3 ms·

I personally cannot imagine a creation made by pure hazard to be this beautiful. I know that beauty is subjective. But i find that nature is so wonderfully crea

I personally cannot imagine a creation made by pure hazard to be this beautiful. I know that beauty is subjective. But i find that nature is so wonderfully created that -- for me -- it's hard to believe that there is no artist behind it. Like, when i see a nice piece of code, i know that there is a really good programmer behind it. :-)

petervandijck 16y ago
Ok, we agree that there is a universe, and we find it beautiful, that's pretty easy to believe for everyone but the most depressed among us. Why explain that beauty away by adding a god-figure in there? Isn't the universe even more beautiful and majestic without a (fairly silly) "outside creator" explanation? Your explanation also logically doesn't make sense. You say: I can't believe there is nothing behind it. But then what is behind God? Who created him? You can believe that? It's logically inconsistent, and makes me think that perhaps you haven't thought this through very well. There's a similar argument around consciousness. The naive interpretation of consciousness is always: "there's a little man inside my head doing the thinking", a little "me", something that represents the self. But then, who is the little man inside the head of the little man? Same flawed logic. The latest thinking/science now says that consciousness just "arises" from processes in our brain. And the "me" is mostly an illusion. Which is, funnily, quite close to the Buddhist interpretation of the self.
- juliend2 16y ago
  Who created him? I just believe he's eternal.
  - petervandijck 16y ago
    So you find it hard to believe that nature/the universe can just "be", there has to be an entity that created it, but you find it easy to believe that God can just "be", correct?
    - lukeqsee 16y ago
      Pretty sure it'll be a "Yes". A quick note, you find it easy to believe that the universe can just "be" when everything you have ever seen has had a creator. (Whether you believe in science or God, it does, the creator just differs.) Both have an equally frustrating leap of faith, you either have to believe in God, or that something can come out of nothing.
      - petervandijck 16y ago
        Hang on: there's not much leaping of faith in believing that the universe is. That's observation: I think therefore I am. Where we differ is that I accept that I don't know where we come from, you think you do (ie. from God). One doesn't require a leap of faith, the other does.
    - juliend2 16y ago
      Yes
- lukeqsee 16y ago
  So what about us? Who created us? Our parents. Them? Their parents. But wait -- eventually, even with evolution, something had to create the first molecule. Right? Everybody has to have a starting point from which they have no clue how it got there. One side has decided that it had to be God. The other? The Big Bang? (Where'd it come from?)
  - etherael 16y ago
    The "where'd it come from" clause can terminate successfully at the genesis of time proper, to define a time prior to time is to posit a time where there was still time, ergo... "Big guy in the sky was hanging around in void and created it all" posits nothing about the nature of time, and in fact infers that time is eternal and has always been, as big guy in the sky is eternal and has always been, that's why it's not logically inconsistent to point out that the god hypothesis simply raises more questions whilst taking a competing theory to the genesis of time proper does not fail in the same way.
    - lukeqsee 16y ago
      No. It can't. Where'd time come from?
      - etherael 16y ago
        Define the concept of "from" without time? By what method did the color blue arrive at it's current physical location in space, also, what does it taste like? I realise the above sounds cryptic but I'm just trying to give examples of how concepts are intrinsic to their own space to a certain degree, time as a spatial dimension of the universe terminates by definition at the genesis of the universe, so what came "before" has no more meaning than the taste of the color blue.
      - jodrellblank 16y ago
        might be time to reread Timeless Physics http://lesswrong.com/lw/qp/timeless_physics/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qp/timeless_physics/
- Keyframe 16y ago
  That's basically a first cause problem which neither science nor religion has an answer for. I think we will not get to answering that anytime soon, or ever. Maybe we're just not up to that task. We know a lot about space and processes that go on around us, but in a scheme of big things we basically know nothing. All of the hard questions are still unanswered. What is a nature of spacetime? We have a model to work with it, we have a model to measure it, but what is it and why is it? We have a model that explains how space could come out of "nothing", but that nothing is still a quark field (if I remember correctly from watching a video from some astronomer). So what is the nature of that quark field, where did that come from? There is always that first cause / prime mover at the end of every question, not to mention again that we know nothing on topics of great importance without even coming to a roadblock of first cause/prime mover. Religion puts first cause/prime mover as a recursive feedback where it is the source and the end aka God. Which, ah well I don't know... takes faith :D There is also vast amount of religious writings throughout history amongst various religions that overlaps in content. I'm not on either side basically. I accept I can't know for sure first cause/prime mover, I know I can't be cock sure in anything of it. Hence, I think it's best to have a romanticized view of things in general to keep my own spirit up and creative. If that particular view to someone is abrahamic god, allah, brahma, forgotten realsm or whatever - so be it. I suspect that the ultimate 'truth' is whatever you make of it, because in the end that is only thing that matters to you/your mind, what you make of it. As for "The latest thinking/science now says that consciousness just "arises" from processes in our brain.". That's just one view which is not prevalent in science of mind yet, because our understanding of consciousness has not moved anywhere beyond philosophy yet. Consciousness is a weird thing, core consciousness that is (self-awareness, 'self') - not intellect around it, which we can view via fMRI. Consciousness is known that it can have only two states, conscious and unconscious. That's it. It can't be altered via medicines/drugs, it can't be divided, brain traumas/operations can't alter it (various injuries, removals, even hemispherectomy). Nothing can alter it. It can be only turned on or off. Weird thing, huh? Recently there has been some breakthroughs in quantum biology (look it up, interesting stuff). But as I've said, our understanding of our consciousness hasn't moved from philosophy to hard science yet (I have a hunch it never will, but we'll see). I also came across nice site where various themes like this are covered with numerous talkers from both sides of a fence (hell they even have Minsky :) ), look here: http://closertotruth.com http://closertotruth.com (warning though since it can dive into heavy philosophy+logic). edit: here look at this what Geroge Lakoff has to say about it http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling-George-Lakoff-/501 http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-Consciousness-... (watch it 'till the end!) and what others have to say about same question: http://closertotruth.com/topic/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling-/120 http://closertotruth.com/topic/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling...
gcheong 16y ago
I think that if I were all-powerful and all-knowing I could have done a much better job with it.
- techiferous 16y ago
  Are you referring to The Big Rewrite around the time of Noah?
  - gcheong 16y ago
    "Plan to throw one away, you will anyway."
ugh 16y ago
We are built by natural selection to fit into this universe. Our perception of beauty seems like a useful hack to find our way in this universe. Probably recycled by the brain to be used for very different things (from sexual attraction to finding tasty food) and maybe even misfiring at times (when listening to music or reading poetry).

petervandijck 16y ago

Ok, we agree that there is a universe, and we find it beautiful, that's pretty easy to believe for everyone but the most depressed among us. Why explain that beauty away by adding a god-figure in there? Isn't the universe even more beautiful and majestic without a (fairly silly) "outside creator" explanation? Your explanation also logically doesn't make sense. You say: I can't believe there is nothing behind it. But then what is behind God? Who created him? You can believe that? It's logically inconsistent, and makes me think that perhaps you haven't thought this through very well. There's a similar argument around consciousness. The naive interpretation of consciousness is always: "there's a little man inside my head doing the thinking", a little "me", something that represents the self. But then, who is the little man inside the head of the little man? Same flawed logic. The latest thinking/science now says that consciousness just "arises" from processes in our brain. And the "me" is mostly an illusion. Which is, funnily, quite close to the Buddhist interpretation of the self.

juliend2 16y ago
Who created him? I just believe he's eternal.
- petervandijck 16y ago
  So you find it hard to believe that nature/the universe can just "be", there has to be an entity that created it, but you find it easy to believe that God can just "be", correct?
  - lukeqsee 16y ago
    Pretty sure it'll be a "Yes". A quick note, you find it easy to believe that the universe can just "be" when everything you have ever seen has had a creator. (Whether you believe in science or God, it does, the creator just differs.) Both have an equally frustrating leap of faith, you either have to believe in God, or that something can come out of nothing.
    - petervandijck 16y ago
      Hang on: there's not much leaping of faith in believing that the universe is. That's observation: I think therefore I am. Where we differ is that I accept that I don't know where we come from, you think you do (ie. from God). One doesn't require a leap of faith, the other does.
  - juliend2 16y ago
    Yes
lukeqsee 16y ago
So what about us? Who created us? Our parents. Them? Their parents. But wait -- eventually, even with evolution, something had to create the first molecule. Right? Everybody has to have a starting point from which they have no clue how it got there. One side has decided that it had to be God. The other? The Big Bang? (Where'd it come from?)
- etherael 16y ago
  The "where'd it come from" clause can terminate successfully at the genesis of time proper, to define a time prior to time is to posit a time where there was still time, ergo... "Big guy in the sky was hanging around in void and created it all" posits nothing about the nature of time, and in fact infers that time is eternal and has always been, as big guy in the sky is eternal and has always been, that's why it's not logically inconsistent to point out that the god hypothesis simply raises more questions whilst taking a competing theory to the genesis of time proper does not fail in the same way.
  - lukeqsee 16y ago
    No. It can't. Where'd time come from?
    - etherael 16y ago
      Define the concept of "from" without time? By what method did the color blue arrive at it's current physical location in space, also, what does it taste like? I realise the above sounds cryptic but I'm just trying to give examples of how concepts are intrinsic to their own space to a certain degree, time as a spatial dimension of the universe terminates by definition at the genesis of the universe, so what came "before" has no more meaning than the taste of the color blue.
    - jodrellblank 16y ago
      might be time to reread Timeless Physics http://lesswrong.com/lw/qp/timeless_physics/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qp/timeless_physics/
Keyframe 16y ago
That's basically a first cause problem which neither science nor religion has an answer for. I think we will not get to answering that anytime soon, or ever. Maybe we're just not up to that task. We know a lot about space and processes that go on around us, but in a scheme of big things we basically know nothing. All of the hard questions are still unanswered. What is a nature of spacetime? We have a model to work with it, we have a model to measure it, but what is it and why is it? We have a model that explains how space could come out of "nothing", but that nothing is still a quark field (if I remember correctly from watching a video from some astronomer). So what is the nature of that quark field, where did that come from? There is always that first cause / prime mover at the end of every question, not to mention again that we know nothing on topics of great importance without even coming to a roadblock of first cause/prime mover. Religion puts first cause/prime mover as a recursive feedback where it is the source and the end aka God. Which, ah well I don't know... takes faith :D There is also vast amount of religious writings throughout history amongst various religions that overlaps in content. I'm not on either side basically. I accept I can't know for sure first cause/prime mover, I know I can't be cock sure in anything of it. Hence, I think it's best to have a romanticized view of things in general to keep my own spirit up and creative. If that particular view to someone is abrahamic god, allah, brahma, forgotten realsm or whatever - so be it. I suspect that the ultimate 'truth' is whatever you make of it, because in the end that is only thing that matters to you/your mind, what you make of it. As for "The latest thinking/science now says that consciousness just "arises" from processes in our brain.". That's just one view which is not prevalent in science of mind yet, because our understanding of consciousness has not moved anywhere beyond philosophy yet. Consciousness is a weird thing, core consciousness that is (self-awareness, 'self') - not intellect around it, which we can view via fMRI. Consciousness is known that it can have only two states, conscious and unconscious. That's it. It can't be altered via medicines/drugs, it can't be divided, brain traumas/operations can't alter it (various injuries, removals, even hemispherectomy). Nothing can alter it. It can be only turned on or off. Weird thing, huh? Recently there has been some breakthroughs in quantum biology (look it up, interesting stuff). But as I've said, our understanding of our consciousness hasn't moved from philosophy to hard science yet (I have a hunch it never will, but we'll see). I also came across nice site where various themes like this are covered with numerous talkers from both sides of a fence (hell they even have Minsky :) ), look here: http://closertotruth.com http://closertotruth.com (warning though since it can dive into heavy philosophy+logic). edit: here look at this what Geroge Lakoff has to say about it http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling-George-Lakoff-/501 http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-Consciousness-... (watch it 'till the end!) and what others have to say about same question: http://closertotruth.com/topic/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling-/120 http://closertotruth.com/topic/Why-is-Consciousness-Baffling...

gcheong 16y ago

I think that if I were all-powerful and all-knowing I could have done a much better job with it.

techiferous 16y ago
Are you referring to The Big Rewrite around the time of Noah?
- gcheong 16y ago
  "Plan to throw one away, you will anyway."

ugh 16y ago

We are built by natural selection to fit into this universe. Our perception of beauty seems like a useful hack to find our way in this universe. Probably recycled by the brain to be used for very different things (from sexual attraction to finding tasty food) and maybe even misfiring at times (when listening to music or reading poetry).