Atreyu wrote:Spectrum wrote:In your,
"the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being)"
you need to analyze the elements above in detail.
1. The Universe
The 'Universe' is generally a scientific concept verifiable only within the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, limitations, assumptions, various process and consensus by Peer Review.
So when you used the term 'Universe' it is at best a polished conjecture.
To rely on a scientific concept 'the Universe' and assert it is a sentient being [as defined above] without proof is too far-fetched.
..
Your thesis with the above holes is not tenable.
Basic errors in red.
The idea of the "Universe" can exist outside the boundaries of science. It can be a philosophical idea, and was one long before modern science existed. The idea of "Everything" did not begin with the Enlightenment. Men have been thinking about, and defining, the Universe outside of science for eons. In fact, ever since man could think about it. So you are quite wrong that the idea of thinking of Everything existing as a sort of whole (Universe) is a scientific idea. It's not a theory. It's an idea, a concept, and that is all that is required in philosophy.
What is generally understood as the 'Universe' is [see Wiki or elsewhere for more details];
Wiki wrote:The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.
Point is whatever ideas of the Universe before Science and before the discovery of the telescope, most were never justifiable and on hindsight very unreliable. Note the case of the Flat Earth, geocentric -Sun move over the Earth.
Note a philosophical proposition in general is more demanding than a proof for a scientific theory. This is why we have Philosophy of Science which oversee Science.
If you present a philosophical proposition with reference to the Universe, you must start from the empirical proofs as a base and speculate therefrom, e.g. the Big Bang Theory.
If you use 'philosophical idea' literally, then such an idea is without any empirical basis and this is merely a speculated illusion. Here is what Kant demonstrated with solid arguments on what are 'philosophical ideas' [read it carefully];
Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [reference to philosophical ideas re God, soul, whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They [reference to philosophical ideas re God, soul, whole Universe] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397
There could be no proof that the Universe is sentient. What proof could there be? The idea cannot be verified or disproved empirically. Again, it's not a theory, so it's not science. It's a philosophical idea, and this is a philosophy board. This isn't a science board. In philosophy, we are not constrained in our ideas by the principles of empiricism.
And, at any rate, the idea is hardly "far fetched". IMO, I think what is really far-fetched is thinking that the Universe is merely a gigantic collection of mindless and mechanical matter and energy, in which, somehow, through very strange, esoteric, and inexplicable processes, arose life, awareness, intelligence, and consciousness, up to the level that we ourselves can ponder the reason for our existence.
Nothing is more far-fetched than many current scientific models, including abiogenesis, as well as the general idea that "mindless" and "dead" matter can suddenly become aware and alive solely due to a series of physical and chemical processes, particularly when it has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory.
Note the meaning of 'sentient,'
- sentient
able to perceive or feel things.
synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive
In a way you are assigning 'agency' to a Universe that is capable of perception, feel things, consciousness, etc. This is what is far-fetched without any grounding at all.
Point is how far do you want to go with such 'agency' capabilities. It is in direction that you [when push with limits] will ultimately end up with an absolutely perfect agent, i.e. God.
IMO, I think what is really far-fetched is thinking that the Universe is merely a gigantic collection of mindless and mechanical matter and energy, in which, somehow, through very strange, esoteric, and inexplicable processes, arose life, awareness, intelligence, and consciousness, up to the level that we ourselves can ponder the reason for our existence.
I had not agreed to the above. Why should I believe primarily in the above that you are throwing at me.
There are many other viable explanations for the 'meaning of life'.
I believe reality is a Spontaneous Emergent Reality and my 'empirical self' [not the I AM] exists to 'dance' interdependently in complementarity within such an emergent Reality.
While we note the past and future in mind, what is of focus is living dynamically and optimally in the 'NOW.'
-- Updated Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:05 pm to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:My thesis why theists jump hastily and take the leap to conclude God exists as the ground of all things is purely psychological similar to what Hume had explained with Induction.
I know what your thesis is, but for psychological reasons, it’s based on hope rather than rational thought. You can’t bear the idea that you might be wrong and so cling mightily to the notion that God must be what YOU think he must be — a being alongside other beings.
Where did I say God "must be — a being alongside other beings."
I have proven in this OP, God is an Impossibility to be real, thus a non-starter & moot for any consideration of God within reality.
Note we are in a philosophical discussion which entails critical thinking [which you have not displayed], defending one's hypothesis and if anyone can prove I am wrong convincingly, I will accept it.
-- Updated Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:50 pm to add the following --
Some point to the above;
There are a range of gods within polytheism.
Note the point I brought up, i.e. the idea of God is inherent and has naturally evolved from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Those who are into polytheism are in a way ignorant and grabbed what that came and by cultural and traditions many are still stuck to it at present.
Given the rational choice, theists will rationally adopt a progressively greater God that will ultimate be an absolutely perfect God. This is why 5.4 billion theists are believing in a monotheistic God and the progress will ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.
I have stated, an absolutely perfect God is the ultimate because when cornered no theist will accept their God to be dominated by another. The theists' natural progression to avoid one's God being dominated will lead one to an absolutely perfect God with an optimism that such a God is real. No theists will concede to accept their God has to kiss the ass of another.
If any theist were to postulate an anthropomorhic God, which is empirically based, I agree such an empirically based God is empirically possible. But such possibility would be extremely negligible. To prove such a God, all one need to to bring the verifiable and justifiable evidence. The limitation of the empirically-based God is there will always be a greater empirical God than the one that is claimed.
So whatever empirical God a theist claim, another will claim another empirical God is greater and this culminate in an infinite regression.
To avoid an infinite regression and kissing the ass of another God, it is only logical that the smarter thinker theists had introduced an absolutely perfect God than which no other God can be greater in perfection. This is St. Anselm's definition of an ontological God.
There is no other way for a thinking theist to get out of the above dilemma of infinite regression and having to kiss the ass of another God than to resort to an absolute perfect God.
When a theist claims;
"my God is a Being than which no greater in perfection can exists"
it give no room for another God to dominate it nor command the lesser god to kiss his ass.
Ultimately all educated and thinking theists will end up with an absolutely perfect God [the default definition of what is a God].
But I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real, i.e. empirically + rationally real because absolute perfection [as argued] is impossible to be real.
