Judgement. The only purpose of descriptions is to place judgement and seperation when in reality there is no distinction and judgement is merely a reflection of the ego. My point, which you keep rolling over, is that nothing can be 100% accurate because there is no way for you to verify it's accuracy outside of yourself. Your beloved science says 95% reproducability equals fact, that's far from 100%. Breaking down the descriptions we've been taught by the "other flakes" (you're so biased) is the purpose, except you don't try to break down what you've been taught by your flakes, you just support them and hope they'll define your reality for you so you don't have to worry about it.Ego_Lost said:I'm getting the feeling here that a description of something is only a description to you two if it is %100 accurate, encompases every aspect of whatever the subject is talking about and is able to be perceived by the descriptee just as it was perceived by you. This is not so and can never be. It is unnecessary though. A description can still be a very usefull tool. Without a description of what reality "really" is by various spiritual leaders and other flakes you wouldnt be debating most of the stuff on this thread. Most things you've learned have come initially from a description. You may get better at what you do through experience, but typically you start with pure description. How vague and personal can others descriptions be if most of your knowledge has begun with them?
I asked you to. I know my definition, but you first, hehe.Ego_Lost said:You can't describe love Ceb? Not even to yourself? How do you know when you feel it?
How are they reliably verifiable? How is your proof any different than a Christian finding Jesus in his grilled cheese and calling it a message from God? Proof is personal and you refuse to allow anything outside of your religion (science) to be proven to you because it would require methods that are not accepted by your religion. Show me the difference.Ego_Lost said:Confusion, anxiety and passion are not senses. They are at best perceptions of senses, but not always. I do not neglect the possiblity of a sense not yet defined by science. I experience 5 senses that can be stimulated externally and are verifiable. Until I experience a 6th, or someone else does and can prove it, then there are only 5.
Probability. Not fact. That's my point. That percentage of fallibility makes the entire system unreliable.Ego_Lost said:Chemical equations are exercises in probabilty; the same as any example of the sub-atomic or quantum worlds. They are not chaotic or unperdictable, they're just complicated. They are descriptions of a system with known and defined variables. Because there can be other variables that we are unaware of, they can be wrong or inefficient. In some cases you may know all of the variables, you just cant do anything about them. In those cases the equations themselves will typically tell you the probabilty.
So? You can apply the scientific method to everything, as well as the Touch of God theory. It's all perspective, opinion, and definitions, all of which are exclusively personal. Without giving the apples the variable names: Apple One, Apple Two, Apple Three, and Apple Four. You would just have apples. Not four apples. That's my point. Having four apples is no better or worse than just having apples.Ego_Lost said:Ceb, what do you mean when you say math is a system within itself? You can apply math to nearly every aspect of this reality.
About time! Man, I've been waiting for this to be brought up by one of you science folk for a while now. Onward, hehe.Ego_Lost said:A quick sidetrack from this argument over the validity of the physical. How do we even know the mind exists.
I do too, but no more valid, and no less. Equal. Though I don't think it's a wholly accurate and infallible system of belief, I can surely appreciate a person's want and need to adhere to a system that he believes in.Ego_Lost said:In my assumed (see guys, I assumed, I admit it. Just go with me cause and effect universe, everything you feel, think and do is a reaction to countless other events that have happened before. What is mind then? Just another effect in the chain. Mind is what you have dubbed your own thoughts in order to make yourself feel important or in control. Your decisions are in effect already made. Mind is your brains reactions to stimuli and the tool used in some cases to enact the next "cause" in the universe. I think my cause and effect physical universe is just as valid as your pure mind universe.
No system available is convincing enough. But regardless of that, I choose this path for the exact same reason you choose yours, because everything lines up, makes sense, and strengthens my perspective so it seems personally hindering to choose any other path.Ego_Lost said:Why do you choose your path?
You make the assumption of believing what you see is separate from you. That there is an external world. You've never perceived anything outside of yourself or your mind. Are the thoughts you're thinking of you? Or are they just a product of cause and effect from your external reality? Everything is in the mind my friend. Your perceptions, your understanding, all that you know, is of the mind. All came from within. Out there is an illusion. Separation is illusion. I can't better explain it.Ego_Lost;1502020 said:I'm getting the feeling here that a description of something is only a description to you two if it is %100 accurate, encompases every aspect of whatever the subject is talking about and is able to be perceived by the descriptee just as it was perceived by you. This is not so and can never be. It is unnecessary though. A description can still be a very usefull tool. Without a description of what reality "really" is by various spiritual leaders and other flakes you wouldnt be debating most of the stuff on this thread. Most things you've learned have come initially from a description. You may get better at what you do through experience, but typically you start with pure description. How vague and personal can others descriptions be if most of your knowledge has begun with them?
You're starting to catch on. What love is, is known only to you. YOU give meaning to all things, not language. Language is of you, the definitions are defined by YOU.You can't describe love Ceb? Not even to yourself? How do you know when you feel it?
Please explain to me this external stimulation you're able to perceive? I assume that would mean perceiving your senses free from your mind? I've never done that. How is it possible? External is not verifiable in any way. External is an illusion you've bought into.Confusion, anxiety and passion are not senses. They are at best perceptions of senses, but not always. I do not neglect the possiblity of a sense not yet defined by science. I experience 5 senses that can be stimulated externally and are verifiable. Until I experience a 6th, or someone else does and can prove it, then there are only 5.
If you can only predict the probability of outcomes, the outcome sure as fuck isn't predictable. I can't believe someone just said quantum mechanics was predictable. Just because an outcome is more probable than others doesn't mean it's what will happen.Chemical equations are exercises in probabilty; the same as any example of the sub-atomic or quantum worlds. They are not chaotic or unperdictable, they're just complicated. They are descriptions of a system with known and defined variables. Because there can be other variables that we are unaware of, they can be wrong or inefficient. In some cases you may know all of the variables, you just cant do anything about them. In those cases the equations themselves will typically tell you the probabilty.
I;m not feeling very creative, so I'll throw the basics at you. Explain yourself with a math equation. Show me the math equation that proves love exists.Ceb, what do you mean when you say math is a system within itself? You can apply math to nearly every aspect of this reality.
No. I'm saying you're making an assumption that you're separate from the universe. There are no equations that explain consciousness or predict you. All theories are theories of the self. Theories of how the mind operates. They're telling you, about how you operate. Accepting that 2+2=4 not because that's how the eternal world operates, but how your mind operates, is the next step in truly understanding things. Everything is in the mind. You can't draw a line and say this is me, this is the external world. You just have to think about it for awhile. Meditate on it man.Ape, what do you mean when you say that for an equation to be true it has to expalin you? There are equations to explain what you are made of and how it all works. None of it is complete of course, but it is a good start.
I get the feeling you may be talking about the why of it all? Good luck with that. Why is one of the worst questions we as a species could possibly ask at the moment.
Well, by your own admission the quantum world is that of probability. I don't see how you can then make the conclusion that the mind is predictable. As if to say you're separate from the quantum world?A quick sidetrack from this argument over the validity of the physical. How do we even know the mind exists. In my assumed (see guys, I assumed, I admit it. Just go with me cause and effect universe, everything you feel, think and do is a reaction to countless other events that have happened before. What is mind then? Just another effect in the chain. Mind is what you have dubbed your own thoughts in order to make yourself feel important or in control. Your decisions are in effect already made. Mind is your brains reactions to stimuli and the tool used in some cases to enact the next "cause" in the universe. I think my cause and effect physical universe is just as valid as your pure mind universe. Why do you choose your path?
tangerine1490;1497458 said:i'm not going to get into an indepth religious discussion, but i will say that i cannot stand it when a religion takes a "my way or no way" approach.
Mara;1502489 said:Very appropriate point. That's the real problem with Western religion and Islamic Fundamentalism. The older I get, the more I realize that religious leaders have no greater knowledge of God than anyone else. There has been many a time throughout history when certain religions became powerful enough militarily, that they have brought out the convert or die approach. It's hard for me to take tear-wrenching discussions about the Holocaust, for example, seriously from people who are Catholic. Ultimately when you are putting a dollar into the tithe bucket of a Catholic church, you are supporting the Pope and his missions.
Historical accounts about what the Pope did to the Cathars, and the inquisition itself should be clear enough evidence that this guy has no direct pipeline to a supreme power. And if he does, well then I'm happy being on the other side of the battle for my soul. So in my mind, followers of Catholicism are little different than members of the Neo-Nazi party. But hey, I don't want to single them out, it's all about the my way or the highway approach they have taken in their past, and the refusal of current people to acknowledge their sordid past.
Religion is a form of government. Built to control the masses. If it gets too powerful, bad things start to happen.
As far as polls go. Most polls never come out and tell you directly how or where they collected their information. For all I know, this could be an exit poll from a local Sunday church session. Lately I've started asking myself the question, why are they telling me this information - and what can be gained by who by giving it to me. I think polls are generally used for peer pressure motives, like - this is what most Americans think, why don't you?
There are so many persuasive tools that government and religion have at their disposal, it is no wonder we can get really caught up in things that aren't based on factual evidence. All I know is that I just don't know, and neither does anyone else with any reliable certainty.
Underwater Ape;1502541 said:I don't think like your blanket assumption that religion is a form of government built to control the masses. I don't see that applying to a lot of eastern religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism for example. All of these are extremely tolerant of people of any faith or no faith at all. They all focus entirely on improving and understanding yourself. It's all your choice. Finding out for yourself. They simply provide a path. They won't ever ask you to believe in anything. Discover what's true to you. I don't think I've ever seen someone say living a Buddhist lifestyle gave them a false understanding of the world or that it was used to control them. It's far far from that.
Mara;1502547 said:Yeah, you are right. Good reply, I shouldn't have made a blanket statement. I don't have too much of a problem with the religions you've mentioned. I still maintain the idea that 'certain' religions operate as a form of government. They get people to do or not do things the church leaders deem necessary. They collect funds. They form a sort of faction of like minded individuals that are loyal to eachother. Sometimes this sort of thing is necessary, but it certainly comes with a lot of problems and corruption.
Why?impact-; said:There is a God, plain and simple. Something had to create everything in the universe.
Why?impact-; said:Physics is ignorant. The Big Bang theory is not logical, and sounds more ridiculous than a superior being.
You can see the atom using a microscope. Why is that not proof?impact-; said:I mean, the atom is still a theory, and they can't even prove that, let alone how the universe was created.
Good quote.impact-; said:"The probability that the universe came into being by chance is analogous to the notion that the dictionary originated from an explosion in a print shop."
- Albert Einstein
Darkness;1315513 said:I am not religious. For me, religion is a weird concept. You have to believe in something that can never be proven and it is used to excuse a lot of stuff. I prefer logic and science to explain how things work, even if not all things can be answered that way.
Grad;1505419 said:I'll start by saying some things:
It is absolutely not possible that if there is a God, he is dead. I think that "God" is not the word you're looking for if you make that statement.
.