So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 03:42 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 03:04 PM)Obie Wrote:  ... I feel we are better served in allowing a sort of organic and evolving approach in determining what may or may not be the case when it comes to the more ineffable phenomena ...

If I understood your OP you thought belief in a god premature because belief in something wasn't possible until you'd more or less seen or defined what to believe in, and nothing about any god has either been seen or defined (concretely), and I agree.

But you appear to believe in some some unseen undefined aspect of the universe that you just don't happen to call god, in direct contradiction to why you don't believe in gods.

It might be worth explaining detectable here so it doesn't trip up discussion: some things are directly detectable, but many things can only be detected by their effects, not directly. Several artifacts and phenomena have been predicted long before their direct detection, and some we don't think will ever be directly detected. But whether detected directly or indirectly, anything we consider real HAS been detected.

There is not one single example in all of science where scientists have put the lens cap back on the microscope and declared that something detectable wasn't just ONLY evidence of supernaturality but not even MAYBE evidence of supernaturality.

If something is detectable, whether directly or indirectly, it is ALWAYS accessible to scientific examination. There might be examples of detectable artifacts of the universe we as human beings may NEVER be able to adequately measure, or fully define, or fully understand. Our brains are only so many neurons and no more - there could be concepts beyond our capacity to grasp just as the brain of a cat would be incapable of playing a competent game of chess.

But what we CANNOT do is conjecture what such things might be precisely for the reason you gave in your OP for rejecting premature belief in a god - you can't pretend to define what is beyond your ability to define.

So what works best is to stick with what we can understand, and measure, and quantify, and see, even if indirectly. And to use science as the best tool yet developed to expand the breadth of what we do understand.

Conversations as these can go back and forth endlessly without realizing they are going round and round, and as they descend into finer levels of abstraction - and as semantics takes over and renders the whole conversation pointless. In short, written words are too limiting, I feel.

I cannot disagree with anything you stated. I just wonder exactly what I stated to cause you to state some of the things you stated. But I am not going to create any tedium here and instead, keep things more open-ended. When you say that anything that is detectable should also be measurable, you probably mean to say that anything that can be detected as external to us by any of the senses should be measurable, and I agree. But I wonder if there are things that we sense non-specifically and that may or may not exist, or be real, but that also defy observation or qualification.

I may have had more than my share of such experiences - like Sept 11th, 2001 - a day that of course will always be emblazoned in everyone's mind. But unlike many people, it is Sept 10th that will always be emblazoned in my mind as I was filled that day with such a foreboding that something really big and terrible was about to happen that I went out of my way where I worked to inform a couple co-workers - something I had never done before, and haven't done since. I was so compelled that I felt an almost duty to let someone else know. One can certainly guess the shock I felt the next morning. What this may point to is a type of knowing either on a quantum level or simply outside time and space - and hence, all objectivity - and of course outside present scientific methodology.

And finally, I wonder if the supposed "answers" to the more ineffable questions might reside on such a level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:19 PM)Obie Wrote:  But I wonder if there are things that we sense non-specifically and that may or may not exist, or be real, but that also defy observation or qualification.

"Sense non-specifically" is a nonsense phrase.

Things that cannot be deserved or qualified do not exist, by definition. There is no difference between those things and imaginary things.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
25-09-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Things that cannot be deserved or qualified do not exist, by definition. There is no difference between those things and imaginary things.

Going to have to disagree with you here.

We now know of many things that exist, that at one time were not observable.

There was no justification to believe they existed, until they were observed. But they definitely existed. Black holes, neutrinos, dark matter, etc all existed before we were able to observe them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 04:19 PM)Obie Wrote:  But I wonder if there are things that we sense non-specifically and that may or may not exist, or be real, but that also defy observation or qualification.

"Sense non-specifically" is a nonsense phrase.

Things that cannot be deserved or qualified do not exist, by definition. There is no difference between those things and imaginary things.

You of course would be epistemologically well-supported in your statement, and I have no reasonable case to oppose it - but I feel I have a somewhat rational one given my experience with the quantum physics of consciousness - as I might hypothesize that inasmuch as anything and everything first has to exist as a potentiality, that the potentiality for what happened on Sept 11th was a possibility that was vibrating with such probability on Sept 10th that my consciousness attuned to it at a very sublime level wherein I had a strong feeling without a specific knowing of what was going to happen or where.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:45 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Things that cannot be deserved or qualified do not exist, by definition. There is no difference between those things and imaginary things.

Going to have to disagree with you here.

We now know of many things that exist, that at one time were not observable.

Yes, I know. But that's not what I said.

Things that have not been observed exist, obviously. I am talking about things that cannot be observed. Ever. Under any circumstance. Entities which are defined as undetectable. The difference is critical.

For more information, you might be interested in reading the garage dragon thread. "Garage dragon" is shorthand for "an entity which is defined as undetectable and unobservable". By definition, they do not exist.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
25-09-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:50 PM)Obie Wrote:  You of course would be epistemologically well-supported in your statement, and I have no reasonable case to oppose it - but I feel I have a somewhat rational one given my experience with the quantum physics of consciousness

You have no experience with the quantum physics of consciousness. You have page after page of gibberish and nonsense which you attempt to label as that, but that is all.

(25-09-2015 04:50 PM)Obie Wrote:  as I might hypothesize that inasmuch as anything and everything first has to exist as a potentiality, that the potentiality for what happened on Sept 11th was a possibility that was vibrating with such probability on Sept 10th that my consciousness attuned to it at a very sublime level wherein I had a strong feeling without a specific knowing of what was going to happen or where.

This is more gibberish.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
25-09-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 04:45 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Going to have to disagree with you here.

We now know of many things that exist, that at one time were not observable.

Yes, I know. But that's not what I said.

Things that have not been observed exist, obviously. I am talking about things that cannot be observed. Ever. Under any circumstance. Entities which are defined as undetectable. The difference is critical.

For more information, you might be interested in reading the garage dragon thread. "Garage dragon" is shorthand for "an entity which is defined as undetectable and unobservable". By definition, they do not exist.

Got it.

Carry on...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:50 PM)Obie Wrote:  You of course would be epistemologically well-supported in your statement, and I have no reasonable case to oppose it - but I feel I have a somewhat rational one given my experience with the quantum physics of consciousness - as I might hypothesize that inasmuch as anything and everything first has to exist as a potentiality, that the potentiality for what happened on Sept 11th was a possibility that was vibrating with such probability on Sept 10th that my consciousness attuned to it at a very sublime level wherein I had a strong feeling without a specific knowing of what was going to happen or where.

Again with more unsupported claims, with words stung together as if they have some higher meaning, describing nothing.

"Deepities" as Daniel Dennett would describe them.

Why should we believe any of that? Why should be believe any of that is even possible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:19 PM)Obie Wrote:  ... I may have had more than my share of such experiences - like Sept 11th, 2001 - a day that of course will always be emblazoned in everyone's mind. But unlike many people, it is Sept 10th that will always be emblazoned in my mind as I was filled that day with such a foreboding that something really big and terrible was about to happen that I went out of my way where I worked to inform a couple co-workers - something I had never done before, and haven't done since. I was so compelled that I felt an almost duty to let someone else know. One can certainly guess the shock I felt the next morning. What this may point to is a type of knowing either on a quantum level or simply outside time and space - and hence, all objectivity - and of course outside present scientific methodology ...

I have a lengthy response to this but have to leave for a few days out the door in ten minutes so won't be back here 'till Monday or so but will say briefly that your experience Sept 10 has many possible explanations all within the realm of solidly validated scientific examination and that just because we personally find an experience mysterious is the LAST reason to suppose the experience outside any possible understanding - but now I'm getting yelled at to get my ass out the door so stand by!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(25-09-2015 04:59 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 04:50 PM)Obie Wrote:  You of course would be epistemologically well-supported in your statement, and I have no reasonable case to oppose it - but I feel I have a somewhat rational one given my experience with the quantum physics of consciousness - as I might hypothesize that inasmuch as anything and everything first has to exist as a potentiality, that the potentiality for what happened on Sept 11th was a possibility that was vibrating with such probability on Sept 10th that my consciousness attuned to it at a very sublime level wherein I had a strong feeling without a specific knowing of what was going to happen or where.

Again with more unsupported claims, with words stung together as if they have some higher meaning, describing nothing.

"Deepities" as Daniel Dennett would describe them.

Why should we believe any of that? Why should be believe any of that is even possible?

I appreciate the incredible component of what I offer - which is why I have suggested that people go to youtube and watch the eleven minute video by Dr.John Hagelin entitled Consciousness Part 1. He is a quantum physicist who is aligned with the TM movement, which I was also aligned with for 28 years - making such assertions that I have no idea what I am talking about a bit absurd. Deepak Chopra also cut his teeth on Maharishi's teachings - which is why I may sound like Deepak - only he does not give credit any more to where he derived his knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: