Who knows?

[lewisnotmiller]

What evidence is there that any "beyond" the physical is anything real or even plausible? At best metaphysics is dubious speculation and woo-woo. The school of metaphysics in the US has been clever to frame their views by citing science, but then overlaying it with religious jargon.

I mean...the school of metaphysics? Who cares? If you want to push back on metaphysics, at least reference Kant or something...lol

This is an example of the woo-woo nonsense, and is not only has no evidence but contradicts what is observed. How do thoughts transcend the physical brain? If a racist sits on his couch and thinks anti-Semitic thoughts how do those thoughts transcend his brain?

Do you know other types of animals have thoughts, so do their thoughts also transcend their brains?

Think of it the other way. My perception of the world around me, and the reality of the world around me are not the same thing, and can never fully meet...not that my perception is physically impacting reality.

It is factless nonsense, just like the example you posted above. All this sort of thinking tells us is that some people are interested in humans being more special than we are. What is motivating this desire?

Special? No...but different? Sure. Get a monkey to discuss Kant with you, and I'll withdraw my suggestion we are different.

 

[Windwalker]

But they aren't undrstanding reality.

They believe it to be reality as much as you believe your ideas of reality to be reality as well. Are you saying that your understanding of reality is what reality actually is? You realize that they say the exact same thing from their perception?

Let me share an example from my personal history. A friend of mine and I graduated from Bible college and had over the years both become atheists, and ran into each other by chance some years later. We were out at lunch and he said to me, "I'm so glad we have the truth now!" I chuckled to remember us saying those exact words to each other while we were Bible-believing Christians in a fundamentalist church. When I said that to him, he stopped cold for a minute, and then responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth".

There is a point I am trying to make here with all of this, "Now I really DO have the truth" perception of what reality actually is and how we imagine our current views as the right views, just as we did as believers, just as we do as atheists. Same sandwich, different bread.

They are imagining demons and hells due to anxiety and fear of uncertainty.

Perhaps. But that is irrelevant to my point. One could argue that a materialist reductionist philosophical belief is due to anxiety about dealing with the intangibles of life and are seeking neat and clean black and white answers. In fact, I would argue that is probably very much the case. Seeing a sense of security in knowing "Now I really DO have the truth". It's just a fundamentalist point of view at the level of modernity, instead of at the level of magic/mythic reality.

Instead of "God said it. I believe it. That settles it for me", it's just shifting the source of authority to science and reason instead of divine prophets. "Science said it. I believe it. That settles it for me". In other words it's not what one believe in, but how one believes in it that makes it fundamentalist. One can treat scientific materials in the same way black and white way as some treat religious materials. Not everyone does this.

Look at who is really working to understand reality, that is the sciences.

Science is fantastic at seeking to understand the processes of the natural world. But is the material world all there is to understand about "understanding reality" as a human being?

That's like saying a screwdriver is great for mechanical application, as well as understanding the human mind, and writing inspiring symphonies. A screwdriver works so well to fix a loose shovel handle, that it holds promise equally to be able to understand and fix my anxiety issues, or my relationship woes. This tool is so great, is has been so successful for me in my toolshed, it is what I must believe in to fix everything else in my life too! Is that truly rational?

Do computers exist because of what theists think they understand about reality? No.

They do exist because someone imagined them and brought them into existence through their imagination, making them an everyday reality in people's lives. Now extrapolate that out further regarding beliefs in a Divine reality. If we act upon what we imagine can be or is true, it does become a reality for us.

While that make seem magical, it's actually perfectly obvious in everyday life.

What do theists contribute to the body of knowledge that we all use as we progress into modernity?

Everything, frankly. We all owe what and who we are to the advances and development of what came before us. Think developmental stages. You can't skip stages of growth. You must first be a preteen, learn life's lessons and integrate the world at that level, before you can become an adolescent. Your adolescence "transcends and includes" what came before it. You can't jump from infancy to adolescence. You can't just from infancy to adulthood. Adulthood owes what is to infancy, early childhood, teen years, and so forth.

What we have in modernity, is the result of all the grand accomplishments we learned through the earlier stages. We owe what we have to them. We would not what we have now, had we not leaned what we did then, both the good and the bad.

This said however, I am talking about magic systems and mythic systems and modern systems. Theism can exist in modern systems as well, and not be prescientific, mythic, or magical thinking. I think your error is assuming that theism cannot embrace modernity, and beyond into postmodernism, and post-postmodernism or "meta-modernity", or "integral" as some call it. And that would be a wrong idea on your part. Theism is not a stage of development. Mythic and magical thinking is.

What does The Discovery Institute contribute? Only disinformation about science for gullible Christians.

You are correct. The Discovery institute is a premoderist, mythic-literal pseudoscience organization. It does not contribute to modern scientific understanding at all. But this is not because they are theists.

It is a subset of theists we are talking about here that hold a rigid set of beliefs that not only has no evidence, but contrtary to reality.

All I am suggesting is that you don't make the same error they do in thinking that you have the final word on what is reality. It's a mentality that does see beyond itself and causes its own rigid set of beliefs. "They are contrary to reality". Who or what is defining what that is for you? The correct answer is, your system of beliefs. Yes, science gives up much more factual data, but how we form and shape our understanding of what that data means, is a perceptual reality. It may be based upon factual data, but it is still perceptual, or a matter of what we imagine and believe that makes it "reality" to us.

This is difficult for people to understand about their own views. We naturally don't think to look at the eyes we are looking at the world through, as very much a part of what defines what we are seeing. Who we are, is as much if not far more, than what is outside of us responsible for defining we call reality.

But is heaven and hell reality? To those who say it is what reality are we realy talking about? It's not factual.

Well there you go. Yes, if the reality we are talking about is lived experience, then that is factual reality. It really, really happens to us. So when we use words like heaven and hell, those are linguistic pointers that describe states or conditions of lived experience. Even if someone, like a child, needs to imagine them as literally places because they developmentally still think in concrete terms and are unable to think in abstractions, such as "heaven is a lived experience inside of us", that does not invalidate the use of these words as metaphors to describe something quite real.

We use these terms all the time as metaphor. "It was a living hell going through that with him!". "I am in heaven our here in the mountains". This is not difficult. So these states, or internal, subjective experiences, are really, real reality. They are what reality is for us. Reality to us as humans is what we live, not conceptualize. And if someone is torn apart inside, emotionally, psychologically, socially, and spiritually, they are "in hell".

Metaphors. Metaphors point to reality, beyond the concrete literal, object, material, physicalist reality. Reality is more than rocks.

 

[Windwalker]

(continued from previous post)

I've felt awe myself. The difference is to have the cognitive skill to not get overly emotional and assume the feelings justify all the religious tropes we hears about all through life. Feeling awe is explained by science.

Explained by science? Hardly. That tells you nothing of the experience, nor the knowledge that comes through such an experience! Reading a book about the ocean, does not tell you what it is like to swim in the ocean.

Are you trying to say "explain away" the experience, meaning we can use science to get rid of the notion that this was beyond our ability to comprehend with the mind? I tend to believe that is exactly what people intend to say when they say "Science explains it". This is wrong thinking, in my opinion.

I adore this quote from Albert Einstein who himself recognized the limits of what the scientific, rational mind can tell us about real reality. And no, this is not "quote mining", this is exactly what he intended to say, and can be found expressed elsewhere by him. It is also true experientially to countless people. Take the time to ponder this,

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

​

In other words, it cannot be explained by science. It transcends our sciences, or that "which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most privative forms". That is the best of our sciences he is describing there! He calls it actual "knowledge", not just a "chemical response". And he is absolutely correct. It is something that we can know, "really exists", yet is impenetrable to us rationally, and intellectually.

All of that is the source of true science and true religion. Not this, "But now I really DO know the truth", illusion of the mind. Fundamentalism thinks it can reduce reality down to what it can understanding with the mind, be that religious fundamentalism, or modernistic scientistic fundamentalism. They are both making the same error.

Buddhism isn't about meaning. It is a set of practices that help manage the emotions and mind. It takes a lot of work to attain discipline. What Buddhism offers is in many ways the antithesis of what religions offer, and that is an undisciplined mind that justifies what it wants to believe.

First of all, Buddhism is a religion itself. All religions also have core philosophies that define them, including Christianity. Any religion should be about disciplining the mind and the body in service of the higher, truer, spiritual nature.

How well they are doing this, how much emphasis is given or is lost in this, is actually an issue, and it's very relative to the time and place it is practiced in history. Right now, Christianity in America is, well, cheeseburgers and fries and a vanilla shake, not practicing anything resembling spiritual fitness! But make no mistake, Buddhism can be like that too for a lot of Buddhists, where is nothing but an external religion of self-identify culturally and no discipline at all. All of this is relative.

But I hope you are not overlooking that Buddhism is only about mental discipline? That's kind of like saying the purpose of yoga, is to have a "hot body" so you can look sexy on the beech. That's not the core goal of yoga, nor is "managing the emotions and the mind" the core purpose for Buddhist meditation practices. Those are side-benefits, not the reason for them. Do you understand this? Do you agree with this?

The core reasons for those is to transcend the egoic self-identification to find the true Self, the Atman, or the Anatman if you are a Buddhist (same thing, different emphasis). It is for all intents and purposes for finding "God", and become One with that Emptiness, or Self, or Brahman, or Atman, or Anatman. It is to become spiritually Awakened. It is to become Enlightened, beyond reason, beyond mind, beyond intellect, beyond science, and beyond religion itself.

Do you understand these things? Once you do, then you should be able to begin to understand what I'm trying to discuss here.

I'll try to pick up some other thoughts here later on.

 

[PureX]

You're more than welcome to step into any of my conversations at any time.

Thank you! I appreciate that.

 

[stvdv]

Does a god or gods exist?

My reply is "God exists"

I am not here to pick and pull apart your reasons, i am genuinely interested in why you believe what you believe

Good, hence I gave "Winner"

I am atheist and say "no", god(s) do not exist. I have several good (in my opinion) reasons why my belief is strong

I respect your view, and won't debate, just share my personal experience because you asked

So how about you?
Are you religious or not?

I am a religious/spiritual being

And can you provide the main reasons for your belief/unbelief in god(s)

Yes.

When I pray to God for important personal matters, I get answers, and the answers have been verifiable and proven correct many times

Hence, I believe in God

Note: Your definition of God might be different than mine, as you were a Christian; mine is not bearded and roaming in the sky

 

[PureX]

What evidence is there that any "beyond" the physical is anything real or even plausible?

Scientists call it the "singularity". A state not possible or comprehensible by the mechanisms of physics as we know of them from our place within them. But clearly speculated upon and even presumed by the people that you claim to be the most "evidence" based. That evidence being the fact that possibilities and impossibilities were in effect from the outset of the event we call the "big bang" that is creating the universe. Which is all that exists, so far as we know. But that apparently is not all that exists according to the presence of those possibilities and limitations. And according to this mysterious "singularity" having suddenly exploded into a universe.

At best metaphysics is dubious speculation and woo-woo. The school of metaphysics in the US has been clever to frame their views by citing science, but then overlaying it with religious jargon.

This comment shows the complete logical failure of philosophical materialism. And why holding onto it just blinds one's mind to even the most obvious facts of reality.

How do thoughts transcend the physical brain? If a racist sits on his couch and thinks anti-Semitic thoughts how do those thoughts transcend his brain?

The same way what a computer does is not what a computer is.

Do you know other types of animals have thoughts, so do their thoughts also transcend their brains?

Of course. Just as their being an expression of life transcends the physical matter and energy from which is arises. The whole spectacularly transcends the sum of the physical parts.

 

[Ponder This]

1 works both ways. Though lack indicates absence
2 i believe to be illusionary, a placebo effect. Certainly no prayer has helped starving children or cured leukemia.
3 a caring god would not allow suffering of his prize creation, or if he did then he is not worthy of worship
4 funny how you used science to post your comments. I'll leave this one right here
5 but cannot prove gods and have belief in different gods

So for me they are not reason to believe but reason not to believe i god(s)

1. The absence argument is a well-known logical fallacy.
2. Even if you think prayer merely has a placebo effect, it means that you believe that prayer has a helpful effect. To believe that prayer has a placebo effect and also that prayer does not help is contradictory.
3. You're arguing about the qualities of a god as opposed to arguing about whether or not there is a god. by your argument, a god could reasonably exist... it's just that you wouldn't worship it.
4. It's funny that you think that everything is science, even things that are not science.
5. You agree that they hold a similar belief... BUT object that their beliefs are not cookie-cut replicas?

Believe what you want; don't pretend your reasons are good.

 

[ChristineM]

1. The absence argument is a well-known logical fallacy.
2. Even if you think prayer merely has a placebo effect, it means that you believe that prayer has a helpful effect. To believe that prayer has a placebo effect and also that prayer does not help is contradictory.
3. You're arguing about the qualities of a god as opposed to arguing about whether or not there is a god. by your argument, a god could reasonably exist... it's just that you wouldn't worship it.
4. It's funny that you think that everything is science, even things that are not science.
5. You agree that they hold a similar belief... BUT object that their beliefs are not cookie-cut replicas?

Believe what you want; don't pretend your reasons are good.

My reasons are very good the idea of this thread was to learn other peoples reasons. And their rejection of anything they don't believe

1/ no it is not a fallasy, facts are not fallacies.

2/

3/ yes, and, falsifiable evidence would be nice

5/ eh?

6/ nope, whats it like to be wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Scientists call it the "singularity". A state not possible or comprehensible by the mechanisms of physics as we know of them from our place within them. But clearly speculated upon and even presumed by the people that you claim to be the most "evidence" based. That evidence being the fact that possibilities and impossibilities were in effect from the outset of the event we call the "big bang" that is creating the universe. Which is all that exists, so far as we know. But that apparently is not all that exists according to the presence of those possibilities and limitations. And according to this mysterious "singularity" having suddenly exploded into a universe.

Singularities are described as super dense mass of energy. How is that beyond the physical?

But this answer of yours deflcts from what you theists often claim, that there is an immaterial and that our brains have immaterial functions like thoughts. Once again you fold under questioning and go off into tangents.

This is your statement I was responding to:

don't mean to step on this conversation, but metaphysics, I believe, refers to the 'blueprint' both behind physical existence and transcendent of the the physical expression. For example, a brain is the physical expression of a set of possibilities and limitations that we do not yet fully understand or know the origin of, but that shape the nature of existence.​

Why didn't you expand on what you believe about metaphysics?

This comment shows the complete logical failure of philosophical materialism. And why holding onto it just blinds one's mind to even the most obvious facts of reality.

Another baseless claim. No facts, no explanation? Just a baseless claim that reflects your religious assumptions and bias?

The same way what a computer does is not what a computer is.

Incoherent and meaningless.

Of course. Just as their being an expression of life transcends the physical matter and energy from which is arises. The whole spectacularly transcends the sum of the physical parts.

Another vague claim without facts or an explanation. Do you really think this is adequate for a discussion forum? IOs it that you have nothing more than belief and claims, and have no facts or explanation?

 

[F1fan]

I mean...the school of metaphysics? Who cares? If you want to push back on metaphysics, at least reference Kant or something...lol

When someone says metaphysics and is vague about what they mean I will apply whatever comes to my mind first. Many religious positions are not very sophisticated. In either case is metaphysics built on facts and objectivity? No.

Think of it the other way. My perception of the world around me, and the reality of the world around me are not the same thing, and can never fully meet...not that my perception is physically impacting reality.

Only an educated person would know this. It is science that allows us the freedom to understand what our perception is and isn't. Religions offer paths into an abyss of imagination and can deceive about the reality of the world.

Special? No...but different? Sure. Get a monkey to discuss Kant with you, and I'll withdraw my suggestion we are different.

And if a monkey is too wise to get involved in discussing philosophy?

And difference is not really all that significant, is it? A 20 year old with Down's Syndrome can't discuss Kant, so is he in the same category as a monkey?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When someone says metaphysics and is vague about what they mean I will apply whatever comes to my mind first. Many religious positions are not very sophisticated. In either case is metaphysics built on facts and objectivity? No.

Well...
I was the one that first used the term in this thread. I didn't do it in defence of metaphysics, but instead to clarify intent of another poster. Were they talking about God's literally existing, or were they talking about the concept and belief in God having measureable impact on the physical world.
You can talk about the US School of Metaphysics until the cows come home, I'll stand by my question as being relevant, sensibly worded and in no way a defence of either metaphysics conceptually, nor any other immaterial concepts.

However, if you want to engage more fully with the topic, I'd be directing you towards Kant, Hegel, Hume or Nietzsche. I daresay the latter two might more closely align with your worldview, which is completely fine. What I wouldn't do is reduce all discussion on metaphysics to 'woo'.

The US School of Metaphysics, I feel, can be safely discarded. That's obviously opinionative.

Only an educated person would know this. It is science that allows us the freedom to understand what our perception is and isn't. Religions offer paths into an abyss of imagination and can deceive about the reality of the world.

I'm not religious, and you won't find me defending religion (religious freedom, sure...religion, not so much).

But more broadly I would push back on the notion that science provides as much as you are suggesting. Is it our best method for measuring and testing the world around us? Yes.
But my belief and commitment to concepts like 'justice' are largely independent of science, and are outcomes of my background and perspective.

Perhaps you are simply arguing more broadly for determinism and materialism, rather than suggesting science is our only means of effectively understanding and interacting with the world. I could read your words either way.

And if a monkey is too wise to get involved in discussing philosophy?

That appears to be a philosophical question, since it wouldn't literally happen...so I guess you see my point??

And difference is not really all that significant, is it? A 20 year old with Down's Syndrome can't discuss Kant, so is he in the same category as a monkey?

Couple of things in relation to this.
1) We were talking at the level of species, not individuals. My two year old daughter can't discuss philosophy either, but it has no relation to my point that humans are exceptional in being able to discuss philosophy. Or perform science, if you prefer.
2) Because you seem to have me pegged a little off (which might be how I've communicated...not throwing stones here) let me be crystal clear. I mean exceptional in the scientific sense. Standing apart, not 'better'. Humans are the only species we are aware of who can discuss philosophy, self, science, and argue the toss on metaphysics, and in that way we are exceptional. Platypii and echidna are egg-laying mammals, and in that way are exceptional.

As for the significance, that's entirely contextual. Long story short, if you want to argue the toss on metaphysics, you're better off doing so with me than an echidna. In that context, the difference is indeed significant. If you mean do I set humans apart from all other existence as fundamentally separate and different...well, no. I'm not sure what would have made you think I would.

 

[Bird123]

I'm surprised that many otherwise rational people think a God exists, yet they can't offer evidence or any reason why they think this.


Look at your manner here, it is passive aggressive behavior. You are asserting something is wrong with those who don't agree with you, and also that you have some special knowledge that rational minds don't have access to. Can you see how this is somewhat disturbing?

Let me ask you point blank, is it a fact that a God exists? Or is the many ideas of Gods something many humans believe exists, and they could be mistaken?

God Exists!!!

The only way you can acquire real proof that God exists is to encounter God. Until that point, God, regardless of what you Discover, can only be a belief. Keeping this in mind, those thinking God does not exist also can only have a belief.

People can pick their poison so to speak as far as beliefs go. It is the one who really seeks truth and is willing to do the effort necessary to acquire the knowledge and understanding of what is that is most likely to get that visit.

Without a certain level of knowledge and understanding most would just be confused by a visit. Picture Intellect off the scale working on multiple levels with multiple views and one could find oneself peddling as fast as one can in an effort just to keep up.

Worry not! It has never ever been about believing. Be who you must! It's a part of the plan!!

Me, I have always been one who had to know so now I know. Want proof? I have pointed the way.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

If we knew why things exist (i.e. the universe) then wonderful but we don't, so some say, we don't know so lets attempt to find out, and some say we don't know so god must have done it that's my god by the way, not any other god.




So your god is nature?



Long enough to evolve enough to develop the technology to allow it



Or perhaps just the opposite, widening your view shows shows reality



To those who have belief in a god.



And that is entirely up to you. Thanks for your views, quite interesting.

Each chooses their journey. That's perfectly OK! Holding unto your beliefs and doing nothing is perfectly OK!

There are an infinite number of things to seek in life. On the other hand, I think religion has corrupted the thinking of many that beliefs are what one should seek. In reality,the only thing that really matters is what is!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

God Exists!!!

What an extraordinary claim, and you offer no evidence or explanation. So it is rejected by default.

The only way you can acquire real proof that God exists is to encounter God. Until that point, God, regardless of what you Discover, can only be a belief. Keeping this in mind, those thinking God does not exist also can only have a belief.

Another extraordinary claim, and no evidence that anything you say is true. So it is rejected by default.

People can pick their poison so to speak as far as beliefs go.

Religion can be poison.

It is the one who really seeks truth and is willing to do the effort necessary to acquire the knowledge and understanding of what is that is most likely to get that visit.

That is why critical thinkers won't readily believe fantastic ideas. Any ideas that do warrant belief will have adequate evidence that allows a reasoned conclusion. This is why critical thinkers don't believe in gods, there just isn't adequate evidence. We see a consistent pattern of theists claiming their gods exist, yet fail to offer evidence or explanation.

Without a certain level of knowledge and understanding most would just be confused by a visit. Picture Intellect off the scale working on multiple levels with multiple views and one could find oneself peddling as fast as one can in an effort just to keep up.

This certainly doesn't describe what theists do. This is more meaningless posturing, and I suspect it is due to having no evidence to present.

Worry not! It has never ever been about believing. Be who you must! It's a part of the plan!!

Me, I have always been one who had to know so now I know. Want proof? I have pointed the way.

Odd that you have trouble articulating any knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Well...
I was the one that first used the term in this thread. I didn't do it in defence of metaphysics, but instead to clarify intent of another poster. Were they talking about God's literally existing, or were they talking about the concept and belief in God having measureable impact on the physical world.
You can talk about the US School of Metaphysics until the cows come home, I'll stand by my question as being relevant, sensibly worded and in no way a defence of either metaphysics conceptually, nor any other immaterial concepts.

However, if you want to engage more fully with the topic, I'd be directing you towards Kant, Hegel, Hume or Nietzsche. I daresay the latter two might more closely align with your worldview, which is completely fine. What I wouldn't do is reduce all discussion on metaphysics to 'woo'.

The US School of Metaphysics, I feel, can be safely discarded. That's obviously opinionative.

I have been debating theists for several decades and I am a bit cynical. Theists seldom have sophisticated positions, and we also get to know certain members. I am wary of giving too much benefit of the doubt to theists as I see many tricks being performed, and I assume any ambiguous statements to be the worst case scenario, and work back from there if need be.

I'm not religious, and you won't find me defending religion (religious freedom, sure...religion, not so much).

But more broadly I would push back on the notion that science provides as much as you are suggesting. Is it our best method for measuring and testing the world around us? Yes.
But my belief and commitment to concepts like 'justice' are largely independent of science, and are outcomes of my background and perspective.

Perhaps you are simply arguing more broadly for determinism and materialism, rather than suggesting science is our only means of effectively understanding and interacting with the world. I could read your words either way.

Yes, I only mean that science is the best way we have to describe and explain how things are in our universe. I say this in contrast to what some theists assert is true, namely ideas they derive from religious lore. I'm not sure who it was, but one theist in a discussion was suggesting that science compromise with religious belief, and I responded that it was absurd. Science works because it has a high ethical standard, and to comvromise that to make religion feel like part of the team will ruin science. It would no longer work. I find that sort of naive understanding of science, and the lack of self-awareness that a believer would think that was reasonable, just a complete failure as intellectual beings.

Couple of things in relation to this.
1) We were talking at the level of species, not individuals. My two year old daughter can't discuss philosophy either, but it has no relation to my point that humans are exceptional in being able to discuss philosophy. Or perform science, if you prefer.
2) Because you seem to have me pegged a little off (which might be how I've communicated...not throwing stones here) let me be crystal clear. I mean exceptional in the scientific sense. Standing apart, not 'better'. Humans are the only species we are aware of who can discuss philosophy, self, science, and argue the toss on metaphysics, and in that way we are exceptional. Platypii and echidna are egg-laying mammals, and in that way are exceptional.

Humans are a species capable of quite a lot, but we also fail to live up to our capacity quite easily. It's easy to judge our species by the finest examples, but that doesn't seem quite right. Other species have abilities we humans don't, so I'm not sure we can compare ourself to other species just because our frontal lobes happened to evolve.

As for the significance, that's entirely contextual. Long story short, if you want to argue the toss on metaphysics, you're better off doing so with me than an echidna. In that context, the difference is indeed significant. If you mean do I set humans apart from all other existence as fundamentally separate and different...well, no. I'm not sure what would have made you think I would.

If metaphysics is significant then that's an argument waiting to be made.

 

[PureX]

Singularities are described as super dense mass of energy. How is that beyond the physical?

None exists, anywhere in the universe, nor could they. They are an impossible "make-believe" solution to what is a complete mystery to us. But I can understand why you can't acknowledge this. As it's your main attacking point of theism.

But this answer of yours deflcts from what you theists often claim, that there is an immaterial and that our brains have immaterial functions like thoughts. Once again you fold under questioning and go off into tangents.

And once again you are trying to claim that language is nothing but sounds produced in the mouth. Or marks made on paper. Because you are a materialist that's trying to assert that physicality contains and determines reality. And that's just patently false.

But you are never going to see this so long as you refuse to let go of it.

This is your statement I was responding to:

don't mean to step on this conversation, but metaphysics, I believe, refers to the 'blueprint' both behind physical existence and transcendent of the the physical expression. For example, a brain is the physical expression of a set of possibilities and limitations that we do not yet fully understand or know the origin of, but that shape the nature of existence.​

Why didn't you expand on what you believe about metaphysics?

I did. But you will not be able to grasp any of this so long as you continue to hold onto and defend your materialist meta-reality paradigm. Sorry, but I cannot do that for you. Same goes for the others here that hold onto the same failed, self-blinding philosophical paradigm.

Incoherent and meaningless.

To you, yes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This comment shows the complete logical failure of philosophical materialism. And why holding onto it just blinds one's mind to even the most obvious facts of reality.

You repeatedly demean empiricists and imply that they are missing out on something valuable with their myopic view, but can never produce any advantage to doing things otherwise. A naturalistic approach to reality is the only one that has ever produced any useful ideas about it - ideas that describe an aspect of it and allow one to successfully anticipate outcomes in order to more effectively navigate it and manage the conscious experience.

There is nothing else. If there were, you could produce whatever you think that is. Instead, it's just these complaints about how others' thinking is inferior without a single illustration of any advantage to changing it.

you are a materialist that's trying to assert that physicality contains and determines reality. And that's just patently false.

Here you go again with these claims. If it were false, you could falsify it. But you don't because you can't.

you will not be able to grasp any of this so long as you continue to hold onto and defend your materialist meta-reality paradigm. Sorry, but I cannot do that for you. Same goes for the others here that hold onto the same failed, self-blinding philosophical paradigm.

And now this trope again - nobody can see what you see until they relax their standards first. That's not a selling point. You have yet to begin to suggest why they should. You apparently see yourself as being at some advantage for this softer thinking, which advantage others could enjoy as well if they just welcomed in what they currently reject. Isn't that also the promise of pie-in-the-sky religions - just let go, and there will be great rewards? Aren't you also making a similar false promise, except perhaps you envision the reward as coming during life rather than after it. But where is this reward? Where is it in you? What are you promising it can or might do for others as you repeatedly demean them for their myopic worldview? You offer nothing.

 

[F1fan]

None exists, anywhere in the universe, nor could they. They are an impossible "make-believe" solution to what is a complete mystery to us. But I can understand why you can't acknowledge this. As it's your main attacking point of theism.

You are way off track here. You theists love to exploit uncertainty and mystery because that is where you can assume your God hides. The word singularity is what experts use to refer to a natural phenomenon that existed as material. That aside you brought up thoughts as somehow being separate from material brains, and that is something you have not been able to defend.

All mystery means is: uncertain. It isn't an invitation to assume ancient religious belief. If you need to do that to satisfy some anxiety then knock yourself out. But it isn't fact-based or reasoned.

And once again you are trying to claim that language is nothing but sounds produced in the mouth. Or marks made on paper. Because you are a materialist that's trying to assert that physicality contains and determines reality. And that's just patently false.

I made no such claim, and I'm not sure why you are going off on this tangent as if it helps your supernatural asusmptions. Language is a utility. How brains use language is a different discussion, semiotics.

But you are never going to see this so long as you refuse to let go of it.

Ironic that you accuse me of holding on to something that should be let go. This could be projection as all I am doing is searching for what is true about how things are. I'm not looking for justification for adopted symbols and meanings as you are with your gods and religion.

I did. But you will not be able to grasp any of this so long as you continue to hold onto and defend your materialist meta-reality paradigm. Sorry, but I cannot do that for you. Same goes for the others here that hold onto the same failed, self-blinding philosophical paradigm.
To you, yes.

More of this bluffing? Im other words I won't be able to make religious conclusions until I make religious assumptions. I can't make those assumptions as they are not factual nor warranted for seeking true answers about what exists.

Theists bluff with this accusation as they are trapped in a prison of ideology and think their walls are all there is to see. It's quite absurd. Of course I'm not going to see your prison walls, and I don't care to be limited by that view.

One reason I like to debate is trying to fugure out why theists defend their illusory box and fear what exists outside of it. I find it interesting that theists decide what reality is, and then accuse others who refuse to adopt that view as being limited or missing something. It's as if adults lose something when they stop beliving in Santa Claus. Do we? Or are we illuminated and not longer stuck in a false belief? It's as if theists have decided they are what their box defines, and to live without the box means death. It would be the death of ego, and what is a mortal without their ego? Free.

 

[Muffled]

Does a god or gods exist?

There are many religions with the primary aim of worshipping god(s), some share their god(s) between religions, some god(s) are unique to a particular religion.

But who knows if the god(s) they worship are real or not?

I am atheist and say "no", god(s) do not exist. I have several good (in my opinion) reasons why my belief is strong.

Primarily, the lack of falsifiable evidence. I can add the futility of prayer, childhood leukemia, the mosquito, natural disasters, unavoidable suffering, science, inconsistency between religions, lack of need for god(s) etc among other reasons.

So how about you?
Are you religious or not?
And can you provide the main reasons for your belief/unbelief in god(s)

I am not here to pick and pull apart your reasons, i am genuinely interested in why you believe what you believe.

Thanks

I believe God is real because I know Him personally. The only way my testimony can be falsified is by those who lie.

 

[Muffled]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I've seen no arguments or evidence that suggest that gods exist.

Apparently, all this "God" stuff happens in the realm of the unseen. I'm sure some kind of stuff happens beyond what is empirically verifiable. But since I can't see it, I can't know it.

I'm pretty dubious of those who claim they do know. Not that I think they're wrong, but I can't for the life of me see how they're right. They've failed to make their case so far.

I don't believe people who think the case is not made are being honest with themselves.