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

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:51:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods 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. Yeah, I don't think so. I said a hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material, i.e., metaphysical. K.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 9:00:21 AM)
quote: Simply put though is the fact that we are not forced to believe in anything without sufficient evidence. Then how can you believe you exist through natural evolution of matter when you have no evidence on how the so called... matter came into existence? Was there a time of nothingness... if so where did we and all around us come from...was there a beginning...if so what was before the beginning... when we look to the stars through space... is there an end to space and if so what is beyond? Answer these questions and then you can be assured through evidence that you exist as you believe you do... Until then science is just discovering what is around us not what created what we are made of. The time may come when we know the answers and there is at least a possibility that our understanding of the universe is no more valid then when science thought the heavens rotated around the flat earth. Butch

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 9:17:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods 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. Yeah, I don't think so. I said a hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material, i.e., metaphysical. K. Like subatomic particles, the conditions between the big bang and the material universe coalescing out of desitter space and the unobserved hypothetical goings on inside a black hole's event horizon, you mean? Huge swathes of physics deal with the metaphysical these days.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 9:53:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods 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. Yeah, I don't think so. I said a hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material, i.e., metaphysical. Like subatomic particles, the conditions between the big bang and the material universe coalescing out of desitter space and the unobserved hypothetical goings on inside a black hole's event horizon, you mean? Huge swathes of physics deal with the metaphysical these days. Yeah, I don't think so. You're still talking about objective entities and processes in the physical universe of matter and energy. K.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 11:04:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods 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. Yeah, I don't think so. I said a hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material, i.e., metaphysical. Like subatomic particles, the conditions between the big bang and the material universe coalescing out of desitter space and the unobserved hypothetical goings on inside a black hole's event horizon, you mean? Huge swathes of physics deal with the metaphysical these days. Yeah, I don't think so. You're still talking about objective entities and processes in the physical universe of matter and energy. K. No, I'm talking about entirely hypothetical theoretical physics. I'm aware that the extension of the physical sciences into this realm is a blow to those who like to argue that anything that can't be measured is God's business alone, but metaphysics hasn't been purely meta for a long while now.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 11:13:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. My awareness of being is within myself. Being encompasses locus. Outer, specific geographical references are unnecessary. Being is within; that there is a "without" is simply implied because we are accustomed to moving about in an environment. However, if I resided in a black box long enough to lose awareness of sensory environment I believe I would still recognize the locus of my being. Obviously a thought experiment but one worth considering I think.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 11:41:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods 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. Yeah, I don't think so. I said a hypothetical reality that is predicated to be non-material, i.e., metaphysical. Like subatomic particles, the conditions between the big bang and the material universe coalescing out of desitter space and the unobserved hypothetical goings on inside a black hole's event horizon, you mean? Huge swathes of physics deal with the metaphysical these days. Yeah, I don't think so. You're still talking about objective entities and processes in the physical universe of matter and energy. No, I'm talking about entirely hypothetical theoretical physics. I'm aware that the extension of the physical sciences into this realm is a blow to those who like to argue that anything that can't be measured is God's business alone, but metaphysics hasn't been purely meta for a long while now. Ohferchrissake, sober up. Theoretical Physics isn't a branch of Philosophy, and I'm not arguing that "anything that can't be measured is God's business". K.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 12:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML My awareness of being is within myself. Yeah, except for the detail that we're not talking about you. An awareness of being neither requires nor implies any capacity for conceptual thought. Ideas of space and time, here versus there, within versus without, presuppose a capacity for abstraction. K.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 1:05:25 PM)
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. Did you say this or not? How do you reconcile this sweeping statement with the chunks of theoretical physics that deal with the unobserved and unobservable jn speculative terms? Why do you feel that this is only a fit subject of investigation by a philosopher, rather than a physicist?

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:41:42 PM)
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. non-sequitur.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 8:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Simply put though is the fact that we are not forced to believe in anything without sufficient evidence. Then how can you believe you exist through natural evolution of matter when you have no evidence on how the so called... matter came into existence? Was there a time of nothingness... if so where did we and all around us come from...was there a beginning...if so what was before the beginning... when we look to the stars through space... is there an end to space and if so what is beyond? Answer these questions and then you can be assured through evidence that you exist as you believe you do... Until then science is just discovering what is around us not what created what we are made of. The time may come when we know the answers and there is at least a possibility that our understanding of the universe is no more valid then when science thought the heavens rotated around the flat earth. Butch That one must theorize on the origin of matter doesn't mean matter doesn't exist and hasn't been scientifically proven. All of the facts of existence are right before us.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 9:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML My awareness of being is within myself. Yeah, except for the detail that we're not talking about you. An awareness of being neither requires nor implies any capacity for conceptual thought. Ideas of space and time, here versus there, within versus without, presuppose a capacity for abstraction. K. I am compelled to refer to my own subjective being because neither you nor I have ever experienced the inner subjective being of any other physical construction. Furthermore, you cannot support except as wild speculation the proposition that internal awareness of being in fact does not require nor imply any capacity for conceptual thought. You are just making shit up if you believe that.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/11/2016 10:10:33 PM)
Butch! We theorize and have some evidence for several chains of changes in matter/energy. 1) transmutation of elements: heavy elements (iron, etc) are built in stars from fusion of lighter elements hydrogen, helium, and maybe lithium. 2) stars explode and spew their elements into the universe and rain them "down" upon planets or protoplanets. 3) experiments in abiogenesis suggest how minerals may form into organic compounds (carbon compounds are the building structures for living forms) 4) observations and experiments in paleontology, embryology, and genetics seem to support Darwin's theories of organic change through natural and sexual selection. Do we know how matter came into existence? No we don't. Does it matter? No it doesn't. Why not? The coming into existence of matter is not a scientific question. Why not? Because it is not a testable or experimental question. Not at the moment. We leave that to the religionists. And of course there is the possibility that matter/energy was never created; it just always was. Neither is that a scientific question at this time. quote: was there a beginning...if so what was before the beginning.. This is a problematic question. Some astrophysicists speculate backward from the current status of the on going expansion of the universe to a point where all matter/energy was compressed in a singularity. Some do not agree with that because the galaxies are moving away from each other on a surface as space is 'created' between them. Imagine them like dots on the surface of a balloon that is blowing up. The center of the balloon is not necessarily time zero. Another problem is the question of where the singularity came from. So, we are begging the same question of first cause. quote: is there an end to space and if so what is beyond? Another problematic question. We cannot see the end of the entire universe. We can only judge the visible universe. There is a horizon beyond which we cannot see but where the unseen is still expanding. quote: Answer these questions and then you can be assured through evidence that you exist as you believe you do.. I do not need the answer to ontological questions to reassure me that I exist. quote: The time may come when we know the answers and there is at least a possibility that our understanding of the universe is no more valid then when science thought the heavens rotated around the flat earth. You are being very generous in assigning 'science' to ancient natural philosophers, although some of them were pretty accomplished. The size of the earth was calculated with fairly good accuracy and Ptolomy's model of an earth-centered universe did solve some problematic observations like the retrograde of Mars. However, I get your point. Our knowledge of the physical world will be much advanced in the future. However, god and creation are not likely to pop up imo.

tweakabelle -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 12:02:22 AM)
I have often wondered why it is that humans are so averse to accepting that there are unanswerable questions. Are we so conditioned to binary A/non-A answers that we decline to accept that many things are simply inexplicable within our current range of knowledge, and most likely will remain so irrespective of advances in knowledge? Any explanation that purports to establish something that precedes a singularity must be speculative. It simply cannot be otherwise. It may be more productive to ask instead: "Does the possible existence of anything that precedes a singularity have any relevance to humans living in today's world?' As, by definition, we cannot trace any observable phenomena back beyond a singularity, any would seem to me to be rather dubious. If one's primary concern is the establishment of a viable system of ethics, the question might then become: 'Do we need a pre-singularity causal factor or phenomenon to create a viable system of ethics?' For mine, the answer to that question is a clear negative - it is possible create a viable ethical system using any of a potentially infinite number of initial premises. The social anthropologist Mary Douglas asserts that when humans come together to form a group/society/culture, one of the first things they agree upon is to assign the authority underwriting the group to a distant unchallengeable third party, most often a deity of some sort. Once this 'divine' foundation is agreed, the group/society/culture can then grow upon a secure inviolable bedrock it furnishes. If this observation has merit, then many of the questions arising in discussions of this type can be seen as attempts to come to terms with a very human concept of power rather than attempts to explain phenomena that may be inexplicable.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 5:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I am compelled to refer to my own subjective being because neither you nor I have ever experienced the inner subjective being of any other physical construction. Actually, given the context of a speculative hypothesis that some degree of awareness might inhere in matter all the way down, the notion that such awareness would be anything at all like your experience is the first thing you should discount. Your experience doesn't even track with the experiential world of a human infant. K.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 8:11:45 AM)
quote: All of the facts of existence are right before u No they are not before us...we do not even know what the vast majority of the universe is made of...we may very well NOT exist in the way our minds perceive. There are NO absolutes in science until we understand more about the universe. Right now anything is possible. Just think of all the scientific, so called standards, that over the year have be proven false... we really know next to nothing about our universe let alone its origins. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 8:49:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I am compelled to refer to my own subjective being because neither you nor I have ever experienced the inner subjective being of any other physical construction. Actually, given the context of a speculative hypothesis that some degree of awareness might inhere in matter all the way down, the notion that such awareness would be anything at all like your experience is the first thing you should discount. Your experience doesn't even track with the experiential world of a human infant. K. Exactly! The fact that neither of us can use our own subjective experience and that you have not posed a testable statement emphasizes the vacuity of your speculative hypothesis. Your speculation about the possible inner experience of physical structures is similar in kind to kdsub's speculation that there is more to our universe and beyond than we currently know. The one salient difference is that his speculation is grounded in known science whereas yours is without any related foundation. For that reason, your speculation is trivial.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 9:08:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I am compelled to refer to my own subjective being because neither you nor I have ever experienced the inner subjective being of any other physical construction. Actually, given the context of a speculative hypothesis that some degree of awareness might inhere in matter all the way down, the notion that such awareness would be anything at all like your experience is the first thing you should discount. Your experience doesn't even track with the experiential world of a human infant. Exactly! The fact that neither of us can use our own subjective experience and that you have not posed a testable statement emphasizes the vacuity of your speculative hypothesis. Firstly, it isn't my hypothesis. My only comment was that I don't find it unreasonable. Secondly, it isn't at all clear why a lack of testability should render a hypothesis vacuous. The hypothesis that you are conscious isn't testable either, and given how often you contradict yourself it might even be considered questionable, but neither of us would consider the claim vacuous. K.

dcnovice -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 9:13:12 AM)
FR At the moment, I'm kind of wishing we could leave religion out of everything.

Awareness -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/12/2016 9:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR At the moment, I'm kind of wishing we could leave religion out of everything. It wouldn't change anything - atheists are cunts too.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875