From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: mOjOm

I am not stuck on repeat, I am repeating because you cant hear

You made it clear that suicide was damnation as you understood, in a faith you dont accept
You say I dont grasp the language, think, just think

You said you have been told suicide was condemned and repeated what you heard

There is no evidence, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever you decide to rely on, no biblical truth to damnation for those who take their own lives

a reply to: Raggedyman

As I said: more than you deserve.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman

As I said: more than you deserve.

In future
Take it to someone else

What I have written remains

Lutherans and Anglicans dont believe what Orthodox and Catholics believe
I dont believe what Orthodox and Catholics believe either and I have seen no evidence in the bible to suggest you have a clue what you are talking about

Thanks anyway

a reply to: DBCowboy

In what other way does the ununderstandable become understood?

a reply to: SLAYER69

an interesting thought, life seems to keep getting more complex at least thats the way it seems
yes I believe that at one point we return to the one
personally and as a species after some time evolving spiritually and physically we all arrive back at the one !

im not a theist , im not atheist either id say im agnostic in some sense in that I dont believe its like a being or such
i just think that consciousness existed as it had its first thought then every thought after manifested the dimensions and particles etc in a form of self exploration and in order to be more complex
so the universe / multiverse is really a complex self exploration attempt by universal consciousness to understand itself
sorry ourselves better.

id say im leaning towards daoism/taoism in that there is a super force that binds us all together

books that laid this out for me David Bohm - wholeness and the implicate order, Lao Tzu - tao te ching
terrence mckenna - invisible landscapes - mind hallucinognes and the i ching

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: dismanrc

No it is how science works.

Science gains insight on things via observations. Observations are data points. Data points are measurable (on a gross level). Thus something is not formally a theory in science, with out evidence. It is not really a hypothesis if you can't justify it either.

This is the basis of science. The ancient Greek word eidein covers this. Intellectual knowledge. From this we get the English word idea.

Faith is the provence of gnosis. Spiritual knowledge. You just "know it is so" in your "gut" in your "soul". That is not science. Just as science is not faith.

You are show greath faith in your science, are you not?

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: dismanrc
Who was it that said the any highly advanced science would look like magic a lower species?

Arthur C. Clarke

Great mind and writer...

THANKS couldn't remember who it was.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects and the practicioners. It is far to subjective to be science (IMHO).

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method but many grant leeway in the definition of science in regard to evolution so lets not use that.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the "Superluminal Inflation" of the early universe after the Big Bang, which breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial and possibly misapplied evidence.

Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also beyond the scientific method.

Or the "heat death" of the universe.

Or the physics at a timespace singularity (core of a Black hole).

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, Van der Waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

Don't forget the very basic one in human biology, what the he** is the appendix for and why do we have it in the first place?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

In what other way does the ununderstandable become understood?

In something so esoteric as this?

I don't know.

If we had the solution to understanding the ununderstanding, then it'd be easy.

But we don't even know the vehicle in which to get us to the point where we can begin understanding.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: leolady

Several humans, over a long period of time. Science is a philosophy which works.

Look I am not saying there are no deities (read my first post, I am spiritual. I'm a pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheist). What I am saying is that Science should keep out of theology and theology out of science. Just as I'd not want a poet to do my dental work.

But if science is a philosophy which works, then science was created by a philosopher. And you stated that a philosopher is not a scientist earlier. so where does that leave us?

Maybe it takes a little bit of both to work?

Science answers questions of can it happen and how does it happen. Philosophy answers questions of should it happened or why does it happen.

Not so much. The words how and why are very much interchangable. The two are linked in very import ways.

Einstein combined the study of physics and philosophy. Just as science and faith are combined.

You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I understand that it doesn't matter in the long run, it's just how I see things. I just enjoy life and nature in general, so I don't feel like it should be wasted by throwing it away early. That's all.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
So Atheists...


Let me ask a few thought exerciser questions here....?


I'm a person of Faith. No, I don't believe everything written in the Good Book, lock stock and barrel literally. But, I'm a man of Faith in that as far as I'm concerned there is a supreme being, entity, Great spirit, Master builder...etc etc etc. However one cares to relate or describe it. No, I have chosen a very long time ago never to push my beliefs on others. I'm open to discuss but never attempt to force my beliefs down others throats. I respect those who believe otherwise.

Now, Scientifically speaking, of course.

Since there is no after life, and "We" were just the result of some random cosmic genetic lottery. Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?

If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

Faith in what concepts? Hoots and yowls representing what cannot be spoken... because consciousness is filled with nothing but empty representations of form and labels of various temporary phenomina... yet there it is because more than one being agrees that yup there it is even though those same two could call it anything they could ever want imagine anything they ever want yet that would never be or change what it is. The sun is similar been there since we hooted and howled and not as fancy as we think we do now not as manipulative of the environment in banging various things together and snarking about it as special... sun has still sunned during all of this and still has roughly half its life left we are only a 1/4 inch in the existence in its mile of time... humanity not life itself.

Realizing that consciousness is nothing moment to moment to moment and that form to this energy is the same way... is mental quiessence freedom from attachment no grasping after anything, yet consciousness still flows to the body and through the body whether that is your consciousness or not depends on an ego present trying to call the form theirs or home... its just a shell a suit that goes on and off in the absolute nature of things when the source is tapped and it all flows through it. Of course negative and positive energies exist no different than on the atomic scale also neutral this can be seen when dropping the dream or illusion... or even rotely in a moment of oh I like this or oh I dont like that or no opinion in emptiness none of that matters a stubbed toe is the same as a kiss the programming to scream or get aroused has come from mimicry and cultural norms.

Energy and matter are in a constant flux called impermanence or entropy neither can be created or destroyed just change form in a constant casual nexus of space varying in distance and changing all the time over various time frames of reference to an observer. When subject to any of this phenomina as lasting or existing with any permanence other than impermanence then there is illusion. the veil. maya. ignorance... the desire to keep others subject if aware of this is slavery making people subject out of ones own greed of comfort and ease stirring hate to cause a constant divide and ignorance to keep people asleep and as subjects. Gods want such nonsense they dont want equals they want followers they dont want people free they want slaves.

Bow to none it matters not if any god exists or not you and only you can wake up and free you, save you... we can owever point and encourage others, with a warning keep going even if offered the entire universe dont ever pause and attach for any other reason than empathy in order to point the way to others... sure just empty concepts in pointing just like all those before but its not a what that has changed but a who that has changed... when form appears to have remained the same.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

That's an interesting perspective/philosophy.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: mOjOm

I am not stuck on repeat, I am repeating because you cant hear

You made it clear that suicide was damnation as you understood, in a faith you dont accept
You say I dont grasp the language, think, just think

You said you have been told suicide was condemned and repeated what you heard

There is no evidence, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever you decide to rely on, no biblical truth to damnation for those who take their own lives

Exodus 20

originally posted by: dismanrc
You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.

You are equivocating different meanings of the word faith. Faith can mean belief without evidence and can also mean trust. This is a deceptive tactic used by religious extremists to suggest science is like a belief system. It's not. There are experiments and evidence. We TRUST scientists to learn these things because they are certified experts. We TRUST that gravity is real because we can witness objects falling at the same rate every single time. This is not simply belief (ie religious faith in something that cannot be proven), this is trust in proven facts and experiments. It's like trusting your dentist to work on your teeth or trusting your mechanic to fix your car.

Manly P. Hall: RARE LECTURE VIDEO: Is There a Guardian Angel ...

youtu.be...

a reply to: SLAYER69

Just observation over a very long period of time with attachments of various sorts making myself subject to subjective things and other beings until the objectivity made everything subject instead of becoming subject or subjected yet again... there is much danger at this stage of meditation though and not just the sitting sort but every waking moment... anything and everything will try to make you subject again a slave to lose the objectivity of pure awareness...

Some call these forces, energies or beings good or evil gods or devils when they are simply teachers wen seen as a subject and not slave to them. All phenomina arises and passes no moment or object or experience is ever the same no matter how similar it may seem each moment brand new all attachments just hooks in a corpse called the past and a ghost called memory...

Unbind and nondifferentation arises where bias once stood, equanimity where hate once resided, loving kindness where greed seeks for a self.

Even at such a place it does not mean that others have unbound or are unattached this is where the practice of compassion and empathy are important... as it's as if people are dreaming that you have died and they refuse to wake up ignorant or unaware that their life is lived asleep in bubble of consciousness after bubble of consciousness instead of reality as it is.

No belief of faith is required nor dogma for this... simply start observing see what you are subjecting yourself and others to that is moot or redundant like a parrot if one bird is already saying it why be the canyon wall echoing it? Continue observing and no matter what arises do not become subject to it unless beneficial to more than oneself... continue in this manner and no illusion can envelop no delusion can take root and freedom will be the result.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know.

Nor do I. No one does, and anyone who claims otherwise is being just a bit foolish.

To toss out avenues of exploration of who we are, what we are, and what, or even who we may become, just because we may disagree/disbelieve in its dressings? Foolish.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: leolady

Several humans, over a long period of time. Science is a philosophy which works.

Look I am not saying there are no deities (read my first post, I am spiritual. I'm a pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheist). What I am saying is that Science should keep out of theology and theology out of science. Just as I'd not want a poet to do my dental work.

But if science is a philosophy which works, then science was created by a philosopher. And you stated that a philosopher is not a scientist earlier. so where does that leave us?

Maybe it takes a little bit of both to work?

Science answers questions of can it happen and how does it happen. Philosophy answers questions of should it happened or why does it happen.

Not so much. The words how and why are very much interchangable. The two are linked in very import ways.

Einstein combined the study of physics and philosophy. Just as science and faith are combined.

You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.

I do not have faith in science. I have what I like to call educated hope. A certain degree of optimism that science will reliably give us the straight facts, optimism which is reinforced by a long and complex history of precedent cases which have demonstrated the efficacy of intelligent systematic inquiry.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: leolady

Several humans, over a long period of time. Science is a philosophy which works.

Look I am not saying there are no deities (read my first post, I am spiritual. I'm a pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheist). What I am saying is that Science should keep out of theology and theology out of science. Just as I'd not want a poet to do my dental work.

But if science is a philosophy which works, then science was created by a philosopher. And you stated that a philosopher is not a scientist earlier. so where does that leave us?

Maybe it takes a little bit of both to work?

Science answers questions of can it happen and how does it happen. Philosophy answers questions of should it happened or why does it happen.

Not so much. The words how and why are very much interchangable. The two are linked in very import ways.

Einstein combined the study of physics and philosophy. Just as science and faith are combined.

You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.

I do not have faith in science. I have what I like to call educated hope. A certain degree of optimism that science will reliably give us the straight facts, optimism which is reinforced by a long and complex history of precedent cases which have demonstrated the efficacy of intelligent systematic inquiry.

Or basically the highly statistical likelyhood some effect will repeatedly occur from a cause no matter the labels when crap collides and the uncertainty principle that says that label or reason may not be why the effect occurs... yes?