Limits of Science

[Iacchus]

It's possible for pink unicorns to exist as well, but people that actually believe such things to exist are kooks.

There's no doubt in my mind that pink unicorns do exist, albeit I haven't seen one personally. I have seen Pegasus though.

What the hell is collective unconscious? What is the definition, and do you really have evidence that it exists?

It seemed to be the whole thing that spurred Jung on. And, if he can access it, why can't anyone else?

 

[Z]

I don't deny anyone the right to belief in God, Dragons, Pink Unicorns, or anything else, for that matter.

But the moment you come to a skeptic board and make a statement that either attempts to PROVE God, or is based on faith in God, I have to take issue with this.

God, Faith, and Belief are concepts completely outside the realm of science, logic, and reality. That I choose to believe in Deity is irrelevant to the issue of the evidence that Deity exists. I have no proof in Deity, and would never claim that Deity must exists because of ---- or that ---- must exist because of Deity.

However, you seem to hinge everything on the existence of Deity, and see design in everything based on at least a notion of Deity. As long as you are trapped in the Deity paradigm, your logic and reason are faulty.

The fact is, Deity is outside of Proof, outside of Reason, and outside of Logic. If you can, in fact, accept that there is no proof whatsoever of Deity, nor any logical reason to suppose the existence of Deity, yet still maintain faith in Deity, isn't your faith then truly a wonderous thing?

 

[Iacchus]

I don't deny anyone the right to belief in God, Dragons, Pink Unicorns, or anything else, for that matter.

But they're just freaking crazy for believing so, right?

But the moment you come to a skeptic board and make a statement that either attempts to PROVE God, or is based on faith in God, I have to take issue with this.

In other words why bother to discuss anything, right?

God, Faith, and Belief are concepts completely outside the realm of science, logic, and reality. That I choose to believe in Deity is irrelevant to the issue of the evidence that Deity exists. I have no proof in Deity, and would never claim that Deity must exists because of ---- or that ---- must exist because of Deity.

You choose to believe in that which is irrelevant then? How so if, in fact this is the very topic we're discussing?

However, you seem to hinge everything on the existence of Deity, and see design in everything based on at least a notion of Deity. As long as you are trapped in the Deity paradigm, your logic and reason are faulty.

And yet how can you be so sure, about that which is so uncertain?

The fact is, Deity is outside of Proof, outside of Reason, and outside of Logic. If you can, in fact, accept that there is no proof whatsoever of Deity, nor any logical reason to suppose the existence of Deity, yet still maintain faith in Deity, isn't your faith then truly a wonderous thing?

Perhaps you should try proving it to yourself, before you go around spouting off these things to everyone else? Otherwise you'll be busy proving how much you don't know.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seemed to be the whole thing that spurred Jung on. And, if he can access it, why can't anyone else?

Probably because it's not real.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But they're just freaking crazy for believing so, right?

Yes, delusion does tend to indicate that a person is crazy in a way.


In other words why bother to discuss anything, right?

Discussion is fine, but spouting nonsense is just annoying and unproductive.


You choose to believe in that which is irrelevant then? How so if, in fact this is the very topic we're discussing?

???


And yet how can you be so sure, about that which is so uncertain?

It is certain that people who spout beliefs as being facts are kooks.


Perhaps you should try proving it to yourself, before you go around spouting off these things to everyone else? Otherwise you'll be busy proving how much you don't know.

This attempt at wit only shows how faulty your logic is and how unsane you truly are. If you are going to make claims that there is a god, it's YOU that should be giving the evidence to back up your claims. It is not upon the doubters to prove you wrong.

 

[Z]

Thank you Thaiboxetc... Too tired to reply sanely.

I believe Deity exists. But I do not assert this as fact, only as my belief. What I assert as fact is there is no evidence of intentional design to the Universe, nor any extant proof of God.

Yet I believe in spite of that proof. And I do not require you or anyone else to accept or deny this belief. I will not assert as fact that 'Deity exists', but only that 'I believe that Deity exists.' When asked why, I will merely answer, 'because I choose to do so', or possibly, 'because I feel this to be true, in spite of evidence.'

This thread started out as 'Limits of Science'. I propose that science is only limited in that it may never be able to make any statements as to the existence or non-existence of God, but that science is theoretically unlimited in all other ways.

Of course, if you want to play semantics, then even this is true.

Theology - the rational and systematic study, or science, of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth . Since this, too, is science, then we can safely say (through semantic application) that even God is not immune to Science.



too tired to make any sense right now... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Iacchus]

So tell me (in reference to the last two replies), can you explain to me what chocolate tastes like? It's not possible, unless I taste it for myself, right? But let's say you don't know what it tastes like, and I do. Now, does that make me crazy or, the least bit delusional for having tasted it myself? Not hardly. However, it could mean somebody else who, insists on levying all these charges and additional nonsense, is only out to prove one thing, how much they don't know? If not to anyone else, then at least to me? ...

Also, if one person can experience the taste of chocolate, that means others can experience the taste of it as well. However, it's not up to me to get others to take the first bite. Got it?

 

[UserGoogol]

Jung's Collective Unconciousness wasn't like that. It wasn't that there's one massive collective unconciousness, it's that conciousnesses have common properties more-or-less regardless of culture.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I believe Deity exists. But I do not assert this as fact, only as my belief. What I assert as fact is there is no evidence of intentional design to the Universe, nor any extant proof of God.

Wow, it is extremely rare for a believer to actually be honest and intelligent about their beliefs. It's refreshing to see a believer that is still skeptical. Thank you.

So tell me (in reference to the last two replies), can you explain to me what chocolate tastes like? It's not possible, unless I taste it for myself, right?

No, it's not impossible if we can find some other comparable taste. Oh and people don't have to believe in chocolate to taste it.

Your arguement is stupid.

 

[Iacchus]

No, it's not impossible if we can find some other comparable taste. Oh and people don't have to believe in chocolate to taste it.

Your arguement is stupid.

Well, remind me not to share it with you then.

 

[Iacchus]

Jung's Collective Unconciousness wasn't like that. It wasn't that there's one massive collective unconciousness, it's that conciousnesses have common properties more-or-less regardless of culture.

However, I understand that he did a lot of work with dreams as well as archetypes and myths. Whereas if he did not carry this over into the spiritual realm, then that's only the next logical step. Why? Because it does exist.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, remind me not to share it with you then.

Please don't, and while you're at it.. do humanity a favor and keep it to yourself.

 

[thaiboxerken]

However, I understand that he did a lot of work with dreams as well as archetypes and myths. Whereas if he did not carry this over into the spiritual realm, then that's only the next logical step. Why? Because it does exist.

That's a bunch of BS. THere is no evidence to support your claims. You are full of crap.

 

[Radrook]

So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .

Can you prove conclusively that it is not?
Hume proved conclusively that the provision of such proof is an impossibility. His conclusion, backed up by irrefutable logic, has been and still is recognized as being accurate.Actually, no one familiar with his deep studies of the subject would venture to say otherwise lest he be imediately recognized for lacking in knowledge and begin cutting a comical figure.


As Hume conclusively proved to the satisfaction of both scientists and philosophers, all we can ever aspire to do is to perceive what appears to be external stimuli and trace that perception to what appear to be sense impressions.

In short, all we really have to work with are what we perceive as neurotransmissions sequences that seem to be interpreted by what seem to be the diverse areas of the brain, such as the visual occipetal lobe and the auditory temporal lobes, in the manner that seems to be perception of something seemingly exterior to the mind.

But proving the real nature of what appear to be the sources of what appear to be neurontransmissions is impossible Neyjer can anyone prove that there is anything exterior to the mind itself. Descartes resorted to rewligion to assert otherwise. But modern philosdophers consdider that cheating.

Strictly speaking, the exterior world cannot be proven to be exterior of the mind because there is no known, acceptable, method independant of the senses which can be employed to prove its independence.

Unless, of course, you have one.
If so, please share.

BTW
Before I am accused of an inacuracy,
I am aware of internal stimuli as well but restricted it to external stimuli to keep the subject on track.

 

[lifegazer]

Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

The human experience of existence consists of judgements and emotions made in response to the awareness of a succession of sensed-things. We know the reality of no thing. Our awareness of things springs directly from the sensations that we have.

In truth, science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things within our awareness. Science is not a study of the order which exists amongst the reality of things beyond our sense of them.

Therein lies the limits of science: it can tell us absolutely nothing about any reality beyond our sense of one. Science is the study of the world "in here" - not "out there".

Those that look to science to base their philosophical ideas upon are naive, to be blunt. Most atheists I've spoken too fall into this category.

 

[Iacchus]

Well I believe that an external reality exists. Why? Because I have to interact with it all the time. Just like you are interacting with me and everyone else over the Internet. However, like you say it's strictly up to our senses to justfiy this belief.

 

[Iacchus]

That's a bunch of BS. THere is no evidence to support your claims. You are full of crap.

Depends on what you wish to construe or, misconstrue as evidence.

 

[lifegazer]

Well I believe that an external reality exists. Why? Because I have to interact with it all the time.

That's not true. You interact with sensed-things all the time. They exist within your awareness. You have no idea what an external reality of things is, so how can you interact with it?

Just like you are interacting with me and everyone else over the Internet.

I'm interacting with you and everyone else on the internet, but all these things exist within awareness, and my knowledge of them is discerned via my sensation of them. So, my interaction with you and the internet is an interaction of my rational and emotional responses to sensed-things. A completely internal interaction.

 

[Yahweh]

That's not true. You interact with sensed-things all the time. They exist within your awareness. You have no idea what an external reality of things is, so how can you interact with it?

I have no idea what electrical fields are, so how can I interact with them...

I'm interacting with you and everyone else on the internet, but all these things exist within awareness, and my knowledge of them is discerned via my sensation of them. So, my interaction with you and the internet is an interaction of my rational and emotional responses to sensed-things. A completely internal interaction.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iacchus is a person who exists outside of your mind. Or I could use myself as an example, I do indeed exist outside of your mind as well. I think the interaction involves a few external components (myself, Iacchus, your keyboard, computer, world wide information superhighway, etc.).

 

[lifegazer]

I have no idea what electrical fields are, so how can I interact with them...

Our knowledge of anything - electrical fields included - has been discerned via what the senses are telling us. Scientific understanding/acknowledgment of electrical fields comes via a study of our sensory awareness. So, 'electrical fields' are in fact something which we discern to exist within the world of our senses.

Your interaction with the order of the senses is not dependent upon you understanding this order. The way things are, within awareness, is the way things are, whether you understand them or not.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iacchus is a person who exists outside of your mind. Or I could use myself as an example, I do indeed exist outside of your mind as well.

"Iacchus" is a sensed-thing, as experienced by awareness. Iacchus does not have a mind. Rather, Iacchus exists within a mind.
Similarly, "Yahwah" is a sensed-experience, had by a mind. Yahwah does not have a mind but exists, as perceived, within a mind.
The question is, Whom does that mind/awareness belong to?

My philosophy gathers all perceived experiences unto one Mind. So that the awareness of being Iacchus and the awareness of being Yahwah and the awareness of being lifegazer, etc., is had by this one mind.

I think the interaction involves a few external components (myself, Iacchus, your keyboard, computer, world wide information superhighway, etc.).

Everything you perceive about your body - like every thing else -is sensed and then rationalised/emotionalised.

You cannot give life to any thing as distinct and separate from the awareness of it. You have absolutely no knowledge of any thing that is external to the awareness of it.

Iacchus is not external to awareness... of being Iacchus.
Yahwah is not external to awareness... of being Yahwah.
Lifegazer is not external to awareness... of being lifegazer.
The internet is not external to awareness... of the internet.

Awareness embraces the sense of all things.
All things exist within awareness.