• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

There must be a Creator

a simulation controlled by a player is essentially the same as a ghost in the shell.
 
Must there be a creator?

cf.

The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine.
Click to expand...
mutatus mutandi for God question, it is impossible to make a normative statement (existence of god) on the basis of immanent facts.
 
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (steven hawking)

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why a self-contained universe with no beginning or end could not have a creative force operating within it. Why assume that a creative force is 'looking down' on 'its' creation, or that it must set the tone then depart? Who ever said it couldn't be a dynamically involved principle that operates within the system itself? Stephen Hawking, like Richard Dawkins, should probably stick to the science and not try to get philosophical.. it's just a bit painful reading their opinions.

Hawking stated that "philosophy is dead". Absolutely retarded statement to make, and highlights some of the arrogance and blindness that occurs within the purely scientific logical mind. He never stated what branch of philosophy etc he thinks is dead, or just all of it, but making that statement alone gives you a window into how he thinks. I'll agree that a lot of philosophy is just language masturbation, but the real philosophy is acted not merely contemplated. The ability to go inside oneself for the Truth will never die. Perhaps Mr Hawking should read around on some Eastern philosophy ideas before making such a dumbass statement.
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
indeed.

alasdair
Click to expand...

You think just by quoting some over-hyped theoretical scientist you can be let off from responding properly? Or do you not have anything relevant to contribute? Stephen Hawking knows bugger all about philosophy, hence his statement that 'philosophy is dead'. His views in relation to the discussion of a creator are at the bottom of the relevance pile. It is not the domain of science to tell us how things are before having actually proved it; all of Hawking's theoretical nonsense is unvalidated mathematical garbage that has no relation to reality what so ever, nor to practical life either. There is no reason to believe his theories are true, let alone his words on philosophical matters!
 
this is a forum for discussing ideas. i think that, perhaps, we're simply not wired to understand why we're here and whether the universe had a creator or just exploded into being out of nothing and for no reason.

i posted the hawking quote not because i feel it necessarily answers the question but because it shows, in a way, how little we do know. it wasn't that long ago that theories of flight were garbage but now we take it for granted.

the level of arrogance in your posts is pretty high.

happy holidays!

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
this is a forum for discussing ideas. i think that, perhaps, we're simply not wired to understand why we're here and whether the universe had a creator or just exploded into being out of nothing and for no reason.

i posted the hawking quote not because i feel it necessarily answers the question but because it shows, in a way, how little we do know. it wasn't that long ago that theories of flight were garbage but now we take it for granted.

the level of arrogance in your posts is pretty high.

happy holidays!

alasdair
Click to expand...

Haha what ever mate, you just got butt hurt because I decided to shoot down Mr Hawking's attempt at being philosophical as absolute tripe. I never attacked you personally for posting that quote, just the quote. But you couldn't offer anything up in response except a provocation, and yet you call me arrogant too?

This is a forum for discussing ideas, yeh. Not my fault you posted a quote that is so baseless it got a critical response.
 
Time & space is a human construct. Everything within time & space must also be. So our time and space is a human construct. However human behaviour does not fit within time & space well. So we 'compete' for things which will be replaced by new things every cycle. Instead of violence, we hold possessions as tools of jealousy. Time & space is eternal, but as soon as duality kicks in, we have a problem of external & internal philosophy.
 
-=SS=- said:
Haha what ever mate, you just got butt hurt because I decided to shoot down Mr Hawking's attempt at being philosophical as absolute tripe. I never attacked you personally for posting that quote, just the quote. But you couldn't offer anything up in response except a provocation, and yet you call me arrogant too?

This is a forum for discussing ideas, yeh. Not my fault you posted a quote that is so baseless it got a critical response.
Click to expand...
take a breath. seriously. why the aggressive, condescending, extremely combative tone?

hawking's point is simple and, even if it's not been proven (and even if it never is) it's still a perfectly acceptable perspective for discussion.

that the universe has a creator assumes that the universe was created. if the universe was not created, then there's no need or place for a creator.

alasdair
 
now who's butt hurt? :)

i agree my post was elegantly simple. it's not my fault you posted a statement suggesting the obvious point that the issue is the subject not the object? the delicious irony! :)

but on topic, and again, hawking's point is simple and, even if it's not been proven (and even if it never is) it's still a perfectly acceptable perspective for discussion.

that the universe has a creator assumes that the universe was created. if the universe was not created, then there's no need or place for a creator.

happy holidays.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
that the universe has a creator assumes that the universe was created. if the universe was not created, then there's no need or place for a creator.
Click to expand...

And back to what I stated before, why can't you have a creative principle operating inside the system itself? If the Universe is creating itself in each moment, then you can still have a creator/creative principle. That's just a possibility.
 
a creative principle operating inside the system itself and a discussion of the creator of the system itself are hardly mutually exclusive.

i created an omelet earlier - that's hardly proof that there's a god (and/or that i am god and created the universe) :)

alasdair
 
Lackasham said:
Putting my religious beliefs aside, I am 100% convinced there must be a creator of some sort. Humans, animals, really anything living is proof to me. Here are the things that convince me of this

1) the fact that we live in an environment perfect for our survival
2) the complexity of the human body and it's processes
3) the spark of life

What causes something to live? A person is just a ratio of certain elements why can we not replicate it scientifically? Answer IMO: Creator
Click to expand...


Were you paying attention in your grade school science classes? What that all for moot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top