I must add that this is something I have not given much thought, but if you were to ask me to, I would go for the sudden popping into existence. — StarsFromMemory

Voila! Just like magic.

That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame.

Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. As time allows for one moments to be followed by another moment. Imagine time not occurring, so everything is frozen and still. Thinking about this we can tell that this can not give birth to time. So time is timeless. Which makes absolutely no sense. (If there’s an discrepancy then help me out pls)

Voila! Just like magic.

That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame. — Gnomon

Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time ("a brief history of time"). The problem with this oversimplification is the amount of information is still very lacking. Its not so much that we shouldn't very much embrace science, however we should understand that scientists are not wizards and their abilities to know causes are finite. A 100 years ago what is considered true might very well change drastically. Stephen Hawkings actually would have told you that the premise of turtles upon infinite turtles isn't as silly as many people would like to assume (counter-intuititve) ("a brief history of time")

Some physicists will say for matter to pop into existence there needs to be a positive and negative matter/energy created at the same time — christian2017

Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory is a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.

That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required. :smile:

Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. — Leviosa

That rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time. It doesn't apply to the creator of space-time. As space-time creatures, we don't know what the rules are for spaceless-timeless existence. But I think the ancient Greeks had the right idea in their myth of Cosmos from Chaos. Chaos was not a real space-time thing, but only infinite Potential : creative power. It was metaphysical, not physical. This is inherently a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact. :smile:

Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.

That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required. :smile: — Gnomon

Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up.

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

This has been a fascinating discussion, with many of my favourite posters and some newbies - I’m bummed that I slept through most of it...

So it seems that either the universe was created, or it popped into existence out of nothing. But what if both were true?

If you’re only aware of what is actually occurring in time, then it would certainly seem to you as if the universe popped into existence out of nothing. If there must be an actual cause, then I imagine you’d be stumped. And there are certainly some posters here who have proposed that we simply don’t have enough information... yet.

If, however, you acknowledge the potential of timeless, formless (unobservable/unmeasurable) existence, then it seems that this timeless, formless existence (whatever it is perceived as) likely ‘created’ the actual four-dimensional universe in which we operate, and in which cause and effect can then be observed/measured.

There appears to be two assumptions made throughout these discussions that I’d like to clear up:

The first is that an intelligent creator is a being that is separate from the actual four-dimensional universe it creates. A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever.

The second is that intelligence = knowledge, when it is only a capacity or potential for knowledge. So there need not be any actual knowledge in existence prior to creation. In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation.

There is also moderation and exploitation (perhaps a better word) to consider on this topic.

Per se, if war put some humans in a very bad place, can the moderation cause our Sun to explode or fritz out to a degree?

You would think it would have gained control of the universe after the big bang.

Otherwise what is it's point to it?

Or it's feeding off the stars, in a way to exploit it's purity. It does produce a lot of energy to the correct species.

My guess is control.

Terrible Guess:

Magnetic energy can send the Sun into a spasm.

There is a bubble of squared line around every star, a net. It is magnetic energy.

There is a place that is fulfilled by every dimension, we literally miss the first, second and third an amount.

4D only.

Stars are inhibitors of consciousness that were naked - so, they are producing it to a different degree. They're like a multiply- they are so much like a nature.

We were made using maths(maybe not). A mirror of maths. A good bubble of squared line. You were made by good.

Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence — Gnomon

Interesting. Spinoza posited that there was a super turtle out of logical necessity. Similarly, he thought that the Universe was one in the same as time itself. And, once again, out of logical necessity.

Which makes me think about abstracts like mathematics and, the laws of physics. Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent?

We are huge we can only traverse our body in segments, other, purer consciousness can sense all body in one.

Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. As time allows for one moments to be followed by another moment. Imagine time not occurring, so everything is frozen and still. Thinking about this we can tell that this can not give birth to time. So time is timeless. Which makes absolutely no sense. (If there’s an discrepancy then help me out pls) — Leviosa

Gnomon is correct I believe, when he says that the rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time.

However, in addition, the intriguing thing is time itself and infinity, which I think is one in the same as timeless truths such as mathematics, or mathematical abstracts. Think of all of this as a-temporal rather than temporal and contingent and/or causational. That's why many theoretical physicists consider mathematics a quality or feature of the mind of God.

That is, mathematics existing as timeless eternal truth's, a priori. I could be wrong, but I think that's one problem of reconciling a timeless Being to a world of contingency and causation. It relates to something that is outside of time and thus timeless (like other metaphysical abstracts as we've been discussing here).

So the paradox is that in this case, mathematics works so well in defining a contingent universe/ existence/nature, yet is considered a timeless truth ( like irrational numbers ).

Nice post. I happen to agree with your definition of the temporal-ness of time, and the timeless nature of, what I'll call, the concept of [the] eternity in time. I have an interesting video I'll post later about how it's possible a timeless eternal Being can interact with a temporal universe that we live/exist in.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).

I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.

And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence?

Are you a "God wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy". I think that is usually called deism or is it theism. I don't feel like looking it up. — christian2017

No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:

I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility. :nerd:

Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent? — 3017amen

In my Enformationism worldview, the Laws of Physics are simply initial conditions and logical operators of the program that is running as Reality. The Programmer, or "super turtle" if you prefer, defined specific limitations on infinite possibilities to describe the kind of world S/he wanted to create. For example : another species of universe could be created, in which energy never condenses into matter, and any creatures that emerge are merely clouds or fields of energy.

Laws of physics are contingent in the sense that they could have been different, if the Programmer wanted to create an alternative kind of world, but are necessary for our own unique universe. Scientists call those necessities "fine-tuning". Once executed into an on-going evolutionary process though, I doubt that the "laws" could change in mid-stream. Of course, our limited knowledge of those universal laws will develop and deepen over time --- perhaps making them seem to vary.

As for the universe being essentially Space-Time, I can see some truth in that notion. Without those fundamental parameters for quantitative and qualitative extension, the Big Bang would have been the "Big Choke", and nothing could happen. :nerd:

No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:

I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility. :nerd: — Gnomon

I'm actually an independent fundamental baptist (thats a real thing). Your ideas sound similar to "collective consceeeence" (spelling?) or "collective soul". I actually do feel that it would be very hard to completely divorce christianity from this concept. Sometimes you can take a geometric object and rotate it (spin it) to make it have similar characteristics to something else until further and even intensive examination. What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". As for the computer thing, i believe it is hard to divorce an accurate view of reality from the concept of "scientific determinism" (nurture versus nature). I'm open to various grades or points in the spectrum of Calvinism, but at this point in time i would be labeled towards the far end of Calvinism. Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" . I'm not going to go into politics, so i will simply say most of our economic policies can be almost completely fixed by modernizing zoning laws (among other things). Fixing the economy would enable people to enjoy life without people murdering each other.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).

I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.

And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence? — 3017amen

Well, my understanding is that humans consist of more complex relational awareness with existence than simply being, and that ‘cause and effect’ is the universal faculty by which all action is determined and initiated: the Will, reduced to four dimensions.

So to refer to the Will/Love as ‘super natural’ or ‘extra ordinary’ is to miss the point of metaphysics as inclusive of what is ‘natural’ or ‘ordinary’, and to limit our understanding of the relation between being and consciousness.

As an illustration, have you ever tried to explain to someone how to draw a chair so that it looks three dimensional? It’s not just a matter of describing how the two dimensional shapes - two squares and four thin rectangles, for instance - relate to each other on the page. It’s also about how the lines and angles and their relative positions change the observation of those shapes in relation to an observer/perspective.

In the same way, metaphysical features such as consciousness, the Will and Love are not just a matter of how Beings relate to each other in time, but about how all the complex relations that contribute to being, and their relativity, change each experience of ‘being’ in relation to an experiencing/conscious subject/perspective.

To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions.

What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". — christian2017

That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.

Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" — christian2017

Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls

"collective consceeeence" — christian2017

FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd:

4 Ways Calvinism Differs From Lutheranism :
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/christian-theology-calvinism-lutheranism/2016/01/25/id/710818/

That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices. — Gnomon

The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. Methodist, Calvinist, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcapaliiiiaaaaaaaan, and even to some extent Catholicism and also a lengthy list of others all fall well within the Pail of Orthodoxy. I didn't make that term up, its a real term that can be researched.

Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls — Gnomon

I could post a series of articles about the logic and even mercy associated with predestination. But I'll say two things. If you have a sexual predator that has repented and come to salvation, it would make him feel better to know the logic and also reality that the particles bouncing in his head decided his terrible choices. He was 100% predictable.

What many people don't realize is their snobbery and inconsistent thinking is very often nearly (nearly but not quite) as bad as the sexual predators. "don't strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". sprectrum

On a different note if i came to realize the reality and logical way of thinking behind why intelligent people accept scientific determinism and at the same time through pascal's wager (among other great reasons), i came to know that Jesus Christ predicted everything, why not "choose" to accept Jesus Christ at that point.

FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd: — Gnomon

Most newagers each differ slightly from each other. Until you write a holy book to go along with your dogma, not alot of people will care about your dogma.

I skimmed that article. I'm not sure the comment about the bread and the wine is true. Without going into a 20 page paper on why Calvinism isn't as bad as it seems, i'll say this. If a person realizes the realities of scientific determinism and is also drawn to that loving Jesus from Isaiah chapter 53 and chapter 54 (and new testament), why not do a quick conversion over to christianity. Easy Believism is very very very Biblical. From a christian who embraces science and logic, i don't know how that christian would reject scientific determinism.

The Bible actually does teach the earth is very old. A catholic bishop came up with that 6000 year number. Genesis chapter 2 (New Arabic Version, KJV, ESV and Hebrew.

"back in my Yom we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes"

To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Well, I think you might be left with a paradox or quandary of sorts there, and that's ok. I appreciate your partial explanation as to how the metaphysical features of Will and Love might interact. And also, I'm in agreement that " effectively dissolving" " these definitions" results in another dimension of existence. Ironically, acknowledgement of such explanation goes beyond the physical realm of existence (as we know it).

Obvious examples ( as given in the video lecture) is the phenomenon of experiencing the color red and beauty, just to name a few. And so similarly there, how do we experience the will, and how do we experience love? Any number of those, as you suggested, can't be explained thru an exclusive physical theory. Perhaps the only way we can begin, is by thinking of them as ( or pretending as if they were) mutually exclusive first.

And so, very simply, a beginning definition of super natural or extra ordinary would apply if the main reason is relative to the nature of consciousness being inexplicable.

Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence?

First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:

1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide

Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence? — 3017amen

I think we can, but I don’t think we’ll get close to an explanation by continuing to think of metaphysical features as exclusive of physical features. The way I see it, the universe interrelates up to six dimensional levels. In the same way that many physicists are currently looking at the universe as consisting of interrelated 4D events rather than 3D objects in relation to time, I think that if we consider the universe as consisting of interrelated 5D potentiality or value systems, then the unanswered questions we have with regard to quantum mechanics, the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and consciousness in particular can be answered. They’re inexplicable now only because we keep looking for an explanation without dissolving the structure of classical physics.

First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:

1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide — 3017amen

In my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome?

my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome? — Possibility

Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.

However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs.

So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):

1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.

2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.

Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?

The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. — christian2017

Off topic :
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool:


Pale of Orthodoxy : https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2009/06/outside-the-pale-rjs.html

Paleo Orthodoxy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy

Hell Bound Christians : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/09/19/southern-baptists-take-heat-for-saying-46-in-alabama-are-bound-for-hell/7f7a27f0-6f1e-43f9-9933-f0c8cd707eb1/

Hi Gnomon!

Not to digress too terribly/off topic, but quickly, in your view:

1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name.

Any validity to that?

1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name. — 3017amen

It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy. :cool:

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. — Gnomon

I will definitely check out that link... . And I don't want to derail this thread whatsoever into a religious debate, as it would ruin the so called cosmological thought processes of possibility-no pun intended.

Without getting into all the politics of early church history, prohibitions of texts, lost Gospel's, translation issues, interpretation concerns, literal Fundamentalist sects, extremism, etc. etc.; if only religion could embrace your advice from your above quote... .

The sin of pride has unfortunately clouded many minds from the otherwise good intentions that Religious institutions have to offer. Man having created religion forgets the fallibility of same. Throughout history, we can only wonder what Jesus would have to say about those kinds of things.

Anyway, back to; Design and taking God (not religion per se) seriously... .

Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool: — Gnomon

Alot of Pastors like to look hard core by rejecting "Once Saved, Always Saved". I believe this theology is the theology of the over 1500 laws, notions, and axioms of the new testament and old testament. If the modern Pastors are looking for saved people who have fallen short, they can look at themselves. The solution to true fiscal conservatism isn't the poor working harder but Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and (fuck the environment) electric trike lanes. Hell i don't have a strong opinion against gasoline powered go-karts either but i've never in my whole life seen that as a source of transportation absolutely anywhere.

To be honest, I’m not entirely following your thoughts here - and perhaps you’re not entirely following mine either.

Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.

However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs. — 3017amen

I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct - I think we need to be careful here, because there is a tendency in metaphysics (and in religion) to reject the physical features rather than strive to understand and explain them within the broader metaphysical structure. When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’.

When we began to embrace the notion of a spherical earth, for instance, it didn’t help to simply declare that the earth was NOT flat, but to show how the way we understood the earth to be flat was an illusion - a credible perception given our lack of awareness. We not only needed to explain the bigger picture, but also why we perceive the earth as flat within the context of a spherical earth. This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’.

So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):

1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.

2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.

Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?[/quote]

We have discussed the metaphysical features of Love on another thread, and I also opened up a discussion some time ago on the metaphysical features of the Will. Both point to a subjective perception of potential and value in relation to how we interact with the universe, which doesn’t necessarily relate directly to a specific event or object in time. Rather it relates to how we perceive the likelihood of that event or object changing over time, and the influence our perception can have on the event or object in the future. It’s uncertain and relative, but we can use it to make predictions about our interactions with the world, to plan for and orchestrate events before they occur, to create new possibilities out of a simple interaction, and to freely determine and initiate events - much like quantum potential.

Love is how we relate to the universe by increasing awareness of, connection and collaboration with potential and value. It isn’t confined to relations with a person or an object, but is inclusive of every possible relation we may have with the universe.

The Will is how all action is determined and initiated in the universe, and is inclusive of cause and effect as well as volition. With every relation, regardless of the level of awareness, each integrated system determines from its limited perception of potential and value whether to ignore or increase awareness, to isolate or increase connection, and to exclude or increase collaboration.

The Will to live is determined from one’s limited perception of potential and value in relation to their life: the likelihood of their life changing over time, and the influence this perception can have on their life in the future.