• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God and The Meaning of Life

Logicman said:
You just made a claim, you back it up. So where's your evidence?
Click to expand...

Actually Logicman you are the one repeating a claim, a claim you cannot prove or even provide 1 shred of evidence to back it up
 
devildavid said:
Angel said:
devildavid said:
Angel, where are you? This is where you should step in as a wise peacemaker and assure them that all religions are equally true. Use some fancy arguments and formulas. Don't let us down.
Click to expand...

I was in bed, asleep. Listen, this is none of my business. Use some of that rapier wit you're famous for. Or call zyzygy -- he started it. ;)
Click to expand...

Nothing more to say? All religions are equally true? Plenty of evidence here that contradicts that claim.
Click to expand...
What more can I say?
That the smug semi-literate intellectual thugee of the cult of New Atheism is an embarrassment to serious atheists everywhere?
What would be the point?
It's a cultural diarrhea.
It'll go away.

Namaste.
 
devildavid said:
Nothing occult about rutabagas. No faith involved at all. Simply a shred of evidence that there are only physical things. Now you can present your shred of evidence of something other than the physical. It should be as simple as finding a non-physical rutabaga if your ideas have any validity.
Click to expand...
Once again you go from evidence of something physical to the conclusion "that there are only physical things." Or as you originally phrased it, that the "physical is all there is."

There are a dozen posts in this thread pointing up the disconnect between your evidence and your conclusion. Shall I start quoting them?
Give it a rest, man.

Namaste.
 
One of the problems, in terms of science able to prove or disprove God, is connected to the philosophy of science. Let me give an example of a solid and tangible data point, that we can all relate to, which science would have to assume is not valid, based on its own philosophy limitations.

For example, say I have a dream. Dreams are a well known brain affects, which everyone has had one, or more. If I was to go to group of scientists and say I had this dream, there is no scientific way to prove the dream details that I outline for the team of scientists. They may know I had a dream, by REM, but there is no way for them to record the details, as I dream. Therefore there is no way for me or them to reproduce my dream data, in a way that can also be reproduced by others, as to prove my claim.

The dream and all is details is real, but it can't be proven based on the philosophy of science. If a person had a vision type experience of God; in the head, this will be as very hard to examine, since it is like a dream detail. Many can relate to this vision, it could be real, but science cannot go there. This data will not qualified as hard data due to the limitations imposed by the philosophy of science.

The Philosophy of science tried to eliminate subjective data and data that was unique to one person. If we were all outside at night, near a lake, and only one person saw an apparition, this data will be eliminated, in favor of the things we all can see. The philosophy agrees to support only data that everyone is able to see and agree upon; reproducible. This eliminates many things inside the mind, which can only be experienced, within the brain of individuals.

The philosophy of science is why psychology is called soft science. Psychology is based on provable bulk phenomena; dreams, pathology, etc.. But it also involves unique cases of unprovable data details, that the soft scientists will give the benefit of the doubt, so their science can move forward. It seems irrational to dismiss something, based on only a philosophy. This is why the studies of the mind, dare tread in this area. A psychologists will not dismiss God experience, as fast, but may explain it in other ways.

God is a data set that brings to light the limitations of the philosophy of science.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
What more can I say?
That the smug semi-literate intellectual thugee of the cult of New Atheism is an embarrassment to serious atheists everywhere?
What would be the point?
It's a cultural diarrhea.
It'll go away.

Namaste.
Click to expand...

What does your inability to explain your statement that all religions are equally true have to do with New Atheism? Nothing at all. You are deflecting with your usual indirect insults.
 
wellwisher said:
One of the problems, in terms of science able to prove or disprove God, is connected to the philosophy of science. Let me give an example of a solid and tangible data point, that we can all relate to, which science would have to assume is not valid, based on its own philosophy limitations.

For example, say I have a dream. Dreams are a well known brain affects, which everyone has had one, or more. If I was to go to group of scientists and say I had this dream, there is no scientific way to prove the dream details that I outline for the team of scientists. They may know I had a dream, by REM, but there is no way for them to record the details, as I dream. Therefore there is no way for me or them to reproduce my dream data, in a way that can also be reproduced by others, as to prove my claim.

The dream and all is details is real, but it can't be proven based on the philosophy of science. If a person had a vision type experience of God; in the head, this will be as very hard to examine, since it is like a dream detail. Many can relate to this vision, it could be real, but science cannot go there. This data will not qualified as hard data due to the limitations imposed by the philosophy of science.

The Philosophy of science tried to eliminate subjective data and data that was unique to one person. If we were all outside at night, near a lake, and only one person saw an apparition, this data will be eliminated, in favor of the things we all can see. The philosophy agrees to support only data that everyone is able to see and agree upon; reproducible. This eliminates many things inside the mind, which can only be experienced, within the brain of individuals.

The philosophy of science is why psychology is called soft science. Psychology is based on provable bulk phenomena; dreams, pathology, etc.. But it also involves unique cases of unprovable data details, that the soft scientists will give the benefit of the doubt, so their science can move forward. It seems irrational to dismiss something, based on only a philosophy. This is why the studies of the mind, dare tread in this area. A psychologists will not dismiss God experience, as fast, but may explain it in other ways.

God is a data set that brings to light the limitations of the philosophy of science.
Click to expand...
Would you describe a leprechaun experience as challenging the limitations of the philosophy of science?
 
Angel said:
God and The Meaning of Life

24vYgfEm.png


Without God, indeed without the concept of God, the meaning of the world, and with it the meaning of life, becomes nugatory.

nugatory, adj.
of no real value or importance; trifling; vain; futile; insignificant.

With God, indeed with the concept of God alone, the meaning of the world, and with it the meaning of life, takes on cosmic import and significance.

Meaning
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/

Comment?

Cavil?

Compliment?

Question?

...​
Click to expand...

I’m not going to pretend I’ve read anything more than the OP on this thread, so you can ignore if anything has already been covered. But yes, without God (or at least without eternity) – everything is void of ultimate significance since ultimately there will be nothing. I think that is why any hope for grounding objective moral values would have to be in something eternal. Of course if there were no God you could still find relative significance with things like living by the particular set of morals that we happened to evolve with, but I don’t see how there could ever be any ultimate significance.

 
thatguymd; said:
I don’t see how there could ever be any ultimate significance.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence reminds me of what Solomon said in Eccl. 1:1,2...“The greatest futility!” says the congregator, “The greatest futility! Everything is futile!” What does a person gain from all his hard work At which he toils under the sun?"

And verses 8 and 9...All things are wearisome; No one can even speak of it. The eye is not satisfied at seeing; Nor is the ear filled from hearing. What has been is what will be, And what has been done will be done again; There is nothing new under the sun."

Without God, there is no true meaning to life and nothing is lasting...
 
Angel said:
Once again you go from evidence of something physical to the conclusion "that there are only physical things." Or as you originally phrased it, that the "physical is all there is."

There are a dozen posts in this thread pointing up the disconnect between your evidence and your conclusion. Shall I start quoting them?
Give it a rest, man.

Namaste.
Click to expand...

I presented evidence to back up that the physical is all there is. I have plenty more evidence. I thought that I should give you a chance to present evidence of something/anything other than physical before I pile on more of my evidence.
 
devildavid said:
I presented evidence to back up that the physical is all there is. I have plenty more evidence. I thought that I should give you a chance to present evidence of something/anything other than physical before I pile on more of my evidence.
Click to expand...
You have not presented any evidence that the "physical is all there is," David. You are either mistaken or hoping that if you assert that you did something you did not do, no one will call you to account. Well, I'm calling you to account. Please point to a single post (by number is sufficient) where you presented evidence in support of your thesis that the "physical is all there is." Thank you.
 
zyzygy said:
Would you describe a leprechaun experience as challenging the limitations of the philosophy of science?
Click to expand...

Say you had such an experience, it may not be reproducible in the lab. It may have been a one shot deal. Leprechauns are very private. Therefore, it would not meet the standard of the philosophy of science; others need to see it and it needs to be reproducible. If not, it would not be accepted.

The philosophy of science attempted to limit its experience to that which can be objective and reproduced by others. This standards was very useful for learning about nature, since it got rid of human subjectivity. However, this philosophy has limits, in terms of the workings of the human mind and human consciousness. These things come from the same place as subjectivity; brain and consciousness. We lost something that is now becoming conscious. We can learn about neurons and how the brain works, but this has not been sufficient to define a consensus definition for consciousness. A good consensus definition needs data that the philosophy does not allow.

For example, say you had a toothache. Science can wire you up and measure various parameters; blood pressure, brain waves, etc. II can record your moans and groans. However, science can't crawl into the your skin and watch your toothache from the inside. It cannot access the data connected to your conscious awareness. If this inside data was included, with the superficial data, it would paint a more complete picture. However, the inside data is not allowed by the rules of the philosophy. What we end up with is half baked human sciences; soft science, which may stand in judgement of what it does not measure.

In terms of dream details,, which do not come under the philosophy of science, dreams are often part of a culture's lore. A good example are the indigenous people of America; American Indians. Since all people dream, at one time or another, tribes can still relate, in spite of the philosophy of sincere, and form traditions based on important dreams of their elders and chiefs. The religious experience comes from the same places as dreams and neither are fully covered by the philosophy of science.

Say for the sake of argument religious output started as dreams, visions and revelations, all of which are aspects which one can be made aware, internally, via consciousness. What separates religious output, from other creative output, has to do with how the data impacts others.

For example, new music appears all the time. Most of this new music is very temporary in terms of its mass appeal; one hit wonder. Some songs are more timeless and some may even define a generation. The difference in time scale measure how well the song resonates within the psyche of humans. The longer the time scale, the deeper the impact. It comes from a deep place and reaches a deep place. Religions are thousands of years old and still resonate like good songs for millions of people. These represent consciousness data that touches the deepest part of the brains and some even carry the seeds of human evolution.To me this is very interesting data.

If the swamp knew how to touch these deeper parts of the brain with fake news, it would become real to people. However, it appears the brain has to naturally generate this deep layer output; revelation. This natural data output, made conscious to some, contains the correct command lines needed to reach that part of the psyche in millions of humans, It almost seems connected to the survival of the species firmware of the brain.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
Say you had such an experience, it may not be reproducible in the lab. It may have been a one shot deal. Leprechauns are very private. Therefore, it would not meet the standard of the philosophy of science; others need to see it and it needs to be reproducible. If not, it would not be accepted.

The philosophy of science attempted to limit its experience to that which can be objective and reproduced by others. This standards was very useful for learning about nature, since it got rid of human subjectivity. However, this philosophy has limits, in terms of the workings of the human mind and human consciousness. These things come from the same place as subjectivity; brain and consciousness. We lost something that is now becoming conscious. We can learn about neurons and how the brain works, but this has not been sufficient to define a consensus definition for consciousness. A good consensus definition needs data that the philosophy does not allow.

For example, say you had a toothache. Science can wire you up and measure various parameters; blood pressure, brain waves, etc. II can record your moans and groans. However, science can't crawl into the your skin and watch your toothache from the inside. It cannot access the data connected to your conscious awareness. If this inside data was included, with the superficial data, it would paint a more complete picture. However, the inside data is not allowed by the rules of the philosophy. What we end up with is half baked human sciences; soft science, which may stand in judgement of what it does not measure.

In terms of dream details,, which do not come under the philosophy of science, dreams are often part of a culture's lore. A good example are the indigenous people of America; American Indians. Since all people dream, at one time or another, tribes can still relate, in spite of the philosophy of sincere, and form traditions based on important dreams of their elders and chiefs. The religious experience comes from the same places as dreams and neither are fully covered by the philosophy of science.

Say for the sake of argument religious output started as dreams, visions and revelations, all of which are aspects which one can be made aware, internally, via consciousness. What separates religious output, from other creative output, has to do with how the data impacts others.

For example, new music appears all the time. Most of this new music is very temporary in terms of its mass appeal; one hit wonder. Some songs are more timeless and some may even define a generation. The difference in time scale measure how well the song resonates within the psyche of humans. The longer the time scale, the deeper the impact. It comes from a deep place and reaches a deep place. Religions are thousands of years old and still resonate like good songs for millions of people. These represent consciousness data that touches the deepest part of the brains and some even carry the seeds of human evolution.To me this is very interesting data.

If the swamp knew how to touch these deeper parts of the brain with fake news, it would become real to people. However, it appears the brain has to naturally generate this deep layer output; revelation. This natural data output, made conscious to some, contains the correct command lines needed to reach that part of the psyche in millions of humans, It almost seems connected to the survival of the species firmware of the brain.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that gods are imaginary?
 
Angel said:
You have not presented any evidence that the "physical is all there is," David. You are either mistaken or hoping that if you assert that you did something you did not do, no one will call you to account. Well, I'm calling you to account. Please point to a single post (by number is sufficient) where you presented evidence in support of your thesis that the "physical is all there is." Thank you.
Click to expand...

I presented rutabaga. That is a piece of physical evidence in the physical world. There is much more physical evidence in the world. The preponderance of all this evidence points toward an all physical universe. You can present an example of non-physical evidence.
 
wellwisher said:
Say you had such an experience, it may not be reproducible in the lab. It may have been a one shot deal. Leprechauns are very private. Therefore, it would not meet the standard of the philosophy of science; others need to see it and it needs to be reproducible. If not, it would not be accepted.

The philosophy of science attempted to limit its experience to that which can be objective and reproduced by others. This standards was very useful for learning about nature, since it got rid of human subjectivity. However, this philosophy has limits, in terms of the workings of the human mind and human consciousness. These things come from the same place as subjectivity; brain and consciousness. We lost something that is now becoming conscious. We can learn about neurons and how the brain works, but this has not been sufficient to define a consensus definition for consciousness. A good consensus definition needs data that the philosophy does not allow.

For example, say you had a toothache. Science can wire you up and measure various parameters; blood pressure, brain waves, etc. II can record your moans and groans. However, science can't crawl into the your skin and watch your toothache from the inside. It cannot access the data connected to your conscious awareness. If this inside data was included, with the superficial data, it would paint a more complete picture. However, the inside data is not allowed by the rules of the philosophy. What we end up with is half baked human sciences; soft science, which may stand in judgement of what it does not measure.

In terms of dream details,, which do not come under the philosophy of science, dreams are often part of a culture's lore. A good example are the indigenous people of America; American Indians. Since all people dream, at one time or another, tribes can still relate, in spite of the philosophy of sincere, and form traditions based on important dreams of their elders and chiefs. The religious experience comes from the same places as dreams and neither are fully covered by the philosophy of science.

Say for the sake of argument religious output started as dreams, visions and revelations, all of which are aspects which one can be made aware, internally, via consciousness. What separates religious output, from other creative output, has to do with how the data impacts others.

For example, new music appears all the time. Most of this new music is very temporary in terms of its mass appeal; one hit wonder. Some songs are more timeless and some may even define a generation. The difference in time scale measure how well the song resonates within the psyche of humans. The longer the time scale, the deeper the impact. It comes from a deep place and reaches a deep place. Religions are thousands of years old and still resonate like good songs for millions of people. These represent consciousness data that touches the deepest part of the brains and some even carry the seeds of human evolution.To me this is very interesting data.

If the swamp knew how to touch these deeper parts of the brain with fake news, it would become real to people. However, it appears the brain has to naturally generate this deep layer output; revelation. This natural data output, made conscious to some, contains the correct command lines needed to reach that part of the psyche in millions of humans, It almost seems connected to the survival of the species firmware of the brain.
Click to expand...

Religion is like a really, really, really, really popular song? I kind of think sexual desire has played a much bigger role in the evolutionary success of humanity than any beliefs. That, and the progress made in intelligence as evidenced in science and technology.
 
devildavid said:
Religion is like a really, really, really, really popular song? I kind of think sexual desire has played a much bigger role in the evolutionary success of humanity than any beliefs. That, and the progress made in intelligence as evidenced in science and technology.
Click to expand...

Progress made in intelligence? Don't you think developing tools and etc. was pretty smart and resourceful too?
 
nota bene said:
Progress made in intelligence? Don't you think developing tools and etc. was pretty smart and resourceful too?
Click to expand...

That's part of the progress made in intelligence. It led to science and technology advancing, which has led to man's increasing success. I don't think you are disagreeing with me here.
 
devildavid said:
Religion is like a really, really, really, really popular song? I kind of think sexual desire has played a much bigger role in the evolutionary success of humanity than any beliefs. That, and the progress made in intelligence as evidenced in science and technology.
Click to expand...

I would say sexual desire is more in the downfall of man, not success...when sexual desire is taken out of context of what God intended, it almost always leads to disaster in one way or another...disease, unwanted pregnancies, jealousy, perversion, and murder...it has also been the downfall of more than one society...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom