Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

So we're done.

You're assertion that I must accept your epistemological primacy of existence axiom failed.

Only if you are to be rational. Which you have demonstrated you have no interest in being. As I notice, you have not replied to any arguments talking about how primacy of existence would still be applicable to your imaginary spirit world. You simply chose to ignore them.

I didn't see any arguments along those lines.

Your original axiom didn't hold because you were not acknowledging a larger scope of structure beyond what is detectable in terms of the physics of spacetime.

I'm considering a far larger structure which is perfectly compatible with axioms and postulates accepted and proposed by many scientific theories.

You are also taking a western reductionistic stance that structure and consciousness can be treated as two entirely separate and independent things.

I'm taking the eastern holistic view that western reductionism makes no sense. If a structure is not capable of "experience" and it suddenly become 'conscious' then what is it that is having an "experience"? The structure?

No it can't be. You've already reductionistically decided that the structure itself is not capable of experiencing anything. Yet now you are going to claim that some "abstract property emerged" from this structure due to the complexity of the structure and it is this "abstract property" that is having an experience.

I personally don't buy into that.

The Eastern picture that is must be the structure itself that is having the experience makes more sense to me. Especially within the philosophical picture that this structure is ultimately the mysterious entity that we refer to as "God".

It may not make sense to you. And that's fine.

But it's my position that you totally out of line if you believe that it can be ruled out by current knowledge.

It's that simple.

In fact, your reason to rule it out isn't any different from my reason for ruling it in.

You're saying that since we have no obvious reason to rule it in, we must rule it out.

I'm saying that since we have no obvious reason to rule it out, we must at least keep an open mind to the possibility that it might actually be true.

Personally I think my position is more sensible than yours.

I'm not interested in listening to your secondary arguments as you try frantically to grasp at straws to come up with something better.

That's because you are not interested in reality.

Sure I am.

I'm just not interested in your pompous attitude that if I don't accept your bull shit I'm being unreasonable.

That's simply hogwash.

I'm not telling you that you have to accept my philosophy, or that you must rule your philosophy out.

But you most certainly are taking such an outrageously arrogant position.

And that is arrogant on your part.

You have no sound argument to force your axioms down my throat.

Yet that is precisely what you are attempting to do.

And you're actingly like as if I'm stupid because I refuse to eat your shit.

Forget it Genkaus.

If you don't think my philosophy is sound. Fine. Reject it for yourself.

But don't try to ram your views down my throat under the false pretense that if I don't eat your shit, I must be stupid.

I simply won't stand for it.

That's childish arrogance.

Take it somewhere else.

Like Rythmn pointed out, let's not get into the "Goalpost Moving" games just to try to appear to win arguments on a public forum.

Your original assertion was that I must accept your epistemological axiom of a primacy of existence based on your argument that physics = reality.

I showed where your very notion of "physics" is limited and does not embrace all that is known by science. Thus it does not apply to my philosophy.

You lose.

It's over.

You're assertion that I must accept your axioms did not hold.

In fact, that's a silly thing to do in philosophy anyway. Axioms are always unprovable speculation to begin with. You should have known better than to even go there.

~~~

And where are you headed now?

It looks like your going to start arguing that western reductionism is a more sound philosophical foundation than eastern holism. That's a whole different conversation that I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguing about. Start a thread on that topic if you like. But don't expect to see me there because quite frankly I'm not interested in debating that.

I'm happy with my philosophical views and I have no need to justify them to anyone. I continue to ponder them and refine them.

Plus I truly am agnostic. I'm also considering the possibility of a pure secular reality as well.

All I'm saying is that IMHO, right now the Eastern Philosophy appears to me to have a 'leg up' on western philosophy.

That's just my current leanings. That could change. It's just my current view right now.

I've already considered the things you've mentioned and there's no substance to them. They make far too many limited assumptions that I'm not prepared to accept. Like spacetime = the totality of reality.

I don't accept that limited view. And neither do scientists actually.

---

I cant rule anything out 100% no, but anything seen as nonsense and cant be proven goes back in the pile with fairies and xenu.

I totally agree Cosmic Ape.

But that wasn't how these conversations got started.

All I did was state that I'm OPEN-MINDED to the possibility of a spiritual essence to life.

I got jumped on by people who were claiming that spirituality as been RULED OUT!

So I argued that to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in modern science that currently rules out a spiritual philosophy that I can construct.

Does that mean that everyone should jump at my philosophy and say, "Hey it must then be true!"

No of course not.

But it does mean that they have no right to demand that it's been "Ruled Out"

And that's all I've been arguing against the whole time.

Are we nothing more than highly evolved Apes?

I most certainly do believe that's precisely what we are!

I absolutely accept that without a problem. There is nothing 'special' about a human being. And my philosophy doesn't require that there needs to be.