God, Empiricism, and Thought

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Current empirical thought doesn't even have the terminology to explain these subtle points, what to speak of understanding them "

You admit that consciousness is only interacting with the mind, yes?

"No - its more like - because you contravene the standards for proper understanding, established a s a prerequisite for understanding the vedas, your statements about god are not valid (notice how I didn't use the word epistemology and ontology)"

Contravene the standards of proper understanding as established by the books to prove themselves...

"So god is still there - do you think he was also a drug user as well?"

No, I think he simply misunderstood eternity and the necessity for causality to have an infinite regress.

"But you are trying to put such persons on the same level as derranged drug users"

In part, they are. Sadly.

"Yes thats the point - what may be so and not be so for you, may not be so for
“ god - just like what may be so and not be so for an american may not be so for the president."

The foundation of necessity is its universal applicability.

"Just as there is a more sane way to deal with the president (ie approach him) there is a more sane way to deal with god"

A more sane way than dealing with the highest order of truth?

"Th eproblem is that the paradigm of philosophy is based on our own consciousness and the paradigm for science is dull matter - god however does not belong to either of these two catergories "

Philosophy does not simply evaluate our own consciousness, but evaluates al things regarding necessary truth and other such notions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

"

Current empirical thought doesn't even have the terminology to explain these subtle points, what to speak of understanding them "

You admit that consciousness is only interacting with the mind, yes?

No - consciusness activates and empowers the mind, just as your active body empowers a t shirt as long as you continue to wear it

"No - its more like - because you contravene the standards for proper understanding, established a s a prerequisite for understanding the vedas, your statements about god are not valid (notice how I didn't use the word epistemology and ontology)"

Contravene the standards of proper understanding as established by the books to prove themselves...

Suppose we are discussing impressionistic paintings and you say I like how renoirs paintings are better to hear than monets - in otherwords if you violate the very process that enables the discussion of the topic it is plainly obvious - in this case you are assuming that one's consciusness can be dragged this that and any way and still be knowledgable about transcendence on account of reading a few books - this is not valid - not by the vedas, not by buddhism, - not by any body of transcendental literature - the whole topic is not approachable by mundane empiricism and book knowledge

"So god is still there - do you think he was also a drug user as well?"

No, I think he simply misunderstood eternity and the necessity for causality to have an infinite regress.

either that or you have misunderstood - which sems more than likely if you violate what is established above

"But you are trying to put such persons on the same level as derranged drug users"

In part, they are. Sadly.

and then you try to write off such difference of opinion between highly erudite and staunch scholars and yourself as substance abuse

"Yes thats the point - what may be so and not be so for you, may not be so for
“ god - just like what may be so and not be so for an american may not be so for the president."

The foundation of necessity is its universal applicability.

How do you know what is necessary for god? If you arrive at such knowledge on the basis of what is necessary for yourself you have shot yourself in the foot before you begin the race

"Just as there is a more sane way to deal with the president (ie approach him) there is a more sane way to deal with god"

A more sane way than dealing with the highest order of truth?

Once again you assume the highest order of truth is the truth that pertains to your inferior existence (don't mind though - all living entities are inferior in comparison to god) - god has a higher existence (in ways that you don't know to an absence of theoretical foundation) hence has a higher truth

"Th eproblem is that the paradigm of philosophy is based on our own consciousness and the paradigm for science is dull matter - god however does not belong to either of these two catergories "

Philosophy does not simply evaluate our own consciousness, but evaluates al things regarding necessary truth and other such notions.

Then you would have to establish how you arrived at a notion of truth that is beyond what your consciousness can evaluate - in other words unless you have had an actual transcendenal experience you are just like a frog in the well croaking about how big they think the pacific ocean is .

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"No - consciusness activates and empowers the mind, just as your active body empowers a t shirt as long as you continue to wear it"

Yes, but consciousness only -directly- interacts with mind, yes?

What I am asking: Without a mind, how would consciousness work?

"Suppose we are discussing impressionistic paintings and you say I like how renoirs paintings are better to hear than monets - in otherwords if you violate the very process that enables the discussion of the topic it is plainly obvious - in this case you are assuming that one's consciusness can be dragged this that and any way and still be knowledgable about transcendence on account of reading a few books - this is not valid - not by the vedas, not by buddhism, - not by any body of transcendental literature - the whole topic is not approachable by mundane empiricism and book knowledge"

Do you agree that any set of premises can be made? And accepting them, a coherent system can be produced?

Moreover, you do admit that certain "transcendentalist" religions have only their books to prove themselves, no? That is to say, one has to accept the books before one can get anything out of it, yes?

"either that or you have misunderstood - which sems more than likely if you violate what is established above"

I might have, but I have yet to be convinced that I am in the wrong. If you would like to show me where an infinite regress is not -mandated- by eternity, then feel free.

"and then you try to write off such difference of opinion between highly erudite and staunch scholars and yourself as substance abuse "

No, I only know that some philosophers have failed in one aspect or another. Despite my great admiration for them, I do not swallow whole the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Renee Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant...or indeed, any philosopher.

"How do you know what is necessary for god? If you arrive at such knowledge on the basis of what is necessary for yourself you have shot yourself in the foot before you begin the race"

Necessary for God is not to be found what is necessary for me, no. Only in what is necessary for everything. Things which would cause absurdities if done elsewise.

"Once again you assume the highest order of truth is the truth that pertains to your inferior existence (don't mind though - all living entities are inferior in comparison to god) - god has a higher existence (in ways that you don't know to an absence of theoretical foundation) hence has a higher truth"

Yet is it my existence? Or again, necessity on a whole level?

Going back to the topic of this thread, you have not shown how my claims are incorrect, only you claim that I am mistaken. Show me where I am?

"Then you would have to establish how you arrived at a notion of truth that is beyond what your consciousness can evaluate - in other words unless you have had an actual transcendenal experience you are just like a frog in the well croaking about how big they think the pacific ocean is . "

Truth beyond the capacity for a consciousness to evaluate? This you would have to show. For if one can know of it from a "transcendental experience", clearly the consciousness can evaluate. Moreover, if truth is to be known at all, it is by resorting to necessity, not this "transcendental experience".

In fact, if it is necessary, it ought to be the -easiest- thing to know.

 

[Prince_James]

I am going to make a post about God and causality in a moment. Check it out when you can.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"No - consciusness activates and empowers the mind, just as your active body empowers a t shirt as long as you continue to wear it"

Yes, but consciousness only -directly- interacts with mind, yes?

interacts is the wrong word - just like you would rather say "can you please put on that shirt" rather than "can you please interact with that shirt"

What I am asking: Without a mind, how would consciousness work?

yes - thats why I gave the eg of the person wearing the shirt - with or without the shirt life goes on

"Suppose we are discussing impressionistic paintings and you say I like how renoirs paintings are better to hear than monets - in otherwords if you violate the very process that enables the discussion of the topic it is plainly obvious - in this case you are assuming that one's consciusness can be dragged this that and any way and still be knowledgable about transcendence on account of reading a few books - this is not valid - not by the vedas, not by buddhism, - not by any body of transcendental literature - the whole topic is not approachable by mundane empiricism and book knowledge"

Do you agree that any set of premises can be made? And accepting them, a coherent system can be produced?

yes - this gets back to what I originally posted on the defeating atheism thread - you can have logical statements, but to determine whether or not they are true requires more than an examination of logic (eg - all horses have wings, all turtles are horses, therefore all turtles have wings - totally coherant )

Moreover, you do admit that certain "transcendentalist" religions have only their books to prove themselves, no? That is to say, one has to accept the books before one can get anything out of it, yes?

They have books and they have persons who have applied whats in the books, just like science

"either that or you have misunderstood - which sems more than likely if you violate what is established above"

I might have, but I have yet to be convinced that I am in the wrong. If you would like to show me where an infinite regress is not -mandated- by eternity, then feel free.

If all one has is material vision then thats all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron

"and then you try to write off such difference of opinion between highly erudite and staunch scholars and yourself as substance abuse "

No, I only know that some philosophers have failed in one aspect or another. Despite my great admiration for them, I do not swallow whole the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Renee Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant...or indeed, any philosopher.

That is the nature of philsophy -lol - one cannot be considered great unless tehy disagree with everyone - this is the limits of philosophy in approaching the absolute

"How do you know what is necessary for god? If you arrive at such knowledge on the basis of what is necessary for yourself you have shot yourself in the foot before you begin the race"

Necessary for God is not to be found what is necessary for me, no. Only in what is necessary for everything. Things which would cause absurdities if done elsewise.

still begging the question - how fo you know what is necessary for everything if you only know what is necessary for yourself

"Once again you assume the highest order of truth is the truth that pertains to your inferior existence (don't mind though - all living entities are inferior in comparison to god) - god has a higher existence (in ways that you don't know to an absence of theoretical foundation) hence has a higher truth"

Yet is it my existence?

well if its not yours that you are intimately familiar with who's is it?

Or again, necessity on a whole level?

thats th epoint - god occupies a whole different level - your necessity may more or less be similar to my necessity , but thats only because we ar eon the same level

Going back to the topic of this thread, you have not shown how my claims are incorrect, only you claim that I am mistaken. Show me where I am?

Really - I thik I have been pointing out one flaw after the next

"Then you would have to establish how you arrived at a notion of truth that is beyond what your consciousness can evaluate - in other words unless you have had an actual transcendenal experience you are just like a frog in the well croaking about how big they think the pacific ocean is . "

Truth beyond the capacity for a consciousness to evaluate? This you would have to show.

On the contrary you have to show it - you are the one claiming that your own conscius experience is sufficient to draw up the parameters that truth exists in

For if one can know of it from a "transcendental experience", clearly the consciousness can evaluate. Moreover, if truth is to be known at all, it is by resorting to necessity, not this "transcendental experience".

once again - you have to establish how your necessity is the necessity of god - difficult since you cannot even establish thatyour necessity is the necessity of the universe, and god is supposed to be greater than the universe

In fact, if it is necessary, it ought to be the -easiest- thing to know.

your necessity may be the easiest to know - my necessity may be just as easy to know sinc we both are on the same level- god's necessity is a little bit more dicfficult

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"interacts is the wrong word - just like you would rather say "can you please put on that shirt" rather than "can you please interact with that shirt""

Yet does consciousness at all have any meaning outside of a mind?

"yes - thats why I gave the eg of the person wearing the shirt - with or without the shirt life goes on"

How would it work?

"yes - this gets back to what I originally posted on the defeating atheism thread - you can have logical statements, but to determine whether or not they are true requires more than an examination of logic (eg - all horses have wings, all turtles are horses, therefore all turtles have wings - totally coherant )"

ANd how do you propose that one sets about looking to vindicate the premises of certain arguments if the system clearly is so constructed as to make itself appear right, because it is self-validating in the sense that it automatically places such and such things on levels of authoritiy and truth?

"They have books and they have persons who have applied whats in the books, just like science"

And can not these people simply be wrong?

"If all one has is material vision then thats all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron"

If one has a transcendentalist vision, that is all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron.

Come, attack the notion directly.

"That is the nature of philsophy -lol - one cannot be considered great unless tehy disagree with everyone - this is the limits of philosophy in approaching the absolute"

Well actually, one could wholly accept someone's arguments and just elaborate on them, like Plotinus or St. Thomas Aquinas.

"still begging the question - how fo you know what is necessary for everything if you only know what is necessary for yourself"

Because necessity is -not- just to be found in me, but to be found in everything. Absurdity is not based in "what I am capable of doing", but what would be entailed by necessity as determined by itself.

"thats th epoint - god occupies a whole different level - your necessity may more or less be similar to my necessity , but thats only because we ar eon the same level"

God may be on a whole different level of existence, but the rules of necessity must themselves hold there, because their opposite is absurd and invalidates itself.

"On the contrary you have to show it - you are the one claiming that your own conscius experience is sufficient to draw up the parameters that truth exists in"

See above for more arguments regarding such.

"once again - you have to establish how your necessity is the necessity of god - difficult since you cannot even establish thatyour necessity is the necessity of the universe, and god is supposed to be greater than the universe"

Here is a question: God exists you claim, yes?

 

[(Q)]

They have books and they have persons who have applied whats in the books, just like science

If all one has is material vision then thats all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron

Really - I thik I have been pointing out one flaw after the next

Perhaps these visuals will help you understand what everyone has been saying in words.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

"interacts is the wrong word - just like you would rather say "can you please put on that shirt" rather than "can you please interact with that shirt""

Yet does consciousness at all have any meaning outside of a mind?

That is just like asking "does th e t-shirt move if you don not wear it?"

"yes - thats why I gave the eg of the person wearing the shirt - with or without the shirt life goes on"

How would it work?

lol - You can barely understand the analogy with the t-shirt and now you want to know how it works
How can one know if one refuses to take the initiaive to be qualified to know?

"yes - this gets back to what I originally posted on the defeating atheism thread - you can have logical statements, but to determine whether or not they are true requires more than an examination of logic (eg - all horses have wings, all turtles are horses, therefore all turtles have wings - totally coherant )"

ANd how do you propose that one sets about looking to vindicate the premises of certain arguments if the system clearly is so constructed as to make itself appear right, because it is self-validating in the sense that it automatically places such and such things on levels of authoritiy and truth?

I could say the same thing about your argument - you insistthat your experience of reality is sufficient to determine the limits of reality - what is the evidence? Why your experience of course ....

"They have books and they have persons who have applied whats in the books, just like science"

And can not these people simply be wrong?

yes - but if they claims about getting a certain result from applying a process and one get sthat result and sees others also getting that result and there being a correlation between th eresults achieved , then one understand whether it is valid

"If all one has is material vision then thats all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron"

If one has a transcendentalist vision, that is all one will see - just like the high school drop out laying challenges about the electron.

on the contrary the material paradigm (para vidya) is incorporated into the spiritual paradigm (apara vidya) - in other words it is only the gross materialist who sees the disparity

"That is the nature of philsophy -lol - one cannot be considered great unless tehy disagree with everyone - this is the limits of philosophy in approaching the absolute"

Well actually, one could wholly accept someone's arguments and just elaborate on them, like Plotinus or St. Thomas Aquinas.

Actually your arguments are practically the same as the karma mimamsa philosophy, escept that it isn't as elaborate or well constructed

"still begging the question - how fo you know what is necessary for everything if you only know what is necessary for yourself"

Because necessity is -not- just to be found in me, but to be found in everything. Absurdity is not based in "what I am capable of doing", but what would be entailed by necessity as determined by itself.

Still begging the question - if your being (whether gross being or subtle being) does not incorporate everything, how did you arrive at the conclusion of what is necessary for everything?

"thats th epoint - god occupies a whole different level - your necessity may more or less be similar to my necessity , but thats only because we ar eon the same level"

God may be on a whole different level of existence, but the rules of necessity must themselves hold there, because their opposite is absurd and invalidates itself.

How can you say that when you only have a familiarity with your own level and the necessity that pertains to it?

"On the contrary you have to show it - you are the one claiming that your own conscius experience is sufficient to draw up the parameters that truth exists in"

See above for more arguments regarding such.

And you didn't anser it - if your experience is not absolute, why do you use it as a basis for determining the parameters for which the absolute exists?

"once again - you have to establish how your necessity is the necessity of god - difficult since you cannot even establish thatyour necessity is the necessity of the universe, and god is supposed to be greater than the universe"

Here is a question: God exists you claim, yes?

Not just my claim - it is a claim backed up by persons on different levels of necessity that you have not approached - in otherwords unlike you they are actually making claims for a transcendental experience (an experience beyond their own level)

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps these visuals will help you understand what everyone has been saying in words.

Just one question?

Is it you in the front half or the back half of the horse?

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"That is just like asking "does th e t-shirt move if you don not wear it?""

So then, consciousness has no interaction besides mind directly?

"lol - You can barely understand the analogy with the t-shirt and now you want to know how it works
How can one know if one refuses to take the initiaive to be qualified to know?"

Consciousness' working outside of a mind is not quite clear.

"I could say the same thing about your argument - you insistthat your experience of reality is sufficient to determine the limits of reality - what is the evidence? Why your experience of course ...."

I attempt to provide proof open to all, do I not? You have to have no specific "epistemology" - which includes making leaps of reason to accept the validity of certain things - to accept my "ontology", merely to evaluate my arguments.

"yes - but if they claims about getting a certain result from applying a process and one get sthat result and sees others also getting that result and there being a correlation between th eresults achieved , then one understand whether it is valid"

Doesn't this happen amongst LSD users, too? Because I have these two friends that did just this recently, and they got the "results" from using psychodelic drugs.

"on the contrary the material paradigm (para vidya) is incorporated into the spiritual paradigm (apara vidya) - in other words it is only the gross materialist who sees the disparity"

This is hard to swallow, when primacy is placed on the spiritual, and the spiritual is held to be "more real", and the material "more imaginary", and subsequently "disparaged".

"Actually your arguments are practically the same as the karma mimamsa philosophy, escept that it isn't as elaborate or well constructed"

Oh? That is quite intriguing, actually.

"Still begging the question - if your being (whether gross being or subtle being) does not incorporate everything, how did you arrive at the conclusion of what is necessary for everything?"

The evaluation of necessity is fundamentally open to all because the opposite of necessity for all things, invalidates itself by showing its necessary impossibility by presuming it's own untruth were it true. That is to say, a limited being could make an evaluation of an unlimited being because necessity makes no mention of limitations, because its evaluations fundamentally concern what can and cannot be, on all levels.

"How can you say that when you only have a familiarity with your own level and the necessity that pertains to it?"

Do you suppose something can be both true and not true in the same manner and at the same time? And that if something were true, it would be untrue?

"Not just my claim - it is a claim backed up by persons on different levels of necessity that you have not approached - in otherwords unlike you they are actually making claims for a transcendental experience (an experience beyond their own level)"

Well if God exists, do you also presume that he does not exist at the same time and in the same manner?

That is, do you suppose that God both exists and does not exist?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

"That is just like asking "does th e t-shirt move if you don not wear it?""

So then, consciousness has no interaction besides mind directly?

Just like if you wear a t-shirt and the t-shirt runs in to some one people don't say "watch out where you are going you stupid t-shirt"

"lol - You can barely understand the analogy with the t-shirt and now you want to know how it works
How can one know if one refuses to take the initiaive to be qualified to know?"

Consciousness' working outside of a mind is not quite clear.

Its clearer than the mind working outside of consciousness

"I could say the same thing about your argument - you insistthat your experience of reality is sufficient to determine the limits of reality - what is the evidence? Why your experience of course ...."

I attempt to provide proof open to all, do I not? You have to have no specific "epistemology" -

that lack of specific makes it weaker - is it the case of any branch of subtle knowledge that it is automatically knowable tot he man on the street?

which includes making leaps of reason to accept the validity of certain things - to accept my "ontology", merely to evaluate my arguments.

once again - leaps of faith are required only for one who refuses to apply the epistemology - just like leaps of faith are required to undersatnd an electron for as lng as one neglects th eprocess of directly perceiving one

"yes - but if they claims about getting a certain result from applying a process and one get sthat result and sees others also getting that result and there being a correlation between th eresults achieved , then one understand whether it is valid"

Doesn't this happen amongst LSD users, too? Because I have these two friends that did just this recently, and they got the "results" from using psychodelic drugs.

lol - what was the conclusive experience of LSD? "Good trees are purple?"

I am talking about directly perceiving god, which involves many indications of progress along the way, such as freedom from material desire, the ability to control one's mind and senses and refrain from lower propensities etc ect
If you think that is comparable to taking LSD you must be on LSD

"on the contrary the material paradigm (para vidya) is incorporated into the spiritual paradigm (apara vidya) - in other words it is only the gross materialist who sees the disparity"

This is hard to swallow, when primacy is placed on the spiritual, and the spiritual is held to be "more real", and the material "more imaginary", and subsequently "disparaged".

contingent would be a beter word - actually western thought is crippled because they cannot reconcile the two branches of knowledge - in eastern thought this is not a problem

"Still begging the question - if your being (whether gross being or subtle being) does not incorporate everything, how did you arrive at the conclusion of what is necessary for everything?"

The evaluation of necessity is fundamentally open to all because the opposite of necessity for all things, invalidates itself by showing its necessary impossibility by presuming it's own untruth were it true. That is to say, a limited being could make an evaluation of an unlimited being because necessity makes no mention of limitations, because its evaluations fundamentally concern what can and cannot be, on all levels.

I didn't say that you do not participate in some phenomena that the absolute also participaets in - I said that you do not particpate in ALL the phenomena that the absolute participates in , thus you cannot possibly determine the limits of any necessity save your own and persons like yourself

"How can you say that when you only have a familiarity with your own level and the necessity that pertains to it?"

Do you suppose something can be both true and not true in the same manner and at the same time? And that if something were true, it would be untrue?

Thats the point - you are not in the same manner nor the same time as the absolute

"Not just my claim - it is a claim backed up by persons on different levels of necessity that you have not approached - in otherwords unlike you they are actually making claims for a transcendental experience (an experience beyond their own level)"

Well if God exists, do you also presume that he does not exist at the same time and in the same manner?

That is, do you suppose that God both exists and does not exist?

God always exists - the manner of existence however is subject to many variables- this is inconceivable to us since we only know one manner of existence (I think therefore I am)

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Just like if you wear a t-shirt and the t-shirt runs in to some one people don't say "watch out where you are going you stupid t-shirt""

So then you propose the mind isc ontrolled by consciousness? But this does not clarify whether or not consciousness acts outside of mind, also. Do you propose that it has any ability to work in any other medium?

"Its clearer than the mind working outside of consciousness "

In so much as mind is incapable without the subjective experience of consciousness? Yes.

"that lack of specific makes it weaker - is it the case of any branch of subtle knowledge that it is automatically knowable tot he man on the street?"

I would consider it a benefit if any man, regardless of education, could grasp a theory of high philosophy. In fac,t there is a tradition of this going back to Plato in the "Meno", where Socrates shows that a slave boy is capable of proving the existence of knowledge.

"once again - leaps of faith are required only for one who refuses to apply the epistemology - just like leaps of faith are required to undersatnd an electron for as lng as one neglects th eprocess of directly perceiving one"

It is a bit different to accept a scientist than a priest. With a scientist he can show you what he knows with very little acceptance of anything. Few priests can show you what they know, and if they do, it is likely only a minimal amount of what they claim. It is also not open for analysis.

"lol - what was the conclusive experience of LSD? "Good trees are purple?""

Actually, something like "God exists and various other spiritual nonsense that I have forgotten".

"I am talking about directly perceiving god, which involves many indications of progress along the way, such as freedom from material desire, the ability to control one's mind and senses and refrain from lower propensities etc ect
If you think that is comparable to taking LSD you must be on LSD"

Actually, they are rather advanced in that regard. Of course, they still have their quirks.

"contingent would be a beter word - actually western thought is crippled because they cannot reconcile the two branches of knowledge - in eastern thought this is not a problem"

Perhaps because the West sees the rightful gully of understanding that sets the two at odds with one another?

"I didn't say that you do not participate in some phenomena that the absolute also participaets in - I said that you do not particpate in ALL the phenomena that the absolute participates in , thus you cannot possibly determine the limits of any necessity save your own and persons like yourself"

So long as I can evaluate the specific claims of necessity, and the being itself from necessity, one can, no matter if one participates in it or not, indeed evaluate it.

"Thats the point - you are not in the same manner nor the same time as the absolute"

I am not, but this is irrelevant. See above and we'll continue to debate it, I'm sure.

"God always exists - the manner of existence however is subject to many variables- this is inconceivable to us since we only know one manner of existence (I think therefore I am) "

But you admit that God does not, not-exist?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

"that lack of specific makes it weaker - is it the case of any branch of subtle knowledge that it is automatically knowable tot he man on the street?"

I would consider it a benefit if any man, regardless of education, could grasp a theory of high philosophy. In fac,t there is a tradition of this going back to Plato in the "Meno", where Socrates shows that a slave boy is capable of proving the existence of knowledge.

But still there wre many who couldn't gasp socrates statements so its not a uniform principle

"once again - leaps of faith are required only for one who refuses to apply the epistemology - just like leaps of faith are required to undersatnd an electron for as lng as one neglects th eprocess of directly perceiving one"

It is a bit different to accept a scientist than a priest. With a scientist he can show you what he knows with very little acceptance of anything.

On the contrary there are many axioms innvolved in science that are unproveable - for an axiom to be an axiom in science must have properties that are not understood

Few priests can show you what they know, and if they do, it is likely only a minimal amount of what they claim. It is also not open for analysis.

same with science - have you analysizd an electron?

"lol - what was the conclusive experience of LSD? "Good trees are purple?""

Actually, something like "God exists and various other spiritual nonsense that I have forgotten".

so if they had talked about splitting atoms would that have given them a credible entrance to quantum physics?

"contingent would be a beter word - actually western thought is crippled because they cannot reconcile the two branches of knowledge - in eastern thought this is not a problem"

Perhaps because the West sees the rightful gully of understanding that sets the two at odds with one another?

The problem is that the western paradigm has a firm grasp of mater but not the phenomena that one is perceiving matter with - which makes it patheticaly lopsided - in eastern thought there is a break down of examining the field and examining the examiner (ie consciousnes)

"I didn't say that you do not participate in some phenomena that the absolute also participaets in - I said that you do not particpate in ALL the phenomena that the absolute participates in , thus you cannot possibly determine the limits of any necessity save your own and persons like yourself"

So long as I can evaluate the specific claims of necessity, and the being itself from necessity, one can, no matter if one participates in it or not, indeed evaluate it.

Thus your evaluation is only pertinent to your self and your environment

"God always exists - the manner of existence however is subject to many variables- this is inconceivable to us since we only know one manner of existence (I think therefore I am) "

But you admit that God does not, not-exist

Only in the medium of illusion

 

[Satyr]

We now witness a sort of hiding.
My mentors, lightgigantic’s, once long posts have dwindled down to short bursts of brilliance.

He, perhaps, has come to realize that the less he says the less his retardation will become obvious.

Thanks Sciforums.

 

[lightgigantic]

Satyr

Once I realised that even atheists complain about the lack of content in your posts I realised that there was no harm putting you on my ignore list

 

[Satyr]

Satyr

Once I realised that even atheists complain about the lack of content in your posts I realised that there was no harm putting you on my ignore list

Ouch!!!!
It hurts more the second time around.

 

[lightgigantic]

Satyr

Don't know why you continue to post to someone who cannot read your comments

 

[Satyr]

Satyr

Don't know why you continue to post to someone who cannot read your comments

Because it's fun!

 

[lightgigantic]

*yawn*

 

[Satyr]

*Fart*