Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

" I don't see anything in science or philosophy that can rule out a spiritual view of life."

We rarely see what we wish to ignore.......

Hey, watch it!

That kind of rhetoric could easily be turned on an atheist by a proselytizing zealot.

In fact, it almost sounds like something an evangelist would say. (ha ha)

[Epimethean]

I loves me a witch who wants confessions!

[The Grand Nudger]

That happens. What matters is whether or not the veracity of the claim can be demonstrated (which, in this case, it can).

[tackattack]

---

@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".

---

Similar to how dark matter is detected by inferrence, I can not prove that God exists directly. I have cited indicative evidence that points to something. Whether that be God, Baal, Shiva or a pink unicorn I don't know. I characterize it, from my experience, as God. I don't think we have an equitable, reliable way to objectively test for that inferrence yet much less what that inferrence points to. As I believe God to be a personal God, it would be up to the individual to find that evidence on their own. And I'm fine that some aren't inerested in finding that evidence, or have looked and found none.

However, my point was that there are some atheists that are asking for material evidence for an immaterial god. I didn't specify you, as I can't recall you doing that. I was pointing out that that is odd is all.[/derailment]

[genkaus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who are you to demand how God must be limited.

---

One who has decided to look at reality to gain knowledge about reality.

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.

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.

---

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Simply because we couldn't identify the mechanism does not mean that we could not isolate or observe the effect or it's relationship to what we could observe. Magic and spells and spirits have never been given a description that is immune to observation by means of experimentation, which is exactly how we've experimented on the hypothesis until it was a hollow little corpse. The minute someone proposes magic that is completely unobservable is the minute that they remove any effect or benefit or meaning from the term. Magic that cannot be observed or interact with the observable is , at the very least, functionally non-existent. At this point what exactly is the proponent of magic talking about? An idea or concept in their head? Granted, concepts exist. As has often been said, just because we can dream it up doesn't mean we'll find it out here in the waking world. Magic, spells, and spirits are not unfalsifiable, not even close.

[genkaus]

Simply because we couldn't identify the mechanism does not mean that we could not isolate or observe the effect or it's relationship to what we could observe. Magic and spells and spirits have never been given a description that is immune to observation by means of experimentation, which is exactly how we've experimented on the hypothesis until it was a hollow little corpse.

I'm assuming this was addressed to me.

Aren't magic and spirits by definition outside the scope of science? They are ways to manipulate the natural world through supernatural means. While the experimentation's scope extends to the natural world, anything beyond it is out of bounds and cannot be either proved or disproved. Why else would people like theistic evolutionist exist. They say that yes - evolution did take place, but it was nudged along by god - a hypothesis which is inherently unfalsifiable.

For example, a witch might say - do this ritual and if you really, really believe in spirits and the spirits are really, really pleased with you, good luck will shower upon you. That can never be proven false. You can conceivably, in future, determine if a person really believes a concept or not, but you'd never be able to determine if the spirits are pleased.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure you can, you ask for specifics about what the witch means by "good luck" and then see if you are indeed being showered by it. The descriptions of magic and spells and spirits are never without a physical (and thus observable) component to them. They are also never without origin, which is again, always physical (as in each case we can demonstrate that human beings are the origin of this or that belief or concept of what magic is or can do, and not some indescribable force of the cosmos wafting through everything undetected). Is pyschic phenomena unfalsifiable? How about levitation spells? It's always useful to remember that these aren't just words, but words with alot of claims and culture attached. If you remove the claims, and the culture, you're left with a hollow word, so it's impossible to say that "magic exists" without making some or all of the claims attached (or at least, it's impossible for the statement to have any meaning).

Perhaps we're getting stuck on our ideas of what falsifiable is. To me, and correct me if I'm mistaken here, for something to be falsifiable it must make a claim which can be tested, and (at least in theory) disproven or be able to be shown to be a misattribution of cause, which claims of magic and spells and spirits clearly do and can be.

[genkaus]

Sure you can, you ask for specifics about what the witch means by "good luck" and then see if you are indeed being showered by it. The descriptions of magic and spells and spirits are never without a physical (and thus observable) component to them. They are also never without origin, which is again, always physical (as in each case we can demonstrate that human beings are the origin of this or that belief or concept of what magic is or can do, and not some indescribable force of the cosmos wafting through everything undetected). Is pyschic phenomena unfalsifiable? How about levitation spells? It's always useful to remember that these aren't just words, but words with alot of claims and culture attached. If you remove the claims, and the culture, you're left with a hollow word, so it's impossible to say that "magic exists" without making some or all of the claims attached (or at least, it's impossible for the statement to have any meaning).

Perhaps we're getting stuck on our ideas of what falsifiable is. To me, and correct me if I'm mistaken here, for something to be falsifiable it must make a claim which can be tested, and (at least in theory) disproven or be able to be shown to be a misattribution of cause, which claims of magic and spells and spirits clearly do and can be.

That's my point. It is impossible to show misattribution of cause for spells and magic and spirits because science can only judge attribution to natural causes, not supernatural causes. Even if we were to find the correct natural cause, the attributed supernatural cause cannot be ruled out on scientific basis.

[The Grand Nudger]

If only spells or magic ever produced an effect to judge...ergo. falsifiable. These things claim to have effects which cannot be produced Genk. Are you arguing for magic without any effects, or spirits without any relationship to the subject? That's not what magic and spirits are (or how they have ever been described).

---

When someone says "I can make things happen by pyschic powers", we don't need to get into a lengthy argument about whether or not it's philosophically or logically possible, we can just say "Yeah? Show me." Which they can't, and haven't. This is what gives us that provisional certainty that scientific inquiry bestows upon things like magic. Of course, anyone is free to demonstrate the effects of magic at any time and that would force us to completely reverse our determination of "nonsense"..wouldn't it? It isn't nonsense because we have an argument against it, it's nonsense because they have no evidence for it, and all evidence we have leads us to the conclusion that it is not possible (unless we're horribly, fundamentally wrong in many areas).