Current time: 19th May 2013, 02:53
Our server costs $125 a month to run. Since January 2013 we have raised $263.37.
Please help keep our community online by donating what you can. Also visit our sister site: Freethought Forums!
Please help keep our community online by donating what you can. Also visit our sister site: Freethought Forums!
A Non-Violent Solution?
15th February 2012, 16:52
RE: A Non-Violent Solution?
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.
I'm not asking anyone to loan credence to anything. All I'm asking them to do is not to lie about what they can't know. When you proclaim to know that no possible concept of spirit can possibly exist, you are either outright lying about what is actually known, or you are displaying a gross ignorance of your own to actually believe that yourself.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: Certain doom is not necessarily a 'fact'. It's just something that you have personally accepted to believe because you can't imagine a spiritual essence to reality.
I personally don't believe that you can. After all, if you could, then why would you so passionately proclaim that it's been ruled out and cannot possibly be?
It's crystal clear that you cannot imagine a spiritual component to reality.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: And I never said that it would protect anyone from anything. All I suggested is that it would allow people to have hope who wish to consider these things as possibilities.
It's 'safer' for society in general because there are no doctrine that proclaim to be the 'Word and Commandments' of any God when considering a mystical philosophy of spirit. No one could proclaim that God hates homosexuals, or that God even demands to be worshiped, or that God supports male-chauvinism, or that God will cast non-believer into an eternal hell-fire as punishment for refusing to believe and obey.
Those kinds of religions can be dismissed solely on the content of their absurd contradictions of what they claim their God characters must be.
You don't even need science to dismiss them. You can easily dismiss on pure common sense. It's asinine to proclaim that a God who will hateful condemn everyone who doesn't believe in him to be an all-benevolent God.
These religions can be dismissed so easily the only miracles associated with them is the miracle that anyone today is still gullible enough to believe in them.
Ideas of spirituality that doesn't proclaim to hold scriptures of commandments and directives written by an "all-benevolent hateful god" would indeed be far 'safer'. No one could hold up a book and proclaim to have "the word of God" in their hands.
Spirit as a mystery would necessarily need to remain a mystery. Anyone proclaiming to have any more knowledge of spirit than this would be laughed off the planet.
I personally believe that this extreme phobia to any idea of spirituality actually stems from these jealous-God religions that basically amount to nothing more than emotional terrorism aimed toward anyone who doesn't believe in them.
It's just a gross over-reaction to the problem.
It would be like outlawing all knives because someone used a knife to stab someone to death.
The hateful God of the Hebrew mythology is the problem. It has created Islam and Christianity. Two religions that have grown to become emotional terrorism in the name of this mythological God. Even the original Judaism never seemed to get quite that disgusting about it. But even so, they still support many of the idiotic claims made by the religion within their own culture.
But to get carried away and try to claim that any and all spiritual ideas must be ruled out just because of a few bad apple religions it over-kill.
It's just an over-reaction to the problem, and it's a falsity in its own right anyway. No such thing has ever been proven in any verifiable way, nor it is likely that any such verifiable proof could even be constructed. To even begin to claim to have such proof (as you claim to have), you would first need to know the precise details of every possible picture of spirit that anyone could possibly imagine. Otherwise, how could you possibly claim to have disproved their specific picture of spirit?
You couldn't. And this is precisely why your claim is utterly absurd.
All your claim can possibly do is demonstrate your own lack of imagination to come up with a picture of spirit that can't circumvent what you believe you have disproved.
So all you're doing by proclaiming to have such a proof is displaying your own lack of creative thinking.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: So says you.
I've fully understood every claim you have made thus far, and I've even tried to explain to you why your objections don't even remotely apply to concepts of spirit that I can construct.
In fact, I can prove you wrong right now. All of life could be an illusion created in such a way that you would indeed be lured into believing what you currently believe (i.e. that any spiritual essence to reality can be rulsed out). So in that case, all you would have done is fallen for the illusion that was actually designed to lure you into that very conclusion.
If you believe that you can rule that out, then you're far limited in creative thought than I had first imagined.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: I disagree. It's that simple.
No, that very claim is an unwarranted assumption on your part.
You can have absolutely no clue whether your 'axiom of existence' would even be applicable to such a separate reality. You must be imagining in your mind that any imagined 'separate reality' is just basically a copy of your experience of spacetime removed by a dimension or something like that.
Your "axiom of existence' stems from your belief in cause & effect, a unidirectional flow of time, a supposed dichotomy of structure and consciousness and the assumption that consciousness must then necessarily require structure first to bring it into existence.
That is a philosophy based entirely on a spacetime physics model.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that this model of reality would need to apply to any separate reality that might give rise to the spacetime phenomena.
So your argument doesn't hold. You're just assuming that their cannot be a reality that's much different from the spacetime you find yourself in.
But that's a totally unwarranted and uncreative conclusion.
All you're doing is demanding that everyone else think in the same limited way that you think. That's all. You don't have any 'proof' of anything.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, there exists scientists and cosmologists today who are seriously toying with ideas that the entire universe may be nothing more than a hologram of some sorts.
But they do loan support to my hypotheses. Especially in terms of supporting that my hypotheses cannot be 'ruled out' using our current knowledge of the world. And that's all I need to claim. In fact, that's all I've ever claimed - they can't be ruled out.
Even scientists cannot rule them out so why should I? And some scientists are even seriously considering that they may very well be true. So that's no different from me seriously considering that a spiritual model based on these same idea could be true.
So yes. If my only claim is that my spiritual pondering cannot be 'ruled out', (and that is my only claim), then these strange theories proposed by physicists do indeed support my claims.
That's all I've been claiming from the get go.
You're the one who has been unrealistically proclaiming that you can rule everything out.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote: Understand this. I'm quite open to the idea of existence of a "reality" independent of spacetime. What I have ruled out is the possibility of existence of a consciousness in that reality - inherent or otherwise. I've ruled out the former based on axiom of existence and the latter based on the known nature of consciousness.
Well, I personally don't accept the former (your axiom of existence). For me, that's extremely easy to dismiss, and I have already done so.
And the latter is equally meaningless to me. You say, (based on the known nature of consciousness). The only problem there is that no one knows the nature of consciousness. You need to assume quite a bit on that one yourself. If you're assuming that electrical activity in a physical brain = consciousness, that itself may be a totally invalid assumption.
In fact, that very question at the very heart of my spiritual philosophies. I question just what it is that is having an experience.
If the matter that a brain is made up of cannot itself have an experience, then how could the whole conglomeration suddenly have an experience?
That is a deep philosophical mystery and question in an of itself. Apparently you have convinced yourself that you have answered that question. But you haven't convinced me.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: You may as well be preaching Christian fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned. You're demand that you can rule something out is equally laughable.
Well, clearly we different on what we consider to be rational. You jump to wild conclusions demanding that your axiom of existence must apply to all possible concepts of reality. Where is there any rationale in that? All you're doing is denying reality the freedom to be something that you cannot possibly understand. I personally don't see that as being rational, I just see that as being highly arrogant. Why should reality be limited by your own personal creativity and imagination (or lack thereof)?
And your other faith-based belief is that you understand the nature of consciousness. I think you would get laughed off the podium if you when to a science symposium or even philosophy symposium and proclaimed to have such knowledge in any indisputable way.
You're just claiming to know more than is yet known. Consciousness is still a deep mystery to the sciences and to philosophy. And while they have guesses no one has been able to prove anything conclusive as you seem to have convinced yourself that you believe to know.
Only in your own delusions.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: All you can say is that based on assumptions and premises that you are personally willing to accept, you can't imagine how a spiritual essence of reality can exist.
Like I say, if that's true, then all you have done is demonstrate your lack of imagination.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.
Well, there problem is no such thing as an "absolutely false statement".
Personally I think this may be the heart of your limitations. You must be thinking of "truth" as something that is "absolute". You must be thinking that something can either be shown to be true, or false, and once it has been determined to be one or the other that must be carved in stone absolutely.
That's actually classically thinking right there.
You need to move on to relativistic or relational thinking.
What you deem to be 'true' based on knowledge gained from previous experiences, etc., are all relative truths.
It's kind of like the truth of the constant Pi. Pi is the relationship between the lengths of the circumference and diameter of a geometric circle. Pi ~ 3.14... is always true in Euclidean or flat space. However, when space becomes warped this value of Pi no longer holds true.
So the truth of the value of Pi is a relative truth dependent upon the geometry of the space under consideration.
This same thing actually holds for all 'truths'. All truths are dependent upon the situation in which they are found to be true.
What you are trying to do is take truths associated to spacetime experiences and force those "truths" onto every possible idea of reality.
But you have no reason to believe that these are "absolute truths" like that. They could just as easily be "relative truths" that only apply within certain situations.
You've convinced yourself that some "axiom of existence" must necessarily be true in some absolute immutable sense. And that no matter what the 'True Nature" of reality might be, this absolute truth of an axiom of existence must apply to it.
That's totally erroneous thinking right there.
You're lost back in the days of classical thinking and imagining that you can discover absolute truths that must hold everywhere and everywhen.
This is the folly that philosophers fall into.
The very notion that you can know an absolute truth that can never be broken in any possible situation is an unwarranted and unsupportable ideal right there. Yet this is the very basis of your entire position.
(15th February 2012 13:27)genkaus Wrote:(14th February 2012 22:20)Abracadabra Wrote: Like I say, I can easily lump you in with the definition of "atheist" in my sig line. A person who simply lacks enough imagination to overcome mundane assumptions. That instantly explains away your claim to have a 'proof" of anything. You're just accepting assumptions that cannot themselves be proven.
Well, there you go again displaying your demand in absolute truths and absolute axioms.
Besides, I totally disagree with your ideas on axioms anyway. Axioms are not necessarily known to be true. They are simply assumed to be true for the sake of building a structured formalism on top of them.
In fact, if you could "prove" an axiom it would no longer be an axiom.
It wouldn't even need to be an axiom if you could 'prove' it. If you could prove it, it would be a theorem based on even lesser 'axioms' that you has previously assumed to be true in order to prove what you were calling an 'axiom'.
Axioms cannot be proven. Axioms are necessarily the rock bottom unprovable assumptions that lay at the foundation of a formal logical system.
If you think you can prove an axiom, then you need to go back and retake logic 101.
Personally I feel pretty confident that I understand logical thinking far better than you do.
You don't even seem to understand why all truths are necessarily relative to a particular system or logical foundation. And you also seem to think that axioms somehow represent irrefutable absolute truths that must always apply in every imaginable scenario. Neither of those are logically correct.
So as far as I can see, you're the one who has no understanding of logic.
If you want to talk to me concerning logical systems the first thing you'll need to do is acknowledge that all truths are relative to the system in question. And the second thing you'll need to do is acknowledge that axioms cannot be proven and are just assumptions that must be agreed upon before a logical system can even get off the ground.
Is someone isn't prepared to accept your axioms, nothing more needs to be said. You can't prove them, and if the other person doesn't accept them, then you're done right there.
And if you think you can prove them, you are are mistaken in calling them axioms, and you need to go back even further to actually proposed some axioms that will be accepted, and then prove whatever you're trying to prove from there.
From my perspective you don't seem to have any clue how logical formalism even works.
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - Abracadabra - 15th February 2012 16:52
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)