Existence: An Explanation

A guest blogger(who wishes to remain anonymous) has let me use some of his work for a blog post. I would also like to note that I do not necessarily agree with him, and all future work he decides to do.

******************************************************************************

The mind operates under a consistent framework. That is, all states that the mind exists in are consistent with its past or future states. Principles such as the cosmological constant, the fine structure constant, kinematics, thermodynamics, etc, always remain consistent with our raw observations. If ever we find an inconsistency in our raw observations, we eventually find that it’s merely been our interpretation of those raw observations that were flawed. From this, we can infer that it’s not necessarily the case that this is a result of their being some mind independent reality.

When we deduce what the universe was like in its most primordial state, such as how it was moments after the Big Bang, we’re merely resolving the probability state in which these events existed in prior to being observed. That is to say, the Big Bang did not occur as a mind independent event; it exists as an experience that occurs in our present. In other words, the time lines of the universe and our conscious awareness are not identical. In fact, the timeline of our universe is highly analogous to the timeline one creates while understanding a fictitious storyline. When watching a movie, the viewer can deduce events of a character’s past. This does not imply that this character’s past events happened with respect to real life events. What it does imply though is that the viewer creates a time line that exists separately from one that references real life affairs. This is a perfect solution to a problem which arises in the field of quantum study; namely, retrocausality.

This theory is also the most convincing in terms of explaining the origins of our very existence. When one questions the idea of the universe resulting from conscious experience (and not the other way around), chances are their question will pertain to the origins of the conscious experience itself; or, better put, “What caused the conscious experience?” The answer to this would be that conscious experience simply exists uncaused, and that trying to think of a time when it did*’t exist will result in contradiction and thus the systematic breakdown of the thinking process. We have direct, experiential evidence of something existing uncaused. Such evidence would include various dreams, as well as the beginning of our own life relative to the universe! Be honest: Do you have any recollection of the first moments of your life? Additionally, do you ever remember how your dreams begin? It is clearly evident that it’s very well possible for our memories of the past to exist without their being an objective, mind independent past. And the fact that this resolution of the first cause paradox is supported by direct, experiential evidence, whereas others are not, makes it the most plausible of all current explanations pertaining to this study.

The Big Bang Theory is best not to be viewed as a theory that explains our existence. This theory is merely intended to explain the phenomena of cosmic expansion, such as the increasing recessional velocity of galaxies, and Cosmic Background Radiation. It says nothing about the origin of our universe or our existence. Which brings us to that question: What theory does offer an explanation for our existence? Philosophical and scientific evidence shows that the Biocentric Universe Theory does. This theory states that life (consciousness, more specifically) creates the universe, and not the other way around. In this theory, the past of the universe exists nothing more as our present experience. As we deduce what the universe was like before the existence of what we refer to as our material composition, we’re not actually discovering it as if it were already there; instead, we’re resolving it through act of observation.

Moreover to the “first cause” paradox, the Biocentric Universe Theory also offers a perfect explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. The reason why the universe is so fine tuned for life is because it is life that created the universe in the first place! This explanation is much more plausible than others, including the Anthropic Principle, the Multiverse Theory, and especially the Intelligent Design Hypothesis. All of the current alternative explanations of the fine tuning problem invoke the need for an objective reality, something that there exists no evidence for and additionally cannot escape the problem of circular definition (try defining “real” without making reference to conscious awareness). Because the other explanations of our existence and universal fine tuning lack sufficient evidence and parsimony, the Biocentric Universe Theory, a branch off of Monistic Idealism, can be deemed the most plausible explanations in terms of answering many proverbial, existential questions.

Posted in Arguments, God | 2 Comments

Why Does it Matter?

Recently, I was showing a few of my friends my blog and they asked me why I made one. They are devout Christians, and likely took offense to me showing them. I wasn’t sure why, but then I thought about it and came to a conclusion. The took offense to me showing them because although some sort of God may not exist, they are not comfortable with that conclusion. Why is this the case? Why does it matter whether or not God exists? Would your life be any different if the case were any different?

Perhaps there is some sort of meaning to God’s existence that I do no understand, and I probably never will. But I am way to stubborn to give up that easily so I took the liberty of researching this issue for this blog post, and my conclusion remains the same. But I can also understand why to some people God not existing would be absolutely devastating.

One of the main things that I understand is ethics, and the ethical appeal of religion is certainly easier to defend than atheism. I have not been yet convinced that objective moral values exist, and it is pretty much the deciding factor in me believing in some sort of God. People generally don’t like that idea that there is nothing actually wrong with murder, and I admit that is a hard thing to say. But simply because there is nothing actually wrong with it doesn’t mean that there is something right about it. People often take offense to such a blunt defense of error theory, but that really is just a misunderstanding of the argument as a whole.

What about the other side of the argument? Why does it matter? I myself don’t really think it does. If God does exist, I do not believe he is performing miracles right now. I don’t believe he is intervening in history. I don’t think that this means that we have some sort of purpose to our lives. Simply because I answer no to all of these questions doesn’t mean that it is impossible for someone to answer yes to them. Because they are, quite literally, impossible to prove or disprove. All opinions on them are entirely subjective. To some, it does matter. And we have no right to state otherwise.

Posted in Atheism, Ethics, God, Miracle, Theism | 5 Comments

Desire Utilitarianism – My Problem With It

Lately, I have been thinking about what I want to do with my life. I have decided that I want to make an impact on how humans view ethical problems as a whole. In my search for an ethical theory, I came across desire utilitarianism(desirism), and at first was pretty convinced by it. But now I no longer see it as a correct ethical theory and instead believe error theory to be more plausible. Allow me to explain how I arrived at this conclusion. I haven’t concluded a sure fire moral theory to follow, but I have concluded that desirism is not it.

I believe desirism to be false because in the end it does not solve the problem of morals being objective. When it is attempted to be explained, it really doesn’t get to what is really right and what is really wrong. It attempts to explain this by saying our desires have value, and it is up to us to ‘discover’ what is right and wrong. This is where I found problems with the reasoning of desirism. Allow me to explain.

The obvious answer to this is what if I desire to murder? Wouldn’t this render desirism an impossible moral theory to follow? The general response is that our desires have good and bad reasons on why we should follow them. Can you think of a good reason to murder? Surely you can think of many bad reasons to kill. But this is just begging the question. What makes those reasons bad, and the other ones good? What if i state that the reason for murder is justified and no matter what you state can change that? In the end, this becomes a purely subjective view of the world and I feel that it doesn’t answer what is truly right and wrong.

Using this theory, we must accept that some sort of objective truth exists in the propositions that we put forth. When I state that setting puppies on fire is immoral, that proposition has some sort of ethical truth to it. But why does it have this ethical truth? Why is setting puppies on fire an immoral act? Lets examine both sides to see the outcome.

Setting puppies on fire is immoral because it is harmful to the puppies, not only is it a cruel, evil, terrible act. But the puppies would probably argue against it(presuming they could). If we examine the person lighting the puppies on fire, what gives him the right to do this? I already mentioned that it was a cruel, evil, terrible act. But what does it take for an act to be considered this? How do we not know if petting those puppies is an evil, cruel, terrible act? What constitutes an act to be considered evil, cruel and terrible? How do we know that’s what constitutes it? How do we know that it’s not morally acceptable since the person burning the puppies is fulfilling his desire to do so? How do we know that does not outweigh all of the other desires against it? These questions are simply impossible to answer under this moral theory, and the problem that this moral theory proclaims to solve is simply false.

Posted in Arguments, Bad Arguments, Ethics | Leave a comment

Is Porn Unethical?

As a 17 year old boy, I watch porn. I am not ashamed to admit this because I see it as a perfectly natural function of our human desires. But that really doesn’t answer my question. Lets explore this issue.

The conservative view to pornography is that it is degrading to women. But is this really a good point rather than a useless one? Both(or more) parties involved in the scene know exactly what they are doing, and are okay with it. If they are not, they simply do not do the scene and do something else. If they were not okay with doing porn, then they wouldn’t get into the business.

Perhaps they are not porn stars by choice, and do it because they have no other way to make money. But this is often not the case. Many porn stars could have made money the ‘honest’ way, and this is the case more often then not. Listening to a lot of interviews, it seems that most porn stars became porn stars because they wanted too, not because it was their only option. Maybe it was their only option, but this still raises issues. Because this is the case for millions of people. They do jobs that they do not want to do because they have little choice.

Though my view is simple, it is one likely not to change. Perhaps there is a reason why I make sure to delete my history and make sure no one is home before I watch it. But I think it might be the same reason why I lock the door to the bathroom. Both are in my mind embarrassing and it is not something that you would want someone to watch you doing. But they are both also perfectly normal human functions that should not be considered immoral.

Posted in Ethics | 1 Comment

A Question to Alonzo Fyfe

After reading about desirism, and discussing it with a few people. I am afraid I am not convinced it is a true moral theory. So to have the question I have answered, I emailed Alonzo Fyfe himself.

Hello,

Recently, I came across desirism through Luke’s blog and it lead me to your site. I really enjoy your work, and writing style but there really is something I do not understand about desirism after discussing it with a few people.

You already responded to why it is bad to torture children, but I had an issue with your response. You stated that the child killer has to examine why that statement has value, and what that value means. You then conclude that the children have much more reasons to believe that it is immoral.

But I still don’t think that solves anything, as it still becomes subjective in the end. What makes the child’s life more valuable than the desires of the killer? After someone asked me these questions, I kept attempting to answer them but he simply kept asking me why. The thing was, even if I explained why the child’s life is more valuable, he simply asserted that he thinks his desires are more valuable.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer these questions, as I really couldn’t. Because, through the method of desirism(unless I misunderstand it somehow), it still ends up being a subjective problem.

Thanks,

Justin

Not really sure if it’s a good question, because I have not read to much into desirism. But it is still one I need answered if I have any hope of following this moral theory.

Posted in Arguments, Debate, Ethics | 8 Comments

Is the Bible Correct About Homosexuality? – Part 2

In my previous blog post on this subject, I explored why Christians view it to be immoral. But are they correct about it? I usually don’t like writing from the Christian perspective, because of how nonsensical it seems to me. But if I want to expand on my philosophical knowledge, and how other people think, it is a must. Not only for me, but also for the readers of this blog.

Marriage was viewed very differently at the time the Bible was written. It was viewed as very ‘business like’. Lets make a brief example: assume for a moment that you own a farm in the first century. You have a young, 22-year-old daughter who is not married, and is still a virgin. Now assume that your neighbours, who are also farmers, have a son around the same age(or much older). In order for you to own both lands, you would force your daughter to marry this stranger.

You cannot hold the morals of when the bible was written to the morals of today. There are of course examples of actual love based marriages, but not as much as their should be. And holding Homosexuality to the same morals as when the Bible was written is simply not fair. And two men who love each other should have the right to marry, and have sex in a perfectly loving relationship(under the Christian view).

It is stated in the Bible many times that God is perfectly loving. A perfectly loving God would not condemn Homosexuality, He would want both men to be happy. Saying otherwise is almost a contradiction to the nature of God, and almost makes no sense to agree with. Most Christians I meet don’t really have any good reasons to condemn Homosexuality, other than it says so in the Bible. Some pull different ‘arguments’ out of their ass. But using an argument that you don’t base your belief on is not exactly good either.

Posted in Arguments, Bad Arguments, God, Homosexuality, Theism | Leave a comment

The Problem of Evil Examined

In my previous post on this subject, I conveyed two points. God cannot create evil since God creating evil would be considered a logical contradiction. I then stated that God does create evil(assuming He exists). Either God is doing the logically impossible, or He does not exist. I would say that the latter is more likely, and not even modal logic can show otherwise.

This blog post garnered interest from another blog called The Aristophrenium. He copied, and pasted our little discussion we had concerning this, and I conceded as I needed to start making blog posts. But for now, I will respond to some points he made concerning my formulation. I presented my argument like so:

  • P1:  If evil exists, then God created it.
  • P2: By simple assertion,  it is at the very least considered a sin.
  • P3: God cannot sin.
  • C: Following premises 1-3, God cannot create objective moral values since this would include making evil.

The first obvious response to the first premise is that evil is not an ontological term. Meaning that it is not something that can be created, and rather a moral term. God’s morality is grounded and He cannot do what is contrary to His nature. I do not think I am treating evil as an ontological term, but lets explore what the bible says about this issue. As Isaiah 45:7 states:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all these things.

As this quote states, God did in fact create evil. So this passage does treat evil like an ontological term. I still do not see the difference if evil were an ontological term, or a moral one(or even both). As I feel they all come to the same conclusion: evil was created. Perhaps I should reformulate my syllogism to help people better understand:

  • P1:  If evil began to exist, then God brought it into existence.
  • P2: By simple assertion,  it is at the very least considered a sin.
  • P3: God cannot sin.
  • C: Following premises 1-3, God cannot bring evil into existence.

Ryft attempts to rebut my point by stating the passage was referring to “disaster or calamity”. Perhaps he is correct in this, but I still fail to see how this is an objection. It seems like it is helping my point if anything. As not only are calamity and disaster both ontological terms, but they also include morality. A commenter on my previous blog post made some points regarding his rebuttal.

First notice that Ryft does not explain what exactly is the relevant difference between “disaster or calamity” on the one hand, and “moral evil” on the other. He says that “moral evil” cannot be created because it’s moral, not ontological. But it is not clear how this is supposed to follow. Also, however Isaiah 45:7 is translated, it needs to refer to something which can, on Christian grounds, be created, since it portrays its god as the one which does create it. “Disaster or calamity,” on Ryft’s view, must be ontological in order to fit the bill as he has informed it. What is ignored here is the fact that both “moral evil” and “disaster or calamity” threaten and/or destroy human values. Since morality is concerned with values, this is important to keep in mind.

Ryft is treating disaster, calamity and moral terms as mutual terms. If a terrorist suicide bombs a preschool, is this not considered disaster, calamity AND evil? Why is this any different from God when He creates a plague that kills millions? Why is this any different from God when He develops a hurricane that kills thousands, and leaves millions homeless? I can think of dozens of examples in my head. But I don’t see how creating disaster and calamity CANNOT be considered evil.

After exploring this issue, I still conclude that my argument still stands.

Posted in Arguments, Atheism, Debate, Ethics, God | 9 Comments