- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,031
- 52,627
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
But not proper.
That's what you can't say: that it was done with proper respect.
Thanks for the QED.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But not proper.More like it was done with an extreme respect of it in mind.
When a 'proper' interpretation involves a literal interpretation, we get extremism.But not proper.
That's what you can't say: that it was done with proper respect.
Thanks for the QED.
Its not about promoting any particular religion. Its about the values we live by and they were and are based on Christian values. But as far as I understand the US government did express Christian beliefs and values explicitly in its early forming years. IE we are created in Gods image. There were many references to the Christian God.That doesn't mean that it's okay for states to promote Christianity.
The treaty of Tripoli actually does differentiate the US as holding Christian values. The US was expressing its position as far as allowing any religion to dictate terms. But when it came to belief they identified themselves as being Christian as opposed to Muslims.And need I remind you that the treaty of Tripoli expressly claims that the USA was not founded to be based on the Christian religion?
I agree. The point was that consciousness makes a difference as far as reality is concerned. If consciousness is a form of field that can interact with the physical world (particles and fields) then a universe with consciousness will have this additional aspect of reality.Sure, we can recognise and contemplate that a universe without consciousness would be a different kind of universe - because it would have no consciousness in it.
We can describe and enumerate all the properties such a universe might have - but what we can't do, by definition, is to say what it would be like to experience.
The great thing about conscious experience is that we can invoke these experiences without actually being there in the moment. The thought of delicious food makes the mouth water, imagining danger can bring the experience to the fore and we begin to react physically.Sure. But the experiences we have thinking about something are not experiences of that thing. The experience of thinking about being in a vacuum or on a roller-coaster is not the same as the experience of being in a vacuum or on a roller-coaster.
But we would know it would be different. I think if we had to choose we would choose a universe with consciousness even without knowing what the difference is.We don't know the difference because, by definition, we can only experience 'one side of that possibility'. IOW, we can't know what it is like to not have consciousness - that's an oxymoron.
I realize this but my point was this has not stopped ideas in science being viable and real options to explain reality. So the idea of consciousness as necessary and fundamental to reality can also be a viable option. In fact it may be the better option.Exactly, that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Yep sure did mean moot.BTW, 'mute' means silent or dumb - did you mean 'moot'?
I guess what I am saying is its not all about experience to understand the differences. But also our present experience tells us that this is the right place and time for us to be here and no other alternative matters.Not sure what you're trying to say here, but what we know now is a universe with conscious beings which can attribute meaning to things.
That's why I think consciousness is everything.would not be in a universe without consciousness
The concept of love only exists for beings that can love, be loved, enjoy love, miss love, or imagine love. Love is meaningless and irrelevant in the absence of such beings.
We are artificial selectors sometimes in harmony with nature often not. But as a result we control the direction of evolution (natural selection).In what way do the things we enact 'go beyond evolution'? Individuals still vary, various forms of selection still mean that some are more and some are less reproductively successful than others.
Science exists because God exists. Scientists get their knowledge from God. God is in everything and everywhere. He is the Universe. Flowers know when to bloom, animals know when to mate, stars know where to be in the sky because someone is directing them. And that someone is GodA Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?
Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.
Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.
Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.
Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.
For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?
I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.
So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.
Sure - and we have consciousness - that's how we can contemplate the properties of a universe that lacks consciousness... and there's nothing to say what 'would be a different kind universe', too.
We need consciousness to infer both 'is' and 'universe'.
I don't know what you're saying here. I'm talking about conscious beings, e.g. us, in our universe of conscious beings, contemplating the properties of a universe that doesn't contain conscious beings, e.g. one in the multiverse that has physical laws that preclude complex structures.We'd have to start from scratch in order to distinguish, (which is an experience btw), ourselves from other sensations.
In that situation, there's no guarantees we'd necessarily infer 'a universe external from ourselves'.
Of course.So too, is 'what a universe is'.
If you think that consciousness is real, then whatever it is, a universe with consciousness will have it as an additional aspect of reality compared to a universe without it. Why do you think it makes a difference if it's a 'form of field' - and if you don't, why mention it?The point was that consciousness makes a difference as far as reality is concerned. If consciousness is a form of field that can interact with the physical world (particles and fields) then a universe with consciousness will have this additional aspect of reality.
Obviously, conscious life is an inherent possibility of our universe - because here we are! But that doesn't mean conscious life was inevitable.I think that conscious life is an inevitable result of the cosmos. The parameters for conscious life were there from the beginning.
The 'fine tuning' of constants is not the Anthropic Principle, and neither has anything to do with the Cosmological Principle.This can be seen in the finely tuned constants for intelligent life (Anthropic Principle) as opposed to the Cosmological Principle.
Does it? - how?It also depends on what interpretation you take with QM such as QBism as opposed to the Many Worlds interpretation.
As before, that's not a logical possibility - the best you can do is to imagine the experience of being in a universe where you're the only conscious entity.That's all we have so our experience of a universe without consciousness is our present experiences of imagining that scenario.
A universe that has never had consciousness in it wouldn't lose anything - any more than humans have 'lost something great' because we can't fly. We can wish we had the ability to fly; but in a universe without consciousness, there's no one to miss it or wish for it, the concept doesn't exist.By the same token we can also know about our present experiences and realize a world without them and though we have not experienced a universe without consciousness we know that something great would be lost. For me that's enough to show that consciousness is something relevant to and beyond physical reality.
You know the difference - it's between being conscious and not being conscious - but you can't experience the difference. Unless you're suicidal, you'll obviously choose to continue being conscious.I think if we had to choose we would choose a universe with consciousness even without knowing what the difference is.
Who thinks consciousness isn't part of the cosmos? Some think that consciousness is a kind of 'illusion', or something similar, but I suspect even they would concede that it's an illusion that exists...I think we can intuit that consciousness is not just an accident caused by the cosmos but is a part of the cosmos. I guess that sums up consciousness for many if not the majority.
Of course not - why would it?I realize this but my point was this has not stopped ideas in science being viable and real options to explain reality.
Non-sequtur. Consciousness is necessary to experience, and entertain the concept of, reality. There is no other option, but we can also entertain the concept of 'reality without consciousness' - such as this universe before conscious beings evolved.So the idea of consciousness as necessary and fundamental to reality can also be a viable option. In fact it may be the better option.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. If this wasn't a suitable time and place for us to exist, we wouldn't be here.I guess what I am saying is its not all about experience to understand the differences. But also our present experience tells us that this is the right place and time for us to be here and no other alternative matters.
You've lost me - what 'alternative scenario'? Evidence suggests that minds create a model of sensory reality, which is what is consciously experienced - but you'll have to show how any 'deeper dimension to reality beyond the material' is more than overactive imagination. If the observer creates reality, what are they observing? why are you, an observer, subject to reality? why can it surprise you and harm you? why do you have so many aspects of reality in common with others? why can't you create whatever reality you wish?I think that's enough to justify that no other alternative scenario will do regardless of a lack of experience. I think this places consciousness at the center of reality, where the observer creates reality and gives a deeper dimension to reality beyond the material.
Literally everything? You're a solipsist? A panconscious universalist? a panentheist? What?That's why I think consciousness is everything.
We control only extremely limited and specific parts of evolution, but we indirectly influence a great deal of it...We are artificial selectors sometimes in harmony with nature often not. But as a result we control the direction of evolution (natural selection).
The traditional view has living things especially humans as passive players in evolution. Life and the cosmos have no meaning, any conscious experience is just an illusion, we are predetermined meat robots separate and subject to nature. We have no say in the matter as far as reality is concerned.
But in reality living creatures are at the center of evolution. We can create environments to survive, we are a part the physical world by embodying it and thus can influence it and reality.
The treaty of Tripoli actually does differentiate the US as holding Christian values.
QV please:Because the Treaty of Tripoli states, very clearly, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." It's in Article 11.
A prominent member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, claimed that he protested the language of Article 11 before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: "The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion."
QV please:Doesn't change the fact that the treaty still made it clear that the US was not founded on the Christian religion.
I’m writing today to beseech my fellow secularists with a simple request: please, for the love of god (in the colloquial sense), stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli.
If they didn't mean that the US was not founded on Christianity, then maybe they shouldn't have said that the US was not founded on Christianity.
Did you read the link?If they didn't mean that the US was not founded on Christianity, then maybe they shouldn't have said that the US was not founded on Christianity.
I mean, it's a bit hard to take a statement like, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and then turn around and say that it doesn't mean that the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
The provision, which may have been written by Joel Barlow (one of the American negotiators), but which is missing from its Arabic counterpart, was not repeated in other treaties with other powers in the region, and the treaty itself was superseded by another treaty in 1805 (Crane 2020, 404-405).
Unbelief.Tell me, AV, what possible context could there be which means that a statement like "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" means that it IS founded on the Christian religion? What context, AV?
Ooo Ooo, I know!!!If the observer creates reality, what are they observing? why are you, an observer, subject to reality? why can it surprise you and harm you? why do you have so many aspects of reality in common with others? why can't you create whatever reality you wish?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?