So I am forced to concede the “This is where it all started” goal of this theory and reformulate a more feasible guiding principle in the statement:, “This is what it all stands on”. I can stand outside at night and gaze up into the stars and accept the next logical conclusionary statement, “This has always been the case in one form or another.” Once I got my head fully wrapped round that possibility it was actually a relief in some unidentifiable way, for me. No need for a creator or a creation. The universe has always existed in some form or another up to this point and may continue to do so for a very, very long time into the future. Thus the foundation for the reality that has emerged within this particular configuration of the universe is to be established independant of a timeline explanation.
Just kind of happy to see someone else reach the same conclusion.
But that is just a possibility, its hypothetical just as God is. Unfortunately the more I think about it the more begrudgingly I have to admit we can never be certain. Try and identify why you feel so relieved as I would like to recreate the same feeling.
Well, my friend, that is a complex request. Before I make the effort I’d like to know something more about you, where you stand on these issues, so to speak. I’m assuming you were once theistic and are now searching for a better positional worldview? I will say this much: My relief was engendered in large part by the conviction that I am free to develop a better foundation than theism or naturalism alone has to offer. It may take me a long time but the quest has rejuvenated my spirit, so to speak. I will be glad to help you anyway I can with the benefit of my meager experience and knowledge of these issues.
You are correct with your assumption in that I was one theistic.
I was a Christian evangelical minister for over ten years…can we say entrenched? The erosion of my faith began in earnest after a discussion with a Calvinist who challenged me to revisit the bible and consider the many scriptures that supported his doctrinal view of a God that is a puppetmaster, predestinated future already determined God. Once I saw this I shifted my faith to science, empiricism and naturalism. What choice did I have. I could not, in good conscious, continue to trumpet a foundation whose door was not open to everyone. If God had already decided, before the foundation of the world, who would be chosen…the “elect” as Jesus called them…well, I just have too much love for humanity to serve such a creature.
So for years empirical sciences and naturalism became my foundation, and I approached it with the same vigor and thirst for knowledge and understanding as I gave to theism…only to learn how shaky this foundation is, on its own merits, as well. Don’t get me wrong, it’s foundation, shaky as it is, is far more stable than theism…but it is plagued with incompleteness and, from what I’m seeing now, its prophets and ministers are creating theories that far out distance their capacity to confirm or verify…and are eroding the psychological gains made by naturalism in the process.
On reflection and thought I realized I had no concrete foundation for my certainty in that there was a deity or all the necessary attributes and . Since then I’ve tried to find some sort of certainty on the matter.
Let me respond by saying this: Absolute CERTAINTY is unobtainable and unrealistic, for what you are asking is equivalent to omniscience. There will always be a shadow of doubt and that is a good thing. Always keep your sceptical antennae tuned and sensitive. On a personal note, I feel your pain and angst. Don’t worry, it won’t last. You will find your direction and pursue it with all your intellectual accuity. I appreciate your candor. You are a fine specimen of human sentience. It is likely the case that the foundation of Naturalism is just one more foundation in a potentially long and progressive number of such foundations. I am beginning to see them as stepping stones of man’s historical journey into the stars. Thus foundations may be as infinitely progressive as they are infinitely regressive. As our wider body of knowledge increases our foundations will have to be adjusted to accomodate. You are standing on the edge of a crumbling foundation looking for solid ground and a direction. Don’t loiter too long. Stepping off that foundation will require an almost equal amount of faith as it took to get there. OMS law number 9.
I’m not sure what you mean by better, but I just always wanted the truth. I wasn’t concerned with what that meant, if it was true it had to be accepted. After all this time I’m now beginning to wonder if acquiring ‘the truth’ and certainty may just be a fantasy.
There is some truth in every foundation, else it wouldn’t have served its builders purposes. Leaving behind a foundation does not necessitate leaving behind its essential truths. Take them with you. Those ancient Caananites had the right idea, in the sense man requires a foundation…they just had to improvise, considering their sheer lack of access to the tools and knowledge we have today. But they certainly had an amazing insight into human behavior. There are aspects of the Bible, and most any religious text, that contain essential truths about man. It’s always when they wander over into defining their deity that you begin to loose the foundational aspect of their journey. They had the right idea…man must have a foundation…but they made the same classical mistake we are all susceptible to making. They looked around at all the splendor and beauty of their world and saw extreme complexity and ASSUMED its progenator must therefore be even tenfold more complex. They had no choice but to create a Progenator. We have a choice. A progenator, in the sense they understood such a thing, need not progenate nor does it need to be supercomplex. Empirical science has shown us how, with only a few light elements and a thermal manipulation over time, you will see an almost infinite number of complex things, systems and patterns emerge. Therefore, doesn’t it make more sense to establish a foundation that is the lowest common denominator…rather than the greatest?
I started a thread some few days back in this forum entitled the “god theory”. It is time for me to add somewhat to this project so I may as well do so now:
In order to connect the dots between OMS and the universe as the incubator of our reality I must first devise a working model of the universe. In as much as I have postulated the emergent qualities of the universe are in contra-distinction to OMS attributes, if I can devise a workable model of the universe consistent with this contra-distinction I have taken one step towards validating the existence of OMS. I must start with the most current observationally supported theoretics relative to current models of the universe. There are many such models and all of them have some basis in empirical observation but none of them are complete or have been demonstratively efficient in predicting future observations. Let’s establish some basic postulates to guide us in the development of this model.
1.Emergent properties of the universe are contra-distinctive to OMS attributes.
(a.) By contra-distinctive I mean in polar opposition to one another.
This observation about our reality is crucial and requires elaboration to facilitate understanding. This is the foundation of this theory and the philosophical guide to comprehension. There are IDEALS and there are REALITIES. There are ABSOLUTES and there are RELATIVES. All IDEALS have polar opposites. All REALITIES are measurable increments of these IDEALS in polar opposition to one another. All ABSOLUTES have polar opposites. All RELATIVES are defined in relation to their perceived distance to/from their ABSOLUTE. Both ABSOLUTES and IDEALS are mental constructs. If we can empirically establish their logical possibility, that is all that is needed to do science and develop theories. They may not actually exist independently of the sentient observer, but if they have an independent referent outside the mind, that is enough to establish their necessity.
For example, light and darkness. These are represented both as ideal and real. Light is the primary ideal. Dark is its polar opposite. Our measuring systems between these two ideals are based on light. Luminosity, brightness, etc. Our realities are therefor always somewhere twixt these two ideals. It is always helpful to establish a fixed measurement of the IDEAL but it is not necessary to do so to still function in reality. The IDEAL light would be the brightest most luminous light attainable. Thus, the IDEAL dark would be in polar opposition. But our REALITY lies somewhere between, so we devise systems of measurement, candlewatts and so forth to establish the RELATIVE distance from/to these IDEALS.
IDEALS are ABSOLUTE. REALITIES are RELATIVE to the IDEAL which is ABSOLUTE. Every functional system within our universe/reality is based on this philosophical premise. Our morals, science, politics, economies, cultures, classification systems, even our histories reflect this DUALISTIC philosophical premise. It is in the search for our HISTORIES that we discover/observe factors about our REALITY that lead to the devising of the IDEAL and/or ABSOLUTE. Science is seeking the ABSOLUTE starting place of our histories. It is a fruitless search. There is the PAST and there is potentially the FUTURE and then there is the present REALITY which is propelled into the future by past MOMENTUM.
This theory is designed to establish a FOUNDATION, not an historical timeline. I postulate an infinite regress of histories, based on an eternal OMS/UNIVERSE duality. No beginning. No creation.
Now, let’s begin to assemble a model of our universe/reality that corresponds with contra-distinction to OMS attributes.