Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Sydney Bloods]

Does this mean that time, in itself, has a physical, palpable extension? Or does it mean that it has an effect on physical 'reality'? Other than it being what you say it is, what exactly is this 'reality' of which you write?

the universe itself.

Space and time are one thing.

 

[skilts]

the universe itself.

Space and time are one thing.

So, time occupies space? Are you saying that the universe is reality, unmediated by perception?

 

[skilts]

So, time occupies space? Are you saying that the universe is 'reality', unmediated by perception?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So, time occupies space? Are you saying that the universe is reality, unmediated by perception?

it doesn't occupy space, it is space.
Hence why the accepted term is Spacetime.

and of course the Universe is reality, I've no interest in the irrelevant rantings of people like Berkeley. Idealism is the very nonsense I was referring to when i said:

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

Philosophy has no place in a discussion of the physical world, you can reimagine our interactions all you like, but that's all it will ever be imaginings.

the physical universe is a reality it existed before man, it does not give a s**t about man and it will go on long after man.

 

[scon]

It will occur to me shortly that time is a sequence of states of consciousness;I'll be in space when that state occurs.

 

[skilts]

it doesn't occupy space, it is space.
Hence why the accepted term is Spacetime.

and of course the Universe is reality, I've no interest in the irrelevant rantings of people like Berkeley. Idealism is the very nonsense I was referring to when i said:

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

Philosophy has no place in a discussion of the physical world, you can reimagine our interactions all you like, but that's all it will ever be imaginings.

the physical universe is a reality it existed before man, it does not give a s**t about man and it will go on long after man.

Is this to say that because the universe is reality, there is no necessity for a being such as us to be involved in its realisation, but that it just is? If not us, who or what is doing the realising? Is this not a universe for us, the ones who encounter and name it, or is its realisation a disembodied one? If you think philosophy has no place in science, why use language to explicate its precepts?

 

[evo]

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

Philosophy has no place in a discussion of the physical world, you can reimagine our interactions all you like, but that's all it will ever be imaginings.

you sound so certain.

How do you know it is not you who is doing the 'reimagining'? When did you last verify your scientific or mathematical workings with this theoretical, dispassionate, objective observer?

 

[skilts]

you sound so certain.

How do you know it is not you who is doing the 'reimagining'? When did you last verify your scientific or mathematical workings with this theoretical, dispassionate, objective observer?

For some, it's as if Kant never happened. Sometimes (almost always), I wish this were so for me.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Is this to say that because the universe is reality, there is no necessity for a being such as us to be involved in its realisation, but that it just is? If not us, who or what is doing the realising? Is this not a universe for us, the ones who encounter and name it, or is its realisation a disembodied one? If you think philosophy has no place in science, why use language to explicate its precepts?

It is to say reality as in:
"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

realisation rhetoric is just that. mental masturbation for Narcissist's so egotistical they believe they affect the very fabric of reality simply by being awake.

 

[skilts]

It is to say reality as in:
"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

realisation rhetoric is just that. mental masturbation for Narcissist's so egotistical they believe they affect the very fabric of reality simply by being awake.

This would indicate that you have irrefutable, empirical evidence of this state of things. Is this so? Is this state a constant which is under no influence of any sort of flux over time?

 

[Empire_Persian]

Philosophy has no place in a discussion of the physical world, you can reimagine our interactions all you like, but that's all it will ever be imaginings.

I don't believe you can dichotomise philosophy and science. Both are attempts to explore our reality. Crucially, science would not exist without philosophy. For instance, all theories of knowledge, including the sciences, presuppose an ontology. You were making ontological statements yourself...

To ask what happened before time itself existed is like asking what its like to literally not think.
you're asking for an answer using the concept of time and want to apply it outside the restrictions of time.
It can't be answered with such notions.

It is beyond our comprehension, It is a concept that can not be answered there is no way to observe anything before the big bang, we can produce workable models based on what we know but there's no way to know.

Science or research never takes place in a philosophical vacuum, because they are always informed by the prevailing philosophies of science, which are often normative. Take the framework for deductive reasoning which underpins scientific enquiry, this was born from ancient philosophy.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I don't believe you can dichotomise philosophy and science. Both are attempts to explore our reality. Crucially, science would not exist without philosophy. For instance, all theories of knowledge, including the sciences, presuppose an ontology. You were making ontological statements yourself...



Science or research never takes place in a philosophical vacuum, because they are always informed by the prevailing philosophies of science, which are often normative. Take the framework for deductive reasoning which underpins scientific enquiry, this was born from ancient philosophy.

A scientist selects what she studies

 

[little graham]

There's a large movement of Christians who believe that the official story is a crock of s**t. Every year less and less and believe in god.

 

[Contra Mundum]

It is to say reality as in:
"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

realisation rhetoric is just that. mental masturbation for Narcissist's so egotistical they believe they affect the very fabric of reality simply by being awake.

That is lacking generosity - its essentially humility of knowing that we cannot know the "world as it is" and that everything we do know is mediated through our senses

 

[Only Forwards]

There's a large movement of Christians who believe that the official story is a crock of s**t. Every year less and less and believe in god.

What god?

If you are talking about official stories within religion I have found the stories out of hinduism far more interesting than those out of Christianity.

For instance, churning of the sea of milk where devas and asuras use a snake to turn a mountain to churn the sea which then makes the nectar of immortality and a poison that can kill all creation.

I don't know what those indians were smoking but a story like that kicks the s**t out of a story about a zoological boat or some chick knocked up by a ghost.


on the less people believing in god stats say no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

 

[little graham]

If you are talking about official stories within religion I have found the stories out of hinduism far more interesting than those out of Christianity.

For instance, churning of the sea of milk where devas and asuras use a snake to turn a mountain to churn the sea which then makes the nectar of immortality and a poison that can kill all creation.

I don't know what those indians were smoking but a story like that kicks the s**t out of a story about a zoological boat or some chick knocked up by a ghost.

Sounds like a aboriginal dreamtime story.

 

[Only Forwards]

Sounds like a aboriginal dreamtime story.

It is carved as relief around Angkor Wat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samudra_manthan

 

[Pie eyed]

all the people of the world? native australians? native north and south americans? can you direct me to a good scholarly website backing this up? the whole world is a lot of cultures and a few continents.



would a native australian historian confirm this one language theory?



how did the different races that then went and inhabited the far flung corners of the world acquire their different physical traits and languages so quickly?



owing to a complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood, the implausibility of the ark and it's logistics and the outlandish crudeness of the method from a being that could have snapped his fingers and had it done in the blink of an eye, i'm inclined to believe this worldwide flood is myth.



hmmmm, ok. give me your best prophecy from post-bible times. something that happened after the cannon was closed, and one that we should all be most impressed by.

Can't believe you bother answering after the first quote.
Exactly which "prophesy" has allegedly come true?

 

[hardon]

Can't believe you bother answering after the first quote.

did u mean to quote me or the creationist?

why do any of us bother answering anything in here? well for me it's mostly fun.

Exactly which "prophesy" has allegedly come true?

well i don't think any have come true, but i was giving mr creationist a chance to wow us.

 

[evo]

 

[Pie eyed]

did u mean to quote me or the creationist?

why do any of us bother answering anything in here? well for me it's mostly fun.



well i don't think any have come true, but i was giving mr creationist a chance to wow us.

Wow us with Wooo!

 

[hardon]

Wow us with Wooo!

drown us in poo?

 

[Floor Pie]

Morrison [sic] has a soul.

Thought I should bring it to this thread. Seems more on topic.

So, can you prove Morrison has a soul, mottrain?

The world will know your name, if you can prove that a soul exists!

 

[Floor Pie]

louismaxwell
Saying a soul does exist, if you are religious, is a false equivalence.
Something doesn't just exist, if you believe it to exist.

 

[louismaxwell]

louismaxwell
Saying a soul does exist, if you are religious, is a false equivalence.
Something doesn't just exist, if you believe it to exist.

You will probably laugh but i have been at peoples deathbed and have seen their soul or whatever it maybe leave their body at the time of death leaving a shell of what they existed in. You see happen in their very last breaths they take.