| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
Proof of reality.
I cannot prove to you that god does not exist but you cannot claim that he does. A claim in god is to claim the existence of consciousness without matter. I cannot prove to you that a square circle does not exist and I do not have to because it is rationally impossible. Claiming that consciousness can exist without matter is also rationally impossible and you are required to produce physical evidence to support it. Until you can do so, you cannot claim it's existence. That is to say that consciousness without matter goes against what we know as tangible reality and is actually less plausible than leprechauns as they cannot rationally be denied because things that are not rationally impossible can never be denied potential existence. So far the only form of physical evidence for the existence of conciousness without matter is the bible, a pile of monotonous, contradictory, bronze age bullshit. Until physical evidence is produced to support the claim, you cannot claim it is true. It is only your belief, nothing more. It may make you happy and I know it selfish to say, but I just couldn't see myself feeling the same way if I were living such a lie. Creationists claim that reality does not exist by insinuating the existence of god (consciousness without matter) which goes against all we know of reality.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/13/15 Posts: 19,552 Loc: England Last seen: 3 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Thats Brilliant You Wise 1
But 1 thing it was all written in a book from millions an millions years ago theres your proof me personally i dont believe in such things he says but that was his trip man so enjoy the bible bashers story's and move on man
| |||||||
|
otd president Registered: 10/13/12 Posts: 21,527 Loc: washington state Last seen: 3 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
i like it
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/13/15 Posts: 19,552 Loc: England Last seen: 3 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Thankyou Man
Not alot of things make such sense in this world of ours but we have to live with it and when we go into a deep think and find the truth its amazing but we dont now for sure its the truth we was not there in that time of life the bible could be a movie back in those days LOL they did not have tv but had stories Who am i to say its this and that Peace an love man
| |||||||
|
otd president Registered: 10/13/12 Posts: 21,527 Loc: washington state Last seen: 3 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
whether you believe in God or not the rules are simple... Do unto others as you'd have done to you. It doesnt matter if you believe in God, laws of the universe, or karma it's pretty much all the same to me no matter what name you choose to give it. They say you cant call God by any other name or it's a sin? How stupid. Jealousy is a human emotion, a God of pure knowledge and love is spiritually evolved well beyond the emotions of jealousy/envy nonsense.
Everyone should practice forgiveness. Im sure we appreciate it when we ask others to forgive us for our mistakes, we should extend that same courtesy to those who have done us wrong. I think the hardest thing is forgiving ourselves actually. Jesus forgives me before I do, Im pretty sure.
| |||||||
|
EnergyPermeation Registered: 04/28/15 Posts: 158 |
| ||||||
|
The one thing I understand about god, is that in this human form, I can never understand god. - me
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
There were philosophers at the beginning of the 20th century who considered "nonsense" to be the central term of philosophy. It was called a linguistic turn, but it was more like a hyperbole.
What do flying teapots have to do with the price of tea in China?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/12/15 Posts: 75 Last seen: 3 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I agree, but assuming that we live in a simulation, there can exist an consciousness without "matter", in a simulation the basis of the simulated universe is information not matter therefore there can exist a matterless consciousness. But its debatable if this consciousness is then part of the simulation or outside of it.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/22/15 Posts: 11 Last seen: 8 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I know this is extremely long, but I would love your guyses thoughts on it and I think it's very applicable to this topic.
Assumptions and founding principles 0. We may and probably will never understand this fully, be positive of it's truth, or know that we aren't crazy. 1. Time isn't what we think. There is only the ever present now. Expanding on the definition of time, I prefer to view it as a room. In the middle of the room (the present), energy manifests itself. The past is simply what was manifested before, and the future is what could manifest (on the left and right respectively). What is reality? I would define reality as experience. Experience of anything, makes it real. I can see and experience the sight of a tree. But reality isn't limited to the material, you can experience an idea, belief, emotion that can never be touched or verified by anyone but yourself, but it is still real and exists. Existence is a curious thing in itself. Something can exist, even if you are not aware of it; it becomes apart of your reality when you become aware of (experience) it. Let's go off on a related tangent. When you really think about existence and the universe, you might ask the question: why does anything exist at all? Doesn't it seem more likely that absolutely nothing, and i mean NOTHING should exist? (And there's the paradox, absolute nonexistence would exist, but more on that later) But, as far as we know, we do exist, lots of shit exists and forms reality. But why, if we assume we do indeed exist, should reality and existence only be in the form it is, with our laws of physics and what not? Doesn't it seem that, if it's more likely that nothing should exist, yet our universe does exist, that EVERYTHING should exist rather than nothing? Why such a narrow form of existence and reality? It could be that that's just the way it is, and this is the only form that can exist as governed by those pesky laws of physics. However that's a rather unsatisfactory answer, and leads you back to asking why do the laws of physics exist? And to go off on yet another tangent, do the laws of physics act on thoughts, or for a more specific definition, conciousness? Yes, if we assume conciousness is created by the odd collection of elements that form our bodies, which are acted on by those laws of physics. But how, going back to the earlier point, can something exist if you can't experience it? So if conciousness is indeed created by those odd set of elements that are subject to laws of physics, that is a paradox, because those things would need to be experienced by conciousness to even exist in the first place. However, this only remains a paradox only if we keep that same definition of conciousness. What is conciousness? What is experience? I would posit that conciousness and experience is simply an exchange of energy (which can manifest itself in any form). When I experience a tree, it is light energy that conveys to me there is a tree. When I touch something, neurons and synapses fire and signal that energy, forming my thoughts. So if conciousness and experience is simply the exchange of energy, one could make the claim that an atom of hydrogen is concious because it experiences energy transfer. But what is hydrogen made out of? An electron, proton, and neutron. What are those made out of? Quarks and empty space (physicists have calculated that 90% of the mast of a proton is empty space, which is given weight by particles that pop in and out of space, time, and different dimensions). But what are those made out of?! You see the infinite paradox. It seems that in light of this paradox and in general logic, that EVERYTHING has to, absolutely has to be made out of the same thing, the same source material or substance. What is this source material? Is it energy? Energy is what I'm going to call it. Even particles and mass is just energy. When you destroy mass, such as in a fission/fusion reaction, energy is conserved. Energy just is. It cannot be created or destroyed. Everywhere you look and everything you experience is not only made out of energy, but is experienced by the change/transfer of that energy. Your thoughts are energy. That tree, is energy. The air you breath is energy. So, if everything, and I do mean everything, is made out of the same source material (energy), then what is the difference between a tree and a thought? Your thoughts are just as real as the tree. The idea of elves and fairies and gods and ideologies are just as real as everything around you. But can we test that it is real, can we observe it? One could argue that by simply having and experiencing the thought, it exists and is real. So to attempt to coalesce my thoughts, I would say EVERYTHING exists, or has the potential to, simply because everything is made out of the same thing, energy, which is constantly changing and manifesting itself in new, different, and increasingly complex ways. Now, dinosaurs don't exist in the conventional use of the word. They did exist at one time however. But, as I stated in our assumptions, time is arbitrary, and is simply the change in energy in an ever present now. And I'll back that up by saying, again in conventional terms of time, the past doesn't exist anymore and the future doesn't exist yet, there is only now that exists. It's has never not been now. So under our new ideas of time and existence, everything exists simultaneously, or given enough time, everything will exist - but under our new understanding, that is the same thing as simultaneously existing. But elves and dinosaurs and fairies don't exist you say. And the laws of physics do. But as I said far far earlier, things don't exist in your reality until you become aware of (experience or perceive) them, but they still exist! And that's the punchline, if everything is made out of the same thing, then everything exists. But it is how you experience and perceive that source material (energy), that creates your reality. So I will ask, how many things exist that we just aren't aware of or cannot perceive? And perception will again form your view of reality. If a rabbit is preyed upon by a hawk, and two people observe it, they could form very different ideas and perceive the event very differently. And who's to say whom is correct? Is there an absolute truth and reality, that such and event can only be interpreted in one way that is ABSOLUTELY right? And following that, if there is an absolute truth and reality, would it be synonymous with the purpose of existence? But if everything is the same source material, energy, then is there a purpose? I posit that the purpose of existence and conciousness, which again is just energy, is that there is no purpose. I know, again with the parodoxes, but it's true. Is energy trying to do anything? Is there some final goal or form it is trying to achieve? And why didn't it just immediately manifest itself into that form, unless of course it was already in that form? So to try and articulate, we have already fulfilled the goal of existence/experience/conciousnes
| |||||||
|
EnergyPermeation Registered: 04/28/15 Posts: 158 |
| ||||||
|
I want to read that... can you throw a few paragraphs in?
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/22/15 Posts: 11 Last seen: 8 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I probably should, but I wrote it all at once and was kind of just typing out my thoughts as they occurred.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
You can edit your post, you know.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
Time is what we make it, as is weight and meaning. This is the result of our synchronicity.
Ideas, belief and emotions exist only in the mind as a bi product of the chemical processes within the brains neural network. You cannot see an emotion with your eyes You cannot smell a belief in the air. You cannot feel an idea with your hand. “Experience of anything makes it real”, your base argument is that reality is not only the physical. Reality is what is testable via any of our senses or technology. An experience is not tangible nor observable. Things will exist whether or not you are aware of them, it does not become a part of your reality as it has always been a part of it, the only thing new is that you are now aware of it. We were not aware of black holes 200 years ago, this does not mean they popped into existence only when we became aware of them. Why does anything exist at all? I don’t know, you don’t know. It seems most likely that a quantum state which we do not yet fully understand gave form to matter and the universe. My guess is the link between matter and anti-matter but again, that is only a guess because neither you nor I know. Reality should be in the form it is because that’s the form reality is in. It is how it is because of the laws of nature/physics. “Why such a narrow form of existence?”. Reality is incredibly broad, just because the laws of nature give limits to what is possible does not mean it is a narrow form of existence. “It could be that that’s just the way it is”, yep, and it is because of those ‘pesky’ laws of physics. No one knows why the laws of physics exist, that doesn’t mean we have to apply the god of the gaps argument and apply God as the answer, which would be a major copout. To answer if physics act on thought. The answer is no, they act only on the matter of the brain, not the thoughts it creates. Consciousness was created through evolution an natural selection, that much is obvious to anyone who understands evolution. The experience of the tree can be explained with physics. Consciousness is the human ability to detach from instinct and have introspective thought. It is not an exchanging of energy. Hydrogen is not conscious and I’m not going to attempt to explain that to you. Nobody knows what the ‘source’ of the universe is, it may have an infinitely original source but again NO ONE KNOWS. Trees, thought and air are all the result of the interactions between energy and matter, they themselves are not simply energy. Thoughts are not as real as a tree, they are not tangible like a tree, they exist only in the brain of a human being as a result of chemical/neural processes. The idea of elves, fairies and magic exist in our minds. The idea itself is not tangible. We can test that these things are real/ not real by observing them, as we cannot in ANY form observe these phenomena we have no bases to claim they are real and therefore don’t. One can argue anything, it doesn’t mean they’re right. Your saying that thought is real because it can be experienced, how about imagination? Why isn’t imagination real if it is also experienced as thought? Many things have potential to exist if they do not break the laws of nature but it doesn’t automatically mean they do. Time is a manmade concept, as is meaning, they are both the result of synchronicity of happenstance. I’d recommend looking at the IPK and why 1kg is 1kg to better understand this. Again, things do exist in your reality whether or not you are aware of them. They do not spontaneously pop into existence when you become aware of them. “If everything is made out of the same thing then everything exists”. Having a source does not mean possibility is infinite. Experience doesn’t create reality, if it did, superman would be your next door neighbour. There are plenty of things we are not aware of yet, such as deep sea fish species, planets with life and quantum states to name a few. Perception may form a personal view of reality but it doesn’t change reality itself, on your perception which does not have a tangible, testable or observable effect. Whoever says the rabbit was preyed upon by the hawk would be correct because there is an absolute truth to reality. The absolute truth is that the rabbit was preyed upon by the hawk and who ever said that would be correct. There is no observable purpose to existence of life, it is here because of nothing more than happenstance. The ‘purpose’ to experience is a manmade idea that comforts us with reality We experience and exist because we can, because we want to. Not existing is not a state of being because it is not existing.. “The outer edge of that nothingness”. Nothingness does not have an edge because it is nothingness there is no paradox for experiencing the edge of nothingness to create existence.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/22/15 Posts: 11 Last seen: 8 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I disagree that reality is only physical. The concept of justice Isn't physical and can't be measured (objectively at least or by any measure we have), yet justice exists and is apart of our reality.
And you're right, black holes certainly existed before we knew about them. But they didn't exist in our idea or concept of reality before we became aware of them. So following that, let's pretend for a moment that existence is all or nothing, and assume the former, that everything exists. Everything could be existing right now, in whatever form, but we just aren't aware of it yet, leading to our "more narrow" concept of reality. Non existence does not exist. Then that means the only alternative is existence of everything. Is non existence included in total existence? I'm not sure, but when I think about, let's say gravity, if everything exists, gravity will exist, but the absence of gravity, the opposite of gravity, etc must also exist, if everything is existing. We can't currently measure or observe that, but we couldn't observe or measure black holes 300 years ago, yet they still existed.
| |||||||
|
Big Questions Small Head Registered: 01/14/10 Posts: 8,781 Loc: straya Last seen: 7 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
This is probably all pretty sound in light of logic and critical thinking, but what about experience? If you experience consciousness free from the body, for instance, or you come to notice in your visual field that inside yourself = outside yourself, that is, that the world itself is consciousness, shouldn't that count for something?
-------------------- My solitude... My shield... My armour... TESTED WITH FULL FORCE
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/22/15 Posts: 11 Last seen: 8 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
But I also wanted to talk more about if there is an ultimate reality. I'm gonna go off on a limb here, but bear with me. When I experienced ego death, that feels to me like ultimate reality. I would describe total ego death as the absolute transcendence of reality, matter, etc. It's pure existence, conciousness, nirvanna. What I'm really having a hard time with, especially as someone who majored in a field of science, is the connection between that "ultimate reality" and this reality. I can never measure it or prove it exists. I can only rely on my own experience. But that is true of this reality as well. The only thing I can absolutely be certain of, is that I am concious. How do I know if any of this is real? Sure I can observe, experience, measure, etc. But I'm doing all that with things I cannot ever absolutely confirm are real. So I may be absolutely crazy, but based off of my best reasoning and experiences, I tend to think that conciousness creates everything around us. But you are concious, they are concious, it's not just me creating this reality. I read something that articulated it well: in ego death, you experience that you are not separate and you are one with everything. But everything in our reality seems to be uniquely different from eachother. That oneness is infinity. But how can you have infinity without each individual within infinity, which of course there are an infinite amount of entities within infinity. Thoughts? Or ha e I gone mad?
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
[REPLY RESPONSE 1]
You can’t disagree that reality is only physical unless you are also disagreeing with the laws of physics. To do so would be silly and if you could prove it you should claim your nobel prize. Justice does not exist anywhere apart from our consciousness, it is not a part of tangible reality. So we didn’t know about black holes before we knew about them… I fail to see your point? Let’s not pretend things because hypotheticals in this case have no merit or use. Why would we assume everything exists? That makes no sense. Just because we don’t know all there is to know about reality, doesn’t mean it’s narrow. Just because nonexistence may not exist, does not by any standard or reason mean that everything exists. The opposite of gravity may exist, we don’t know yet which is why we are studying dark matter. Everything exists that does exist, if something doesn’t exist, it does NOT exist. You are stating hypotheticals with flawed logic. [REPLY RESPONSE 2] The ‘ultimate’ reality is what reality is, nothing more or less. Ego death is a loss of subjective introspection, it allows for objective observations which is why it can be such a mesmerising experience. It is nothing like what you have stated, “pure existence, consciousness, nirvana”. Ultimate reality is just reality, there are some things we do not know yet but that doesn’t mean reality is wrong. We can be absolutely certain of mathematics and hence the laws of physics. If you think that consciousness creates everything around you then I have no choice but to assume you are at some level crazy. You do not create reality. The ‘oneness’ of ego death is the disconnection from subjectivity. The oneness is not infinity and that makes absolutely no sense to claim so. Obviously I don’t know you but from what I have read of your thoughts I believe you may be misinformed on several fronts. The universe is more amazing than nonfiction, black holes are a fine example. A tea spoon of neutronium material from a black hole would weigh as much as the earth. Whether or not we want to believe it is true, it is because that’s the reality we live in.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/22/15 Posts: 11 Last seen: 8 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I think this article will better explain what I'm talking about.
http://www.collective-evolution. Have you ever heard of the quantum experiment where the outcome was changed just by observing it? It's mentioned in this article
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
Quote: It is a gross oversimplification to say that, in Wheeler's "Delayed-Choice" experiment, for example, that we are changing Nature by observing Her. There is no general consensus yet on what experiments like this mean, and there are explanations on offer out there that do not involve spooky "you-create-the-universe-by-obse
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
Yes I have heard of the experiment, that while being observed the particles took 2 different forms.
The electrons don't 'decide' to act differently, they only appear different based on how we observe them. The author is using pontification on quantum mechanics and making baseless assertions such as vortexes within atoms. We do not exist on a subatomic level alongside our atoms, if we did we'd be colliding with our own electrons and would destroy ourselves. The double slit experiment only shows that we don't have a full understanding of quantum behaviors. ”We now know that trillions of dollars are going towards projects that the human race knows nothing about.” The article also contains a blatant oxymoron of knowing what we don't know. That alone is enough to remove a sense credibility.
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
Quote: That's right. -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
(: Registered: 03/27/13 Posts: 5,724 Loc: Space-time |
| ||||||
|
Yeah, Newtonian physicality died with relativity, even before the discovery of quantum mechanics.
OP reads like a scientism sermon, highlighted by the fact he shallowly uses the bible as the only claim to "god" humanity uses and his rejection of the Christian definition of God as a sweeping rejection of all things spiritual. Just because you reject a definition doesn't mean the matter is settled. Due to the obvious denial or ignorance of other spiritual texts, poems, and experiences, as well as believing newtownian mechanics as the upper limit of what reality is, despite relativity and quantum theory, the entire post is a fallacy. Illogical at best. -------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness. Edited by hTx (06/23/15 11:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
I'd like to hear what other claims there are for god other than the bible or simple faith.
There are claims like miracles, prayer, 2000 year old testimonies, personal experiences etc. All of which have been disproven including the bible. Miracles have been explained through science. Prayer does not work, evident by the fact that it doesn't work. personal experiences are of no merit, people claim to have been abducted by aliens, able to speak to the dead, able to heal and all have no evidence. Read the first few pages of the bible and it's evident to any reasonable person that it's full of shit.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
http://viral.buzz/video-checkmat
VERY RECAMENDED WATCH for EVERYONE here!!! god exists in a dimension we cannot perceive much like the second dimension can't see the third we can't see the fourth. it cannot fit in our perception. doesn't mean consciousness without matter. just unobservable consciousness... but wait isn't that what consciousness is? unobservable. -------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
that video will show you where god is hidden
-------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
(: Registered: 03/27/13 Posts: 5,724 Loc: Space-time |
| ||||||
Quote: Where to begin. Rumi, Buddha, the Vedas, emerald tablets, Sumerian texts, Alan Watts,, Ram Dass...just to name a few. All things spiritual have not been disproved with science..in fact, one could say they have been revived with science. Most quantum physicists become quite mystical in their musings on the universe, and then back it up with math. ...there remain many things unexplained by current science. And if you actually pay attention to science and remain unbiased in a quest for truth, you will realize we have opened more doors than closed them. Consciousness actually poses the biggest question and the biggest debate amongst modern scientific circles. if a scientist tells you its settled, he probably isn't a scientist. Case and point: your prophet Richard Dawkins -------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
| |||||||
|
(: Registered: 03/27/13 Posts: 5,724 Loc: Space-time |
| ||||||
|
If one studies the similarities between different cultures and the development of religion versus genuine spiritual experience, it becomes obvious that the spiritual experience is a genuine happening.
And that these experiences and knowledge thereof became esoteric in the beginning of civilization as a means to control populations..pushing the buttons so to speak and claiming their deity did it. This becomes especially evident when such experiences can be induced with psychedelics. even if its all in the mind..the mind is a powerful thing. a spiritual experience catalyzed by lsd, or psilocybin, has lasting positive and beneficial effects.. The same could be said for genuine spiritual experiences (not that psychedelic experiences arent genuine) and i believe these experiences are keeping the whole thing of organized religion afloat and gave it such power to begin with. When we realize we can do it ourselves, they will lose power. As what almost seemed tp happen in the 60s -------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
Wow, just wow.
His assumption is that the laws of nature somehow equate a personified entity through relation to the bible because it says there was a beginning. Quantum fluctuations do not fit under the definition of god. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The big bang theory is that all energy and matter were compressed to a point of explosion aka, the big bang. Schroeder gives nothing but an assumed hypothesis without facts.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
Quote: one could say anything but science has most definitely not revived spiritualism in any form. For the past few centuries science has disproved numerous spiritualistic claims of the unknown e.g thunder, precipitation, disease, reproduction, evolution, astronomy. There still remain things unexplained by science but that doesn't mean the god of the gaps argument takes hold. So far all claims to mysticism, magic and the supernatural have been disproven and there is no reason to think science won't discover further reasons behind the unknown. The debate about consciousness is how it evolved from our ancestors, not where it came from, we already know this and it's evolution.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
Quote: Religion developed all over the world in countless cultures, that's why historians have cataloged over 2,700 different deities/gods. Genuine spiritual experiences? What defines a 'genuine' experience over a non genuine one? People claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen big foot, spoken to the dead, come back from the dead themselves, seen angels, spoken to god, seen the devil/demons etc. None of their claims are seen as genuine, why on earth should the ramblings of ancient, uneducated and primitive cultures be taken as genuine?
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
the issue is you're trying too hard to find the exact truth. you need to accept the fact that god doesn't want us to ever find him. think about it. if you created an entire species of 7 billion self righteous fuckheads and they have demonstrated an incredible ammount of greed and over confidence thinking that they have the mindset to do anything, knowing that they just take and destroy you would always want to be two steps ahead.
the main point that stuck with me is that we cannot perceive anything outside this universe. I think this 'existance' was created by a fourth dimensional being. i use the word existance because universe means all so if there is the inconceivable outside of this universe that means the inconceivable is part of the universe. so god is outside this existance. Quote: all of these things you stated are just uneducated definitions made by ancients who didn't have the technology to define them to the caliber we have. I would hardly call these spiritual. what I want to see them look into is the use of native plant species for anything.. beleive it or not the ancients knew their shit about plants. in haiti they use herbs to make people lose their will and they basically turn into your zombie slave. i don't care what you say there's definatly things that seem unexplainable because science hasn't tried to explain them yet. like why a son who has never met his father has the same exact personality qualities. or how the chinese use chi or (hidden energy) to do all sorts of incredible things such as controlling wild animals into a calm, relaxed state from a distance to amazing feats such as knocking someone out with very little contact or even putting most of their body weight on a blade on the soft spot of their neck right above the collar bone. have you never felt the energy of another person or hidden within a peice of stone? someone very close told me about this time where she met with a shamen woman who had her lay down in a candlelit room and she placed stones all over her body and all of a sudden she was transported to egypt and was looking at the pyramids, just for a few seconds. then she was back. i don't understand your close mindedness. science is a great way to understand the world around us but that doesn't mean science has all the answers. new things are discovered every day all i want to say is science is funded by all the wrong people in all the wrong areas. -------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
So you want me to just copout of even trying and just accept that god cannot be proved?
Evolution, agriculture and technological advancements created the 7 billion humans we see on earth today. There is no point in your hypothetical argument. You’re asking If I was god, wouldn’t I want to hide myself?? True, we don’t know about things that aren’t in the universe. A fourth dimensional being… like a square circle? Because that’s absurd and rationally impossible. You are assuming that the inconceivable exists outside of the universe, The inconceivable is inconceivable within the universe, this means the inconceivable is not a part of the universe in fact it means the complete opposite that the inconceivable is not a part of this universe. It means that god is inconceivable and outside of this universe which is a good standpoint to say that he does not exist as he is inconceivable within the universe. The inconceivable is not a part of the universe because it is inconceivable! All you’ve stated is that god is outside of the conceivable universe, that is not evidence that he exists, it is the complete opposite. The things I state used to be spiritual entities for those that did not know how or why they occurred, they are not anymore because science has studied them and shown the real cause and method for them occurring. Ancients learnt how to use their native plant species through generational testing, they would use the plants as either food or medicine, if they didn’t die or become ill, they would continue to use it. If they did die, they would stop using it. You don’t care what I say even though I am explaining what you claim to be unexplainable… wow. A son is very likely to share personality traits with their father because they share genetics and are therefore genetically predisposed to the traits of their father. It’s very likely with all fathers and sons that they will have similar traits whether or not they have met. Animal domestication is nothing new, it’s been done for thousands of years. Someone can be knocked out rather easily if specific pressure points on the body such as the solar plexus are struck with sufficient force to do so. They can put their body weight onto sharp objects like blades because they do so with extreme caution and focus. People can walk on eggs if they are patient and know how to spread their weight evenly over the eggs as not to break them, the same goes for holding yourself against a blade. I have felt emotional connections and sexual tensions with people because of empathy, desire and love but I have never felt the energy of a pebble. A man I met on the street told me about this time when he was 10 when his brother hit him over the head with a spade and killed him, he said he revived himself in a bathtub and now believes he is a living zombie. If not believing such stupid superstitions or claims is close minded that I am guilty of doing so. Science is great at understanding the world around us and it has done so since we first starting using it. Science does not have all the answers but it strives to find them and has answered so much of what we thought was unanswerable. Science discovers new things every day which is why we are able to live in the world we live in today with longer life spans, good health, wealth, freedom and enjoyment. If you’d be happier with less funding for science then how about you throw away everything that the funding for science has given you, you know the pc/laptop/smartphone you’re using right now? You can thank science for that as well as every other appliance, medication, clothing item and belonging you have. Edited by sudly (06/26/15 09:42 PM)
| |||||||
|
(: Registered: 03/27/13 Posts: 5,724 Loc: Space-time |
| ||||||
|
You speak of inconceivable as if human perception were infallible.
In fact, we cannot conceive many, if not most of the happenings around us within and around the universe. We perceive maybe one percent of the electromagnetic spectrum...a very narrow reality given the many signals all around, which are there and yet unperceivable. And then, on top of all this, the brain filters reality even narrower such that even perceivable signals are filtered and we experience "reality" as a biased and subjective whole experience which we arrogantly believe to be objective truth. Your logic is filled with fallacys and yet you are and will likely remain blinded to them. For one, you cannot rationally compare a fourth dimensional being with a square circle. Its a logical fallacy. for two, to claim because something that is inconceivable means it doesn't exist in the universe is another fallacy as explained above, the inconceivable exists all around us. -------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
"So you want me to just copout of even trying and just accept that god cannot be proved?"
yes, discussion is one thing, i encourage asking for opinions and exploring ideas but getting worked up over something we are not ready as a species to understand is just bad for you. "Evolution, agriculture and technological advancements created the 7 billion humans we see on earth today." very true you'd think we would be able to keep our own fed, clothed and sheltered as well as given a chance to thrive and do something for the team... "There is no point in your hypothetical argument. You’re asking If I was god, wouldn’t I want to hide myself??" the point is this is a never ending discussion. and yes that is the question. "A fourth dimensional being… like a square circle? Because that’s absurd and rationally impossible." where on earth are you getting this? picture all of time happening at once.. god i wish my friends were a part of this discussion.. look at more theories on the fourth dimension. "You are assuming that the inconceivable exists outside of the universe, The inconceivable is inconceivable within the universe, this means the inconceivable is not a part of the universe in fact it means the complete opposite that the inconceivable is not a part of this universe. It means that god is inconceivable and outside of this universe which is a good standpoint to say that he does not exist as he is inconceivable within the universe. The inconceivable is not a part of the universe because it is inconceivable! All you’ve stated is that god is outside of the conceivable universe, that is not evidence that he exists, it is the complete opposite." I am saying that if anything exists then it is part of, or rather within the universe. period. we cannot conceive of anything outside this universe, much like a two dimensional being cannot conceive of the third dimension. they would also say that a third dimension is absurd and rationally impossible... we cannot identify god, however we can identify the energy that created this present universe, i theorize this is only a fraction of that creation force.. it is HIGHLY debatable to say that this force has a consciousness. the evidence is in the energy. chances are we will never know where this energy came from. what makes you think i don't care what you have to say? now you're making assumptions. one could easily say the same about you.. i bet you'll just shrug off what i have to say.. "Ancients learnt how to use their native plant species through generational testing, they would use the plants as either food or medicine, if they didn’t die or become ill, they would continue to use it. If they did die, they would stop using it." duh.. I'm saying there's a lot of things that are believed by tribes that deserve a second look from science.. too much is just shrugged off much like the cannibal hobbit monkey people in indonesia that they "discovered" recently. that was my only point. that there's a ton of amazing things that would benefit society that science hasn't tried to explain. "A son is very likely to share personality traits with their father because they share genetics and are therefore genetically predisposed to the traits of their father. It’s very likely with all fathers and sons that they will have similar traits whether or not they have met." ACTIONS ARE NOT BASED ON GENETICS!!! REALLY?!?! Domestication?? thats ridiculous.. I saw a man go to a buffalo ranch and talk to the owners who said they have never been within 20 feet of one. this man stared down the Buffalo until they calmed down and they even all laid down!! that just doesn't happen. then he proceeded to approach these buffalo and sit with one. keep in mind he has never seen these particular animals before and the ranchers have never seen anything like it. he also went to an alpaca ranch and made every last one lay down.. the alpha is very protective and will never lay down when everyone else is sleeping but he got her to do it anyway.. this isn't about domestication it is about the connection between the claim and the proof. I am by no means knocking science. you don't need to prove science to me. I just don't think we look deep enough into certain things and too deep into others.. definitely depends on what field. most times things are funded to get more money, not a better world.. i just think we need to get our priorities straight. technology disconnects us. it allows us to communicate easier not better. that's what we need, better communication. we are getting farther and farther away from each other and that is incredibly dangerous.. and it's technology's fault. I enjoy the lux aries but we are already far enough in the smart phone world.. they come out with a new one every year.. where's the new more efficient space travel? where's the terra forming? where's the insuring there's suitable environment for generations to come? technology helps us advance in incredibly selfish ways, while there are a few out there working for the greater good a vast majority odo your part to maf people are only doing anything for themselves. if we all worked for HUMANITY life would be much better for everyone.. too bad there's soo many people who want nothing but to sit around all day and get fucked up.. there's not enough will to help. because technology hands everything to anyone.. survival of the fittest was a wonderful thing for many great reasons and certain technological advancements is why we are overpopulated and lots go starving.. I think if you can't keep yourself alive then you don't deserve to live. also if you aren't willing to contribute to society and do your part to improve it then I don't think you deserve to be a part of society. for the most part people who would do the worst at keeping themselves alive are the people who could keep many alive just based on income.. imagine if we took that money from worthless people and gave it to struggling people with heart. the world would be soo much better if all the wealth was redistributed. in 2012 alone five times more money was spent on war than it would take to end world poverty. and you're telling me we are funding all the right areas? i don't get it.. imagine what we could do with that money if it wasn't wasted on weapons spending and researching newer more deadly weapons. the same goes with cancer. the reason it hasn't been cure is because all that money that people selflessly donate to cancer research is going into treatment. not finding a cure.. how can you know this and be okay with what is happening to this money? have you actually looked at your country's budget? I gotta tell you I am not pleased with mine.. Quote: THANK YOU
-------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
sudley.. sounds like you suffer from a calcified pineal gland..
-------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
(: Registered: 03/27/13 Posts: 5,724 Loc: Space-time |
| ||||||
|
Another thing, humans and pretty much all living things are fourth dimensional beings, seeing on how the fourth dimension = time
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
As humans there are light wave lengths we cannot see and sound waves we cannot hear, our technology however can.
While humans alone do not perceive these, our technology is most definitely able to perceive them which is how we know they exist. Both fourth dimensional beings and a square circle are inconceivable to a human mind. Please explain how that is a fallacy? A square circle is inconceivable, are you claiming that a square circle does in fact exist?
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
I am going to try and find the truth because faith is inadequate to me.
I can accept that there are things we do not have answers to, I don’t accept that faith is the way to know the unanswered. Yes, many of us are able to thrive and take responsibility for ourselves. If I was a god, hiding myself would be a pretty poor way of showing my existence so no I wouldn’t hide myself. A fourth dimensional being (god) which is consciousness without matter is a rationally impossible idea, as is a square circle. I don’t understand the point of picturing all of time happening at once, I see no point in that statement. Something inconceivable such as a square circle or consciousness without matter is not within the universe. What does exist exists and what doesn’t exist does not, a square circle does not exist, consciousness without matter does not exist. How does identifying background radiation energy from a perceived big bang hint towards a fourth dimensional omnipotent all-knowing super being? (god) “I don’t care what you say there’s definitely things that seem unexplainable because science hasn’t tried to explain them yet.” – tryptkaloids You said you didn’t care what I said… I’ve read and have been trying to respond to all of your points. Anything I haven’t responded to I haven’t found a point in. Science has already studies numerous ancient cultures, geographers, botanists and historians have worked for years collecting data on these cultures and have been able to discover lots including many plant based medicines. Many tribes do have tribal beliefs, take native Australian Aboriginals for example, they have a vast knowledge of plants within their ecosystem for medicine, food and poison. They also had tribal beliefs and creation myths such as the rainbow serpent which have no basis to be studied or taken seriously by science which is why they aren’t. If tribal communities had something to offer that would benefit society we would use it, do you know of any tribal ideas that might benefit society economically, socially or environmentally? In actual fact plenty of behaviours are attributed to genetics that create instinct. A fine example is a weaver bird experiment. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d In the experiment a weaver bird was bred for several generations. In the first generation the bird was given nesting materials and allowed to build a nest specific to its species. The next few generations of this species of weaver bird were raised by another kind of bird and were not given nesting materials to weave their own nest. After several generations of this the 5 generation of the weaver bird was finally given nesting materials and instinctively weaved a nest specific only to its species through instinctual behaviours embedded in its genes. It’s not impossible for a buffalo to not react aggressively, if someone has studies the animal and is familiar with certain body movements as not to startle the animal it is far more likely they can be approached. A researcher and gorilla conservationist called Dian Fossey did exactly this by slowly introducing herself to a group of wild gorillas and was able to sit next to them because of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di Better communication between people is dependent on how socially inept an individual is. Many of us live a great distance from each other which is why communicating from a distance through technology is so helpful at bringing us together. Sparing use of technology for communication is vital to healthy sociability. Newer and more efficient space travel is still being designed because it is a very complicated subject, progress is being largely inhibited in America because of senators such as Ted Cruz who have been largely reducing funding to scientific industries such as NASA which play main roles in advancing mankind’s technology. Poor countries don’t have economic stability and therefore struggle to run themselves and maintain equality and health for their people. Many countries also struggle because of poor land fertility and access to natural goods or even clean water. Technology such as water filtering devices have already been very beneficial around the world in developing countries. We are not in a state of poverty because our countries have developed sufficient technology to sustain our populations. Distributing the world’s wealth would be a nice fairy tale but it’s not going to happen because many economies would collapse if it happened. It’s the American government that spends over 50% of their budget on military expenses, not scientific communities. The government’s choice to invest in military technology has nothing to do with many other disciplines of scientific research such as biology, chemistry, medicine, ecology, mathematics or physics. The reason cancer hasn’t been cured is because it is an extremely complicated genetic disease that is hard to predict and ever harder to reverse. Developing methods of reversing cancer or removing it is not a quick or easy process.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote: Sudly's concept of an empirical "proof of reality" does not follow from some principle of contradiction in something. That's all that needs to be said. It's hyperbolic. Why would this even seem to be logical? It is prominent allusion to make, even a fundamental to a "philosophy" (Namely Karl Popper's "Logic" and modus operandi) of science which comes hand in hand more or less consciously with the general idea of Anglo American, or "Analytic" thinking. To Sudly's "logic", I think in principle, it makes the most sense to address this thinking on its own terms. To that the first fallacy you pointed to, I think you have to admit it was a not a strictly logical comparison, but clearly an analogy, which you'd have to grok. Its namely an ontological assumption (concerning an understanding of being or beings), where Sudly was talking about the inconceivability of entities being understood beyond spatial extension in the cartesian sense (as res extensa). The second fallacy you point to, is not strictly logical either. At best its a conclusion you are yourself making about the openness of the universe to certain considerations of yours. These considerations would either be based in certain manners of extended (theoretical) induction, or what you would maybe otherwise have to endorse as a phenomenological argument. But I would say it is clearly not "logical" that the universe does or does not have an electromagnetic spectrum. That may be part of your logic, probably more than his, in short. In logical provisions Sudly does not seem to be incorrect in these cases, (though maybe in certain unnamed ways he is or isn't), and what I would say is clearly it is a more general philosophical difference you are appealing to. But to logic? To common ground? Maybe that is an idea. Quote: I would endorse Heraclitus's statement that logos (or argument) speaks for itself, and this is to be distinguished from a meta-statement, or the typical way of speaking above logic, and calling its general subject logical. Statements like of how it is "logical" "that birds should fly", or that "extended forms in space and time have dimensions and substance", could certainly be considered as assumptions made beyond the scope of a strictly logical articulation. I think that is essential to point out. Someone could even say "be logical" to you, whatever that means, (and frankly I feel like people have made this oblique statement to me all my life), and really it would be as if you were at a physical precipice, and ostensible judgements would be made about that. All they could mean by the logic to either jump or not to jump, could depend entirely on what's on the other side of the precipice. It is ridiculous on any practical, and all accounts to think of situations like this, namely physical ones as fundamentally fitting logical analysis. If logic is not as "general" to physical reality as this (if it is not universal "law" or "rule" in that sense) then logic can easily become the modus operandi of thinking, or one logic among others, in other words. I think namely that is what happened in the 20th century, when certain bright (and pretty uptight) thinkers conceived an idea of "logical analysis", of "contingent propositions" which make "sense". (The sense of a proposition is Frege's concept sinn, that is ostensibly both logical and empirical "sense".) This little bit of indoctrination was brought about in the great consolidations of positions at the beginning of the 20th century, and is now embedded as the only way of doing things, especially for Anglo American people. (By the way if you understand which "side" won the great conflict; you maybe have an inkling of what consolidated position primarily stands as the "state of affairs" of philosophy... Well in any case, consider philosophical dialectic doesn't always move itself, because it would be naive to think so) In short we live under the assumption and fundamental belief that language (ie. linguistic propositions) intersects reality. I think Heraclitus's remark, (the fragment quoted) begs the question. How can we talk about logic of our language, if we don't have a prescribed universal frame of reference to appeal to? Isn't he, like some Greek Lao Tzu, just contradicting himself? Would thinking about Sudly's logic, on its terms, by its own principles, as "a" logic or as a way of thinking, find a contradiction of Heraclitus' principle, which suggests logic as "universal reason"? When I think of what is possible to understand or lay bear in conventional terms about the universe, and how it makes sense, I think there are basically two "logical" concepts, which are on the cusp of many minds. One idea, would be that all the sciences, Bio-logy, socio-logy, and all the different method-ologies all ideally work together achieving the same thing, as though, in other words, they were equally founded in uncovering ostensible "rules" or "law" of the physical universe. That would be one conception of the logos, which is not completely out of the question, (although I don't think whether this question or dogma is "true or not" is as considerable as how uptight assuming this can make a person) 2) On the other hand could logos be more like a general platonic "idea" of reality in a sense, as undermining as this may seem? It is hardly idealism in one sense, and this would be much more "undermining" than falsificationism, in that it would potentially lead us to think think that these domains of entities are really based on their own fundamentally projected concepts, or assumed frameworks, which in relation, are bubbles that grind into each other, and just as much erode and overthrow themselves, through history...or again, down to the physical. That is a very different story to tell, much more based on an actual history of science, than the ideal of its constructive "progress", that is projected, with nervous vigor and red faced morality today. As far as I can see, I don't know what is going on, and I am pretty sure most of us don't really know shit. Epistemic vacuity touches the modern culture in different ways, from laughable bits of uptightness and anxiety, to moments of recognizing there really is no fundamental ground of being and beings, and letting this whop you once in a while. I would say clearly that nobody has suggested there is logic to physical reality, or its dimensions. Whether you follow Kant's phenomenological way of thinking in terms of dimensions of "space and time" or some empiricist talking about uncovering whatever is the next fundamental "particle", (funny to think atomism etymologically is derived from a-tomos what is not cut or in other words not reduced. Kind of begs the question, are some people arguing for what they want to believe by material reduction? Most certainly. There is not even close to a unified logos. I would guess this is mainly the unspoken assumption of Sudly's, which in a way, is consistent within certain assumed means and ends. I think what Sudly is saying - here from the beginning - is clearly a hyperbole. What does disproving a concept of god have to do with proving reality? It is vacuous. I would think its not mainly a "logical" contradiction, that his sought confirmation, and positive proof of reality is clearly not there. All of this unspoken assumption would seem to rub on phenomenological considerations the wrong way too, I think; especially if not everyone is clear, or namely no one is. Phenomenologists like Kant put the domain of the universe, and "space and time" in a pretty different way, maybe as a form of question. Heidegger asked "how can we let that what shows itself be seen in the very way that it shows itself from itself?" I would definitely say I am on the phenomenological side of things, but I'd definitely stand for recognizing the difference to do that. A rhetorical question: What is "the" universal reason, or "the" logos which Heraclitus spoke of? Is it something of "confessed" by the agnostic, or the openness of the phenomenologists who allow beings to show themselves from themselves? Or is it confessed in the harder, interrogative challenging forth into the universe, which the empiricist describes? I would say this is a fault line, and gap, that may be a matter of philosophical difference. So to a logic? The logical principle of Heraclitus (like the principle of contradiction) is clear, that once you step into the logos, you could find a principle of contradiction on its terms whatever they happen to be. I agree with his point not to follow what is spoken from human mouths, and let arguments stand for themselves, however they do. If this is not the kind of overall meaning we might seek, it is lucid. Another fragment Quote: I think difference in ways of thinking, philosophical paradigms, are much more at issue than any strict contingence of logic in these discussions. I'd say to find a common way to say this: The way these ideally analyzed propositions hang in the air (to be falsified, or await to be found there essentially in some people's cases) doesn't necessarily mean anything, to the openness of phenomenologists' considerations. That is a different "space" of appearance, so to speak. On their own terms, to positivist empiricists, this projection really doesn't mean anything that won't likely be flipped over and turned inside out at some point, by empiricists of the next century. Ultimately there is no confirmation, or proof, only pragmatic and free adoption of these terms of reality. That conception is culturally dominant. Personally I don't think that philosophy is up to date with reality at all, as much as it appeals to an idea of progress of sciences. The methodology appealed to is itself clearly mechanical, treating the physical phenomenon like a jack in the box. But what most scientists have on their minds aside from prescribed domains or fields of research, is not any fringe of the already fringe place of thinking of philosophers, but something almost entirely culturally informed; an institution and economy that is much more expediently established according to consumeristic values of a technophelic, engineer driven society. And I say fuck that Deux Ex Machina shit. Edited by Kurt (06/28/15 01:49 AM)
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
"What does disproving a concept of god have to do with proving reality?"
Good point, in hindsight I shouldn't have named this 'proof of reality' and instead should have gone something along the lines of 'Can we claim the existence of god?'.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
faith does not claim to show you the answers of the universe...
-------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
I'm pretty sure faith claims existence without evidence. Hence it being faith.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
|
just because faith claims that the universe and man was created by god doesn't mean that faith says they know everything
-------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
faith = god did it
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/31/13 Posts: 129 Last seen: 1 month, 38 minutes |
| ||||||
|
OP's post is as meaningless as this thread! Ha no point at all.
Hey, lets remind people that their beliefs and consciousness experiences have no material proof... duh as if we don't already know that? Just like your belief that consciousness experiences hold no significant value if not physically proven. You are approaching a completely subjective matter with a strict objective viewpoint... Whats the point of beating a dead horse with a rock? The same point of this thread
Edited by enjoi-more (07/01/15 06:41 PM)
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,809 |
| ||||||
|
Because a lot of people don't agree that the 'horse is dead'. It's an interesting topic and it's nice to see biases from both sides which is what's been seen in this post.
Learning yo.
| |||||||
|
Learner Registered: 02/08/15 Posts: 12,641 Loc: Exact Center Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours |
| ||||||
![]() Quote: -------------------- "Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage Flowchart for Recommended plan of action. Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms Use the Damn search engine After you know what you're doing, take a break Pick a book, Make some chips! Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Proof that faith is a crock? ( |
3,981 | 57 | 01/11/03 06:47 AM by MarkostheGnostic | ||
![]() |
Burden of Proof ( |
7,883 | 81 | 01/16/03 05:22 PM by Sclorch | ||
![]() |
Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!! ( |
7,988 | 87 | 03/03/10 04:27 PM by Evolution | ||
![]() |
Faith Instead of Reason - An Article, Political ( |
4,641 | 31 | 11/02/04 12:53 PM by BlueCoyote | ||
![]() |
Reality vs. the mushroom ( |
10,549 | 64 | 02/18/02 03:36 PM by AbstractSoul | ||
![]() |
Reality Test ( |
3,405 | 34 | 02/16/02 05:19 PM by ArCh_TemPlaR | ||
![]() |
Faith. ( |
4,891 | 63 | 01/03/03 04:42 AM by Phluck | ||
![]() |
Proof of God undermines Faith in God ( |
2,953 | 30 | 03/26/03 03:33 AM by Swami |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 2,399 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

THANK YOU

