Confusion...
I am some what confused as to my own philosophy and beliefs... As I do believe in a higher power, a unifying force; inflexive and reflexive or dormant to our actions ;however, more in the sense of fundamental logic. The very existence of something intricate portrays intelligent design - I.E.: the watchmaker cluase... A watch is made for a purpose, a function. A watch works on intricately measured intervals calculating time ;however, a second, a minute, an hour these are psychological phenomena to keep track of how much time has elapsed ,but in all reality they only exist in our consciousness. We can verbally communicate how much time has elapsed becuase we are all aware of a second, a minute, and an hour. Any measurement is an analysis of a finite interval of space, energy, and time in contrast to an object of space, energy, and time. Which leads me to the conclusion that everything is of a whole (I do believe in a higher power, a unifying force; inflexive and reflexive or dormant). That very watch that was made is of tangible substance... Now matter cannot be desolated nor created ,but merely transfigured. Which leads me not only to believe in a higher power ,but to give notice that its a constituent of myself and my environment. These are very logical yet emotionless arguments that supplement a void, a curiousity or a feeling. This is what seperates me and nature from the watch... The watch is only auxiliary and an extension. Nature and Humanity are automated. Yet I am mechanical as is the watch... I have a mind, a body, and the ability to feel. These means that I can rationalize with logic, I can feel pain, and that I can empathize with others.Now a watch has a very distinct function to tell time from the mechanics it operates to fulfill that function. If the mechanics of myself are my mind, my body, and my ability to feel - then what is my function, my purpose? Is it merely to watch others mercilessly struggle through life? To pray and not be heard? I think not... I believe this to be natural dogma! And maybe instead of praying I should do what I can to help my fellow brother. I devour of this planet through my very existence and the sustaining factor of, When I die I give everything back (Only a notion)! Now how is it that I find these conjectures and natural dogma or phenomena without a book to read from or a voice in the sky telling me so? How do I fit in with a theological affiliation? That is of coarse my dillema... Am I as well a Deist?
Inflexive and reflexive or dormant? I do not understand, elaborate.
The fact that the universe is a whole, and we divide it up into smaller parts isn't evidence of a higher power, simply that it is a trait we evolved. You could state that a higher power gave us this trait for a purpose, however there would be no proof of this unless circular logic was used. I can define myself from my surroundings because god gave me that power, I know god exsists because I can define myself from my surroundings. Basically your argument isn't logical at all, but entirely emotional. Which isn't to say that you are wrong, simply groundless.
The whole concept of intelligent design as a proof is logically flawed. Stating that the universe was designed means there is nothing that isn't designed, meaning you have no basis for comparison between a designed object and a non-designed object which does not exist in an entirely designed universe.
That very watch that was made is of tangible substance
As opposed to what? An intangible substance?
This is what seperates me and nature from the watch... The watch is only auxiliary and an extension. Nature and Humanity are automated. Yet I am mechanical as is the watch...
lol wat?
When I die I give everything back
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oIWffDOpGUE
Edited:I'm sorry! I am new to english. I mean no confuscious to you... I just summarize then " I'm trying to state that conscienceness itself is all I need to believe in a higher power as I lack the ability to recreate it yet possess it... I am unable to emulate.".
No offense, but your large vocabulary combined with your poor grammar make your posts difficult to decipher.
I could hardly understand your first post, and find your second post to be incomprehensible.
I am not trying to be insulting, but try to read out loud what you have written before you post it.
Choice is to the "Ghost in the machine"... The machine has no choice ,but must be programae to respond or interact with its environment on preset mathematica. Does that make any sense?
"De Divisione naturea - Johannes Scotus Eriugena"
Reincarnation and equivalent exchange...
It's no problem, I find it impressive if anyone can use more languages than just my one.
Anyways, you say we can't recreate consciousness, but what is consciousness?
You say we have freewill, but what is freewill?
You also said something about humans being one or separate from their environment.
This is dendrophilian, a youtube atheist if you haven't heard of him. Don't assume I necessarily agree with anything he says, I just want your reactions.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ5bUZYsz2I
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SthbQdrxeLw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8ClDbeQ8Vlw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=J_3DvEb78-k
and damn you like to edit your posts :P
"Reincarnation and equivalent exchange..."
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oiYqHPggB7E
That was the funniest thing I've ever seen... He like... Nihilism? He sees no difference between man and machine. Very Hard to compete as to I share a dual aspect with "Da Mechanical Universe"... I guess it is feeling ,but he has established randomness to emotion and logic. Where I suppose I differ is a merely choice. This is interesting... I have to contemplate if I am a by product of my reality or if I am a conscience being.
"I have to contemplate if I am a by product of my reality or if I am a conscience being."
Why can't you be both? Unless you live in a vacuum your consciousness IS a product of reality. Unless you are going to go solipsist and state that reality is a product of consciousness, that you are god and the universe is simply a product of your imagination. Despite the former being more plausible, scientifically you can't prove one over the other without resorting to that fallacious Occam's Razor.
I guess I haven't thought it all quite through... I like Occam's Razor. Its kind of like an algorythm
My problem with it is that it is itself a logical fallacy. Like in appeal to popularity, how popular an idea is has nothing to do with how correct it is. Okham's Razor deals solely with how simple an idea is and has nothing to do with how correct it is.
What I'd replace Okham's Razor with is: all things being equal, means all things are equal, so you can make a choice based on whatever emotion you want.
I can see it being used as the simpler explanation to a problem usually requires a simpler solution, however again convenience does not always equal truth.