Freedom of Religion

[genkaus]

With all due respect to everyone, I'm bowing out of these absurdly long discussions on this topic. Because they are indeed getting out of hand, and they aren't productive. I'm going to seriously take the stance expressed by my new signature line, even though it represents pseudo comedy.

You just need to talk less.

If you are asking me if I can imagine a structure that exists and no conscious mind is aware if it then no I can't.

Actually, I was asking if you can imagine a structure that exists without itself being conscious.

Actually, I was asking if you can imagine a structure that exists without itself being conscious.

What sense would it even made to proclaim that such a state of affairs could exist?

The sense would be to show you that existence of objects is not dependent upon anyone's awareness of it.

If no one is around to perceive it, then how could it ever be proven to exist?

That wouldn't affect its state of existence.

What would it even mean for it to exist in that case?

It would mean that existence is independent of consciousness.

So no, I personally cannot imagine a structure that exists without consciousness.

And that is your failure in comprehending the role of consciousness with respect to existence.

In fact, since such a thought itself would require my imagination to create it, that pretty much seals the deal for me.

The existence of the structure itself does not depend upon your imagination.

I simply disagree.
You've included terms such as non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge.

You do realize that the word "excerpt" means that they are not my original words.

That doesn't fit with many of my descriptions.
They can be thought of rationally in terms of what is known thus "non-rational" cannot be applied.

The very concepts you propose fly in the face of rationality. Consciousness independent of phenomenal world? Something that is possible and impossible at once? Consciousness being pure consciousness and dependent on a structure at the same time? All this goes against everything we know rationally.

Neither can non-definable, or non-identifiable.

Did you or did you not say that mystics cannot claim to know anything or identify anything about the nature of spiritual reality?

All that can be applied is "non-testable" in terms of scientific experiment. But all these other terms you are using do not automatically follow from that.

They don't follow, they precede that. How would you test something that has not been defined, identified or is in fact rational.

Just because a hypothesis is untestable does not mean that it is non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.

No, but a hypothesis about something that is non-rational, non-definable and non-identifiable is automatically non-testable.

In fact, there are a lot of things in String Theory are not testable,
that doesn't automatically make them non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.

That's because it would be the other way around.

You are assuming way too much, and simply attempting to push your erroneous assumptions onto my ideas without merit.

If the shoe fits...

Nonsense.
Perception of "reality"? What do you even mean by that?

It means that reason can only be applied once reality is perceived.

That very statement right there demands that all of "reality" must necessarily be "perceivable".

No, it doesn't demand anything of reality, but sets limits upon reason.

Also "perceivable" to whom? And when?'

To those who have the tools of perception, when they have them.

Scientists themselves are proposing hidden dimensions of space that are not currently perceivable and may never be.
They are also proposing the existence of strings that are not perceivable and may never be.
They are proposing multiple universes that are not perceivable and may never be.

But they are not imperceptible and therefore not beyond the scope of reason.

In fact, Inflation theory predicts that such multiple universes must exist.

They very well may, since their existence is itself independent of anyone's perception.

You demand that I consider only that which can currently be perceived when scientists don't adhere to those restrictions?

No. Just don't present concepts about things that cannot be perceived and goes contrary to everything that can be as something rational

Why should my philosophies be any more restricted than modern scientific theories.

They should be based on reality, not flights of fancy.

So why should I care about your personal restrictions when clearly scientists don't even adhere to those restrictions?

Scientists restrict themselves to reality. As should you.

As far as I'm concerned the definition I gave for atheist in my sig line fits you to a "T".

That's about as much a fact as your definition of a wiccan.

No disrespect intended, but that sure seems to be your position on things.

No. All mysteries have not been ruled out. Just the crap regarding magic and spirits.

So wasting time arguing with your is totally fruitless and useless.
We're not getting anywhere.

I agree. Especially since you don't even bother to read the arguments and reply to what you imagined I said.

You're just determined to argue endless at all cost.

And you are just determined not to think rationally.

My philosophy cannot be ruled out by current scientific knowledge.
And you haven't shown otherwise.

I have. You just refuse to see it.

I've also pissed away your epistemological argument because I don't restrict "reality" in the same way you do.

No, you apply any attributes to it that your imagination bestows.

Your epistemological argument simply doesn't apply to my philosophy.

I agree. My epistemological arguments apply to actual reality, not your imaginary one.

Your axioms concerning "physical reality" are far too restrictive.

No. These axioms are applicable to non-physical reality as well. Non-physical does not automatically mean spiritual.

So to continue to converse with you would be a waste of time.
You refuse to back down from your unrealistic demands that even modern scientists don't bother adhering to.

Its interesting when demands based on reality are considered unrealistic. And modern scientists adhere quite faithfully to the constraints set by reality.

I have no reason to be interested in your restrictions.

That's because you don't think you are restricted by reality. You are.

Like my sig line says, you're just exhibiting highly restricted creativity and imagination.
Even scientists don't do that.
I'm not going there either.

What you don't understand is imagination and creativity are not tools for imposing your desires on reality.