The pursuit of physics, as SolitaryWalker’s article says, should be able to solve the ultimate questions of cosmology, those being: what is the world, how does it work, who made the world, what is the purpose of the world, what is our purpose, what is the ultimate nature of reality, what is the mind, does it exist independently of the body, what is the ultimate stuff they are made of, and how does this fit into the larger cosmological framework? These questions could finally answer the mystery of what life is, what the universe is, how cosmology works, and how we are related to it. Clearly there is purpose to such questions, as they show that there is mystery in life, these things being currently incapable for reliable knowledge, and that these great life mysteries are identifiable, and although we do not know the nature of these mysteries, they can be speculated upon, even if reliable knowledge of them eludes us. These metaphysical questions could perhaps be experienced and understood within the realm of human imagination. Hence, there is epistemology, the study of knowledge, and metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. We must have metaphysical beliefs in order to ask meaningful questions, which can be verified into epistemology by science. Though the ultimate reality may possess a changeless stability, there may be a mysterious, ever changing force trapped within the essence of things, constantly in motion. The ever-vibrating force of entities seems immune to change. In order to grasp the changeless then, one must have access to infinite and eternal vision. In our phenomenal world then, it seems we have a combination of change and changelessness, though a more sophisticated sight could consist in constant change. The way force vibrates could also be a diagram of how our minds that are within time tend to perceive what is changeless and outside of time. Perhaps materiality is just a construct of the way our minds perceive the ultimate reality of immateriality. Our real selves then may receive salvation with God in the kingdom of heaven as we break away from the phenomenal world and unite with our real beings. Through science man should find meaning.
People perceive the world as they see it through their confined perceptions, and as such, philosophers who dare to challenge the societal paradigms of their time, like Giordano Bruno (RaptorWizard’s favorite philosopher) or Benedict de Spinoza (SolitaryWalker’s favorite philosopher) were branded heretics, the first being burned at the stake, and the second receiving ridicule from the stupid multitudes. Our state of existence is so wretched that non-existence would be preferable to it, and as such, the world is by no means what Leibniz termed ‘the best of all possible worlds’. The unspeakable suffering of mankind cannot be denied. Mankind is ever in search for a life of paradise. We must then increase our perception on the problem of evil, the essence of knowledge and how salvation could possibly be achieved. I as of right now oppose the proposition that we see beauty everywhere in this world, incapable for our grasp. Perhaps perfection only exists in the heavens, a realm currently outside our comprehension. If we were to all enter paradise, surely its perfection would proliferate under the happiness we would all share together, rather than losing its perfection upon our entrance, as SolitaryWalker incorrectly asserts. SolitaryWalker says salvation comes only when the intellect takes primacy over the will, and that the will is in motion, the will being the foundation to all existence. He also thinks that not even the brightest of us will access full truth and knowledge, but if nothing is even true or false, understanding even to begin with could perhaps only be found in empiricism. Some would also hold enlightenment to be a vision of the world objective and independent of prejudice, and that we must not deem the world to be what we can accept via personal taste, the limits of our vision not indeed being the limits of the world. The real universe is outside our perception, the poverty of our imaginations perceiving the infinite existence as finite. Perhaps everything exists only in the way we with our vision perceive the thing to be, in accordance with our reasoning faculties. Matter as well as all things nonphysical may be manifestations of a fluctuating force, a will objectifying itself. Perhaps the point of greatest importance is that the way we perceive the world will always be finite as long as we impose restrictions upon it. Spinoza’s doctrine of salvation comes through contemplation. We must believe reason to be the light of the world, the ultimate end of philosophy.
I still carry scars around my neck from the encounter with that legendary being. Many a moon ago I stumbled into His presence, but my patchy internet connection dropped me from Vent, sparing me from Knowledge that my fragile human mind couldn't handle.
But for this divine intervention I stand here before you to tell this story.
My favorite SW Vent moment came when he gave me like a five minute monotone lecture on how God doesn't exist, and I replied something like "I think it actually takes more faith to believe for sure that God doesn't exist, because the default cop-out answer for a theist is 'God did it' whereas for an atheist, it's "It happened randomly by itself. Science."
He replied "uh..yes, well, you're probably right." And then exited Vent.
I think it's a shame we've chased SW off. People did tend to respond to his thought-provoking posts with vacuous appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions, or "funny" variations of TL;DR. T'was a pity.
You guys do realize he was a high school student when he was writing those posts, right? I think that's pretty damned impressive.
Also, Jeffster, I'm not exactly sure what scientific theory you're referring to that has as its thesis "it happened randomly by itself". I admit I have much more learning I intend on doing, but I'm not aware of a single scientific theory with such a thesis.
Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --
SolitaryWalker begins by asking perhaps the biggest question in existence: what is God? He says God by tradition is often seen as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Such extraordinary qualities however put God’s identity as a person into question. He also under his doctrine demands worship over personal achievement, but worse yet choosing the dark path of Satan. SolitaryWalker conceives human beings who show genuine compassion to often be incompetent in logical analysis and objectivity, and that the inner quest to perfect all things would be a heavy burden, like for a being who mastered light to also master darkness. Really though, I conceive it to be possible to achieve a perfect balance between such opposites, should we see things from all angles, reference points, and which from the contrast, we could divine our knowledge. God with all of his supreme knowledge is also commonly depicted as the symbol for supreme power, as infinite greatness is also often equated with a person of sublime power. I agree perfectly with SolitaryWalker on his point of how Carl Jung said that in our philosophical, scientific, and theological studies, we gain more insights into the workings of our minds rather than the workings of the world. We project ourselves onto what we see and in effect anthropomorphize all things. Plato argues the average man must be lied to in order to keep them from falling off the safe path, a tactic I for one would not subscribe to, for not only should the truth be free, but it should also set us free. SolitaryWalker is right in regards to God and the way we see him having been the cause for corruption all throughout human history, how manipulative people have twisted ideas in service of external agendas. SolitaryWalker in regards to God concludes that he is best defined as the primary essence of spirituality, or the other world, and then asks if it is possible for us to know the other world. He follows by asking what was the beginning of the universe, and that if A created B, asking what created A, rendering A incapable for a Creator, assuming that it could not have come from nothing. This may mean it has always existed, without beginning or end. This view of time could be defined as the infinite realm, a view from which all things could be seen.
Religion could be defined as an ethical doctrine, a world cosmology independent of empiricism, a spiritual eschatology, and fundamentalism. The fundamental beliefs religion harbors in these areas incapable for change could discourage critical thought, encouraging people to believe their views are unquestionable. Religion could thereby discourage people from being open-minded, which could compel them to only deem themselves and the sacred texts of their divine authority right. As such, they are caught completely off-guard when presented with critical opinions conflicting with their own. They so aggressively defend these irrational stances, despite facts and evidence as well as reasoning to the contrary, since if they do, the religion promises them greater reward to come. Such religious stances have and could continue to entail violence. We must instead follow the following:
1. The requirement is not to change the system, but rather the people.
2. The measure of man based on the state of our planet is pathetic. We need to change the nature of humanity to rise above and beyond.
3. The spread of information would help establish world peace, it resulting as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment vision.
4. When discussing global issues, we must put personal prejudice aside.
5. Individuality is a point of great importance independent of the environment.
6. The ancients were misguided due to lack of technology, though the world could become greater in our lifetime, despite doubters. We must achieve a perfect community stretching across the Earth with universal acceptance and individuality.