Replies to a Hater of God

Following are my replies to a hater of God from a FB chatroom. I haven’t included his attacks here. I can however use the material again. since the attacks are rather genetic.

The OP was just on the topic of what is the fundamental stuff of the universe; is it information?

Information is meaningful for sentients. Within noumena for-itsrlf nothing is meaningful or prioritized unless God deems it so. For humans I would say fields are fundamental and waves an aspect of them.

-You may feel that way but the comment is irrelevant in the criterion of considering the noumenon. Non-sentient being has no meaning, unless for God. To clarify that for you; subtracting human and any other sentient beings existing in the phenomenal nothing meaningful exists with the sole possible exception being God who may issue the noumenon. I am aware that some atheists and agnostics would fail to understand that, believing they would need to concede the existence of God to agree with the point even though that is not at all necessary. Even so some would yet wish to express their unbelief and make some sort of ad hominem or psychological comment on anyone making that point

– Ivmight point out that even Sartre made a comparable point when he said in Being and Nothingness that only God could see the world and how others of the world see him at the same time. People have said that Sartre didn’t believe in God, although I can’t confirm that. Regardless belief isn’t necessary to consider a supernatural supreme being author of reality in relationship to non,-sentient mass and noumena that no sentience coheres in to know or care about.

-You brought up the topic of ancient Greece with a false claim that I didn’t take ancient Greek history seriously so I controverted that falsehood. Flipping about between ad hominems and topics is polemical- not philosophical. Philosophy is a reasoned activity not a flight from straw man to straw man deflection.

The OP concerned in effect, Shannon entropy and the question of it being fundamental or alternatively, what is fundamental- i.e. fermions, bosons etc. You’re tangential diatribes are off topic.

Apparently you are motivated by a hatred of Christianity and attack the concept of God like a bull charging a red flag wherever you encounter it.

Ancient history is a continuum so far as it is known. Even the 11th century b,c settlements in Anatolia and the Levant are meaningful for Christians. The Younger Dryas and change of climate and sea level with the Saudi peninsula are relevant. History doesn’t wear blinders.

-“Nature integrates values” is an anthropomorphic proposition. Collingwood might have observed that it presupposes nature as having values. “We integrate values whether we agree or not” is an equivocation begging the point of self-contradiction implicitly. Nature is not a synonym for an individual or humanity. Asserting the equivalence effectively dissolves reason into matter or presupposes the reason of nature, perhaps as an intelligible monism.

Greek history is pretty irrelevant to the OP and correcting falsehood is not unwise. Your assertion that I didn’t take ancient Greek history seriously was false- the best way to show that was citing some of my reading in the field.

-I would agree that Greek philosophy is not the most direct way to reply to the OP although I wouldn’t rule it out since preSocratics like Parmenides and Heraclitus were keenly interested in such matters. You brought ancient Greece up- not me. History of the Maccabees or Assyrian invasion of Judah won’t build up a good answer to the question; try this free course online if you are interest in Greek philosophy before Plato. https://coursera.org/learn/plato

-The 11th millennium BCE is a good place to start learning about civilization. I haven't time to instruct you on history, on Socrates' inquiries into truth or the condition of being lost spiritually and predestination to heaven or hell. Reliance on global warming gas generating fuels for transport isn't very inventive or adaptive. https://youtu.be/vXJc-Y3Mf5w?feature=shared

Common street wisdom aka common philosophy is substantially different from the prescriptive, analytic and speculative philosophical ventures of philosophers the past 3700 years. Maybe the question is to what extent does one need to examine life to merit being regarded as a philosopher. Philosophy or wisdom may require more than channel surfing, Nintendo and sports, working for corporate or satiation with prosperity. The standard may be non-philosophical.  Philosophers are not a demographic majority.