Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?

Debate cannot begin until the debaters agree on terminology and and definition of experience, and as long as a non believer willingly chooses not to put themselves in a position to experience what the faithful are willing to do, how could a debate on this subject begin?

You will forever create your own definitions about faith and religion, without ever having the experience of the faithful.

I can understand pure agnosticism, but your perspective appears to me to be one of a pure atheist....which is illogical from my point of view.

A pure agnostic could only say:

"These are my belief systems developed from what works for me based on my own life experiences and perceptions combined with whatever faculty of reason I posses."

From my observation, it seems to be the nature of humans to draw conclusions from raw data of human experience.

The moment a conclusion is drawn from raw data, raw human experience, a judgment has been made.....and just because that conclusion works to satisfy the immediate need, physical, emotional, or mental, there is no absolute proof that the conclusion will satisfy the need for all times, all places, and all spaces going forward.

There are as many dogmatic personalities to be found in the church of science as there are in the church of faith.

You are dogmatic about your point of view, but without proof to support such a position.

My claim is that faith exists for the faithful as true and real as scientific results exsit for the scientist.

Who can say who is ultimately right or wrong?

That you continue to value science over faith is your choice, but just your opinion, not an miracle fact.

 

Isn't that what I stated in my previous post !

You make an presumption that because of where my understandings may be now , I cannot now be nor have I ever been in a position of faith, or that such faith (religious or otherwise) could not be stronger or more meaningful than anything you experience, and that I am unable therfore to agree definition !! Is it your faith which produces such astonishing knowledge and assumption ?

How do you know that . More predetermined assumption on your part ? The description you give is surely not what the pervading message of institutionalized established religious doctrine is. So do they in the same way assume you cannot have ever experienced what religious faith truly is. ?

It is simply a truism to say faith exists for the faithful.
On its own I do and could not disagree with holding faith and I repeat yet again, I would still keep the importance of having a faith of any kind as a sometimes valuable human experience .

But come on, that is not the point.The debate is really on the usefulness of different human concepts whose "truth" and experiences are determined as being proved, when they are not based upon definition.

If you hold a faith of whatever kind and you feel it is it is the right thing to do based on your own understanding of things, then I would do no more than to ask what your faith is and what it is based on. If you were to declare it was the only Truth and to the death of all Infidels, I would have no way of agreeing it was either true or commendable in its objectives. I would pick up on the death bit though, but are you somehow suggesting I would be wrong to declare it as wrong, based upon a definition of death.? There's little to define there, but a lot more to define in the word Truth.

Who indeed , however we may get a better idea by discussing why such faith cannot be defined more clearly,. than the rather patronizing sound of if 'you don't get it then you can't experience it' . Well obviously, but if we can't know or get defined or achieve understanding of what it is we are supposed to be getting, then why put such expressions somehow above what can be observed and understood ?

The points I reach are based on my understanding and opinion as are yours. Not to be able to debate those opinions or try to get them supported by definition at least, is debilitating to human understanding and experience. I sometimes think that's exactly what religion depends on.

You say I value science over faith. My attempt is only to use some of the touchstones applied by science for example - definition, to establish a better understanding of what faith is supposed to be. Yet I know what faith is and I hold a certain faith, as you do. I would say that any faith would be stronger by defining it rather than just leaving it to feelings or emotion only.

 

Isn't that what I stated in my previous post !

That is not what I understood you to say.

You make an presumption that because of where my understandings may be now , I cannot now be nor have I ever been in a position of faith, or that such faith (religious or otherwise) could not be stronger or more meaningful than anything you experience, and that I am unable therefore to agree definition !!

My assumption is that whatever your life experiences have been, raw data combined with whatever reasoning faculty you have, you have drawn your own subjective conclusions

Is it your faith which produces such astonishing knowledge and assumption ?How do you know that . More predetermined assumption on your part ? The description you give is surely not what the pervading message of institutionalized established religious doctrine is. So do they in the same way assume you cannot have ever experienced what religious faith truly is. ?

I am not representing any institutionalized religious doctrine. I am speaking from my own experiences, raw data, and reasoning faculty.

It is simply a truism to say faith exists for the faithful.

And it is as true to say that science exists for the scientist.


On its own I do and could not disagree with holding faith and I repeat yet again, I would still keep the importance of having a faith of any kind as a sometimes valuable human experience .

That is your opinion that it is sometimes valuable, my opinion is that it is at all times valuable to have faith in the right things.



But come on, that is not the point.The debate is really on the usefulness of different human concepts whose "truth" and experiences are determined as being proved, when they are not based upon definition.

Proof precedes terminology, not the reverse.

If you hold a faith of whatever kind and you feel it is it is the right thing to do based on your own understanding of things, then I would do no more than to ask what your faith is and what it is based on.

My faith is based on my internal relationship with God

If you were to declare it was the only Truth and to the death of all Infidels, I would have no way of agreeing it was either true or commendable in its objectives.

Have I ever said such a thing?

I would pick up on the death bit though, but are you somehow suggesting I would be wrong to declare it as wrong, based upon a definition of death.? There's little to define there, but a lot more to define in the word Truth.

I am saying you are wrong to conclude my experience is wrong without evidence of that.

Who indeed , however we may get a better idea by discussing why such faith cannot be defined more clearly,. than the rather patronizing sound of if 'you don't get it then you can't experience it' .

Faith is easily defined by the faithful, and impossible to define by the faithless. The proof of the sweetness of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding, not in the recipe of the pudding.


Well obviously, but if we can't know or get defined or achieve understanding of what it is we are supposed to be getting, then why put such expressions somehow above what can be observed and understood ?

The expressions can be understood and observed, via the implementation of faith.

The points I reach are based on my understanding and opinion as are yours. Not to be able to debate those opinions or try to get them supported by definition at least, is debilitating to human understanding and experience. I sometimes think that's exactly what religion depends on.

Religion depends on the practice of faith. The practice of a mathematician depends on mathematics, what is so hard to understand?

You say I value science over faith. My attempt is only to use some of the touchstones applied by science for example - definition, to establish a better understanding of what faith is supposed to be. Yet I know what faith is and I hold a certain faith, as you do. I would say that any faith would be stronger by defining it rather than just leaving it to feelings or emotion only.

You want the "touchstones applied by science" to establish a better understanding of faith? That is hillarious. Again you make my point for me. You want to make the first definition, the rules of this discussion, and that is that we take the perspective of science FIRST, and then evaluate faith. I am simply saying if you suspend science first, then there is no problem with understanding faith. Depends upon where someone wants to start a relative discussion from first. You demand I meet the terms of your science, I laugh and say, Why? Why not come over to my side and see it the way I see it?

 

hey Optional, where can i get me one of those get-out-of-debate-free cards?

so tell us, what are "the right things" that it is always 'valuable' (<- subjective term) to have faith in?


since it's pretty unlikely that you'll answer the above question, and even more unlikely that the answer you give, if you give one, will have a speck of objectivity to it, why not tell me this: are you absolutely certain of your faith, a la darkhorse? absolutely certain of God's existence? or do you acknowledge that perhaps you might be wrong? (as every good atheist does) do you acknowledge that there may be other explanations for your experiences (that maybe as good as or better than "god"?)

if so, great. if you had any desire for a better understanding you could really stand to gain from any discussion. if not, i fail to see any good reason for your continuing participation in discussing the matter.

 

What are the "right" things you refer to?

That is the subject of "morality" and "ethics" when applying standards to others and ourselves, concerning our actions.

________________________________________________

I believe you can never know the real motivation behind someone's action. Impossible, for unless you can read their minds, how can you know what they were thinking when they performed the action? So, all we have is judgement of outer behavior, and speculation on inner motivation.

Since we live in society, we have to have rules of conduct and make judgments in order to preserve the peace and tranquility of the society. Law and order.

Man made law and order.
________________________________________________


What is right, when it comes to faith?

That is between the individual and the God they worship.

________________________________________________


Am I absolutely certain? No. But by definition, can a being who is not absolute, be absolutely certain of anything?

Descartes "ah ha" experience did not prove his existence, only that his acceptance of the rules of logic, his faith in logic FIRST, made his "I think, therefore I am" a proof of his existence. However, he could never achieve an external confirmation of this thought, for he could never know with certainty that he wasn't delusional at any given moment. He could compare himself to all of his peers, but is that absolute proof? Have there been instances where everyone else was wrong, and only one man was right?

History shows us that this is possible. The very first man who suggested the world wasn't flat, was proven correct in time, but at the time was considered delusional by all others who held that belief.

Bottom line, I can only go by my own experience, the experiences of others, anecdotal information, and perception of those factors that are common to all human beings. I then apply whatever reasoning ability I have to seek a direction to move in. What more can anyone really do?

Do I practice faith? Yes.

Have I perfected my faith. No.

Do I believe practice leads to perfection? Yes.

_________________________________________________

I have no need to convince anyone that my faith, or that faith in a power greater than themselves is the "right" path to take in life. I can share my direct experiences, point to the experiences of others, and apply common sense and reason to the situation.

I just find it funny that those who chose a "scientific" belief system, an atheistic position, or an agnostic belief system don't see that all are choosing a belief system to adopt.

Children are not born with a specific set of beliefs. They initially adopt what is given to them by their care givers without question, and upon maturation and individuation, upon becoming an adult they then have the power to choose what they want to believe and embrace, what they want to accept or reject, how to exercise their free will.

But a debate on the validity of religion from a scientific perspective makes no sense to me. To do so would be as silly as having a scientific debate on love, happiness, joy, and other emotive states for which there is no external proof as to the validity of them.

Only an absolute perspective could know the truth, a perspective that never changes, is eternal, and not subject to the flaws that are within all human beings.

Who among us can go an entire lifetime without sleep, food, protection from the environment?

We know of no one who has lived forever, do we?

So we exist in a fragile and dependent state, temporal, limited, subjective, and having a mind fraught with the constant changing nature of our emotional sides.

If someone came along and suggested that you could become eternal, never grow old, experience joy all the time, ever increasing pleasure each and every moment for eternity, honestly speaking, would you say no to such an offer?

It would be illogical to do so. If you boil down every motivation for each and every action, you will find at its core is the desire for happiness.

If someone chooses a path of science to reach that goal, and use the instruments available, to implement a path to reach that goal, to find the ultimate truth and reality, okay by me.

However, can that same person say that they have made the "right" choice, and I have made the "wrong" choice? How could they know, how could I know?

I try to bottom line it as much as possible. What is the essential nature of any and all human beings.

My goal is eternal peace, eternal satisfaction, eternal happiness, eternal health, eternal joy.

No scientist that I have read has ever offered a path to that. They might have concluded that to be impossible, but on what basis could they have concluded that? It is pure speculation in either case, but the desire remains. I could practice some form of denial of my own inner desire, or I can admit them and seek fulfillment of them.

So if those who perfected faith in the past, speak of the goal which I seek, and upon following that well worn path I move in the direction the have guided me, in the same way if I seek the ocean and following a map given to me by someone who claims to know the way----I begin to feel a cooling breeze moving in the direction the map leads me, and away from the arid nature of the desert, I continue to follow that path. Same with faith. If the faith brings the intended results, it is the right faith.

Wrong faith, wrong results.

One question for you:

What is the proof of your own death? If you say the proof is what the doctors say, how would you know that if you were dead?

 

Definitions for discussion along with some ranting

First off, let me admit to being petty, childish and most certainly an ass! Hey, I am working on it.

Stu, although theoretically you accept that there might be Spirit/Life you seem to only be willing to conceive of it as being a by-product of inert matter, even though to date, no scientist or any of his blind followers have been able to prove this THEORY. The only fact that is “objectively” observable is that the sentient and the non-sentient seem to exist side by side.

It is not the responsibility of the Spiritualist (spiritual scientist, one who accepts that matter and spirit are different and pursues knowledge in both accordingly) to prove that life comes from matter. That is the responsibility of the material scientist.

If one accepts that both the sentient and the non-sentient are in fact two different materials and a party has proposed a theory on how one material caused the other material, it is up to the party that has proposed the theory to prove it. The “they will prove it in the future” argument can not be accepted as being “scientific”.

BTW, pre-embryo vitro fertilization is not the creation of life. (Have a scientist create the sperm/the efficient and the egg/material causal ingredients, mix them together and create life and then you may use this as an example) Mixing these ingredients, specifically the efficient one, in an artificial womb does not constitute the creation of life.

For the purpose of discussion (amuse me) lets ignore the above misconception as proof of life coming from matter so the discussion may rise up beyond the topic of “Universe”(material) and progress towards “Life” “Existence” and “Purpose”. Stu, at least theoretically you have agreed that there might exist spirit/ a non-material life force. So, c’mon guy, work with me here.

OK, here is a definition of absolute. I hope you will be as non-prejudicial and broad-minded as you have inferred that you are. Otherwise it will simply be more fuel for an argument, a sort of causeless unwillingness to discuss. (I do not accept that something cannot be explained. However, I do accept that ignorance exists.)

Absolute is that which is spiritual in nature. Relative is that which is material in nature. Anything that is spiritual is absolute and eternal. Anything constructed of matter is temporary and relative. (I agree with you on purposes relating to matter being relative)

You might say, “well, what is spirit, what is its nature and where did it come from?” I can tell you from experience that with arrogance born of ignorance it will be extremely difficult to find out. I also began my subjective evolution of consciousness as a hard core atheist.

Spirit is an eternally existing energy that is the cause of all causes. (Gross and subtle matter included) Just as material elements have their own nature, water is wet, fire is hot, etc… Spirit has It’s own spiritual nature, that of all concentrated time, uncovered knowledge and inebriating felicity. The very intensely blended entity of eternal presence of felicitous cognition is the charming spiritual icon (The Supreme Spirit). It follows that the conception of the indistinguishable formless magnitude which (known as Brahman or Spirit in the eastern religious traditions) is an indolent, lax, presentment of cognitive bliss, is merely the penumbra of intensely blended glow of the three concomitants, - the blissful, the substantive and the cognitive. (The Supreme Spirit’s Effulgence) The individual spirits are analogously described as being infinitesimal particles of this spiritual effulgence, similar in quality but not in quantity.

Mechanistic science is beginning to attempt to explore the non-mechanistic reality (spirit). Throw your college science books out and attend a conference or two. Come out of the caves created by the Taliban/Evangelicals (religious fundamentalists) and the holes created by the daisy cutter bombs (material fundamentalists). Go study a little of the history of science from Pythagoras to the present and tell us where his insights and those that followed him came from. Hey, I know of the Christian church’s foot in the mouth stifling of science history. I doubt most Christians are very proud of that. [That is only the last 500 years or so] Travel East in to the Oriental/Vedic traditions and you will not see any problem between the simultaneous study of matter and spirit. In fact they enrich each other.

The scientists that are beginning to study the realm of consciousness, life, spirit and its origins are turning towards ancient Eastern literatures not because they are attempting to make religion relevant but because the various means of their prior research is becoming irrelevant. (These scientists truly have renounced or are in the process of renouncing their prejudices in their search for absolute truths)

To think that intuition is not part of the scientific process is a very uninformed conception of how science works or the conception comes from one unfamiliar with scientific research at all. Let me give you a quote to ponder from the Nobel Laureate, M.H.Wilkins; “The logical and the rational is a very important element in science. But, emphasis on that tends to make people not notice the ESSENTIAL role played by intuition”. Perhaps M.H. Wilkens might be one of the scientists whose wonderful inoculations you herald, if so, you might want to listen to and adopt a few more of his understandings. Please do not lay false hope in material science creating eternal life on this plane of matter. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses already have that market cornered.

The acceptance of any scientific research method to investigate the nature of spirit/life is an attempt to get man out of the caves. (I agree that the majority of so called religious teachers, influenced by the mundane, relative, modes of nature, are doing their best to keep the masses in the caves)

Is some faith required in the beginning of spiritual research? Yes, as is the case in material scientific research.

One cannot taste the honey which is inside of a glass jar by licking the outside the jar.

PS. Excuse me, while I amuse my ass like child now, allow me to digress a little. Perhaps a “small bang” experiment could be performed for us non-believers, or perhaps the creation of a nat. Perhaps one life form remaining in their material body forever, eternally existing matter.( I propose BobCathy) I was wondering what will happen to the faith of evolutionist’s blind followers when QM theorists team up with biochemists to win the Nobel prize for proving that 4.5 billion years is not a long enough period for the big bang and subsequent primordial soup to morph itself in to a successful stock/futures trader.

Oh yea, I was wondering why you did not use the example of the thousands of year old medical science that springs from the religious traditions of the EAST (ayurveda) for saving lives.

Controversial topics should not be avoided for discussion of them strengthen the intellect.

Thanks for your post. So called religionists = so called scientists

 

They, let me ask you? Do you KNOW this stuff? is this objective FACT? if so, HOW did you come to know it (or how did the people that 'discovered' it come to know it?)
if by 'faith' alone, please enlighten us on precisely why you think Faith is a valid cognitive procedure.

or, would you be willing to admit that it is a falsifiable model of the world you've chosen to adopt? (that's not a knock on it..)
that would be MUCH more intellectually honest...

for all i know, there could be a great deal of validity to what you're saying, but, i must admit, at this stage it looks like just another 'god of the gaps' argument.

They, this is just further proof that your entire position rests on a 'god of the gaps' type argument. do yo know what that is? it's using 'god' to fill in the gaps of current knowledge.
i'll ask you again, IF science CAN one day show these things, would you be willing to dispense with (some of) your religious beliefs? if the answer is 'no, then i don't see why anyone would want to discuss the mater with you.

and i'm curious, why do you so steadfastly cling to the idea that evolution WILL be shown false? lol. seriously dude, it makes it very difficult to take you seriously when you throw up stuff like that.

Optional, thanks for taking the time to post that. unfortunately, you really answered nothing to my question, but you did give me the foundations on which you live your life. as such, there's not a whole lot of falt i can find with them. i wish you all the best. you haven't really shown that you're interested in a intellectual discussion (although you often claim you are) about the precepts b which you live your life, so i don't think i'll bother responding in detail.

but i do have just one more question for you: are you willing to admit that an atheist is perfectly capable of making sense of the world and living peaceful, contented, happy, 'ethical' (without getting bogged down in what it means) life, without having a relationship with 'God'? if you agree that it's possible, there's really not much reason for us to discuss anything more on the topic. if you don't think so, well, say so, and come prepared to defend your position.

 

Sure, an atheist is perfectly capable of making sense of the world, living peacefully, contented, happy, acting in accordance with man made laws and standards of what is ethical, in this lifetime, why not? Does that mean he isn't going to a hell for his beliefs? I surely don't know, and cannot say. I do have my beliefs, but they are unprovable to you....given the standards and concepts of proof you require.

Live and let live is fine by me.

If the life you have chosen is enough for you, or anyone else, how could I judge them wrong? I am not the one who is in a position to judge.

However, that belief system you suggest isn't enough for me, so how could you judge me wrong for mine?

What position do I need to defend or attack? I see no need to elevate religion over science, the proof of either one is a personal matter, not subject to discussion.

My contention is that those who choose atheism, agnosticism, science or religious beliefs are all of free will to choose to do so.

However, to say that one set of beliefs is superior to another is illogical, to say that religion is wrong and science is right, just doesn't follow.

The beliefs of the agnostic, the atheist, the purely logical scientist don't serve my personal needs, and for someone to suggest that their path would "necessarily" fulfill my needs is illogical to me.

However, that is what I have seen in this particular thread....from the very beginning by those who push the creed and dogma of their "scientific and objective" perspective.

The scientific thinking expressed on this thread seems to imply that it is superior to faith based practices in discovering the truth of life and existence, and for the life of me, no one on this thread has given me a reason why they can come to that conclusion for anyone but themselves.

I am open to that discussion, but be forewarned, I understand the rules of the game that is being played here as much as the next guy. And I won't play the game by the definitions thrown out by the scientists as valid without a proof of their validity. Until we agree upon the rules, which is the crux of the problem in this thread, there can be no real discussion or advancement of thought.

 

Daniel,

Stu asked for a definition of absolute I gave him my understanding of the term absolute, which is taken from the Vedic literature. For the purpose of discussion you may choose to accept it or not.

You ask do I know this stuff. Am I a self realized individual spirit who no longer identifies with matter? No. Have I received knowledge about spirit through my own subjective evolution of consciousness? Yes. How does one come to know these things? Not through an empirical process. Is some degree of faith required in the beginning? Yes.

Blind faith is not a valid cognitive procedure it is a form of ignorance. When a science student begins his study he does not go back to the dawn of “Western science” and test each theory. He accepts these theories with faith and he begins according to his level. I accept the Vedic conclusions as truth, to date no materialistic scientist has been able to disprove any of them.

God for the gaps? I do view evolution as “speculation for the gaps”. Even Darwin, the principle theorist himself, had a few missing links (haha) in his theory. As I posted to Stu, the only objective observation that currently exists is that both sentient and non-sentient things exist. The Vedas state that on this plane this was always the case. (No need to prove it, simply study the nature of both side by side) However, mechanistic science states something different, that the sentient arose from the non-sentient, but cannot prove it. Do you suggest I have blind faith in this unproven theory?

As for your question regarding the hypothetical IF/WHEN mechanistic science can disprove my understanding that matter is matter and spirit is spirit and the Supreme spirit is the source of matter. Sure I would be willing to renounce my understanding. Any subjective speculation on how long I should hold my breath?

Daniel, I think you misread my post. I do not cling to the idea that evolution will be shown false. I hold the entire unproven speculative theory to be false. As I said, I am well aware of each individual’s free will. If you choose to have faith in an unproven theory that your forefathers were monkeys who am I do argue with you. Ok, Ok, I accept that you are a descendant of monkeys. (haha)

Seriously, its evolution of consciousness not evolution of matter that I adhere to.

"God for ALL the gaps"(even the apparent ones created by modern speculative science- the ones that people of lesser intelligence seemed confused with), along with the sciences of mathematics, management, astronomy, medicine, arts, music, language, philosophy, etc... pre-dating Grecian culture by thousands of years. Hmm, them must have been some pretty smart monkeys. (haha)

 

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." - richard dawkins

"Onassis Heiress Athina Turns 18, Inherits Billions"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...62&e=3&u=/nm/20030129/en_nm/people_onassis_dc