|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 25, 2006, 9:52 PM
Post #76 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: Oh, I don't believe there's no god, nor do I believe there is one. I do believe, however, that to believe that the Christian God doesn't exist requires no faith at all, simply a reasonably thorough study of the Bible. Why do you think it is even a serious enough proposition to require a study of the Bible? Jay
That's a good question, actually. I was told by various christians that the Bible was the source of serious evidence for their belief. I like to have evidence before forming an opinion, so I decided to read it. Lo and behold, I formed a concrete opinion where before I had none.
I live in hope that most Christian believers have never read the damned thing.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 26, 2006, 3:51 AM
Post #77 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: I live in hope that most Christian believers have never read the damned thing.
Actually, I think most have read some, but unfortunately most retain little of the actual details they form their devotion on...
Example... To make a point, I have recently (within the last 2
months) asked about 30 Christians of all faiths, including Sunday School
and Bible Scool teachers, and of that 30, only 1 was able to answer this
question correctly:
"How many of each animal did God command Noah to take aboard the ark?"
All but one replied, "two, 1 male and 1 female", but that is incorrect, as
he actually told Noah to take, "1 pair of unclean animals, and 7
pairs of clean animals".
Now be honest... How many who just read that, said to themselves "two"
also ??? Check Genisis 5 for yourself.
Point... Most who claim or think "they know what they are talking about,
don't really know as much as they think they do."
Listening to most "defenders of the faith" try to debate and refute
science is actually comedic, and sad, at times... Doesn't matter if its Geological,
Biological, Theoretical, Astrophysical, and/or Cosmological to name a few
diciplines... All have very strong experimental, observational, and
mathmatical evidence to show that the Biblical account of creation (life
or cosmological) is not at all probable. Same holds true for creation
myths of other faiths as well. But the creation myths are still much
easier for people to grasp and understand than accepted scientific
theories at the current time. Hell, most people don't even know what QED
stands for, much less that it has been proven correct to a value that is
analogous to measuring the distance from LA to NY with an error margin
equal to the width of a human hair, and this was done in Feynman's time
(80's).
Or... Because of dogma, evolution has to be wrong in order for the
creation myth to be true, so it is irrationally fought tooth and
nail. Think for a second that there are some very distinct breeds
of dogs that are only hunders of years old, and this is due to "un-natural
selection", meaning we humans have done this without the aid of anything
other than controlling which dogs screw which dogs. This is just one
example that cannot be denied where the process of natural selection is
apparent. Now instead of hundreds of years lets acknowlege that it is
more than probable that species "naturally select" better traits for
melenia or eons to become different species altogether. This is
evolution, and fossil records support just this process.
See problem is, most faiths and beliefs in inteligent design
incourage/require people to ignore and discredit anything that offers
evidence that they are incorrect, and if it seems counterintuitive, its even easier to dismiss.
Put simply... People believe what's easy to understand, and its much easier to believe in a supernatural explanation for everything that's too hard to understand scientifically. :?
Referring to science, Lee Smolin writes, "This is science, and the
truth of a theorycan be assessed based only on the results that have been
published in the scientific literatur; thus we muct be careful to
distinguish between conjecture, evidence, and proof."
[The Trouble With Physics, p. 178]
Newton was thought correct for centuries, until Einstien in '05 & '15, but
even then it was not until his theories were proven by observational
evidence of his predictions, that he was "proven" correct. Yet >100 years later and most have no clue as to what those theories actually are and what they really mean. (See my sig for
just one example. :wink: )
What evidence or proofs are there for ANY creation myth, or for the
existance of ANY supernatural being ??? What makes one faith more correct
than any other faith, including the myths created by the Greeks & Romans
in order to answer the same questions that todays faiths answer ???
Seriously... What ???
Hell, the Catholic Church recently funded a scientific study aimed to
prove the power of "others praying for a sick person"... In a nutshell,
the results show that those who were unaware that they were being prayed
for did just as well as those who receved no prayer on their behalf.
Those who were aware did better. This shows that it is not the power of
the prayer, but the power of the mind being aware of something that is
possible benificial, otherwise known as "positive thought". Either that,
of God just chose not to participate in this study, and that has actually
been said by some faithful in defence of their faith in the power of
prayer. :roll:
Actually, I'm pretty disappointed in myself for even getting involved in
this thread, as NOTHING can come of this other than drama...
To quote Lee Smolin again, regarding religious dogma,
[paraphrasing]"What evidence do you require to prove that you are
wrong?" See, there is NOTHING that would show someone with a deep
religious faith that they are wrong, as any proof would only be
discounted, or the religion ammended to account for that proof. (i.e.
possession vs. mental illness, earth centered vs. sun centered, 7,200 year
old earth vs. 3.8 Billion year old earth, 1 god of old test v. trinity of
the Nice Creed, etc...)
So why am I disappointed in myself ??? Because given the above paragraph,
I am wasting by breath and time in debating it... It is futile.
Hell, I won't even attempt to debate it anymore in the deep South, where I'm currently working and typing this... Last time they almost came after me with pitch-forks and torches... I thought I was a gonner. :lol:
PS... No offense intended for any southerners in the paragraph above, as no southerners, christians, nor athiests were harmed in the compilation of this thread. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 26, 2006, 8:12 AM
Post #78 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: Well, I clearly know a lot more about this than you. 2 spatial kinds, 5 dynamic types, each of which is the result of a the cosmological constant being within a narrow range of values. Still no evidence to the contrary I see.
Note---I'm not even a high-school grad, and my spelling sux,
so take what I write with a grain of salt. :roll:
First, the Anthropic Principle basically says that if the universe weren't such that matter and galaxies formed, and conditions hospitable to life were not present, we wouldn't be here to notice. So if it were not within this (see below) narrow range of values, we would not be here to see it. :wink:
Now with the cosmological beta, it is believed that the CG has a positive non-zero value, and that the universe is indead closed...
Observations and subsequent experiments show that the univers is indeed expanding (Hubble), and that it is expanding at an increasing rate, thus the CG would have a positive non-zero value, according to the predictions of currently accepted theory.
It is a fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, yet the exact mechanism is not know, however there are working theories that account for it... The Higgs boson is just one, and that is #1 on the list for the LHC.
The initial "inflationary expansion" of the universe is what makes the universe appear flat and open, but it is indead closed. I don't remember where I saw the obervational and experimental data to confirm this... If you need me to provide it, I will search for it and provide it. But would I ultimately be wasting my time ??? What I mean is, if I do all the work, and provide the data, are you just gonna reply that it "means nothing" or ignore it ???
That said, we reside in 1 expanding closed universe... Feel free to "update" your knowledge-base and toss the others you sited in the quote above, unless you buy into string theory, as it contains an infinate number of theories, depending on which space-time background one chooses.
For further reading, may I suggest:
The Life of the Cosmos, by: Lee Smolin
To be brief... In it he posits a great theory of multiverses, each of which are created in a Big Bang within a black hole at the time the singularity is created... If you think about it... What's the difference quantum mechanically between the initial singularity thought to spark the Big Bang and that of the singularity within a black-hole ???
[My]This makes some sense, as an ever expanding universe would eventually dispurse to in essence nothing, just as a black hole eventually "evaporates" to nothing due to Hawking Radiation, if not fed with new matter/energy.
He also posits, although I may not agree with or fully understand this part, that a process he calls "cosmological natural selection" tends to create universes with physical laws that promote the creation of more black holes.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 26, 2006, 8:43 AM
Post #79 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: The initial "inflationary expansion" of the universe is what makes the universe to appear flat and open, but it is indead closed. I don't remember where I saw the obervational and experimental data to confirm this
Are you talking about the WMAP results? They managed to get a 2% margin of error from microwave background fluctuations. Fantastic stuff.
In reply to: unless you buy into string theory, as it contains an infinate number of theories, depending on which space-time background one choses.
Um, not really. I'm a bit conservative about my science, and string theory's still incomplete as far as I know. I keep an eye on it from time to time, but I find the maths of it frustrating (ie: beyond me).
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 26, 2006, 9:02 AM
Post #80 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: In reply to: The initial "inflationary expansion" of the universe is what makes the universe to appear flat and open, but it is indead closed. I don't remember where I saw the obervational and experimental data to confirm this Are you talking about the WMAP results? They managed to get a 2% margin of error from microwave background fluctuations. Fantastic stuff.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is a what is now seen from the moment when the universe cooled enough for atomic nuclie to capture the electrons, thus the universe went from opaque to transparent at that time, and the light has been traveling ever since. This is called the moment of decoupling, and is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
What was initially actually UV light at that time has now become microwave due to the expansion of space, and the wavelength being effectively stretched because of that expansion.
Its observered uniformity is an observation that supports "inflationary" expansion, but is not a proof.
So the CMB itself is not a proof of expansion, but the spectra is. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
c4c
Oct 26, 2006, 11:46 AM
Post #81 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Oh, I don't believe there's no god, nor do I believe there is one. I do believe, however, that to believe that the Christian God doesn't exist requires no faith at all, simply a reasonably thorough study of the Bible. Why do you think it is even a serious enough proposition to require a study of the Bible? Jay That's a good question, actually. I was told by various christians that the Bible was the source of serious evidence for their belief. I like to have evidence before forming an opinion, so I decided to read it. Lo and behold, I formed a concrete opinion where before I had none. I live in hope that most Christian believers have never read the damned thing.
I have read the Bible (more than once and parts of it almost daily) It is the source of the truth. You can decide to believe it or reject it because God created us with a will to choose.
In the second book to the Corinthians it says that the good news of slavation through Christ is like a fragrance. To some it is a smell that makes them think of life to others it reminds them of death and defeat.
to quote sid the sloth from ice age---"I choose life"
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 11:56 AM
Post #82 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Oh, I don't believe there's no god, nor do I believe there is one. I do believe, however, that to believe that the Christian God doesn't exist requires no faith at all, simply a reasonably thorough study of the Bible. Why do you think it is even a serious enough proposition to require a study of the Bible? Jay That's a good question, actually. I was told by various christians that the Bible was the source of serious evidence for their belief. I like to have evidence before forming an opinion, so I decided to read it. Lo and behold, I formed a concrete opinion where before I had none. I live in hope that most Christian believers have never read the damned thing. I have read the Bible (more than once and parts of it almost daily) It is the source of the truth. You can decide to believe it or reject it because God created us with a will to choose. In the second book to the Corinthians it says that the good news of slavation through Christ is like a fragrance. To some it is a smell that makes them think of life to others it reminds them of death and defeat. to quote sid the sloth from ice age---"I choose life"
Funny, to me it smells somewhat more... pastoral.
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
Oct 26, 2006, 1:41 PM
Post #83 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
[quote="rrradam]
Actually, I'm pretty disappointed in myself for even getting involved in
this thread, as NOTHING can come of this other than drama...
Ironically enough you're the one creating 90% of the drama around here. (in a space/time continuum with a margin of error les than 2% when using only wholo numbers...).
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
Oct 26, 2006, 1:49 PM
Post #84 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: I have read the Bible (more than once and parts of it almost daily) It is the source of the truth. You can decide to believe it or reject it because God created us with a will to choose. In the second book to the Corinthians it says that the good news of slavation through Christ is like a fragrance. To some it is a smell that makes them think of life to others it reminds them of death and defeat. to quote sid the sloth from ice age---"I choose life"
Thats a good point I think 1 Corinthians 1:18 squeezes in here too pretty well... "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 26, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #85 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Oh, I don't believe there's no god, nor do I believe there is one. I do believe, however, that to believe that the Christian God doesn't exist requires no faith at all, simply a reasonably thorough study of the Bible. Why do you think it is even a serious enough proposition to require a study of the Bible? Jay That's a good question, actually. I was told by various christians that the Bible was the source of serious evidence for their belief. I like to have evidence before forming an opinion, so I decided to read it. Lo and behold, I formed a concrete opinion where before I had none. I live in hope that most Christian believers have never read the damned thing. I have read the Bible (more than once and parts of it almost daily) It is the source of the truth.
And how do you know the Bible is the source of truth? Because the Bible is God's word. And how do you know the Bible is God's word? Because the Bible says it is. And how do you know that what the Bible says is true? Because the Bible is the source of truth. And how do you know the Bible is the source of truth? Because it is God's word.
You know, with about 30 minutes of research, you can find out the historical fact that the Bible was written by a bunch of different people, who selected, rejected, and edited numerous texts, including some from Pagan polytheistic religions. Word of God, my ass.
What do you do for a living, work at McDonalds? Because I can't see how you could be intelligent enough to do much else. Oh, wait, the President of the United States believes the same thing. Never mind.
Jay
(Gatorade. It's got what plants need.)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 26, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #86 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Easy there, Tex. You're falling into the trap of believing that just because something tumbles out of your mouth ("meaningless nonsense") it is necessarily true or even credible. What have you just said? You've basically said that the examples I gave are experiences you have not had, hence, to you, they are meaningless.
No. You didn't give any examples of experiences (as you'd say: don't confuse the map with the territory!). What happened was you spit out some catchy phrases that mean absolutely nothing.
"Being totally present"? "The connectedness of things"? Excuse me while I vomit.
In reply to: This knowing is not a matter of offering a "defensible argument," which is a scientific protocol.
As I mentioned in a thread a little while ago: if you can't be bothered to try to offer a defensible argument, you're not really capable of saying anything that should be taken seriously---you're just playing intellectual tennis without a net.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Oct 26, 2006, 8:38 PM
Post #87 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: In reply to: Easy there, Tex. You're falling into the trap of believing that just because something tumbles out of your mouth ("meaningless nonsense") it is necessarily true or even credible. What have you just said? You've basically said that the examples I gave are experiences you have not had, hence, to you, they are meaningless. No. You didn't give any examples of experiences (as you'd say: don't confuse the map with the territory!). What happened was you spit out some catchy phrases that mean absolutely nothing. "Being totally present"? "The connectedness of things"? Excuse me while I vomit. In reply to: This knowing is not a matter of offering a "defensible argument," which is a scientific protocol. As I mentioned in a thread a little while ago: if you can't be bothered to try to offer a defensible argument, you're not really capable of saying anything that should be taken seriously---you're just playing intellectual tennis without a net.
Okay, Tex, I have 20 minutes for lunch righ now so let me actually buckle down here.
You said: "Being totally present"? "The connectedness of things"? Excuse me while I vomit.
The "vomit" slurr implies that what was said was in some wise bad business and useless, but in fact if you didn't use these states on a regular basis you'd be homeless, broke, and absolutely alone. So the irony is that you're bashing things that you yourself do, though apparently with the throttle dialed low. For instance, if you're never present with your kids, or boyfriend/girlfriend, and instead you're always camped on a cell phone or lost in your thoughts, you're never really "here" in any substantive way. And if you're too disconnected, it get's pathological (dissociation), which is a grim and terrible thing if you've ever seen it. The point of this is that if yhou evedr want to know anything about spiritual realities, the instrument is your awareness level itself, and unless you do the work to stabalize this (normally accomplished through meditation), your instrument will never be attuned to anything beyond your own thoughts. It's really as simple as that.
So far as saying anything that should be taken seriously, I've been describing the process of how a person can come to know the very stuff that you believe (but don't in fact know) does not exist. I've repeatedly said that these things are not ideas, beliefs, concepts, emotions, sensations, or anything of the sort, and that the only way for you to personally know same is through direct experience. Simply put, a person must experience these things for themselves, and a first-person extrapolation of those experiences will do nothing to further your understanding because you will only be working off a concept or idea of something (the map) insead of the territory itself. You're not alone in being frustrated in not being able to collar anything but material and ideas in your head. As is, you have decided that the only way to know anything or to verify the authenticity of stuff is through a scientific evaluation of the properties and aspects of something. Fair enough. I'm saying that in the non-material arena you need much more conclusive evidence--as in the form of direct experience. Nothing else will every convince your rational mind, just like nothing but an actual trip up El Cap will ever really and truly relate the facts of a big wall--no topo, no second-hand account will really do. If you were to beg a wall climber to tell you what it's like, the best advice is to show you how to climb so you can find out yourself. Otheriwse you're just speculating and guessing on second-hand info cribbed from somebody else.
Look at the actual educational path for anyone who actually wants to investigate such stuff. Take Zen, for instance, one of the no-compromise paths if ever there was one. A beginner will be interviewed by the teacher who will find out what the guy wants to know. I want to know about death, or I want to know about consciousness, et all. Fine. Then face the wall and meditate and watch your breath and let your thougths settle. He gives direct instructions, not answers that the beginner not only won't understand, but would likely judge based entirely on his own limited experience, which is really like saying he will simply survey his thoughts and see what "answers" he finds. He'll find nothing, of course. Or if he dreams about the big themes, they will seem impenetrable. They're not, but that's how it seems.
Anyhow, if you're actually interested in finding out for yourself, backchannel me. I have no answers. You have to do the work yourself--that's simply the only way it works. But there's no beliefs, concepts, or faith to contend with whatsoever. It's truly not at all what you're "thinking."
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 26, 2006, 9:21 PM
Post #88 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: So far as saying anything that should be taken seriously, I've been describing the process of how a person can come to know the very stuff that you believe (but don't in fact know) does not exist. I've repeatedly said that these things are not ideas, beliefs, concepts, emotions, sensations, or anything of the sort, and that the only way for you to personally know same is through direct experience.
You have been promulgating a number of beliefs here, whether you want to admit that that's what they are or not.
Some claims you've made in this thread:
- "Spiritual realities" can only be understood through "direct experience".
- A presupposition of the above: "spiritual realities" exist.
- Spirituality is different from religion, because it is "experience-based", not "belief-based".
- Anyone can acquire this knowledge if they "do the work" (which apparently means meditation, perhaps among other things).
- Most people at some point in their life will have something called a "boundary experience".
- None of these claims are actually claims, and none of these beliefs or ideas are actually beliefs or ideas.
- It's not important to maintain a defensible and coherent position in a discussion on these topics.
So far as I can tell, you've done nothing to support any of these claims save to simply assert them. When they are questioned, you indicate that the only possible reason anyone disagrees with you is because they haven't "put in the work" to have the "direct experiences" to gain that knowledge (ignoring, obviously, that no one is going to "put in the work" without buying into this bullshit in the first place).
Trying a different tact for a second: assuming all your non-claims and non-ideas were actually the case, how would you square it with Darwinism? How can your unabashedly-irrational pseudo-philosophy of "spiritual realities" and "boundary experiences" and the "infinate [sic] and empty nature of Mind" (whatever that is supposed to mean) fit into a view of humans as a non-magical species of primates that evolved by natural selection?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Oct 27, 2006, 12:39 AM
Post #89 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Trying a different tact for a second: assuming all your non-claims and non-ideas were actually the case, how would you square it with Darwinism? How can your unabashedly-irrational pseudo-philosophy of "spiritual realities" and "boundary experiences" and the "infinate [sic] and empty nature of Mind" (whatever that is supposed to mean) fit into a view of humans as a non-magical species of primates that evolved by natural selection?
First off, why would I want to "square" what I've said against Darwinism when in fact I am a believer in evolution. If I wasn't, how would I explain away all those fossils? Moreover, where have I said something that was "irrational," unless your believe--but don't, actually know--that rational is confined strictly to that you can measure, adn that something outside of that modality is "irrational." What has efver led you believe that is the case. If what I am proposing is "pseudo," pray tell me what the real thing is.
You're grappling with what many grapple with when moving outside your comfortable ideas. For instance, many would claim that Zen, for example, was in direct contradiction to Darwinism, which is a remarkable statement since Zen, in the strictest sense, has no content. So what is there to be in contradiction with. Nothing? Well, yes, actually, but nothiningness is different that what you imagine, Tex.
Your conclusions about what Darwinism implies, as well as fundamental materialism, are really what's being called out here. It's a little like old school existentialism or nihilism or even certain strains of post-modernism. These are all perspectives based on the experiences of verious people. The mistake is that they try and universalize their experience to include all people--meaning that what they have found to be true is ipso facto true for everyone. If you can't see the foolishness in that you're in trouble.
Moreover, a strictly reductionistic view says that everything in your experience is brain based, meaning it was CREATED by non-magical evolved primate. This, of course, is no more than an inversion of the fundamantalist Christian notion of a creator, whereas Brain becomes God, the creator. In fact there is no creation in that sense--there's just a never-ending process.
The interesting thing about direct spiritual experiences is they really and truly shatter everything that your evaluating mind says must be so and can only be so. That's why having those experiences is the only way to ever get a fix on this stuff. And direct experiencing will also show you the difference is knowing how or why something works as it does, and what something actually is. For instance, a scientist can tell you a theory about how and why gravity works, but you'll only get the real understanding of gravity as a living reality when you go out and log a leader fall. Same thing with spiritual stuff. You're mind will never be convinced of things to your satisfaction per spiritual stuff. You want it explained to you, and you have every right to say it's bullshit lest a suitible explanation is forthcoming. Fair enough. But understand that to the linear, time-based thinking we are all steeped in, your evaluating mind will never get it. But nevertheless, it can be gotten--but it ain't easy.
As a final note, most think that spirituual quests are voyages into the clouds, when in fact, it works the other way--you go right into the center of the earth, right back through the cave man, "to the face you had before you were ever born."
Bullshit? On the face of it, yes--at least that's what my mind told me at the start. But as you plow on, things happen. It's a little like climbing. What first seemed impossible, for anyone, suddenly becomes attainable. But strangely, there's no magic to it.
There is no such thing as magic. But there's a hell of a lot more than what your mind can imagine or what or senses can measure. Don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself. You won't discover an argument, or something to defend. You'll simply find what is.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 27, 2006, 1:22 AM
Post #90 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: First off, why would I want to "square" what I've said against Darwinism when in fact I am a believer in evolution.
No: square with, not against. That is, explain how your claims about "spiritual realities" make sense as something that could have evolved. (This requires describing your view in some sort of naturalistic terms.)
In reply to: Moreover, where have I said something that was "irrational," unless your believe--but don't, actually know--that rational is confined strictly to that you can measure, adn that something outside of that modality is "irrational."
If you're unwilling (or unable) to provide a coherent argument for your position, the position is irrational. Your position is particularly funny in that it is unapologetically irrational. You say having defensible arguments is not important---it's quaint.
In reply to: Moreover, a strictly reductionistic view says that everything in your experience is brain based, meaning it was CREATED by non-magical evolved primate. This, of course, is no more than an inversion of the fundamantalist Christian notion of a creator, whereas Brain becomes God, the creator. In fact there is no creation in that sense--there's just a never-ending process.
I can't seem to decode this paragraph---it sounds like you are (trying to) claim something completely ludicrous. But it's impossible for me to figure out for sure, due to your refusal (or inability) to clearly say what you believe. (Compounded, of course, by your belief that your beliefs aren't beliefs.)
In reply to: For instance, a scientist can tell you a theory about how and why gravity works, but you'll only get the real understanding of gravity as a living reality when you go out and log a leader fall.
A perfect example of what is probably fundamental in our disagreement---I think the exact opposite. You can go take as many falls as you want, and you still won't really understand gravity if you don't bother to investigate the phenomenon scientifically.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 27, 2006, 2:00 AM
Post #91 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: In reply to: Actually, I'm pretty disappointed in myself for even getting involved in this thread, as NOTHING can come of this other than drama... Ironically enough you're the one creating 90% of the drama around here. (in a space/time continuum with a margin of error les than 2% when using only wholo numbers...).
Fair enough, although I certainly wouldn't put it at 90%, but to each his own skewed view... In actuallity, I chimed in regarding the technical details of cosmology when it was brought up in earlier replies (check to see), as it was apparent that I could add much to the discussion regarding that particular topic, as it is an interest of mine.
Do you actually dispute/refute anything I have said regarding cosmology, or anything else in this thread for that matter ??? Or is that how you refute/debate, by simply discrediting someone by sniping. :?
And you are attributing a quote to me that is not mine:
"...in a space/time continuum with a margin of error les than 2% when using only wholo numbers..."
Bad form brutha. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
Oct 27, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #92 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Actually, I'm pretty disappointed in myself for even getting involved in this thread, as NOTHING can come of this other than drama... Ironically enough you're the one creating 90% of the drama around here. (in a space/time continuum with a margin of error les than 2% when using only wholo numbers...). Fair enough, although I certainly wouldn't put it at 90%, but to each his own skewed view... In actuallity, I chimed in regarding the technical details of cosmology when it was brought up in earlier replies (check to see), as it was apparent that I could add much to the discussion regarding that particular topic, as it is an interest of mine. Do you actually dispute/refute anything I have said regarding cosmology, or anything else in this thread for that matter ??? Or is that how you refute/debate, by simply discrediting someone by sniping. :? And you are attributing a quote to me that is not mine: "...in a space/time continuum with a margin of error les than 2% when using only wholo numbers..." Bad form brutha. :roll:
Dude, I just thought it was ironic how you were disappointed to get involved with the drama and you got involved by posting a very long comment. Up to that point I think you were responsible for a large part of the drama taking place but now others have taken over. No discredit intended (how that could even come out of what I said is beyond me). You are the grand cosmetologist
I'm not going to begin refuting or agreeing with anything you say regarding cosmetology because I am no cosmetologist and while I may have my opinions on cosmetology they will remain that- just my opinions. We all have our own "skewed views" which I believe is a quote, in actual quotation marks!, that can be attributed to you. Unlike when I make up some nonsense to go along with all the other posted nonsense and place it with in parenthetical statement. Last time I checked my Keyboard parentheses looked like this () and quotations looked like this "", yep they still do.
So, in the grand scheme of cosmetology I'd say it's bad form to go apenuts over some strangers snide remarks. Brutha
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Oct 27, 2006, 2:25 PM
Post #93 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: No: square with, not against. That is, explain how your claims about "spiritual realities" make sense as something that could have evolved. (This requires describing your view in some sort of naturalistic terms.)
Fracture, you seem to hold in the existence of "the truth value of some beliefs". Where does this truth value of yours exist? Can you explain this truth value in these terms? When you say: "such and such a belief is true or false" what exactly are you talking about in terms of something that evolved in naturalistic terms?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Oct 27, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #94 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Quote:
For instance, a scientist can tell you a theory about how and why gravity works, but you'll only get the real understanding of gravity as a living reality when you go out and log a leader fall.
A perfect example of what is probably fundamental in our disagreement---I think the exact opposite. You can go take as many falls as you want, and you still won't really understand gravity if you don't bother to investigate the phenomenon scientifically.
-----------
You're right about this fundamental difference in our perspectives. (As a side note, read the new article on Darwin in the recent New Yorker, by a fine author, A. Gopnick) You see, gravity is not a concept, but a real force in the universe. You are content to know this real thing not first hand, but through an evaluation of the effects and properties of the real deal. This is not so much coming to "know" something as it is leanrning a little bit about how and why something works as it does. No harm in that. But understand some folks want to actually know the thing first hand, some are not content to listen to ther commentary of the game or read the map of the territoty, they want to play the game and visit the actual place as it actually exists, not as a theory or a bundle of derivitive facts and figures for the simple reason that the facts and figures are not the thing itself.
Gotta work.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 27, 2006, 5:19 PM
Post #95 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: No: square with, not against. That is, explain how your claims about "spiritual realities" make sense as something that could have evolved. (This requires describing your view in some sort of naturalistic terms.) Fracture, you seem to hold in the existence of "the truth value of some beliefs". Where does this truth value of yours exist? Can you explain this truth value in these terms? When you say: "such and such a belief is true or false" what exactly are you talking about in terms of something that evolved in naturalistic terms?
I don't understand your post. Are you asking me what it means when someone says a proposition is "true"? (That seems like a strange thing to have to explain.)
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Oct 27, 2006, 6:10 PM
Post #96 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: You're right about this fundamental difference in our perspectives. (As a side note, read the new article on Darwin in the recent New Yorker, by a fine author, A. Gopnick) You see, gravity is not a concept, but a real force in the universe. You are content to know this real thing not first hand, but through an evaluation of the effects and properties of the real deal. This is not so much coming to "know" something as it is leanrning a little bit about how and why something works as it does. No harm in that. But understand some folks want to actually know the thing first hand, some are not content to listen to ther commentary of the game or read the map of the territoty, they want to play the game and visit the actual place as it actually exists, not as a theory or a bundle of derivitive facts and figures for the simple reason that the facts and figures are not the thing itself. Gotta work.
Work? Why work when there are interesting things to talk about here ...
Small children certainly come to know something about gravity as they topple and fall in the process of learning to walk. However, scientific inquiry has given us much deeper insights into the nature of the beast. Newton discovered that a simple equation determines not only the falling child, but the ellpitic orbits of the planets revolving about the sun. This has shown us a unity and predictabilty in nature far beyond the kind of knowledge a child has. It was Newton's law that lead astronomers to look for and discover the planet Neptune. The abstract law thus leads us to look for and experience something in nature we hadn't noticed before. That is a historical fact. And it was Einstein's theory that lead astronomers to look for and see the way light rays bend in the Sun's gravity. A wonderous view of nature that no amount of mere toppling about could ever lead to.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Oct 27, 2006, 6:35 PM
Post #97 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: No: square with, not against. That is, explain how your claims about "spiritual realities" make sense as something that could have evolved. (This requires describing your view in some sort of naturalistic terms.) Fracture, you seem to hold in the existence of "the truth value of some beliefs". Where does this truth value of yours exist? Can you explain this truth value in these terms? When you say: "such and such a belief is true or false" what exactly are you talking about in terms of something that evolved in naturalistic terms? I don't understand your post. Are you asking me what it means when someone says a proposition is "true"? (That seems like a strange thing to have to explain.)
Actually, I was trying to ask the exact same question you asked vivalargo with "truth value of belief" replacing the phrase "spirtitual realites" so you could illustrate to us what a correct answer to your question would look like. What I mean by "truth value of belief" is exactly the property that beliefs can have when you suggested earlier that some of them are either true or false.
Something like this, I guess:
Assuming that beliefs (or propositions, if you like) must occupy either a state of truth or falsity, how would you square it with Darwinism? How does that fit into a view of humans as a non-magical species of primates that evolved by natural selection?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Oct 27, 2006, 8:56 PM
Post #98 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Good points, Yanqui. The spiritual process, in my exerpience, works something like this. You going into a Zendo or a Sufi camp or whatever with a head full of inponderable questions--the principal one being: what the hell is all this? Though various practices, much of them meditation based, sorting through the layers of personality, stabalizing awareness away from thinking, etc., you start getting a new view (direct experiences) of things you never knew that you never knew. At that point the teacher starts breaking those experiences down in greater and greater detail, challenging you, questioning yhou, calling bullshit, till finally, real knowing is established--and in fact it continues to deepen as long as you live. You'll never really "get there," rather it's all an ongoing process.
My point in all of this is that for many who are scientific minded, what gets lost in the shuffle and investigation is the importance of the original experience of watching Newton watchig the apple fall from the tree or Franklin experiencing the lightning strike the kite. These experiences allow you to extrapolate from there and work up a bunch of crucial data that originally issued from the experience. Once you have enough data you can indeed bypass the experience and deal with things you can never actually experience (quantum occurances et al), and have some high probability at arriving at true things about same. However at the beginning, especially with spiritual matters, you need to experientially get jiggy with that realm (which is basically the realm of your mind) just as the original scientists got jiggy with natural real-world happenings from which sourced their facts and figures and measurements. The opposite will simply not work in the spiritual world--that is, you will never encounter the spiritual world by virtue of working backwards from the descriptions. The experiences must come first. Most viable spiritual teachers won't speculate at all, they'll just ask questions about a student's experiences and try and sort out the jive from the solid stuff.
Interestingly enough, the spiritual process is evolutionary in nature. You never transcend the personality or matter or impulses or any of it, though you can certainly and indeed have to transform your relationship to these things. It's not holier, for instance, to lose your sex drive. That's all Calvinist crapola.
So far as "squaring" the infinate and the finite, the one and the many, or form and emptiness, or Darwin and "God," or matter and spirit, you're basically asking for a clean and simple answer to a conundrum. I'm reminding of a trick question I head from a math prof some years ago, commenting on the idea that numbers were infinate (meaning you could always add another digit to any equation and therefor it would seem that space itself was infinately divisible. For instance, as an arrow approached a target, one could measure the distance between the target and the arrow and always add another number to the measurement, ad infinitum. Therefore, you've matmatically shown that the arrow can never actually reach the target since the distance is infinately divisible.
Back to work.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 28, 2006, 12:51 AM
Post #99 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Actually, I was trying to ask the exact same question you asked vivalargo with "truth value of belief" replacing the phrase "spirtitual realites" so you could illustrate to us what a correct answer to your question would look like.
You must not have understood why I was asking, then. John is claiming that humans have some sort of magical, mystical spirtual experiences called "boundary experiences". If that is true, the ability to have those experiences must have evolved.
The abilty to have (true or false) beliefs had to have evolved, too. But in contrast to John's religious spew, there's nothing about that ability that requires some sort of magical step that natural selection is incapable of. Yes the brain is complex (so are a lot of organs, like eyes), and it is difficult to know for sure how it did in fact evolve, but there is nothing in principle preventing it from being a product of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 28, 2006, 1:01 AM
Post #100 of 179
(3535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: So far as "squaring" the infinate and the finite, the one and the many, or form and emptiness, or Darwin and "God," or matter and spirit, you're basically asking for a clean and simple answer to a conundrum.
This is a cop out.
(But you've already stated that having a defensible and coherent position is not particularly important to you....)
In reply to: Therefore, you've matmatically shown that the arrow can never actually reach the target since the distance is infinately divisible.
(This is called Zeno's Paradox, FYI.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
