Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?

Word Jugglery and the joy of argument

There is no need to again provide your subjective explanation of (human) absolute. Blackswan has already done that and that is what is in question and was my point in the first place. Perhaps this is your way of saying everything is subjective without having to say you are basically a belief system based human. The incomplete faith based belief system of empirical science that claims that only matter exists. Stu, it is ok to admit you are hypocrite and that you also live by an outdated faith based system, one whose theories are changed on almost a daily basis with each new interpretation of matter and its nature.

Interesting that in order to avoid a subject (Spirit) that you admittedly know nothing about nor could know anything about by moving the entire universe through your organic senses you have concluded that human reasoning is the absolute relative. Word jugglery and twisted logic at it’s finest!

I suppose that I could give you the benefit of the doubt and for the purpose of discussion see you as a true atheist (rather than the nihilistic Buddhist that you and Blackswan are). One who truly BELIEVES that life is nothing more than a big chemical reaction. And then, yes, nothing matters. It would not matter that you choose to slice baby’s heads off. Or hey, it would not matter if I kick your face in. It would not matter because this is your belief system. Hey everybody lets all go watch Stu cut babies heads off and then when us other blobs of chemicals don’t like it or feel pain from it (which would be odd being that nothing matters) we could kick Stu’s face in. Its all ok everyone its all just a bunch of chemicals.

Stu, you poor ignorant religionist you have totally sold out to the world’s newest religion. I shall now refer to you as Thunderbolt-Stu. When you find a scientist (excuse me, a demigod) who can create life verifiable with consciousness as a symptom, you let us know. We will then let you cut off all of the baby’s heads you want. Of course then we get to kick your face in.

Would you be willing to give up past prejudices and closed-minded pseudo thinking and acknowledge that your fellow scientific thinkers cannot agree upon an explanation of consciousness? (A subject which has been being studied by seekers of the truth for millenium)
____________________________________________________
QUOTE FROM THUNDRBOLT-STU
I agree. Religion is forced to move inexorably towards a convergence with Science. It always has, it undergoes metamorphosis from century to century, generation to generation in an ever decreasing circle, attempting to remain relevant.
____________________________________________________

Thunderbolt-Stu I am glad you agree with such a deep thinker as Charles Townes. Ultimately this willingness to accept someone else’s thoughts, perhaps someone greater than you, perhaps someone greater than all of us infinitesimal individual spirits, may help you out of your dogmatic FAITH. The way that you chose select passages from his quote in order to bolster your belief system reminds me of your fellow fundamentalist Thunderbolt. Kudos to you o’ argumentative non-seeker of the truth.

You are always invited to join the true scientific/religious seekers of the absolute. (Spirit) Of course you will have to give up your close-minded prejudicial thought process as Nobel Laureate Townes has insisted.

Yes Thunderbolt-Stu religious thought non polluted by human interpretation is a science even if you do not believe it.

Is admittance in to a fundamental religion the same as getting a lifetime subscription to Scientific American?

 

They, just to clarify, I didn't state absolutely that the idea of 'grand purpose' is completely subjective -- how the hell would I know? What I said was that even if there actually existed an objective purpose to our existence, we are clearly unaware of it (unless you have some startling new evidence to show us), and that our prospects for ever discovering such a purpose are at best bleak.
Therefore, we humans are left with the task of determining purposes for own lives, and such determinations are going to be inevitably be subjective.

I'm not sure that that was what Stu done at all, but I'll leave him to answer for himself.
Personally, I won't deny that such a thing, the "Spirit" you mention, could exist. And I'll agree that our five normal senses seem unlikely to detect such an entity. I'll concede that Faith, in this particular case, may indeed be a valid cognitive procedure. Interestingly, however, the existence of such a spirit doesn't really say anything about an objective purpose, does it?
1. A spirit entity/ spirit world exists.
2. Therefore there is an objective purpose to the universe.

That's a pretty hollow argument really.
Why could not your Spirit entity/ies be a product of the universe, rather than the cause of it?
Or, if it/they were the cause, how does that make the universe's existence, and therefore our (human) purpose, anymore objective? Eg. God created the universe because he wanted to -- completely subjective.

They, if you were to kick my face in, it WOULD matter -- to me. It would matter very much. Why? Because I don't like having my face kicked in.
Lopping off babies' heads? Yep, that matters too -- to me.
Let's face it, it would probably matter to the vast majority of human beings also.
But that isn't to say it intrinsically matters.
It matters to us simply because we don't like it. And that's the essence of subjective morality.

Furthermore, objective morality has the same problem of objective purpose -- we obviously don't know what these objective morals are (although Christians will claim they have them, Hindus will claim they have them, etc..) and, again, our prospects for ever determining what objective morality is are practically zero.
Just positing the existence of a God doesn't help at all. Unless his existence can be proven, all you are doing is taking your own moral position, ascribing it to an uproven entity and calling your morals objective. (Ever notice how all religious morals are simply a reflection of the moral positions already assumed by the societies creating that religion? I wonder how many people would want to be moral if God had said "thou must drown thy first born in a vat of boiling oil"?)

Again, I'll let Stu answer for himself, but as you previously lumped he and I together, my answer to the above is that I don't hold any particular prejudices that prevent me from accepting theistic/spiritual reasoning.
I'll agree with you that, from what I've read (not exhaustive), science doesn't have a complete explanation of concsiousness.
You've chosen to believe theistic/spiritual explanations. Okay. Good for you. I choose not to. Is that okay with you?

EDIT. I also might ask you to examine your own prejudices against scientific evidence and reasoning. You might find that, in the event science does offer a completely sound explanation for the currently unexplained, your 'god of the gaps' outlook on life will be utterly useless.

 

they,

extremely well said, i am impressed.


best,

surf

 

They,
Petty and childish. I do sometimes agree with the "religious" you know, an instance is where darkhorse in his earlier posts expressed a desire to refrain from name calling and the jumping to conclusions, but I see from your comments that some words will always fall on stony ground.

then try this more simple approach to word juggling....
'Wouldn't a self described theist's explanation of intrinsic "absolute" purpose and human "relative" purpose and the subsequent discounting of an absolute purpose have to be discounted?'

So where is my explanation of absolute? My point was and still is, if everything (human) is subjective then that rule or condition applies to both sides of the coin. To the believer as well as to the non believer. Your idea therefore that there is an (absolute) purpose (divine entity) is relegated to a subjective view, as is my contention that it is more probable that there is not. My next point follows - that discussion becomes irrelevant. I may say there is no evidence that God exists. You may say right there that anything I say is merely subjective, and what then.. I say you are being subjective too ?. Debate stifled. Human attempt at understanding anything stopped in its tracks and back to the caves we go boys and girls. Where religion wants us ? That is why I stated religion is becoming irrelevant and why I used the word in that context. Less relevant each time the refusal to define is simply responded to by stating any enquiry is purely pointless subjectiveness.

Straight in there with the swords and knives of righteous indignation eh They? Shall I join in with your silliness and refer to you as ehThey?
You declare my faith for me do you ? You assume too much. You call me a hypocrite and declare this assumed faith system you attribute to me as outdated. Here is the twirl around again. If asked to define the God in the proclaimed based religious faith, the answer boils down to what.... I am a hypocrite for understanding differently, or for thinking to ask the question or for even daring to assume this so called message might be groundless and baseless? You also appear to be extremely confused about what science is.

I think you will find the last thing I want to do is avoid the subject. ...oh sorry I forgot, that what you rely upon isn't it. You accuse me of avoiding the subject as an answer to my question.
You know all these things to be true? You know for a fact that I come to such conclusions? Your means to explain is to say I can never understand or that you can't explain it. Which is it?.Try me . Tell me what this Spirit is you talk of. Can you define it and if you can't then what are the chances that it is an absolute or objective purpose. Is it truth or is it a trick of the mind, is it a perception or an emotion or would those just be more subjective questions? Which one of your organic senses allows you to conclude it exists?

I don't see why you feel the need to use such dramatic expression, unless this is perhaps directly correlated to the incredibly violent and emotional content of the religious Instruction Manuals. Otherwise I am at a loss to understand why you would attempt to attach your self appointed belief system to me... oh sorry I forgot, that what you rely upon isn't it.....!! I never said - nothing matters - but the point blackswan makes is pertinent. Things matter to humanity. In terms of the universe though, what we "subjective humans" perceive as violence, destruction, good, bad, love, hate, appears to have no relevance (there's that word again) whatsoever to the existence of the universe or any objective course it may or may not take, billions of light years away or in our own galaxy. You may think it does, but then again that would be your own personal subjective viewpoint. Whether or not 1 or a million others think the same has no effect whatsoever. A good method of evaluating the level of how subjective we are being is continuously demonstrated by so called scientific truth and not by so called religious truth.

And would you allow me to "cut off all of the baby’s heads you want" (pathetic malapropos) when science made inoculation possible, when religious belief could do nothing to stem the premature deaths of millions. This constant need to condemn science, charging it of holding a low level of importance against one religious understanding or other, is lacking a high degree of horse sense. Science - the world's new religion? Come off it. Will you eat your words, as I am sure other religious apologists have not, should I suggest pre-embryo vitro fertilization fits your description very well. "When you find a scientist (excuse me, a demigod) who can create life verifiable with consciousness as a symptom"
An example of the scientific creation of conscious life where infertility (no life) was the case. Do I get to cut the baby's head off now, or is it a case of semantics will come to your rescue, or perhaps you prefer to use more insults, or use science or scientific definitions to show my science is incorrect. The very science you would subordinate to religious belief anyday.

The prejudices you accuse me of holding were assigned to me by you, they are not mine. I do not hold such prejudice or an absolute belief as you apparently do. A belief you hold which is so prejudiced that you care not to define its affirmations ? Don't let the fact that it's been impossible for others to do so put you off , after all such problems do not stop science in its search for better knowledge nor to find out what consciousness actually is. But then again the standards used to verify science are there in an attempt to remove the subjectivity, something which appears to be absent in religious doctrine.

Now your rant is complete and by the mother of all closed prejudices.
This "science of a religion unpolluted by human thought" was founded upon what.... human thought ? Pulleese.... or Intuition maybe? (my question to darkhorse).
But even more contradictory and ironical is that you choose to describe your religious interpretation as a science !!

It would be refreshing to see a debate concentrate on the substance rather than the interminable and inevitable scaredy pants panic sidetracking by the religious.
Define your God at least.
I'll tell you what, I'll define God for you if it helps, here....... "Nothing comes before God".
Surprised ? Definition is crucial to understanding. Once you start to define that statement does it stand or does it fall ?

 

Definition is crucial to understanding, true. Acceptance of agreed upon definitions is crucial to communication and debate.

You suggest definitions all the time, and make no absolute proof that your definitions are "correct."

Definitions are in absorbed and digested in the subjective eye of the beholder.

 

So all definitions cannot remain and are always turned into subjective thought by the subjective eye of the beholder ?

A definition can never remain a definition ?

 

A definition is a human invention, thus subjective to interpretation through the filter of human experience and understanding.

You may say, "I feel warm."

I then say, "I feel warm."

Does that mean we feel the same thing?

No, it just means we are using the same term to express our experiences, but that doesn't mean the experiences are exactly alike.

 

I agree a definition is a human intervention but I don’t see how a definition (always) becomes subjective (do you mean subjected to interpretation– I am not trying to be clever here - it would make a difference) . Human intervention is not always suspect as an automatic failure to comprehend .The definition should not be subject to interpretation. It must stand unless or until a better one, capable of improved definition replaces it. Because there may exist an unknown / improved one need not undermine the usefulness of any established predecessor up to that point

We define what warm is and further, agree its definition.

As the feelings that are then expressed when we both know by definition that we are warm, are not yet defined, then they are of a "lower order" of understanding and may even be irrelevant to the definition until they themselves are defined.

I ask for the definition of God or Spirit so that the term(s) can be defined.
If there is no definition, then the experience is not relevant to the definition anyway (obviously as there is no definition they could be relevant to anything) and is of a "lower order", than if the terms could have been defined.

Human intervention need not always render everything to a state of subjectivity. Definition is at least 1 step away from that.

If religion is just an indefinable feeling then I would have assumed it would have been ok to state as such. Unfortunately it usually appears to be put forward as something completely different.

 

Religion is as undefinable a feeling as warmth from the sun is undefinable for those who forever remain in the dark.

 

Is it same warmth as when you piss in your pants ?
If you weren't ever going to debate this you could have just said so