Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Think about it.
Even secular scientists think of black holes as being the most disturbing objects in the universe. Fall into a black hole and not only can you never escape, but even the atoms, matter, and energy that make up your body can never escape.
Think about the measure of how baked you are? Where in the hell did you brought up back holes?
Quote:Many scientists have found this extremely disturbing.
Yet this is what pure secular atheists proclaim about death. They proclaim that dying is like a black hole. It's a one-way ticket that leads to permanent non-existence.
And then they wonder why people find this "disturbing"?
Sorry man, you are way too incoherent to grab any further attention from me.
(February 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote:
Abra Wrote:Even secular scientists think of black holes as being the most disturbing objects in the universe. Fall into a black hole and not only can you never escape, but even the atoms, matter, and energy that make up your body can never escape.
I don't either. In fact, falling off the roof of my house could end in death. So getting up on my roof to repair it is as disturbing as a black hole for me.
In fact, I fear being mangled and living through the experience far more than I fear death.
If I were to fear a black hole it would probably be the spaghettification process that would be the most disturbing. And of course being burnt to a crisp by the sun, isn't exactly attractive either.
Dying in my sleep and not even knowing that I've died is the most attractive for me.
Or having a heart-attack brought on by extreme sexual ecstasy wouldn't be bad either. But unfortunately that's not likely to be the cause of my death. But then again, they say to never say never.
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!
Abra Wrote:I don't either. In fact, falling off the roof of my house could end in death. So getting up on my roof to repair it is as disturbing as a black hole for me.
Word of advice: never farm, commercially fish/crab, or work in construction.
I'm sure simply watching my antics would terrify you. That's okay though, here's a hug.
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It doesn't need to be a "lie" at all.
I'm not suggesting that these other spiritual ideas need to be supported as having 'evidence' for being true.
All I'm saying is that they can't be disproved. And that, my friend, is not a lie.
It is. Check out the other thread.
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The jealous God religions can be disproved via the very contradictions that are blatantly apparent within the fables themselves. You don't even need science to prove that the Abrahamic myths are false.
The same applies to the bullshit you are peddling.
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You ask, "Why would start, naked truth be certain doom?".
Well, if you're referring to what pure secular atheists believe to be true, then how could it be anything other than certain doom? That's precisely what a secular atheist is selling.
To simply cease to exist when your body dies is "Certain Doom"
Perhaps you don't realize this, but that is precisely what pure secular atheism amounts to,... CERTAIN DOOM.
Oh, you mean in eventual certain doom rather than certain doom as soon as they accept atheism?
Well, certain doom is the truth irrespective one's beliefs. I don't see how clinging to an old fantasy, changing fantasies or facing the truth is going to change that? How would your middle way be a safety-net?
February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm (This post was last modified: February 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm by Abracadabra.)
(February 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It doesn't need to be a "lie" at all.
I'm not suggesting that these other spiritual ideas need to be supported as having 'evidence' for being true.
All I'm saying is that they can't be disproved. And that, my friend, is not a lie.
It is. Check out the other thread.
It's precisely because of this kind of haughty arrogance that religious people will never believe a word any atheists says.
Evidently some atheist extremists (such as yourself evidently), are making unrealistic claims that they can't possibly back up. All you're doing is spewing "lies" in precisely the same way that Christian proselytizers spew their "lies".
Obviously you both believe what you believe, but clearly neither of you can prove you baloney.
So you'll remain locked in horns in a stalemate forever with the Christians because you can't proof your faith-based claims anymore than they can prove theirs. It's a dead heat.
(February 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The jealous God religions can be disproved via the very contradictions that are blatantly apparent within the fables themselves. You don't even need science to prove that the Abrahamic myths are false.
The same applies to the bullshit you are peddling.
I'm not peddling any bullshit. That's just more of your own erroneous assumptions. All I'm doing is suggesting wise and realistic solutions to the problems facing modern day humanity.
Unfortunately there exists extremists on both sides of the fence. The religious extremists claiming they have rock-solid proof of their jealous Gods. And the atheist extremists making equally absurd claims that they can rule out every possible spiritual concept of reality.
Both of those positions are equally unsupportable.
(February 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You ask, "Why would start, naked truth be certain doom?".
Well, if you're referring to what pure secular atheists believe to be true, then how could it be anything other than certain doom? That's precisely what a secular atheist is selling.
To simply cease to exist when your body dies is "Certain Doom"
Perhaps you don't realize this, but that is precisely what pure secular atheism amounts to,... CERTAIN DOOM.
Oh, you mean in eventual certain doom rather than certain doom as soon as they accept atheism?
Well, certain doom is the truth irrespective one's beliefs. I don't see how clinging to an old fantasy, changing fantasies or facing the truth is going to change that? How would your middle way be a safety-net?
It would be a safety-net because, unlike your personal and erroneous claims, it can't be disproved.
If you believe that you can disprove any and all concepts of a spiritual essence to reality, then you truly do fit the definition of an atheist in my signature line.
Any genuinely intelligent should know that we have not come anywhere near close to have ruling out such things. If you have convinced yourself that you can, then that's your own personal fantasy right there.
I certainly defend your right to believe that for yourself. But trying to push your views onto other people as though they represents the infallible word of God, is no different from preaching the Abrahamic religoins.
The only difference in your case is that you're claiming to be this God because you're the one who claims to know the supreme truth of ultimate reality.
If that's true, why don't you take a stroll over to the scientific community and set them straight on all their current scientific theories and speculations?
After all, if you claim to know the true nature of reality, then you should be able to answer any question anyone has about reality without hesitation.
If you can't do that, then clearly you are just full of hot air.
Sorry to be so blunt, but truth is truth.
All you're doing is preaching secular atheism as a personal faith-based religion on your part.
You're every bit as deluded in your fantasies as the most tenacious religious zealot.
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!
(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's precisely because of this kind of haughty arrogance that religious people will never believe a word any atheists says.
Evidently some atheist extremists (such as yourself evidently), are making unrealistic claims that they can't possibly back up. All you're doing is spewing "lies" in precisely the same way that Christian proselytizers spew their "lies".
Obviously you both believe what you believe, but clearly neither of you can prove you baloney.
So you'll remain locked in horns in a stalemate forever with the Christians because you can't proof your faith-based claims anymore than they can prove theirs. It's a dead heat.
It has been backed up and all you could do against those arguments is babble endlessly about gaps of knowledge in science.
(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm not peddling any bullshit. That's just more of your own erroneous assumptions. All I'm doing is suggesting wise and realistic solutions to the problems facing modern day humanity.
Unfortunately there exists extremists on both sides of the fence. The religious extremists claiming they have rock-solid proof of their jealous Gods. And the atheist extremists making equally absurd claims that they can rule out every possible spiritual concept of reality.
Both of those positions are equally unsupportable.
Your "solution" is based on the absence of knowledge about reality. Therefore, it cannot be realistic.
(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It would be a safety-net because, unlike your personal and erroneous claims, it can't be disproved.
That wouldn't change the fact of certain doom and neither would it protect anyone form it.
(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you believe that you can disprove any and all concepts of a spiritual essence to reality, then you truly do fit the definition of an atheist in my signature line.
Any genuinely intelligent should know that we have not come anywhere near close to have ruling out such things. If you have convinced yourself that you can, then that's your own personal fantasy right there.
I certainly defend your right to believe that for yourself. But trying to push your views onto other people as though they represents the infallible word of God, is no different from preaching the Abrahamic religoins.
The only difference in your case is that you're claiming to be this God because you're the one who claims to know the supreme truth of ultimate reality.
If that's true, why don't you take a stroll over to the scientific community and set them straight on all their current scientific theories and speculations?
After all, if you claim to know the true nature of reality, then you should be able to answer any question anyone has about reality without hesitation.
If you can't do that, then clearly you are just full of hot air.
Sorry to be so blunt, but truth is truth.
All you're doing is preaching secular atheism as a personal faith-based religion on your part.
You're every bit as deluded in your fantasies as the most tenacious religious zealot.
You don't need complete knowledge of what a thing is to rule out what it cannot be. Even if a reality independent of spatio-temporal reality does exist, it cannot have a consciousness.
Knowing the true nature of reality (again with the redundancy, you just don't learn, do you?) is not required to state what it cannot be. What it cannot be is self-contradictory and your position necessarily leads to self-contradiction.
(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Your "solution" is based on the absence of knowledge about reality. Therefore, it cannot be realistic.
Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.
(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: That wouldn't change the fact of certain doom and neither would it protect anyone form it.
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.
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.
(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: You don't need complete knowledge of what a thing is to rule out what it cannot be. Even if a reality independent of spatio-temporal reality does exist, it cannot have a consciousness.
So says you.
But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?
You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.
There's just no other explanation for such a stance.
(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Knowing the true nature of reality (again with the redundancy, you just don't learn, do you?) is not required to state what it cannot be. What it cannot be is self-contradictory and your position necessarily leads to self-contradiction.
I disagree. It's that simple.
I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.
Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.
You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.
You could be totally wrong about that altogether.
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.
There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.
After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.
And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.
From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.
Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.
So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.
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.
You have absolutely no ground to stand on.
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.
But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.
You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.
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.
Why should I accept your limited thinking?
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!
(February 14, 2012 at 11:56 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 8:05 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Seems the only reasonable solution...since the "leaders of these factions" are so hell bent on destruction..let us see how well they fare in a one to one confrontation??
The trouble with leaders hell bent on destruction is that they're always too willing to let others to the fighting and dying for them. If the leaders themselves actually had to do the fighting, there would be no wars.
That's my point and my dream.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.
Being open-minded does not mean one should lend credence to any and every idea that one comes across. It simply requires one to consider and idea based on its merits, and if its found to be irrational, to reject it.
Your ideas are rooted in absence of knowledge of the unknown and denial of knowledge of the known. Lending it any credence is not a sign of open-mindedness.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
Oh, I can imagine it alright. I simply realize that my imagination has no bearing on reality. Something you seem to be incapable of learning.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
So how is it any 'safer' than their original god fantasy? It is in the same category as it.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So says you.
But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?
You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.
There's just no other explanation for such a stance.
I know it with as much certainty as I know that there is no god, Christian or otherwise. And with as much certainty as I know who I am and where I am right now.
As for explanations, I've given them. You just seem unable to understand them.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I disagree. It's that simple.
I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.
Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.
You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.
You could be totally wrong about that altogether.
No. My argument is that even if this is an illusion, the axioms of existence would still be applicable to the reality (that is separate from the illusion).
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.
After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.
And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.
From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.
Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.
So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.
And here you go off at a tangent again, blabbering about possible scientific theories and how little knowledge we have about the possible existence of this "other" reality. None of which lend an iota of support to your pet hypothesis.
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.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
Obviously, you would think so. For someone incapable of being rational, telling difference between rationality and absence of it is impossible.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You have absolutely no ground to stand on.
Much more that your Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
I can imagine it and by the same standard, rule it out.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.
You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.
Except, these axioms cannot be false, because without them, there wouldn't be anything such as a "false statement".
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
You do understand the difference between an axiom and an assumption, right? No, I don't think you do.
An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. An axiom is a statement which is true for every possible argument.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should I accept your limited thinking?
I would've said "because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself", but your unthinking acceptance is not something I want or care about.
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.
Being open-minded does not mean one should lend credence to any and every idea that one comes across. It simply requires one to consider and idea based on its merits, and if its found to be irrational, to reject it.
Your ideas are rooted in absence of knowledge of the unknown and denial of knowledge of the known. Lending it any credence is not a sign of open-mindedness.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
Oh, I can imagine it alright. I simply realize that my imagination has no bearing on reality. Something you seem to be incapable of learning.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
So how is it any 'safer' than their original god fantasy? It is in the same category as it.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So says you.
But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?
You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.
There's just no other explanation for such a stance.
I know it with as much certainty as I know that there is no god, Christian or otherwise. And with as much certainty as I know who I am and where I am right now.
As for explanations, I've given them. You just seem unable to understand them.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I disagree. It's that simple.
I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.
Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.
You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.
You could be totally wrong about that altogether.
No. My argument is that even if this is an illusion, the axioms of existence would still be applicable to the reality (that is separate from the illusion).
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.
After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.
And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.
From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.
Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.
So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.
And here you go off at a tangent again, blabbering about possible scientific theories and how little knowledge we have about the possible existence of this "other" reality. None of which lend an iota of support to your pet hypothesis.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
Obviously, you would think so. For someone incapable of being rational, telling difference between rationality and absence of it is impossible.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You have absolutely no ground to stand on.
Much more that your Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
Only in your own delusions.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
I can imagine it and by the same standard, rule it out.
Like I say, if that's true, then all you have done is demonstrate your lack of imagination.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.
You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.
Except, these axioms cannot be false, because without them, there wouldn't be anything such as a "false statement".
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)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.
You do understand the difference between an axiom and an assumption, right? No, I don't think you do.
An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. An axiom is a statement which is true for every possible argument.
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.
(February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am)genkaus Wrote:
(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should I accept your limited thinking?
I would've said "because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself", but your unthinking acceptance is not something I want or care about.
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!
