-->
@keithprosser
Hey keith gus agrees, leave me out. LOL
Why do you believe in God?
Posts
Total:
393
-->
@disgusted
Unfortunately its not possible (afaik) to correct the @ line of a post. Of course I intended the remark for Athias.
-->
@keithprosser
I get it mate. Your the cool dude
-->
@Athias
I've not said that it's irrelevant to you or anyone else. I said that it's irrelevant to me because it is. I don't concern myself with "how."
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean, you don't "concern" yourself with how?
Do you see God, hear God, feel God, or what? Why are you being evasive? It's pretty straightforward. There are very few means of perception.
-->
@janesix
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean, you don't "concern" yourself with how?'
It means exactly how I stated it: I don't concern myself with "how." Vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, somatosensation, cognition, etc. It makes no difference to me.
Do you see God, hear God, feel God, or what? Why are you being evasive? It's pretty straightforward. There are very few means of perception.
I'm not being evasive. You're looking for something that's not there. You are far more concerned with how I perceive than I am.
-->
@janesix
Do you think the world would be a better place of societies followed the laws of nature?
In some ways, others not. This might sound strange, but just as we have natural laws that stabilize this material universe so we have "spiritual" laws that stabilize what transcends this world. Just using the term "spiritual" as a means to describe what we perceive in higher consciousness. However natural laws can be brutal, they care not for sympathy or the weak, if we were to follow just natural laws basically it would come down to strong survive and weak are consumed. Of course this must be in this part of creation for it to evolve in a realistic manner coming from a purely physical/material frame of mind.
If we were to follow the natural laws that apply to chemistry and physics the way our body responds to chemistry concerning health this would be another planet to experience, health ailments would rarely be an issue because nature has all the answers that correlate with that aspect of our experience, as well if we were to apply the natural AND the spiritual laws together understanding the difference between the nature of the two we would be doing pretty darn good. Especially for society and collectivity as a whole, but purely natural laws have no sympathy or concern with the subjective experience of humans and their welfare. Fortunately there does exist a balance so that our experience isn't entirely consumed because of weakness.
and what if parts of those laws were numerical?for instance, what if we created our buildings in accordance to natural numeric harmonic laws?
Not sure, but interesting thought.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think the ancient Egyptians conformed to natural and spiritual laws, if indeed they are even different, through ritual,temple dimensions and alignments,music,art etc. I believe this is why they were able to keep their civilization going for three thousand or more years. I don't think their society was ideal, but I think it was kept in some semblance of civilized order for millenia. I am currently researching this theory, although I can't recall at the moment where I learned about it. For instance, their music and art had to legally conform to specific standards. I am sure their buildings and temples did as well. I am unable to confirm this idea at the moment, but I am finding it fascinating to research.
-->
@janesix
I think the ancient Egyptians conformed to natural and spiritual laws
Wow that's something I haven't considered yet, I tend to be more fascinated with the Native Americans culture and would probably say the same about them, do you see any similarities there?
if indeed they are even different,
No need to get antsy, again it's just a term to distinguish that which we we experience as purely physical senses as opposed to higher frequencies of awareness. Spiritual can be considered natural if you get real technical.
through ritual,temple dimensions and alignments,music,art etc. I believe this is why they were able to keep their civilization going for three thousand or more years. I don't think their society was ideal, but I think it was kept in some semblance of civilized order for millenia. I am currently researching this theory, although I can't recall at the moment where I learned about it. For instance, their music and art had to legally conform to specific standards. I am sure their buildings and temples did as well. I am unable to confirm this idea at the moment, but I am finding it fascinating to research.
Yeah I've done minimal research with Egyptian culture, obviously I'm aware of the mysteries surrounding the pyramids and that's very interesting, I'll have to look more into this one!
-->
@EtrnlVw
I apologize if my phrase appeared to be antsy! It wasn't my intention. I only meant I am unsure if natural and spiritual law are different. Perhaps spiritual laws are in place to counteract the unfeeling and uncompromising natural laws. Which is pretty much what you said, and makes sense
-->
@janesix
I apologize if my phrase appeared to be antsy! It wasn't my intention. I only meant I am unsure if natural and spiritual law are different.
Haha I just have seen you say this before so I know you don't really like to use that terminology. They are only different in the way I described them, spiritual can be natural but then you have no way to articulate the distinction between purely physical sense perception and higher frequencies of experience that transcends that.
Perhaps spiritual laws are in place to counteract the unfeeling and uncompromising natural laws. Which is pretty much what you said, and makes sense
Sweet, it does make sense. Good way to put it.
-->
@janesix
Perhaps spiritual laws are in place to counteract the unfeeling and uncompromising natural laws.
What if we said natural laws and ethical laws?
I guess that would be pretty much what the Hindu's call Karma, whatcha think?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sounds good to me.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Except if there ARE spiritual laws, different from both ethical and natural laws. I would suggest there probably are spiritual laws, that govern us in spiritual form, and "natural " laws are a subset of those, that govern us in material form.
Spiritual laws would probably govern when/how/why we would want/need to be in material form. There are probably things we can't even imagine that goes on in spiritual form, when we are stuck in these material bodies.
-->
@Athias
1) Yep. I totally agree.
Logic and reason can only be regarded as personal data handling.
I was merely suggesting that it might be worth thinking about and then comparing what would be the real achievements and likely characteristics of a creator God, with the God described in the mythological fantasy of the Bible.
As I see it, the God of the Bible is clearly a very naïve and obvious human construct.
2) Knowledge is stored data and epistemology is no more or no less than data processing.
So what or where are the benchmarks for determining the significance or insignificance of processed data?
One could easily and logically conclude that all knowledge is insignificant.
However, I would personally suggest that there are good hypotheses to the contrary.
If you haven't had a personal experience to lead you to your religion then you are simply a cultural whatever.
-->
@Athias
How can that be? Mathematics is make-believe.
Abstract, not concrete.
How can you be so certain that these principles were used if they're imaginary?
Because they are logically coherent and verifiable.
Aren't you just looking at a proverbial inkblot of matter and "naming" it a "computer" and saying that you "used mathematical principles"? What use does your imagination have in anything other than perpetuating the unjustifiable folly of your imagination?
When abstract concepts demonstrate practical application, this proves their efficacy.
-->
@Athias
Do you believe in solipsism?
-->
@Athias
Imaginary and purely abstract concepts can demonstrate nothing--nothing physical or material at least.
You observe water running down a hill. You form a hypothesis "perhaps I can divert that water by digging a canal". Then you test that hypothesis.
Your hypothesis is IMAGINARY. Your hypothesis is ABSTRACT.
They don't exist, right? How does the nonexistent interact with and influence the existent and vice versa?
Things in your imagination do not exist in a real, concrete and verifiable manner.
There is a very clear difference between what is concrete and what is abstract.
Is there a nexus? Who or what is this nexus? And what does that mean for the nexus? Does it exist or does it not exist? Or is it entirely irrelevant?
Apparently your brain can make useful predictions. These predictions are not real, but are instead ABSTRACT and IMAGINARY.
-->
@TheAtheist
Do you?Do you believe in solipsism?
-->
@zedvictor4
One could easily and logically conclude that all knowledge is insignificant.
What does it mean for something to be significant? Could you give me an example of something that is significant and something that is insignificant?
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheAtheist
@3RU7AL
Abstract, not concrete
What's the difference between abstract and imaginary? What's the difference between concrete and material?
Because they are logically coherent and verifiable.
Pending your explanation, logic and veracity are imaginary. The standard by which you determined something concrete and "real" is imaginary. How can the "real" and the "imaginary" coexist?
When abstract concepts demonstrate practical application, this proves their efficacy.
Once again: efficacious toward what? Your imagination? What does it prove?
You observe water running down a hill.
I observe matter. Everything else is "imaginary."
You form a hypothesis "perhaps I can divert that water by digging a canal". Then you test that hypothesis.
Things like "divert" and "dig" are all in my head. The only thing i can really test for is material composition--if that--since the imaginary, as you state below, cannot exist in a real, concrete, and verifiable manner.
Things in your imagination do not exist in a real, concrete and verifiable manner.
Are we modifying our description of existence now? If they don't exist in a "real, concrete, and verifiable manner," then do they exist at all?
There is a very clear difference between what is concrete and what is abstract.
Don't merely state that "there is a very clear difference..." Establish that difference.
Apparently your brain can make useful predictions. These predictions are not real, but are instead ABSTRACT and IMAGINARY.
So our brains are the nexus? If the abstract can serve practical uses, then what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?
(Once again, I'm being purposefully facetious. I know the argument you've been attempting to state. But you've been undermining it by teetering between two descriptions of existence. Rather than merely tell you that your argument makes little--if any---sense we're going to hash out your reasoning here, and demonstrate that it makes little--if any--sense.
@TheAtheist
Do you believe in solipsism?
I lean toward subjective idealism and epistemological solipsism. I've been having an internal debate for years with dualism, but have yet to come to a resolution.
-->
@Athias
(IFF) substance dualism is true (THEN) natural and supernatural cannot possibly interact (THEREFORE) de facto monism is true.I've been having an internal debate for years with dualism, but have yet to come to a resolution.
(IFF) natural and supernatural CAN interact (THEN) substance dualism is FALSE (THEREFORE) monism is true.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) substance dualism is true (THEN) natural and supernatural cannot possibly interact (THEREFORE) de facto monism is true.(IFF) natural and supernatural CAN interact (THEN) substance dualism is FALSE (THEREFORE) monism is true.
Well, I wouldn't word it "natural" and "supernatural," but the first statement is true only in epistemological considerations rather than ontological. Hence, I lean toward subjective idealism and epistemological solipsism. My internal debate is a fool's errand in resolving the epistemological vs ontological debate. Your bringing this up, however, is actually quite pertinent to our discussion. Sustaining the aforementioned statements you brought up, what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?
-->
@Athias
Things in your imagination do not exist in a real, concrete and verifiable manner.Are we modifying our description of existence now? If they don't exist in a "real, concrete, and verifiable manner," then do they exist at all?
I'm not suggesting that abstract imagination is "nothingness".
I'm simply making the definition of "exist" explicitly (scientifically) verifiable and real (not imaginary or abstract).
exist
- intransitive verbTo have actual being; be real. [LINK]
-->
@Athias
Sustaining the aforementioned statements you brought up, what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?
It's a practical distinction, not a fundamental distinction.
It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not suggesting that abstract imagination is "nothingness".
Then what are you suggesting? If you're suggesting abstract imagination isn't nothing, then you at the very least acknowledge that abstract imagination is something.
I'm simply making the definition of "exist" explicitly (scientifically) verifiable and real (not imaginary or abstract).
So semantics? You solicited my "preferred" definition, and proceeded to challenge my arguments using yours? (And where is "verifiable." I didn't see it in your link.)
It's a practical distinction, not a fundamental distinction.
So what is fundamental? If you're claiming that abstract and concrete are merely practical distinctions, to which "sphere," for lack of a better term, do they belong?
-->
@Athias
It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".
watch out for BRod!
-->
@3RU7AL
Elaborate. If abstract and concrete are distinctions, what would you call the fundamental "substance" to which they both belong? If existence, according to you, indicates the concrete, and imaginary indicates the abstract, then what do you call that which encapsulates them both?It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".
-->
@Athias
It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".Elaborate. If abstract and concrete are distinctions, what would you call the fundamental "substance" to which they both belong? If existence, according to you, indicates the concrete, and imaginary indicates the abstract, then what do you call that which encapsulates them both?
Noumenon.