Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think that's true at all. It's certainly not what drives Kastrup's thinking. The Idea of the World is very heavy going in some parts, but it would be well worth getting since he addresses the issues from a variety of scientific perspectives. I'm not a serious student of Kastrup's work, but I don't recall him mentioning fine-tuning much at all.
It seems to be the reason some of the serious thinkers on the subject turn to it. No slight intended , BTW. I am not a serious thinker on it myself. I am referring to those who more or less study the concept for a living.
This , of course, isn't mean to suggest some sort of intelligent fine tuning didn't take place, only to suggest such fine tuning isn't really necessary and is but one option to the apparent problematic odds on the universe. Given the choice between some intelligent bit of the newly birthed universe choosing and setting the law Goldilocks right within the first seconds of the Big Bang and a quadrillion false starts before the one that worked, I would choose the quadrillion false starts as the more likely. But I also don't ignore the possibility that we are all just the Total Mass of Divine experiencing existence through the little pieces of individual Divine. This is pretty much what Advaita teaches. Brahman issues forth as the universe and experiences existence through the universe . Then it ceases, waits the same amount of time in non existence, then does it all over again. Ad infinitum. I'll have to recheck the Hindu time scale. It posits each cycle of each new universe on a scale of trillions of years each, followed by trillions of years of non existence. Quite a concept for multiple thousands of years ago.
The world as we understand it comes into being due to a power that issues from Brhman (Maya Shakti) as Brhman itself does not cause anything into existence. Brhman is the only existence, everything is Brhman, there is no other than Brhman. It is Ishvara who by the power of Maya brings the world of names and forms into what we, sentient beings, experience as the world. Every aspect of this relative reality is also Brhman, because there is nothing other than Brhman. At the end of time the world, along with Ishvara, resolves into Brhman. Brhman never cease to exist, creates, nor become the created. The Vedic religion views the universal system as cyclical.
It seems to be the reason some of the serious thinkers on the subject turn to it. No slight intended , BTW. I am not a serious thinker on it myself. I am referring to those who more or less study the concept for a living.
OK, good find with the article you linked (although the author doesn't mention Kastrup).
I didn't take what you were saying as a slight. It's just difficult for me to see how the fine-tuning arguments of Intelligent Design really relate to the notion of consciousness being the foundation of all reality. They seem consistent with any sort of designer. From what little I've read of Kastrup on the subject, I think he says the apparent fine-tuning is at least indicative of non-randomness and thus points toward a consciousness just as it points toward a designer.
My humble notion is that one fundamental attribute of the universal consciousness is creativity and that our reality is essentially a work of art. Long before I'd ever heard of Kastrup, the old saying "Our reality is God's dream" also resonated with me - and it's pretty close to what Kastrup is saying. I've always thought that our own dreams - mine anyway, which are extremely odd and vivid - are a huge and underappreciated clue to the nature of reality. I don't see any of this as inconsistent with Christianity, nor do I insist Christianity is the only model it fits.
This isn't even the worst of Mystic's 's Beliefs (get him on the reptilian/carnal mind) but it might give even those non - believers who cheer him on because he persistently bashes and abuses atheism, might wonder whether they have signed up with a bit of a religious crackpot.
We don't bash atheism. We bash a type of atheism.
I "bash" militant atheist that think its ok to use a statement like Its ok to believe that but don't get in our way or slow us down we have the same goals and are fighting for you too. I think theist should be "bashing" fundy theist too myself.
I side with him on this because his belief is plausible. In fact, based on strength of evidence, his belief is plausible enough that denying it with militants because I hate religion is not good enough to overcome the strength of evidence.
I side with him when some people "lack belief" because they say he has no evidence. Its just not true.
I side with him when steps are taking to get is belief stopped because they have strength of evidence. Because you feel "it gets us no where" Based on strength of evidence and I side when him when people "lack belief" because they don't know any better.
I am against fundy think types trans. Those that think its ok to limit the discussions on beliefs because they feel rational beliefs, with evidence (although not certain) don't get us anywhere. Anything that has evidence is a "strawman" because you limit us to "deity only" and literal definition of atheism.
So please, at least get it right it. If your statements are true enough (Have strength of evidence) you don't have to distort what we actually say or get what we say stopped.
OK, good find with the article you linked (although the author doesn't mention Kastrup).
I didn't take what you were saying as a slight. It's just difficult for me to see how the fine-tuning arguments of Intelligent Design really relate to the notion of consciousness being the foundation of all reality. They seem consistent with any sort of designer. From what little I've read of Kastrup on the subject, I think he says the apparent fine-tuning is at least indicative of non-randomness and thus points toward a consciousness just as it points toward a designer.
My humble notion is that one fundamental attribute of the universal consciousness is creativity and that our reality is essentially a work of art. Long before I'd ever heard of Kastrup, the old saying "Our reality is God's dream" also resonated with me - and it's pretty close to what Kastrup is saying. I've always thought that our own dreams - mine anyway, which are extremely odd and vivid - are a huge and underappreciated clue to the nature of reality. I don't see any of this as inconsistent with Christianity, nor do I insist Christianity is the only model it fits.
That takes some understanding of the fabric of space. It really needs to be drawn (as in pictures) out. On a forum, deniers have some legs because they get it stopped and we can't draw it out. It goes universal when people understand that everything is on a fabric of spacetime. That we are volumes of spacetime that are aware. We become nodes of complexity on this "sheet of existence" so we can classify the sheet using the classifications we have.
"Fine tuned" It is exactly like talking about a molecule in you. The molecule sees the fine tuned system around it and tries to describe that system based on what it knows. That's science. Use what we know to describe what we don't know and see if it matches.
what classifications match? alive, not alive, aware, and here at CD we have to address people knowingly deny everything because they are only here to fight religion. Its just a fact we have to deal with with. They literally are "transponders" (look up the definition). They couldn't care less what the belief is. they are suppressing them ... for the cause.
Your brain is a volume of you that is "aware". The body ids just an input to that volume. Maybe its the same for the universe. Also, our brains are only located in our heads because of the system we are in. If we remover gravity our brains could be spread all over our bodies (like an octopus). Maybe with decided regions for certain tasks.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-05-2021 at 06:28 AM..
There is a traditional Christian doctrine that has solid roots in the Bible. Because I'm a Christian, I don't feel free to rewrite the religion to suit my personal preferences. The most literalist "lake of fire" understanding of the fate of the unsaved may prove to be true. If it does, I trust that I'll understand in the end how this was worthy of and consistent with the nature of the perfectly holy, wise, just and loving God in whom we believe. If it turns out that the biblical passages were hyperbolic and the fate of the unsaved is far less frightening than those passage suggest - well, hallelujah! There are too many passages about judgment and condemnation for me to pretend they aren't there or are the product of a primitive, barbaric mindset. I simply say that the fate of the unsaved is a mystery that is above my pay grade, but in presenting the Gospel message I don't believe it's wise to sugarcoat it - and for the unsaved I think it's far more prudent to take the biblical passages seriously than to hope they don't mean what they seem to say.
Ask yourself, Irkle, how you would explain this natural consequence of wrong thinking and feeling to a small child or primitive mind without it coming across as a judgment and punishment.
To me, I don't go far as aware. "alive" does the fine tuning. Like at the moment of conception the child will walk. But if you were a molecule after inception, there is no indication of that in the first few week.
That and a measurement does it for me.
I knew you were a "born universe" proponent, Arach. I honor your conception with the same plausibility you afford mine. Ask yourself, how far along after its birth event (Big Bang) in its evolution and development would it become aware? Its infancy, toddlerhood, and adolescence would certainly go far to explain the earliest conceptions of God and its interactions. Since it is alive, when and how would it procreate?
Ask yourself, Irkle, how you would explain this natural consequence of wrong thinking and feeling to a small child or primitive mind without it coming across as a judgment and punishment.
Certainly I believe that God dealt with ancient peoples, including the Israelites, in terms appropriate to their level of sophistication and understanding. This is no different from an earthly father explaining sophisticated concepts in simple terms to a child. Much of the OT, I believe, reflects this reality. I likewise have no great difficulty with the notion that the Israelites, having the perspective of a tribal people surrounded by enemies, may have attributed some events to God that were simply mundane historical events.
But by the time of Jesus, we are no longer talking about primitive "ancient ancestors." By the time of Jesus, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and other cultures (including of course the Jews) had very sophisticated and well-established notions of morality. Jesus expressed many fairly sophisticated concepts through parables. When he was talking about judgment and condemnation, however, he was quite clear. He was talking about judgment and condemnation. He wasn't talking about judgment and condemnation as a way to communicate what you mean by "the natural consequence of wrong thinking and feeling." That just makes no sense to me.
If Jesus was who Christians believe he was, he was anything but primitive. His listeners were no more primitive in regard to morals and values than are people today. This attempt to explain away Christianity as the product of "ancient ancestors" driven by ignorance, barbarism and a bicameral mind seems to me a complete fantasy that doesn't mesh with reality at all.
"Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature."
Works for me...
There is hope for you yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
