somehow i don't think stu is impressed with your "dual" logical argument for creationism
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
somehow i don't think stu is impressed with your "dual" logical argument for creationism
stu is confusing his concept of creationism that the Christians preach, and my concept of design.
Lots of people who are west centric in their concepts have problems with points of view that don't fit neatly into their model of western dualistic logic.
Dualistic logic is all about relationships of more than one thing.
Totality is all things, and all things are the Totality.
Design simply suggests that everything is programmed. The program precedes the running of the program.
Even if evolutionary processes as science describes is 100% accurate, the actions are just following a program of nature, and nature is programmed itself. Nature is a totality of programs. But, nature could cease to exist. Where Totality could not cease to exist, because Totality is existence itself. The programming of nature is by design of Totality...just as a string of random numbers generated by a program is the effect of programming, and is caused by the design of the programming.
Dualistic logic sees programming and the programmer as separate aspects.
Non Dualistic logic sees the programming, the programmer, the process of the effect of the programming not as three separate aspects, but as only one Totality moving withing itself.
Totality is only one, and Totality three at the same time. The one is in the three, the three are only one, but from a dualistic logic point of view this is not possible. Dualistic logic can only see from one point of view, relative to a separate point of view.
Take a pencil as an example. You look at the point and see a point. You look at the pencil from the side, and you see a line.
Is the pencil a point or a line? Depends on the point of view, but we can't actually see both at the same time. We are fixed in a point in space at a particular time. We can see a point, then a line, then a point again...but we can't see the point and line at the same time. Our mind can only have one thought at a time, not all thoughts at the same time.
We can shift points of view mentally with amazing speed, but yet it is moving from one point of view to another.
We lack the ability to hold all points of view at all times without letting go of one point of view to hold the next point of view, but this doesn't mean there are not all points of view.
All points of view exists all the time. Dualistic logic is bound by the restrictions of our mind, which is bound by time and space.
Non dualistic logic is not bound by time and space, which is why a non dualistic logic can claim that it is both not raining and it is raining.
Non dualistic logic says rightfully that the universe is by design, and also not by design as the design could be for a non designed universe.
When you go to sleep, and sleep soundly, during that period, to you who is unconscious, you cease to exist. When you awake your self awareness again knows you exist. You then, your real identity is not a product of perception, but something more. You know you didn't cease to exist, even though the mechanism to know you exist was not existing for you during sleep.
There is a continuity of you, whether you are waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc. You are a totality of you. You are not the parts, you are something different than just the parts. You are a whole.
Some people think when a person dies, it is like going to sleep forever.
Some think other things, but nobody has knowledge. Does that mean that either position is true or false? Unknown.
Design is not knowable, nor is non design. As each takes a different point of view.
Those who are dogmatic in one point of view, claim to know.
Those who say "scio me nescire"* are suggested to be the wise ones, and admit to their beliefs.
* Socrates begins all wisdom with wondering, thus one must begin with admitting one's ignorance.
Lots of people who are west centric in their concepts have problems with points of view that don't fit neatly into their model of western dualistic logic.
Dualistic logic is all about relationships of more than one thing.
Totality is all things, and all things are the Totality.
Design simply suggests that everything is programmed. The program precedes the running of the program.
Even if evolutionary processes as science describes is 100% accurate, the actions are just following a program of nature, and nature is programmed itself. Nature is a totality of programs. But, nature could cease to exist. Where Totality could not cease to exist, because Totality is existence itself. The programming of nature is by design of Totality...just as a string of random numbers generated by a program is the effect of programming, and is caused by the design of the programming.
Dualistic logic sees programming and the programmer as separate aspects.
Non Dualistic logic sees the programming, the programmer, the process of the effect of the programming not as three separate aspects, but as only one Totality moving withing itself.
Totality is only one, and Totality three at the same time. The one is in the three, the three are only one, but from a dualistic logic point of view this is not possible. Dualistic logic can only see from one point of view, relative to a separate point of view.
Take a pencil as an example. You look at the point and see a point. You look at the pencil from the side, and you see a line.
Is the pencil a point or a line? Depends on the point of view, but we can't actually see both at the same time. We are fixed in a point in space at a particular time. We can see a point, then a line, then a point again...but we can't see the point and line at the same time. Our mind can only have one thought at a time, not all thoughts at the same time.
We can shift points of view mentally with amazing speed, but yet it is moving from one point of view to another.
We lack the ability to hold all points of view at all times without letting go of one point of view to hold the next point of view, but this doesn't mean there are not all points of view.
All points of view exists all the time. Dualistic logic is bound by the restrictions of our mind, which is bound by time and space.
Non dualistic logic is not bound by time and space, which is why a non dualistic logic can claim that it is both not raining and it is raining.
Non dualistic logic says rightfully that the universe is by design, and also not by design as the design could be for a non designed universe.
When you go to sleep, and sleep soundly, during that period, to you who is unconscious, you cease to exist. When you awake your self awareness again knows you exist. You then, your real identity is not a product of perception, but something more. You know you didn't cease to exist, even though the mechanism to know you exist was not existing for you during sleep.
There is a continuity of you, whether you are waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc. You are a totality of you. You are not the parts, you are something different than just the parts. You are a whole.
Some people think when a person dies, it is like going to sleep forever.
Some think other things, but nobody has knowledge. Does that mean that either position is true or false? Unknown.
Design is not knowable, nor is non design. As each takes a different point of view.
Those who are dogmatic in one point of view, claim to know.
Those who say "scio me nescire"* are suggested to be the wise ones, and admit to their beliefs.
* Socrates begins all wisdom with wondering, thus one must begin with admitting one's ignorance.
Quote from killthesunshine:
somehow i don't think stu is impressed with your "dual" logical argument for creationism
is there any way or anything in discovery that you can think of that would FALSIFY your notion of design? isn't that the crux?
I can just as easily ask how you would falsify non design...Isn't that the crux of it?
Neither concept of design or non design reside in proof...so there is no reason necessarily to adopt either. Neither chance the model, so why prefer on ever the other?
Neither concept of design or non design reside in proof...so there is no reason necessarily to adopt either. Neither chance the model, so why prefer on ever the other?
The difference between relativistic logic and why it does not work to answer essential questions about the source of relativism.
P is a unique existent thing.
Q is a unique place.
R is a unique time.
X is a unique existent thing.
Y is a unique place.
Z is a unique time.
All unique things are different from all other unique things.
All unique places are different from all other unique places.
All unique times are different from other unique times.
Therefore P cannot be X, Q cannot be Y, and R cannot be Z.
Time, place, and thing exist in relation to other times, places and things.
So using relativistic material logic, there is no doubt that P that is located at Q and existing at R, cannot simultaneously be P existing at Y and at Z.
The property of all things is that they exist at a particular time, at a particular place at a particular time.
The time could be different, and P could still exist at Y, but not at the same time as Z.
Material logic is based on knowing what something is, where it is, and when it is...in relation to something else, that may exist at a different place, time, etc.
John is in (New York City) at 1:00 pm EST on 3-14-11.
It is not logically possible, using material logic, for John to also be in
in Tokyo at 1:00 pm EST on 3-14-11.
John could be in Tokyo on 3-15-11 at 1:00 pm EST.
But no thing can exist two different places at the exact same time.
This is material logic.
What about universal logic?
Can the universe be located at 1:00 pm EST in New York on 3-14-11 and also in Tokyo at 3-14-11 at 1:00 pm EST?
Universal logic says yes. The universe is a thing, but a universal thing. The universe as we know it, exists not relative to something else. It is a totality.
Why? Because the universe is everywhere at all times and places. The universe remains the universe in contraction, or expansion, and exists as a thing (the universe as opposed to the non universe) at all times and all places.
The whole exists at all times and all places and remains the whole at all times and places.
Why is this important?
The scientists have not said that the quantum field (or level if you will) is localized to any one place or time. It is all pervasive in the universe. Different things can be happening at different places at different times, but the quantum field itself is all pervasive. It is like a universal movie screen in which projections can appear on the screen projected from different projectors, from different places at different times. The movie might change, but the the movie is always nothing but a projection, i.e. the movie screen is universal...and is itself not localized or subject to the rules of time, space, and spot existence of things.
The universe is all things, at all times, at all places within the universe.
So how did this universe come to exist?
How did the parts of the universe come to exist?
How do all the aspects of the universe work so fabulously well, in such a well designed balanced manner, such that the universe is remarkably stable and self sufficient?
No one knows.
Does it seem likely that the universe, something, came from nothing?
Does it seem likely that nothing accidentally organized itself according to no governing principles of order and balance?
Universal logic is not the same as relativistic logic, but the relativists trying to apply relativistic logic to the universe and the what the parts of the universe do in relation to other parts.
It is why no unified theory is going to come from analysis of the parts via relativistic logic. No cause is going to be found by relativistic logic as to the cause of the whole.
Could the universe also have an existence as whole (the sum of the parts) and as a being (identity) at the same time?
Why not?
Could the universe always exist, but go to sleep at times, during which all the projections, the projectors, and the movies disappear similar to the world disappearing for a person while they sleep deeply while dreaming?
Yes, of course.
No one thinks a person actually disappears while asleep, but for the sleeping person, their identity as a person does not exist for them.
If the projectors shut down and there were no projections on the screen, but the screen was still conscious (its nature) it would continue to be aware of itself...but no movies for anyone to see.
The dissolution of the universe would not dissolve the unmanifest universe that preceded the manifestation of the universe.
It is an axiom that anything that comes into existence was preceded with the potential and possible to be manifested.
Something came before the universe, not the universe coming from nothing.
P is a unique existent thing.
Q is a unique place.
R is a unique time.
X is a unique existent thing.
Y is a unique place.
Z is a unique time.
All unique things are different from all other unique things.
All unique places are different from all other unique places.
All unique times are different from other unique times.
Therefore P cannot be X, Q cannot be Y, and R cannot be Z.
Time, place, and thing exist in relation to other times, places and things.
So using relativistic material logic, there is no doubt that P that is located at Q and existing at R, cannot simultaneously be P existing at Y and at Z.
The property of all things is that they exist at a particular time, at a particular place at a particular time.
The time could be different, and P could still exist at Y, but not at the same time as Z.
Material logic is based on knowing what something is, where it is, and when it is...in relation to something else, that may exist at a different place, time, etc.
John is in (New York City) at 1:00 pm EST on 3-14-11.
It is not logically possible, using material logic, for John to also be in
in Tokyo at 1:00 pm EST on 3-14-11.
John could be in Tokyo on 3-15-11 at 1:00 pm EST.
But no thing can exist two different places at the exact same time.
This is material logic.
What about universal logic?
Can the universe be located at 1:00 pm EST in New York on 3-14-11 and also in Tokyo at 3-14-11 at 1:00 pm EST?
Universal logic says yes. The universe is a thing, but a universal thing. The universe as we know it, exists not relative to something else. It is a totality.
Why? Because the universe is everywhere at all times and places. The universe remains the universe in contraction, or expansion, and exists as a thing (the universe as opposed to the non universe) at all times and all places.
The whole exists at all times and all places and remains the whole at all times and places.
Why is this important?
The scientists have not said that the quantum field (or level if you will) is localized to any one place or time. It is all pervasive in the universe. Different things can be happening at different places at different times, but the quantum field itself is all pervasive. It is like a universal movie screen in which projections can appear on the screen projected from different projectors, from different places at different times. The movie might change, but the the movie is always nothing but a projection, i.e. the movie screen is universal...and is itself not localized or subject to the rules of time, space, and spot existence of things.
The universe is all things, at all times, at all places within the universe.
So how did this universe come to exist?
How did the parts of the universe come to exist?
How do all the aspects of the universe work so fabulously well, in such a well designed balanced manner, such that the universe is remarkably stable and self sufficient?
No one knows.
Does it seem likely that the universe, something, came from nothing?
Does it seem likely that nothing accidentally organized itself according to no governing principles of order and balance?
Universal logic is not the same as relativistic logic, but the relativists trying to apply relativistic logic to the universe and the what the parts of the universe do in relation to other parts.
It is why no unified theory is going to come from analysis of the parts via relativistic logic. No cause is going to be found by relativistic logic as to the cause of the whole.
Could the universe also have an existence as whole (the sum of the parts) and as a being (identity) at the same time?
Why not?
Could the universe always exist, but go to sleep at times, during which all the projections, the projectors, and the movies disappear similar to the world disappearing for a person while they sleep deeply while dreaming?
Yes, of course.
No one thinks a person actually disappears while asleep, but for the sleeping person, their identity as a person does not exist for them.
If the projectors shut down and there were no projections on the screen, but the screen was still conscious (its nature) it would continue to be aware of itself...but no movies for anyone to see.
The dissolution of the universe would not dissolve the unmanifest universe that preceded the manifestation of the universe.
It is an axiom that anything that comes into existence was preceded with the potential and possible to be manifested.
Something came before the universe, not the universe coming from nothing.
more proof you have a science comprehension problem.
why don't you produce a quote in which De Duve says it is his opinion that chance created it all... (including abiogenesis).
Answer... you know you can not.
therefore you either just lied your ass off
or you have a science comprehension problem.