that's fine but when you make claims that your consciousness is materially reducible and that empiricism has the monopoly on anything knowable you have just shot yourself in the foot
What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
in short, the ability to control themselves, was a primary requisite ... much like acquisition of a microscope is the primary requisite for claims about how much evidence can fit on a microscope slide
that's fine but when you make claims that your consciousness is materially reducible and that empiricism has the monopoly on anything knowable you have just shot yourself in the foot
Philosopher shot through head...bullet in critical condition
I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. Do you believe humans have a monopoly on consciousness? If so is that why we are special in your mind, thus deserving of a god or at least a recipient of His generosity?
in short, the ability to control themselves, was a primary requisite ... much like acquisition of a microscope is the primary requisite for claims about how much evidence can fit on a microscope slide
Not what I asked:shrug: ....... what did they see or experience?
Actually a philosopher senses more than he experiences.
not at all
the specialness of humanity is that we have a good opportunity to spend time understanding issues of god, spirituality. It is possible for us to organize our societies so that we don't have to spend 24/7 involved in issues of eating, sleeping, mating and defending
the specialness of this contemporary age is that we have made our societies so unnecessarily complex that we are practically engaged in issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending 24/7.
this indicates that we, as a whole, are not so happy with what the human form of life actually affords, so we will inevitably pursue desires more easily afforded in forms of life other than human.
Through out it all, god is directing the wandering the soul through various forms of life through the agencies of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness
Last edited:
that's my point
their experience begins from the experience of controlling their senses ... much like the experience of determining what evidence a microscope slide holds involves acquiring a microscope - IOW they are both the very means of "seeing" the issue at hand
you have experience of consciousness being materially reducible, of god not existing etc etc?
you have experience of consciousness being materially reducible, of god not existing etc etc?
We, all life forms, are machines. Maybe not composed of metal and plastic, but machines nonetheless. If God is anything, He is a mechanic.
Then we have a monopoly on the specialness? So if consciousness is not special to us, then its importance in understanding God is belittled. Perhaps we are the only creature in the universe conscious of themselves that thinks there's a God to understand. And not even all of humanity can agree to that.
Along with consciousness we have imagination. We have to be careful not to combine the two. I can understand the concept of God but only as an idea, because that's what it is. I can understand God is real to some people and they don't really need to see Him to believe it but its only link to this reality is as a thought because that's all it is. Imagination can supplant the true reality.
Last edited:
something like that
BG 8.61 The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.
You bet!
It's not aardvarks that are contributing to world climate change
I'm not sure I follow ....
hence there is the practical application of spiritual discipline to take one from "perhaps" to certainty
No 1 knows what the population was more than 12,000 years ago. How's that related to religion, myth or superstition??
swarm
Registered User (469 posts)
Yesterday, 04:35 AM #129
“ StrangerInAStrangeLa
There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws. ”
I would say that claim is over stated.
Science can only directly explain things which can be observed and verified (which usually requires their being subject to measurement of some kind and their being replicable). It is possible to speculate about somethings which are not subject to observation and verification, like strings, but they cannot be known as being actual until there exists a way to at least indirectly observe and verify their existence.
Natural laws are just derived from observation of nature. If something "violates" one it just means the "law" was miss formulated. There can be any number of things which we didn't yet know from which we might need to reformulate "natural law." The theory of relativity being a famous example.
---------------------------------
Stranger =============== This (“ StrangerInAStrangeLa
There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws. ” ) was from someone else's post I was quoting & replying to.
I said there is an explanation for everything not that science can currently explain everything.
Do you think you have a point?
Last edited by a moderator:
Belonging to the mammalian segment of Earth's population kind of makes them at least guilty by association
How do you know your disciplined enough? How would you know if I'm not more disciplined than you? 'Perhaps' sounds more disciplined than belief in a 'certainty' don't you think?
I would have thought the complete absence of opposable thumbs might have got them off the hook ....
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel
Assumption is synonymous with 'perhaps'. I don't know how you can be certain about internet personalities.
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel ”
That person might be right more often than wrong but I wouldn't bet much on him being right any 1 certain time.
1111
its kind of like the way how a little bit of application to any field enables one to quickly assess how another is situated in a generally accurate fashion - for instance a person who has been driving a heavy rigid vehicle for 30 years can easily recognize someone who has only spent less than 10 hours behind the wheel ”
That person might be right more often than wrong but I wouldn't bet much on him being right any 1 certain time.
1111
I guess there is the possibility that a pro-driver could be pretending to display the aptitude of a rookie .....
persons who have a livelihood that depends on the logistics of the transport industry have different opinions ...
That certainly wouldn't surprise me. Most people have different opinions from me on most issues. Most people think much more of themselves & their abilities than is logicly justified.
I've experienced exactly the situation you described hundreds of times & read of hundreds more.
I skipped this before but to reach even the level of it that I agree to takes much more than a LITTLE BIT of application to a field.
1111
I've experienced exactly the situation you described hundreds of times & read of hundreds more.
I skipped this before but to reach even the level of it that I agree to takes much more than a LITTLE BIT of application to a field.
1111