Nondualism vs Dualism

[Rahn127]

Me lifting 20,000 lbs is the equivalent someone guessing 1000 coin flips.

These things don't happen in the real world.
Asking how someone would explain it is ridiculous.

How do you explain a city drifting up into the sky ?

You need to pick an example of something that actually happens in the real world that we don't currently have a clue how it happens.

For instance - Ugly guys who aren't rich walking hand and hand with a beautiful woman.

Science can't explain that.
That's got to be some supernatural voodoo shit.

[Won2blv]

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that my experience led me to believe in a narrative of my creation story from the big bang forward. Because even though I believe that at the big bang there was immaterial (non-physical matter) higher beings, I know there was definitely no higher beings of a material (physical matter) form. And I know I'm not the only human that has striven to tell a tale to myself from creation until present day. I seek a narrative the same that BILLIONS of other humans seek it. Mine just happens to align with Mormonism. And that is humorous to me because I spent my whole life growing up in Utah a mormon hater.

So that is real to me. For some odd reason, I relate to so much of Joseph Smith's life story and beliefs. And this came out of nowhere about 2 years ago. The entire experience is subjective, I get that, but it is still real to me

I guess the difference between us, is a care if my beliefs are true, or likely true. I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. You don't seem to have this same desire.

At least, you are not using the best set of epidemiological tools known, to get you to true beliefs. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc, all get to mutually exclusive beliefs, using similar methods as you have; subjective feelings and what is 'real to them'.

I don't care what is 'real to you', I care what is demonstrably real.

As far as Mormonism goes, the only religion that I can think of that is more obviously made up by a single person, is Scientology. The claims of Joseph Smith are so obviously made up, it is laughable. Sorry if this sounds insulting.

As far as Mormonism goes, I have a subjective experience that helps me relate to Joseph Smith, but I agree with what he concluded about religion. None of them teach the truth but truth could be found through personal revelation.

And I do care if my beliefs are true or not. I just know that there is a reason so many humans yearn for a creation narrative that they can understand and relate to. I know my personal beliefs will never interfere with me knowing if something is true scientifically or not

[The Grand Nudger]

Human beings want all sorts of things.

[Angrboda]

Let's say that a NDE was observed, that is, someone, such Pam Reynolds, had all of the blood drained from their brain, was flat-lined and was unconscious, and yet, witnessed physical events in the real world while they had no brain activity, a state that is equivalent to clinical death.

What materialistic explanation could there be for such a phenomenon, if it such were ever observed under controlled conditions?

---

Exactly what observables would confirm an NDE and how would they demonstrate the existence of the non-material or the soul?

Let's say that I could claim to foretell the future, and so, you, an experimenter, decide to test my claim of "prophecy".  I claim that I could predict the outcome of 1,000 tosses of a fair coin that you, a scientist, are going to make in the future.  I write my predictions down, seal those in an envelope and give that to a trusted third party, say, a notary at a prominent law firm.

You, the scientist, conduct the experiment, recording your results, which you then provide to the notary.  In the presence of you, me and many others, the notary opens up my sealed envelope and compares my predictions to your outcomes, and they are exact.  What physical explanation would you propose, especially, if I am able to replicate this experiment with a dozen other scientists on every continent in the World (including, Antarctica)?

---

Are you saying there isn't a material explanation for either of these if neither I nor anyone else can give you one? Because that's an argument from ignorance and the conclusion invalid.

How exactly would predicting the future demonstrate the non-material?

[madog]

Let's say that I could claim to foretell the future, and so, you, an experimenter, decide to test my claim of "prophecy".  I claim that I could predict the outcome of 1,000 tosses of a fair coin that you, a scientist, are going to make in the future.  I write my predictions down, seal those in an envelope and give that to a trusted third party, say, a notary at a prominent law firm.

You, the scientist, conduct the experiment, recording your results, which you then provide to the notary.  In the presence of you, me and many others, the notary opens up my sealed envelope and compares my predictions to your outcomes, and they are exact.  What physical explanation would you propose, especially, if I am able to replicate this experiment with a dozen other scientists on every continent in the World (including, Antarctica)?

OK, show me and I'll decide after  .... 

[Simon Moon]

I guess the difference between us, is a care if my beliefs are true, or likely true. I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. You don't seem to have this same desire.

At least, you are not using the best set of epidemiological tools known, to get you to true beliefs. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc, all get to mutually exclusive beliefs, using similar methods as you have; subjective feelings and what is 'real to them'.

I don't care what is 'real to you', I care what is demonstrably real.

As far as Mormonism goes, the only religion that I can think of that is more obviously made up by a single person, is Scientology. The claims of Joseph Smith are so obviously made up, it is laughable. Sorry if this sounds insulting.

As far as Mormonism goes, I have a subjective experience that helps me relate to Joseph Smith, but I agree with what he concluded about religion. None of them teach the truth but truth could be found through personal revelation.

Not sure how this can be true, when there are Muslims, Christians, Mormons, Hindus who claim to have personal revelation that are all mutually exclusive. A Hindu personal revelation, is not going to agree with a personal revelation of a Muslim. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

And again, I can't help but go back to schizophrenics who have varying personal revelations from all sorts of beings.

How are you able to tell the difference between a 'real' personal revelation, and one caused by mental illness?

And I do care if my beliefs are true or not. I just know that there is a reason so many humans yearn for a creation narrative that they can understand and relate to. I know my personal beliefs will never interfere with me knowing if something is true scientifically or not

That is just sad to me. I am not sure how you cannot see that this attitude, if applied to other aspects of your life, can be dangerous.

I know my personal beliefs will never interfere with me knowing if something is true scientifically or not

I don't believe that is true.

If your mind is such that you accept completely unsupported and irrational beliefs in one subject, it may be that you are setting yourself to believe other unsupported and irrational beliefs.

[Jehanne]

Let's say that I could claim to foretell the future, and so, you, an experimenter, decide to test my claim of "prophecy".  I claim that I could predict the outcome of 1,000 tosses of a fair coin that you, a scientist, are going to make in the future.  I write my predictions down, seal those in an envelope and give that to a trusted third party, say, a notary at a prominent law firm.

You, the scientist, conduct the experiment, recording your results, which you then provide to the notary.  In the presence of you, me and many others, the notary opens up my sealed envelope and compares my predictions to your outcomes, and they are exact.  What physical explanation would you propose, especially, if I am able to replicate this experiment with a dozen other scientists on every continent in the World (including, Antarctica)?

OK, show me and I'll decide after  .... 

Okay, then we disagree.  At the heart of reality are the Conservation Laws, or, to quote Professor Bart Ehrman, "Bars of Ivory Soap float but bars of iron sink."  This is why people do not walk on water; now, if someone did, I would actively look for fraud, but if that was not present and could be excluded, I would convert to "whatever" religion that claimant asked me to believe in.

---

Uhm... Jehanne?

Neither of those two scenarios in any way are actually similar to "Science'.

Or anything like such.

So... the first thing to ask is;

"Has anything like NDE been tested for?"

"What might even the mechanisms be for NDE's?"

"How might one go about both looking for said events as well as screening out things which might lead to a false positive"

The list goes on.

Just positing 'Dualism' and then... leaving it thre seems... wrong?

Not at work.

It would be a completely reasonable inference, in my opinion.  If there are nonphysical causes and/or substances to reality and existence, then there is no reason, as an atheist, that I cannot come to know such phenomenon.  I am an atheist because I think that physicalism is sufficient, and I see no reason to go beyond it.  But, an adult amputee being healed on live TV would, basically, end my materialistic stance, which, by the way, is just that, a stance, and not a "belief system".

---

Isn't interesting though, you have to come up with some extreme hypothetical, that never actually occurs in the real world to make your point?

That's the point, though, isn't it?  In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  My example is, I admit, "extreme", but would be trivial to implement.  Flipping a fair coin and recording the results would only take 15 seconds at most, or, about 4 hours to get a thousand tosses.  Not too much effort to demonstrate genuine prophecy!

[Peebothuhlu]

---

Uhm... Jehanne?

Neither of those two scenarios in any way are actually similar to "Science'.

Or anything like such.

So... the first thing to ask is;

"Has anything like NDE been tested for?"

"What might even the mechanisms be for NDE's?"

"How might one go about both looking for said events as well as screening out things which might lead to a false positive"

The list goes on.

Just positing 'Dualism' and then... leaving it thre seems... wrong?

Not at work.

It would be a completely reasonable inference, in my opinion.  If there are nonphysical causes and/or substances to reality and existence, then there is no reason, as an atheist, that I cannot come to know such phenomenon.  I am an atheist because I think that physicalism is sufficient, and I see no reason to go beyond it.  But, an adult amputee being healed on live TV would, basically, end my materialistic stance, which, by the way, is just that, a stance, and not a "belief system".

---

 *Nods*

Oh yes. If some weird magic stuff would be great.

Then we could poke and prod ALL the magic!



Not at work.

[madog]

OK, show me and I'll decide after  .... 

Okay, then we disagree.  At the heart of reality are the Conservation Laws, or, to quote Professor Bart Ehrman, "Bars of Ivory Soap float but bars of iron sink."  This is why people do not walk on water; now, if someone did, I would actively look for fraud, but if that was not present and could be excluded, I would convert to "whatever" religion that claimant asked me to believe in.

---

Look, everytime a believer debates a skeptic they throw out stupid fucking examples like  ... If they cut their head off and walked back in with the scars on their neck and their head back on would I believe in the supernatural  .... Its total bullshit ...

If you went out and saw jurasic dinosaurs being chased by green goblins on chariots of flying fish, would you believe in God?
In all cases my belief in reality would be seriously shaken, I would probably question my own sanity ... but wouldn't go scurrying around trying to fit a supernatural deity to the craziness ....

To cut a long story short  ... the incredulous examples those that believe in the supernatural offer as a gotcha's are so dishonest.

Lets face it if someone did agree to this nonesense  ... then you/they would offer totally mundane evidence for your/their stance and expect belief 

[Rahn127]

If you're watching a magic trick, how good would the magician need to be to convince you that he was doing something supernatural ?

In other words, he was performing "real magic".

Let me state the question another way.

How gullible do you need to be to believe that a magic trick is actually supernatural ?