Take for example the Atomic Structure of elements in nature. One atomic structure for one element is completely different from the other. Does If you developed the atomic structure of one single from of water, how hydrogen combines with oxygen, does this structure have a design? I put it to you that it has. That, is what am talking about. There must have been an intent to structure water differently from say, oil, or sugar. Consider the Genetically modifies plants. Is it not in the interference of an already existing structure that these plants are modified?
The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design
- Thread starter LFiess1942
- Start date
Take for example the Atomic Structure of elements in nature. One atomic structure for one element is completely different from the other. Does If you developed the atomic structure of one single from of water, how hydrogen combines with oxygen, does this structure have a design? I put it to you that it has. That, is what am talking about. There must have been an intent to structure water differently from say, oil, or sugar. Consider the Genetically modifies plants. Is it not in the interference of an already existing structure that these plants are modified?
Edited away by Billy T as identical to his next post which differs only in the order of following two sentences.
So, you as a scientists, I guess that this thing about an “enterprise subjective and thus a mere matter of opinion.” is not very farfetched!
My opinion is the Reality is neither subjective, nor objective, but a Unity.
BigFoot: make your point clear once, not slight rewordings some I still left standing. Also don't add many extra spaces between lines.
So, you as a scientists, I guess that this thing about an “enterprise subjective and thus a mere matter of opinion.” is not very farfetched!
My opinion is the Reality is neither subjective, nor objective, but a Unity.
BigFoot: make your point clear once, not slight rewordings some I still left standing. Also don't add many extra spaces between lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, well, you touched on an interesting subject. Does an objective world exists? I have though about this, and it really got me spooked. “Of course!” You might retort. But let me gently pose you a question; what had created objectivity of reality? I wager its out subjective tools of perception. Reality is only objective because you impose on it objectivity with your sense experiences.
So, you as a scientists, I guess that this thing about an “enterprise subjective and thus a mere matter of opinion.” is not very farfetched!
My opinion is the Reality is neither subjective, nor objective, but a Unity.
If there is Order, there must be something imposing this order, with law. And this something must of necessity have intent, design, and purposes, otherwise, do you not thing that creation would be jumbled up? Why is there so much distinction in the differentiated creation? If it just happened, there would at lease be presence of chaos somewhere. And yet, even where there is chaos, it always appear to be directed toward a purpose.
You do so more than 300 years after Bishop Berkeley did so, but even he did not suggest God had some "purpose."
Hitler made believing that hard (unless the devil is more powerful than God.) In the Bishop's era, "Plagues" plaid Hitler's role.
Last edited by a moderator:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Your question, "What had [has?] created objectivity of reality?" is a tendentious question, because it already assumes that something has to "create" the objectivity. This is silly. Nothing has to "create" the objectivity.
Your notion that for order to be present something has to "impose" it through "law" is typical of your anthropomorphising mindset where nature is concerned. The so-called "laws" of nature are formulated by Man to describe the order we observe, that is all. They are almost all named after individual men (not many women for historical reasons) who first put them forward. And of course quite a number of these "laws" and "rules", for we also have plenty of those in science too, are not always obeyed, due to the imperfection or limited scope of the models involved.
You have this fixed view that the order must be intended, and you are welcome to hold that view, so long as you understand that it is not necessary to science and has nothing to offer it, since it is a proposition that is neither logically required nor testable in practice.
As for saying reality is neither subjective nor objective but a unity, I don't know what that means. It sounds like mystical woo to me.
Either reality is objective or subjective. You don't impose an objectivity, as that would make it subjective. If reality is objective then it is objective because it holds true for everything, not because we impose anything on reality... It would be objective whether we existed or not.
The general argument is that if the objective reality exists then we can only ever perceive/experience it through our senses and thus we "observe" only a subjective version of reality, but that there is an objective reality being perceived. Our senses are like indestructible wall-paper covering the wall of objective reality: we can get close to understanding it, or so the argument goes.
Some on the other hand claim that reality is entirely subjective, that there is no wall behind the wall-paper, and the wall-paper is in fact a construct entirely of our mind.
I'm sure that means something to you... Care to explain, or even raise in another thread?
The bolded part is your unwarranted assumption.
In using the term "something imposing this order" are you not already implying the existence of something external? If so, then whatit fails to address is the possibility that there is nothing external imposing this order with law, but that the order is an inherent part of existence itself. Without it there might be no existence, so a universe capable of existing, even if self-caused, would have to have order inherent within it sufficient to maintain its existence.
With regard your second sentence, this only logically follows if you already assume an external creator, otherwise the existence of order itself is insufficient to warrant such a conclusion, as just argued.
As for your last sentence, when you use the term "chaos" what exactly are you referring to, because in physics it means something quote specific (sensitivity to initial conditions that result in the appearance of randomness etc) that does indeed exist in complex systems, such as the weather system, and at the simplest level a double rod pendulum.
If you merely mean "disorder" then if it exists within a realm that has a level of inherent order (i.e. behaves according to laws inherent within its existence) then it will tend towards order... but this speaks nothing of where those laws came from.
To argue otherwise, as you do, stems from the introduction of assumptions that are unsupported.
What the heck is cognitive dissonance?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It's a term for holding two or more mutually incompatible views at the same time. In this context it is coded term of adverse criticism.
Though I suspect all sane human beings engage in it in some areas of thought. We're always "parking" problems that arise when things don't match up.
Sigh. I wanted to see what he would say. Thanks for trying to help tho.
I think BIGFOOT is intending it to mean being irrational, or perhaps more precisely to the the holding of contradictory ideas / beliefs etc, but as far as I'm aware it is actually the mental discomfort experienced from holding contradictory ideas or beliefs.
So I don't think it quote makes sense the way he's using it, although the intended meaning seems to be roughly there.
Edit: Doh! Beaten to ruining SIASL's intention...
So I don't think it quote makes sense the way he's using it, although the intended meaning seems to be roughly there.
Edit: Doh! Beaten to ruining SIASL's intention...
I think BIGFOOT is intending it to mean being irrational, or perhaps more precisely to the the holding of contradictory ideas / beliefs etc, but as far as I'm aware it is actually the mental discomfort experienced from holding contradictory ideas or beliefs.
So I don't think it quote makes sense the way he's using it, although the intended meaning seems to be roughly there.
Edit: Doh! Beaten to ruining SIASL's intention...
LOL I'd rather this happen than for people to not be helpful when needed.
He tries using many words & ideas which he obviously doesn't understand.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK sorry for messing up your line of argument with BF. In future I'll try to remember to restrict myself to answering only points that arise from his discussion with me.
Huh? I believe I've jumped between you & him too. I hope you don't think I'm disturbed by it. I'm glad you wanted to help.
I have read of the Bishop, and I kind of agree with his views and criticism of materialism.
Your question, "What had [has?] created objectivity of reality?" is a tendentious question, because it already assumes that something has to "create" the objectivity. This is silly. Nothing has to "create" the objectivity.
It may be tendentious, but I think from an epistemological and philosophical perspective, its intriguing. My views are provoked by Kant’s opinion. While he claims that there is, the reality of “the thing itself” and the perception of the thing, and that all we ever know is the reality of sense experience, I am more persuaded that its not possible to distinguish the reality of “dreams” and the reality of waking up, since all is a creation of the same mind. So, objectivity to me, is merely a subjective perception , and not because objectivity exists. I.e I do not think that reality is disconnected with the observer. I think they are One. that’s why I see it as Unity.
Your notion that for order to be present something has to "impose" it through "law" is typical of your anthropomorphising mindset where nature is concerned. The so-called "laws" of nature are formulated by Man to describe the order we observe, that is all. They are almost all named after individual men (not many women for historical reasons) who first put them forward. And of course quite a number of these "laws" and "rules", for we also have plenty of those in science too, are not always obeyed, due to the imperfection or limited scope of the models involved.
I do not dispute that they are named after men, my contention is that they existed to be discovered. And now, I have to wonder, is it not commonsensical to presume that our scientific modeling of nature infers design in nature? I mean, take for example the Fibonacci Sequencing in nature. Is it not a fascinating coincidence? Consider the cheer incredibly number of cosmological coincidences that seem to have been scripted in order to manifest life and a universe based on knife-edge laws. Does that not spook you?
You have this fixed view that the order must be intended, and you are welcome to hold that view, so long as you understand that it is not necessary to science and has nothing to offer it, since it is a proposition that is neither logically required nor testable in practice.
You may argue that it has nothing to offer, but I am persuaded to believe that at the sub-conscious level, most scientists must be bothered by the incredible order that permeates the universe, which almost proclaims a presences.
As for saying reality is neither subjective nor objective but a unity, I don't know what that means. It sounds like mystical woo to me.
I mean that reality and the observer are one. Objectivity is an illusion created by sense experience
Either reality is objective or subjective. You don't impose an objectivity, as that would make it subjective. If reality is objective then it is objective because it holds true for everything, not because we impose anything on reality.
No, I do not think its either or. These two perceptions are the ones that create conflict and materialism, the bane of the world. You impose objectivity until you realize you are being deluded by sense experience, just as you are deluded by dreams that they are real. Obviously it does not hold true because to each one of us, our objective view arises from sense experience and my world through sense experience will never be your world. But if I realize that objectivity is a creation of sense experience, it helps me to understand the world better. Its like saying,’ A man is wiser who knows he is a fool’ When you acknowledge that your sense experience is all you have, and therefore ‘personal’ you will more easily accept the possibility that you are wrong on many things, and then it leads you to search fro truth. But as long as you think ‘objective world’ exists, you unfortunately set yourself up and you will be mislead.
Our senses are like indestructible wall-paper covering the wall of objective reality: we can get close to understanding it, or so the argument goes. Some on the other hand claim that reality is entirely subjective, that there is no wall behind the wall-paper, and the wall-paper is in fact a construct entirely of our mind.
No. our senses are not like indestructible wall-paper covering the wall of objective reality. Rather they are creators of a non-existent wall.
My opinion is the Reality is neither subjective, nor objective, but a Unity.
I'm sure that means something to you... Care to explain, or even raise in another thread?
Take for example the dream reality. When he is asleep, we find that the Mind of Man, is a generator of a reality we call “Dream State” This reality, generated by the mind, seems quite real to us, when we are asleep. The dream reality replicate the reality we find ourselves in when we arise. In the dream reality, everything we experience assumes total authenticity. It appears so real, such that its impossible to imagine that all that all that we experience in the dreamland, the people we meet, the places we go to, the things we do, is all generated by the mind. Nobody knows he is dreaming when he is in dream state. Its difficult to consciously recognize when in the dream state, that we are all that has happened in the dream reality. That we were the people, the places, and the things that we did. That we were both, the generators, and experiencers of the dream reality. In our dream state, our mind behave as it its receiving sensory data, just as in the waking stated, and these senses appear to function just as well as if we were awake. We can see, smell, touch, taste, etc. In that dream state, our mind convince us that this drama unfolding in the dream state we are experiencing, is “real” “true” and “out there” differentiated from us, who are experiencing it. That this dream reality, is disconnected from us, and separate and apart from us, and we are merely experiencing it. It appears objective and physical, and indifferent to us as subjective observers . Yet, when we wake up, this illusion disappears. We find that it was all a dream. Whatever happened, the people we met, the things we did, that it was all “us”. We were these people, we were these places, we were the things, and we were these experiences. Our mind generated all this reality. It did not exist, apart from our mind. The mind expressed, it, and experienced it.
Now, in our waking state, we find ourselves in another reality, exactly which appears as a replication of the dream reality. In this reality, our senses, convince our minds that this reality we are now experiencing in our wakeful state, is real. Its out there, its true. Its physically separate, and disconnected from us. It exists apart from us. That we are mare its observers, who have a subjective experience of the separate, objective and disconnected reality. However, one thing we have just found out is that this waking reality is as much a generation of our mind, though our senses experiences, just as the dream reality is a generation of the same mind when it was asleep. This waking reality, is a reality perceived through our sensory organs, which our mind impose objectivity , and interpret as existing out there. Our senses tells us that whatever is out there, be it “things” or “people” is separate from us. Yet, this reality, the waking reality, is as much a generation of the mind just as the dream reality. Without the mind interpreting these sensory data, thus experiencing this reality, we cannot tell what these “things in themselves are”. The main question is this; why, should we accept this waking reality as the true reality, and reject the dream realty as an illusion, yet, both are a creation of the same mind? The point is, if at all, when we woke up we found that all that we dream was us, why should we accept the waking reality, any less a dream reality, than the reality generated when we are asleep? If the dream reality is a subjective experience, and the waking reality apparently is also a subjective experience, where, then, do we draw the line of differentiation? What makes waking reality any less a dream state?
Kant is illusion. God is illusion. Order & coincidence are illusion. You claim everything is illusion yet continually cite one thing or another of the illusion as evidence of your claims. IF it is illusion, it is not evidence. Make up your mind.
Things are what & how they are & humans have discovered some of that. Reality must be some thing & some way, with or without gods. IF there are any gods, they are part of reality, not separate from it or outside of it.
Is your god ordered or chaotic. IF the order of the universe is evidence of a creator, the order of the creator is evidence of its creator as well. IF the perceived design of the universe requires a creator, the design of the creator requires a creator of it as well.
You say incredible order permeates the universe. Incredible compared to WHAT??? I would expect a universe created by an omnipotent god would be much more ordered than this 1 is.
IF you are to be believed, you think the universe is what & how we should expect it to be with a god & impossible without gods. We think the universe is what we should expect it to be without any gods. You talk as if there are known examples of how 1 way would be & known examples of how the other would be.
Reality definitely is objective & perception is subjective. You often confuse reality & perception. It sometimes seems as if you picked a few words out of a hat & made a sentence.
You greatly overuse the word coincidence.
You seem persuaded to believe many silly things which you pretend support your claims. The vast majority of scientists are not bothered by the order of the universe.
Last edited by a moderator:
In using the term "something imposing this order" are you not already implying the existence of something external? If so, then what it fails to address is the possibility that there is nothing external imposing this order with law, but that the order is an inherent part of existence itself. Without it there might be no existence, so a universe capable of existing, even if self-caused, would have to have order inherent within it sufficient to maintain its existence.
My point is this, we as Intelligent beings, have always imposed order on things. We have created governments wrote constitutions, developed legal systems that impose law that men must obey so that the society may have order, and therefore be governable. These are our laws, imposed on men. And its curious that we find laws imposed on nature. Is it just a coincidence that man finds order in law just as nature? Why this coincidence? Is it just because we find it necessary? Is it just a coincidence that when we train ourselves in any activity and go at it with passion, and zeal, we perfect it, whether good or evil? Why does a gymnastic become better and better with time? Why a musician too. why a criminal? Is it just because of some coincidence or could it be that we are actually a self-governing Law? Are we a law? Do we have a law in us directing us, and perfecting us according to our desires? does it explain addictions? does it explain psychosomatic diseases? Its curious. is it not?
With regard your second sentence, this only logically follows if you already assume an external creator, otherwise the existence of order itself is insufficient to warrant such a conclusion, as just argued.
I believe it unscientific not to prod in that direction, since we are merely exploring. Why should we be selective and embrace all possibilities?
.
Do you believe it unscientific not to prod in the direction of Donald Duck creating the universe. How about that the universe was created by 33 gods. Should we investigate the possibility of lightning originating from the Hammer Of Thor. Maybe every time it rains, it is due to the gods crying. Should scientists investigate the possibility of garlic warding off vampires.