Up From the Dephths
From the thread, Is Sun Worship Idolatry?
Plain as the nose on your face. Now isn't that deep!? That's it isn't it? Everything with you exists merely on the surface. Hey, did I tell you about the dream that I had?zaayrdragon said:
From the thread, Is Sun Worship Idolatry?
Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey Zeus! ...
Which of course brings up this dream I had. Where I was walking out of the local supermarket. It was a bit rundown looking but, it didn't look altogether different from the one that used to be down the street. It was earlier in the evening but had already gotten dark outside. And there were two men scuffling out in the parking lot and it was beginning to get ugly. And I'm thinking, "Man this isn't right," and I looked straight up and shouted, "Hey Zeus!" ... While thinking, "Maybe you better do something about this." And yes, I was thinking Zeus, except when I said it it sure sounded like the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus!
Well come to find out I wasn't exactly where I thought I was and, all of a sudden I started coming up from the depths of the ocean, and I mean the depths. And, in what seemed like an eternity to reach the surface (at an accelerated rate), it wasn't long before the sea began turning into a brilliant blue-green color. And right up above the surface rested this huge brilliant sun that illuminated everything. And I'm thinking, "Well it's obvious I've invoked some deity here, I'm just not sure I'm ready to look God straight in the face, not at this rate anyway." And don't get me wrong, it was beautiful!
So I was hoping the sensation of surfacing would stop, but no, on it continued, although it seemed like I had already gone way past the point where I should have reached the surface -- the sun was just too brilliant and the sea was too luminescent -- and I'm thinking, "Well, this is just a bit too eerie for me and, as much as I don't wish to offend God, I think I better try to get out of here." So, I pretty much wrenched myself awake and that was the end of it.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Iachus seems to be nothing but a troll, a polite one, but still a troll. He offers no evidence to support his claims, he only keeps repeating his same fallicious arguments ad-nauseum. So, I won't even try to debate with him. I'll just insult him.
Iachus, take your stupid god-beliefs and shove them up your tooty.
Iachus, take your stupid god-beliefs and shove them up your tooty.
Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.zaayrdragon said:
... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.
Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.
This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.
This is irrelevant in regards to myself. I am not religious... I have no religion.
Science, as acknowledged, is useful in that it understands [much of] the order which exists amongst sensed-existence and can manipulate that order for our own requirements.
... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.
Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system. Rather, our ignorance of the fact that science has knowledge of sensed-things as opposed to real-things has allowed people such as yourself to believe that science has knowledge of the real world, when it does not.
It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.
Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.
Absolutely not. The things you sense are unreal in themselves, just as the things you see in an artist's portrait are unreal in themselves. The senses, like the artist's paint, give impressions of things.dmarker said:
You've never sensed a real thing in your whole life and never will.
Proving the existence of God is something I will attempt to do in the near future.
Why call me stupid?thaiboxerken said:
Z
Variable Constant
Iacchus - because you are. Your dream is yet another example of the absurdity you believe.
Rad, if we're going to start screaming 'mod' at every insult, we'll ALL of us be on the carpet, so to speak.
L.G., that's the biggest load of hogwash and bunk I ever heard, but I'll respond in depth:
What leads you to believe that sensed-things are unreal? Nothing unreal exists. Our senses may act as a sort of filter between us and reality, but they accurately tell us what there is out there. That our senses can be fooled is based not on fooling the senses themselves, but on our minds not understanding some of what we sense.
The 'real world of things', you moron, IS the real world. Science is firmly on the side of materialism, and there is nothing that you could possibly postulate that would refute that, without resorting to nonsense.
This is a completely flawed premise. Let's look at the definitions of 'real' and 'unreal', as regards the physical universe:
Google the definition of "real".
Google the definition of "unreal"
By this, then, we can see that unreal things can NOT be senses. The sensations are real, and therefore the thing sensed is real as well.
When you sense an artist's painting, you are not sensing a vase, a barn, a woman; you are sensing a painting of a barn, a painting of a vase, a painting of a woman. When you sense a photograph of a person, you are not sensing the person themselves, but a photograph. Only a very primitive mind could make a connection between what you see in the painting and what you see in reality.
As far as providing a perceptual evidence of reality, this is also nonsense. Through the wonders of communication, you and I and a few billion other individuals can share what it is that we perceive, and in doing so, agree that our perceptions are equal and consistant; therefore, in doing so, we assert the reality of a thing. If I perceive a ball to be round, and you perceive a ball to be round, and 10 billion other persons perceive a ball to be round, then the ball is undoubtably round. The real ball is really there, verified by multiple perception, and it is really round, for the same reason.
The only way to refute shared perceptual experience, is to propose that the communication as well, being sensed, may be inaccurate, flawed, or deliberately misleading, in which case you are committing an act of solipsism, which is useless for valid logical argument.
Furthermore, your argument about the inability to debate unsensed perceptions is flawed, in that there is no comparison. Since sensed evidence is the only reality that we have, and sensed evidence proves the existance of the real, then believing in the reality of what you sense is logical; however, believing in the reality of that which you do not sense is illogical. There is no basis for saying that a believer in reality cannot refute a believer in unreality. Have you ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled God? Of course not. You have imagined God, thought about God, and perhaps 'felt God in your heart'... The first case is imagination, which can create the illusion of unreal things; the second case is conceptual visualization, in which you can consider the possibility of unreal things; and the third is difficult to put into words, because it is the psycho-emotional, which is real but often misleading (like love - but that's an entirely different thread). Each of these is an internal sense, capable of considering the unreal, but being often false and fooled easily.
Yes, you can do that - just as a world leader can rationalize away the death of thousands of people in order to support his political goals, or a man caught cheating can rationalize doing so. Rationalizing the existence of God does not remove it from the concept of faith. You still BELIEVE there is a God - you still have NO PROOF.
You are a liar then, or a fool. You believe in God, therefore you have a religion, therefore you are religious. You can't have it both ways - either you believe in God/Gods/etc or you don't.
What is the nature of reality? Nature is closely related to essence and substance. Nature is defined possibly as a 'why': why does the world act as it does? And while, yes, science does seek this answer, it does so in small bits.
Why does a rock fall when released? Why does the sky look blue? Why do people get ill? We seek the nature of these things when we ask these questions, and guess what, L.G.? We GET ANSWERS.
Yet our answers lead to more questions, which leads to more answers, which leads to more questions, apparently ad infinitum. Nonetheless, each set of answers we receives tells us MORE about the nature of reality than any religion ever has.
Perhaps, ultimately, science will never learn the ULTIMATE nature of reality; logically speaking, it may not be possible to determine the ULTIMATE cause. Yet it can determine so much about reality that for our purposes, it is enough.
If there is a limit to science, it is in determining ultimates; perhaps, because ultimates do not exist. Ultimate source - ultimate nature - ultimate bounds of the Universe.
In other words, science will never encapsulate infinity. However, this does not mean we cannot determine the nature of reality... only that the infinite may be forever out of grasp.
However, Religion has been proven time and again to be a deception, or even an entire system of deceptions, that make broad assumptions and even outright lies when determining the laws of nature. why does a rock fall? Because it misses the Earth and longs to reunite with it. Why is the sky blue? Because God loves beauty, and the heavens are just like the sea, blue and wet. Why do people get ill? Because demons infest them.
All ignorant notions, lies, what have you. All refuted by science, and all proclaimed by faith.
Real and distinct from? No, one and the same. There's no difference between the sensed world and the real world; only in how our minds interpret the sensed world. If you 'see' a cube yet no cube exists, you have to remember that 'cube' is an accumulated concept that you have learned to define an object that appears to occupy 3-d space and which has six equally spaced square sides; yet whether you are actually sensing a cube or an optical illusion of a cube, you have to understand that you are sensing photons being reflected from the surfaces of real objects which, from your perspective, resemble a cube. It doesn't change the reality of the senses; only the perception of that reality.
In short, your philosophy, L.G., is about as complex as a Judy Blume novel, and as irrational as a political speech in a campaign year.
Rad, if we're going to start screaming 'mod' at every insult, we'll ALL of us be on the carpet, so to speak.
L.G., that's the biggest load of hogwash and bunk I ever heard, but I'll respond in depth:
What leads you to believe that sensed-things are unreal? Nothing unreal exists. Our senses may act as a sort of filter between us and reality, but they accurately tell us what there is out there. That our senses can be fooled is based not on fooling the senses themselves, but on our minds not understanding some of what we sense.
The 'real world of things', you moron, IS the real world. Science is firmly on the side of materialism, and there is nothing that you could possibly postulate that would refute that, without resorting to nonsense.
This is a completely flawed premise. Let's look at the definitions of 'real' and 'unreal', as regards the physical universe:
Google the definition of "real".
Google the definition of "unreal"
By this, then, we can see that unreal things can NOT be senses. The sensations are real, and therefore the thing sensed is real as well.
When you sense an artist's painting, you are not sensing a vase, a barn, a woman; you are sensing a painting of a barn, a painting of a vase, a painting of a woman. When you sense a photograph of a person, you are not sensing the person themselves, but a photograph. Only a very primitive mind could make a connection between what you see in the painting and what you see in reality.
As far as providing a perceptual evidence of reality, this is also nonsense. Through the wonders of communication, you and I and a few billion other individuals can share what it is that we perceive, and in doing so, agree that our perceptions are equal and consistant; therefore, in doing so, we assert the reality of a thing. If I perceive a ball to be round, and you perceive a ball to be round, and 10 billion other persons perceive a ball to be round, then the ball is undoubtably round. The real ball is really there, verified by multiple perception, and it is really round, for the same reason.
The only way to refute shared perceptual experience, is to propose that the communication as well, being sensed, may be inaccurate, flawed, or deliberately misleading, in which case you are committing an act of solipsism, which is useless for valid logical argument.
Furthermore, your argument about the inability to debate unsensed perceptions is flawed, in that there is no comparison. Since sensed evidence is the only reality that we have, and sensed evidence proves the existance of the real, then believing in the reality of what you sense is logical; however, believing in the reality of that which you do not sense is illogical. There is no basis for saying that a believer in reality cannot refute a believer in unreality. Have you ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled God? Of course not. You have imagined God, thought about God, and perhaps 'felt God in your heart'... The first case is imagination, which can create the illusion of unreal things; the second case is conceptual visualization, in which you can consider the possibility of unreal things; and the third is difficult to put into words, because it is the psycho-emotional, which is real but often misleading (like love - but that's an entirely different thread). Each of these is an internal sense, capable of considering the unreal, but being often false and fooled easily.
Yes, you can do that - just as a world leader can rationalize away the death of thousands of people in order to support his political goals, or a man caught cheating can rationalize doing so. Rationalizing the existence of God does not remove it from the concept of faith. You still BELIEVE there is a God - you still have NO PROOF.
You are a liar then, or a fool. You believe in God, therefore you have a religion, therefore you are religious. You can't have it both ways - either you believe in God/Gods/etc or you don't.
What is the nature of reality? Nature is closely related to essence and substance. Nature is defined possibly as a 'why': why does the world act as it does? And while, yes, science does seek this answer, it does so in small bits.
Why does a rock fall when released? Why does the sky look blue? Why do people get ill? We seek the nature of these things when we ask these questions, and guess what, L.G.? We GET ANSWERS.
Yet our answers lead to more questions, which leads to more answers, which leads to more questions, apparently ad infinitum. Nonetheless, each set of answers we receives tells us MORE about the nature of reality than any religion ever has.
Perhaps, ultimately, science will never learn the ULTIMATE nature of reality; logically speaking, it may not be possible to determine the ULTIMATE cause. Yet it can determine so much about reality that for our purposes, it is enough.
If there is a limit to science, it is in determining ultimates; perhaps, because ultimates do not exist. Ultimate source - ultimate nature - ultimate bounds of the Universe.
In other words, science will never encapsulate infinity. However, this does not mean we cannot determine the nature of reality... only that the infinite may be forever out of grasp.
However, Religion has been proven time and again to be a deception, or even an entire system of deceptions, that make broad assumptions and even outright lies when determining the laws of nature. why does a rock fall? Because it misses the Earth and longs to reunite with it. Why is the sky blue? Because God loves beauty, and the heavens are just like the sea, blue and wet. Why do people get ill? Because demons infest them.
All ignorant notions, lies, what have you. All refuted by science, and all proclaimed by faith.
Real and distinct from? No, one and the same. There's no difference between the sensed world and the real world; only in how our minds interpret the sensed world. If you 'see' a cube yet no cube exists, you have to remember that 'cube' is an accumulated concept that you have learned to define an object that appears to occupy 3-d space and which has six equally spaced square sides; yet whether you are actually sensing a cube or an optical illusion of a cube, you have to understand that you are sensing photons being reflected from the surfaces of real objects which, from your perspective, resemble a cube. It doesn't change the reality of the senses; only the perception of that reality.
In short, your philosophy, L.G., is about as complex as a Judy Blume novel, and as irrational as a political speech in a campaign year.
Why call me stupid?zaayrdragon said:
Well, might I compliment you in your ability to impart meaning to that which is drab and purposely unmeaningful?
About 17 I believe, because this is when the rebirth experience happened.
Why call me stupid?zaayrdragon said:
Z
Variable Constant
I refuse to soil my subjective experience by responding to your stupid thread, which you seem to be using now multiplicitly rather than doing any logical or reasonable argument.
Stupid.
Stupid.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.
... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.
False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.
Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.
This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.
This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.
One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.
... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.
WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.
Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.
You are correct, it is knowledge.
It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.
Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.
Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.
That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.