Are metaphysical and moral truths discoverable?

Sorry I added to my post #119 before seeing your response #120

Bloodshot said:
Oh yes, I'm fairly confident that the "fine tuning" of parameters can be achieved by natural selection mechanisms without the need for external input.
Click to expand...
The nuclear forces were inherent at the origin, is the point, imo

Anyway ...
 
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
"... Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.....".
Click to expand...
We do not know if the universe is one or one of the many. What evidence this uneducated 19th Century Iranian, 'Husayn Ali Nuri', gave for his assertion? And you have not answered by query about the 'God' fellow. Did the 'Husayn' fellow give some information about the 'God' fellow?
Sure, the universe is complex and science is trying to understand it, step by step.
 
RJM said:
I'm happy to use 'optimised' then. Its a betterĺ word. It doesn't change the meaning.
Click to expand...
The universe has come up according to whatever fundamental law was/were there, four or one. It is not optimized for any particular reason. The same true for life. Life happened on earth because of all the necessary requirements and conditions were there. And since then has evolved according to the environment, with pits and falls along the way, to create Homo sapiens around 200,000 years ago along with a million other life forms. It will not come up where these conditions do not exist. Moon, Mars or Venus are not likely to have any life.
 
Bloodshot said:
My pleasure 🙃
I'm actually quite open to the idea of an "architect", but one that designed the seed rather than the whole tree makes far more sense to me than the all knowing all powerful kind usually proposed.
Click to expand...
You are now moving to the world of woo.
1788950666794.png
 
Bloodshot said:
My pleasure 🙃

I'm actually quite open to the idea of an "architect", but one that designed the seed rather than the whole tree makes far more sense to me than the all knowing all powerful kind usually proposed.
Click to expand...
Yes. Thanks again

The universe does appear to -- what's your word -- optimise -- the formation of atoms and suns etc, against the (far) more likely scenario of everything just flying apart instead.
 
Last edited:
Protons group together when they should fly apart. Electrons adhere to quantum orbitals when they should just spiral down into the nucleus. The strong force and the quantum orbitals seem 'inserted' with the purpose of enabling atoms. They don't operate beyond the atom.
 
RJM said:
I'm happy to use 'optimised' then. Its a betterĺ word. It doesn't change the meaning.
Click to expand...
Well it does to me. "Designed" implies a designer who has a goal in mind. "Optimised" doesn't, natural selection can optimise things without needing a coordinator of any kind.
 
Longfellow said:
My reading is that he says that there isn't anything that we can know about the "God" fellow. Everything that the "God" fellow says about himself (figuratively speaking) is purely metaphorical.
Click to expand...
We cannot know, but he knows and therefore his followers also know because the One God of Abraham selected him as his manifestation.
--- And you are not to question a manifestation but follow what he says, because that is practically coming out of the mouth of God.
So while you are a member of the group he started, keep paying the tithe and if you complain then they throw you out of the group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Bloodshot said:
I'm actually quite open to the idea of an "architect", but one that designed the seed rather than the whole tree makes far more sense to me than the all knowing all powerful kind usually proposed.
Click to expand...
I'm more in mind of a Cause, that causes all things, and all things are directed to their end, which is back where they started – the intermediate stages are a grey area, but I'm not in favour of Intelligent Design as formulated by US Thinktanks.
 
Heat dissipates from a hot area to a cold one. A cold body never heats up on its own. An ink drop in water dissipates. Ink in water never coalesces back into a drop. That is the second law of thermodynamics.

Yet somehow the universe decided instead to coalesce -- first forming atoms, and later stars. In order for this to happen the strong force had to originate, restricted only to the nucleus of atoms, to hold protons of positive like charge together instead of them flying apart, as should happen.

And for the negative electrons to fly around the positively charged nucleus instead of spiralling down into it – as should happen -- the quantum orbital laws had to originate, keeping electrons to specific levels outside the nucleus. Again restricted purely to the atom, as if ‘inserted’ to make the atom possible.

And of course before any of it could begin, the proton and electron had to originate from the Big Bang with exactly equal and opposite charge, in spite of their huge difference in mass. It's said that science will one day understand why, and perhaps it's true.

So by all means – perhaps the universe really did originate and ‘choose’ the incredibly complex path towards order – against the much easier and infinitely more likely path of least resistance of dissipation and chaos -- purely by chance.

Anything can happen and when there is only one example to go by, it’s not possible to lay down odds of chance.
 
Last edited:
The W- Boson that changes subatomic particles from one into another -- a neutron into a proton -- and so enabling the atomic fusion that powers the sun and stars -- decays in the time it takes light to cover a thousandth of the width of a proton. It is only detectable by its effect and by products.

By the same reasoning the order of the universe -- down to a single atom -- points to some sort ephemeral 'organising' factor to be inferred from its effect.

Or perhaps it really did all just happen itself and order itself by pure blind chance from out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, why the one-law or the four-laws exist is a riddle and science in working on it, and probably be working on it for many more years.
But to credit it to any God (Goddidit) is unfounded. Or the believers need to offer evidence.
 
Longfellow said:
Thank you. Actually, I wasn’t thinking of multiple worlds. Just the one around us. I was thinking of multiple metaphors. What the Abrahamic scriptures say about God are not actually about God, even if there is such a being. They are metaphors, and they aren’t designed to function like descriptions of a single person. The don’t look like descriptions of a single person because they aren’t trying to.
Click to expand...
Yes that would have to be so, no one can describe God, a Messenger or any of the worlds of God. So each of us must find the meanings. I had literally just read tgis quote before opening your response.

".....“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.” (Gleanings, pp. 165-166).."

Regards Tony
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
.. this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.”
Click to expand...
What divinely ordained and subtle reality is Shoghi Rabbani talking about? Where is that? What virtue do you find in the reality?
No, I do not accept that analysis of what we face is futile. Shoghi wanted you to close your eyes from reality and believe in his flower talk.
What evidence did he give for existence of God? These religious leaders make you pessimistic so that you think only their prescription is correct.
Why should there be any helplessness? Work hard, work wise and achieve your goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top