Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

[Cris]

Photo,

Uh huh - tired/bored - without resorting to mindless preaching you are unable to offer a thoughtful answer I guess. Tends to prove my point about theists being sheep as opposed to being able to think.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris
LG,

“
exceptional support also requires exceptional qualifications
”
Quite the opposite. If the support is indeed exceptional and hence very clear then no qualification is needed.

and its just a coincidence that neural surgeons require about 8 years of higher education, eh?

“
BG4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
”
And this is more than fantasy because?

a high school drop out could say the same thing in response to information about the rest mass of protons

“
and if a claim has a basis that is not approachable by classical empiricism, what then?
”
Use anything that can show that something is true.

how about inductive reasoning for an introduction to things that are greater than ourselves?

Otherwise you will have difficulty showing your claims are anything other than baseless fantasy.[/QUOTE]
How do you know that your ability to be cognizant exists?

“
if something is theoretically advocated as being beyond the purview of the mundane senses, why do you insist that it be validated by such things?
”
How else would one know the claims are true or just fantasy then?

I guess we can also disregard such fictional entities as people's minds too eh?

“
... unless of course, as it is clearly visible to any theistically , or even agnostically, inclined person ......
”
And yet none have shown these personal claims are any different to delusion.And since the claims are so fantastic and delusion is common place then you have a significant credibility issue.

how do you manage to wave the flag of abiogenesis and say these things at the same time without shooting yourself in the foot?

“
you have an agenda
”
To not believe to be true what cannot be shown to be true.

which brings us back in a full circle to the issue of how things can be shown to people (are electrons not true, simply because a high school drop out has a chip on his shoulder about modern science)

in other words you don't really address why your viewpoint is valid, since your viewpoint (ie for god to exist he must be observable by classical empiricism) contravenes the means given for verification (ie god is beyond the purview of classical empiricism)

“
actually if I think without first hearing, I am a conceited fool
”
Listening was not excluded, but only hearing and acting without thought.

whatever, but first class intelligence proceeds after listening

“
an example of which would be to approach things from how they are theoretically advocated (which requires listening) before launching into attempts of practice, what to speak of deriving conclusions/values (which requires thinking)
”
Which is quite different to asserting the claims are true regardless, i.e. religion.

don't forget you are the one asserting that claims of god are not true ... and also don't forget that you do so on the strength of god not being empirically verifiable (in other words you are not listening)

“
for instance if god is theoretically advocated as not coming within the purview of conditioned senses (and provided of course that you hear that statement), its not clear how you rejecting god because he doesn't come into such a purview is a brilliant example of using your brain
”
The god theory is not rejected only the claims that it is true without showing how it could be true.

so why don't you listen and learn?

“
it also implies that we have no recourse for protecting ourself from the onslaughts of our environment - sufferings caused by our body, namely death, old age, disease, sufferings sufferings caused by our own mind, sufferings caused by the bodies of other living entities, from mosquitoes to elephants, and sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg earthquakes, drought, flood, etc
”
These are all truths. Why would believing religious fantasy change any of that?

once again, your vocabulary indicates that you "know" that god doesn't exist

“
actually the faith that we can surmount the sufferings of material nature by our own devices is an example of irrationality
”
No that has nothing to do with faith but the multitude of evidence from many millennia that human endeavors can and do consistently overcome often overwhelming odds.

i think the score has been about 1 x10 (10000000000) to nil since time immemorial, and growing exponentially

And in recent centuries primarily due to science.

a dog gets about on four legs - if we get around on four wheels in pursuit of the same business, where does the advancement lie?

 

[Cris]

and its just a coincidence that neural surgeons require about 8 years of higher education, eh?

So what you are implying then is that because belief in gods/supernatural/etc is really something exceptionally complex that only those who have studied it intensely and are exceptionally qualified in such studies should be considered credible in their claims.

Why then do all the statistics show that the better educated and those with higher intelligence tend not to believe in such things?

BG4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
”
And this is more than fantasy because? ”

a high school drop out could say the same thing in response to information about the rest mass of protons

So religion is wasted on the simple minded and the uneducated then, right? What does that say about the 6 billion people who believe in such things, are they simply misguided and really have no idea of why they believe?

and if a claim has a basis that is not approachable by classical empiricism, what then?
”
Use anything that can show that something is true. ”

how about inductive reasoning for an introduction to things that are greater than ourselves?

Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this?

How do you know that your ability to be cognizant exists?

I have senses and can test the presence of something by using them. The same thing cannot be said about claims for supernatural entities.

if something is theoretically advocated as being beyond the purview of the mundane senses, why do you insist that it be validated by such things?
”
How else would one know the claims are true or just fantasy then? ”

I guess we can also disregard such fictional entities as people's minds too eh?

”Mind” is a label we give to a gamut of neurological activities. We can test the existence of these features through scientific experiments and clinical studies and can view the results via our senses.

The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists. Such things that cannot be so demonstrated are simply fantasy or just baseless speculations. That is not to say the speculations/fantasies cannot be true but that there is no justification to assert that they are true.

Your past argument rested on the credibility of the “religious expert” as the source of knowledge for the rest of us and that we should believe them because they are the experts, yet unlike scientific methods, the religious experts have no independent mechanism to show their assertions might contain truth. Or more importantly there is no past record of any such claims ever been shown as true.

... unless of course, as it is clearly visible to any theistically , or even agnostically, inclined person ......
”
And yet none have shown these personal claims are any different to delusion. And since the claims are so fantastic and delusion is common place then you have a significant credibility issue. ”

how do you manage to wave the flag of abiogenesis and say these things at the same time without shooting yourself in the foot?

Surely by now you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a baseless religious assertion of certain truth.

you have an agenda
”
To not believe to be true what cannot be shown to be true. ”

which brings us back in a full circle to the issue of how things can be shown to people (are electrons not true, simply because a high school drop out has a chip on his shoulder about modern science)

in other words you don't really address why your viewpoint is valid, since your viewpoint (ie for god to exist he must be observable by classical empiricism) contravenes the means given for verification (ie god is beyond the purview of classical empiricism)

And so you remain in the same problem area of demonstrating why religious claims might be true. Since empiricism has a vast and proven track record what can you offer as a credible alternative if as you claim there are some things that cannot be demonstrated true by empiricism?

Or in other words what reason have I to believe any religious claim?

actually if I think without first hearing, I am a conceited fool
”
Listening was not excluded, but only hearing and acting without thought. ”

whatever, but first class intelligence proceeds after listening

But going back to the original suggestion – the implication is that one only needs to hear the religious call and nothing else is required – thinking and intelligence are not pre-requisites to becoming a believer. My point is that if you do think and do exercise intelligence you are less likely to accept the religious call.

an example of which would be to approach things from how they are theoretically advocated (which requires listening) before launching into attempts of practice, what to speak of deriving conclusions/values (which requires thinking)
”
Which is quite different to asserting the claims are true regardless, i.e. religion. ”

don't forget you are the one asserting that claims of god are not true ... and also don't forget that you do so on the strength of god not being empirically verifiable (in other words you are not listening)

No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true.

for instance if god is theoretically advocated as not coming within the purview of conditioned senses (and provided of course that you hear that statement), its not clear how you rejecting god because he doesn't come into such a purview is a brilliant example of using your brain
”
The god theory is not rejected only the claims that it is true without showing how it could be true. ”

so why don't you listen and learn?

I have for some 55 years and so far and even more so now as my knowledge has increased I only see gibberish.

it also implies that we have no recourse for protecting ourself from the onslaughts of our environment - sufferings caused by our body, namely death, old age, disease, sufferings sufferings caused by our own mind, sufferings caused by the bodies of other living entities, from mosquitoes to elephants, and sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg earthquakes, drought, flood, etc
”
These are all truths. Why would believing religious fantasy change any of that? ”

once again, your vocabulary indicates that you "know" that god doesn't exist

How so? That I do not see a link between these things and the speculation of a god doesn’t assert that it is false only that the link and the cause has not been established, and hence no reason to believe the claim.

actually the faith that we can surmount the sufferings of material nature by our own devices is an example of irrationality
”
No that has nothing to do with faith but the multitude of evidence from many millennia that human endeavors can and do consistently overcome often overwhelming odds. ”

i think the score has been about 1 x10 (10000000000) to nil since time immemorial, and growing exponentially

If you mean involuntary death then that is simply an outstanding problem to be resolved.

“ And in recent centuries primarily due to science. ”

a dog gets about on four legs - if we get around on four wheels in pursuit of the same business, where does the advancement lie?

Instead of having an average lifespan of just 30 years much of which spent in pain through ignorance of hygiene, absence of medications/drugs, modern healthcare, dental care, etc, we now live on average beyond 75 with exceptionally better quality of life than some 500 years ago and before. And the outlook is for a continuation in lifespan and beyond and an increase in quality of life. This is the progress provided by science. Religion has played no part in those improvements of the human condition and has done a great deal and is continuing to attempt to retard such progress.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris
“

and its just a coincidence that neural surgeons require about 8 years of higher education, eh?
”
So what you are implying then is that because belief in gods/supernatural/etc is really something exceptionally complex that only those who have studied it intensely and are exceptionally qualified in such studies should be considered credible in their claims.

no
I am suggesting that positive claims require qualifications - this becomes especially prominent in fields of advanced knowledge

Why then do all the statistics show that the better educated and those with higher intelligence tend not to believe in such things?

also a high percentage of persons trained as car mechanics are not so savvy when it comes to neural surgery (why would you expect a person who is not trained in a field of knowledge to be familiar with it?)

“
BG4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
”
And this is more than fantasy because? ”

a high school drop out could say the same thing in response to information about the rest mass of protons
”
So religion is wasted on the simple minded and the uneducated then, right?

you miss the point
the problem with the high school drop out is not so much about his knowledge base but the chip he has on his shoulder

What does that say about the 6 billion people who believe in such things, are they simply misguided and really have no idea of why they believe?

they are probably in the same position of the 6 billion people who believe in electrons despite not having any direct perception of such things (they accept it on good faith)

“
and if a claim has a basis that is not approachable by classical empiricism, what then?
”
Use anything that can show that something is true. ”

how about inductive reasoning for an introduction to things that are greater than ourselves?
”
Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this?

quite simply, anything that bears a cause or effect outside of empirical verification

“
How do you know that your ability to be cognizant exists?
”
I have senses and can test the presence of something by using them.

and how does that enable you to see what you are seeing with?

“
if something is theoretically advocated as being beyond the purview of the mundane senses, why do you insist that it be validated by such things?
”
How else would one know the claims are true or just fantasy then? ”

I guess we can also disregard such fictional entities as people's minds too eh?
”
”Mind” is a label we give to a gamut of neurological activities.

you have empirical evidence for this or are you trying to bluff your way through cognitive science again?

We can test the existence of these features through scientific experiments and clinical studies and can view the results via our senses.

what is the empirical evidence that establishes why a mother crocodile, who has jaws that can snap a buffalo bone, gently caresses her eggs in her mouth to assist them hatch?

The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists.

same for a mind, which begs the question what you are thinking with?

Such things that cannot be so demonstrated are simply fantasy or just baseless speculations.

let see if you provide any baseless speculations in your attempt to define the mind

Your past argument rested on the credibility of the “religious expert” as the source of knowledge for the rest of us and that we should believe them because they are the experts, yet unlike scientific methods, the religious experts have no independent mechanism to show their assertions might contain truth.

knowledge has prerequisites - if you don't apply the prerequisites, you don't get the knowledge - it seems like you have a problem with the foundations of knowledge, outside of any specific issues of religion

Or more importantly there is no past record of any such claims ever been shown as true.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

“
... unless of course, as it is clearly visible to any theistically , or even agnostically, inclined person ......
”
And yet none have shown these personal claims are any different to delusion. And since the claims are so fantastic and delusion is common place then you have a significant credibility issue. ”

how do you manage to wave the flag of abiogenesis and say these things at the same time without shooting yourself in the foot?
”
Surely by now you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a baseless religious assertion of certain truth.

so you have a base of knowledge for the assertion that consciousness is composed of matter?

“
you have an agenda
”
To not believe to be true what cannot be shown to be true. ”

which brings us back in a full circle to the issue of how things can be shown to people (are electrons not true, simply because a high school drop out has a chip on his shoulder about modern science)

in other words you don't really address why your viewpoint is valid, since your viewpoint (ie for god to exist he must be observable by classical empiricism) contravenes the means given for verification (ie god is beyond the purview of classical empiricism)
”
And so you remain in the same problem area of demonstrating why religious claims might be true. Since empiricism has a vast and proven track record what can you offer as a credible alternative if as you claim there are some things that cannot be demonstrated true by empiricism?

what (advanced) claims of empiricism can be validated to persons who don't meet the prerequisites of theory and practice?

Or in other words what reason have I to believe any religious claim?

the same reason I might have to believe in the words of a doctor in the case of medical advice or a lawyer in times of legal discrepancies - these people have qualifications that I do not

“
actually if I think without first hearing, I am a conceited fool
”
Listening was not excluded, but only hearing and acting without thought. ”

whatever, but first class intelligence proceeds after listening
”
But going back to the original suggestion – the implication is that one only needs to hear the religious call and nothing else is required – thinking and intelligence are not pre-requisites to becoming a believer.

such is the nature of belief (regardless of whether you are talking about science or religion) - the issue of direct perception (in any field) needs prerequisites however

My point is that if you do think and do exercise intelligence you are less likely to accept the religious call.

depends whether you believe that classical empiricism has the monopoly on defining reality or not (at the very least well over 50% of all accredited philosophers lay claim to some transcendental phenomena in their works)

“
an example of which would be to approach things from how they are theoretically advocated (which requires listening) before launching into attempts of practice, what to speak of deriving conclusions/values (which requires thinking)
”
Which is quite different to asserting the claims are true regardless, i.e. religion. ”

don't forget you are the one asserting that claims of god are not true ... and also don't forget that you do so on the strength of god not being empirically verifiable (in other words you are not listening)
”
No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true.

then why do you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" at every opportune moment?

“
for instance if god is theoretically advocated as not coming within the purview of conditioned senses (and provided of course that you hear that statement), its not clear how you rejecting god because he doesn't come into such a purview is a brilliant example of using your brain
”
The god theory is not rejected only the claims that it is true without showing how it could be true. ”

so why don't you listen and learn?
”
I have for some 55 years and so far and even more so now as my knowledge has increased I only see gibberish.

if you are still making the demand that god must be discernible by classical empiricism, it doesn't appear that you have been listening to well during those 55 years

“
it also implies that we have no recourse for protecting ourself from the onslaughts of our environment - sufferings caused by our body, namely death, old age, disease, sufferings sufferings caused by our own mind, sufferings caused by the bodies of other living entities, from mosquitoes to elephants, and sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg earthquakes, drought, flood, etc
”
These are all truths. Why would believing religious fantasy change any of that? ”

once again, your vocabulary indicates that you "know" that god doesn't exist
”
How so?

you used the word "fantasy" (again)

That I do not see a link between these things and the speculation of a god doesn’t assert that it is false only that the link and the cause has not been established, and hence no reason to believe the claim.

tehn its not clear how you make the jump from "I don't see the link" to "fantasy"

“
actually the faith that we can surmount the sufferings of material nature by our own devices is an example of irrationality
”
No that has nothing to do with faith but the multitude of evidence from many millennia that human endeavors can and do consistently overcome often overwhelming odds. ”

i think the score has been about 1 x10 (10000000000) to nil since time immemorial, and growing exponentially
”
If you mean involuntary death then that is simply an outstanding problem to be resolved.

these things are also on the waiting list

- sufferings caused by our body, namely death old age, disease, sufferings sufferings caused by our own mind, sufferings caused by the bodies of other living entities, from mosquitoes to elephants, and sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg earthquakes, drought, flood, etc

“
“ And in recent centuries primarily due to science. ”

a dog gets about on four legs - if we get around on four wheels in pursuit of the same business, where does the advancement lie?
”
Instead of having an average lifespan of just 30 years much of which spent in pain through ignorance of hygiene, absence of medications/drugs, modern healthcare, dental care, etc, we now live on average beyond 75 with exceptionally better quality of life than some 500 years ago and before. And the outlook is for a continuation in lifespan and beyond and an increase in quality of life. This is the progress provided by science. Religion has played no part in those improvements of the human condition and has done a great deal and is continuing to attempt to retard such progress.

but despite all such supposed improvements (which can be argued against if you determine how much the first world lives at the expense of the third world or include the figures of abortions into such statics of longevity) if our business remains the same as the dogs?

 

[Cris]

LG,

no
I am suggesting that positive claims require qualifications - this becomes especially prominent in fields of advanced knowledge

OK. In the field of religion how is knowledge obtained? And here I specifically mean the claim of knowledge that a god or a soul or similar mystical entity exists. In science it is mainly through empirical testing. What proof is there that someone who claims to know a god exists actually does know? Without that validation that the claimed qualification is real then why would the claimant be considered credible?

also a high percentage of persons trained as car mechanics are not so savvy when it comes to neural surgery (why would you expect a person who is not trained in a field of knowledge to be familiar with it?)

So you’d agree then that someone who claims to know a god exists is talking BS unless they have been through extensive religious training and become an expert on the issues?

So religion is wasted on the simple minded and the uneducated then, right? ”

you miss the point
the problem with the high school drop out is not so much about his knowledge base but the chip he has on his shoulder

I don’t believe I have ever understood the point you are trying to make with this.

“ What does that say about the 6 billion people who believe in such things, are they simply misguided and really have no idea of why they believe? ”

they are probably in the same position of the 6 billion people who believe in electrons despite not having any direct perception of such things (they accept it on good faith)

The difference is that lights operate and computers function, and many millions through school science can conduct experiments to understand that electricity exists. There is no equivalent process or simple demonstrations available to anyone that can show that gods or souls might exist.

Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this? ”

quite simply, anything that bears a cause or effect outside of empirical verification

I was looking for specific examples. Are there any?

How do you know that your ability to be cognizant exists?
”
I have senses and can test the presence of something by using them. ”

and how does that enable you to see what you are seeing with?

Huh?

“ We can test the existence of these features through scientific experiments and clinical studies and can view the results via our senses. ”

what is the empirical evidence that establishes why a mother crocodile, who has jaws that can snap a buffalo bone, gently caresses her eggs in her mouth to assist them hatch?

I don’t know if anyone has done such experiments yet. Why assume appropriate scientific experimentation would not reveal the answer? Science doesn’t have answers to every question but has established methods where answers can be obtained, often not particularly easily. There is no religious equivalent for matters of gods/souls/supernatural where all such questions continue to remain unanswered.

“ The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists. ”
same for a mind, which begs the question what you are thinking with?

I’m using my brain, or do you have any evidence that the mind lies elsewhere?

“ Such things that cannot be so demonstrated are simply fantasy or just baseless speculations. ”

let see if you provide any baseless speculations in your attempt to define the mind

Why speculate? Why should there be any doubt that the mind is a product of the brain?

“ Your past argument rested on the credibility of the “religious expert” as the source of knowledge for the rest of us and that we should believe them because they are the experts, yet unlike scientific methods, the religious experts have no independent mechanism to show their assertions might contain truth. ”

knowledge has prerequisites - if you don't apply the prerequisites, you don't get the knowledge - it seems like you have a problem with the foundations of knowledge, outside of any specific issues of religion

What are the pre-requisites for beginning to learn that gods or souls might exist?

“ Or more importantly there is no past record of any such claims ever been shown as true. ”
never encountered a normative description in scripture?

And you can post one here that shows that a religious claim about the existence of gods or souls is true?

Surely by now you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a baseless religious assertion of certain truth. ”

so you have a base of knowledge for the assertion that consciousness is composed of matter?

Why consider anything other than the 100% track record that nothing non material has ever been shown to exist or is even possible.

So what is your knowledge base that asserts that non material souls exist?

what (advanced) claims of empiricism can be validated to persons who don't meet the prerequisites of theory and practice?

Please be more specific?

“ Or in other words what reason have I to believe any religious claim? ”

the same reason I might have to believe in the words of a doctor in the case of medical advice or a lawyer in times of legal discrepancies - these people have qualifications that I do not

But here we can examine their past history and references and the assumed heavy inductive evidence that they can deliver appropriate advice. There is no equivalent evidence that can be obtained regarding an expert on gods to verify that what they claim has any truth.

But going back to the original suggestion – the implication is that one only needs to hear the religious call and nothing else is required – thinking and intelligence are not pre-requisites to becoming a believer. ”

such is the nature of belief (regardless of whether you are talking about science or religion) - the issue of direct perception (in any field) needs prerequisites however

And what are these pre-requisites for the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the existence of gods or souls?

“ My point is that if you do think and do exercise intelligence you are less likely to accept the religious call. ”

depends whether you believe that classical empiricism has the monopoly on defining reality or not (at the very least well over 50% of all accredited philosophers lay claim to some transcendental phenomena in their works)

Do you have a reference? But can any of them show their claim has any supernatural source or is merely a process of brain that as yet we do not fully comprehend?

No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true. ”

then why do you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" at every opportune moment?

Neither term asserts falsehood only degrees of speculation. Regarding delusion: My phrase is usually to demonstrate that religious assertions of personal knowledge of gods without independent verification cannot be distinguished from delusion, which is a significantly more believable state. I do not believe I have ever gone so far as to call someone deluded; that would be for them to decide.

I have for some 55 years and so far and even more so now as my knowledge has increased I only see gibberish. ”

if you are still making the demand that god must be discernible by classical empiricism, it doesn't appear that you have been listening to well during those 55 years

Or that attempts by countless people who claim that gods or souls exist none have come close to anything more than baseless claims, exactly like you. But why continue to insist that empiricism is my issue? I am open to any process that can be shown to reveal truth and I have asked you many times to demonstrate such a process and you have consistently avoided answering. My conclusion can only be that you have nothing to offer or you would have explained such a process.

but despite all such supposed improvements (which can be argued against if you determine how much the first world lives at the expense of the third world or include the figures of abortions into such statics of longevity) if our business remains the same as the dogs?

I don’t understand your point.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
no
I am suggesting that positive claims require qualifications - this becomes especially prominent in fields of advanced knowledge
”
OK. In the field of religion how is knowledge obtained? And here I specifically mean the claim of knowledge that a god or a soul or similar mystical entity exists. In science it is mainly through empirical testing. What proof is there that someone who claims to know a god exists actually does know?

in short

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

“
also a high percentage of persons trained as car mechanics are not so savvy when it comes to neural surgery (why would you expect a person who is not trained in a field of knowledge to be familiar with it?)
”
So you’d agree then that someone who claims to know a god exists is talking BS unless they have been through extensive religious training and become an expert on the issues?

no
a person is considered savvy with neural science if they can talk about it and perform it in ways that don't contradict established norms of practice (for instance if they thought that the brain was located in the lower abdomen, it would raise suspicion) - th easiest way to attain such a state is through formal training (theory -> practice -> values)

“
So religion is wasted on the simple minded and the uneducated then, right? ”

you miss the point
the problem with the high school drop out is not so much about his knowledge base but the chip he has on his shoulder
”
I don’t believe I have ever understood the point you are trying to make with this.

its not so much that the high school drop out doesn't know - its more that he has the attitude that he doesn't want to know (and thus has no entrance to the foundation of theory, which is the beginning of all types of knowledge)

“
“ What does that say about the 6 billion people who believe in such things, are they simply misguided and really have no idea of why they believe? ”

they are probably in the same position of the 6 billion people who believe in electrons despite not having any direct perception of such things (they accept it on good faith)
”
The difference is that lights operate and computers function,

the point is that the "functioning" of these things is the direct perception of a handfull

and many millions through school science can conduct experiments to understand that electricity exists.

we are talking of electrons however - the percentage of trained scientists (due to the wide area of specialization in science) who have had direct perception of an electron is probably less than 1% - everyone else accepts it on faith (or inductive knowledge is you prefer)

There is no equivalent process or simple demonstrations available to anyone that can show that gods or souls might exist.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

“
Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this? ”

quite simply, anything that bears a cause or effect outside of empirical verification
”
I was looking for specific examples. Are there any?

Ok, how about the creation of the universe

“
How do you know that your ability to be cognizant exists?
”
I have senses and can test the presence of something by using them. ”

and how does that enable you to see what you are seeing with?
”
Huh?

what are you "examining" exactly when you say you can perceive your cognizance?

“
“ We can test the existence of these features through scientific experiments and clinical studies and can view the results via our senses. ”

what is the empirical evidence that establishes why a mother crocodile, who has jaws that can snap a buffalo bone, gently caresses her eggs in her mouth to assist them hatch?
”
I don’t know if anyone has done such experiments yet. Why assume appropriate scientific experimentation would not reveal the answer? Science doesn’t have answers to every question but has established methods where answers can be obtained, often not particularly easily.

so what is the method for examining consciousness

There is no religious equivalent for matters of gods/souls/supernatural where all such questions continue to remain unanswered.

given the vast body of theistic knowledge available, I think it would be more correct to say "remain ignored by atheistic empiricists"

“
“ The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists. ”
same for a mind, which begs the question what you are thinking with?
”
I’m using my brain,

do you have empirical evidence for that or are you guessing (seems like that all neuroscience has revealed in the brain is dull matter, which when combined or isolated doesn't reveal an ounce of consciousness)

or do you have any evidence that the mind lies elsewhere?

mind is a property of consciousness - consciousness is a property of the soul - the soul does not have material qualities
when a person is free from the influence of material qualities, they can perceive this

SB 4.22.27 When a person becomes devoid of all material desires and liberated from all material qualities, he transcends distinctions between actions executed externally and internally. At that time the difference between the soul and the Supersoul, which was existing before self-realization, is annihilated. When a dream is over, there is no longer a distinction between the dream and the dreamer.

“
“ Such things that cannot be so demonstrated are simply fantasy or just baseless speculations. ”

let see if you provide any baseless speculations in your attempt to define the mind
”
Why speculate? Why should there be any doubt that the mind is a product of the brain?

because nothing has been located in the brain that is inherently conscious (there are indications that motoring skills are centralized there however)

“
“ Your past argument rested on the credibility of the “religious expert” as the source of knowledge for the rest of us and that we should believe them because they are the experts, yet unlike scientific methods, the religious experts have no independent mechanism to show their assertions might contain truth. ”

knowledge has prerequisites - if you don't apply the prerequisites, you don't get the knowledge - it seems like you have a problem with the foundations of knowledge, outside of any specific issues of religion
”
What are the pre-requisites for beginning to learn that gods or souls might exist?

at the platform of theory one learns that god is very great and that the living entity is very insignificant, even though both display the symptoms of consciousness
“

“ Or more importantly there is no past record of any such claims ever been shown as true. ”
never encountered a normative description in scripture?
”
And you can post one here that shows that a religious claim about the existence of gods or souls is true?

claims of truth are validated by practice, not theory - if I post a practice and you reject it (based on an improper theoretical foundation, like say "god should be determined by classical empiricism) that is something else

“
Surely by now you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a baseless religious assertion of certain truth. ”

so you have a base of knowledge for the assertion that consciousness is composed of matter?
”
Why consider anything other than the 100% track record that nothing non material has ever been shown to exist or is even possible.

lots of headway has been made in the field of material reductionism over the past century, but still there is no indication on what conscious ultimately is (or even matter for that reason) - the reason being that classical empiricism has the senses as a foundation, and the senses are inherently , for eg we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality", so how do you propose that empiricism can come to the point of examining all sound in the universe?

So what is your knowledge base that asserts that non material souls exist?

knowledge of the gross material body (physical self) , knowledge of the subtle material body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and knowledge of the soul (that provides the other two with the symptoms of life)

“
what (advanced) claims of empiricism can be validated to persons who don't meet the prerequisites of theory and practice?
”
Please be more specific?

like the highschool drop out plastering a physics professor with ad homs for instance

“
“ Or in other words what reason have I to believe any religious claim? ”

the same reason I might have to believe in the words of a doctor in the case of medical advice or a lawyer in times of legal discrepancies - these people have qualifications that I do not
”
But here we can examine their past history and references and the assumed heavy inductive evidence that they can deliver appropriate advice. There is no equivalent evidence that can be obtained regarding an expert on gods to verify that what they claim has any truth.

depends if the professionals are standardized or not - for instance before medical practice was standardized in america you had all sorts of quacks peddling all sorts of things on an innocent public - if there is no standard understanding (for instance if one is of the standard that god should be empirically validated) there is no question of gathering any such statistics on the real value of such things

“
But going back to the original suggestion – the implication is that one only needs to hear the religious call and nothing else is required – thinking and intelligence are not pre-requisites to becoming a believer. ”

such is the nature of belief (regardless of whether you are talking about science or religion) - the issue of direct perception (in any field) needs prerequisites however
”
And what are these pre-requisites for the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the existence of gods or souls?

in short, purified consciousness (ie having a mind that is not diverted by the dualities of lust, wrath, anger etc when the senses come in contact with the sense objects)

“
“ My point is that if you do think and do exercise intelligence you are less likely to accept the religious call. ”

depends whether you believe that classical empiricism has the monopoly on defining reality or not (at the very least well over 50% of all accredited philosophers lay claim to some transcendental phenomena in their works)
”
Do you have a reference?

to what? the limitations of empiricism or the general trend of philosophy?

But can any of them show their claim has any supernatural source or is merely a process of brain that as yet we do not fully comprehend?

philosophy deals primarily with logic - empiricism deals primarily with sense perception - there are many logical limitations given by philosophers in regards to empiricism ("how do you propose to see what you are seeing with( aka consciousness) " is one)

“
No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true. ”

then why do you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" at every opportune moment?
”
Neither term asserts falsehood only degrees of speculation.

so since abiogenesis is also a speculation, you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" when describing it as well?

Regarding delusion: My phrase is usually to demonstrate that religious assertions of personal knowledge of gods without independent verification

what do mean by "independent verification" (given that the claims of history is verified by historians and the claims of physics are verified by physicists, etc)

cannot be distinguished from delusion,

depends whether you are under the delusion that empiricism has the monopoly on reality

which is a significantly more believable state. I do not believe I have ever gone so far as to call someone deluded; that would be for them to decide.

hmmmmm?

“

I have for some 55 years and so far and even more so now as my knowledge has increased I only see gibberish. ”

if you are still making the demand that god must be discernible by classical empiricism, it doesn't appear that you have been listening to well during those 55 years
”
Or that attempts by countless people who claim that gods or souls exist none have come close to anything more than baseless claims, exactly like you. But why continue to insist that empiricism is my issue?

because that is a major hurdle (and one you clearly advocate) to further undertsanding

I am open to any process that can be shown to reveal truth and I have asked you many times to demonstrate such a process and you have consistently avoided answering. My conclusion can only be that you have nothing to offer or you would have explained such a process.

why do you not accept that adopting methods to purify the consciousness (become free from the pushing of the duality of lust etc) are not processes?

“
but despite all such supposed improvements (which can be argued against if you determine how much the first world lives at the expense of the third world or include the figures of abortions into such statics of longevity) if our business remains the same as the dogs?
”
I don’t understand your point.

a dog sleeps in a gutter
we may sleep in a highrise
How is the sleeping experience different?

a dog pursues the objects of the senses on four legs
we may pursue the objects of the senses on four wheels
How is the experience different?

A dog may get agitated and attack other dogs by barking and biting
we may get agitated and attack other people with bombs and planes
How is the experience different?

etc etc

 

[Cris]

LG,

OK. In the field of religion how is knowledge obtained? And here I specifically mean the claim of knowledge that a god or a soul or similar mystical entity exists. In science it is mainly through empirical testing. What proof is there that someone who claims to know a god exists actually does know? ”

in short

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

I don’t see how that even begins to approach an answer to my question.

So you’d agree then that someone who claims to know a god exists is talking BS unless they have been through extensive religious training and become an expert on the issues? ”

no
a person is considered savvy with neural science if they can talk about it and perform it in ways that don't contradict established norms of practice (for instance if they thought that the brain was located in the lower abdomen, it would raise suspicion) - th easiest way to attain such a state is through formal training (theory -> practice -> values)

That still doesn’t answer my question. Even I can understand the principles of brain surgery and I can see how to get there through training, but I do not see the parallel that you are trying to take towards your assertion that only those who train in god issues will be able to know that a god exists. Unlike the path to brain surgery the path to learning that a god exists remains undefined.

its not so much that the high school drop out doesn't know - its more that he has the attitude that he doesn't want to know (and thus has no entrance to the foundation of theory, which is the beginning of all types of knowledge)

But that is different to my insistence in demanding an explanation of the route to discovering how to know that a god exists.

they are probably in the same position of the 6 billion people who believe in electrons despite not having any direct perception of such things (they accept it on good faith)
”
The difference is that lights operate and computers function, ”

the point is that the "functioning" of these things is the direct perception of a handful

But the path to direct perception is available to everyone and the path to get there is clear. There is no equivalent in religion.

“ and many millions through school science can conduct experiments to understand that electricity exists. ”

we are talking of electrons however - the percentage of trained scientists (due to the wide area of specialization in science) who have had direct perception of an electron is probably less than 1% - everyone else accepts it on faith (or inductive knowledge is you prefer)

There is cause and effect and anyone who wants to know the cause can take the time to acquire that. Those that have taken the time have confirmed that knowledge of electrons as established by science is true. There is no equivalent process in religion that will enable ANYONE to confirm that claims for gods and souls can exist.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this? ”

quite simply, anything that bears a cause or effect outside of empirical verification
”
I was looking for specific examples. Are there any? ”

Ok, how about the creation of the universe

Probably not a good example. You’d have to establish that the universe had a beginning and hence needed to be created.

what are you "examining" exactly when you say you can perceive your cognizance?

My ability to reason.

so what is the method for examining consciousness

The continued experimental and analytical study of how the brain operates.

“ There is no religious equivalent for matters of gods/souls/supernatural where all such questions continue to remain unanswered. ”

given the vast body of theistic knowledge available, I think it would be more correct to say "remain ignored by atheistic empiricists"

What vast body of theistic knowledge? Claims of knowledge made by theism have yet to be recognized by any study of epistemology. I challenge you to present any single piece of established knowledge that shows a god or soul exists. That is the essence of this entire discussion.

What you claim is theistic knowledge is endless repetition of baseless and unsubstantiated claims. Can you point to any single reference that can show me wrong?

“ The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists. ”
same for a mind, which begs the question what you are thinking with?
”
I’m using my brain, ”

do you have empirical evidence for that or are you guessing (seems like that all neuroscience has revealed in the brain is dull matter, which when combined or isolated doesn't reveal an ounce of consciousness)

Why are you ignoring the vast number of clinical and scientific findings that have established the direct correlation between thoughts/memory/cognition/emotions and the physical brain?

“ or do you have any evidence that the mind lies elsewhere? ”

mind is a property of consciousness - consciousness is a property of the soul - the soul does not have material qualities

This is a vastly premature and highly speculative conjecture. We know the brain accounts for all the properties of thinking, memory, cognition, emotions, and we know self awareness (a key aspect of what is loosely described as consciousness) varies with brain size and complexity (e.g. examining of other animal forms). What we don’t understand in nay detail is how the brain does these things and those studies are continuing.

It seems incredibly irresponsible and foolish to then assert that something without precedent (immaterial existence) accounts for consciousness, when all the indication so far is that the largely unexplained very complex brain is almost certainly the source for that.

Isn’t this the action of all those ignorant mystics of the past who when faced with something unexplained jump immediately to the conclusion – it is magic. Wouldn’t it be more responsible to wait until scientists understand how the brain operates before concluding that magic exists?

when a person is free from the influence of material qualities, they can perceive this

SB 4.22.27 When a person becomes devoid of all material desires and liberated from all material qualities, he transcends distinctions between actions executed externally and internally. At that time the difference between the soul and the Supersoul, which was existing before self-realization, is annihilated. When a dream is over, there is no longer a distinction between the dream and the dreamer.

Mystical gibberish. I can claim the same degree of satisfaction by allowing my mind and body to become free of stress through deep mediation. There is nothing magical about these very real physical qualities of brain/mind/body states.

Why speculate? Why should there be any doubt that the mind is a product of the brain? ”

because nothing has been located in the brain that is inherently conscious (there are indications that motoring skills are centralized there however)

So why prematurely jump to a conclusion that the brain cannot account for these things when the brain is as not yet properly understood?

What are the pre-requisites for beginning to learn that gods or souls might exist?

at the platform of theory one learns that god is very great and that the living entity is very insignificant, even though both display the symptoms of consciousness

But that isn’t fact but merely a fantasy speculation. Why would that beginning have any validity? Wouldn’t this set the precedent that everything that follows must be of the same fantasy ilk?

And you can post one here that shows that a religious claim about the existence of gods or souls is true? ”

claims of truth are validated by practice, not theory - if I post a practice and you reject it (based on an improper theoretical foundation, like say "god should be determined by classical empiricism) that is something else

But the practice comes down to a personal claim that cannot be independently verified. This really does beg the question – how is this any different from delusion which is vastly more believable?

lots of headway has been made in the field of material reductionism over the past century, but still there is no indication on what conscious ultimately is (or even matter for that reason) - the reason being that classical empiricism has the senses as a foundation, and the senses are inherently , for eg we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality", so how do you propose that empiricism can come to the point of examining all sound in the universe?

While our senses have limitations we have learnt to be ingenious and have developed devices to extend our senses. For example x-ray astronomy has detected enormously wonderful aspects of the universe that we cannot see directly. In essence we can use technology to extend our abilities and senses once we know or speculate about something we want to explore.

What is very erroneous to conclude is that when we do not have a scientific explanation for something that we will never have such an explanation. And what is worse, and what religionists have done throughout time is to illogically conclude that it must be magic in the absence of a more mundane explanation. You seem to be particularly guilty of this same serious mistake.

“ So what is your knowledge base that asserts that non material souls exist? ”

knowledge of the gross material body (physical self) , knowledge of the subtle material body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and knowledge of the soul (that provides the other two with the symptoms of life)

I’d maintain that these things do not constitute knowledge but merely speculations in the absence of anything more substantial.

But here we can examine their past history and references and the assumed heavy inductive evidence that they can deliver appropriate advice. There is no equivalent evidence that can be obtained regarding an expert on gods to verify that what they claim has any truth. ”

depends if the professionals are standardized or not - for instance before medical practice was standardized in america you had all sorts of quacks peddling all sorts of things on an innocent public - if there is no standard understanding (for instance if one is of the standard that god should be empirically validated) there is no question of gathering any such statistics on the real value of such things

But this is where one must learn to think and reason. There is no reason why I must believe what a potential quack says if I cannot verify his credential and ability. I may simply choose to suffer rather than risk something worse. In the case of gods there is again no reason why I should believe such things until I can find verification of their validity, I can simply choose to abstain and await developments. In no case need a decision be ever made based on faith (absence of evidence). If one so chooses then they often accept a degree of risk.

And what are these pre-requisites for the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the existence of gods or souls? ”

in short, purified consciousness (ie having a mind that is not diverted by the dualities of lust, wrath, anger etc when the senses come in contact with the sense objects)

It’s an interesting point that I won’t challenge.

depends whether you believe that classical empiricism has the monopoly on defining reality or not (at the very least well over 50% of all accredited philosophers lay claim to some transcendental phenomena in their works)
”
Do you have a reference? ”

to what? the limitations of empiricism or the general trend of philosophy?

The 50% of philosophers making such claims. It feels like wishful exaggerated speculation on your part.

No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true. ”

then why do you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" at every opportune moment?
”
Neither term asserts falsehood only degrees of speculation. ”

so since abiogenesis is also a speculation, you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" when describing it as well?

It’s a formal scientific hypothesis based on the trends established by evolution theories, e.g. there is some evidence that supports its case. In essence evolution shows that biological complexity arose from simpler forms back to the simplest single animated entity. Abiogenesis as one of its branches is simply a valid statistical forecast that projects that the obvious next step before the simplest animated matter is non animated matter. As a rather obvious hypothesis it enables scientists to attempt to show if it can be taken further by showing how inanimate matter can transform into animated matter.

On the other hand gods and souls lack any form of evidence other than pure speculation and no one can conceive of any method for showing how such things could be discovered.

“ Regarding delusion: My phrase is usually to demonstrate that religious assertions of personal knowledge of gods without independent verification ”

what do mean by "independent verification" (given that the claims of history is verified by historians and the claims of physics are verified by physicists, etc)

Independent = does not have any vested interest in the conclusion and is a recognized and verified authority on such issues.

why do you not accept that adopting methods to purify the consciousness (become free from the pushing of the duality of lust etc) are not processes?

You’ve only just introduced it and it is worth consideration.

a dog sleeps in a gutter
we may sleep in a highrise
How is the sleeping experience different?

a dog pursues the objects of the senses on four legs
we may pursue the objects of the senses on four wheels
How is the experience different?

A dog may get agitated and attack other dogs by barking and biting
we may get agitated and attack other people with bombs and planes
How is the experience different?

etc etc

Ok, so what’s your point?

 

[bdmart]

A fact is a fact don't matter what you may think or say. under law two or three witnesses will stand up in a court of law or at lest it use to.

fact one, God has spoken to man before and he still does.

fact two, Just because you have never heard God speak to you does not mean that He dos not exist.

fact three, Some people have seen a supernatural being.

Some people are blinded by religious organizations, but there is a lot of people blinded by science, there is a true science and there is a faults sciance.

case closed
Spelling has been corrected, thanks for your response.

 

[John99]

Well said, except you spelled a word wrong. Unless it is something i dont know about.

 

[Cris]

bdmart.

A fact is a fact don't matter what you may think or say. under law two or three witnesses will stand up in a court of law or at lest it use to.

Personal testimony and personal opinions or a majority vote are not primary methods for establishing facts or truth. These methods have been often shown to produce false conclusions.

fact one, God has spoken to man before and he still does.

How do you know it was a god and not a personal delusion? The first is a fantastic claim whereas the second is significantly believable. You will need to do more than make an unsuported assertion if you want to be believed. I.e. you have not established a fact by your assertion.

fact two, Just because you have never heard God speak to you does not mean that He dos not exist.

But it does nothing to convince me that such things could or might exist.

fact three, Some people have seen a supernatural being.

Please quote references with appropriate proofs otherwise this is just another unsuported claim and has no value.

Some people are blinded by religious organisations, but there is a lot of people blinded by sciance, there is a true sciance and there is a faults sciance.

Science is a disciplined set of methods intended to establish knowledge, and where everything is doubted before anything is tentatively considered possibly true. Religions promise certainties of absolute truth but offer no methods for verification

case closed

For you though it would seem the issues have barely begun.

And BTW welcome to sciforums.

 

[Oli]

fact one, God has spoken to man before and he still does.

Not a fact.
Speculation.

fact two, Just because you have neaver heard God speak to you does not mean that He dos not exist.

Actually that is a fact: just because I've never spoken to you doesn't mean I don't exist.
But so what?

fact three, Some people have seen a supernatural being.

Genuine fact: some people are convinced they have seen a supernatural being.
Anything else is speculation.

Some people are blinded by religious organisations, but there is a lot of people blinded by sciance, there is a true sciance and there is a faults sciance.

If it's false it's not science.

case closed

Learn something.

 

[SnakeLord]

I might as well be the third person to point out the worthlessness of your post.

under law two or three witnesses will stand up in a court of law or at lest it use to.

The credibility of witnesses are always under question and their personal opinions are largely worthless without actual evidence.

fact one, God has spoken to man before and he still does.

Complete horse poo.

fact two, Just because you have neaver heard God speak to you does not mean that He dos not exist.

The same is true of leprechauns, mermaids, and flying invisible omnipotent bananas.

fact three, Some people have seen a supernatural being.

Correction: fact three - some people claim to have seen a supernatural being.

Some people are blinded by religious organisations, but there is a lot of people blinded by sciance

Well you'll certainly have 'concensus science' which blinds many people, (example: the belief that it is a scientific fact that man only uses 5-10% of his brain). This however is not science, it's belief in nonsense passed off as science. Science itself doesn't blind, it opens.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

A fact is a fact(punctuation error-needs period or comma)(no capitalized word beginning sentence)don't(poor grammar)matter what you may think or say. under(capitalization error)(article 'the' omitted) law two or three witnesses will stand up in a court of law or at lest(wrong word-should read "least") it(wrong word-should read 'they') use(incorrect tense-should read "used") to.(incomplete sentence-What did they do when they stood up?)

fact(uncapitalized word at beginning of sentence) one, God has spoken to man before and he still does.(Can you provide evidence for this statement?)

fact(no capitalization at beginning of sentence) two,(second item, no capitalization at beginning of sentence) Just(new paragraph needed following items one and two) because you have never heard God speak to you does not mean that He dos not exist.(Please explain your logic of this statement. Do you have any evidence for this)?

fact(no capitalization of this item ) three,(wrong punctuation-should be colon) Some people have seen a supernatural being.(Please provide evidence and identify who these people are who have seen a supernatural being).

Some people are blinded by religious organizations, but there is a lot of people blinded by science,(wrong punctuation-should be period) there(should be capitalized) is a true science and there is a faults(wrong spelling-should read 'false') sciance.(wrong spelling-should be spelled 'science')

case(should be capitalized) closed(no punctuation-should have a period)(You have not made your case, so it isn't 'closed'. Try again)!
Spelling has been corrected, thanks for your response.

*************
M*W: Using correct language is a tool for proving your point. You've accomplished neither.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

*************
M*W: Using correct language is a tool for proving your point. You've accomplished neither.

Through many years on this forum, you have become better in "ad homenums"; at least is a "non-infraction" workaround for not addressing the issue.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ OK. In the field of religion how is knowledge obtained? And here I specifically mean the claim of knowledge that a god or a soul or similar mystical entity exists. In science it is mainly through empirical testing. What proof is there that someone who claims to know a god exists actually does know? ”

in short

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world. ”
I don’t see how that even begins to approach an answer to my question.

in empiricism the focus is on quite literally seeing (or hearing, or smelling, etc) in a “purified” state (ie whatever may be an obstacle to the senses of perception is removed – eg dust, etc)
in spirituality the focus is on having consciousness in a “purified” state (ie what ever may be an obstacle to one’s state of being is removed – eg lust, avarice etc)
“

So you’d agree then that someone who claims to know a god exists is talking BS unless they have been through extensive religious training and become an expert on the issues? ”

no
a person is considered savvy with neural science if they can talk about it and perform it in ways that don't contradict established norms of practice (for instance if they thought that the brain was located in the lower abdomen, it would raise suspicion) - th easiest way to attain such a state is through formal training (theory -> practice -> values) ”
That still doesn’t answer my question. Even I can understand the principles of brain surgery and I can see how to get there through training, but I do not see the parallel that you are trying to take towards your assertion that only those who train in god issues will be able to know that a god exists. Unlike the path to brain surgery the path to learning that a god exists remains undefined.

an example of trying to locate the brain in the abdomen ( that is working off a foundation of theory that will not grant results in a million years) could be trying to determine what is the cause of god (even if you adopt sincere worship on such a principle, it will not grant results in a million years)
“

its not so much that the high school drop out doesn't know - its more that he has the attitude that he doesn't want to know (and thus has no entrance to the foundation of theory, which is the beginning of all types of knowledge) ”
But that is different to my insistence in demanding an explanation of the route to discovering how to know that a god exists.

first of all you have to know what god is, much like the first thing a neural surgeon has to know is what the brain is – in one sense you could say that the primary qualification of a neural surgeon is to actually want to know where the brain is

“ they are probably in the same position of the 6 billion people who believe in electrons despite not having any direct perception of such things (they accept it on good faith)
”
The difference is that lights operate and computers function, ”

the point is that the "functioning" of these things is the direct perception of a handful ”
But the path to direct perception is available to everyone and the path to get there is clear.

it’s not available to the highschool drop out who has the attitude he doesn’t want to know

There is no equivalent in religion.

amongst those who don’t want to know, most certainly

“ “ and many millions through school science can conduct experiments to understand that electricity exists. ”

we are talking of electrons however - the percentage of trained scientists (due to the wide area of specialization in science) who have had direct perception of an electron is probably less than 1% - everyone else accepts it on faith (or inductive knowledge is you prefer) ”
There is cause and effect and anyone who wants to know the cause can take the time to acquire that.

if they “want” to they can

Those that have taken the time have confirmed that knowledge of electrons as established by science is true.

similar authority lends itself to theistic claims

There is no equivalent process in religion that will enable ANYONE to confirm that claims for gods and souls can exist.

science only enables people to know who first of all want to know and secondly who follow up on such a desire by becoming appropriately qualified – theism works on identical principles

“ never encountered a normative description in scripture?

Are there any such statistical data that could support such a perspective? What examples were you considering for this? ”

what sort of statistics are you suggesting?

quite simply, anything that bears a cause or effect outside of empirical verification
”
I was looking for specific examples. Are there any? ”

Ok, how about the creation of the universe ”
Probably not a good example. You’d have to establish that the universe had a beginning and hence needed to be created.

OK, how about the transformation of the universe
“

what are you "examining" exactly when you say you can perceive your cognizance? ”
My ability to reason.

and what is it exactly that you are bringing into contact with the senses (touch, taste, sight, etc) during such an examination?

“ so what is the method for examining consciousness ”
The continued experimental and analytical study of how the brain operates.

if you understand the distinction between the use of the words “consciousness” and say “faculties of memory/emotional states/etc”, what results has such studies made to date that are more substantial than say the studies made of the little toe?
“

“ There is no religious equivalent for matters of gods/souls/supernatural where all such questions continue to remain unanswered. ”

given the vast body of theistic knowledge available, I think it would be more correct to say "remain ignored by atheistic empiricists" ”
What vast body of theistic knowledge?

scripture and saintly persons

Claims of knowledge made by theism have yet to be recognized by any study of epistemology.

what does knowledge require to possess to be recognized by a study of epistemology?

I challenge you to present any single piece of established knowledge that shows a god or soul exists. That is the essence of this entire discussion.

exactly who does the establishing here?

What you claim is theistic knowledge is endless repetition of baseless and unsubstantiated claims.

exactly which authority maintains they are baseless and unsubstantiated?

Can you point to any single reference that can show me wrong?

at this point it would probably be more appropriate to ask what it is that you refer to show that something is right
“

“ The same thing cannot be said about a soul. There appears to be no test or clinical trial, or scientific experiment we can construct that would show that a soul exists. ”
same for a mind, which begs the question what you are thinking with?
”
I’m using my brain, ”

As already indicated, there is no clinical test or scientific experiment for such things (remember we are talking about consciousness, or that property that gives a sense of “I am”)

do you have empirical evidence for that or are you guessing (seems like that all neuroscience has revealed in the brain is dull matter, which when combined or isolated doesn't reveal an ounce of consciousness) ”
Why are you ignoring the vast number of clinical and scientific findings that have established the direct correlation between thoughts/memory/cognition/emotions and the physical brain?

sorry - I thought our discussions before had cleared up on the distinguishing features between thoughts/memory/cognition/emotions and consciousness – consciousness refers to the state of being “I” – like for instance you can say “I am thinking of ...”, “I remember that ...”, “I am cognitive of ...”, “I am feeling ...” etc etc ,
consciousness refers to the state of being “I” as opposed to the experiences/fluctuations of the “I”
“

“ or do you have any evidence that the mind lies elsewhere? ”

mind is a property of consciousness - consciousness is a property of the soul - the soul does not have material qualities ”
This is a vastly premature and highly speculative conjecture. We know the brain accounts for all the properties of thinking, memory, cognition, emotions, and we know self awareness (a key aspect of what is loosely described as consciousness) varies with brain size and complexity (e.g. examining of other animal forms).

what do you mean by varying consciousness? – does say one cockroach bump into another cockroach and they both get mixed up who is who?
(in other words consciousness can not vary – an entity either exists or doesn't exist exist - there are no half measures for "varying")

What we don’t understand in nay detail is how the brain does these things and those studies are continuing.

undoubtedly ....

It seems incredibly irresponsible and foolish to then assert that something without precedent (immaterial existence)

precedence to who?

accounts for consciousness, when all the indication so far is that the largely unexplained very complex brain is almost certainly the source for that.

there are three things you cannot be ‘almost’ in terms of facts
1 – certain
2 – pregnant
3 - dead

Isn’t this the action of all those ignorant mystics of the past who when faced with something unexplained jump immediately to the conclusion – it is magic.

and jumping to “it is the brain” is supposed to be an improvement?

Wouldn’t it be more responsible to wait until scientists understand how the brain operates before concluding that magic exists?

an even better course of action would be to understand properly what you are terming “magic”
“

when a person is free from the influence of material qualities, they can perceive this

SB 4.22.27 When a person becomes devoid of all material desires and liberated from all material qualities, he transcends distinctions between actions executed externally and internally. At that time the difference between the soul and the Supersoul, which was existing before self-realization, is annihilated. When a dream is over, there is no longer a distinction between the dream and the dreamer. ”
Mystical gibberish. I can claim the same degree of satisfaction by allowing my mind and body to become free of stress through deep mediation.

if you again return to stress after such meditation, it indicates some errors on the platform of practice, no doubt which could be traced to a fault in the region of theory, which more than likely results from glossing over the knowledge (like say, calling it “mystical gibberish”)

There is nothing magical about these very real physical qualities of brain/mind/body states.
Why speculate? Why should there be any doubt that the mind is a product of the brain?

Because consciousness clearly doesn’t possess material qualities - which doesn't necessarily make it "magical", merely distinct from matter (would you label all things that are distinct from matter?)

because nothing has been located in the brain that is inherently conscious (there are indications that motoring skills are centralized there however) ”
So why prematurely jump to a conclusion that the brain cannot account for these things when the brain is as not yet properly understood?

because these properties are not located in the brain anymore than the brain is located in the abdomen
“

What are the pre-requisites for beginning to learn that gods or souls might exist?

at the platform of theory one learns that god is very great and that the living entity is very insignificant, even though both display the symptoms of consciousness ”
But that isn’t fact but merely a fantasy speculation.
Why would that beginning have any validity? Wouldn’t this set the precedent that everything that follows must be of the same fantasy ilk?

theory can be challenged by direct perception
for instance if I say “all pigs have wings” you can say that is a fantasy since pigs without wings are easy to come by
Do you have such direct perception that statements as simple as “god is great and the living entity is insignificant” are fantasy?
to challenge theory as untruthful without this foundation is exactly what the high school drop out does regarding the physics professor teaching about the electron – by launching attacks of “truth” at the platform of theory, he ruins his opportunity to approach practice (even if its only to approach practice theoretically, which is what most high school students do in science anyway) which is the gateway to discerning conclusions (ie truth)

“

And you can post one here that shows that a religious claim about the existence of gods or souls is true? ”

claims of truth are validated by practice, not theory - if I post a practice and you reject it (based on an improper theoretical foundation, like say "god should be determined by classical empiricism) that is something else ”
But the practice comes down to a personal claim that cannot be independently verified.

what makes you say that?
God is discerned as possessing many unique qualities
like for instance if I say “I am god” yet I have a toothache, I am certainly required to do some explaining regarding my omnipotence

This really does beg the question – how is this any different from delusion which is vastly more believable?

the same way delusions are sifted out of any other field of knowledge – a sound foundation in theory and practice

“ lots of headway has been made in the field of material reductionism over the past century, but still there is no indication on what conscious ultimately is (or even matter for that reason) - the reason being that classical empiricism has the senses as a foundation, and the senses are inherently , for eg we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality", so how do you propose that empiricism can come to the point of examining all sound in the universe? ”
While our senses have limitations we have learnt to be ingenious and have developed devices to extend our senses. For example x-ray astronomy has detected enormously wonderful aspects of the universe that we cannot see directly. In essence we can use technology to extend our abilities and senses once we know or speculate about something we want to explore.

hence
for eg we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"

What is very erroneous to conclude is that when we do not have a scientific explanation for something that we will never have such an explanation.

that’s my point – you will never have an explanation how consciousness is an inherent property of matter, just like you will never have an explanation how the brain is located in the abdomen – the reason is because it has already been located ..... (it doesn’t matter how many billions of dollars or years you waste on such an endeavour)

And what is worse, and what religionists have done throughout time is to illogically conclude that it must be magic in the absence of a more mundane explanation.

why must everything be “mundane”?

You seem to be particularly guilty of this same serious mistake.

regarding knowledge, the serious mistake is to break this flow
theory - > practice - > conclusion (values)
The only way the values of a claim of knowledge can be disregarded without taking the routes of theory and practice (which is the essence of all atheistic arguments against theism) is if one can lay claim of direct perception to the contrary

So, do you have direct perception that god does not exist?

If the answer is “no”, what the hell are you talking about?


“

“ So what is your knowledge base that asserts that non material souls exist? ”

knowledge of the gross material body (physical self) , knowledge of the subtle material body (mind, intelligence and false ego) and knowledge of the soul (that provides the other two with the symptoms of life) ”
I’d maintain that these things do not constitute knowledge but merely speculations in the absence of anything more substantial.

and in the absence of either a foundation of theory or practice or a direct perception to the contrary, where does that leave you?

“ But here we can examine their past history and references and the assumed heavy inductive evidence that they can deliver appropriate advice. There is no equivalent evidence that can be obtained regarding an expert on gods to verify that what they claim has any truth. ”

depends if the professionals are standardized or not - for instance before medical practice was standardized in america you had all sorts of quacks peddling all sorts of things on an innocent public - if there is no standard understanding (for instance if one is of the standard that god should be empirically validated) there is no question of gathering any such statistics on the real value of such things ”
But this is where one must learn to think and reason. There is no reason why I must believe what a potential quack says if I cannot verify his credential and ability.

and how do you propose to do that without standards (aka theory)?

I may simply choose to suffer rather than risk something worse. In the case of gods there is again no reason why I should believe such things until I can find verification of their validity,

the first step would be to discern the standard definition of “god”

I can simply choose to abstain and await developments. In no case need a decision be ever made based on faith (absence of evidence). If one so chooses then they often accept a degree of risk.

unfortunately, the material world is not like a domesticated animal that sleeps at our feet while we sit on our laurels
“

depends whether you believe that classical empiricism has the monopoly on defining reality or not (at the very least well over 50% of all accredited philosophers lay claim to some transcendental phenomena in their works)
”
Do you have a reference? ”

to what? the limitations of empiricism or the general trend of philosophy? ”
The 50% of philosophers making such claims. It feels like wishful exaggerated speculation on your part.

Prince James (a poster on sciforums from about 6 months ago) gave plenty of indications – I think he may have even done a thread on it – and he is an atheist doing higher education in philosophy
“

No that is not correct. I have not said that religious claims are not true. My argument is that religious claims cannot be shown to be true. ”

then why do you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" at every opportune moment?
”
Neither term asserts falsehood only degrees of speculation. ”

so since abiogenesis is also a speculation, you use the words "fantasy" and "delusional" when describing it as well? ”
It’s a formal scientific hypothesis based on the trends established by evolution theories, e.g. there is some evidence that supports its case.

if you can’t see similar indications of evidence on the side of theism (even from the standpoint of atheism or agnosticism) most people would call that “bias”

In essence evolution shows that biological complexity arose from simpler forms back to the simplest single animated entity.

actually evolution does not “show” this in the empirical sense, since empiricism requires both cause and effect to be discernable before it can “show” anything

Abiogenesis as one of its branches is simply a valid statistical forecast that projects that the obvious next step before the simplest animated matter is non animated matter

by the word “valid” do you mean “popular”?
also given that macro-evolution has not been “shown”, the statistics you are drawing on must certainly be quite slim

.

As a rather obvious hypothesis it enables scientists to attempt to show if it can be taken further by showing how inanimate matter can transform into animated matter.

do you think this is an indication of a type I or type II error?

On the other hand gods and souls lack any form of evidence other than pure speculation and no one can conceive of any method for showing how such things could be discovered.

science also reveals the same to those bereft of qualification
“

“ Regarding delusion: My phrase is usually to demonstrate that religious assertions of personal knowledge of gods without independent verification ”

what do mean by "independent verification" (given that the claims of history is verified by historians and the claims of physics are verified by physicists, etc) ”
Independent = does not have any vested interest in the conclusion and is a recognized and verified authority on such issues.

your description of abiogenesis certainly appears bereft of independent verification

“
why do you not accept that adopting methods to purify the consciousness (become free from the pushing of the duality of lust etc) are not processes?
”
You’ve only just introduced it and it is worth consideration.

I would be interested to hear your response to it, since it is the basis of all spiritual processes

“ a dog sleeps in a gutter
we may sleep in a highrise
How is the sleeping experience different?

a dog pursues the objects of the senses on four legs
we may pursue the objects of the senses on four wheels
How is the experience different?

A dog may get agitated and attack other dogs by barking and biting
we may get agitated and attack other people with bombs and planes
How is the experience different?

etc etc ”
Ok, so what’s your point?

its not clear how science is solving the issue of suffering in the material world or advancing the issue of civil advancement – if we remain essentially as “dogs going about our business” it doesn’t matter what material facilities we acquire (actually given that a dog can only bite, as opposed to detonate warheads it seems to indicate regression rather than advancement)

 

[SnakeLord]

also given that macro-evolution has not been “shown”, the statistics you are drawing on must certainly be quite slim

Incorrect. At what holy temple did you get your science diploma? (lol).

Check other thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

Incorrect. At what holy temple did you get your science diploma? (lol).

interesting, but if you had bothered to read the post you would see that I challenge not on the basis of religion but empiricism
:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

interesting, but if you had bothered to read the post you would see that I challenge not on the basis of religion but empiricism

Other thread. In short: you're wrong.

 

[lightgigantic]

Other thread. In short: you're wrong.

:shrug: