[Lloyd Gillespie]

Benzi, you're a meta-head, won't you please come back to reality?

You are radiating away your entire life with wastefulness. The human condition is dead___welcome to the world of absolute techtroids...

Bye___Bye,

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Attack me on the science I use, try to destroy me, give me any meaning to be your worst nightmare, in explaining your materialism, in explaining your limited view on reality. And just realise we all got to live on this planet, besides our differences, in how we see things, essentially.

[Benedict Broere]

Graybeard, You've got a point there. But do you really think the creativity we see in nature and culture isn't possible in other parts of the universe? Do you think we are that unique?

It's an analysis-dominant argument to think the Earth and it's creativity apart from the universe, as if it has nothing to do with it.
And what about the anthropic principle?

In general:
Atheism, materialism, naturalism, they appear in a context, a context that can be studied and does generate scientific data. But being an atheist means it seems, ignoring this altogether, when the outcome doesn't support his worldview.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Graybeard, You've got a point there. But do you really think the creativity we see in nature and culture isn't possible in other parts of the universe? Do you think we are that unique? And what about the anthropic principle? In general: Atheism, materialism, naturalism, they appear in a context, a context that can be studied and does generate scientific data. But being an atheist means it seems, ignoring this altogether, when the outcome doesn't support his worldview.

Atheism, at least, had to come after the big bang... would you agree
therefore at one point, the universe existed without it ??

I don't think we are unique ... but to say we are special ... to me .. at any rate .. is like saying to Copernicus that he is nuts, and the earth is the centre of the universe.

Perhaps you mean creativity as a universal phenomena ??? If so, I don't know what that could be ???

What is the anthropic principle ??

greg

[Benedict Broere]

In the WIKIPEDIA it says, I quote:
"In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the principle that any valid cosmology must be consistent with the existence on Earth of biochemistry and human beings. This original (and "weak") form of the anthropic principle is a truism or tautology that begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, particularly complex multicellular life, that can make such an observation and concludes with that premise that in only such a fine-tuned universe can such living observers be. Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology is unexpected by any normal model of turbulence driven structuring that we have been able to derive. The anthropic principle also acts as a convenient category for physical and cosmological reasoning that takes into account the existence of a biosphere on Earth in an essential way."


For the atheist this all is nonsense of course. But to me it seems the atheist just expresses a mind that because of a dominance of analytical abilities, has trouble in seeing things in their wider context, and is instead more inclined to break reality down until only meaninglessness remains. As I explain on my website, while referring to science, our analytical abilities increased in coevolution with the increased complexity of culture. Hence the mechanising of our worldview in the past centuries. If science is taken seriously, this context of science must be taken seriously.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere In the WIKIPEDIA it says, I quote: "In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the principle that any valid cosmology must be consistent with the existence on Earth of biochemistry and human beings.

Ben, I don't have a problem with this. I believe that physics is consistent with the existence on Earth of biochemistry and human beings.

Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang

I read simplicity in this statement as a high degree of order, possibly the unification of the 4 known forces... not as something so simple it had no possibility of becoming more complex. ??

But to me it seems the atheist just expresses a mind that because of a dominance of analytical abilities, has trouble in seeing things in their wider context,

Your thread starter implied, broadly speaking, that Culture and Creativity are an integral part of the universe and its evolution ...

Its not that I, an athiest, 'has trouble seeing things in their wider context', I can see in the birth of the universe, with nothing more than hydrogen as matter, infinite possibilities. Each one of which may be realised with infinite time.

What could be more creative than this.

"Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, color by convention; but in reality atoms and the void alone exist." Democritus (was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher born at Abdera in Thrace around 460 BC)

Do 'atoms and the void' resemble our universe, early or late ?? In 2460 years are we much further ahead. Democritus could see in 'the widest of contexts' and yet, I believe' in his day he was classed as an athiest.

Ben ... what is an athiest ??

[Benedict Broere]

Graybeard,

With this ‘simplicity’ is meant: matter in it’s simpliest form. These days we would speak of a ‘snare’ I think. The strange thing about this universe, at least the suggestion is strong, is that it isn’t realising infinite possibilities but only one, one that is strictly fine-tuned for the development into the universe we inhabit. So in fact we are looking at an uncountable number of snares that have, in the past 13.7 billion years, organised themselves into this present world. And that against the allover present tendency of things to decay, fall apart, dissolute or desintegrate. So, how come? How can this be?

I think that if you syntheticly think human creativity as completely embedded in this whole story of the universe, than it becomes only natural to think some fundamental creativity, force, abillity to express universa, etcetera, is involved. And this is I think the basis-assumption behind all religion.

But if you analytically detach, isolate, set apart human creativity out of this development, then you start looking for other explanations: this universe is by itself, has developed itself, has in itself no deep meaning, is actually a kind of accident, is some kind of machine, as humans themselves are machines.

When you subsequently look at human history our analytical abillities (and our creativity in general) increased in interaction with the increase of complexity of our cultural expression. In especially the western culture this resulted in an increase of individual awareness, increased rational thought and a materialistic and mechanistic view on reality.

It’s a matter of: do we think things apart (analysis) or do we think things together (synthesis), or do we need to combine these two forms of view on things in order to really get closer to reality? I choose the latter.

Atheist??
When God is a man with a long beard and all kinds of angels around him sitting on clouds, and with him somewhere beneath the Devil in his hot environment, I’m an atheist.

[Graybeard]

I am thinking your last post through. reply soon

[mkirkpatrick]

Benedict,prehaps the logos you mentioned in your opening thread,that the "word" was
crystalline order to enable structure (matter) to be built up from the liquer of plasma
that flowed in this timeless cycle?



regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

I don't know Michael, I really don't know. But if you look at the universe, the questions arise: where does it's information come from? How is it possible this information expresses itself in an increasing complex material world? With my kind of explanation you start with a complete blanck: at least there is no universe, there is no mathematics, there are no laws and constants, there is no matter. And my suggestion is: there is an abillity to express a universe, and there is an idea out of which in variation the necesarry information can be derived. We are part of an energy-information-system, and it seems something creative has intiated it, and is maybe also involved in it's development. But we interpret this reality very differently, because of our huge mental differences. And I only try to make this all plausible, trying to as much as possible refer to science. While science itself hardly can be the judge in this, because we can't put this universe on the laboratoriumtable, as if it were a reseachable rabbit. Nevertheless research will and must go on.

[mkirkpatrick]

Benedict,your reply was interesting,your question,"Where does this information come from"?And "how is it possible this information expresses itself in an increasing complex
material world"?

The big question here Benedict is surely,how,what,who,or why,placed this information
within the matrix!

Most people,and prehaps your goodself accept the concept or operation of the principle
of evolution,so far so good,now as there are usually two sides to every story,this one
being no exception,the other side of evolution is its opposite involution.Put very simply
evolution means "unwrapping" and involution means "wrapping up" to take out a
principle you have first to "put it in"now the answer to your question where does the
information come from,well involution answers that!

What ever way you cut it Benedict you will always find evidence of intelligence at work,
why? Well I think that is self explantory.

regards michael.