Soul?

[imaplanck.]

It may be impossible to predict what will happen, it may be that, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we can't know the exact position and direction for every particle, but that in no way implies or suggests a higher power, a soul or whatnot.

Yes indeed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh I see 'a religion must be true if enough people follow ' , but Im not a good enough prophet because I dont have enough followers?

erm - I think I used the word 'everyone'

Actually objectiveness is the quality of remaining open to evidence and not being influenced by what you want to see.

hence personal values are not 'objective' because 'everyone' is not open to them

Lightgigantic: If I answer "yes" how would you know whether I was lying?
If I answer "no" how would you know whether I was lying?

Why would you lie?

as the constant devil's advocate to anything I post, I guess i assumed you would disagree

still, it addresses the issue that if you adon't know how to qualify an experience you cannot determine neither its presence or absence

LG: how do you determine the credible qualification of claims (not just theistic ones, but any claim) beyond jurisdiction (if one's personal direct perception is everything you are left with a very limited perspective of reality)

Well how do you?

I was asking you, since I assume you have caught public transport in strange cities, gone to a doctor who you know nothing about with a medical complaint you know nothing about etc etc - in other words I was trying to prod you in to determining the general principles we apply by dint of everyday life as a lead in to the issue of spiritual qualification

LG you have skirted the issue again by referring back to scripture when I asked you for your own interpretation! You parrot scripture like a pedant as if, because it is written, you no longer need critical thinking. The last illusion posed to Arjuna was the idea of heaven and hell. You posted this:

(actually arjuna, being an associate of the lord, is already transcendental, and his forrays into what are apparently ignorance are to illustrate teachings to our conditioned consciousness)

critical thinking is applied to scripture to determine the thread or continuity between concepts - it gives rise to vedanta sutra (veda- knowledge, anta - the end, sutra - thread).
The basis for such critical thinking is that any statement one is claiming to be true should be backed up by a vedic statement .... like for instance

Your consciousness is also conditioned. You cling to scripture which is also of the 'material'.

..... you would have to back up your statement that scripture is material with a vedic statement (or even if you don't accept the vedas, some other scriptural statement) - otherwise its not clear why we should accept your opinions as authoratative (The obvious q being why would scripture be material when it is transcendental knowledge?)

You assert that quoting scripture is a sign of a lack of critical thinking, but even if you are reluctant to quote scripture (although it could help your argument if you quote a "materialistic" section of scripture as evidence), you should at least make clear what your critical reasoning is, otherwise we are just left with opinions that seem to edge on claims of confidence

I don't think you understood the process I was describing concerning the Kali sect. The buddha became the buddha when he began to question what he was taught, the scriptures and techniques and then carved his own path, his own way...at least that's the legend.

there is the principle that spriritual life is like flying a plane (ie solo journey), but still it is observable that there are patterns of behaviour for successful practioners (austerity, tolerance etc). In other words spiritual life is between two extremes : it doesn't necessarily hinge on having to reinvent everything like a mad artist or going through life with a set of blinkers on

This is the early morning joke! Right?

So the earth was once "flat" since enough people believed the earth to be flat, when they were ignorant, the flat earth was objective reality! LOL...

then obviously the claim that the earth is flat is not an objective claim since it didn't reach a group consensus

I think you really need to take a look at the meanings of the word, before you start using them! Your vocabulary is growing, however I don't think that you are truly grasping their meaning. First consecutive word you kept using was also misused, "espitemology" then you seem to have a hang up wiht "methodology" now it seems it's "objective" There's no such thing as an "objective religion" Now that!!! it's an OXYMORON!

then tell us what objective means you used to determine that there is no such thing as an objective religion?

 

[Godless]

then obviously the claim that the earth is flat is not an objective claim since it didn't reach a group consensus

1992 Four hundred years too late, the Catholic Church acknowledged that Galileo was right and the Earth does revolve around the sun.

1993 The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat.

http://www.non-religious.com/chronology.html

Now don't get me wrong! Are you willing to say, the above group didn't reach a consensus?

Oh! and check out the gem above, the flat earth believing Sheik! Nothing but ignorance has been spawned out of religion, it takes science to know our environment, it takes arrogance and fairy tales to assume you have all the answers!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

1992 Four hundred years too late, the Catholic Church acknowledged that Galileo was right and the Earth does revolve around the sun.

The church is still being stupid then for admitting that he was right when he was wrong.

In modern scientific terms, we consider Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance. Most of his discoveries were only further advances of Copernicus' views. The heliocenticity model that Galileo presented was no more accurate than the Tychonic system model, the main competing theory at the time.

 

[S.A.M.]

Especially since it was such old news:

The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya, propounded a heliocentric model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to a stationary Sun. He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets was reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propounded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).

Ibn al-Haitham (Alhazen) in the 12th century wrote a scathing critique of Ptolemy's geocentric model: "Ptolemy assumed an arrangement that cannot exist, and the fact that this arrangement produces in his imagination the motions that belong to the planets does not free him from the error he committed in his assumed arrangement, for the existing motions of the planets cannot be the result of an arrangement that is impossible to exist." [1] In 1030, Al-Biruni discussed the Indian heliocentric theories of Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Varahamihira in his Ta'rikh al-Hind ("Chronicles of India").

Heliocentric ideas were known in Europe before Copernicus. Arabic texts were increasingly translated into Latin after the 11th century (as a result of the increasing contact with the Muslim world through Islamic Spain and the Crusades), and explorers and traders were increasingly venturing out beyond Europe (facilitated by the Pax Mongolica) and introducing the West to the Indian heliocentric traditions as detailed above

 

[Kumar]

Pls avoid derailing the topic subject.

 

[Godless]

Pls avoid derailing the topic subject.

This happens all the time Kumar.

The church is still being stupid then for admitting that he was right when he was wrong.

Actually the way I understood it, he simply agreed with Copernicus findings, not that he calculated it!

Sam, thanks for the bit of history, I think some of us knew this already. However what is significant in the west, is that Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo were committing blasphemy for going against Catholic's church dogma at the time. It's significance is that the church was loosing ground of their totalitarian rule! Hence the beginning of the Renaissance.

 

[imaplanck.]

erm - I think I used the word 'everyone'

It makes no difference! Even everyone believing something does imply that something was derived objectively. It certainly doesnt make that something 'the truth!'

 

[lightgigantic]

It makes no difference! Even everyone believing something does imply that something was derived objectively. It certainly doesnt make that something 'the truth!'

well if all conscious entities participate in a medium, its not clear how you would establish that it is not objective

 

[imaplanck.]

well if all conscious entities participate in a medium, its not clear how you would establish that it is not objective

It is totally frigging clear "how you would establish that it is not objective"- The first guy formed a subjective conclusion to an event, then everybody believes the first guys conclusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is totally frigging clear "how you would establish that it is not objective"- The first guy formed a subjective conclusion to an event, then everybody believes the first guys conclusion.

and if everyone was innvolved in establishing the same thing then you would have no means to determine if it was subjective (since there would be a unanimous agreement) ... unless you are advocating that water is not objectively wet, fir eis not objectively hot etc

 

[imaplanck.]

and if everyone was innvolved in establishing the same thing then you would have no means to determine if it was subjective (since there would be a unanimous agreement) ... unless you are advocating that water is not objectively wet, fir eis not objectively hot etc

OK So have have you as just one of those "everyones" established an objective conclusion to.... hmmmmmm lets say, the origin of the universe?

 

[lightgigantic]

OK So have have you as just one of those "everyones" established an objective conclusion to.... hmmmmmm lets say, the origin of the universe?

amongst persons who are privvy to direct perception in the subject indicated, yes.
If you are relying on persons who speculate then the answer is 'no'

 

[imaplanck.]

So again, as one of those "everyones" ,what(if anything) regarding existance have you formed an objective conclusion on?

 

[lightgigantic]

So what(if anything) regarding existance have you formed an objective conclusion on?

well, to begin with, consciousness is the primary foundation for all things, whether subjective or objective, because without it there is no question of perception ("I think therefore I am")
How about you, do you have anything to venture that is objective?

 

[imaplanck.]

Yes indeed- Alike fairies, there is no evidence whatso ever that has ever been presented to science for gods existance.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes indeed- Alike fairies, there is no evidence whatso ever that has ever been presented to science for gods existance.

who falls into the "to science" category?

 

[imaplanck.]

Huh?

 

[lightgigantic]

Huh?

If your statement is that evidence of the gods has never been presented to empiricists, i would agree, however I wouldn't see that as a solid argument against the nature of god's existence

 

[imaplanck.]

Its a solid argument that what thiest have is all in their head.

Now are you going to stop giving me infractions or are you too beaten to care how you get the last word in?