Take this jar of mayonnaise. It exists as an independent object. What constitutes its existence? It exists as the sum of its attributes:>it has a mass>it has a volume >it has a shape >it has an opacity>it has spacial locality>it has temporal locality>it consists of certain parts>it has independent permanenceRemove any single defining attribute from the object and the object no longer exists. Remove its shape, it stops existing. Remove its mass, it stops existing. Remove its locality, it stops existing. The jar of mayonnaise exists only as long as all its constituent attributes are present. The relative permanence and immutability of the jar of mayonnaise is independent of individual observations; the information itself is substantive. Matter is a phenomenal reality that derives from the fundamental informational reality. Material objects therefore exist as amalgams of local information packets in a non-local universal substrate. By the nature of pure information, being experiential rather than empirical, we can (and must) conclude that the substance of that non local substrate is consciousness. By the endurance of objects outside of human observation, and by the universality of physical laws, we can then deduce that the consciousness sustaining all reality is not our own personal minds. There then must be one universal, self-existent, absolute, eternal mind, in which and by whom all our separate lives and experiences occur.By correspondence to our own experience as conscious agents, we can infer that the universal mind is active and personal, rather than static and impersonal. The reality of a jar of mayonnaise thereby proves the existence of the personal creator God.
>>18245994Only the physical phenomena endures. If the next person thinks it's something else, they don't receive the correct information from on high. That said, God is real because the word God has always referred to real things. It's a critical concept for understanding the universe from a lay point of view and even more important to spirituality. Look at east asia: without monotheism, there's no higher moral authority than the state. Even if you have strong tribal loyalties there's no language to defend them. This is not morally correct. At the end of the day, human decisionmakers are limited by their individuality and their human error, which secular science can only express as a probability. The correct way to talk about these issues is by saying only God knows the whole truth, which means NO human knows the whole truth. That's true with my vast understanding of 21st century secular science and it's true even when associated with science deniers and god-botherers. They are speaking the truth to their congregations, if you don't like it that's your problem. Very few can articulate transcendence and human insignificance without reference to God, so why bother? In the future, that may be called a "can" of mayo instead of a "jar". Nonetheless, it's a jar by our definition and we're not deluded for thinking so.
>>18246011Subjective attributes don’t delineate the existence of the jar of mayonnaise. You can call it whatever you’d like and it still exists physically. The attributes that define its existence are the objective ones, like it’s mass—you could come up with any unit to measure the mass, it doesn’t change the mass.
>>18246020looks like a kickball to me
>>18245994I mean yeah it's basically a big jar of fat but think about the complex processes required to turn it from its bare component parts into a big jar of fat. That's the sauce for me anon. The profound nature of each step, because no matter how small the jar of fat ends up being in the scope of all existence, it still exists with intention. Pretty neat.
>>18246024humanistic intention, but somehow bigger than any one man. So weird! It's as though some kind of unseen hand were behind it, inexpressible.
>>18246022You can call it a kickball if you’d like. Doesn’t affect the thing’s objective existence. I call it “slop that people only pretend to enjoy on burgers when they want to gaslight me.”
>>18246026I love mayoposting
>>18246027The information doesn't determine any of those qualities, they're physical. The pattern that produced it was carried in human minds, not an exo-consciousness.
>>18245994Your argument rests on a fallacy of composition: just because the jar’s existence depends on a bundle of attributes doesn’t mean the entire universe’s existence requires a conscious mind. Those attributes arise naturally from impersonal physical laws.>>18246011None of your points prove God exists, they’re all false or irrelevant. The word God has often referred to things people later realized weren’t real, like Zeus. Also, non-monotheistic societies like Confucian East Asia have robust moral systems without a divine authority.
>>18246035Intention is the question really. Mayonnaise doesn't spontaneously occur in any given system, it emerges from the conscious will of people mixing eggs and oil together. The processing and canning of it too are also not spontaneously occurring things. If dressing does not occur spontaneously then I would say it's a fairly safe assumption that the mind which decided to mix eggs and oil together did not occur spontaneously. Maybe rejecting spontaneity is a weak point of this reasoning though, maybe spontaneity is an integral part or maybe spontaneity is just what we call reasoning beyond our own. The real fun is just sitting around and thinking about mayonnaise.
>>18246041>naturally>from physical lawsAnd that nature and those laws are information. You’re asserting the law of gravity has some unique property of realness that the mass of a jar of mayonnaise lacks, and you aren’t elaborating on the difference. Information isn’t the measurement, it’s the thing being measured. The law of gravity exists regardless of whether humans are around to write a formula describing it.
>>18246041Paganism is true too when believed. It's a different interpretation of the world, or in the case of ancient greece, virtually the only interpretation. Calling them religious lunatics because they didn't understand electricity is deliberate mistranslation. And confucian morals give more submission to authority, not less.
>>18246058The law of gravity is just a pattern in the same mindless physical reality as the mayo jar and there's zero reason that reality must be information sustained by a consciousness. It can just exist on its own, with laws describing how it works, not requiring a mind to hold it together. You're shifting the question back without showing why mind has to be the foundation instead of matter.>>18246061No, pagan gods weren't true when believed, that's just appeal to belief, and we've ditched tons of them for better explanations. Ancients weren't lunatics, they were just wrong about divine causes. And Confucianism isn't about more submission, it stresses personal virtue and reciprocity as higher ideals, often justifying criticism or even rebellion against immoral rulers, all without needing a god.
>>18246071"an eye for an eye" is no basis for a higher moral imperative.As for appeals to belief, that is what we're talking about. Beliefs about how the world works. Pagans had a human personification for everything, if that's even "worse" than secularism it's clearly an intermediate step that people needed to take in order to achieve understanding. It would be one thing if God were a physical phenomenon, but the whole issue concerns belief and perception. It's a way of thinking.
It's only since I've started journaling that I've begun to understand to philosophy more in depth. I'm still far away from being at the point where I can seamlessly tie together logic and philosophy into a coherent, systematized argument, but I conceptually understand the appeal in a way I did not before. I like the philosophy posting here, it is nice.
>>18246071>It can just exist on its ownNo it cannot. The object is its size, shape, mass, location, time of existence, and all other defining attributes combined. You can’t have an atomistic “little balls inside littler balls” universe without assigning locality and temporality to the balls. Attributes are what independently exist, while the existence of matter is dependent on the attributes. “Existence” and “non-existence” themselves are attributes. The laws of nature are real because they have the attribute of “existence.” Attributes don’t become real when a living human observes and describes them. They pre-exist and are independent of the observation. What becomes real during an observation is the phenomenal reality of the jar of mayonnaise, i.e. your ability to describe it. Seeing the jar didn’t cause it to become real. You are observing the intersection of the attributes that make the jar real. The physicality of the jar is phenomenal, while the attributes that make it observably physical are purely informational.
>>18246081'An eye for an eye' isn't Confucianism's higher imperative, its core is benevolence and the Golden Rule, a universal ethic of empathy that's deeper than mere retaliation. Also pagan personifications weren't a necessary intermediate step to truth, that's just shoehorning history to fit your narrative.
>>18246098You’re treating attributes as if they can exist on their own and then claiming matter depends on them, but that reverses the actual dependency. Mass, shape, location, and time don’t float free as independently existing 'informational' entities, they are abstractions we use to describe physical systems. Information and laws are descriptions of how matter behaves, not things that assemble reality or require a mind to sustain them. Nothing in physics or metaphysics shows that matter needs attributes, laws, or consciousness as a separate foundation in order to exist.
>>18245994It’s amusing to watch fervent atheists stumble as they try to argue their way out of this.
>>18246103They were and still are today, given that everything said about God has some real purpose. It's true the same way any communicated knowledge is true, it imparts true information about life and society. It's always the audience's choice to reject or try to understand the language being used. Do unto others because God said so is equivalent, in many ways superior to saying Confucius dictated this. Confucius isn't in the room either, and his work only unmasked a tiny corner of the truth. It wasn't whole truth.
>>18246124Not OP but I think philosophy isn't necessarily a tool to prove or disprove anything in certain terms, especially something that is of a higher nature like God. It is entertaining to think about proofs for God given a unique framework, but there are most likely arguments that run counter or parallel. I think what is interesting about philosophy is the observation of the pure form as it is constructed with in the mind of a thinker. You can have two people with equations that never intersect yet neither would necessarily be wrong even if both completely disagreed with one another.
>>18246154Something tells me this is your go-to deflection whenever you encounter an argument that’s too complex or convincing to refute.
>>18246162To be clear I agree with the OP in as much as I fully grasp the terminology. I haven't studied philosophy as much as I would like to. I realize it's not common anymore to comment on things without there being some intention to dispute or undermine, but that was my not my intention.
>>18246172Anymore? Agreement fundamentally neutralizes the conversation. We have to disagree somewhat just to keep talking. :^)
>>18246175I guess I would wonder if you disagree with what I said.
>>18246172I’m relieved to encounter such a well-mannered, like-minded person in this Wild West–esque corner of the internet.
>>18246183I'm NTA sorry. We were arguing earlier about God
>>18246183>>18246191In response to your post, the one I think you're referring to, philosophy is primarily interested in predicting the future just like secular science. The predictive aspect of science is stronger, but you can also have the most cutting-edge philosophy.
>>18246198I feel like the predictive part of philosophy is in some respects its weakest part, but science is even weaker in those respects. Funnily enough I think history is probably the most predictive field of study but again only in abstract terms.
>>18246189thank you anon
