There is no such thing as an Atheists.

Author: Grugore

Posts

Total: 518
#421
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
The religious frame work.

A God .
A Human God.
A Holy Book. 
A Clubhouse. 

The human God's have all been giving some writings or other nic nacs directly from god and ya need to know em.
But keep in mind 50% of these human god's are gambits so to speak. Their great front men. 
You know what i mean , 

If these stories of Jesus are somewhat true ( IT APPEARS TO ME ) He was a brilliant gambit.  




#422
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Yes Brahman would be their version of what you call the Ultimate Reality. 
#423
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes Brahman would be their version of what you call the Ultimate Reality. 

I think its actually 'No. Brahman would be their version of what you call the Ultimate Reality."   Bhahman is not a god in hinduism. 

AFAICT, mopacs god/ultimate reality resembles Spinoza's god which has long been seen as a Brahman-like concept.   mopac should read some Spinoza if only to learn how how express himself instead repeating the same stuff over and over and boring everyone to death!
 





#424
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@keithprosser
Aren't all the gods supposed to reflect Brahman, the supreme creator, somehow?  
#425
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
To analogize, Mars is the god of war.   Mars is a god and war is what he is god of, but Mars is not war.
 
The hindu gods are gods of brahman, but the gods are not brahman.  many Hindu are atheists and accept the existence of brahman as a universal principle but consider the stories about the gods to be no more than instructive fables.


#426
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Grugore
Atheists don't exist. I don't believe in them.

Completely understandable, you believe in things that don't exist ie gods so it is quite within your paradigm to disbelieve in things that do exist ie atheists.
#427
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
1 quantum fluctuation is not an evidence of things coming into being without a cause. That is preposterous and ignorant.

And yet believing that a dictionary is the word of some god isn't.

#428
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I point this out an awful lot, so I am happy to point this out...
In English we have this problem where god and God are pronounced the same, but they mean 2 different things. You do not have this problem in other languages.



Congratulations on noticing one of these instances.



#429
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't think its English but monotheism that causes the blurring between the 'god' and 'God'.
It happens in the bible too.    From 'the great god, YHWH' to 'the great God' to just 'God'.
#430
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
It is only confusing to those who aren't in on it.

But it isn't always that way. For example, in Arabic we have Allah for God and illah for god.




#431
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It is not a fallacy to declare the existence of The Ultimate Reality.
I agree.

It is a fallacy to deny the existence of The Ultimate Reality.
I also agree.

As this is the case, being on the fence is not an intelligent position.
To be perfectly clear, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is a logical prerequisite to phenomenon/consciousness.

To say that The Ultimate Reality never began to exist is not a special pleading fallacy, it is necessarily true.
Nope.  Axiomatically you can say absolutely nothing about noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) EXCEPT that it is a logical prerequisite to phenomenon/consciousness.

But it is a waste of time demonstrating this to someone who can't even believe that The Ultimate Reality exists to begin with. If you can't make that first step of sanity, proving anything would be a waste ofntime, because you don't really believe in proof.
In other words, you have failed to communicate clearly with your intended audience.

#432
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Are you contending that it's possible to get something from the absence of anything?  No energy, no wavy things, no basis for 'reality' of any sort whatsoever...nothing.  That would be the only way to rule out any cause.
Every single physicist and cosmologist on earth understands that the "laws of physics" as we currently understand them completely break down when you look back approximately 13.799 billion years ago.

The concepts of time and space and matter and energy go completely out the proverbial window.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#433
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
I think you are confusing comes from nothing (no cause) with comes from nothing (no existece). I have only proposed the first idea not the second.
#434
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'll have to check out the 1978 movie "Game of Death".
#435
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
To analogize, Mars is the god of war.   Mars is a god and war is what he is god of, but Mars is not war. 
The hindu gods are gods of brahman, but the gods are not brahman.  many Hindu are atheists and accept the existence of brahman as a universal principle but consider the stories about the gods to be no more than instructive fables.
Well stated.
#436
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If time could change The Ultimate Reality, time would be a reality over it.

That cannot be the case.

The Ultimate Reality must precede time.

Make sense?

#437
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
If time could change The Ultimate Reality, time would be a reality over it.
To be perfectly clear, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is a logical prerequisite to phenomenon/consciousness.

The nature of space-time may or may not extend beyond our ability to observe it as a phenomenon.

That cannot be the case.
The concept of space-time is knowable, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is unknowable.

The Ultimate Reality must precede time.
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.  There is no way to know either way.  This statement is beyond our epistemological limits.

Both the fundamental nature of space-time and noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) are unknown/unknowable.

Make sense?
#438
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If time is not always operative than something needs to be, independant of time, for anything to be.  Either time is always operative or its must be possible to be independent of time.

#439
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
If time is not always operative than something needs to be outside of time for anything to be.
The nature of space-time may or may not extend beyond our ability to observe it as a phenomenon.

Both the fundamental nature of space-time and noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) are unknown/unknowable (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).
#440
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
If time is not always operative...
How would we know this?

#441
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Jeremy Bearimy Explains Time -


#442
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you are confusing comes from nothing (no cause)
There exists no cause or purpose for existence of eternally existent occupied space Universe. This is a minimal brainer.

There is indeed a cause for any events within any time period of an eternally existent, occupied space Universe.

with comes from nothing (no existece).
Macro-infinite non-occupied exists eternally in complement to eternally existent occupied space Universe

Metaphysical-1, cosmic laws/principles exist eternally in complement to occupied space Universe and non-occupied space.


#443
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Both the fundamental nature of space-time and noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) are unknown/unknowable (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).
Not true, as we can know this or that via indirect observed data.  LIGO indirectly proves existence of gravity via retarded speeds of one set of photon{s} return arrival time.

#444
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
Both the fundamental nature of space-time and noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) are unknown/unknowable (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).
Not true, as we can know this or that via indirect observed data.  LIGO indirectly proves existence of gravity via retarded speeds of one set of photon{s} return arrival time.
Axiomatically, we can not know what we cannot observe.

In other words, we cannot extrapolate, directly or indirectly, the nature of space-time "before" 13.799 billion years ago.

LIGO tells us absolutely nothing about the fundamental nature of space-time.

LIGO gives us data that we can use to extrapolate and predict phenomena.
#445
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If time was a reality higher than the ultimate reality, what you are calling the ultimate reality would not be the ultimate reality.


For time to exist, there must be existence. Existence precedes time. Without existence, there can be no time.



So to be clear, I dispute that this is an observational issue. Obviously, you can't observe anything outside of time, and being time bound creatures it would be impossible for us to observe eternity directly.


The Ultimate Reality is certainly eternal and unchanging. Otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is.
#446
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd also like to point out that I still don't like the term noumenon to describe The Ultimate Reality, because it turns it into a mental object rather than what it is. There are a few here who take God as a level of consciousness I have noticed. That is very similar to this idea of The Ultimate Reality being called noumenon.

In Orthodox spirituality, we understand the nous as an integral part of the human being, and it is something to be purified and hopefully illuminated. So we take the noetic very seriously.

But God is not a mental construct, and the concept we use for The Ultimate Reality is God.

For the sake of discussion, I won't dwell on this, but that is my disclaimer. I wouldn't call The Ultimate Reality noumenon.

#447
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
If time was a reality higher than the ultimate reality, what you are calling the ultimate reality would not be the ultimate reality.
The point is that we don't know and we may not be able to know if the fundamental nature of space-time is or is not also a fundamental aspect of noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).

For time to exist, there must be existence. Existence precedes time. Without existence, there can be no time.
For the human concept and experience of space-time to exist, there must be humans.

We cannot say for certain if "existence precedes time" without knowing fully and exactly what "existence" and "space-time" actually are fundamentally and where they "came from".

So to be clear, I dispute that this is an observational issue. Obviously, you can't observe anything outside of time, and being time bound creatures it would be impossible for us to observe eternity directly.
Exactly.  And as such, it is also impossible for us to determine if "eternity" even "exists" at all.

The Ultimate Reality is certainly eternal and unchanging. Otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is.
The bald assertion of, "The Ultimate Reality is certainly eternal and unchanging" is not logically sound.

When you say, "otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is" you are simply taking a stab at an ad-hoc ontological argument.

There is no way anyone can tell if noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium) is either "eternal" or not or "unchanging" or not because it is unobservable either directly or indirectly and defined as the unknown/unknowable.

In the same way that being able to use a computer (observable phenomenon of space-time) doesn't mean you know how to make a computer from scratch (understand the fundamental nature of space-time).

If you don't know (or can't know) the fundamental nature of "time", you have no way of saying "before time - everything was eternal" or "without time - everything was eternal" you can't simply assume that what may or may not be beyond our epistemological limits either is or isn't subject to something like or some aspect of "time".  What you don't know is not automatically the opposite of what you do know. [LINK]

You can't really say what it is.

You can't really say what it isn't.
#448
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality cannot change, because if it changed it wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality. If it changed, it wouldn't already be perfect.

As The Ultimate Reality does not change, time has no dominion over it.


#449
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If you can't be sure that a state of being is an eternal feature in nature, is there anything you are sure of?  
#450
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
If you can't be sure that a state of being is an eternal feature in nature, is there anything you are sure of?
Hume is notorious for his "problem of induction".

We can be reasonably sure of things that are reasonably reliable phenomena.

Everything else is out the window.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.