On the previous post.
- Corrected some spelling errors. (E.g. "superseeded" instead of superceded - don't know where the torrent lingo came from, but am a phonetic speller: so NL fit me just right despite regular changes to spelling rules, but English is a nightmare when typing without thinking.)
Just to be pedantic. Rewrite to:
The Gods of the heathenisms are to be known. They will not be known (or "revealed" to the public/to scrutiny) by science, I more than merely suspect. <...>
REINSERT:
In leaving out a huge chunk, unintentionally excised an important part:
<Context: The heathen Gods - at least of 2 heathenisms, very possibly of more - are real. What is said about [the nature of] these Gods and their relation to the universe by those to whom these Gods have revealed themselves - e.g. Hindu Rishis, Taoist sages - can therefore be considered as a possibility until disproven. Some part of which are more than a possibility, since some of what has been stated by these heathenisms about their heathen Gods and about the universe is known to be a fact, demonstrated to traditional heathens during their ritual practices.> Working from such a background - of a body of views with much that is valid/can be validated by heathen individuals - the heathens therefore base themselves on the reasonable working assumption that the relation between the real Gods of heathenism and the questionmarks regarding the universe is also as described in heathenism. It is *here* that science is useful in "proving" (a degree of) something about heathenism: in that there exists a decent mapping between the universe as revealed by physics/science and the universe as revealed by heathenism, e.g. Taoism (and actually also Hindoo religion, though the proof for Hindoo cosmology is...'tarred' by the non-independence from physics cosmology, as argued in the final posts in the previous page. But can perhaps use Taoism as independent validation of Hindu religion: the bigger picture of Taoist cosmology is validated by physics. From a bird's eye view, Taoist cosmological views [and Shinto too, from indication] are similar to Hindu cosmological views in exactly those very features that have 'parallels' in physics. While this is not exactly "QED" for Hindu religion, it seems reasonable to imagine that Taoism can be used as a fair connector between Hindu religion and physics, because Taoism is - as far as I'm aware - independent of both, not having influenced or been influenced by either physics or Hindu cosmology to any significant or known extent, at least in the matters concerned. Plus the details of Taoist cosmology are sufficiently and significantly different from the Hindu one as to make influence unlikely).
And on this:
Specifically, the physicists' argument is: we (humans) are able to contemplate the universe only because the laws in our particular universe coincidentally made life [consciousness] in it - like that of ours - possible. Whereas life may not be possible in any number of other universes and which hence did not there give rise to any intelligence contemplating it and (concluding by default) what a "miracle" their universe is.
Besides, life evolved to fit the universe a.o.t. the universe having being fine-tuned "in anticipation" to fit the eventual appearance of life in it. So it's a bit insane to say that it's a "miracle" that the universe is fine-tuned to our life.
That is, at least as per what's known with certainty in science: life evolved according to the possibilties in our universe, which possibilities are governed by the natural=physical laws of this universe. <- To make my argument apparent, here's an analogy: To say that it's "nothing short of a miracle" that the oxygen and pressure levels are "just right" for us on our part of the planet, is to reverse the actual state/reality of the world: we are adapted to our environment. The environment did not adapt to us nor was it created [to become] "just right" so that humans etc could evolve to live in it.
That is, the conditions for life on the planet are not a "miracle". They existed - for a duration of time, as part of larger long-term changes. And so we/life on earth arose as a possible consequence of those conditions. I.e. coincidence, in combination with subsequent inevitable natural processes. That's *all* people are going to be able to prove. We (as in: all life on the planet) evolved to fit our world, and its changing conditions, many of our species extincting along the way when then-prevailing conditions were all wrong.
So, yes, many an extant species would extinct if the atmospheric pressure levels or oxygen levels were significantly different, unless given enough time to evolve and adapt to the change in conditions. But the presence of the (currently) suitable conditions themselves - which conditions we suited ourselves to and not the other way around - do NOT point to the existence of 'gawd' behind everything being "just right" for all of us who live on the planet today. Else why not argue that gawd fortuitously made the dinos extinct just so us mammals can dominate and humans can take over? <- Such excuses are inane. Millions of years from now when mammals have dodo-ed... what will be the new argument? More pre-destination? And when life on earth becomes impossible, will it be a great disappointment? <- Because *that* is pre-destination - that is the destiny of the solar system and the universe - but destined by physical laws, not requiring "gawd did it" arguments. The universe can reasonably be argued as a self-contained system in a larger self-contained system of universes.
Some planets, throughout their existence, can't harbour life - life as we know it (i.e. water-dependent life-forms), because they just don't have water and never had it or never had it long enough or other factors weren't conducive for the planet to make the most of it. (Water is the single common factor underpinning all life-forms that we know of.) As a result, life did not evolve on certain planets (or perhaps extincted there), whereas life did evolve on earth and continues to abound here. Using a similar line of reasoning, it becomes conceivable that some universes might not give rise to life - as we'd know or recognise or understand it. ['Consciousness' is harder to state anything about, since it is still somewhat a mystery to science. One can be all Shinto and see 'essence of existence' in all things animate and inanimate, and hence also in all universes and their constituents, but for this discussion am sticking to what science can tell us or has proposed thus far.]
One can therefore argue very reasonably that the presence of life in this universe does NOT imply let alone prove a "miracle" of the "gawd did it" variety. (Though the Gods yet originated it All or govern its ordering/functioning - as per various heathenisms.) Like life on earth just happened to pan out, whereas it didn't (or else peetered out) on some other planets out there somewhere, similarly, things just happened to work out well in our universe, which events made it possible for us all to exist - from cyanobacteria to their relatives: cabbages and kings.
Ockam's razor. Pure Coincidence. No unnecessary=extra variables. Prove it wrong.
Can't scientifically prove/reveal the Gods. Isn't Tirobhavam one of the main features of Parabrahmam?* The Gods are to be known but are known by other means. And heathens can know them (that's where heathen practices come in), but they tend to do so individually.
* Ancient heathens (elsewhere too) considered this one of the great mysteries and the purpose was to unravel it on an individual basis.
- Corrected some spelling errors. (E.g. "superseeded" instead of superceded - don't know where the torrent lingo came from, but am a phonetic speller: so NL fit me just right despite regular changes to spelling rules, but English is a nightmare when typing without thinking.)
Quote:The Gods of the heathenisms are to be known. They will not be known by science, I more than merely suspect. <Leaving out a lot of further monologuing that I'd typed out.>
Just to be pedantic. Rewrite to:
The Gods of the heathenisms are to be known. They will not be known (or "revealed" to the public/to scrutiny) by science, I more than merely suspect. <...>
REINSERT:
In leaving out a huge chunk, unintentionally excised an important part:
<Context: The heathen Gods - at least of 2 heathenisms, very possibly of more - are real. What is said about [the nature of] these Gods and their relation to the universe by those to whom these Gods have revealed themselves - e.g. Hindu Rishis, Taoist sages - can therefore be considered as a possibility until disproven. Some part of which are more than a possibility, since some of what has been stated by these heathenisms about their heathen Gods and about the universe is known to be a fact, demonstrated to traditional heathens during their ritual practices.> Working from such a background - of a body of views with much that is valid/can be validated by heathen individuals - the heathens therefore base themselves on the reasonable working assumption that the relation between the real Gods of heathenism and the questionmarks regarding the universe is also as described in heathenism. It is *here* that science is useful in "proving" (a degree of) something about heathenism: in that there exists a decent mapping between the universe as revealed by physics/science and the universe as revealed by heathenism, e.g. Taoism (and actually also Hindoo religion, though the proof for Hindoo cosmology is...'tarred' by the non-independence from physics cosmology, as argued in the final posts in the previous page. But can perhaps use Taoism as independent validation of Hindu religion: the bigger picture of Taoist cosmology is validated by physics. From a bird's eye view, Taoist cosmological views [and Shinto too, from indication] are similar to Hindu cosmological views in exactly those very features that have 'parallels' in physics. While this is not exactly "QED" for Hindu religion, it seems reasonable to imagine that Taoism can be used as a fair connector between Hindu religion and physics, because Taoism is - as far as I'm aware - independent of both, not having influenced or been influenced by either physics or Hindu cosmology to any significant or known extent, at least in the matters concerned. Plus the details of Taoist cosmology are sufficiently and significantly different from the Hindu one as to make influence unlikely).
And on this:
Quote:Hawking's famous comment - that humans are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet (but that we are fortunate enough to understand the universe) - can be extrapolated: that just as life need not exist on every planet of our universe (or even our solar system, as far as we know at present), likewise one can suspect that life or some form of sentience need not be possible in every universe, but there may be universes that coincidentally evolve in such a manner as to make life or some form of sentience possible (and that in some of these universes, life is further an actuality). And this is exactly what Hawking (and many another hardcore western physicist) has argued for about our universe at least: that it is the Pure Coincidence of the laws of physics in our universe being conducive to life that have consequently led to life in our universe (whereas laws of physics in any number of other universes need not have been). I.e. Pure Coincidence. No introduction of extra variables like creator entities.
Specifically, the physicists' argument is: we (humans) are able to contemplate the universe only because the laws in our particular universe coincidentally made life [consciousness] in it - like that of ours - possible. Whereas life may not be possible in any number of other universes and which hence did not there give rise to any intelligence contemplating it and (concluding by default) what a "miracle" their universe is.
Besides, life evolved to fit the universe a.o.t. the universe having being fine-tuned "in anticipation" to fit the eventual appearance of life in it. So it's a bit insane to say that it's a "miracle" that the universe is fine-tuned to our life.
That is, at least as per what's known with certainty in science: life evolved according to the possibilties in our universe, which possibilities are governed by the natural=physical laws of this universe. <- To make my argument apparent, here's an analogy: To say that it's "nothing short of a miracle" that the oxygen and pressure levels are "just right" for us on our part of the planet, is to reverse the actual state/reality of the world: we are adapted to our environment. The environment did not adapt to us nor was it created [to become] "just right" so that humans etc could evolve to live in it.
That is, the conditions for life on the planet are not a "miracle". They existed - for a duration of time, as part of larger long-term changes. And so we/life on earth arose as a possible consequence of those conditions. I.e. coincidence, in combination with subsequent inevitable natural processes. That's *all* people are going to be able to prove. We (as in: all life on the planet) evolved to fit our world, and its changing conditions, many of our species extincting along the way when then-prevailing conditions were all wrong.
So, yes, many an extant species would extinct if the atmospheric pressure levels or oxygen levels were significantly different, unless given enough time to evolve and adapt to the change in conditions. But the presence of the (currently) suitable conditions themselves - which conditions we suited ourselves to and not the other way around - do NOT point to the existence of 'gawd' behind everything being "just right" for all of us who live on the planet today. Else why not argue that gawd fortuitously made the dinos extinct just so us mammals can dominate and humans can take over? <- Such excuses are inane. Millions of years from now when mammals have dodo-ed... what will be the new argument? More pre-destination? And when life on earth becomes impossible, will it be a great disappointment? <- Because *that* is pre-destination - that is the destiny of the solar system and the universe - but destined by physical laws, not requiring "gawd did it" arguments. The universe can reasonably be argued as a self-contained system in a larger self-contained system of universes.
Some planets, throughout their existence, can't harbour life - life as we know it (i.e. water-dependent life-forms), because they just don't have water and never had it or never had it long enough or other factors weren't conducive for the planet to make the most of it. (Water is the single common factor underpinning all life-forms that we know of.) As a result, life did not evolve on certain planets (or perhaps extincted there), whereas life did evolve on earth and continues to abound here. Using a similar line of reasoning, it becomes conceivable that some universes might not give rise to life - as we'd know or recognise or understand it. ['Consciousness' is harder to state anything about, since it is still somewhat a mystery to science. One can be all Shinto and see 'essence of existence' in all things animate and inanimate, and hence also in all universes and their constituents, but for this discussion am sticking to what science can tell us or has proposed thus far.]
One can therefore argue very reasonably that the presence of life in this universe does NOT imply let alone prove a "miracle" of the "gawd did it" variety. (Though the Gods yet originated it All or govern its ordering/functioning - as per various heathenisms.) Like life on earth just happened to pan out, whereas it didn't (or else peetered out) on some other planets out there somewhere, similarly, things just happened to work out well in our universe, which events made it possible for us all to exist - from cyanobacteria to their relatives: cabbages and kings.
Ockam's razor. Pure Coincidence. No unnecessary=extra variables. Prove it wrong.
Can't scientifically prove/reveal the Gods. Isn't Tirobhavam one of the main features of Parabrahmam?* The Gods are to be known but are known by other means. And heathens can know them (that's where heathen practices come in), but they tend to do so individually.
* Ancient heathens (elsewhere too) considered this one of the great mysteries and the purpose was to unravel it on an individual basis.