Well, I think there is a "creator" or "starter" of everything, because how would anything be here? Now, I'm not some religious nut or I'm not even religious, yet I think something started the universe. However, I don't think this "thing" is a "god" or someone who sees over us. I just think there had to be a start or a "Will" for organisms to strive on. I think "The Will" is the true beginning of the universe and life. But I don't think of it anything like a god, or anything from any religion. It doesn't have an actual "form" but it's just a will that things have to live, and the universe was started out of nothing with "The Will". The will to start, live, come into existance, to survive, thrive and just be. The Will was just a sensation that came from nothing and gave life to everything. I don't know if you understand this () but I think it's logical. Anyone else have the same idea?
yea it is better than believe in some GOD, that created earth.... only.... BUT omg for us , it may sound sadly of course... omg we still can udnerstand some laws of world aroudn us, not yet even on our Planet... NOBOBODY knows wtf is this all.. our mind starts to hurt if we think at large scales like that....i thought also... this black "universe"... no begginign no end ?? how is that possiblee, its our life ? our human mind ? everything ? in this black water, matter ? whats beyond.. whats there ? how did it happedn to turn out like HUmans... somethign that can think and understand and can progress and develop to what we are right now... WOW....
What do you mean by that? What does this mean? If things are really logical it means they can be understood if you understand the rules of the logic. If I tell you that a = b c = a therefore c = b that is a logical proposition that could take the form All men (a) are mortal (b = mortality) socrates (c) is a man (a) therefore socrates (c) is mortal (b) that is propositional logic and is the first logic a philosophy student is taught however your thoughts do not contain such logic unless I can systematically see the logic if I try so I have to ask the queswtions I did IE: What do you mean by that? What does this mean? two propositions and a conclusion is the first hallmark of logic
now i don't want to be putting words in anyone else's mouth but it sounds like Snyfin is sayin that: In order for anything to be able to exist there must be a 'Will' for it to do so. Without this will things would cease to exist. The 'Will' seems like it would embody the essence of life, the strive to survive. From the 'Will' comes everything... you, me, planets, the heavens, etc. It also sounds like that if anything IS then it must want to BE. Because if it didn't want to be anything then it would not have the 'Will' and it would cease to exist. Just my interpretation on what Snyfin was trying to convey. I could be very wrong. To me what you think of in your mind is near what I believe in, The Way, the Universal Integral Truth.
You probably said it better than I thought it. Perfect explanation. You have brought much understanding to my theory!!! Thank You!
Its not consistent enough. You keep refering to this thing called "will", however "will" cannot exist of itself without something that wills - The normal sense of the word "will" implies a mind, a mind implies a sentient existence. Are you merely offering a sort of literal anti-existentialist argument? Existentialists argue that first of all the physical being exists and then asserts its will within the plane of existence. I cannot see how it could be otherwise - there is either a physical being - object - life - that wills, which is simultaneous with the attribute of willing, or there is an attribute with nothing that it relates to like a thought with no-one who thunk it
Snyfin More inclined to believe that 'reality' has always existed. It has no beginning or end. Human desire for beginnings and ends are illogical and based in our short term structural existance. Dont mean the universe we observe..thats just a small and very recent facet of reality. And it is but a 'short term structural entity itself. Your 'will' is what occam would call a 'direction within reality'. A direction or 'will' for greater dynamic structural complexity..the prime example being life within this small facet of reality we call the observable universe. Occam
i'm not so certain this is the case, i have no trouble with considering the possibility of a "thought with no one who thunk it" an implication does NOT in infallibly indicate a requirement i'm not saying there CAN'T have been "someone who thunk it" just a bit less convinced there has to have been. =^^= .../\... i'm pretty much in aggreement with occum's perceptions here too. (i probably could have left off the "pretty much" but i always throw in something of a hedge on the general prinicipal that while there may BE absolute certainties, there is no absolute certainty of anyone accurately perceiving them (this of course includes myself)) =^^= .../\...
So there IS a physical universe in which the will survives? My point entirely, and if "god" exists then god could perhaps be that "will" without a physical representative? No - I'm not buying this, if we take what Occam says to be correct we may as well believe in god. There just seems no evidence that things are as you peoplke are saying, and no evidence that they could be as you are saying. "will" of any kind is only possible because there is a mind to "will" it and that mind is dependent on a physical plane. There is nothing that could possibly lead me to ever think it is possible for a mind to exist without a brain
So there IS a physical universe in which the will survives? My point entirely, and if "god" exists then god could perhaps be that "will" without a physical representative? No - I'm not buying this, if we take what Occam says to be correct we may as well believe in god. There just seems no evidence that things are as you peoplke are saying, and no evidence that they could be as you are saying. "will" of any kind is only possible because there is a mind to "will" it and that mind is dependent on a physical plane. There is nothing that could possibly lead me to ever think it is possible for a mind to exist without a brain Dont get me wrong - I'm not saying hey this is totally dumb - because who really knows what its about? I just wonder what point there would be for a conceptual "will" to exist. If there were no physical plane there would be nothing for the will to have will upon. Maybe I am not understanding this concept but if you are trying to explain how the universe came to exist. Personally I tend to think of it more as a binary number where 0 existed for so long that suddenly there was 1 (how this one came about I dont know) suddenly everything came into being because it could not have been any other way there are only two states - nothing and everything - it wasnt that the everything came into being as much as the nothing ceased to exist. I know - this is hardly science but in the abscence of a scientific explanation.. mine has at least equal plausibility with yours
Columbo Sorry.. was not clear on this point... the 'direction' or 'will' must have physical reality. It cannot be beyond reality or 'supernatural'. Nothing can.. For all that is 'real' exists within reality. And 'real' means...A THING IN ITSELF. Thus, democracy is not real, but leptons are. Beauty is naught but an 'position'. While gravity is a force that is Invariant...We all fall from cliffs at the same acceleration. And a direction or will. MUST be a THING.. either a race or a being. AND evolved. There is no other option. A rational race/being CANNOT just pop into existance. Without 'experience' a 'god' 'race' cannot be. Unless another 'higher race/being created it'....INFINITE REGRESSION> In a reality without beginning or end... such a race/being is a LOGICAL PRODUCT.. And thus our universe is as it is. 'GOD'..wants someone to talk to. Who can argue, hold a contrary position, be a friend. Not some weavel subhuman idiots that either pick HIS WAY or BURN FOREVER.. Occam
well i don't feel the same need for all of reality to be tangable, but rather i do or would feel much safer and more confident in a universe that runs or ran, entirely on automatics then one in which the potential capritiousness of sentinet will played/plays a signifigant roll. just me but i have a much greater trust of inanimate objects then i do of anything awaire of it's own existence. perhapse because i feel and understand the potential for harm of indifference to consiquences, that everything self awaire is to some degree potentialy capable of. assurances to the contrary i don't find very assuring or convincing. only that since we go on existing, if something exists with the potential for terminating that existence, this would seem to suggest it unlikely to wish to. i really see no reason there can't be all sorts of nontangable and tangable things alike, existing without having to, or having to have to. nor any reason they can't and still for us to live in a univers running mostly and thus more or less predictably, on automatics. predictably enough to be able to use that knowledge of that predictability to so govern our own actions as to increase the probability of relative safety. something i don't see a universe subject to sentient will being as or more likely to be able to provide. =^^= .../\...
Themnax.. Remember.. occam said only that such will/direction 'set the rules'. No more. Occam beleives the observable universe [our small part of reality] To be a thing of process by rule// Not a thing intervened in by some nozy parker.. 99.99% of it is inanimate.. we are the .001 Occam
