Freedom of Religion

[genkaus]

Just because you have accepted that as a "primary axiom of existence" doesn't make it true.

This is what I mean when I say that you fail to grasp the premises of your own argument.

The axiom of primacy of existence is not a matter of truth or falsehood - it is an inescapable premise. It the concepts such as truth and falsehood are to have any meaning, if knowledge is to be possible, then this axiom must be accepted. You accept it yourself in its very denial.

There are many philosophies that can explain reality without relying on that simple model.

And they are wrong.

In fact, it's the Eastern Mystic's point of view that life is but a dream. Everything that we think is "out there" was actually dreamed up from within our mystic consciousness. There's no way you could disprove that.

Ofcourse, I can. Either this statement cannot be true without presupposing primacy of existence or it is necessarily false. If everything we perceive is a part of a dream, there are two possibilities.

1. All our perceptions in this "dream" are copied from actual perceptions in the "real" or "waking world". Which means, there is a waking world which is independent of our consciousness and holds primacy over the dreaming world. Ergo, primacy of existence.

2. If the dreaming world is all there is and there is no real world, then all our perceptions are product of our consciousness and all the facts out there are products of those perceptions.

Wow, let me try that out......

Nope, didn't work. (FYI I tried to perceive a hot stripper in front of me in order to make it into a fact.)

Moving on, we have established that "If everything we perceive is a dream, then all facts are necessarily dependent upon our consciousness". Using contra-position, we can say that "If there is a single fact that does not depend upon our consciousness, then everything we perceive cannot be a dream".

Here, you have two options. First, you can continue arguing that all facts are dependent upon consciousness (except for the fact "all facts are dependent upon consciousness" - fallacy of special pleading). Or you can admit that not all facts are dependent upon consciousness - leading us back to argument 1, thereby showing your reliance on "primacy of existence".

Thus, we've proven that "primacy of existence" is the necessary underlying axiom of all rational and logically consistent statements made and by elimination, "primacy of consciousness" cannot be.

You're just giving yet another example of how some people will simply dismiss anything that they don't believe in as being nonsense. If it doesn't match up with your world-view, then it's nonsense.

If it doesn't pass the standard of rationality, then it is nonsense. The argument you presented doesn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

No Abr, we're telling you that the concepts behind the terms you've used thusfar aren't mysterious or unexplained. They've been investigated, literally, to death. Have you managed to "rule out" things like trolls, elves, and Banshee? Witchcraft belongs in the same category. As does the nebulous spiritual component to reality. A statement that is vague enough to mean anything or nothing.

In Abra's defense, because I absolutely hate "you must accept this axiom" statements.....no. Abra does not have to accept an axiom at face value, no axiom makes anything possible, in and of itself. Axioms don't have such powers, any more than witches do.

@Tack. I agree, asking for material evidence for an immaterial god would be strange. Thankfully man has never been able to imagine a completely immaterial god. You've argued for "evidence that seems clear to your worldview".......was this evidence immaterial? No, it was not. Even you have proposed a god that can (at least in theory) be detected within the realm of the material (shades of Frodo btw..lol). This line of argument is essentially saying "I've made claims which I feel are beyond our ability to evidence and so they must be taken seriously, and it's pointless to question them based on evidence." Well, no you haven't, and no it isn't. "The immaterial" isn't a fortress where a person can shield whatever nutty belief they dream up (or borrow from other's imaginations) from skepticism. "This concept is completely immaterial" is a straight admission of defeat. It is exactly equivalent to saying "there is no evidence".

[genkaus]

What do you mean when you say that I wear it like a badge of "honor"?
IMHO it is honorable to own up to the truth.
So why shouldn't I consider my honesty as being worthy of honor?
At least I'm not running around proclaiming to "know" that magick is real.
I would think that you should give me credit for that much.

The truth being that you are incapable of knowing whether or not magic is compatible with reality or not?
If you are incapable of performing the simple mental exercise that would get you the answer, I really don't think that that is something to be proud of. That's like a person telling his math teacher to give him some marks in the exam because he admitted that he is incapable of answering the question.

Honesty about ignorance is honorable only if it is followed by attempts to correct it - which you haven't shown so far.

Lack of knowledge on what subject? What specifically are you talking about?

Specifically, whether magic is compatible with reality.

Two things here:
First:
Cannot justify my beliefs? Excuse me? Justify to who?

To anyone who may ask for a justification. If they are rationally justifiable, then the matter of who asks justification is irrelevant.

I can justify them to myself, and that's all that's required.

But can you justify them to yourself rationally? If so, then you should be able to present it.

I shouldn't need to have to justify them to you.

If you demand my respect for them, then yes, you do.

After all, if I could justify them to you then they'd become your beliefs as well.
I mean surely? If I could justify them to you why wouldn't you believe them?

If they are justified rationally, then yes, they would.

I shouldn't need to have to justify my beliefs to you?

Is that a question? If yes, then asked and answered.

I most certainly don't demand that you justify your beliefs to me.

You may, if you so wish.

In fact, to be perfectly blunt about it, I don't care what you believe.

Neither would I expect you to.

As long as you don't try to claim to speak for God and claim that God hates me

Why would you care even if I did?

I truly couldn't care less what you believe.

And I'm not demanding any respect regarding my beliefs. You are. If you want respect for your beliefs, you need to provide justification - its that simple.

Secondly:

What do you mean by "sanctioning my beliefs" by giving them respect?
No one is asking you to give my beliefs, respect.
All I ask is that you give me respect and not pass judgment on me because of my beliefs.

I respect your right to believe whatever the hell you want, which is evident from the fact that I'm not coercing you to change them. As for your beliefs themselves, I judge them to be irrational, illogical and deserving of little besides my contempt.

And since I know nothing about you apart from your beliefs and your words, what else would I judge you on? Or would you prefer that I abstain from judgment, thereby abstaining from the use of my own mind and rationality?

It's a pretty simple request I would think.
I don't judge people based on their beliefs.

Why not?

I can even respect a devout Christian as long as they aren't a proselytizing zealot.

Why? What causes you to grant them that respect?

Just because I think Christianity is utterly stupid doesn't mean that I automatically think that all Christians are stupid.

Stupid? No. Deluded? Well....

I can understand how some people can justify it.

And can you understand if the justification is rational? If it is compatible with reality?

Who knows how they interpret scriptures?
Who knows how much of it they accept as verbatim?
Who knows how much they see as mere analogies and metaphors?

They do, hopefully.

As long as they aren't proselytizing at me, I wouldn't even bother to ask.
And I would respect them for their beliefs.
Even though I personally feel that the doctrine itself is impossible to justify.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. Either it is possible to justify or it isn't. And if you don't consider it to be, on what grounds are you granting them your respect?

So I'm only requesting the same conditions for respect that I offer anyone else.

You have decided to refrain from using your mind and your rationality in the matter of beliefs - thereby abstaining from judgment - and you expect others to do the same?

Baloney.
That's your personal world view again.

And how is that an argument for it being wrong?

Evidently you seem to think that it should be easy to see conclusions that you draw.

I do.

You are basing that entirely upon what you deem to be 'rational'.

And the error in my conclusion can come if and only if what I deem to be rational and what is rational are two different things. Can you point to any such error?

You have accepted certain things in your world view and that's the lens through which you see the world.

I've accepted things which I have found to be inescapable and undeniable.

And now you're basically expecting everyone else to see the world through your lens, lest you deem them to be 'irrational'.

Why, no? I would never expect anyone to accept my beliefs as rational simply on my say-so. Nor would I expect them do so to avoid being called 'irrational'. But when I'm confronted with irrationality, I will not hesitate to pass judgment upon it accordingly.

I personally cannot rule out the possibility that reality might have a spiritual essence.

Then that incapacity would doom you to live in irrationality forever.

If you believe that you can, more power to you!
I can't.
For you to even think that I could is utter nonsense.
This would be like a Christian telling you that you could believe in Christianity if you really wanted to.

Yes, I think by now everyone has become well-aware of your mental limitations. No need to keep repeating them.

You're trying to tell me that I can convince myself that there cannot possibly be a spiritual essence to reality?[
Just because you think that's a rational conclusion?

Since you have convinced yourself without any reason that there possibly can be a spiritual essence to reality, it wouldn't be too difficult to convince yourself that it cannot be possible.

However, that is not what I want or care about. You made the statement that "there can possibly be a spiritual essence to reality". That statement is incompatible with my worldview. So, either my worldview is in error or that statement is false.

If it is the former, then it behooves me to correct it. But for that, your statement would require justification. And since I have gone through quite some effort to make my worldview rational and logically consistent and you have not made any effort to even present a rational justification - all I can assume is that the statement is not rationally justifiable and pass judgment upon it accordingly.

---

In Abra's defense, because I absolutely hate "you must accept this axiom" statements.....no. Abra does not have to accept an axiom at face value, no axiom makes anything possible, in and of itself. Axioms don't have such powers, any more than witches do.

Acceptance at face-value is neither intended nor desired. But once you discover that a particular axiom is the basis and necessary component of all knowledge that you have, then to not accept it would be dishonest.

[Abracadabra]

In Abra's defense, because I absolutely hate "you must accept this axiom" statements.....no. Abra does not have to accept an axiom at face value, no axiom makes anything possible, in and of itself. Axioms don't have such powers, any more than witches do.

Thank you very much. It's nice to have support for rational thought at least once in a while.

Acceptance at face-value is neither intended nor desired. But once you discover that a particular axiom is the basis and necessary component of all knowledge that you have, then to not accept it would be dishonest.

You are totally wrong Genkaus.
You are assuming way too much about what you think you might "know".
You have placed complete and absolute FAITH in a picture of science and scientific inquiry that I'm simply not prepared to accept. It's that simple.
You claim to have an "axiom" that is so "obvious" that it cannot possibly be denied.

I say, that's utter hogwash. That is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

Proof of my Assertion:

I can prove to you right here and now that the knowledge of science is nowhere near as "air-tight" as you have apparently been misguided to believe.
Let's start at the very beginning of the "creation" of the universe (or whatever you'd like to call it). And exam in detail what science actually KNOWS for SURE.
Don't worry, we only need to exam the first few milliseconds of this scientific theory to recognize that sciences can't be SURE about anything.
What is the best current theory that science has to offer about the creation of the universe?

The Inflationary Hot Big Bang Speculation:

How does this speculative theory work?
Well first science speculates that the universe began as an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, and infinitely small "singularity".
And that this infinitely dense singularity actually EXPANDED OUTWARD.
Well, to begin with, that's a blatant violation of the laws of physics right there.
Physics states that when things become extremely dense they fall in upon themselves and and collapse to form black holes from which even light itself cannot escape.

Yet if we are to believe the Inflationary Hot Big Bang Theory we must believe that this infinitely dense singularity that gave birth to our universe actually EXPANDED OUTWARD.
Violating the very physics that says that it should become a supermassive blackhole.
So this scientific "theory" already requires that we violate the very laws of physics to even propose this theory in the first place.
It's pure speculation. It's nowhere close to being a confirmed fact that this is how the universe began.

So because of this problem (and actually many other problems) we had to invent an idea of "Inflation".
Inflation is the idea that anti-gravity (or something like anti-gravity) must have taken hold to expand this primordial singularity OUTWARD.
That is total speculation and requires physics that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
In fact Inflation Theory requires the existence of a hypothetical "Inflaton Field" (a form of quantum field as of yet undetected)
It's basically pure speculation.

Sure, this speculated theory promises to explain quite a bit if it pans out, but that's irrelevant.
Right now it's just a GUESS.
Moreover, it's not even the only GUESS.
Science has more guesses to offer!

M-Theory, yet another Scientific Speculation for Creation:

Hey, let's not worry too much about the Inflationary Hot Big Bang Theory, science has other speculations to offer!
Another theory that is in the works, is called M-Theory, it's actually a highly-evolved version of String Theory.
M-Theory speculates that there never was a singularity at the start of creation.
And there is not even any need to speculate that anything "inflated".
M-Theory speculates that the universe is actually a "Brane" (or membrane) of sorts.
In fact it speculates that there might be infinitely many unseen and undetectable such "Branes".
It claims that two such "Branes" collided and gave rise to a result that would produce precisely the same things we see.
The result of two "Branes" colliding would appear precisely as though a singularity had popped into existence and inflated.
In fact, the math of M-Theory shows that it would also produce precisely the same microwave background radiation.
So we can't "RULE OUT" M-Theory, neither can we "RULE IN" The Inflationary Hot Big Bang theory.

Would you like even more Speculative Scientific Theories?:

If both the Inflationary Hot Big Bang theory and M-Theory fail to pan out, we can always fall back on at least one of the following two theories:
Loop Quantum Gravity - A theory that some scientists are still actively considering in remote laboratories around the world.
Twister Theory - Proposed by Roger Penrose. I confess to not know a whole lot about this theory, it seems a bit "twisted" to me.
And there are even other theories.
Scientists never seem to run out of speculations.

~~~~

In short, we have no fucking clue what the hell is going on.


And what about TIME itself?:

Ask any honest physicist to describe to you in detail the current scientific understanding of time and do you know what they will say?
Well, if they are truly honest about it they will confess that we have no frigg'in clue what the true nature of time might even be.
There are far more scientific speculations about the nature of time that I could possibly list.
None of those theories has enough evidence behind it to even become a popular theory.

Sure, we have General Relativity and that describes the "behavior" of time within the scope of an abstract notion of "spacetime".
But that kind of temporal description is fleeting and truly only describes the relative perspectives of various observers.
In short, it's not even an absolute concept. It's a relative concept. Which is the whole point of Special Relativity.
Paul Davies once wrote a book called "About Time". If you think we understand time you should read that book.
There are probably other books that address these topics even better.
Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" actually focuses on the evolution of spacetime and General Relativity.
Paul Davies addresses the obvious need for a totally different kind of "time" as well.
A kind of "time" that science hasn't even begun to be able to comprehend.

In fact, many physicists believe that all "points" in time exist simultaneously.
In other words, all of the past, and all of the future, must necessarily exist simultaneously and be just as "real", as what we perceive as "the here and now".
Why? Well, because Einstein's General Relativity seems to demand it.
Einsteins General Relativity demands that everyone's "now" is unique and malleable.
According to Einstein's theory there cannot exist an "absolute now" like used to be believe in Newton's Classical Speculative Physics.
And it certainly appears that since there cannot be an "absolute now" then it must follow that all "nows" must necessarily simultaneously exist.
They must exist in some "loftier" concept of "time" that we can't even begin to wrap our "rational minds" around.

In short, science has absolutely no clue what time is, or how it works.
For all science knows, time is an illusion of some grand "now" that we each perceive differently according to the rules of General Relativity.

~~~~

Science has No Fucking Clue what the Hell's going on:

You keep acting like I should accept your feeble limited "axioms" like as if you have some basis to proclaim their worthiness.
I say bull shit.
Science can't even make the kinds of claims that you seem to think that you can make.
Science is not the GOD that you have evidently made it out to be in your own personal imagination.

Sorry, but you have absolutely no grounds to arrogantly stand there and accuse me of being "irrational".
If you are under the delusion that you actually KNOW something, then it's you who is being totally "irrational".
It's as simple as that. Your claim that science actually "knows" anything is totally ungrounded.
I would suggest that you are totally naive to even fall for such nonsense.
Who taught you that in the first place?
If you got that idea from some college I'd suggest going back and demanding a full refund of the tuition.

~~~

[genkaus]

You are totally wrong Genkaus.
You are assuming way too much about what you think you might "know".
You have placed complete and absolute FAITH in a picture of science and scientific inquiry that I'm simply not prepared to accept. It's that simple.
You claim to have an "axiom" that is so "obvious" that it cannot possibly be denied.

What are you arguing against? Did you even read the posts? I haven't mentioned either science or scientific inquiry for atleast last four pages and I doubt I based my arguments on those before.

Complete and absolute faith in science? I have no such thing. Scintific method is not perfect. If it was, it wouldn't need to be self-correcting.

I say, that's utter hogwash. That is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

Proof of my Assertion:

I can prove to you right here and now that the knowledge of science is nowhere near as "air-tight" as you have apparently been misguided to believe.

Shouldn't you atleast bother to learn my opinions before criticizing them? I don't believe either scientific knowledge or the scientific method to be airtight and I dare you to find a place where I said so.

---

Let's start at the very beginning of the "creation" of the universe (or whatever you'd like to call it). And exam in detail what science actually KNOWS for SURE.
Don't worry, we only need to exam the first few milliseconds of this scientific theory to recognize that sciences can't be SURE about anything.
What is the best current theory that science has to offer about the creation of the universe?

The Inflationary Hot Big Bang Speculation:

How does this speculative theory work?
Well first science speculates that the universe began as an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, and infinitely small "singularity".
And that this infinitely dense singularity actually EXPANDED OUTWARD.
Well, to begin with, that's a blatant violation of the laws of physics right there.
Physics states that when things become extremely dense they fall in upon themselves and and collapse to form black holes from which even light itself cannot escape.

Yet if we are to believe the Inflationary Hot Big Bang Theory we must believe that this infinitely dense singularity that gave birth to our universe actually EXPANDED OUTWARD.
Violating the very physics that says that it should become a supermassive blackhole.
So this scientific "theory" already requires that we violate the very laws of physics to even propose this theory in the first place.
It's pure speculation. It's nowhere close to being a confirmed fact that this is how the universe began.

So because of this problem (and actually many other problems) we had to invent an idea of "Inflation".
Inflation is the idea that anti-gravity (or something like anti-gravity) must have taken hold to expand this primordial singularity OUTWARD.
That is total speculation and requires physics that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
In fact Inflation Theory requires the existence of a hypothetical "Inflaton Field" (a form of quantum field as of yet undetected)
It's basically pure speculation.

Sure, this speculated theory promises to explain quite a bit if it pans out, but that's irrelevant.
Right now it's just a GUESS.
Moreover, it's not even the only GUESS.
Science has more guesses to offer!

M-Theory, yet another Scientific Speculation for Creation:

Hey, let's not worry too much about the Inflationary Hot Big Bang Theory, science has other speculations to offer!
Another theory that is in the works, is called M-Theory, it's actually a highly-evolved version of String Theory.
M-Theory speculates that there never was a singularity at the start of creation.
And there is not even any need to speculate that anything "inflated".
M-Theory speculates that the universe is actually a "Brane" (or membrane) of sorts.
In fact it speculates that there might be infinitely many unseen and undetectable such "Branes".
It claims that two such "Branes" collided and gave rise to a result that would produce precisely the same things we see.
The result of two "Branes" colliding would appear precisely as though a singularity had popped into existence and inflated.
In fact, the math of M-Theory shows that it would also produce precisely the same microwave background radiation.
So we can't "RULE OUT" M-Theory, neither can we "RULE IN" The Inflationary Hot Big Bang theory.

Would you like even more Speculative Scientific Theories?:

If both the Inflationary Hot Big Bang theory and M-Theory fail to pan out, we can always fall back on at least one of the following two theories:
Loop Quantum Gravity - A theory that some scientists are still actively considering in remote laboratories around the world.
Twister Theory - Proposed by Roger Penrose. I confess to not know a whole lot about this theory, it seems a bit "twisted" to me.
And there are even other theories.
Scientists never seem to run out of speculations.

~~~~

In short, we have no fucking clue what the hell is going on.


And what about TIME itself?:

Ask any honest physicist to describe to you in detail the current scientific understanding of time and do you know what they will say?
Well, if they are truly honest about it they will confess that we have no frigg'in clue what the true nature of time might even be.
There are far more scientific speculations about the nature of time that I could possibly list.
None of those theories has enough evidence behind it to even become a popular theory.

Sure, we have General Relativity and that describes the "behavior" of time within the scope of an abstract notion of "spacetime".
But that kind of temporal description is fleeting and truly only describes the relative perspectives of various observers.
In short, it's not even an absolute concept. It's a relative concept. Which is the whole point of Special Relativity.
Paul Davies once wrote a book called "About Time". If you think we understand time you should read that book.
There are probably other books that address these topics even better.
Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" actually focuses on the evolution of spacetime and General Relativity.
Paul Davies addresses the obvious need for a totally different kind of "time" as well.
A kind of "time" that science hasn't even begun to be able to comprehend.

In fact, many physicists believe that all "points" in time exist simultaneously.
In other words, all of the past, and all of the future, must necessarily exist simultaneously and be just as "real", as what we perceive as "the here and now".
Why? Well, because Einstein's General Relativity seems to demand it.
Einsteins General Relativity demands that everyone's "now" is unique and malleable.
According to Einstein's theory there cannot exist an "absolute now" like used to be believe in Newton's Classical Speculative Physics.
And it certainly appears that since there cannot be an "absolute now" then it must follow that all "nows" must necessarily simultaneously exist.
They must exist in some "loftier" concept of "time" that we can't even begin to wrap our "rational minds" around.

In short, science has absolutely no clue what time is, or how it works.
For all science knows, time is an illusion of some grand "now" that we each perceive differently according to the rules of General Relativity.

~~~~

Science has No Fucking Clue what the Hell's going on?:

---

Ignoring this extended rant because, well, the gaps in scientific knowledge were never the point of discussion. However, if you are basing your belief in spiritual essence of reality upon these gaps, then you are guilty of a variation of "god of the gaps" argument.

You keep acting like I should accept your feeble limited "axioms" like as if you have some basis to proclaim their worthiness.

No, I'm saying that if you don't consider them to be true, then show me any statement of knowledge that does not presuppose their validity.

I say bull shit.
Science can't even make the kinds of claims that you seem to think that you can make.
Science is not the GOD that you have evidently made it out to be in your own personal imagination.

Once again, in this case, science is is irrelevant. In fact, science itself presupposes the validity of these axioms. To use scientific method to somehow prove these axiom would make me guilty of fallacy of circlar reasoning.

Sorry, but you have absolutely no grounds to arrogantly stand there and accuse me of being "irrational".

Yes, I do. Its called epistemology.

If you are under the delusion that you actually KNOW something, then it's you who is being totally "irrational".

Says the person who takes pride in lack of knowledge.

It's as simple as that. Your claim that science actually "knows" anything is totally ungrounded.

Find the place where I ever claimed that science knows everything. I'm assuming that "anything" here is a typo, since otherwise, you'd be claiming that the entire body of knowledge that has been built by science is false.

I would suggest that you are totally naive to even fall for such nonsense.
Who taught you that in the first place?
If you got that idea from some college I'd suggest going back and demanding a full refund of the tuition.

Now open your eyes and read my words for once.

We are discussing gnosticism vs agnosticism regarding non-physical spirits, i.e. something that is not a part of the natural world. Clearly, since science can only examine what is within the natural world, this automatically falls beyond its scope. Science cannot say anything about it.

Therefore, to judge the subject, we have to look deeper. We have to look towards epistemology - the study of what knowledge is and how it is acquired.

Since you brought up science let's see how epistemology applies to it. What premises science assumes to be true in order to give us the answer? Science is a completely a-posteriori field. The critical elements of the scientific method are observation, hypothesis formation, prediction (or logical deduction) and experimentation.

The second and the third require that humans be capable of reason. The first and the fourth require that reality as we see it should exist objectively, i.e. independently from any consciousness. This is the concept of "primacy of existence".

Let's focus on the second part. If reality has a spiritual essence, then it depends upon that spirit. Similarly, if witchcraft works, then reality is changeable simply by conscious will. In either case, facts do not exist independently from consciousness and therefore they are subjective rather than objective. In this case, neither your observation nor experimentation have any validity. Thus, the entire body of science falls flat on its face and loses any reliability.

Here's where your irrationality comes in. You claim that since science your belief in spiritual essence or witchcraft does not contradict any scientific findings - since they cannot, by their very nature of unfalsifiability, cannot be contradicted by any scientific findings - these beliefs are compatible with science.

You never took the time to understand the very premises that make science valid and applicable in the real world. You never understood that your beliefs belie the very foundations science is built on and therefore your beliefs and science cannot be compatible. Either you believe in the validity of science (flawed as it is) or you hold your beliefs to be true. If you believe both at the same time, you are being irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you could try to argue it out in the realm of philosophy, or you could just attempt to "cast a spell" in a controlled experiment...... Science just may have something resembling a clue as to what's "going on".

[Abracadabra]

---

What are you arguing against? Did you even read the posts? I haven't mentioned either science or scientific inquiry for atleast last four pages and I doubt I based my arguments on those before.

---

Ok, Genkaus, I own you my deepest apologies.

You are absolutely correct. I haven't been reading your posts in detail. I've been skimming over them very quickly, because I'm reading other threads and trying to carry on too many conversations at once.

I've gone back and re-read your presentation in more detail. However I have heard these kinds of philosophical and purely "epistemological" arguments before. And I have disagreements with them as well. So I'll address that in this post.

---

Shouldn't you at least bother to learn my opinions before criticizing them? I don't believe either scientific knowledge or the scientific method to be airtight and I dare you to find a place where I said so.

---

Actually you are depending on scientific ideas far more than you realize. And I'll cover that after the next quote. In the meantime I'd like to explain very briefly what I thought you were arguing originally. After all you did ask me what I arguing against.

I thought you were attempting to demand that objective reality must come before consciousness based on scientific observations. In other words, I thought you were arguing that it's clear from what we already know from the physical universe that it must have existed before anyone evolved to think about it.

That's why I addressed the issues of how shaky our knowledge truly is concerning both the nature of that spacetime fabric, and far more importantly about what TIME even means with respect to that fabric.

Ok, having explained why I sometimes act like an asshole, let me move on to address your actual concerns:

---

Ofcourse, I can. Either this statement cannot be true without presupposing primacy of existence or it is necessarily false. If everything we perceive is a part of a dream, there are two possibilities.

1. All our perceptions in this "dream" are copied from actual perceptions in the "real" or "waking world". Which means, there is a waking world which is independent of our consciousness and holds primacy over the dreaming world. Ergo, primacy of existence.

2. If the dreaming world is all there is and there is no real world, then all our perceptions are product of our consciousness and all the facts out there are products of those perceptions.

Wow, let me try that out......

Nope, didn't work. (FYI I tried to perceive a hot stripper in front of me in order to make it into a fact.)

Moving on, we have established that "If everything we perceive is a dream, then all facts are necessarily dependent upon our consciousness". Using contra-position, we can say that "If there is a single fact that does not depend upon our consciousness, then everything we perceive cannot be a dream".

Here, you have two options. First, you can continue arguing that all facts are dependent upon consciousness (except for the fact "all facts are dependent upon consciousness" - fallacy of special pleading). Or you can admit that not all facts are dependent upon consciousness - leading us back to argument 1, thereby showing your reliance on "primacy of existence".

Thus, we've proven that "primacy of existence" is the necessary underlying axiom of all rational and logically consistent statements made and by elimination, "primacy of consciousness" cannot be.

---

The reason that you cannot hold your conclusions out as being absolutes for other people is because you have already made your own arbitrary premises before you've reached your conclusion.

Look at what you are demanding here specifically:

---

1. All our perceptions in this "dream" are copied from actual perceptions in the "real" or "waking world". Which means, there is a waking world which is independent of our consciousness and holds primacy over the dreaming world. Ergo, primacy of existence.

2. If the dreaming world is all there is and there is no real world, then all our perceptions are product of our consciousness and all the facts out there are products of those perceptions.

---

You're totally assuming to have complete and absolute knowledge of what the nature of any "Spiritual World" must be like.

In other words you're limiting it to only one of two possiblities. It's either "physical" in some sense, or it must be pure consciousness without any physics associated with it at all.

I'm not claiming that a "Spiritual World" must necessarily be "non-physical" in the sense of having absolutely no structure of any kind whatsoever. That wouldn't make any sense to me either.

So you can rule out #2 altogether as being nonsensical. I'm all for that.

If there exists a "Spiritual" essence to reality, then it must have some type of 'structure'. Otherwise what sense would it even make to say that it "exists"?

So we're stuck with something along the lines of #1, but not as you have it written.

You say,"Which means, there is a waking world which is independent of our consciousness".

Why? Why does it need to be independent of our consciousness?
That's a totally arbitrary demand on your part.
If there is a spirit world, the structure of that world and the consciousness of that world may indeed be totally inseparable.
It just is what it is.

And that entity (whatever it is) is precisely what we are calling "God".
That is more along the lines of how I imagine things to be.
You seem to be taking the stance that it must be one or the other, but that it can't be a interdependent combination of both.

I ask you, "Why can't it be both?"

What's your argument of why it can't be both?

~~~~~~~

My fundamental philosophy is that "spirit" (whatever spirit might be) does indeed have structure.
In other words, it's "physical" in some sense. Perhaps not in the sense of spacetime physics.
As far as I'm concerned the cosmic mind (i.e. spirit) can exist in the ocean of quantum fields somehow.
It gives rise to all of spacetime, and we are it.
Everything we are is it.
Our bodies.
Our minds.
Our conscousness.

Tat t'vam asi, - We are it.

That's the idea.

You're claiming to be able to rule that idea out?

I don't see where your epistemological argument ruled anything out.
Your argument is built upon totally arbitrary premises and axioms that you totally made up.
(i.e. reality is either pure consciousness, or pure form) but it can't be both.

Why can't it be both?

Who are you to demand how God must be limited.

---

---

Well, you could try to argue it out in the realm of philosophy, or you could just attempt to "cast a spell" in a controlled experiment......

---

Well I finally did address Genkaus' epistemology. I misunderstood precisely where he was coming from the first time, but in the end it didn't make much difference, his argument still didn't stand.

In fact, Genkaus seems to think that I haven't thought through my philosophies very much or something. But I've already considered the kinds of objections that he's been raising. In fact, it's extremely rare to find anyone who can offer an idea that I haven't already considered before. Life is almost becoming boring because of this.

---

Science just may have something resembling a clue as to what's "going on".

---

Well, a very slight clue.

As I pointed out in my post concerning the concept of time. We may have a wonderful theory in General Relativity. But in truth, when it comes right down to fully understanding the nature of time, that theory only raises more problems than it solves.

Now we are stuck having to realize that there can be no such thing as a concrete "absolute now" and from this we are forced to realize that multiple different "nows" must simultaneously exist! And from that it follows that all of the entire past, and future must also exist at all times!

Yikes!

Talk about an incomprehensible irrational idea. This implies that life may be like a movie film with all the 'nows' already created and sitting on frames somewhere. In fact there are scientists who actually believe that this must necessarily be the case.

That's a pretty weird thought I think.

So witches don't exist, but cosmic movie projector operators do?

And that's "rational"?

[Epimethean]

Abra, you called out the xtians for their beliefs, but you act rather indignant when called out on yours. Funny, that. Rational thought comes and goes in your posts, and that is what you have been shown. Magic is as much hooey as jesus, and the best you can do is say that you are religious, which many of us are not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Quantum? well, that settles it, the word quantum forces reality to allow room for magic. Discussions end for me the minute someone invokes quantum anything in defense of fairy tales.

[Epimethean]

Quantum = whateverness squared.