60,000 years

[ConsequentAtheist]

Actually, that was a pretty good riposte.

 

[Balerion]

Jenyar,

The argument is that you invariably need both reason and observation to experience a reality that is "observable" neither in nature or your mind exclusively.

You're right. Absolutely right.

And alternate means of studying music is to imagine it.

No. A product of imagination is based on something real. Music imagined is based on music that you've heard before, or at least individual instruments. But, do not for one second think that the music exists until you've played it.

It also doesn't mean it is imaginary (as you say God is), because it is based on the existence of sound waves, harmonies and natural phenomena and can be expressed as an objective reality others can share.

But the actual piece of music you are imagining is, in fact, imaginary. And until it's been played on an instrument, or put together in reality, it is nothing but imaginary.

Same goes for the idea of god, as it's origins may be based on some experience someone had hundreds of thousands of years ago. Just because it's based on something real doesn't make it real itself.

I only use optical observation because it is the most "visibility oriented". I wanted to show you that something doesn't exist because we can observe it, but we can only observe it because it exists.

Yeah, you get no argument there. But you haven't been able to show me that some spiritual realm exists, or how you would be aware of it.

But if we continue using natural phenomena as our basis, we are forever stuck in what is created. We can zoom in on everything in creation and figure out its base properties - but I'm trying to get you to zoom out using the same principles.

You want me to consider what created it all? I'm not sure I'm following...

Psychologists use both treatment and therapy - never just one or the other, for this reason. You can treat the observable base using science, but you can't do cognitive behaviour therapy using medicine. The moment you cease to see the person as an individual, and only treat her as a "body", you've practically lost the patient.

Don't forget that a psychologist is also there to study the habits, quirks and behaviour of the patient, which helps in the diagnosing the problem and prescribing medicine. There are things we cannot treat, as far as mental instability issues go, with medicine. Yet. But don't think for one second that a paranoid schizophrenic (sp?) can be cured without medicine. And don't think for one second that her psychiatrist is doing anything but studying her.

Depression, sure. That can be treated without any medicine sometimes. But that is in mild cases.

And please, please don't make such broad generalizations. "You've lost the patient?" Who are you to say that?

I will continue this post later. Right now, I'm late for jury duty.

JD

 

[Balerion]

I know your starting point is that all phenomena are at their roots observable, and therefore ultimately subject to sciientific scrutiny. But you can only "go in" from there. If such a reality happens to be part of something larger, you will be unable to see it.

And by "of something larger," you mean God, right? I see no reason to consider we are a creation of a god. I mean, no one can say it's impossible, but the stories told of the god you believe in aren't reliable or accurate. So why would I buy into those?

See, if there is a god, it's credibility is being shaken by the gods humanity have created.

And in no way does my insisting that everything that exists is observable in one way or another does not make me blind to a "larger picture," whatever that means.

Subjective consciousness is perhaps a bad example, because that is exactly the problem you have with God, isn't it? That he is just a figment of our imagination and therefore unobservable except at his inception.

At his insception? I thought God had no beginning...

The best I can do is make you aware that something's existence doesn't always lie in its roots in nature

....I'm sorry, but could you please give me some evidence to back that up? As far as you, me, or anyone else knows, all there is is a material world. Discussion of anything else is an exercise in creative, fictional thinking.

We can't "intercept" God at a naturalistic level.

Again, I will have to look up the verse, but God walks physically on Earth before Moses, I believe, or maybe Abraham, in the Bible.

At best, creation is the "subjective reality" of God. His "emotions", like love, find expression in us - not only in us, of course, since He is not limited by his creation - but that's another discussion.

To quote J. Jonah Jameson from the hit movie Spider Man: "Crap. Crap. Mega-Crap."

Just try to hold the thought for a moment. If God did create the universe as we observe it - like a musician would create music or an artist art - where would we seek God inside it? Wouldn't our science only be able to discover deeper and deeper what has been created - being creations ourselves - instead of what has created it?

I will give you that, but this again gives a nod to the fail-safe ideal of a creator. As of now, there is no way to disprove that an intelligent entity created the Universe. We can argue the stories about it, or them, all we want, but there is really no way to say if a god exists or not.

But in the same breath, let me ask you something. If you heard a really short, beautiful sound, is there not the probability that the sound was made naturally, and not produced by some musician?

The first clue we have about His existence would lie in our ability to reason and experience abstractions. We would not be limited to what we can observe and explain. All evidence is that we aren't.

Tell me, Jenyar, how you know that there is anything that cannot be observed? Of course we are limited to what we can observe! To say we can observe the unobservable is an oxymoron. And what evidence says we can do such things?

But why then do you propose we should wear the maginifying glasses when we look for God? That's "fine print" I talked about. If you minutely dissect a contract you might miss its meaning and purpose entirely.

Ha! So that's your advice? "Don't read the fine print?" HA! Just goes to show how naive you are, Jenyar.

But there is most definitely no inherent meaning in anything if you idon't believe in God.

No inherent meaning? How about the meaning every other lifeform on this planet has? As in survival and procreation? And trust me, my life has plenty of meaning, and I do not believe in God.

JD