RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/10/2016 7:45:48 AM)
quote: I did, once. I was only 19 and I lasted maybe three weeks. I hated it. And I love it. Different strokes and all, eh?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/10/2016 7:47:59 AM)
I think the problem is that Vincent is equating his own awareness of being with awareness of being period, that since his awareness of being consists of A, B, and C; that all awareness of being must also do so.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/10/2016 11:31:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Why would an awareness of being require a wider awareness of one's location in space and time? No, it does not require a wider awareness of space time, not a cosmic awareness of space time, not a GPS awareness of space time, but awareness of existential space time, the thereness of being. I am aware of where my being is even if I am not aware of my geography. Implicit in being aware of "where" your being is is being aware of where it is not. It does not seem to me that an awareness of being would necessarily require spatial conceptions of here and there, "existential" or otherwise. K. I would suggest that awareness of being is a metaphysical activity performed by the physical brain turned in upon itself, introspectively. I agree that spatial relationships beyond being are unimportant. However not delimited by extraneous boundaries, locus is integral to being imo.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 1:38:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Why would an awareness of being require a wider awareness of one's location in space and time? No, it does not require a wider awareness of space time, not a cosmic awareness of space time, not a GPS awareness of space time, but awareness of existential space time, the thereness of being. I am aware of where my being is even if I am not aware of my geography. Implicit in being aware of "where" your being is is being aware of where it is not. It does not seem to me that an awareness of being would necessarily require spatial conceptions of here and there, "existential" or otherwise. I would suggest that awareness of being is a metaphysical activity performed by the physical brain turned in upon itself, introspectively. I agree that spatial relationships beyond being are unimportant. However not delimited by extraneous boundaries, locus is integral to being imo. You can't have a locus without boundaries. A locus is a place: here, not there. I think you are imposing concepts of space and time on an awareness of being when it does not require and need not encompass them. K.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 6:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. Really? And where is an oak tree's brain? It doesn't have one. Why do you ask ? The tree is plant life and not sentient. And yet they are aware of their surroundings. Science has no evidence of that awareness. There are no measurements that can detect that awareness. Could you cite anything on that, that isn't simply the same instinctive reaction to environment as do all plants ?

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 6:54:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Vince do you think our species is capable of understanding infinity and its obvious implications? We already discussed time and the two of these together I believe will be forever beyond anything but wild speculation by your beloved science. Is space with no limiting dimension or border...time with no beginning or ending any less unbelievable and without proof than a universal intelligence? Both are incomprehensible to our human minds but if one is possible the other cannot be denied with certainty. Your denial of the possibility of a universal intelligence is my bone to pick with you not your belief in the infallibility of observable science. Otherwise I think it is reasonable to doubt... I do at times as well...but it is not reasonable to claim science has any say or proof in denying the possibility of...for lack of another word... God. Butch Science does not and is not required to prove a negative...that can't be done. However, science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. You miss my point MrRodgers... Science has no understanding of the very basic building blocks of nature... time and space...Can science prove we were created from nothing or the implications if we were not?...Can they prove time with no beginning or the implications if true? Because they cannot explain or prove how the bits of us were created... does this mean we do not exist? I am not saying with absolute certainty that a universal intelligence exists or not...but I am saying that if everything was created from nothing...and if not how... then all things we can possibly think of COULD be part of our reality. I think we would be fools to think we can absolutely say... there is no universal intelligence using observable science...at least until we know the secretes of the universe. Butch Simply put though is the fact that we are not forced to believe in anything without sufficient evidence. There are many things that 'could be' but that doesn't mean...they are. We are not fools at all to rely upon sufficient evidence found in science required to prove anything. Science furthermore has many facts on the basic building blocks of nature. Time and space are meaningless as being arbitrary and merely coincidental, i.e., anytime or anywhere.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 6:59:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: However, science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. Incorrect. Actually that's correct even though some do continue looking. One reason is that until we have enough scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, scientists don't decide for themselves what is evidence of god. That evidence will have to present that conclusion and is very purpose of the requirements of scientific research.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Because they are inanimate... I don't see why being animate would be a requirement for having an interior awareness of being. Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. I don't see why an awareness of being would necessarily require recognition that there is a "there" in addition. K. Because 'being' is existing and existing would have to be somewhere. Otherwise we have no definition of either.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. I'm sorry things have devolved into debating the question of God. To me, at least, that question falls into the category of religion. Science studies the material world, and the view that I would prefer to see questioned is that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality. K. Religion, at least the 5 dominant religions...create gods. The alleged moral and spiritual benefits of which...requires neither.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:13:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. I'm sorry things have devolved into debating the question of God. To me, at least, that question falls into the category of religion. Science studies the material world, and the view that I would prefer to see questioned is that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality. Religion, at least the 5 dominant religions...create gods. The alleged moral and spiritual benefits of which...requires neither. Let's leave religion out of it. K.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You are right WhoreMods...now how is what you said trying to shift the discussion to religion? How is it sneaking the defense of the existence of God into the thread except to say the possibility of one cannot be excluded...along with an infinite amount of other possibilities. Butch But I rely upon science to prove to me that anything like a god does exist. Without that evidence...I need not. God is brought into the discussion because religions (not all) create gods. For the OP to say let's leave religion out of it means, let's leave...god out of it.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: In a Disney movie perhaps. If so, then we are all living in a Disney movie. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/ http://www.sciencealert.com/plants-really-do-respond-to-the-way-we-touch-them-scientists-reveal First link, is a theory still unproven by scientific peer review and when asked of plants think...he said no. In the second link, plants respond to touch only instinctively just as they respond to air, water and sunlight. Plants do not reason or conceptualize, therefore are not even sentient (aware of their own existence) and thus...do not think.

FieryOpal -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:38:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I don't see why an awareness of being would necessarily require recognition that there is a "there" in addition. K. Because 'being' is existing and existing would have to be somewhere. Otherwise we have no definition of either. For an intelligent life form to exist within the physical bounds of a space-time continuum, this would be true. You and vincent presuppose that [self-]"awareness" or intelligence requires form. Consider the absence of such a constraint. Formless intelligence existing beyond our purely physical space-time dimensional reality would not have to possess the physicality of locus.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:43:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I don't see why an awareness of being would necessarily require recognition that there is a "there" in addition. Because 'being' is existing and existing would have to be somewhere. Otherwise we have no definition of either. I don't see why a dim interior awareness of being would necessarily require a conception of space and time and a recognition of being "somewhere" versus elsewhere. K.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:44:06 AM)
You probably don't think that language models consciousness, either. [;)]

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I rely upon science to prove to me that anything like a god does exist. Setting gods aside, the fact remains that science studies the material world and has nothing to say about any hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material. You might as well insist on refusing to believe in things like horses and cows because there is no evidence of any in the ocean. K.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 7:55:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I rely upon science to prove to me that anything like a god does exist. Setting gods aside, the fact remains that science studies the material world and has nothing to say about any hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material. You might as well insist on refusing to believe in things like horses and cows because there is no evidence of any in the ocean. K. That's a ridiculous analogy, as you're talking about "science" as a whole, rather than marine biology exclusively. Also, saying that science has nothing to say about hypothetical realities will be news to the theoretical physicists, who've spent a lot of time on that one since quantum theory led to several fields of physics getting very abstract indeed.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Setting gods aside, the fact remains that science studies the material world and has nothing to say about any hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material. You might as well insist on refusing to believe in things like horses and cows because there is no evidence of any in the ocean. That's a ridiculous analogy, as you're talking about "science" as a whole, rather than marine biology exclusively. What mainline accepted scientific specialization is devoted to the study of metaphysical hypotheses? quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Also, saying that science has nothing to say about hypothetical realities will be news to the theoretical physicists, who've spent a lot of time on that one since quantum theory led to several fields of physics getting very abstract indeed. I don't see where I said that science has nothing to say about hypothetical realities, period. K.

FieryOpal -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:40:46 AM)
Per your post(#184) above: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You can't have a locus without boundaries. A locus is a place: here, not there. I think you are imposing concepts of space and time on an awareness of being when it does not require and need not encompass them. K. I had meant to include this in my post, but was not sure which of these quotes to choose from, and ended up reiterating what you had already said.* "Why would an awareness of being require a wider awareness of one's location in space and time?" (#174) "Implicit in being aware of "where" your being is is being aware of where it is not. It does not seem to me that an awareness of being would necessarily require spatial conceptions of here and there, "existential" or otherwise." (#180) * I don't know how many different ways this point can be emphasized, but I guess one more time doesn't hurt. [:)]

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:45:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I don't see where I said that science has nothing to say about hypothetical realities, period. You said so here: quote: Setting gods aside, the fact remains that science studies the material world and has nothing to say about any hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875