Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I agree, but what is reality?
That which is true.
We do share thoughts, but our perceptions may differ due to our consciousness, when we percieve something, in most cases, it filters from our subjective to our objective perceptions. i.e. boy meets girl, vice verca.
You'll notice I said 'do not share thoughts directly' not 'do not share thoughts'.
Other than explaining the origin of the soul what does it explain and upon what evidence or reason is this explanation founded?
It doesn't mean you should not investigate it properly
The supernatural has been investigated and, to date, there is nothing to support it. All evidence is anecdotal and primarily falls into a misapprehension of mathematics, statistics in particular.
Super-natural, beyond natural. If God(s), souls, and other supernatural forces were to exist they would be natural forces, would they not? Or, if you insist on them being beyond natural you need to provide some means by which the separation may be breached.
Where is the evidence of the imagination?
Look around you. Everything made by man has its genesis in imagination.
Then my point still stands.
Not in the least.
Your point was "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." which utterly fails to describe my position. Or are you asserting that you know my beliefs better than I do? If you think my statement, "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." is wrong then give me your reasoning why I'm wrong. An incorrect assumption of my beliefs in no way constitutes a valid argument. Try again.
We know how a car works, but it still has a creator/person/spirit-soul, that creates it.
But nothing we know about life indicates or necessitates a divine creator. To assume one is merely an unnecessary assumption. If you feel differently then please, by all means, show me your evidence. Otherwise, you've failed to prove anything.
What is the "force" is behind nature?
None is necessary. None is indicated. All unfounded presumptions otherwise are exactly that... unfounded presumptions.
So why can't we spark up a fresh and in-tact, dead body, as all the chemicals are still there?
If it's "fresh and in-tact" (at a biological level) we can. But if nothing is done to preserve the condition it deteriorates rapidly and is no longer viable.
That requires an act of intelligence, as "we" (person/spirt-soul) would need to "feed" the wood.
No, it doesn't. Note the wild-fire that has burned for months in the western states. If the rate of consumption were less than the rate of regeneration that fire could burn indefinitely.
"We," means "intelligence." It cannot do it by itself.
Wrong.
The same rules and methods that are applied in obtaining non-sense, but using them to see things as they are.
That makes even less sense.
For the past week, my thoughts have changed inumerable times, does that mean that i am a different person each time?
It depends upon how you define a person. But you are definitely different than you were last week... thank you for agreeing.
Because i can detect it, i just can't prove it because it is personal, this is why we have philosophy, art etc...
Really? How do you detect spirit? How can you be sure you're not delusional or imagining things?
It is not debatable, there are lots of quotes where he attributes higher things to a superior intelligence.
These quotes are out of context and refer to his use of "God" in a metaphorical sense. There are many quotes where he responds directly to queries into his beliefs and where he states emphatically that he is atheist or agnostic by any common definition. The closest he might have come to theist would be as a pan/cosmo-theist but he definitely did not believe in a personal God and did not believe that one needed religion or God for a moral foundation.
Here are some quotes:
On a personal God:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
Regarding religion:
"It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings."
Here he calls himself agnostic:
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Here an atheist:
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
Here on the foundations of morality:
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”
His assessment of science and religion:
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
And here is the quote that I identify deeply with and well expresses my own belief:
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Nonesense! That maybe so in debating circles, but in reality, all we have to appeal to, is authorities.
That is so In debating circles, logic, philosophy, science, and mathematics. One may reference an authority but without the reasoning and evidence of that authority the argument fails to have any validity.
~Raithere
