Originally posted by DigiMark007If you're referring to empirical evidence, I agree. But then, it is hardly fair to insist on empirical evidence for transcendent phenomena. However, this does not preclude the use of scientific method to obtain evidence which is fair, ie, which reflects the domain being studied (eg, you wouldn't use a microscope to study logic).
I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Justifications for a plausible extension of consciousness do exist (yours among them), I just don't find them likely since you're dealing with something that is as yet not backed by evidence, and we have nothing but the unanswered Hard Question to even give it the possibility of existing.
Originally posted by AllianceKeep in mind that a purely empirical approach to evidence is not science but scientism and is ultimately self-contradicting (ie, there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts"😉.
Its amazing to see into what positions people are willing to contort themselves.
It is difficult, I understand, for many to step outside the Western-Materialist paradigm (it is very compelling). Nonetheless, the most honest statement we can make is that the physical world correlates with the nonphysical, at the very least. Causation, on the other hand, is a (pun intended) leap of faith.
Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps, but we can all agree that its not as illogical as claiming an afterlife exists without any shread of evidence.
Co-sign. It's the burden of proof argument, which in this case rests solely with non-materialists.
Originally posted by Mindship
If you're referring to empirical evidence, I agree. But then, it is hardly fair to insist on empirical evidence for transcendent phenomena. However, this does not preclude the use of scientific method to obtain evidence which is fair, ie, which reflects the domain being studied (eg, you wouldn't use a microscope to study logic).Keep in mind that a purely empirical approach to evidence is not science but scientism and is ultimately self-contradicting (ie, there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts"😉.
It is difficult, I understand, for many to step outside the Western-Materialist paradigm (it is very compelling). Nonetheless, the most honest statement we can make is that the physical world correlates with the nonphysical, at the very least. Causation, on the other hand, is a (pun intended) leap of faith.
I don't think it's unfair at all. Non-material transcendant phenomenon, if they exist, do in fact have affects on the material world, if only indirectly. We perceive consciousness and are affetced by it. So if it truely is non-material, but affects the world, there should be some means for understanding it or perceiving it. And until any form of evidence presents itself, the burden of proof remains on the "transcendentalists'" shoulders. Truth is provisional, sure, so "believing" in strict materialism doesn't mean the belief can't change with proper evidence. But, lacking it, the logical stance is non-belief.
And arguing absolutist semantics of "empirical" gets us nowhere, and is mainly just a scapegoat. If "logical argument based on some form of evidence" works better for you, ok. But trying to trip people up over the meaning of empirical seem like it's little more than a loophole for getting around having to produce evidence for your beliefs. ALL reality is subjective, so we can't be certain of anything. Socrates, it seems, was right ("All I know is that I know nothing"😉. But from a practical standpoint, that does nothing toward gleaning the truth from flights of fancy.
And how is causality a leap of faith? We see determinism in action, both intuitively and scientifically, and have no reason to think otherwise. Assuming something exists without a cause, literally for no reason at all, is logically absurd. So ideas like free will or non-causality would seem, to me, the more outlandish claim.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, I think leaving all possibilities open is more logical.
No one has, as yet, dis-proved the existence of a teapot flying around Mars. We should, of course, be "open" to the possibility that it exists. No one has proven or disproved the omnipotence of Zeus. We should remain open to His divine infallibility. Claims of first-hand sightings of The Flying Spaghetti Monster circulate daily throughout the internet. Until further evidence is found, we must be open to the factual nature of these stories.
It's not logical. It only ignores our ability to reason logically, and uncover probable truths about the world around us by using our cognitive faculties. The stories I mentioned above can be safely ignored, and the same should always hold true for any claim if it is unsubstantiated or evidence to the contrary exists. There's no difference between the two...just people who are less willing to discard some illogical beliefs (the divinity of Jesus, for example) than others (Zeus).
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...No one has, as yet, dis-proved the existence of a teapot flying around Mars. We should, of course, be "open" to the possibility that it exists. No one has proven or disproved the omnipotence of Zeus. We should remain open to His divine infallibility. Claims of first-hand sightings of The Flying Spaghetti Monster circulate daily throughout the internet. Until further evidence is found, we must be open to the factual nature of these stories.It's not logical. It only ignores our ability to reason logically, and uncover probable truths about the world around us by using our cognitive faculties. The stories I mentioned above can be safely ignored, and the same should always hold true for any claim if it is unsubstantiated or evidence to the contrary exists. There's no difference between the two...just people who are less willing to discard some illogical beliefs (the divinity of Jesus, for example) than others (Zeus).
Well said.
Would you agree that people have the right to be illogical and believe what ever they want? The problem is when they try to place their illogical beliefs into a format (science) where it does not fit. It reminds me of a kid putting a square peg into a round hole, and using a hammer to do it.
Originally posted by MindshipWell, I know its hard for you to step outside of your bubble, but try thinking logically.
Nonetheless, the most honest statement we can make is that the physical world correlates with the nonphysical, at the very least.
If yours is such a good system, then why has practically any enduring attempt and this union failed?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, I think leaving all possibilities open is more logical.
So, they sky really IS made of waffles! YUM.
If there is no evidence, then leave it open. However, if there is evidence, we can pass a judgment. Multiple judgements makes a trend that happens to go against your point of view.
Originally posted by DigiMark007Do not see the big difference between the two? One is corporeal. One is not. Closing possibilities is not necessarily illogical, I haven't claimed as such. However, disbelieving in something just because it can't be proven is also limiting yourself. You don't have to believe it, but to toss it out and close your mind is stupid. Also, your snide remarks are laughable.
No one has, as yet, dis-proved the existence of a teapot flying around Mars. We should, of course, be "open" to the possibility that it exists. No one has proven or disproved the omnipotence of Zeus. We should remain open to His divine infallibility. Claims of first-hand sightings of The Flying Spaghetti Monster circulate daily throughout the internet. Until further evidence is found, we must be open to the factual nature of these stories.It's not logical. It only ignores our ability to reason logically, and uncover probable truths about the world around us by using our cognitive faculties. The stories I mentioned above can be safely ignored, and the same should always hold true for any claim if it is unsubstantiated or evidence to the contrary exists. There's no difference between the two...just people who are less willing to discard some illogical beliefs (the divinity of Jesus, for example) than others (Zeus).
Originally posted by DigiMark007Absolutely: an unequivocal correlation of transcendent phenomena with the material world would be wonderful. But then, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 😉
I don't think it's unfair at all. Non-material transcendant phenomenon, if they exist, do in fact have affects on the material world, if only indirectly. ... so "believing" in strict materialism doesn't mean the belief can't change with proper evidence. But, lacking it, the logical stance is non-belief.
For me, the logical stance is, use what works.
ALL reality is subjective, so we can't be certain of anything. ... But from a practical standpoint, that does nothing toward gleaning the truth from flights of fancy.This is what's valuable about scientific method. It seems to give us the best as-ifs going. But I prefer to hold onto that "we can't be certain of anything" as the cornerstone of my POV, and I move from there in a practical manner, hopefully to discover truth along the way.
And how is causality a leap of faith? We see determinism in action,A plane of colored glass changes the light coming through it, but it does not create the light.
Please understand: I don't knock the materialist position. It is a very compelling paradigm, it is very practical, only a fool, IMO, would deliberately disregard it. I just don't see the point of saying, Well, that's all there is. As I mentioned at the start, I personally don't see any practical value to atheism.
Originally posted by AlliancePlease explain what you mean.
If yours is such a good system, then why has practically any enduring attempt and this union failed?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Do not see the big difference between the two? One is corporeal. One is not. Closing possibilities is not necessarily illogical, I haven't claimed as such. However, disbelieving in something just because it can't be proven is also limiting yourself. You don't have to believe it, but to toss it out and close your mind is stupid. Also, your snide remarks are laughable.
Nellinator, it's not that simple though.
Understand that at this point in my life, I respect you as a Christian, and respect you choice and identity as one. So I, in no way, am trying to destroy your Faith, or call you away from what you have chosen to beleive and live by. Honest.
But there is one major reason I do not beleive in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Hell.
The Christian/Judeo/Muslim intepretation of Hell is a logical impossibility to me.
You know why...but incase others don't, this is why:
If you beleive in God and go to Heaven but someone you love didn't and goes to Hell, how could you possibly be happy in Heaven when someone you truly love is suffering in Hell ?
You can't.
If you truly love the person who went to Hell, your mind and soul will never be at peace for what is happening to them, no matter what God says or does.
If God erases your memory of your loved one, than he is a deciever by default, because he is hiding the truth from you.
So there's a paradox there. Heaven and Hell can't logically co-exist in the same realm of beleif.
My point is: There are many complicated reasons as for why people disregard Christianity Nellinator. It's not a simple matter of no evidense. It's also a matter of what problems the belief itself causes.
I hope you can understand that. I don't see how you wouldn't.
You can still beleive in God, and revere Jesus Christ, without thinking the Bible is flawless and without believing in Hell. Or do you truly beleive that the Bible absolutely defines what God, Jesus, and Life are ?
If so, it seems to me that you worship a book more than the being it is dedicated to.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Do not see the big difference between the two? One is corporeal. One is not. Closing possibilities is not necessarily illogical, I haven't claimed as such. However, disbelieving in something just because it can't be proven is also limiting yourself. You don't have to believe it, but to toss it out and close your mind is stupid. Also, your snide remarks are laughable.
his "snide" remarks are extremes. extremes always ALWAYS come into play. you said all possibilities. you didnt say all possibilities except the extremely rediculus ones. god could be put in there in exchange for the flying spaghetti monster digi loves to use. there is no proof. the extremes validate or disporve a statement. and personally if you dont find humor in them, see a therapist.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If you beleive in God and go to Heaven but someone you love didn't and goes to Hell, how could you possibly be happy in Heaven when someone you truly love is suffering in Hell ?You can't.
If you truly love the person who went to Hell, your mind and soul will never be at peace for what is happening to them, no matter what God says or does.
If God erases your memory of your loved one, than he is a deciever by default, because he is hiding the truth from you.
So there's a paradox there. Heaven and Hell can't logically co-exist in the same realm of beleif.
EDIT: Additionally, if not letting someone know everything is being a deceiver, then God was a deceiver from the beginning--He kept the knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve to protect them.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I already answered this. Remember when you got pissy and then QQed to the mods about how I was a meanie?EDIT: Additionally, if not letting someone know everything is being a deceiver, then God was a deceiver from the beginning--He kept the knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve to protect them.
exactly. gods a dick for even making evil. he knew human nature was curiosity. therefore he knew from the start they would take the fruit. duh