Science cannot explain origins

Originally posted by Jenyar
Perhaps that is the weakness of your argument: that you fail to see the relevance of love.

As it pertains to this issue, yes, I fail to see the relevance. I already asked you to point out where you feel it applies. This does not mean I fail to see the relevance of love in questions regarding ethics and human behavior.

But some people have taken that to assume humans are no more than animals, and as such can't be expected to be thankful either. That could only be true if God did not give us a special place in His creation, so that we might thank Him by considering each other. In this way He gave meaning to life, and He expects people to do the same.

Without God, there is no meaning to our lives, and without us also giving meaning, there is no meaning to the universe. Yet you deny God, and therefore you have to look at the universe for meaning.

We give meaning to our own lives, we don't need a God to do it for us. In fact, even assuming his existence, he can't... not if we have free will. Having free will our thoughts and actions, the direction we take our lives is our decision not his.

Meaning implies communication, intent, or purpose which imply consciousness. Meaning is applied by consciousness... nothing has meaning until apprehended by a conscious being. So, is there meaning to the Universe? Certainly, for there are conscious beings apprehending it. Let me ask you this: without referring to values assigned by a conscious being what is the meaning of a rock or a snowflake? It simply is.

Love is also intrinsic to consciousness and understanding. There is no affinity, compassion, desire, or understanding without consciousness. Understanding increases this ability. Reason increases understanding... see where I'm headed?

Think about what you consider to be a good life as opposed to what you consider to be a bad or evil life. Not in terms of God but in terms of the individual carrying out that life... in the individual's actions. From their own perspective and that of other humans. I think you might notice that whether the concept of God is included in the individual's decision making process is almost irrelevant. It is the knowledge and reason one applies in one's choices and actions... it is the individual's wisdom that makes a difference. Think of some examples, Christian and non-Christian throughout history. Meaning... that's up to us to decide.

It makes more sense that we are supposed to love others and love ourselves, by being responsible and protecting each other (and by ecological implication, also nature). It is logical and reasonable: consistent with the nature of nature - to be mutually beneficial - and to act of love, not selfishness. Why else do you think humanity stands out like a sore thumb in the ecosystem?

I do not disagree that love is intrinsic to human nature and that it makes sense logically. I simply fail to see it as divinely inspired.

I believe the reason that we are so often at odds with "nature" is that we have the ability to act in opposition to what is our own true nature. In short, because we have enough knowledge to be dangerous but rarely enough to be wise. In my own opinion, this is the truth within religion (perhaps that which tiassa seeks). The truth within religion consists not of knowledge of the world but knowledge of ourselves... of what it is to be human. Unfortunately, many religious people prefer to take a literal interpretation and regard it as truth. This is when we start having problems.

~Raithere
 
"Why would infite space be contained in finite time? Doesn't that mean that the universe came out of void, like Genesis suggests?"

I've always had a problem with the infinite universe theory. Mainly how do you get something infinite out of something finite? As I said, it all depends on if time was created at the Big Bang as well. If it was then there was no cause for the universe, only the effect of the Big Bang. If it has always existed then it's anyone's guess how the Big Bang started.
 
I've always had a problem with the infinite universe theory. Mainly how do you get something infinite out of something finite? As I said, it all depends on if time was created at the Big Bang as well. If it was then there was no cause for the universe, only the effect of the Big Bang. If it has always existed then it's anyone's guess how the Big Bang started.
Click to expand...
Well for me, the only thing makes sense is an infinite universe. At some point, something has to be infinite. Even if you say this isn't true and everything has a cause - then you would run into the problem of infinite regression which is infinite! Energy is infinite therfore I say the universe is infinite, though this particular formation of energy in the known universe is not infinite. I hold eternal recurrance as a possibility also - time may be circular.
 
Originally posted by Xelios
It could, but the much more likely circumstance is that is isn't.

Why?

However it's been my experience that religion (at least Christianity) is nothing more than wishful thinking.

What do you think Christianity is, and why do you think it is wishful thinking??

I never said it came from nothing. I said it had no cause.

Have you ever experienced anything in your life, that you can say occurred without a cause?

Asking where or what it came from is like asking what is 100 miles north of the north pole.

In this day and age, I wouldn’t have thought that would be too hard to answer, would you? :)

Thankfully we have science to seperate truth from fiction. Like it or not, that is what it does.

When ustalised honestly, I agree it is one way, but not the only way.

Their actions are the evidence, as well as their brain waves and chemical reactions when they see you, that sort of thing.

That’s interesting, what exactly happens?
And does it happen everytime you see….your mother?

Because there is order in our world. Laws are one example of this, and courts of law are based on (guess what) evidence, not feelings or opinions.

Laws can be chaotic, if the lawmakers are rascals, wouldn’t you say?

Can it? If someone were to claim 2+2=6 would that be truth?

It would be to that person.

the universal truth would be that 2+2=4,

Hopefully the person would learn this and alter their perception of the truth. But that universal truth could come in different ways, it needn’t be through your type of- scientific evidence.

In the same way evidence shows which answer is true and which are not.

But evidence can be tampered with, or the person to whom you are displaying the evidence, or the person who is presenting it, may not realise fully, what is right or wrong, but go along because he thinks “it is evidence, so it must be true.”

Without this system of evidence anyone's crackpot theory has to be taken as true, and science, law, mathematics and suchlike would not exist.

How would you “know” it is a crackpot theory?
Do you believe, science, law and mathematics, were introduced, or have always been there?

Originally posted by Raithere
Not much of an answer there. Are you suggesting the use of reason and logic, or empirical evidence……

Quite possibly.

The story of Krishna is proof? How so? Why not "James and the Giant Peach"?

Or the theory of evolution, I get your drift. ;)

….So you're saying it's entirely subjective?

A lot of things start out as subjective.
Are you saying you are entirely subjective?

And what if you love God without having to be taught?

What if?

Or what if God is not worthy of love?

How could that be?

What if a friend were abducted and altered, his personality and memory were changed through radical procedures, skin tone, bone structure, eye color, etc. were all changed.

It would be the same person.

When next you met this person you would have no idea it was the same person.

That would be my defect.

When you met the duplicate you would have no idea it was a different being.

Again, my defect.

If one were to bring life back to the corpse but without these things would we consider it to be the same person?

That is very difficult to answer, it would have to happen.

What you are referring to is no life.

I did not say that is life. I say the spirit-soul is life and God is the resovoir of all life.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
"What do you think Christianity is, and why do you think it is wishful thinking?? "

Christianity is the belief in the Christian God, and I think it's wishful thinking because there is no evidence to say he exists and it's sole purpose seems to be to elliviate fears of death.

"Have you ever experienced anything in your life, that you can say occurred without a cause? "

No, because time has existed in this universe since it formed. However if time doesn't exist it's logical to assume cause and effect don't either. Since time didn't exist 'before' the big bang neither did cause and effect. Ergo, the creation of time is the effect without a cause, the only one of its kind.

"In this day and age, I wouldn’t have thought that would be too hard to answer, would you?"

Well, even today an undefined answer is still undefined.

"When ustalised honestly, I agree it is one way, but not the only way. "

What's the other way?

"That’s interesting, what exactly happens?"

I'm no biologist, but I believe your brain reacts to an image of a person you love by producing certain chemicals and electrical impulses. These (in evolution) help to distinguish friend from foe, as well as help to remember who each person is. The side effect is the feeling of love for the person. An interesting question would be do animals love too?

"And does it happen everytime you see….your mother?"

I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask a neurologist that one.

"Laws can be chaotic, if the lawmakers are rascals, wouldn’t you say? "

Perhaps, but imagine the chaos if everyone's feeling or opinion was as good as law.

"It would be to that person. "

Maybe, but that is only delusional proof. The absolute truth is that 2+2 does not equal 6. That person would be wrong. In the same way, God may be truth to someone, but that doesn't mean he exists.

"But that universal truth could come in different ways, it needn’t be through your type of- scientific evidence. "

How else do you propose we define what is true, if not through evidence and observation?

"But evidence can be tampered with"

Not in science it can't. In science if an experiment is not repeatable it is invalid, no matter what the evidence. You'll sometimes hear stories of scientists who make an extraordinary claim and say they have evidence, yet when other scientists try to recreate the experiment they don't get the same results, and so their claim is invalid. Science is self correcting.

"How would you “know” it is a crackpot theory? "

My point is there would be no way to seperate truth from reality. One person could say 2+2 is 4, another could say 2+2 is 873 and they would both be right. There would be no order, at all.
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
A lot of things start out as subjective.

Certainly. To the individual, everything is initially subjective. Only though communication and reason can we determine objectivity. What I'm asking, however, is if the experience of God is completely subjective or are there objective aspects? And if there are objective aspects what are they? If the experience is entirely subjective then how can you defend positing it objectively or without qualification?

Are you saying you are entirely subjective?

No, I'm not. There are subjective aspects to me and objective aspects.

How could that be?

Perhaps he's cruel and vicious. Perhaps he's unjust or an egomaniac? Maybe he's just an asshole with power... there certainly are a lot of them here on Earth.

It would be the same person.

Why? What aspect is the same? What if the individual was deconstructed atom by atom until he didn't exist and then reconstructed?

Again, my defect.

What would you base the difference upon? How is there any way to know. And if there is no way to know, how can you claim truth?

That is very difficult to answer, it would have to happen.

It's a thought experiment... a hypothetical situation. Hypothesize an answer based upon your knowledge and belief.

I did not say that is life. I say the spirit-soul is life and God is the resovoir of all life.

What evidence do you have of the transition from spirit to biological life? You claim that Abiogenesis is invalid because there is no proof but where is your proof that biological life can come from immaterial "spirit"?

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Xelios
Christianity is the belief in the Christian God,

No, Christianity means to serve the Almighty God by way of following the example set by Jesus Christ, by doing this, eventually you cleanse the heart of material hankerings, envy, greed, lust and develop a clear understanding of your true self and your relationship with the Almighty God. There is nowhere in the Bible, where God is described as "a Christian God," this notion is based on an institutionalised, conditional preferance, which has nothing to do with Jesus or his teachings. The very fact that christians don't like muslims, muslims don't like jews or christians, or hindus don't like muslims, etc, is no different than reds don't like blues, mods don't like rockers, whites don't like blacks, men don't like women, cats don't like dogs etc.. It is all based on the bodily concept of life, and thus under the control of material nature. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

and I think it's wishful thinking because there is no evidence to say he exists

What evidence would make you convinced?
Before answering, think about what and who God is. It says, for example, in the bible that He created the heavens and the earth, in a short space of time (whether 6..24hr days or 6000years). He formed Adam out of dust, made Eve from Adams rib, these are serious things. Now, for the purpose of this argument, I am not saying this is true or untrue, but if He did this, then there is an abundance of evidence i.e. everything, including your very self.

Now, i ask again, what evidence would make you convinced He exists?

and it's sole purpose seems to be to elliviate fears of death.

You sound brainwashed. I say this, because i study scripture and spirituality alot, and believe me, you are so wrong, that it is obvious you do not understand it

No, because time has existed in this universe since it formed.

How do you know?
Can you tell me what "time" is?

Ergo, the creation of time is the effect without a cause, the only one of its kind.

You use the word "creation," so i can logically assume that there must be a creator, a creator must have intelligence, otherwise there is no question of creation, so who was the creator?

What's the other way?

Through personal experiance, observation, calculation, inspiration, understanding, knowledge, deduction etc....

I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask a neurologist that one.

Because he has a title "neurologist" you trust that he must know, that is faith. Supposing he is a liar and a cheat, where does that leave you?

Maybe, but that is only delusional proof. The absolute truth is that 2+2 does not equal 6.

So eventually it still boils down to having faith in someone. 2+2=4, although mathematically correct, is based on a law, for there to be a law there has to be a law maker. Unless you think the material universe randomly came up with it.

How else do you propose we define what is true, if not through evidence and observation?

Well, inspiration for one.

Not in science it can't.

As i said, if it is done honestly, then it is sound, but if it is done through certain types of agencies, or certain secret societies, where there may be an alterior motive, it can easily be acheived and the gullible public would never know.

My point is there would be no way to seperate truth from reality. One person could say 2+2 is 4, another could say 2+2 is 873 and they would both be right. There would be no order, at all.

That is what is happening, some people are saying there is a God so i will learn how to serve Him, and some people are saying there is no God, so i will serve myself and whoever i please. And your right, there is no order, or what little order is left, is decreasing. I suppose you could link it to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"I am not saying this is true or untrue, but if He did this, then there is an abundance of evidence i.e. everything, including your very self. "

So basically, the Bible says God created everything, and since everything exists it must be true? C'mon Jan, I've come to expect better of you.

"Now, i ask again, what evidence would make you convinced He exists? "

Some actual physical evidence would be nice. Maybe having him come down to Earth and do a press conference. That kind of thing.

"You sound brainwashed. I say this, because i study scripture and spirituality alot, and believe me, you are so wrong, that it is obvious you do not understand it "

If you say so Jan.

"How do you know?
Can you tell me what "time" is? "

I know because it is an integral part of this universe, without time this universe could not exist.

Time is what you see when you look at a clock.

"You use the word "creation," so i can logically assume that there must be a creator, a creator must have intelligence, otherwise there is no question of creation, so who was the creator? "

No. If there was a word in the english language that described an event without a cause I would use it Jan, but I don't have that luxery.

"Through personal experiance, observation, calculation, inspiration, understanding, knowledge, deduction etc.... "

Observation is a scientific proof, so that's out. So is calculation. The rest simply boils down to "I make a guess and hope it's right"

"Because he has a title "neurologist" you trust that he must know, that is faith. Supposing he is a liar and a cheat, where does that leave you? "

Looking for another neurologist I would imagine. Suppose Jesus was a liar and a cheat, where does that leave you?

"So eventually it still boils down to having faith in someone. 2+2=4, although mathematically correct, is based on a law, for there to be a law there has to be a law maker. Unless you think the material universe randomly came up with it. "

Math is an integral part of this universe, but it is based on the human species. One big mistake a lot of scientists make is that they assume math is a 'universal language', that it is one thing that all life in the universe can agree on. However this need not be the case. For us humans though, if you take two objects and add two more to them you get four. That's just the way it is.

"Well, inspiration for one."

Don't you think this has more chance of being curropt than scientific proof does? I could say I had an inspiration that my keyboard is actually alive, and since this counts as proof I would be right, even when I'm quite obviously wrong.

"As i said, if it is done honestly, then it is sound, but if it is done through certain types of agencies, or certain secret societies, where there may be an alterior motive, it can easily be acheived and the gullible public would never know. "

Really Jan, secret societies, alterior motives? There is always a way to corrupt things Jan, that's universal. But science is very, very difficult to corrupt, I would say the most difficult thing in humanity.

"That is what is happening, some people are saying there is a God so i will learn how to serve Him, and some people are saying there is no God, so i will serve myself and whoever i please. "

Because God has no evidence supporting him, and so your guess is as good as mine. However you will see no scientist saying 2+2 does not equal 4 (unless it is in a different number base, but that has nothing to do with our discussion). You will see no scientist saying the sun is made of human tissue, or that the card sitting on my desk is alive. However in your system these claims would be entirely correct, while they are obvoiusly false.
 
Basically, I think that the discussion of evidence is irrelevant to religion. Religion is much more about WHY than about HOW. God could have created the world by initiating the Big Bang, by creating the world according to Genesis, or he could have created it yesterday.

For myself, I believe that we are allowed to trust our senses; God didnt create a world full of red herrings, so if our observations tell us Earth is 5 billion years old and life started 2 billion years ago and evolved from single-celled organisms into what we see today, including humans, then thats the truth. But it doesnt answer WHY, and while I can imagine science eventually explaining how life came into existence physically, I cannot imagine science ever discivering WHY it happened, for this we need religion.

Hans
 
"Basically, I think that the discussion of evidence is irrelevant to religion. Religion is much more about WHY than about HOW. God could have created the world by initiating the Big Bang, by creating the world according to Genesis, or he could have created it yesterday. "

If religion is about why, maybe it would care to answer why God would create a universe in the first place?

"But it doesnt answer WHY, and while I can imagine science eventually explaining how life came into existence physically, I cannot imagine science ever discivering WHY it happened, for this we need religion. "

Why does there have to be a why? Why isn't it possible that life evolved here because the conditions happened to be right? Why must there be a purpose to life?
 
Originally posted by Xelios
So basically, the Bible says God created everything, and since everything exists it must be true? C'mon Jan, I've come to expect better of you.

I am not saying that. I'm saying, to be objective, you must adopt a position of neutrality. At least try and understand, on a deeper level what and who God is, this way you will see what is meant by God is the sum total of everything, whether you believe it or not.

Some actual physical evidence would be nice.

What kind of physical evidence?

Maybe having him come down to Earth and do a press conference. That kind of thing.

You don't believe He exists, He knows that, so there would be no point. It still boils down to you understanding who and what He is, then at least you will know what to look for. :)

I know because it is an integral part of this universe, without time this universe could not exist.

Because it is an integral part of this universe, doesn't mean it didn't exist before the creation of it.

What i want to know is, how do you know it didn't exist before?

Time is what you see when you look at a clock.

No it is not, a clock is a device which measures time, we can only experience time.

Observation is a scientific proof, so that's out. So is calculation. The rest simply boils down to "I make a guess and hope it's right"

That is your opinion.

Looking for another neurologist I would imagine.

How would you know you have been cheated?

Suppose Jesus was a liar and a cheat, where does that leave you?

In the same position you are, i suppose, searching for that illusive missing link.

One big mistake a lot of scientists make is that they assume math is a 'universal language', that it is one thing that all life in the universe can agree on.

You make alot of contradictions. How could scientists make a mistake, if they only accept something as fact after it has been proven. Are there different evidences for different scientists? :confused:

However this need not be the case. For us humans though, if you take two objects and add two more to them you get four. That's just the way it is.

As i said, it is a law. It was not invented by scientists or mathematicians.

Don't you think this has more chance of being curropt than scientific proof does?

The inspiration woudn't be corrupt, the person would.

I could say I had an inspiration that my keyboard is actually alive,

Why would you get such an inspiration? Do you know what inspiration is?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Basically, I think that the discussion of evidence is irrelevant to religion. Religion is much more about WHY than about HOW.

I tend to agree with you in part, however there is information about How, this information is there for people whose faith is not very strong.

God could have created the world by initiating the Big Bang, by creating the world according to Genesis, or he could have created it yesterday.

Could the BB have occured from the anihilation of the last universe in a cycle, as this universe may come to the same end, before the next universal cycle begins?

....and while I can imagine science eventually explaining how life came into existence physically, I cannot imagine science ever discivering WHY it happened, for this we need religion.

Suppose actual life itself isn't physical, but is spiritual, the same as God, then how will science be able to explain it physicaly.
This is what (real) religion postulates.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Could the BB have occured from the anihilation of the last universe in a cycle, as this universe may come to the same end, before the next universal cycle begins?
Click to expand...

Well, thats one theory. New observations, however, seem to indicate that this is not the case (because it doent seem the universe will stop expanding).


Suppose actual life itself isn't physical, but is spiritual, the same as God, then how will science be able to explain it physicaly.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case, science may actually discover spirit. For now, we have a hard time defining life, heheh.

Hans
 
"I am not saying that. I'm saying, to be objective, you must adopt a position of neutrality. At least try and understand, on a deeper level what and who God is, this way you will see what is meant by God is the sum total of everything, whether you believe it or not. "

You're gonna have to help me out here Jan. If God created the universe, how could he be the universe as well? This is where I draw the line between God and the Christian God. To me, no being could have created this universe (imo), but a being could have influenced it's evolution. To me, this is what God is and does, a being that influences evolution, a being that is not above the laws nature has set for this universe. If God exists, this is how I would expect him to exist. The Christian God I do not agree with, I will elaborate if you wish but right now it's 12AM and I should be sleeping ;)

"You don't believe He exists, He knows that, so there would be no point. It still boils down to you understanding who and what He is, then at least you will know what to look for. "

I'll tell ya, if he came down in front of me right now and poofed a nice plate of waffles into existance I'd be on the next bus to Bible camp :p

"Because it is an integral part of this universe, doesn't mean it didn't exist before the creation of it. "

Not necessarily. The laws of physics are integral to this universe, yet all calculations and theories say they were created after the Big Bang event. Same with matter.

"What i want to know is, how do you know it didn't exist before? "

I don't know, it's just my personal theory.

"That is your opinion. "

Yes it is, as is most everything said on these boards.

"How would you know you have been cheated? "

I wouldn't, not if I only talked to this one neurologist. However if I talk to 10 neurologists and they all come up with the same answer (or close to) it's safe to assume he was telling the truth.

"You make alot of contradictions. How could scientists make a mistake, if they only accept something as fact after it has been proven. Are there different evidences for different scientists? "

I said they mistakenly assume math is a universal language. It has not been proven that it is, and until that time one can only speculate and make assumptions about it, much like one can only speculate and assume that the writers of the Bible were honest men.

"As i said, it is a law. It was not invented by scientists or mathematicians. "

That would depend on your definition of a law. Is it a universal law? Or a law applicable only to humanity? Lets say we come across aliens that cannot count, to them this law of 2+2=4 is simply some crazy thing made up by human scientists. Laws are simply ways for us to explain what we see in the universe, some are never changing, some depend on key factors that could change.

"The inspiration woudn't be corrupt, the person would."

How can you tell if the person is corrupt?

"Why would you get such an inspiration? Do you know what inspiration is? "

Yes I do, that is, assuming we are talking about the same definition of inspiration. I assume you mean inspiration as in inspired by a divine source.

Still my question remains, how can one tell is a person has actually been inspired or if he is just making it up? In science, if you make things up people will redo your experiment and find out. You will be exposed and your claims will be discredited. How can we apply this type of checking to inspirations?
 
Originally posted by Xelios
If God created the universe, how could he be the universe as well?

Material nature is one of Gods energies. For example, the sun, although millions of miles away distributes heat and light to this planet. This distributed energy creates and sustains life, on the planet, but the sun is 93 million miles away. When you experience heat, you do not say here is the sun, or when you experience light, but the sun is the cause of this heat and light. In the same way God is situated in His abode, but distributes His energy throughout the universe in a similar way. Matter is one of Gods energies.

This is where I draw the line between God and the Christian God.

Forget Christian god, Islamic god etc...just try and understand God.

To me, this is what God is and does, a being that influences evolution, a being that is not above the laws nature has set for this universe.

Then why can't science detect Him. Modern science is sure that life evolved from an explotion, if that is the case why would we need a material god, especially if he himself is subject to the laws of nature.

I'll tell ya, if he came down in front of me right now and poofed a nice plate of waffles into existance I'd be on the next bus to Bible camp

Wouldn't you try and find out if it was some sort of trick first? :p

The laws of physics are integral to this universe,

What is this universe, without physical laws?

I wouldn't, not if I only talked to this one neurologist. However if I talk to 10 neurologists and they all come up with the same answer (or close to) it's safe to assume he was telling the truth.

What if the neurological ethics society was under the control of an agency who had an agenda, and instructed its members to either be a part of this or become disgraced and exhiled, therefore making them have no choice but to spin this yarn? :p:D

How can you tell if the person is corrupt?

By their actions.

Yes I do, that is, assuming we are talking about the same definition of inspiration. I assume you mean inspiration as in inspired by a divine source.

You are talking specifically of divine inspiration, i mean "inspiration" period. As i am a musician who writes words and music, i rely on inspiration, to a large degree. The source of inspiration lies byond conscious perception and it can provide information which is unobtainable by any conscious effort. Pioncare attributed it to the actions of the "subliminal" self.

Still my question remains, how can one tell is a person has actually been inspired or if he is just making it up?

By the result of their actions. Look at Jimmy Hendrix. To me he is an inspired musician, it doesn't matter whether you think he is. So the real answer is "it doesn't matter."

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, thats one theory. New observations, however, seem to indicate that this is not the case (because it doent seem the universe will stop expanding).

What are the new observations and what do you mean by the universe is still expanding??

Well, in that case, science may actually discover spirit. For now, we have a hard time defining life, heheh.

Exactly! ;)

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Certainly. To the individual, everything is initially subjective. Only though communication and reason can we determine objectivity. What I'm asking, however, is if the experience of God is completely subjective or are there objective aspects?

As you said, initially, everything is subjective and through certain things, it finds its way into the objective arena, but it does not occur the opposite way, unless by accident. This could mean there is an heirachal system.
God is neither subjective or objective, as He is not affected by nature. There are some religions which see GOD as a subjective entity and some as an objective entity, it depends on their consciousness.
If we look at the phenomenon of hip-hop music, we can see the subjective part, i.e. music, and the objective i.e. the clothes, lifestyle etc..

One can experience God through every known law, as He is the cause of everything, and is situated in everything.

And if there are objective aspects what are they?

Material energy.

If the experience is entirely subjective then how can you defend positing it objectively or without qualification?

Subjective and objective, are not separate, from a subjective state, you can change your life, you see things in that way, therefore the physical expression becomes akin to the subjective state.
That would make an interesting thread actually. :)

Why? What aspect is the same?

The soul.

What if the individual was deconstructed atom by atom until he didn't exist and then reconstructed?

It would be a different person, as he would have ceased to exist.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
As you said, initially, everything is subjective and through certain things, it finds its way into the objective arena, but it does not occur the opposite way, unless by accident.
Click to expand...
Actually, if one assumes that the material universe is an objective reality (a necessary assumption in my opinion) then all of our experience transitions from the objective to the subjective.
God is neither subjective or objective, as He is not affected by nature.
Click to expand...
Assuming God's existence this is not possible. God may be subjective (existing within the individual experience) or objective (existing within the common experience) or perhaps both, but not neither. If God were neither subjective or objective then we could have no knowledge of it (which, of course is my position).
One can experience God through every known law, as He is the cause of everything, and is situated in everything.
Click to expand...
In which case God would be objective. I do not reject pantheism/cosmotheism of this sort outright. It falls fairly close to my understanding of the Universe. However, I fail to see the necessity or identification of God through this conceptualization. I find it extraneous.
Material energy.
Click to expand...
So, what then is the connection between the spirit and "material energy"? Proof?
Subjective and objective, are not separate, from a subjective state, you can change your life, you see things in that way, therefore the physical expression becomes akin to the subjective state.
Click to expand...
It could be an interesting thread. However, I think you missed the point of my query. On what basis does one assert a purely subjective experience as reality, as truth? And on what basis would a second party judge the assertion of such an experience. The subjective is fine for the individual experiencing it but on what basis would a second party distinguish a true experience from a delusion or a lie?
The soul.
Click to expand...
And how do you know this?
It would be a different person, as he would have ceased to exist.
Click to expand...
How do you know?


You failed to address what I felt was the most pertinent question in my last post so I'll repeat it:
What evidence do you have of the transition from spirit to biological life? You claim that Abiogenesis is invalid because there is no proof but where is your proof that biological life can come from immaterial "spirit"?

~Raithere
 
Jan
What are the new observations and what do you mean by the universe is still expanding??

There are dissident theories (science is always like this), but most scientists agree that the universe is currently expanding. That is the primary observation that has led to the BB theory. It has been theorized that the expansion would eventually stop, and the universe would start to collapse inwards again. To calculate when this happens you need to estimate the total amount of mass in the universe (which pulls it together, via gravity) and compare that with the speed of expansion (which pulls it apart, via momentum). Recent estimates of the total mass present in the universe indicate that there is not enough mass to ever stop the expansion.

Cheers, Hans
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Actually, if one assumes that the material universe is an objective reality (a necessary assumption in my opinion) then all of our experience transitions from the objective to the subjective.

What then, is the mechanism that transports us from objective to subjective? Something (object) within the universe must contain subjectiveness, as we are made up of material energy.
If you don't think such a thing exists, then where does something like imagination, come from?

Assuming God's existence this is not possible. God may be subjective (existing within the individual experience) or objective (existing within the common experience) or perhaps both, but not neither.

You are talking from our percpective. But from a trancendental point of view, it is entirely possible.

If God were neither subjective or objective then we could have no knowledge of it (which, of course is my position).

This is the point of (real) religion. In all religions, it is understood that we are born in ignorance, which is the breeding ground of sin. Religion, teaches that you are not your body, but a soul, and the soul is a part of the Supreme soul, God.

However, I fail to see the necessity or identification of God through this conceptualization.

Thats just it, you fail to see it. You bound yourself to the portion of material nature that you see and understand, and put all the rest down to evolution.

So, what then is the connection between the spirit and "material energy"? Proof?

Material energy is a means by which the conditioned spirit-soul can act.
Matter, is by nature, dead. It cannot act. But with the influence of the superior spiritual energy, it becomes animated.
Proof.......dead body and live body, the difference.

On what basis does one assert a purely subjective experience as reality, as truth?

One wouldn't.
I don't think there is such a thing, it would have to contain not one ounce of connection to anything that you have ever encountered. i.e. colour, form.

And on what basis would a second party judge the assertion of such an experience.

If i am to understand the question properly, it would depend on the individual.

The subjective is fine for the individual experiencing it but on what basis would a second party distinguish a true experience from a delusion or a lie?

Through developed intelligence.

And how do you know this?

Because i can understand that my body is changing rapidly, but me, the person, is constant. My body changes due to time, it was once a babys body, then a youths body, and soon it will become an old body, and is sure to die. I am the same person, i have not changed, i am therefore, not under the influence of time.

How do you know?

Because he would cease to exist. Thats what you said. :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have of the transition from spirit to biological life?

There is no empirical evidence, as "spirit" cannot be detected by, physical scientific methods.
You come to that conclusion, through faith and intelligence.

Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a superior intelligence behind the workings of the universe, he could not state what or who it was, because it was inconceivable to material speculation. He was not a religous man, he came to that conclusion based on his intelligence.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top