New here!

[Lizzrsmith]

Response

Lizzy, after I read this, my first initial reaction is that you need a hot shower, a food detox and a vacation.
But jokes aside, let’s try to establish some baselines using the medium that we’re using.

I’d like to point out the topic of communication.
Before we even attempt to understand each other to reach higher truths, we have to use language that’s understood by both parties in text-based communication.
I stress text-based communication because in real life I would have stopped you at your first sentence and say “stop and explain to me what Idealism is in your own words”
But since we’re not in real life, you have managed to say about 30 different concepts and ideas in your post, each requiring an hour to digest properly.
And a lot of those topics have nothing to do with what we’re trying to talk about either.

So, in text based communication, as well as real life communication it’s important to start small, so we both understand each other and then we go big and expand on one topic after we understood each other.

Since knowledge is an accumulation of what people before us have said, it’s important for me to know if you’re repeating things you’ve heard without understanding them or if you know things so you can explain them to me in your own words using basic simple concepts and words.

So, with this being said let’s begin again.
I am on a limited free willed journey in this existence and so far the accumulated human knowledge has shown me the following:

1. The universe exists with all of us in it, which started with an initial explosion/expansion which requires a first mover according to our experience of reality.
2. The fine-tuning argument exists
3. Miracles exist
4. Jesus Christ was here

These are known as brute facts.
A brute fact is a fact which can’t be explained by a deeper fact. But it’s real and undeniable.
Kinda like quantum mechanics. We don’t know how it works but we built an atom bomb and the internet out of it.

So, let’s discuss point 2.

The fine tuning argument says that the four basic fundamental forces or the universe which are Gravity, Electromagnetism, the strong Nuclear force , and the weak nuclear force are fine-tuned to give rise to everything in existence.

Now the word “fine tuned” is a word or a concept which is said by scientists such as Steven Hawkings who was an atheist and others in his league as well as other theoretical physics who also like to delve into philosophy.

So if you have a problem with this concept you gotta take it up with many people and again this is a brute fact because we’ve measured it.

This basically implies intelligent design.

So now, when you’re presented with this brute fact what’s your opinion and your limited free willed choice on how to interpret it?

Alright, point 2, I’ll try to stay small.
Why do we need to take Stephen Hawkings- or any other physicist - word for it when we can just sit in a dark room and observe it? That we can think about our experience means our brains are fine tuned to that experience, and the idea of experience emerging from our brains is… I’ll leave it there, small, but know theres a rant!
The ideas are my own, they stuck on me when I was 11 and impressed the idea that if I can figure out this much without needing external evidence, I should just stick to working these matters out on my own. A year ago, I got in a heated debate with my atheist brother in law and since then have been trying to articulate it. So most of my terminology is from chatgpt. It gave me the words monism, idealism, and interference problem, as short terms to concisely summarize my rants.

 

[Eli1]

Alright, point 2, I’ll try to stay small.
Why do we need to take Stephen Hawkings- or any other physicist - word for it when we can just sit in a dark room and observe it? That we can think about our experience means our brains are fine tuned to that experience, and the idea of experience emerging from our brains is… I’ll leave it there, small, but know theres a rant!
The ideas are my own, they stuck on me when I was 11 and impressed the idea that if I can figure out this much without needing external evidence, I should just stick to working these matters out on my own. A year ago, I got in a heated debate with my atheist brother in law and since then have been trying to articulate it. So most of my terminology is from chatgpt. It gave me the words monism, idealism, and interference problem, as short terms to concisely summarize my rants.

Thank you for being honest about ChaTGpt because that’s exactly what I detected.
Confusion.

Also yes, let’s forget about Steven Hawking since you don’t have a problem with the “fine tuning” concept and its origins.

At this point I have two simple questions for you:
Are you trying to find out if God exists?
Or are you trying to find out why Christianity might be a better choice compared to other religions?

 

[Cameron143]

Your example of staring at the stars is enough for someone to feel wonder that leads them to entertain the idea of God, but they may not feel certainty and they have not proven it to themselves in a way that removes all doubt. This is not what I was referring to when saying that human reason and empirical observation leads to idealism.

1. Reductionism is a valid approach to understanding reality (supported by scientific success).
2. The interaction problem is a genuine philosophical issue (widely accepted in philosophy).
3. We can empirically observe our own experience (self-evident).

1. Premise: If multiple fundamental properties existed, they would need to interact.
- This follows from our observation of a coherent reality.

2. Premise: Truly fundamental properties cannot be reduced to or explained by anything else.
- This is the definition of "fundamental" in this context.

3. Conclusion 1: There cannot be multiple fundamental properties (from 1 and 2).
- If they interacted, they would not be truly fundamental.

4. Conclusion 2: Reality must be monistic (from 3).
- There must be only one fundamental property or substance.

5. Premise: We directly observe experience.
- This is empirically self-evident.

6. Premise: Experience can accommodate the full complexity of known reality.
- Our experiences can represent everything we know about reality.

7. Conclusion 3: The fundamental property of reality expresses itself as experience (from 4, 5, and 6).
- This is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all our observations.

Final Conclusion:
The fundamental nature of reality is experiential.

So this is the sort of certainty I’m looking for.

As for your question on morality, I don’t know if it’s subjective or objective. I don’t know if I’m applying morality correctly. And even if I said it was subjective, based on my own judgements, those judgements are based on concepts that may be innate and universally shared. If your point is that we need external law to impose morality, I can see the value in that - but there is morality in every degree of action - I would suppose - and I doubt any law can make our every decision for us, so some subjective morality must always be in play.
Maybe the concept that evil can have a utilitarian function is directly opposed to Christianity, part of the reason for bringing it up is that I suspect it might be. But, I’m not suggesting a purely relative morality, so I think there’s hope for reconciliation. I’ve heard a quote that evil is the absence of good being part of some Christian thought, and thats an idea I can understand.
I see in nature - as an example although I know there are higher standards for humans than animals - there are frogs that eat their young, there is not enough food and too many predators so they over proliferate and cannibalize. There are other frogs that raise their young, dedicating a great deal of time to them, and their circumstances are better.
Good has utilitarian value. Kindness, forgiveness, charity, humility, all aid in survival, and beyond that in bringing the conditions of life in harmony with the initial design, the nature of the underlying quality. Survival seems a part of that, which is why we can see such utilitarian results. Death, particularly the extinction of a culture or species, is a loss of that accumulated alignment of physicality towards design, and so is a greater evil than whatever evil must be done to protect it. So circumstantially relative, but an underlying objective, platonic I suppose, good

My point was that the vastness of what we observe and the complexity of what we observe lends itself to creation rather than chance. The very existence of anything lends itself to creation. And if there is creation, then there must be a creator.
The Bible itself never offers proof of creation, or a creator; it merely declares such a being exists. Further, interwoven in its narrative and message, it names Him, describes Him, and details His attributes and works and His ways.
It goes on to declare, more specifically, that His existence can be known through both nature and conscience. But knowing Him intimately requires more than natural revelation. This requires supernatural or spiritual revelation. Thus, if your experience of God is merely natural, you will never come to know your creator intimately.

The reason I was trying to understand your understanding of morality is for much the same reason. If right and wrong is determined subjectively, we have no actual right and wrong. Each individual simply follows what they consider right and wrong and can behave as they see fit. This makes each individual their own god, and morality relative. If, on the other hand, you believe that there should be certain laws to govern behavior, who determines the standards and on what basis? And if there exists law, then there must then be a law giver? And if a law giver, a morality that transcends our existence?

 

[Lizzrsmith]

Oh, no, the comment I made about what Jesus said regarding being neither hot
nor cold was to do with the idea of certainty which you said appealed to you.
I was agreeing with the idea of certainty, and Scripture affirms this sentiment also.

As to the rest, I was simply drawing parallels between your thinking and other systems of thought that
are not compatible with Christian theology, as that was your question (or what you were wondering).

Oh, that makes sense. I’m more interested in Christian theology for personal reasons, abstract little pulls towards Christian aspects, which I feel might not be enough if many of my ideas are opposed without first being reasoned away. So I’m a little defensive because I know I don’t have the same draw toward guru’s and shamans. I find the concept of being trapped in endless reincarnation only to escape into nothingness, while just as feasible on the foundations of idealism alone, as being a concept that just feels wrong - though I have no better objection than that. Although an easy objection is how it doesn’t account for design, but then I don’t know enough about these theologies to really make that claim against them.

 

[Lizzrsmith]

Thank you for being honest about ChaTGpt because that’s exactly what I detected.
Confusion.

Also yes, let’s forget about Steven Hawking since you don’t have a problem with the “fine tuning” concept and its origins.

At this point I have two simple questions for you:
Are you trying to find out if God exists?
Or are you trying to find out why Christianity might be a better choice compared to other religions?

I’m overly proud of my articulation so I want to point out that I’ve only used ai to make the list of logical proofs in reply to another user. It’s a list I have saved so I can have a solid logical proof. But yes, my terminology is entirely derived from gpt. When I was first articulating it sounded more like “The universe has to be one thing, and since we are here, that thing is us, or we’re a part of it, and since we can think about it, that means its manipulates reality, so reality is just an illusion.”
Needless to say, I never convinced my brother-in-law. It’s not a deserved pride in articulation, but I’ve put in some considerable effort.

As to your questions: I want the same level of certainty in God that I have in idealism. Which is, I feel like if I could force my brother in law to sit down and read the logical proof point by point he would have no choice but to relent, or risk abandoning reason all together. And that would give me certainty as well, although I know something God-like exists - via observation, serendipity, and the inklings of a rational argument.

And yes, I would like to know if Christianity is the right religion. I’m not sure I’m destined for any religion, but if there was one - I do feel pulled most towards Christianity.

 

[TabinRivCA]

Hi Lizzrsmith, and YES you are welcome to CC and any questions you have also. So glad the Lord led you here to believers who can assist with your questions🤩 I studied other religions and found them lacking in totality. Only one God is the Creator and He's what the Bible is all about. God bless you and finally YES Christianity is the right religion as Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven🌹🙏✝🔯

 

[Cameron143]

I’m overly proud of my articulation so I want to point out that I’ve only used ai to make the list of logical proofs in reply to another user. It’s a list I have saved so I can have a solid logical proof. But yes, my terminology is entirely derived from gpt. When I was first articulating it sounded more like “The universe has to be one thing, and since we are here, that thing is us, or we’re a part of it, and since we can think about it, that means its manipulates reality, so reality is just an illusion.”
Needless to say, I never convinced my brother-in-law. It’s not a deserved pride in articulation, but I’ve put in some considerable effort.

As to your questions: I want the same level of certainty in God that I have in idealism. Which is, I feel like if I could force my brother in law to sit down and read the logical proof point by point he would have no choice but to relent, or risk abandoning reason all together. And that would give me certainty as well, although I know something God-like exists - via observation, serendipity, and the inklings of a rational argument.

And yes, I would like to know if Christianity is the right religion. I’m not sure I’m destined for any religion, but if there was one - I do feel pulled most towards Christianity.

This approach will never work. The world through wisdom will never come to know God. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[Lizzrsmith]

My point was that the vastness of what we observe and the complexity of what we observe lends itself to creation rather than chance. The very existence of anything lends itself to creation. And if there is creation, then there must be a creator.
The Bible itself never offers proof of creation, or a creator; it merely declares such a being exists. Further, interwoven in its narrative and message, it names Him, describes Him, and details His attributes and works and His ways.
It goes on to declare, more specifically, that His existence can be known through both nature and conscience. But knowing Him intimately requires more than natural revelation. This requires supernatural or spiritual revelation. Thus, if your experience of God is merely natural, you will never come to know your creator intimately.

The reason I was trying to understand your understanding of morality is for much the same reason. If right and wrong is determined subjectively, we have no actual right and wrong. Each individual simply follows what they consider right and wrong and can behave as they see fit. This makes each individual their own god, and morality relative. If, on the other hand, you believe that there should be certain laws to govern behavior, who determines the standards and on what basis? And if there exists law, then there must then be a law giver? And if a law giver, a morality that transcends our existence?

I’ve had spiritual experiences, ones that made me feel connected to everything (God wasn’t in my vocabulary at the time - and I never felt I persistently understood the nature of that insight). I can say in some way I am protected and guided, and thats something I’ve always felt, but again, I can’t directly attribute anything to that but that, so I don’t think I’ve met the standards of a revelation.
As for morality - I don’t know. I feel like my discussion was in the purpose of morality, how commonly accepted moral ideas have a utilitarian purpose and seem to give regard to extending the souls influence over physicality (in the sense of letting us act more as a soul than a body). And these can be combined if we see the utilitarian purpose of survival as being the means by which the wisdom and function of embodying the soul is retained. This becomes an objective morality, a common pattern underlying the commonly accepted morals (referring here to cultural ones derived often from religion - not that any culture is moral, but thats another matter). So this undercurrent of morality, to maximize the embodiment of the soul - seems to also apply in the comparison of immoral actions

 

[Cameron143]

I’ve had spiritual experiences, ones that made me feel connected to everything (God wasn’t in my vocabulary at the time - and I never felt I persistently understood the nature of that insight). I can say in some way I am protected and guided, and thats something I’ve always felt, but again, I can’t directly attribute anything to that but that, so I don’t think I’ve met the standards of a revelation.
As for morality - I don’t know. I feel like my discussion was in the purpose of morality, how commonly accepted moral ideas have a utilitarian purpose and seem to give regard to extending the souls influence over physicality (in the sense of letting us act more as a soul than a body). And these can be combined if we see the utilitarian purpose of survival as being the means by which the wisdom and function of embodying the soul is retained. This becomes an objective morality, a common pattern underlying the commonly accepted morals (referring here to cultural ones derived often from religion - not that any culture is moral, but thats another matter). So this undercurrent of morality, to maximize the embodiment of the soul - seems to also apply in the comparison of immoral actions

So what happens if someone murders someone you know? Is that wrong? Is it wrong for you only? Is it necessarily wrong for the other person? Who determines? And if you say it is wrong, on what basis?
The point I am making is that if there is no consensus on what is right and wrong, then anything can be right and wrong. If, on the other hand, there is a set standard for right and wrong, who sets it, and on what basis?
It is inconsistent to say there is right and wrong, but it is beyond establishing. Either there is a set standard and thus a law giver, or there is no standard and morality is relative. I'm trying to find out which you believe is true.

 

[Lizzrsmith]

Hi Lizzrsmith, and YES you are welcome to CC and any questions you have also. So glad the Lord led you here to believers who can assist with your questions🤩 I studied other religions and found them lacking in totality. Only one God is the Creator and He's what the Bible is all about. God bless you and finally YES Christianity is the right religion as Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven🌹🙏✝🔯

Thank you for your welcome, Jesus Christ does have a pull

 

[Lizzrsmith]

So what happens if someone murders someone you know? Is that wrong? Is it wrong for you only? Is it necessarily wrong for the other person? Who determines? And if you say it is wrong, on what basis?
The point I am making is that if there is no consensus on what is right and wrong, then anything can be right and wrong. If, on the other hand, there is a set standard for right and wrong, who sets it, and on what basis?
It is inconsistent to say there is right and wrong, but it is beyond establishing. Either there is a set standard and thus a law giver, or there is no standard and morality is relative. I'm trying to find out which you believe is true.

If someone murders someone, that is wrong because you are forcing a soul to face the consequences of physicality.
If you lie to a person for personal gain, you have placed physicality above the connection of soul.
The standard is to optimize for the soul and minimize the consequences of physicality which is opposed.
This can be seen as a standard set by God, as transcending physicality. Whether its set literally by word or via interpretation, I don’t know.
There are scenarios where physicality must impose itself and be treated as more important than the soul.

 

[Bingo]

"Narratives of allegoric nature surely requires a depth beyond the norm."

 

[Cameron143]

If someone murders someone, that is wrong because you are forcing a soul to face the consequences of physicality.
If you lie to a person for personal gain, you have placed physicality above the connection of soul.
The standard is to optimize for the soul and minimize the consequences of physicality which is opposed.
This can be seen as a standard set by God, as transcending physicality. Whether its set literally by word or via interpretation, I don’t know.
There are scenarios where physicality must impose itself and be treated as more important than the soul.

Now we are getting somewhere. Why is God the one who sets the standard? And how have you accepted the existence of God? What led you to this conclusion?

 

[Eli1]

I’m overly proud of my articulation so I want to point out that I’ve only used ai to make the list of logical proofs in reply to another user. It’s a list I have saved so I can have a solid logical proof. But yes, my terminology is entirely derived from gpt. When I was first articulating it sounded more like “The universe has to be one thing, and since we are here, that thing is us, or we’re a part of it, and since we can think about it, that means its manipulates reality, so reality is just an illusion.”
Needless to say, I never convinced my brother-in-law. It’s not a deserved pride in articulation, but I’ve put in some considerable effort.

As to your questions: I want the same level of certainty in God that I have in idealism. Which is, I feel like if I could force my brother in law to sit down and read the logical proof point by point he would have no choice but to relent, or risk abandoning reason all together. And that would give me certainty as well, although I know something God-like exists - via observation, serendipity, and the inklings of a rational argument.

And yes, I would like to know if Christianity is the right religion. I’m not sure I’m destined for any religion, but if there was one - I do feel pulled most towards Christianity.

All right, i would still like to keep things simple at this point since other members are talking to you and i don't want you to lose focus or feel overwhelmed or anything like that, but if you don't feel overwhelming than that's great so let me know.

Two new questions for you:

1. Explain Realism to me in your own words.
2. If God gives you a miracle one day, what would you do and how would that change things for you?

 

[Magenta]

This approach will never work. The world through wisdom will never come to know God.

1 Corinthians 1:18-19

 

[Magenta]

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Hebrews 11:6

 

[Lizzrsmith]

All right, i would still like to keep things simple at this point since other members are talking to you and i don't want you to lose focus or feel overwhelmed or anything like that, but if you don't feel overwhelming than that's great so let me know.

Two new questions for you:

1. Explain Realism to me in your own words.
2. If God gives you a miracle one day, what would you do and how would that change things for you?

1. Realism is the belief that matter persists outside of the mental and spiritual. Its put as opposed to idealism, but this implies idealism can only be subjective.
2. The miracle itself might change my life, depending on any message it holds my worldview might change accordingly, but a miracle itself would be consistent with my worldview.

 

[Lizzrsmith]

All right, i would still like to keep things simple at this point since other members are talking to you and i don't want you to lose focus or feel overwhelmed or anything like that, but if you don't feel overwhelming than that's great so let me know.

Two new questions for you:

1. Explain Realism to me in your own words.
2. If God gives you a miracle one day, what would you do and how would that change things for you?

Does the reasoning to reach idealism make sense to you? You said I leapt too far ahead with too many terms. I’m interested in extending the chain of logic so building off of it is desirable. So in the effort of starting small, what are your thoughts on reductionism?

 

[Eli1]

1. Realism is the belief that matter persists outside of the mental and spiritual. Its put as opposed to idealism, but this implies idealism can only be subjective.
2. The miracle itself might change my life, depending on any message it holds my worldview might change accordingly, but a miracle itself would be consistent with my worldview.

All right, thank you for that.
So, I guess at this point you’re exploring why Christianity would make more sense for you as opposed to other religions?

Does the reasoning to reach idealism make sense to you? You said I leapt too far ahead with too many terms. I’m interested in extending the chain of logic so building off of it is desirable. So in the effort of starting small, what are your thoughts on reductionism?

Could you please explain to me in your own words what Idealism and Reductionism is?

 

[Lizzrsmith]

All right, thank you for that.
So, I guess at this point you’re exploring why Christianity would make more sense for you as opposed to other religions?



Could you please explain to me in your own words what Idealism and Reductionism is?

Not exactly, I’m using Christianity as the goalpost and I’m trying to build a chain of logic to God. It has less to do with personal belief, although I hope to learn more in the process, but I’m not “shopping” for religions.

Alright, in my own words:
So reductionism implies that the parts and the sum are equal. That we can observe parts and understand the whole - molecules to understand a substance. The substance can be reduced to parts.
It is related to, and interdependent with, concepts like conservation of energy - energy cannot be created or destroyed, causality - for every force there is an equal and opposite force. These all together are part of a bigger truth, the consistency of reality.

When scientists seek a formula, to quantify some phenomenon, they are putting faith in this constancy. It implies a universe that is quantifiable, but quantities only represent qualities - and for this consistency to be apparent there must be a single shared quantity. This if referred to as the interference problem, that if there were multiple qualities to the universe, we would not expect them to interact in such a consistent way.

This is one avenue to reach the conclusion that there is only one type of quality. Another is the absurdity of the genesis of multiple unrelated qualities. The belief that the universe only has one quality is monism - as opposed to dualism.

Now, you can have material monism - material is the only quality - but this rejects the observation of consciousness as a quality - which materialists say is an illusion (or if not monist, may claim emerges - rejecting reductionism/causality/conservation of energy). The other conclusion is that the quality is consciousness, this is idealism.

This is one path to reach idealism, but one can also use occams razor. We know that consciousness can contain the complexity of the knowable universe since we only understand the knowable universe through consciousness. If we consider the inverse, we cannot conceive how physical properties give rise to consciousness.

Once here we can consider what idealism implies. Introducing fine tuning brings us closer to God, but I won’t go into that now as this is already too long.