Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
The Final Truth Is: EXISTENCE

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on August 31, 2001 07:32:56 UTC

The final truth is EXISTENCE. You can't get more final than this. Now you can work back from here and explain all physics and everything else too.

I just posted these comments elsewhere- I'm travelling again shortly so I had to write quickly:

Why is there anything at all?

The question "Why" pre-supposes (a) that this is an ask-able question
(b) that the existence of things requires some other purpose, reason, or explanation.

In "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis", John Hospers argues, in a section on "Ultimate Explanation"; that when you start down the road of explaining things, you eventually run out of 'something else's' in terms of which to do the explaining. Ultimately you end out with no more 'something elses's'; things just are.

It is a contradiction in terms to seek an explanation of an ultimate explanation; as then the ultimate explanation would no longer be ultimate; but the 'something else' that explained it would be more ultimate.

Ultimately things just ARE; so I would say that "Existence" (which St. Thomas Aquinas/ Cathoic theology calls "God") is the ultimate explanation. Thus, newborn babies delight in Existence, and do not bow down to some 'reason' for existing- no reason is required. Existence IS the ultimate explanation.

Further, it is interesting to note that Catholic theology teaches God is Three Persons In One Being. Physicists have found, apparantly; that nature operates in a way that can be described by the model: an acceleration in one direction superposed on an acceleration in another direction superposed on an acceleration in a third direction such that the total accelerations cancel to give apparantly stationary object. This scenario also includes that nature is 'non-local' and 'complementary' and relativistic; as physicists have found.

Further: Apparantly every thought humans have can be shown to be reducible to: either contemplating Existence directly
or making a comparison C between at least two patterns A and B. The 'three is one' arrangement also occurs in any sound argument: premise 1, premise 2(or warrant), and conclusion. Each needs the other to allow the whole to occur.

I have the impression that anything in physics and just about anything outside of physics too, can be seen in terms of: 'musical chairs' (quantum oscillations field), 'join the dots' (quantum oscillations field at 'right angles' to 'musical chairs' field) and 'know the difference' (know the difference/ direction/ dimension/ relativity between the two oscillation-fields.

Is the Universe a process?

It certainly appears to be. R.G. Collingwood (English philosopher from the 1930's) noted that the 'present' is the present state of a process and contains within it the history of that process.

Why is there evil in the world?

Tough question! Is it 'ask-able'? Apparantly it is ask-able. Appears that the reason of evil is to put up a false God, a 'reason' that would have people bow to a false god.
The nature of evil apparantly involves evasion, fudging the issues, running from clarity, denial. Focus clarity and honesty on it, and it vapourises. Evil apparantly came about in the context of free will; that man has freedom, freedom to 'contract' with God/ Existence.

Why would a perfect God make an imperfect world?

I think the premise 'imperfect world' is not correct; it is a perfect world: to fully realise how this is so would have the effect of dispelling evil.

Does the Universe evolve?

It appears to.

Does mankind have a purpose?

Existence requires no purpose than Existence.

How could we know it?

Existence (God) has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, we are taught. Babies seem to know Him very directly.

There is an astonishing fact about humans that gets very little attention. Consider: If you were to try to understand a landscape; you would examine the history, the geological history, as written in the rocks.
If you were to try to understand the realtionship between an immigrant nation and the aboriginal earlier inhabitants; again one would investigate the history.

Yet: humans are obviously lost about life; and they have a shocking gap in their data: generally people recall almost nothing from before age 4 years.
If you investigate this; if you note just how good very young children actually are at recall, bring together all the evidence: what we have is a scandal.

I have concluded that the reason why people have a gap in their recall is: fear. They do not all have 'amnesia' of infancy: they are deliberately blocking that data, and are so good at pretending to themselves and society; that they no longer realise they are deliberately blocking it.

Babies are not born taking sides in the Israeli or Northern Ireland conflicts. Like a shadow, the foolishness of mankind is passed on to the next generation. Babies resist the error and ignorance of adult mankind, but in the face of overwhelming coercion and manipulation, they compromise themselves till they become strangers to their former baby-selves and suppress the knowledge of what they've done. So humans become actors, pretenders in a world of pretence and make-believe.

Thus it is so desireable that coercion and dictatorship be dismantled; that personal responsibility be encouraged, and that it be safe for people to be honest without fear. "Love God" includes love Existence, let reality be, be honest. "Love neighbour" includes let others be, includes be free to be honest without fear.

What could it (purpose) be? as said- no purpose required. Existence is perfect.

Regarding emergent theory, that postulates the Universe is a process to evolve a God-like being: sounds like Teilhard De Chardin.
I would at least modify it by saying the being has already emerged hundreds of thousands of years ago; is evident as every baby. But who survives bayhood to tell the truth about what really is going on?
Every baby is made in the image of the Creator.

Also: I think the way our brains work (multi-level pattern comparison and re-construction) may be a model of how evolution, cosmological evolution, and particle physics, all operate.




Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins