Activity

I think there is some common ground between religion and atheism that is worth exploring. – tanny

Our ultimate commonality is that we all exist in the same existence. And I guess, we all want to figure out this existence.

Maybe the ancient sages sensed this “something” but didn’t have scientific language to describe it. And so they described it in the language of their time and place. Thus, God became a male king with a long white beard etc. It seems to me that we can discard the out of date language (and the power structures that are built on top of it) while still being open to the possibility that the ancient sages were perceiving something that is real. – tanny

I don’t see how these ancient sages sensed this “something” . But I think even without sensing it, they did try to formulate something like it. Maybe just to try to understand their own and sorrounding existence, while not being aware of the reason, or during time to forget the reason.

I’m reaching for an understanding of “intelligence” that is beyond the idea that intelligence is a property of a particular thing. An example might be space. Space is a universal property of reality, it doesn’t belong to any particular entity. There is not “my space” and “your space” but a single universal phenomena which unites all things. The laws of physics are another example. – tanny
I’m not proposing an actor, but a phenomena inherent in reality, like space, or the laws of physics. I agree intelligence is probably not the best word for such a phenomena, I just don’t yet have a better word.- tanny

I realy think we have to agree to a common term in order to avoid any kind of misunderstanding. At least for me it becomes a bit difficult not to make a misinterpretation.

 

@mrmhead “the laws of physics” – to expand the “The laws of the universe” – are tuned just right for the eventual evolution of us.

If you entertain a “multiverse” scenario, other universes with different laws will not produce “Us”. So you could extend the results of evolution as chance instead of intelligent design, to these universal laws as a result of chance rather than intelligent design.

There are an infinite number of ways to NOT make humans. (or bacteria, or viruses …)

I don’t particularly like the multiverse scenario, the first thing that comes to mind: If we don’t know why and how the set of laws we have here, are like they are. – the laws of/for/behind the laws so to speak. On which basis are we describing a set of laws which is different from ours? Keep in mind that the main premise of the laws we have is to be the same everywhere. And so far this seems not incorrect yet. We would need a understanding of the physics on how laws of physics came to be in the first place. So that this underlying law we can build on remains unchanged. Without the understanding on such a bedrock law on how laws work and came to be, the most appropriate assumption would be pure chance anyway even without multiverses to fill this infinite loop . Pure chance so to speak is my placekeeper for anything untill more is known.