Is God really real? page 44

1458 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Hinduism, anyone?

Well I know Wikipedia isn’t the best of sources, but I’m pretty sure it said Christianity was the biggest.

Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Galdos:If it’s not physical, then it doesn’t exist.(quite basic logic)

Courage
Integrity
Love
Consciousness
Ego
etc etc etc

Yeah, um, we kinda just labeled those, so the emotions don’t physically exist, but the way humans show them and interpret them (including the labels) do.

Though if you really want to get technical, they’re all really just a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain.

 
Flag Post

What is the meaning of your existence, tenco?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

What is the meaning of your existence, tenco?

To not answer questions like that.

 
Flag Post

What is the meaning of your existence

It was caused by reproduction and serves to reproduce. What you make of it beyond that is partly your own choice.

 
Flag Post

Are women no longer able to reproduce meaningless individuals?

 
Flag Post

I’d suggest that’s a loaded question as it implies things that weren’t said.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m not stooping down there with ya, bud. If you’d like to come back to the discussion, I’ll be up here.

You already stooped down there a long long time ago. Buddy. You’re no saint.

 
Flag Post

DR
Dude, you intentionally ignore my main point:
Objective =/= True.
I’m not arguing against “objectivity” of science (I don’t agree with it to a degree, but I’m NOT addressing it now).
I’m stating that science is UNABLE to disprove us being in a “virtual world” regarding “real time”.
Thus, even though you EMOTIONALLY reject this idea as “stupid” or “improbable” – SCIENTIFICALLY you have nothing to really counter it.
Cause science is limited to the physical world, and my assumption is that this physical world is a FAKE to a degree.
No amount of scientific investigation could ever dis/prove it, cause for that you need to be an observer, which is impossible while we are inside the system.
Also, this is why I many times mentioned TRADITION (aka informational lineage between people).
You see, I’m not stating that our MINDS were FAKED – only PHYSICAL (external to humanity) stuff.
Thus, the only way to counter my assumption, is by providing a continuous uninterrupted documented human tradition that would extend more than 6k years.
NOT digging up stuff – but having a document that people continuously used for all that time.
(And has at least some internal/external references to actual timeline, not just assumed to be that old.)
Do you have any?
I’ll explain the difference:
To FAKE a tradition, at some point a HUMAN has to be FAKED – and I’m NOT assuming this.
(Thus, your solipsism excuse FAILS, cause it refers to human personal knowledge being faked – while I’m NOT assuming this.)
But I am assuming the FAKING of physical objects NOT directly related to human experience.
In other words, I’m not assuming that this computer is FAKED, cause it’s part of MY experience already, and that couldn’t be FAKED according to my idea.
But a stone in a river COULD be FAKED, if nobody ever touched it before.
In other words, things that weren’t YET experienced by humans, can be FAKED, but NOT those that already were experienced.
This is how I currently challenge you and your trust in science.
I am being honest in this assumption, cause it actually solves the “incoherence” between science and religion.
It also explains, how science can be TRUE and FALSE at the SAME TIME.
TRUE – regarding stuff affected by human experience.
FALSE – regarding assumptions that extend beyond human experience.
Period. :D

 
Flag Post

I would not be far off if I said Azolf is an actual philosophical leader, or very soon becoming one, while the rest of you aren’t very far along. I’m not saying that we’re somehow saying the same thing, just that what he says is very much less arguable. I can quote some incredibly profound Jung that has informed my life, even if I think he’s a pseudo-science lunatic with hardly a scientific credit to his name. Azolf says very few things I disagree with, and when he does he’s often wading water as I sometimes do. I’m not trying to compare him to Jung though, he’s far less of an asshole, genuinely.

 
Flag Post

I’m stating that science is UNABLE to disprove

Cut off the irrelevant part. Science is unable to disprove, because science does not disprove. Science investigates claims and either accepts or rejects them, it does not counter them (unless there are two contradicting hypotheses, and one is found to be right). MyTie and you keep saying this in triumph as if it is meaningful. It really isn’t.

Thus, even though you EMOTIONALLY reject this idea as “stupid” or “improbable” – SCIENTIFICALLY you have nothing to really counter it.

On the contrary, and I’ve explained this many times to you before. Perhaps it was better if you said “scientifically you counter this idea, but I personally reject science here”. Science counters claims of the spiritual nature, because we are unable to observe it other than as an individual who isn’t a skeptic or a critic.

Thus, the only way to counter my assumption, is by providing a continuous uninterrupted documented human tradition that would extend more than 6k years.

Or by saying that your assumption is unfounded, leaving you with no leg to stand on.

In other words, I’m not assuming that this computer is FAKED, cause it’s part of MY experience already, and that couldn’t be FAKED according to my idea.

Personally, yes, but that is encountering the dangerous idea that once something is experienced once, it is ultimately true. Your stone that hasn’t been touched before is far more likely to exist than a Martian King claimed to have been kicked in the nuts by a delusional drunk.

In other words, things that weren’t YET experienced by humans, can be FAKED, but NOT those that already were experienced.

Except you’re arbitrarily assigning some values regarding observation and reject others which are also based on observation.

We’ve talked about this. It is not that I think you are stupid for rejecting science. It is that you are misinterpreting and wrongly explaining certain parts of science. You are free to personally believe things about science, even though they are wrong, but I will correct you every time.

 
Flag Post

DR
Dude, you simply say:
“Science is IRRELEVANT to claims it can’t dis/prove.”
Well, thanks.
Now stop using science to COUNTER religious claims, on the very same basis. :D

Pardon, but you simply state:
“My belief in the capability of science is 100%, thus everything unscientific doesn’t exist.”
Which isn’t scientific, but pretty much a personal attitude towards un/scientific.
Aka emotional.

See above.

Different types of existence.
Also, I was talking about stuff being faked before it was experienced, while excluding such probability regarding stuff already experienced.
If someone dreamed of something, he still has to provide some proof that he really experienced it.
But this ISN’T my point now.
According to my idea, if someone PRODUCED a Martian, it would PROVE that it existed.
Yet, if someone only ASSUMES there is a Martian (ATTENTION: not claims having experienced him, but just assumes him being “somewhere out there” – crucial difference in this case), that Martian is still fakeable.
Well, I was referring to more specific stuff, eg. evolution and fossils.
Fossils are experienced, some type of evolution is experienced.
Thus, THOSE can’t be FAKED anymore.
Yet, all the ASSUMPTIONS that aren’t actually experienced, CAN be FAKED – misleading to an Old Earth, while this isn’t really true.
Again, using my favorite virtual world example:
If you get a level 100 character from the start, his experience is FAKED, cause YOU didn’t experience all this growth.
If you yourself train him from level 1 to level 100, this already can’t (doesn’t NEED to) be FAKED, cause it’s part of YOUR experience.
Yet, from the character’s POV (as if), there is NO difference, whether he was trained through a human player OR through preprogrammed automatic level-raising.
He would NOT feel any difference.
Same goes with us and this world.
I’m explaining this for like fifth time already – is it so hard to understand?
(Not accept – at least understand…)

Dude, please be specific and comment on the virtual world example, NOT do just another ranting of “science is infallible”.
PLEASE!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

“Science is IRRELEVANT to claims it can’t dis/prove.”

For the love of… we’ve told you enough times, you would think it would have sunk in by now. Science CANNOT disprove anything. That’s not what it has ever been about. It has always been about proof based on observable evidence.

The problem is, if a religion tries to disagree with that proof, without bringing anything but rhetoric to the table, then that religion is in that instance, simply wrong. You cannot fight proof with hyperbole and make it stick. You cannot fight proof with faith and make it stick. You can only fight proof with proof. Unless you bring some, you are simply going to get laughed out of the building.

 
Flag Post

Don’t spread your scientific dogma here and pretend it isn’t just as circular as believing God chooses to heal me or not at about the same rate as any other believer or person. Medicine and prayer are both based on your faith in science and not the inherent logic and tangible real world application of empirical understanding to develop and construct a technologically efficient society instead of periods of complete intellectual retardation like religion. They’re the same comparable concepts even though they don’t need to be rated on a scale of believability at all, and this does more disservice to my philosophies than necessary, but I’ll still try to argue this point despite myself.

 
Flag Post

“Azolf is far less of an asshole than Carl Gustav Jung.”

I think that’s the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me :-D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

“Azolf is far less of an asshole than Carl Gustav Jung.”

I think that’s the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me :-D

Partially because no-one said that.

/lolnitpick

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Azolf:

“Azolf is far less of an asshole than Carl Gustav Jung.”

I think that’s the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me :-D

Partially because no-one said that.

/lolnitpick

You don’t actually read these threads, do you. You just scan the last couple of posts to find one you think you can tear apart. I’m on to you, and your little dog too, Dorothy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

You don’t actually read these threads, do you. You just scan the last couple of posts to find one you think you can tear apart. I’m on to you, and your little dog too, Dorothy.

No I do, it’s just that BSG literally said

I’m not trying to compare him to Jung though, he’s far less of an asshole, genuinely.

Hence the “/lolnitpick.”

 
Flag Post

Tenco1, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Tenco1, this like like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Magical, isn’t it? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

 
Flag Post

(Know what I mean, know what I mean.)

 
Flag Post

Dude, you simply say:
“Science is IRRELEVANT to claims it can’t dis/prove.”

Nope.

Now stop using science to COUNTER religious claims

Religion is not a method of observation. What else could we use to counter religious claims?

“My belief in the capability of science is 100%, thus everything unscientific doesn’t exist.”

Nope.

Yet, all the ASSUMPTIONS that aren’t actually experienced, CAN be FAKED – misleading to an Old Earth, while this isn’t really true.

The thing is, I can call you ignorant in science and you would say I don’t explain. We’ve already explained, though, and you simply don’t accept. So there is nothing left to do here except say you can’t criticise science via science, since every issue you have with science is scientifically acceptable. You’ll need to use another method, and I’m not sure if you can find another objective one.

If you get a level 100 character from the start, his experience is FAKED, cause YOU didn’t experience all this growth.

How do you know it’s faked?

 
Flag Post

DR
There’s the only answer:
Thinking outside of the box.
And in this case it means, accepting that we as humans CAN’T ever reach outside of OUR box – by ourselves, unassisted.
YET, we CAN be given assistance, and in the case we actually accept it, we CAN see outside of our human limitations.
The most necessary step, though, is to accept the very fact of our limitations.
Which you successfully deny by using the excuse of “science is the most objective method”.
Yes, it IS – but IN THE BOX.
Which means, it will NEVER let you look OUTSIDE.
If that’s what makes you happy (while pretty similar to being lazy to get REALLY new information) – I’m fine with you being captured in the box of human nature (like 99.999% of humanity is anyways).
Just please don’t demand that everyone should be happy with it. :D
Cheers.

 
Flag Post

Say I accept I need to look outside the box. What kind of assistance should I expect? Is there any way to objectively verify my observations are correct?

 
Flag Post

DR
Your definition of “objectivity” relies on “being in the box”.
In other words, “what fits the box the best”.
Which surely ends up as science currently – I never said otherwise.
But to answer your question – you need to be open to experiences you wouldn’t predict yourself (or you’d be still in your own box).
You can call it revelation or faith or whatever – the name is of no importance.
The important part is to accept (truly/internally) that there IS “something” beyond the known box.
When you accept that (by and for yourself – external loud words are totally meaningless), you are open to be contacted by that “something”.
HOW it will happen – no one knows, cause everyone has it differently.
But the first step is the same for anyone – be AWARE of the box and wish to go BEYOND it.
The next step will come along miraculously – aka in a way that you won’t expect from the POV of the box.
Attention: Nothing is guaranteed, the acceptation of being in the box to begin with, but the more one tries, the bigger the chance to succeed.
These were NOT empty words or delusions – this was a clear description as to how to leave the box of our limitations.
The exact details are always personal, though…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:


You can call it revelation or faith or whatever – the name is of no importance.
The important part is to accept (truly/internally) that there IS “something” beyond the known box.
When you accept that (by and for yourself – external loud words are totally meaningless), you are open to be contacted by that “something”.

It’s not a box. It is a framwork. Beyond the ‘box’ as you call science, there is yet more framework, stretching on and on. There are areas where the framework is currently not well defined, which I think will match closer to what you are trying to say.

The framework is there, but we haven’t yet explored it; haven’t yet found it all and figured out why it is connected the way it is. These are the areas where faith explores.