result in giving them a runny nose for a couple days before they get better. And not only that, they're debating on whether or not that virus exists.

Coffee fueled rant you say? Ignore my 100+ posts in this thread, I've never had coffee in my life.
 
I love this shit. Most of these questions about the universe and "being" I've been thinking about since I was like 6.

Here's an interesting thought. What in "not existing" like? It is impossible for me to comprehend pre-birth, I know I didn't exist, I know I couldn't have had thought and the scientific reason behind it. It's just kindof fucky to think, "what were things like before i can currently remember?" All I see is black.
 
I'm with you on the whole universe thing at a young age, but I never bought into the really deep "what is existing" bullshit.

Makes you feel like a sir when you look back at your childhood and was like "fuck yeah I was an intellect at age 7"
 
If religious people people that there is a higher power that can not be explained with facts only with faith, and scientific thinkers believe that all things that happen can be explained with factual and statistical reasoning does that make aliens a compromise between religion and science? Ive always thought this because the belief in aliens can be compared to a higher power such as god in some cases but many scientific thinkers also believe in aliens due to the fact that statistically it is hard to believe that we are the only planet capable of supporting life. More of a theory in the form of question but let me know if anyone else sees this connection
 
I know what your saying, its kinda crazy to think about how everything began, science can't really explain that.
 
Are your referring to the M-theory? Not really much backing that up, hawkings is kinda more philosphical than scientific in that book, m-theory cannot be proven or tested, so I wouldn't really consider that a definite "scientific" explanation.
 
If scientific thinkers believe in aliens, then their belief is faith-based and not scientific. Good scientific thinkers will either say it's likely that aliens exist or it's possible aliens exist, not that they do exist. If someone believes aliens definitely exist, it has nothing to do with science, it's a direct parallel with religious faith.
 
The notion of anything is human creation. Tiny and large are just examples of us labeling things so we understand them relative to us. Just like we do with everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top