Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
the simplest of explanations
    #3684303 -

I have been debating this issue in my mind and wondered what do you believe is the more simple explanation to the existance of the universe? Is the simpler explanation that there is some sort of creator, or that no creator exists and we are just part of this overly complex system as a result of existance? This is not intended to debate whether either stance is right or wrong or give reasoning to either side, just what explanation to the situation would be more simple. Also could it be that both are almost as equally as complicated? I was thinking about this mainly because of the principle of Occam's Razor and how some often attempt to use this as a method of disproving the existance of god by saying that nearly everything could be explained without the need for god and that by adding such metaphysical element is unnecessary. However I am unsure whether the explaination of a world without a god is simpler than the one involving a god.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3684358 -

Without a doubt the creator would be more complex, and would bring up more questions than it solved. It would solve the problem of why the universe exists, why it follows these laws, by saying "A God created them," but then brings up so many more questions, such as, Where did this God come from? If the universe needs a creator, then following this logic wouldn't this God? How old is he, and if he is not infinite, when and how was he created? If he is infinite, how is it he could have always existed?

The reason it's so widely followed, however, is because people can't wrap their minds around any of this. It's much easier to just think, The reason the universe is so complex is because there's God there, and forget all the other metaphysical implications of this.

It would be simpler to state that this universe is itself, it doesn't need a higher ego to create it, but it also leaves many questions that having a God solves.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Ravus]
    #3684428 -

Alright I understand where you are coming from and I wonder do you believe everything obeys the laws of causality? Such that everything occurs from a cause resulting in the effect.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3684507 -

Causality is not a belief, it is an observation. You do numerous "experiments" every single day and causality can be witnessed every time.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3684534 -

In one sense, both explanations are very similiar:

God (unknown force) = creation of the universe.

Big Bang (unknown force) = creation of the universe.

The difference comes in other unobservable peripheral areas such as morality and after-life.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3684748 -

It's interesting when people ask what happened before the Big Bang. What many of these people don't realize is that time is integrally tied to space, as Einstein showed, meaning the universe is made up of spacetime. So when the universe began, time began. Therefore, nothing could've happened before the Big Bang because "before" didn't exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Paou]
    #3684773 -

Obviously, before the Big Bang came the Big Foreplay. :cool:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Paou]
    #3684782 -

That allso answer the question "how old is god" and "when was he created"


--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3684789 -

Alright let me rephrase this, the idea of causality I am stemming this from is from Arthur Schopenhauers idea that essence precedes our existance. His idea was that humans are part of nature. Everything that is part of nature obeys laws of causality. From this it is deduced that humans obey laws of causality. If something is caused, it is not free. From this free will does not exist.

From this idea it is as if everything is predetermined and destined to happen. Our ideas that we "choose" aren't actually free choice, but determined by a cause and that we cannot choose. If someone was to argue this in that they can go off and do anything whenever they want, it could be argued that this was a result of a multitude of factors such that their brain followed a determined pattern as a result of being stimulated to make change and that this change could not have occured without said beginning stimulation.

Back in relating this to the original topic, I ask now how does the lack of a god make the argument of existance any simpler. Schopenhauer's argument somewhat leads to the notion of lacking an actual spirit in that there is no free will, we are more along the lines of a simulation. Now taking the idea that there is no god and this seemingly simultion scenario into account it would lead to the notion of infinite simulations. This would also lead into the idea of infinite time. How is this simpler than if there were mearly a creator? Now this creator could then lead to the question of how this creator began. It could also lead to the fact that the creator just then existed and created time and it was so, similar to the reason that the universe just was and had no creator.

Also swami causality is not observed eniterly throughout. Look at certain quantum physics or some subatomic physics. Often occurances are described by some statistical probability, but that probability isn't the cause that forced the event to occur it just predicts what may happen. Particles may or may not travel through a potential barrier. They have a probability of doing so, but their probability which describes what could happen isn't a sufficient and/or necessary condition for them to do what they do. Look at the location of electrons in the shells of an atom. They have a probablity of being somewhere but that probability does not force them to be anywhere.

My main reasoning for this entire post was along the lines that I have a hard time understanding/accepting the fact that everything occurs from a result of something else just happening. If there was no creator than there was no initial beginning nor end. If there is just science, just cause effect, just existance. Doesn't this lead to infinite space and infinite time. But how would this be simpler than a creator. With the idea of a creator, there is the possibility of limited dimension in that "they" if they exists could create something finitely small. I dunno I think I may just be confusing myself with all this now. For the most part I don't necessarily believe in a creator, however I have a hard time ruling it out.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3684800 -


From one perspective, we can observe the simplicity of the atoms.

From another perspective, god is here, god is all.

Each is correct from their own perspective. Each states there is no such thing as adversity.

Each states that the explanation is simple. Therfore, why wouldnt the answer be simple.

"Its all right"
"Deny nothing, affirm all"

-

When you die , this will be like a fight over crayons. Your going to be allrite. So please, just have faith and trust that it is simple, that the answer is so simple you allready know it. With Faith and Hope - Love will come.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3684829 -

Also swami causality is not observed eniterly throughout.

Have you ever dropped a glass that fell up? Logged into the shroomery and found yourself on another website? Have your car not start without a reason?

The fact that the activity of sub-atomic particles is only partially understood does not belie any underlying causality. We repeatedly cover this topic here; lack of understanding does not equal magic.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: grifa]
    #3684834 -

"There is no God, in God."
-Period :wink:

lol


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3684855 -

Swami said:
lack of understanding does not equal magic.


It does not disprove it either, which lends it to be equally as possible. Maybe not as probable considering past observations.

If you take it to be as a result from something then you are just adding more into the equation. Making the solution even more complex. Something had to cause that and so on and so forth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3684890 -

It does not disprove it either...

Very, very weak RE. Causality has been shown time and time again as more knowledge was gained. (Look at the history of disease for example.) Magic has NEVER yet been shown.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3684957 -

I could argue that your reasoning is just as weak. You claim my reasoning to be weak merely on the example that there has been observed casuality. This deals nothing with the possibiltity of no reasoning. All the observations illustrate is there is the possibility. However we have also observed things that we cannot find causality in. This is the exact same reasoning for my argument. I am posing that non-causuality is a possibility not that it must exist. At anytime something could happen for absolutely no reasoning. This would entirely disprove whatever previous reasoning for that something to occur. What would the cause be for infinite time? It couldn't if there were no creator, how could something that had no beginning have a cause for existing? There is no cause for that existance it just is, so please show me how causality exists for the existance of universe/space time all of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3687614 -

relative if i was to say that i had some aliens over for tea yesterday could you prove me wrong? Nope. if something didnt happen it is impossible to prove wrong because it didnt exist and if something didnt exist it is impossible to find evidence of its Un-existence.

as for a creator or not, and which is simpler i look at it this way here are the two different universe views, and in both science doesnt lie so here we go.

GOD. there are natural forces(gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong) that govern our world. Evolution produced us humans(this is fact) from apes to sit and waste time debating things like why do we exist. Behind the scenes in some "other plane of existence" God sits on a throne and has complete control over these natural forces, and uses them for his "plan".

NO GOD. there are natural forces(gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong) that govern our world. Evolution produced us humans(this is fact) from apes to sit and waste time debating things like why do we exist.

which one is simpler?


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: relativexistance]
    #3691323 -

William of Ockham believed in God, so we know how the author of Ockham's Razor answered the simplicity question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3693076 -

"Causality is not a belief, it is an observation"

scarily enough... observation is ALWAYS shaped by belief.

go loopy.

:crazy2:


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3693704 -

scarily enough... observation is ALWAYS shaped by belief.

Really? :eek: All non-powered, heavier-than-air objects will fall to the ground when dropped regardless of belief.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the simplest of explanations [Re: Swami]
    #3693937 -

Why do philosophers have the habit of making the world sound dull and lifeless? I feel much more comfortable learning what I need to know about nature from nature, from the stars and in the company of the Grateful Dead. There have been many people who seemed to have died trying to convince others that they didn't exist, but it seems to me they didn't take the extra step and say that life is about finding existence in non existence. It is about transcendence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Transcendence SkorpivoMusterion 1,111 6 03/08/06 09:08 PM
by Grok
* Transcendance.
( 1 2 3 all )		 NiamhNyx 4,452 42 01/24/05 03:52 PM
by TinTree
* .
( 1 2 all )		 Calvin 1,392 25 04/08/10 11:01 PM
by akira_akuma
* Possible explanation into the workings of astrology?
( 1 2 3 all )		 the_phoenix 4,615 50 04/12/05 04:54 PM
by vampirism
* Mind Transcends Brain VIDEO
( 1 2 all )		 Mindscapology 2,307 33 03/06/11 07:34 PM
by Poid
* Death (denial, transcendence) circastes 1,161 9 01/02/11 01:54 PM
by Icelander
* Ego Death vs. Ego Transcendence Silversoul 2,688 16 01/19/07 03:34 PM
by ck10n3
* Mathematical Explanation...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Deiymiyan 11,709 140 03/10/06 09:01 AM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,605 topic views. 2 members, 250 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.