RE: Freedom of Religion
February 9, 2012 at 6:28 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2012 at 6:41 am by genkaus.)
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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:
You're totally assuming to have complete and absolute knowledge of what the nature of any "Spiritual World" must be like.
No, I'm not. Read the first argument again and compare it to the case where this is the real world and every human has a dream world.
Every time you dream, you perceptual capacity is limited to what your perceptual capacity in the real world happens to be. For example, if someone has been blind from birth, he'd not be able to see in dreams either. This does not mean that the dreamer has absolute or complete knowledge of the real world just because his perceptual capacities are copied from it.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
Those are the only two possibilities. Either it is physical or it is non-physical. These possibilities are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
Fine, so we can eliminate #2 completely.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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"?
The missing point here is that the structure itself be independent of the spiritual essence.
So we're stuck with something along the lines of #1, but not as you have it written.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
Either the structure is independent of consciousness or it is dependent upon consciousness. There are no other options. If it is dependent on consciousness, it cannot exist without consciousness. Thus, if consciousness is required to have a structure, then consciousness cannot depend on it and therefore can exist without the structure. This contradicts the accepted premise that consciousness cannot exist without the structure. Therefore, the premise of this line of thought - that the structure is dependent upon the consciousness - is wrong. The only option left is that the structure is independent of consciousness.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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?
Both, as in, consciousness is dependent upon the reality and the reality is dependent upon the consciousness? In this case, we need something different than both to explain their existence. Since neither can give rise to the other, these two things must have been caused by another thing, something that cannot be classified either as consciousness or as existence. Something that is neither neither spiritual, nor material, neither conscious, nor unconscious, neither an existent nor a non-existent. Do you see how ridiculous this proposition is?
Further, even if this were the case and consciousness and existence are by their nature inseparable, then consciousness would be able to alter existence in any manner possible. This still would rule out the possibility of an objective existence independent of consciousness which is the basic premise of the scientific method. In which case, the entire body of knowledge according to science would automatically be unreliable.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
And that is fundamentally wrong. If there is something like a "spirit" to reality, then
1. It is the consequence of a particular structure arising within reality.
2. It has a physical aspect which is within the realm of science and testing.
3. It cannot, without any intervening physical agency, alter the reality.
Therefore, it cannot be considered the ultimate cause of anything and certainly not everything.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Tat t'vam asi, - We are it.
That's the idea.
You're claiming to be able to rule that idea out?
You do realize that the concept of Tat t'vam asi relies upon the primacy of consciousness?
In the lines preceding the statement, it is argued that if you take away the framework surrounding the consciousness piece by piece, then all you are left with is pure consciousness. That pure consciousness is what is called the Brahman (divine soul) and one of its manifestations is the Atman (human soul). It argues that consciousness can and does exist without a structure - something we have agreed is not possible.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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?
Because it being both would require a cause that is neither conscious nor real. Primacy of consciousness and Primacy of existence are the only two possible axioms. Once you have ruled out one, the only one left is the other. Nothing arbitrary about it.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Who are you to demand how God must be limited.
One who has decided to look at reality to gain knowledge about reality.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
Look again.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: 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.
(February 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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".
That still wouldn't work, sine the hypothesis of "spirits using spells" is inherently unfalsifiable. The validity of the experiment relies on the fact that something like spells cannot affect the results.
