god = the universe

[spookz]

Henry Stapp, quantum physicist

"Scientists other than quantum physicists often fail to comprehend the enormity of the conceptual change wrought by quantum theory in our basic conception of the nature of matter...The shift is from a local, reductionistic, deterministic conception of nature in which consciousness has no logical place, and can do nothing but passively watch a preprogrammed course of events, to a nonlocal, nonreductionistic, nondeterministic, concept of nature in which there is a perfectly natural place for consciousness, a place that allows each conscious event, conditioned, but not bound, by any known law of nature, to grasp a possible large-scale metastable pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, and convert its status from 'possible' to 'actual'."


C.J.S. Clarke, mathematician:

refers to the self-stultifying appearance of the reductionist:
"the existence of mind is axiomatic: it is logically inconsistent for me to postulate the non-existence of mind because without mind there is no me".


Harald Atmanspacher, physicist:

"It is fairly obvious that the property of being complex is not appropriately treatable by an investigation of a system in terms of its decomposition into parts. The same applies to the meaning of a message, a situation, or anything else. This does not merely amount to the phrase 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', but it points to a totally different perspective if the whole is to be studied instead of its parts."

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
When you use the term 'veracity' you have the scientific method transfixed in your mind.

Not necessarily. I think that logic has shown its usefulness as well. And I am perfectly willing to accept other methods; provided you can demonstrate their accuracy.

If you were to have a true experience beyond current scientific explanations [supernatural], people with your mind set would dismiss it with some random neural explanation.

Not at all. I have had many singular experiences in my life but rather than jump to conclusions I have either been able to figure out what probably caused them or I simply admit that I do not know what they were.

Many occurences are open to various interpretations. Look at the Mar's Rock ALH80041 or something like that. The Nasa scientists see signs of life, other's see signs of inorganic chemical activity. The structures which they observe in the rock could have arisen from any of these processes.

Interpretations are not facts. Now people may disagree upon their assessment of the evidence (such as in the case of the Mars rock) but as in cases like this I believe the best route is to remain unconvinced in either direction. If the evidence is inconclusive then I find it illogical to presume a conclusion without a rather good supporting argument.

In truth they wouldn't.

Upon what do you base your judgment?

Direct personal experience. The subjective? Inner experience? The supernatural [quoted or not]?

What makes your experience correct and mine incorrect?

In my opinion, logical fallacies can almost be disregarded at times. Some things that are logically fallacious happen.

Name one. I contend that what you might think as the occurrence of a logical fallacy is actually an erroneous premise or two.

What means if you don't mind?

Logic, primarily, given a few arguable premises.

God provides grounds for our ideals.

I don't find ethics based upon authority to be a particularly convincing argument.

Again what grounds do you base your ideals on?

Again, Logic. In both cases we're speaking of ethics.

Maybe some do?

Good point; thanks.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Raithere
Not necessarily. I think that logic has shown its usefulness as well. And I am perfectly willing to accept other methods; provided you can demonstrate their accuracy.

Not necessarily? Demonstrate their accuracy? Here you use the term "accuracy" with the scientific method transfixed in your mind. My point? I can't demonstrate it's accuracy, you have to. Don't trust me, Trust God.

Not at all. I have had many singular experiences in my life but rather than jump to conclusions I have either been able to figure out what probably caused them or I simply admit that I do not know what they were.

Thus the experiences you have had [which you 'admit you do not know what they were'] have never been reported elsewhere for you to even formulate a hypothesis of what they could have been? If that's the case I can understand you agnosticism, otherwise I can't.

Interpretations are not facts. Now people may disagree upon their assessment of the evidence (such as in the case of the Mars rock) but as in cases like this I believe the best route is to remain unconvinced in either direction. If the evidence is inconclusive then I find it illogical to presume a conclusion without a rather good supporting argument.

Of course it's illogical. But then, at the limits of logical premise arises faith.

Upon what do you base your judgment?

Upon the fact/s of the religious experience/s. I find it antithetical to:

• assert God as one and not three in one [Islam/Judaism] then to assert that God is three in one [Christianity]. How can the both be true at once?
• How about this? The Messiah [One Person] came [Christianity - Jesus; Islam - Muhammad], and he hasn't come as yet [Judaism - The AntiChrist?], and He is coming back [Christianity].
• Oh, right. Elephants, Cow's and Monkeys are Gods [Hinduism and similar]: no they're just animals [Many religions].

What makes your experience correct and mine incorrect?

I don't like the terms correct and incorrect. In any event, you'll have to experience what I have experienced for yourself to know if it is truthful to my language/description. Your choice.

Name one. I contend that what you might think as the occurrence of a logical fallacy is actually an erroneous premise or two.

Isn't that the essence of a logical fallacy? If your logic doesn't permit it, and yet it happens, well something must be wrong with your logic. How about my post to Cris where I was describing the fact that an athlete canoot ever finish a race. Page 4 I think?... Actually page 3

Logic, primarily, given a few arguable premises.

So you just basically removed God from the equation and replaced Him with logic. Right? O.k. Can you give me an example of one of your ideals and back it up with logical arguments if you don't mind? Can you tell me why I shouldn't effect nuclear fallout and murder half the human population?

I don't find ethics based upon authority to be a particularly convincing argument.

What should they be based on then?

Good point; thanks.

Most welcome.