Spirituality
16 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidIn practical terms, I see it more as a metaphysical world, by which I mean: our capacity for metaphysics effectively makes this world much "more" than a material one for us humans. As for whether the material world owes its existence to "the non-material", we can but speculate.
Is there more to this universe than all we see in the material world? If you think so, why? If not, is that evidence the material world could owe its existence to the non-material?
16 Apr 22
2 edits
@fmf saidI'm trying to understand the distinction between your differences. Are you proposing this isn't purely a material world, that part we can just cast aside as not accurate? If I understand your point, and I may not, the metaphysical world has non-material qualities; not sure how that is different than just denying this isn't a material world alone and there is a non-material world too? (I think realm may be a better word to description what I'm talking about instead of the world)
In practical terms, I see it more as a metaphysical world, by which I mean: our capacity for metaphysics effectively makes this world much "more" than a material one for us humans. As for whether the material world owes its existence to "the non-material", we can but speculate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Apr 22
1 edit
@KellyJay
It is simple. the eternal God of eternal power who transcends time and space saw to it that our minds would be blown NO MATTER how smart we became in trying to be independent from HIm.
He who beforehand knew how proud, smart, and curious man would be saw to it that infinitely so we could NEVER see the end of all He created.
He does not forbid our curiosity. He just was wise to keep us forever awestruck.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Apr 22
1 edit
I sometimes look at the some highspeed cameras which record in slow motion explosions. Vatious kinds of subsecond explosions these cameras can record in slow motion or take breath taking snapshots.
See on Youtube The Slow Mo Guys.
ie. &ab_channel=TheSlowMoGuys
Well when I obsderve tyhe entire known universe or the Hubble deep field of millions of spinning galaxies they look like slow motion explosions of circular stirred clouds taking BILLIONS of years.
When I contemplate these spectacles I think to God TIME is miniscule to Him.
To God who is of eternity the entire unuiverse or the spin of a gigantic galaxy is like happening is a split second.
His transcendence of time and space is absolute, infinite, eternal.
Yet He is also personal and eas manifested on earth in Jesus Christ.
16 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidIf you just look up the word "metaphysical", l think it will perhaps answer your questions, yes?
I'm trying to understand the distinction between your differences. Are you proposing this isn't purely a material world, that part we can just cast aside as not accurate? If I understand your point, and I may not, the metaphysical world has non-material qualities; not sure how that is different than just denying this isn't a material world alone and there is a non-material world too?
At some point, you will probably start riffing about "pond scum" and inanimate rocks. Either you will, or sonship will.
Presumably that kind of thing is what you mean by "material world".
In preemptive contrast to all that, I have laid down a marker about finding it more appropriate to see the world as a metaphysical world than what I think you mean by the term "material world".
I see "spirituality" and "religiosity" as being subcategories of the metaphysical world and our human attributes/capacities and I see them as being functions of cognition.
16 Apr 22
@fmf saidI ask clarifying questions, and presumably, you tell me what I mean, about sums it up.
If you just look up the word "metaphysical", l think it will perhaps answer your questions, yes?
At some point, you will probably start riffing about "pond scum" and inanimate rocks. Either you will, or sonship will.
Presumably that kind of thing is what you mean by "material world".
In preemptive contrast to all that, I have laid down a marker about finding it more app ...[text shortened]... aphysical world and our human attributes/capacities and I see them as being functions of cognition.
16 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidIf we include thought, instinct and any other animal attributes that we can't see, then these are more things than can be seen. I don't quite understand your third and final question; if we don't include such things, but are talking only of the 'material world' and there is no more to be seen, then why should this be evidence for anything?
Is there more to this universe than all we see in the material world? If you think so, why? If not, is that evidence the material world could owe its existence to the non-material?
16 Apr 22
@indonesia-phil saidWell, the material world and immaterial are not the same thing. Symbolism, information, instinct, thoughts, consciousness, if these are also in this world, which came first, the material gave birth to the immaterial or the other way around?
If we include thought, instinct and any other animal attributes that we can't see, then these are more things than can be seen. I don't quite understand your third and final question; if we don't include such things, but are talking only of the 'material world' and there is no more to be seen, then why should this be evidence for anything?
16 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidWhich came first, the material gave birth to the immaterial or the other way around?
Well, the material world and immaterial are not the same thing. Symbolism, information, instinct, thoughts, consciousness, if these are also in this world, which came first, the material gave birth to the immaterial or the other way around?
We can but speculate about the origins of human consciousness, of course. But I'd say our capacity to perceive ourselves and each other as sentient beings and other abstractions came first.
And then, stemming from that, there'd be the cognitive tendency to be interested in the kinds of things you are possibly referring to when you use the word "immaterial".
16 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidThis takes us back, of course, to the old question of what if anything we believe in. If one adheres to the 'god made everything' doctrine (and I'm not just talking about the Christian god here, there are plenty of other gods and belief systems around, and other superstitions and versions of 'how it all started' ) then the god or gods would have to have been there first in order to start it.
Well, the material world and immaterial are not the same thing. Symbolism, information, instinct, thoughts, consciousness, if these are also in this world, which came first, the material gave birth to the immaterial or the other way around?
If on the other hand one can envisage an evolutionary process beginning with amino acids, proteins and such, which eventually led by slow and arduous degrees to a conscious, thinking brain which could identify amino acids, proteins and such, then there does not have to be any supernatural influence, in that case it's just all one big happy accident, and the material stuff would have been there first.
Nobody knows for sure how the universe began, perhaps the universe is timeless and without beginning or end, and without physical limits or boundaries. Tricky stuff to get ones head around...I could ask you and others of the 'god made it all' persuasion where your god came from, and you would no doubt say that your god is timeless and eternal, which also takes a bit of sorting out.
So long as it does no harm to others, as far as I am concerned people can believe whatever they want. Where I take issue is in the dogmatic statement that 'I'm right and you're wrong' , my god done it so there; that is blind faith, which to me is an insufficient position to take. You will no doubt disagree, so let's agree to differ.
16 Apr 22
1 edit
@indonesia-phil saidRegardless of how it began, we can always say we don't know and can never know; because there are several choices to be made that could be true no matter how much evidence is pointing one way or another. Without drilling into anything or anyone specific, would simply looking at material and immaterial, which came first, be a question we can look around and see what the most reasonable answer is? That, after all, was the question of the OP; granted, some will immediately attempt to turn it into someone or thing specific, but that would be going beyond my intent, and yes, some don't care about that either.
This takes us back, of course, to the old question of what if anything we believe in. If one adheres to the 'god made everything' doctrine (and I'm not just talking about the Christian god here, there are plenty of other gods and belief systems around, and other superstitions and versions of 'how it all started' ) then the god or gods would have to have been there firs ...[text shortened]... ich to me is an insufficient position to take. You will no doubt disagree, so let's agree to differ.
I cannot get there concerning abiogenesis; nothing remotely close has answered how the information in life got there to direct the processes in the first place. Evolution isn't how life starts; it is an ongoing one after life starts.
It isn't hard to see it get done with a plan, purpose, and design in mind; without one, the odds don't favor it even a little bit. A strong case for the immaterial coming first can be made by looking at the functional complexity.
I'd be happy to hear what you think; if we can give reasons, it isn't blind faith; if we believe because we believe, that is blind faith, there should be a reason, not a lack of one.
17 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidDiscussing choices to could be made that "could be true" and sharing ideas on "what the most reasonable answer is" is the very substance of the speculation I mentioned earlier.
Regardless of how it began, we can always say we don't know and can never know; because there are several choices to be made that could be true no matter how much evidence is pointing one way or another. Without drilling into anything or anyone specific, would simply looking at material and immaterial, which came first, be a question we can look around and see what the most reasonable answer is?
17 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidYou have made this point before many times about how you believe a "strong case for the immaterial coming first can be made", but what response do you expect from people who have perspectives like Indonesia Phil and myself? Meanwhile, fellow Christians are obviously going to agree with you. The real test of your idea about "functional complexity" would probably occur on the Science Forum.
A strong case for the immaterial coming first can be made by looking at the functional complexity.