Universe : design or necessity? - Page 2

Yeah, I don't why there is a split between creationsim and evolution, cuz both are the same. I mean if u are saying that human beings just popped out of thin air, then ur being stuipid!
How can everything be always there? Scientists have already given the approximate age of the universe. God as eternal is more concievable becasue He is undefinable. He is out of this universe, therefore time etc doesn't apply. Yeah, if humans were immortal, than the idea of everything being there from the start may be more concievable, cuz then the concept of eternalisim would a law of the universe. Infinite is a impossible concept to grasp, especially if everything in this universe is finite.

Part II : The Nature of Existence

This is going to be the hardest part I think. It deals with an area in which no experiments are possible, in which the only schools of thought which can treat it are philosophical. But it is absolutely crucial to understanding how we have a universe which allows life to exist.

What does it mean to exist? Existence as we've known it, we are bombarded by a huge series of impressions. We have the impression we see the blue sky, or feel cold air, or smell the roses or hear the riot of a city street. There are also much more complex impressions, impressions of having done something bad, guilt, impressions of free will and choice, impressions of everything we experience.

I say, impressions, because we NEVER know if what we see/feel/hear is "true". The only "truth" is that we have the impression we see blue skies and the impression we smell roses (although I hate to use a movie reference, the matrix provides a decent pop-culture example of this). We can also say that everything that defines your existence are the impressions you receive, is there anything else? Perhaps some impressions of God or impressions of truth, but always impressions.

But these impressions aren't just totally random. There is a thing we call universe, or reality, that is the set of laws we invent to try to explain those impressions. A simple example would be, "if I touch that bright red flickering thing, I will feel pain". The laws we invent are never always right, and at the beginning they tend to be flat wrong. That's why babies burn themselves, fall down and generally hurt themselves and get into trouble.

We end up with this paradox, the only "real" thing, are the impressions you get. "Reality" is in fact only an explanation for the impressions/feelings you get. The impressions are self-evident to the person feeling them, the explanation which is reality is never certain. Very different from traditional views! Impressions are real, reality is mere explanation, is fiction, for lack of a better word.

To make this clear, take the example of imaginary numbers (numbers multiplied by themselves make a negative number). Is it "impossible". Do they exist. Well does the number 7 exist? No it doesnt, but it does allow you to do useful things like count your money. You have to go by 7 to count 20 bucks. Equally, for numbers allow us to do mobile telecommunications. Neither of them "real", but they allow us to do useful things and describe the rules that govern our impressions. They are not truth like the colour "blue", like "pain", like "that impression of free will". These impressions are "real" to anyone who has experienced them, the number 7 is not (unless it refers to an experience, in effect, all is not fundamentally true unless it make reference to an experience).

From all this emerges this picture : there is no universe but there is the huge variety of impressions you receive. If there is a creator, he created you impressions, perhaps they obey to rules he also made, but foremost he created the impressions you receive. Seeing a blue sky is far more real then the "fact" light reflects of the atmosphere in a certain way which means light of a certain wavelength (blue) goes through.

The only existence are impressions, not the explanations you give them. This is important, it means when there was a Creation or when we talk about the necessity of existence, then it was the impressions which were created and it is the impressions which may or may not be necessary.

That's way too long... But please comment, I suspect I had much difficulty getting my ideas accross.

so our brains give us life? wait how do i know i have a brain and its a brain that works.. how do i know im me and not part of something..

Well, very strictly speaking, your body is not part of you. It is an theory, an explanation as to when you receive different sensations. Notably pain, if I put a knife in this arm, then I receive pain. We have the impression the arm is a part of us, but its no more "you" then say, a mechanical arm which could send electrical pain signals to you.

The brain is harder to answer. Perhaps a small part of the brain is "you", but for now what we know, the brain is still just explanation. People dont even know about the brain until they start breaking people's heads open and taking a look.

But the key thing, is that existence is the impressions and feelings. It is not the explanations (patterns or laws) for those feelings which are always hypothetical and theoretical.

In other words, this whole universe is just a bunch of electrical signals interpreted by our brain.
Imagine that a brain is kept alive, and is then connected to a computer through wires. The computer then sends signals of sound, hearing, seeing and feeling to the brain, and the brain may think that it is a buisnessman sitting in a posh restruant eating Tuna!

But the thing is, it is very much possible that reality infact is same as the 'impressions', that the chair in front of you may be really there in reality.

"In other words, this whole universe is just a bunch of electrical signals interpreted by our brain."
Assuming there is a brain and there are electrical signals. But that is indeed the most likely explanation to what we feel and what impressions we receive.



"But the thing is, it is very much possible that reality infact is same as the 'impressions', that the chair in front of you may be really there in reality."
It might, but we never know for sure, ever. The chair is just an explanation to why our butt feels good when we put ourselves in a certain position, its an explanation we are so used to we assume it is true.. But we don't know, the only thing we do know, is that our butt feels good (and if our brain is in a vat, then we only know we have the impression our butt feels good).

If existence is what is, not what might be. Then our impressions the only thing that exist.

Right.

This opens up a number of possibilities, like Life may be a illusion, and that when we die, this illusion may finish etc.

Part III : The Necessity of Law and Existence

We have seen that existence is not the explanation for our feelings. But rather, our existence is defined by those feelings and impressions. We must ask a question : does something need to exist? In a way the question answers itself. If things didn't need to exist, you wouldn't be reading this. Lets assume, something must exist (this is probably the weakest part of my argument, but then, I fail to see how God and design provide better alternatives)

If existence was about the universe. Then there is clearly a design in the universe. It would have been a thousand times more likely that we end up with a universe in which life is impossible. Yet we have life.

Laws must govern our impressions. There must be some pattern to them. If there was no laws, then the law would be "all the impressions you get are totally random". So you get a law anyway.

As we have seen, existence is impressions/feelings, not the laws which govern them (universe). Impressions and feelings are only possibe when there is life (rocks do not have any feelings that I am aware of). Therefore, the laws which govern our impressions (universe) must be laws which allow for life. This is why our universe is basically random, except for that one thing, there is life in it.

The reasoning is : something must exist, existence is composed of feelings/impressions, their must be laws governing those impressions, impressions are only possible with life, therefore thos laws must allow for life. Thereby, we have an apparently designed universe, but no God.

It's not neccessary that impressions are only possible with life. However, yes, a soul or a being must be needed that could feel thoses impressions.

(btw, yes this is a weak argument!)

If impressions are possible without life, you would have to show that rocks can feel.

Hmmm, I wonder what is life, as it seems to be a nexus of this topic. Awareness? Is this what you consider life, beings that move and do, perhaps even think (but what is thought) doesn't qualify as life (for then simple movement of any entity such as space junk would qualify as life), you speak of life in a way that promotes a notion of purpose behind it, one of the main points of the disscussion no?

Perhaps off subject or just repetative, is life life or simply a moment of animation in a form designed by randomness that still follows the laws of the universe but adds no purpose or meaning? Other than the percieved meaning right?

So, to think, well conciousness has been compared to a well of water that all information gets trapped in when it splashes making its waves, and those different waves from different information integrate and formulate ideas of consistencies, and when added to internal information such as emotions takes on a personal perspective of such information.

That was pretty choppy writing but hopefully something of some use came out of it.

On the other hand, a believer could show there is order and design in the universe beyond life. IE, that some other aspect of the universe is designed. That would show that God made it, because I only argue that life is necessary, nothing else.

Necessary to SEE and "understand" existance as we know it?

Prove existance beyond life, well do they consider god alive?

We dont need to understand to exist. We do need to see, see in the sense that any sense/feeling.

I dont understand the second question.