The more I learn about reality the more convinced I am of the existence of a prime mover, but also the more convinced I am of said prime mover having ...

The more I learn about reality the more convinced I am of the existence of a prime mover, but also the more convinced I am of said prime mover having nothing to do with abrahamic religion.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is god

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This its not even a "prime a mover" in a technical Aristotelean sense. Its something completely different that we intellegbly understand as consciousness and as the world making sense logically and emotionaly. You can call this "spirit", "Brahman", or "world Soul", but it hardly merits being called "God" , because it barely has any intentionality in it.

      Hindus and Buddhists are right in that. The Kabbalists also understood that what we term God is not one thing , but mutiple instantiations of our conscious being and understanding of it.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >the more convinced I am of the existence of a prime mover
    Why?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The laws of nature are just too coherent and structured to have come about as a result of chaotic random creation. For example something as pleasant as Liouville's theorem has no need to exist. And then there's Nöther's theorem which heavily implies that the laws of physics are a product of logic and not the other way around.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      meant for:

      >the more convinced I am of the existence of a prime mover
      Why?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I’m in your same spot op

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I’m interested to hear why this argument resonates with you existentially, but not theologically, considering it was enunciated syncretically and extensively within Christianity. how do you separate the two when they are so intertwined?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t see how prime mover = Christianity

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            if we can conclude the existence of God from the unmoved mover argument, then it would behoove us to consider the relationship we have with this ultimate being. what do you think our place in God’s universe is? does an almighty creator deserves our worship? if so, by what earthly tether do we develop this model? does he intercede on our behalf at times? does he reveal himself to us through conduits of truth? what do you think

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >then it would behoove us to consider the relationship we have with this ultimate being. what do you think our place in God’s universe is? does an almighty creator deserves our worship? if so, by what earthly tether do we develop this model?
            If the creator did want worship, you would want some rigorous devoted worship to that creator

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I would agree, the creator of all would probably want some acknowledgement (at the very least) by his subjects that his domain is his alone. now what do you think of the other questions I posed?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I would agree, the creator of all would probably want some acknowledgement (at the very least) by his subjects that his domain is his
            This supposes that God has an ego, for God to have an ego then he must live in a competitive environment which would likely just mean that humanity is some project conjured up to impress a chick

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yeah bud look up what “ego” is defined as in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would the prime mover care what we do about it? We are its creations, but there is no reason to project anthropomorphic qualities to what is essentially the core of logic.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the primer mover obviously cared enough to create us, why would it be improbable that an ultimate being cared about us more then than now. and if so, what changed?
            as for whether or not it would care if we follow it’s laws: don’t you think it would be arrogant to suggest that all life follows a nature of being from which it cannot deviate, and so we should consider ourselves the exception?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But the prime mover expresses himself as the laws of nature, and through these laws he reveals himself to us. Unless you have broken the laws of nature there is no law of the prime mover that has been broken. It is an act of supreme arrogance to think that the laws of the prime mover can even be broken by humans, as if he wasn't all powerful. It is furthermore an even greater act of arrogance to think that a relatively primitive iron age civilization would be the only source of his laws, especially when said laws coincide with what the ruling authorities of said iron age society would have wanted.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >it is an act of supreme arrogance to think that the laws of the prime mover can even be broken by humans.
            have you considered the idea that we are not the ones who break it? that these laws which appear to us like shadows on the law are under the ultimate command of that which it descends, and who is not answerable to us? the true arrogance is assuming that God’s universe must be completely intelligible to us without exception, and if it isn’t, then we should rebel. the world is full of miracles, and God is not beholden to us to explain his creation

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Since the existence of the prime mover was deduced by logic, it stands to reason that the application of logic is the only way to reveal further qualities of it. I don't know if the laws of the universe will ever be fully discovered, but I know that our udnerstanding of the laws of physics are infinitely greater than the understanding of said laws by some iron age civilization.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the laws of matter and the laws of being are two completely differently things, though they are no doubt compatible. you are falling prey to chronological snobbery to suggest that those who swelled before us so long ago are brainlets incapable of impart deep wisdom and insight into the nature of man

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How could the laws of matter and being be separate? Thinking that would imply that matter is beyond the control of the prime mover of the universe, and something separate. Since humans are matter, and matter follows the laws of nature, humans must definitionally follow the laws of the prime mover. Furthermore, I am not disrespectful towards the ancients, I'll just choose to follow the iron age civilization which discovered irrational numbers instead of the one which cut their foreskins off.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I'll just choose to follow the iron age civilization which discovered irrational numbers instead of the one which cut their foreskins off.
            your being very reductive, these people who chose to cut their foreskins off did so as a matter of that which presides outside of material explanation, and they wrote works and wisdoms insuperable to the former. even if you wish to disregard their God, I’ll encourage you to read their wisdoms. even from a secular perspective, they are so insightful, I think you would find yourself humbled and reconsider their value.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is just we wuzing, Christians nicked it off Aristotle. A lot of Christian metaphysics in general is just a mix of Aristotle, Judaism and Greco-Roman mystery cults.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            of course the Christian were informed by Aristotle, that isn’t the point. we are trying to verify whether or not Aristotle’s characterization of the metaphysical is logically syncretic with the christian God, which history has shown, is

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      there's probably a selection effect at play though as if every possible configuration of laws is or can be produced by random chaotic creation then the few that are coherent enough to be conducive to life will be the only ones that can be observed by definition

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I partially agree with this which is why I’m not fully committed to op’s position and remain some type of agnostic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >there's probably a selection effect at play though as if every possible configuration of laws is or can be produced by random chaotic creation
        >source: I made it up

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          there is zero evidence that there is another universe for this argument to apply

          so kind of like god then? i'll still go with a naturalistic explanation over god when they have such a good track record and when everything else about the universe points to life being a product of chance

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What exactly makes multiple universes more "naturalistic" than God?
            Is there something about the concept of God that is inherently unnatural? If so what?
            You're making a completely arbitrary distinction.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            because unlike god who is typically viewed as a 'supernatural' being who created the natural laws, they wouldn't be above them. they would presumably be governed by some other set of laws or would just exist as a brute fact. the natural/supernatural dichotomy isn't that important though, the main point is that the universe wouldn't be the result of a conscious decision from an intelligent being, it'd be randomly created. i think the universe looks just like we'd expect a universe which was just ordered enough to produce life but no more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the main point is that the universe wouldn't be the result of a conscious decision from an intelligent being, it'd be randomly created
            And why is this conclusion the most reasonable one?
            It isn't. You've decided that the universe having an intelligent designer is le bad and not heckin science, so you arbitrary favor any explanation that doesn't require one.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I stated why I believe it is right after that line. some specific reasons why are that the universe is excessively large considering the vast majority if not all of it outside of earth as far as we can tell is completely lifeless. humans are the result of billions of years of seemingly unguided natural selection and fluke events such as the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, and as a result still have numerous vestigial features. babies are born with debilitating diseases, hurricanes ravage entire villages indiscriminately, deadly viruses wipe out millions. idk how anyone can look at the world in its totality and see it as the work of a supreme intellect. if this is the best god can do, he's a hack.

            I don't think the prime mover needs to be intelligent or even aware of anything. After all, the only property it needs to have is for it to be a cause, and we know plenty of causes in the observable World that are not particularly self aware. It is actually a common theme in mythologies for reality to be created by an "idiot god".

            maybe in your understanding but aristotle (who introduced the term) seems to think so:
            >In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation. He equates this concept also with the active intellect.
            to me and I think most people 'mover' has a personal connotation. if you were only referring to some general 'first cause' I don't think you'd encounter as much pushback.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's impossible to determine the distribution of the laws of nature for any given created universe, since it's rather metalogical and untestable. Who knows, maybe there is a definite set of laws which mandates that the laws of nature must be exactly as they are in our universe. But if there is a distribution or a law which mandates that the laws of universe follow certain patterns, is that not per definition the prime mover itself? Are you aware of the mathematical universe theory?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >But if there is a distribution or a law which mandates that the laws of universe follow certain patterns, is that not per definition the prime mover itself?
            the prime mover by definition is an intelligent mind isn't it? that's what I'm questioning the necessity of.
            >Are you aware of the mathematical universe theory?
            vaguely but I haven't looked too deeply into it. afaik it's essentially a form of platonism wherein all mathematically possible universes are actualized. again, seems more plausible than god at least.

            you have absolutely no idea what God actually is

            no one does, even if it did exist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the prime mover needs to be intelligent or even aware of anything. After all, the only property it needs to have is for it to be a cause, and we know plenty of causes in the observable World that are not particularly self aware. It is actually a common theme in mythologies for reality to be created by an "idiot god".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you have absolutely no idea what God actually is

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        there is zero evidence that there is another universe for this argument to apply

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I dunno... Ihe laws were super random we would never know them, maybe there are super inconsistent random laws that we just can't figure out. It's a bit like saying that colors are too conspicuous for us to be just coincidence. We kinda have evolved to see colors and to find patterns in nature.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        there's probably a selection effect at play though as if every possible configuration of laws is or can be produced by random chaotic creation then the few that are coherent enough to be conducive to life will be the only ones that can be observed by definition

        I suppose there is a survivor bias here, as the laws of mathematics that are easier to find and are elegant have been already found, which can result in the appearance of elegance and coherence where there is none. However, consider how every single mathematical theorem is of the form "if x then y". There is a considerable number of coherent x and coherent y pairs, and we would expect that incoherent x and incoherent y pars are impossible for humans to find. What is interesting is that there's only a few laws that are such that either x or y is incoherent while the other is coherent, Eg. the monster group. This to me seems to imply that mathematics is coherent beyond just survivor bias.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Your perception of it as "pleasant" has no bearing on the likelihood or need of its existence

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Since most of the laws of nature that we have observed are elegant it would inductively appear that any new laws of nature that we discover will also be elegant.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because you're a homosexual.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Seething abrahamist or someone who gets triggered by Plato?

  5. 1 year ago
    Dirk

    There is no such religion. There's Christianity, Islam and Judaism

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I've believed in the Prime Mover for the last 10 years and I've been convinced for the last 8 years that I have no problem with a Prime Mover who has a mind, a will, who is fundamentally good and the source of goodness, who has an interest in the lives of humanity and could communicate with humans

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    And when you study NDEs it becomes even more apparent that God exists because NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die.

    Of course, nothing gets normies and npcs more uncomfortable than the idea that NDEs are ACTUALLY real, and that there are valid reasons to think that they are and that we should take them seriously.

    Here is an extremely persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

    It makes a huge deal about the fact that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

    >"Statistics collected show that the "deeper" the NDE the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

    Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this brief little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think the notion that a soul exists outside of the human body is rather strange.

      I’m interested to hear why this argument resonates with you existentially, but not theologically, considering it was enunciated syncretically and extensively within Christianity. how do you separate the two when they are so intertwined?

      I think there are two main reasons. The first one is that on its surface I find christianity rather silly. Why would the prime mover of the universe be obsessed with foreskins, be scared of iron charriots and so forth? The second one is more rigorous and theological. It is simply that the prime mover must be "in line" with nature, while christianity is anti nature. For one, christian ethics completely rejects the fact that humans are biological creatures by for example opposing eugenics. Furthermore, the whole concept of miracles flies in the face of the laws of nature by their very definition. There was a catholic priest who actually held this view too, as in since the laws of nature are divinely ordained miracles are heresy. But if you reject miracles one ends up undermining the entirety of christianity, since it fundamentally is a cult based around miracles.

      To me, if I had to identify the prime mover with any historical deity, it would likely be the Greek titans, primordial and natural creatures.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the surface of any religion seems silly upon initial appraisal. it is the length of depth revealed only by studying which lends legitimacy.
        >christian ethics completely rejects the fact that humans are biological creatures by for example opposing eugenics.
        reducing the sanctity of life and fitness of species to a mechanism that man can manipulate reliably and consistently is not only completely impractical and unrealizable but also antithetical to the concept of God itself. you should study Christian theology more closely before you question its positions
        >the whole concept of miracles flies in the face of the laws of nature by their very definition
        and what makes you think our understanding of the laws of nature is so holistic that it supplants the one who governs it? if man is infallible then it would suggest that these laws of nature are observable but not wholly predictable, which presumes instances that we don’t understand, hence, miracles
        it seems like you fundamentally don’t understand Christian theology and I would encourage you to read further before you belie your own ignorance to others in mistake of your own intelligences

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You speak of understanding humans as genetics and atoms as "reduction", when said understanding is in of itself a way the prime mover reveals itself to humans. And if you refer to miracles as being just the result of the limits of human understanding, then they should be repeatable and something which leads to further revelation. That is precisely what scientific paradigm shifts are, by breaking the current understanding of laws they result in a better grasp of said laws. Miracles on the other hand just break the laws of nature for their own sake. Finally, it is only through studying the laws of nature that the essence of the prime mover can be discovered. Mysticism and attacks against the system of logic and science run completely contrary to the spirit of the prime mover.
          The point of this thread is precisely that there is evidence of a prime mover of the universe, but that it would be silly to ascociate this mover with chriatianity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >a way understanding is in of itself a way the prime mover reveals itself to humans.
            yes, it is “a way” that the prime mover reveals himself to us. by no means does that imply, “the only way”, as you suggest. I don’t imply miracles as being some frontier we are merely on the precipice of understanding, rather that they are occurrences which suggest our inferiority to grand design. you are mistaking our intellect for the creator’s which is antithetical to the concept of a god, as I have said before.
            >Miracles on the other hand just break the laws of nature for their own sake.
            yes, an ultimate prime mover is free to break our understanding of his design in pursuit of His own ends as much as He wishes. to declare otherwise is pure arrogance
            >Mysticism and attacks against the system of logic and science run completely contrary to the spirit of the prime mover.
            yet again, you suggest that our perceived laws of nature run perfectly in line with the prime mover’s. what makes you think that our understanding can ever be elevated to an ultimate being’s?

            you seem to be completely missing the point of a prime mover and its authority as the purveyor of all life and matter. I’ll ask again, what makes you think our fallible intellect can contend with God’s design? if you accept a prime mover, then your position should reflect humility, not contest.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How else than with the laws of nature would the creator of the universe reveal itself? Is there any other way that it could make its own essence intelligible to humans? How do you know that he knows what humans are? How do you know that he's even self aware? For all we know the prime mover could be just a supreme algebraic construct governing all other algebraic and logical constructs.

            I am very humble regarding the prime mover, and I am uncertain that it can ever be reached. I am however not humble before what is essentially iron age jurisprudence. I cannot think of anything more disrespectful towards the prime mover than thinking that it is not worth studying by the use of human faculties.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How else than with the laws of nature would the creator of the universe reveal itself? Is there any other way that it could make its own essence intelligible to humans? How do you know that he knows what humans are?
            how would an ultimate, all-knowing creator not “know” what he has made? see, the reason you are confused implies a quality of man not discernible by the laws of nature as described by physics, chemistry, or biology. this nature implies a “soul”: a vital element of man that distinguishes him from the rest of creation. an element that can only be elaborated upon by our behavior, which inevitably falls into the realm of right and wrong. i. e. something that approximates “morality” and the expression of a freewill as implicit within our design. now we can debate what this morality means and what it entails, but at the very least, it exposes logic and reason and being ultimately insufficient in explicated our true nature and what it means to “be” in God’s world.

            I am convinced of your humility and sincerity in appraising the concept of a God. what I would tender to you is to regard the Iron Age forebearers of your logic and reason in the same esteem as you would the prophets who sought to characterize this “soul” we were given, in that its explication has the same utility in discovering man’s nature as science has in discovering the nature of our material world. both are indispensable.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for the complement. The reason I don't think a soul can exist is that if it was real and connected to a human, then surely there would be a way to measure and experience it, for if it were completely separate from the human body, then what would tether it to the body, instead of it just being some apparition that one can freely ignore. This question can be reposed as: "Even if souls exist then why should I care? What can I do to myself that can affect the soul, and vice versa." I think furthermore the presumption that the prime mover is anything like a human is rather questionable, as in, would you say that a Schrödinger equation, or rather the law of nature expressed by humans as the Schrödinger equation knows every molecule ever created?

            >I'll just choose to follow the iron age civilization which discovered irrational numbers instead of the one which cut their foreskins off.
            your being very reductive, these people who chose to cut their foreskins off did so as a matter of that which presides outside of material explanation, and they wrote works and wisdoms insuperable to the former. even if you wish to disregard their God, I’ll encourage you to read their wisdoms. even from a secular perspective, they are so insightful, I think you would find yourself humbled and reconsider their value.

            I know that my post was reductive and a bit impolite. However I said it as a desire to strongly express how I view it as outright rude to superject some other theology over the Greeks. After all, the Greeks were the first to discover the prime mover, surely they rightfully are the premiere experts in understanding it? Furtehrmore, I can only seriously take theological takes from civilizations which were known for producing great mathematicians and scientists. After all, the two are just applied theology.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >there would be a way to measure and experience it
            you are conflating two modes of analysis: that which is experiential, and that which is quantifiable.
            surely we can experience a sunrise, yet be unable to completely account for it quantifiably. I think you might be encountering trouble insofar as what a soul is and what it would entail: the soul is something ineffable, yet much like a sunset, completely experiential. it can be characterized as the essence of autonomy or “freewill”. it is tethered to the body of man but not wholly accounted for in material analysis. if soul exist, and it is indeed a part of our design as an element imbued by a creator, then it directly concerns our interrogation.
            >why should I care? What can I do to myself that can affect the soul, and vice versa."
            if the soul comprises our nature as beings then it should directly warrant our introspection. yet it should be visited with the same humility and rigor that we characterize the material world around us, yet even more so, since its quality hints at a law of behavior which we are compelled to, but do not fully understand. this line of questioning is unavoidable, but is of the upmost importance. insisting otherwise is dishonest - why would a God who masters the universe have no opinion on the way we treat each other? this degree of exploration is even more meritous and admirable, since it requires us to look within ourselves honestly and submit ourselves to the reality that we are not in control of ourselves.
            >I think furthermore the presumption that the prime mover is anything like a human is rather questionable
            you are misassigning order: as a prime mover is antecedent to us, it would mean that we are endowed with qualities reminiscent of the creator, not the other way around. this might seem like semantics, but is quintessential to an honest appraisal to our role within God’s creation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, a sunrise can be quantified with the relative position of the observer, the sun and the planet, it is naturally extremely complicated. But ignoring that, we can assume that a soul is something which can be experienced but cannot be measured. I think I can grant that assuming that other people have souls is a reasonable approximation, but how do you then deduce that nothing else has a soul, if it is immeasurable? Can a rock have a soul? Can a computer? What about animals? Will a hypothetical humanzee have half a soul? If humans are the only creatures with souls, then I can buy the argument that humans are created after the prime mover, but if that cannot be shown why would humans be special? The prime mover created everything including immaterial things like gravity. Why would it resemble a particular animal?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >but how do you then deduce that nothing else has a soul, if it is immeasurable?
            by mere induction: it is evident that our behavior belies a quality strictly unique to humanity. obviously there are creatures on this earth which appear more conscious and introspective than others, but even taking this into account, we are confronted with the reality that our degree of sovereignty to act within our own desire is wholly unique and special. to deny this singularly unique reality appears to me as dishonesty. even if there were other creatures on this earth that held similar behavioral paradoxes, then you would have to explain why our form allows for incredibly sophisticated abilities to learn through abstraction and relate these learnings through fundamental biological underpinnings like language, while other creatures can not. either way, you are left with a unique form which can achieve unique function.
            >Why would it resemble a particular animal?
            it merely resembles a particular animal in one particular function: the ability to choose. we do not resemble the Creator in form, since by definition, it exists prior to space time and must therefore be incorporeal. we do not resemble the Creator in intellect, since we aren’t even aware of the extent of the very bodies we inhabit, though clearly they follow a design and are seemingly our’s alone. we aren’t reminiscent of our Creator in regards to temporality or power, since a prime mover must exist outside of time and wield unimaginable power in order to create the universe. it would seem the primary, ineffable, unique quality that is bequeathed unto us, is freewill, as is realized by the soul, which we all experientially recognize.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            con’t:
            regardless of how you define it, the presence of a “soul” unique to humans represents a meta-truth that serves to distinguish ourselves from every other form of life present on this earth. perhaps not in part, but in the sum of it’s whole. this raises the question of why we were bequeathed such a seemingly confusing and integral element. to question it’s influence is both denial and frivolous. so we must ask ourselves in what way is this quintessential aspect of humanity vital to the design of a prime mover? what purpose does it serve? how do we discern the problem of freewill within our conscious? what does “right” look like? these are the very questions those Greeks sought to answer.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            con’t:
            >However I said it as a desire to strongly express how I view it as outright rude to superject some other theology over the Greeks.
            to drive home my last post further, surely you can’t disregard the Greeks insistence of a soul, since they elaborate upon quite extensively. to insist otherwise would be picking and choosing what the Greeks codified in service to your own bias, which obviously won’t do. you should read through the Metaphysics much closer to understand this concept.
            Christianity went through incredible lengths to show the compatibility between Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology, which ultimately created the greatest and prolific scientific minds the world has ever seen. you should read boethius’ consolation of philosophy as a start, and progress from there. I think you will find the spirit of the Grecian logic perfectly compatible with Christian theology in such a way so as not to depart from sophistication and complexity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think having to accept every view held by Plato just because I think his world of forms and prime mover are the best explanation of the World is dogmatism and not philosophy. After all, they didn't have things like Newtonian physics and I can still appreciate their contributions to physics.

            >but how do you then deduce that nothing else has a soul, if it is immeasurable?
            by mere induction: it is evident that our behavior belies a quality strictly unique to humanity. obviously there are creatures on this earth which appear more conscious and introspective than others, but even taking this into account, we are confronted with the reality that our degree of sovereignty to act within our own desire is wholly unique and special. to deny this singularly unique reality appears to me as dishonesty. even if there were other creatures on this earth that held similar behavioral paradoxes, then you would have to explain why our form allows for incredibly sophisticated abilities to learn through abstraction and relate these learnings through fundamental biological underpinnings like language, while other creatures can not. either way, you are left with a unique form which can achieve unique function.
            >Why would it resemble a particular animal?
            it merely resembles a particular animal in one particular function: the ability to choose. we do not resemble the Creator in form, since by definition, it exists prior to space time and must therefore be incorporeal. we do not resemble the Creator in intellect, since we aren’t even aware of the extent of the very bodies we inhabit, though clearly they follow a design and are seemingly our’s alone. we aren’t reminiscent of our Creator in regards to temporality or power, since a prime mover must exist outside of time and wield unimaginable power in order to create the universe. it would seem the primary, ineffable, unique quality that is bequeathed unto us, is freewill, as is realized by the soul, which we all experientially recognize.

            I can accept that argument for the existence of the soul perhaps, but I would insist on a caveat then that if a non-human entity would achieve human levels of thought it would then have a soul, and furthermore that severly degenerate humans, Eg. humanzees would not.

            Your philosophical arguments do pass the smell test, or in other words I am convinced by them at least until I think about them more. However, there is a huge elephant in the room which was previously mentioned which is what stands as an impossibly wide chasm between me and christianity. That is how christianity rejects eugenics. To me it speaks of the presence of the prime mover that the incredible mercy of modern medicine has to be balanced by the cruelty of eugenics, lest the human race degenerate to dysgenic abominations, after all, the way the prime movers shows itself in our lives is through conservation laws. It appears that mercy is a quantity that is conserved. Furthermore, how could eugenics be evil, after all, by making humans more perfect humans get more in tune with the perfection of the prime mover.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not that guy you are arguing with. But you are aproaching this from a wrong angle in my opinion. You don't get in touch with the prime mover by affecting the world or causality at all, that is like bashing your head against the wall, by trying to think in terms of causaility and that it makes perfect sense to change the world of the "as is". That is just science and scientiffic understanding, which is just one branch of metaphysics. Seeing or touching this "prime mover" can only come about by shutting down reason or logic and seeing the world in its totality with no ego involved. You have to become the watcher perceiving itslef , while also "not being its self". That is akin to an ego death experience or joy of theosis that religions and mysticist talk about.

            God, soul, spirits and religious ecstasy seem to be culturaly arbitrary ways we define one common experience , that we are part of a greater spiritual whole and that we are directed by something or some "force". In scince panpsychism it is the closest attempt I have found in trying to define this in logical terms and just spiritual.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you are completely right, to subscribe to every one of Plato’s treatises would be dogmatic, yet the pondering of the soul’s quality does not represent a view unique to Plato, or even a couple of foundational Greek philosophers. it represents a fundamental premise that the prolific Greek philosophers sought to explicate. their consensus implies affirmation.
            >I would insist on a caveat then that if a non-human entity would achieve human levels of thought it would then have a soul.
            perhaps it would, but although it is enticing to question, it is ultimately a red herring. the only way to verify that an animal could achieve “human levels of thought” would be to observe its execution and intelligibility of said “thoughts” in the observable world. that is the only acceptable standard of proof, since humanity clearly doesn’t exist only in thought, but in it’s execution of those thoughts. we reach an impasse very quickly. civilization is the bar.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Just because I can be convinced of something doesn’t make it true

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The more I learn about reality the more convinced we live in a simulation. What is there beyond the planck scale? Nothing. It's the basic unit of construction of the matrix.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't feel the presence of anything. But I am acutely aware that this reality does not like me. Everything here is opposite my nature and all I ever do is go against the current in all things. It gets tiring. Ye olde Language Crystal has not granted salvation to me.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      “Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.”

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the Lord
        Which Lord? Which holy text has not been translated and rewritten to purpose? What about the Annunaki? What about an alien race that kept trying to breed a hybrid race out of earthborn simians until they finally got it right? You know, Ezekiel has been the subject of at least one book I know of that argues the entire text is describing extraterrestrial aircraft. I've read the book and its examples. It's not even very subtle.

        If we're down to "the Lord" is the one calling to you, not for deception but to save your life/soul, I will have to find God or a god or gods through self-affirmation. Yes, I believe it. I believe! Oh, lawd, I believe dat!

        I've never been a joiner and I think it's kind of revelatory of my inability, lifelong, to believe in something. I like things, sure, in an ambivalent way. I may be all about it one week, but next week I could be about fricking your mother instead.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I don't know. Maybe whatever its form may be had to lest it violate itself.

    I stated why I believe it is right after that line. some specific reasons why are that the universe is excessively large considering the vast majority if not all of it outside of earth as far as we can tell is completely lifeless. humans are the result of billions of years of seemingly unguided natural selection and fluke events such as the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, and as a result still have numerous vestigial features. babies are born with debilitating diseases, hurricanes ravage entire villages indiscriminately, deadly viruses wipe out millions. idk how anyone can look at the world in its totality and see it as the work of a supreme intellect. if this is the best god can do, he's a hack.
    [...]
    maybe in your understanding but aristotle (who introduced the term) seems to think so:
    >In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation. He equates this concept also with the active intellect.
    to me and I think most people 'mover' has a personal connotation. if you were only referring to some general 'first cause' I don't think you'd encounter as much pushback.

    Well, me and Aristotle can disagree on things, since he probably won't get mad. But I think even your quote shows significant divergence from a "man in the sky" style creator. And after all, if Aristotle had all the correct answers wouldn't life be boring?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The thing-in-itself is the will of God ; the will of God, it is the will.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So you're a deist?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *