Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So what? It's pretty evident to most people, whether they are religious or not, that free will does exist, don't you think?

I'm not sure. I would say that I have the ability to choose, plan ahead, make split second-decisions, but I wouldn't call it "free will". I would call it an advantageous evolved trait.

Why? Most people simply address this as "free will."

Quote:

Because the religious people are the ones bringing it up, not the secular people.

Yes, why bring it up when you believe in "physicalism?" Physicalism simply doesn't subscribe to such notions, does it?

Quote:

Well, scientists have investigated it in fruit flies. I admit I was wrong on it being a theological matter.
I forgot about this article.

Oh, and you didn't read JGL53's reference to V.S. Ramachandran above? Come on now, this type of research is being done all the time.

Quote:

Unless theology is a bunch of myths and speculation supported by zero evidence, which I think it is.

This is fairly obvious.

Quote:

How is Free Will evidence of God?

Because it doesn't fit in with the so-called model of physicalism? Of course one can't directly conclude God exists as a result of this but, it's a place to start. How so? ... because it stands in direct contrast to the notion of physicalism.

Quote:

No. Science should be allowed to study human beings. It should be allowed to study everything, except the unfalsifiable, because unfalsifiable things are worthless to discuss. How is theology also the study of human beings?

Well, that I guess all depends on who you talk to. It is not unfalsifiable to me.

Quote:

Yes. But the text in the Bible stayed the same.

What, as if the Catholic Church holds the copyrites to the Bible? And where exactly does it say in the Bible that the earth is geocentric anyway? I'm not saying it's not there mind you, just that I don't recall ever seeing a direct inference to it.

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

Oh, well then, it’s ye olde argument from incredulity – a long-time favorite of creationists, among others.

And, am I to take it that you didn't read the rest of the post? I see no rebuttal to it? :huh:

Quote:

In your own little private world you are free to believe whatever you “wish” to believe about the nature of reality. However, what you “think” has not been established as the “go to” explanation for the rest of humanity. If and when the rest of us elect you GOD, you will be alerted by the Nobel Prize committee.

A "piece" of God, yes, I might be in fact.

Quote:

If objective scientific research says X, and the personal experience of Iacchus say, no, it is instead Y, then I say anyone would be a fool to accept YOU, Iacchus, as the authority concerning which ontological theory is most plausible, based on FACT established by repeatable experiment – i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt PROOF.

Yes, I agree, I haven't "proven" anything.

Quote:

If you are ignorant of the findings of recent scientific brain research, or lack the capacity to cognitively appreciate it, then that does not place some burden on the rest of humanity.

Oh, is that how "they" put it nowadays?

Quote:

Contrary to your view, this is not just dueling opinions, with all thoughts on the subject being relative equals, in the land of never not knowing, where each is entitled to create his or her own personal reality, and have his or her unverified pet notions be taken just as seriously as those of the next man Jack or woman Jill in line, or - more importantly - just as SERIOUSLY as the findings of thousands of smarty-pants working scientists who actually engage in experimental verification of theory.

Is that right, smarty-pants?

Quote:

But thanks for your input. I and others will give your thoughtful opinions regarding ontological questions the EXACT amount of serious consideration it so obviously deserves.

Oh well, in the temporal world of time and space, does it really matter anyway? Why take anyone's word so SERIOUSLY, and feign as if it should last forever? ... unless of course forever really does exist? Hmm ...

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And what makes it a theological concept? And, what makes you and/or Science think that it doesn't exist? Also, why shouldn't theology be concerned with things that exist on the physical level as well? It seems like the Catholic Church ultimately had to concede to the notions of Galileo, did it not?

You're working the wrong way on that one way street. Yes, it was the church conceding to the science of Galileo, not science conceding to theology. That's how its been ever since science started being done in a scientific method.

And where exactly do I suggest Science has conceded to theology here? You might want to try re-reading what I wrote.

JGL53 · 06-22-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Oh well, in the temporal world of time and space, does it really matter anyway? Why take anyone's word so SERIOUSLY, and feign as if it should last forever? ... unless of course forever really does exist? Hmm ...

Not sure of your point here, or the rest of your post. Sure, Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." And I agree. And like you, I'm quite familiar with the concepts of Eastern Wisdom traditions (from Watts, Campbell, Humphreys, Batchelor, both D.T. and S. Suzuki, etc.)

The point is that Samsara/Maya IS Nirvana/Brahma. The former is impermanent but "real" enough. The pink unicorn you envision in your imagination is on another level of reality. There is a hierarchy present that should not be denied.

"Transformation of the consciousness" should be assumed to be a psychological reality unless otherwise proven. Don't get too carried away with the Mind Only concept.

That's all, bro.

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodLittleAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The notion of dualism suggests that these two "realities" exist simultaneously and act in accord with each other. And, what I'm attempting to explain to untermensche, is where the common element, hence "barrier," exists between these two realities.

That makes no sense. Everyone knows that things happen in threes.

Well then, the "third reality" would be God itself. Thus far I have only referred to the material realm and the spiritual realm, with respect to humans. The realm of God rests atop both of these, and is "unapproachable" in that respect ... except of course by the way He is represented in heaven. In the upper heaven(s) He is portrayed as the sun, which provides (spiritual) illumination for all to see. In the lower heaven(s) He is portrayed as the moon, which provides such illumination as well

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

Not sure of your point here, or the rest of your post. Sure, Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." And I agree. And like you, I'm quite familiar with the concepts of Eastern Wisdom traditions (from Watts, Campbell, Humphreys, Batchelor, both D.T. and S. Suzuki, etc.)

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with Watts and Campbell. So what? You're not a practicing mystic, are you?

Quote:

The point is that Samsara/Maya IS Nirvana/Brahma. The former is impermanent but "real" enough. The pink unicorn you envision in your imagination is on another level of reality. There is a hierarchy present that should not be denied.

The fact is, outside of the material world, the imagination is all we've got. Think about it.

Quote:

"Transformation of the consciousness" should be assumed to be a psychological reality unless otherwise proven. Don't get too carried away with the Mind Only concept.

That's all, bro.

So, all the "ancients" simply got it wrong then?

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And, just as there are people who believe in ghosts (myself included), I have reason enough to believe that such a thing exists. But, if it suits you to believe that it is mere postulation, then it is enitirely up to you. This, I have no control over and, is why I can only present it as such.

In that case, Iacchus, you study your ghosts and your spiritual realms all you want to and when you reach a conclusion, present your findings. But that's not what you want to do, you want to argue these notions into acceptance.

The fact is, I can't help but be aware of such things. I am confronted with it daily.

Quote:

As I've said before, come up with a coherent model based on your spiritual concepts, one which accurately and reliable describes reality, which provides testable predictions of what reality will do in given situations, then we can talk.

Again, we seem to be speaking of two separate realities here.

Quote:

Its your 'theory', you investigate it, you do the research, you do the experiments and you do the analysis and write the reports and submit it for peer review. Then you defend your work against any and all attacks. That's how its done. So, have at. Enough "IFs", start doing the work.

I am a mystic, I have done more exploration than you can possibly imagine ... oh, but then again, that would be a place to start.

Iacchus · 06-22-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

If such a spiritual continuum does exist, then perhaps we can begin to understand what gave rise to the Big Bang, and sustain Creation as it is allowed to "unfold" ... which, is not altogether different than what we currently understand on the matter, except perhaps for a few exceptions.

Oh yes, regarding the notion of the Big Bang here, if it did occur which, most of us have reason to believe that it did, then whatever gave rise to it, something "other" than the temporal domain of time and space, that is, didn't just up and cease maintaining control over the whole affair did it? If anything, it should still be there and, by means of "influx" which, is what brought about the Big Bang in the first place, should provide the necessary principles and guidance for every single last thing that has proceeded from the Big Bang ever since. So, what does tell us about the reality that we now see before us? Except that it originates and, is thus sustained via an entirely different dimension. So, what pray tell does this have to do with materialism?

GenesisNemesis · 06-22-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, why bring it up when you believe in "physicalism?" Physicalism simply doesn't subscribe to such notions, does it?

I don't "believe" in phsyicalism. Physicalism isn't a religion, it's a reliable tool for describing and observing reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Oh, and you didn't read JGL53's reference to V.S. Ramachandran above? Come on now, this type of research is being done all the time.

Well, since you directed me to it, yes, I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

This is fairly obvious.

Then that means it's unfalsifiable. If there's no evidence for any theological realities, then theology is a sitting duck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Because it doesn't fit in with the so-called model of physicalism?

It does fit in with the "so-called model of phsycalism". Are you suggesting that there's conspiracies in science?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Of course one can't directly conclude God exists as a result of this but, it's a place to start. How so? ... because it stands in direct contrast to the notion of physicalism.

Demonstrate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, that I guess all depends on who you talk to. It is not unfalsifiable to me.

But you agreed there's no evidence for any theological realities.

Quote:

What, as if the Catholic Church holds the copyrites to the Bible? And where exactly does it say in the Bible that the earth is geocentric anyway? I'm not saying it's not there mind you, just that I don't recall ever seeing a direct inference to it.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

"It is I who have firmly set its pillars." (Ps. 75:3)

"Who stretched out the heavens...and established the world." (Jer. 10:12)

Those could "reasonably" be interpreted as a geocentric Earth.

Gracchus · 06-22-2007, 02:57 PM

Wrong forum.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2007, 02:57 PM	#40
Gracchus Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: California Posts: 359	Wrong forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.