The paradox is is that 'spontaneous' leaps in art (or any other field) usually only come about by repeating the same old processes over and over again. There's a relevant quote by Rembrandt (who was an artist); ''Practise what you know, and it will help to make clear what you do not know.'' Repeatedly connecting the same old dots together creates an entirely new picture/style.
No, but why worry about things I can't control anyway? That's my basis for atheism -- I just want to live my life the best I can and not have to be influenced by some deity or monotheistic being. Life is hard enough as is.
A creative force/first cause in no way shape or form = god. Every action has a reaction. The fact that X and Y happened and led to Z being formed (our universe) does not make X and Y divine. It makes them engineers at best. Not very good ones either. I am also not sure where your certainty comes from about all aspects of the effect having to be contained in the cause. While I certainly see the logic, I don't see how anyone could claim to have the remotest clue about a potential motivation for creation, or evolution for that matter. Even if there were, again, that does not make any of this divine and still remains subject to the infinite regression argument. If there was a creative force/first cause, then where did that come from? Claiming that was the catalyst ex nihilo suggests something out of nothing, which is exactly what deists/theists reject. It seems like a natural something-out-of-nothing is unacceptable, but a god made something out of nothing makes perfect sense. As far as deists not claiming any particulars about this "creative force", I find the statement puzzling. Aside from the fact that most deists frequently talk about what they think god is, claiming deism in itself is a huge statement about particulars. Sure, it does not go as far as theism, ascribing names and fairy tales to cosmic events, but it still claims to know that everything there is, is the result of a creator. Deists overestimate their separation from theists. In a world drenched in millenia of theist indoctrination, claiming a belief in a nameless unknown creator is not a big stretch from claiming a belief in a named one. The word "Deism" itself is derrived from the Latin "Deus" for "God" and is defined as a belief in the existence of a supreme being. As far as the $50mil analogy, I think it applies just fine. You rightfully point out that most do not have $50mil lying around, so it is most probable that I do not either. I could not agree more with that line of thinking, and I apply it to theism and deism as well. Humanity has abandoned thousands of gods on record for new ones, while science has defined and explained countless things religion once laid claim to. (While having to battle the religious powers every step) Just like because most people do not have $50mil laying around, you rightly assume that I do not either, so it goes with faith based thinking. Because most of it has been disproven, considered laughable, outdated, etc, it seems plausible that the whole book can and will be thrown out, along with deism which is basically stripped down theism.
You are as stuck in religious termonology as any fundamentalist. And yes a creative force/first cause is exactly what 'god' is. Just because religions tack on their anthropomorphism doesnt mean the above aspect is invalid. Idk what you mean by divine so i wont argue that point. Also i am very curious how you would justify the claim the universe is a sloppy engineering job, seems how your brain and that thought is a result of a machine billions of years old. So you agree with my logic but dont agree with my conclusion..... cognative dissonance much? Btw if you reread what i said, i too said i dont think we can know the motivation by examining the effect. No the FIRST cause does not commit infinite regress since it infinite regress assumes an infinite series of cause and effect. Cause and effect being seperate also assumes temporal seperation. Even quantum entanglement within the temporal universe violates cause and effect because the action is instantaneous. There is no logical reason to assume the cause of the temporal universe is also temporal. The cause doesnt necessarily impart all of its aspects to the effect, but every aspect of the effect is contained within the cause. You are applying the constraints of the effect on the cause which i dont think you can reasonably justify. And where do theists and deists reject ex nihilo? Either existence came from nothing or itself is infinite (which is subject to infinite regress problem). I can reasonably justify ex nihilo, i cannot justify the latter so i tend toward the former. God has not been disproven since there is no evidence on either side of the philosophical argument. 'Outdated and considered laughable'? And what book are you talking about? I can write a book of lies about you, that doesnt negate your reality. C'mon Oni, i know you are intelligent, judging by others posts of yours ive read, but i feel like you have an emotional investment into this topic and your reasoning is suffering.
exactly. Creativity is just evolution. The combining and changing of old things into new things. All things require previous things -yuri
I like riddles! Self Truth Potential Space Moments Although they all required thought to come up with
Thought isn't what's recognizing thought, that's a silly notion. Is what you see experienced by your eyes? Take a dead person's eyes and put them into a living person and those eyes would see again so obviously thats not the case.. Thought isn't possible without the aware recognition of it and would be useless and impossible because for whom would it be 'thought-ing' for? Would thought just exist for thoughts' sake as a stand alone thought for no apparent reason other than to be itself without a recognizer of it? Of course not... it's not possible. One can't be without your awareness of it... which your not recognizing. We live in a world of duality. Sunlight casts a shadow which makes the contrasting appearance of light/dark, however one can't exist without the other and it's really ONE thing ultimately. Sweet wouldn't be sweet if you didn't know the sour... ect ect.. It appears you see a solid world of objects and such, however, by nature of our dual world, is whats recognizing everything solid at it's essence? I'm NOT talking about the body here, the body is useless without this life force inside you to operate it. Once again you are the aware presence or the light of consciousness in which all can appear, your not just the electro-chemical body. When someone says "I can't trust myself around chocolate", what do you honestly think is being implied here? 'I' can't trust 'my-SELF' around chocolate due to some electro-chemical impulsive 'desire' that doesn't actually exist? You see? It's even encoded in how we communicate....only we're not paying any attention. When it's said that you can't trust yourself around something, you've already made the distinction between the true self and the illusory self without even knowing it. Here's an experiment. Try explaining the color red to a blind person who's never used his eyes before. You can only explain it by comparing it to other things which he still cannot comprehend, so it's impossible. Everything in life is the experience of it. WHAT is experiencing? Find that out and you'll find truth.
I tried to believe. Just cant grasp it. Some people that believe hard into it seem to be living in a fairy tale world. I dont want my life to revolve around worrying if the gods are dissapointed in me or if i sacrifice things i love to make me think i may be involved in whatever after life we believe in. I am already dissapointed in myself sometimes, sometimes i dont deal with that very good. But... id love to see a magic show as much as the next person.
lol... it's all good. At least it brought a clearer explanation of what I'm talking about. If not for us, for others to discover.
You don't have to worry about someone keeping score in the sky or if someone will not approve of your actions. ...that's all ego nonsense. You already are perfect...and you can't get any more perfect than you already are.
I'm an atheist because religion just doesn't make sense for me anymore specially today in 2015. I guess I do believe in a higher or super consciousness that is "almighty" but we humans definitely fabricated every single religion on earth. â¤ï¸
Disagree. "non religious theists" or "deists" as you mention underestimate how much of their influence came from 100% hardcore religion. While I frequently mock religion for what it is, it is responsible for modern day "theists" or "deists" maintaining, and even developing their views about religion or god. Frankly it seems banal that the two were disassociated in the first place. All these half-assed believers did not get there without the hardcore believers holding up the belief structure in the first place. Including the ones who did it over the centuries, so that the modern age neophyte can be indoctrinated in the first place. (thanks mom/dad/grandparents/society) If you are "sorta, kinda" about theism, it is because so many others maintained the hardcore belief for you on the side in the first place. Otherwise you'd have never heard about it in an ultra serious context in the first place. One can also NOT be a non-religious "theist" since Theism explicitly suggests the belief into one god, I.e. a defined one god. the·ism <span>ˈTHēˌizəm/</span> <div>noun noun: theism \t\t<div>\t<div style="margin-left:20px;">\t<div style="font-size:small;">\t<div>belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in ONE god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. \t \t</div>\t</div>\t</div>\t </div></div>
^Genetic fallacy And ty for posting the definition for theism. Religions try to define the god and erect an edifice of protocols. Just because something is incompletely or incorrectly defined by ancient man doesnt therefore mean that which they are attempting to describe is incredible.