[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

madera23 · Jul 27, 2015

Davian said:
Accurate descriptions of reality.

No, I do not seek religion.

Yikes! How creepy.

What 'lower nature'?

I do not get angry, but I would feel bad about hurting anyone. Why do you ask?

To avoid self-deception, I believe one should be most critical of what one really wants to be true.

Davian
Anger is hard on the health and emotions.
I am not religious, I have never gone to church so studying religion is off the list. That is just an intellectual path, not spiritual.
I can easily see, you are not ready, when you find yourself sick or in some serious problem, that could make your life miserable, perhaps that is what it will take for you to need a relationship with a higher source.
I was a very angry person, migraine headaches, angry, emotionally ill. That pain caused me to cry out for help and I found it.
So worry not, life has its downs and if that is what it takes, so be it.
Please don't study religion to learn, scan scripture and see what stands out to you, let all the rest go.
Good luck
Madera

Davian · Jul 27, 2015

madera23 said:
sorry, did I hurt your manhood?

lol. No offence taken.

Davian · Jul 27, 2015

madera23 said:
Davian
Anger is hard on the health and emotions.

Indeed. I live my life without anger.

I am not religious, I have never gone to church so studying religion is off the list. That is just an intellectual path, not spiritual.
I can easily see, you are not ready, when you find yourself sick or in some serious problem, that could make your life miserable, perhaps that is what it will take for you to need a relationship with a higher source.

I do note that the religious do prey on those that are down and out, and desperate for any promise of hope. Why can they not make a case for those that are not desperate, for this alleged "higher power"?

I was a very angry person, migraine headaches, angry, emotionally ill. That pain caused me to cry out for help and I found it.
So worry not, life has its downs and if that is what it takes, so be it.
Please don't study religion to learn, scan scripture and see what stands out to you, let all the rest go.
Good luck
Madera

Is this anything other than an endorsement for the placebo effect?

madera23 · Jul 27, 2015

Davian said:
Indeed. I live my life without anger.

I do note that the religious do prey on those that are down and out, and desperate for any promise of hope. Why can they not make a case for those that are not desperate, for this alleged "higher power"?

Is this anything other than an endorsement for the placebo effect?

I gave you my best.
Madera

Chriliman · Jul 27, 2015

Is it possible for you to view me as a reasonable person, rather than a religious zealot? It's very important for you to be able to view me as a reasonable person, is this something you can do? If you can't do this then you automatically assume I have religious motives, when all I really want to do is get you to think. I'm just looking for honest answers to these honest questions.

paulm50 said:
Disprove it.

You realize this is no different than you asking me if I can prove God and me saying "disprove it"...do you see how its very unreasonable for you to ask me to disprove non-existence? How about instead, we actually think about it and determine what is most reasonable to believe? capeesh?

First of all, it would be reasonable to believe that if an entity were to prove that existence can exist outside of time and space, this entity would have to actually be outside time and space in order to prove this, does that make sense?

Also, we can think about non-existence from our perspective. It seems unreasonable to believe in non-existence because in order for non-existence to be proven to something that exists(like us), non-existence would have to exist in order to be known, so why believe in something that can never be proven as true? Does that make sense?

paulm50 said:
Once, before we gained knowledge, that was what we believed.

Right, so then after gaining this knowledge it becomes unreasonable to believe the earth is flat, correct?

paulm50 said:
My reality is what I can see or have seen. I trust that Australia is real, even though I have never seen it.

This shows its reasonable to believe in something that you can't physically see, simply because its reasonable to believe that Australia exists because you might of seen images or videos of Australia, but these images and videos are not physically Australia. So you trust Australia exists based on indirect evidence of physical Australia, does that make sense?

Chriliman · Jul 27, 2015

Davian said:
There is nothing to prove.

Actually, there would be something to prove because I don't believe in non-existence, simply because its unreasonable to believe in something that can't possibly be proven to be true.

If you say "there is nothing to prove" does that mean you don't believe in non-existence, meaning you accept the truth that non-existence is impossible?

Davian said:
existence; noun

the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Can you think of reality as being subjectively objective (when a human mind is trying to be as objective as possible) as well as unalterably objective (when there is no human mind involved at all)? If you can think of reality in this way, then reality is either subjectively objective or unalterably objective, make sense?

Davian said:
Without time and space, there is nothing to measure.

"measuring" would become irrelevant without time and space. If an entity exists outside time and space it would simply "be". It would be in a state incomprehensible to our current subjective state of existence.

Davian said:
Now, if you would like to define "existence" as something else, then do so, and shoulder your burden of proof.

My definition of existence is that everything that exists can never go out of existence, simply because existence is infinite and timeless. I believe this because it makes sense and the evidence I'm presenting is not physical, but rathe logical reason that makes sense.

Davian said:
I do not accept your religious opinions as 'truth'.

I wasn't referring to religious truth, I was referring to the truth that the earth is a globe. Please try to not assume I have religious motives, I'm honestly just asking questions and expecting honest answers.

Davian said:
Irrelevant.

How is the fact that humans cannot perfectly describe reality irrelevant? The fact that humans cannot perfectly describe reality is the very reason we are having this conversation. So don't you think its extremely relevant to determine why humans can't perfectly describe reality, seeing as how it causes every single disagreement ever known to man? Could it then be reasonable to conclude that determining why we can't perfectly describe reality could be the most important thing humans ever do?

bhsmte · Jul 27, 2015

madera23 said:
sorry, did I hurt your manhood?

If you hurt his manhood, his response would have been different, than just a benign; she?

Davian · Jul 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Is it possible for you to view me as a reasonable person, rather than a religious zealot?
...

A little late to be asking that, having established your posting behaviour.

^_^

Chriliman · Jul 27, 2015

Davian said:
A little late to be asking that, having established your posting behaviour.

Thanks for proving my point about assuming you know the truth rather than observing and determining the actual truth.

It seems I was right all along, athiests and even seekers can't honestly answer tough questions about reality. The sooner you confront these questions honestly the sooner you'll see the truth

dlamberth · Jul 27, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
How seriously should I take your claim if no one can accurately describe reality?

Interesting question. I'd say by looking at the infinite variety of things that our consciousness picks up in ones life experiences that effect who we are as a person. Our life experiences effects and build on to what makes our reality, our reality. No two people ever have the same life experiences and thus reality.

Even though we live in our reality, I wasn't describing reality because I don't believe we can do that. That's why I said that we are "much more than a mixture of mechanical/chemical/physical chunk of meat". There's a lot of other stuff going on in side of us that makes us who we are.

.

dlamberth · Jul 27, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
Sure, but some of those descriptions of reality allow for the creation of powerful vaccines, computers or the landing of spacecraft on the moons of Saturn.

Are they descriptions of reality? Or as I think, only things of the physical world, which isn't a description of reality at all.

.

dlamberth · Jul 27, 2015

Davian said:
Actually, we are in a philosophy forum, that has the following statement of purpose:

Let me re-word what I was hoping to say with an example. I'm a very spiritual person. Not only the physical world but also the spiritual is part of my reality. Both come into play and effects how I think, what I see, how I feel and how I experience life and more. Your not spiritual. You don't even know what it is, if I remember correctly. So right off the bat we are working from different realities. My yard stick has different measurements than yours. And your here in a forum where people talk spiritual talk while your trying to get them to use your yard stick. It just isn't going to work. Once tasted, that spiritual aspect of life can't be taken out of a person. I'm not suggesting that you take anyone's beliefs as your own. We each have our own path to walk. I have mine, you have yours. That's the way it is...it's reality. What I was suggesting is to at least find out what "spiritual" is.

.

Davian · Jul 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Actually, there would be something to prove because I don't believe in non-existence, simply because its unreasonable to believe in something that can't possibly be proven to be true.

So you would expect me to prove what cannot possibly proven to be true because you don't believe in it. Say again?

If you say "there is nothing to prove" does that mean you don't believe in non-existence, meaning you accept the truth that non-existence is impossible?

No.

Can you think of reality as being subjectively objective (when a human mind is trying to be as objective as possible) as well as unalterably objective (when there is no human mind involved at all)? If you can think of reality in this way, then reality is either subjectively objective or unalterably objective, make sense?

No.

"measuring" would become irrelevant without time and space. If an entity exists outside time and space it would simply "be". It would be in a state incomprehensible to our current subjective state of existence.

Do you really want to challenge non-existent with incomprehensible? ^_^

My definition of existence is that everything that exists can never go out of existence, simply because existence is infinite and timeless. I believe this because it makes sense and the evidence I'm presenting is not physical, but rathe logical reason that makes sense.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, where resorting to your own definitions of words is interpreted as desperation. :wave:

I wasn't referring to religious truth, I was referring to the truth that the earth is a globe. Please try to not assume I have religious motives, I'm honestly just asking questions and expecting honest answers.

Do you think I was born yesterday?

How is the fact that humans cannot perfectly describe reality irrelevant?

Yes.

The fact that humans cannot perfectly describe reality is the very reason we are having this conversation.

No, it is because you are unable to establish gods as anything other than characters in books.

So don't you think its extremely relevant to determine why humans can't perfectly describe reality, seeing as how it causes every single disagreement ever known to man?

Citation please.

Could it then be reasonable to conclude that determining why we can't perfectly describe reality could be the most important thing humans ever do?

No. Evolutionarily speaking, the most important thing we do is not to cause ourselves to go extinct through the destruction of our own ecosystem. Philosophical squabbles like this are only for entertainment.

Davian · Jul 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
Thanks for proving my point about assuming you know the truth

I don't assume to know the truth, but that in no way stops me from seeing through your transparent unevidenced religious assertions as just that.

rather than observing and determining the actual truth.

You mean, agreeing with you. ^_^

It seems I was right all along,

Not really.

athiests and even seekers can't honestly answer tough questions about reality.

Putting some words together, with a question mark at the end does not automatically form coherent questions, tough or otherwise.

The sooner you confront these questions honestly

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

the sooner you'll see the truth

I do not accept your religious opinions as "truth". :wave:

Keep in mind, I'm just a n00b at all this, and you are the one that allegedly has a all-powerful all-knowing deity rising shogun in their life; but from what I observe of your posts, it certainly doesn't look like it.

Davian · Jul 28, 2015

dlamberth said:
Are they descriptions of reality?

Do you think than an inaccurate description of reality would produce the same level of success in those areas?

Or as I think, only things of the physical world, which isn't a description of reality at all.

.

Maybe you should try to figure out what you mean by "reality". Perhaps, check a dictionary.

dlamberth · Jul 28, 2015

ScottA said:
The problem I see there is that "incarnate" describes God coming in the flesh as Christ...but that flesh dies, and we [in the flesh] die with him in the crucifixion. So rather than God coming in the flesh as us...he would have to come in the Spirit, in us...meaning, that just as the scriptures say, "It is not we who now live, but Christ in us."

We may differ on the details, but all I was trying to do is give clearer sense of what I was looking at when I used the words "Divine Center of Being". It was not a form of self-centerness as you suggested in post 669. It's a spiritual suggestion of where Christ and God meet.

.

Davian · Jul 28, 2015

dlamberth said:
Let me re-word what I was hoping to say with an example. I'm a very spiritual person. Not only the physical world but also the spiritual is part of my reality. Both come into play and effects how I think, what I see, how I feel and how I experience life and more. Your not spiritual. You don't even know what it is, if I remember correctly. So right off the bat we are working from different realities. My yard stick has different measurements than yours.

What are those measurements, and how do they differ?

And your here in a forum where people talk spiritual talk while your trying to get them to use your yard stick.

Yet none of these "spiritual" people seem to agree on much, with thousands of gods, religions, and tens of thousands of denominations, sects, and interpretations within those. It is like there is no "god" behind all of it.

It just isn't going to work.

Not my problem. I am only here to observe.

Once tasted, that spiritual aspect of life can't be taken out of a person.

I disagree. I cannot speak from personal experience, but I have heard of many here that are no longer religious, no longer believe.

I'm not suggesting that you take anyone's beliefs as your own. We each have our own path to walk. I have mine, you have yours. That's the way it is...it's reality.

I still do not know what you mean by "reality".

What I was suggesting is to at least find out what "spiritual" is.

I have found out. From what I have gathered in these forums, "spiritual" is the equivalent to "imaginary".

dlamberth · Jul 28, 2015

Davian said:
Do you think than an inaccurate description of reality would produce the same level of success in those areas?

Descriptions are not reality. No one can measure reality any more than they can measure love.

Maybe you should try to figure out what you mean by "reality". Perhaps, check a dictionary.

Oh, I have. Because I read it with a spiritual twist, I see something in the definition that you don't. That's just the way it is.

.

Freodin · Jul 28, 2015

ScottA said:
That is just a list of religious commentaries, not prophets.

You mean: "Not-True-Prophets (tm)"?
Well, most of them where people who asserted that they were in possessing of "truth"... and that "truth" included to knoweledge of events that, quite obviously, didn't happen.

I told you what the end means when the world keeps going on. It's personal death. But you simply don't understand.

I just recently had this nice little discussion with Crilliman here, where he asserted that the existence of the world was not dependent on our consciousness. If you disagree, you should take up that point with your fellow Christian.

From this side death happens at the end of "our" time. But from the greater, eternal reality, it is ALL simultaneous. And to finish the explanation: When all of "our" times are finished, then the [collective] end will come.

Hm. So when you say "...the universe is like make-believe temporary passion, soon to be complete and thrown in the trash." you really mean: "You will die. The universe will carry on for all the other people, but you personally will die."?
But that doesn't jive either: if you were making that statement from "the greater, eternal reality"... the universe would not be completed and thrown in the trash "soon". It is all simulaneous. It would be "now".

But of course neither the terms "now" nor "soon" do have any meaning in an atemporal setting.

That would only be true for the tail, if the tail thought it might wag the dog. Not going to happen.

Tail and dog are part of the same reality. And they are consistent. Not a good analogy you tried to use here.

What thing?

The thing that does not tick.

Yes, that is the point. The world is made up of millions of hypothetical analogies, that is its purpose: To demonstrate. And if you want to go further, you have to go beyond the world of analogies...beyond the natural world.

If that was correct: you have already demonstrated that you are quite bad at handling analogies. What does that tell us about your access to this "beyond"?[/QUOTE]

dlamberth · Jul 28, 2015

Davian said:
What are those measurements, and how do they differ?

Yet none of these "spiritual" people seem to agree on much, with thousands of gods, religions, and tens of thousands of denominations, sects, and interpretations within those. It is like there is no "god" behind all of it.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! There are as many realities as there are human beings.

Not my problem. I am only here to observe.

Click to expand...

No...your here for other reasons as well.

I disagree. I cannot speak from personal experience, but I have heard of many here that are no longer religious, no longer believe.

Click to expand...

I'm not religions nor are most of the spiritual people I hang out with. And we try hard to be without beliefs. I think that just get into the way. So I'm not buying the idea that once bitten by the spiritual experience a person can learn to not know what it's about. It's like riding a bike, you never forget.

Being spiritually awakened has nothing to do with "beliefs".

I still do not know what you mean by "reality".

Click to expand...

I've never tried to explain it because I know that I can't. I get a sense that for you reality only includes the physical world. For me, it doesn't. It includes much more.

I have found out. From what I have gathered in these forums, "spiritual" is the equivalent to "imaginary".

Click to expand...

I'd say it's another way of seeing or experiencing and living life.

.

[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

Newbie

fallible

fallible

Newbie

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Newbie

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

fallible

fallible

fallible

Senior Contributor

fallible

Senior Contributor

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Senior Contributor

Similar threads