Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
It could be said to be expanding into itself.
What does "expanding into itself" mean?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you consider yourself an atheist ?
No.
Do you consider yourself rational?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsOK, and that has something to do with epistemology.being unconvinced does not demand any epistemological explanation
Being Gnostic Deist does not demand any philosophical comprehension.
in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal
In the same exact way, I do not feel compelled to explain why you don't comprehend basic philosophy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
Oooh, good one.
Maybe if you keep repeating it, eventually it won't be so stupid.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"
Yeah, so what
the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods
OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.
being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology
Apparently being a gnostic deist does not require any understanding of epistemology either.
epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Yeah, I know about epistemology.
Play your kiddie games with somebody else, you are never going to convince me that atheism is this special subject matter that is invisable to all philosophical systems of thought, that's just your dogmatic religious belief, it might be in your burden of proof game rule book, but it's not got anything to do with the real world of philosophy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.NOUMENON
Yep, another one of your oh so kewl words, I happen to know what it means, so I know it is a non-sequitor, maybe you should go look it up.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.
LOL, nope, I'm still not playing your puerile game here, I'm simply stating the fact that it's innane to say Atheism "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". I'm not talking about your little Atheism cult with it's dogmatic beliefs, it's rituals and it's childish burden of proof game, I'm talking about real Atheism, a subject matter that raises both epistemological and ontological questions.
I also know what skepticism is, it is not a philosophic system that only applies to Theism, that's just your kiddie game, I'm talking about real world philosophical issues.
It just isn't that complicated if you understand the actual definition of the words, get a dictionary.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not "preaching atheism"i'm a gnostic deist
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.
The burden of proof is on you!!!
Woohoo I win!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsbeing unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemologyepistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
I know what the principles of your religious faith are, and I know just how important that innane burden of proof game is to your fundamentalism, I but you don't have to let it make you completely incoherent about everything.
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.
But don't worry, you can still turn Atheism into a religion if you want, you haven't lost your ability to blather on about the childish burden of proof game, you can be as irrational as you want, nobody expects more from you, you can even evangelize your faith here, but you don't get to insist that we join your cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, does anyone else think the OP is nuts?
You think?
Let's apply the whackjob verification test, yep, Greyparrot agrees with her, that proves she's nuts
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.If he/she thought it was legal then he/she would just walk up to someone and ask. If he/she was informed that it was illegal he/she would create a secret plot. Got it?
Whack job, got it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.
Oh no, I'm crushed, I really wanted you to comprehend a simple comment, it really is all about you, crap, now I probably won't ne able to sleep tonight.
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?
Maybe if you go back and read it again, real slow for comprehension, you will get it, did you try the breathing thing, count to ten?
I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.
I really do think that if you can calm yourself down, count to ten and breathe, it will probably all make a lot more sense to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And don't forget, Trump can always divert it with a Sharpie.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.
No problem, forgive me for thinking you could grasp that "engaging in pedophilia is illegal" is a point.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the lawYet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about that is not a valid defense in a court of law.you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.
You're babbling again, trust me, that is not a valid defense in a court of law.
It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.
I just don't think all your babbling about how the law isn't justified, and it isn't truth, or whatever the hell all that pablum coming out of you is supposed to be about, isn't going to help keep him out of prison.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.What lands you in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. What gets you tortured in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. That was appeal to force, nothing more.
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.
Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..
Before I posted this you made it even more explicit:"Legally unable" is not an argument.If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law, and staying out of prison is a matter of accepting that.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.When people who advertise their willingness to be rational by signing up to a debate site fling logic out the window and openly use well known fallacies in fits of anger and disgust it sends one message: You're right, we haven't a clue why it is wrong.
LOL, nice try, if comprehending the law is over your head, then it's over your head, but I'd advise that if you find yourself accused in a court of law, you probably shouldn't babble about how the law isn't a valid argument, I assure you that it won't be seen as a valid defense.
If you want to know why he/she might be able to look in the mirror and feel justified look no further than your own lack of control over your emotions, at your own shallow contemplation.
LOL, my my, aren't we the angry little dreamer, but hey, if you can't cope with a simple statement of fact about the law, thats fine with me, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should relax, there's no reason to get so worked up about it, try counting to ten or something, breathe 123, breathe 123, breathe 123...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explainOh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.i know the definitionsplease explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED
I see, so you know what the definition of the words are, you just don't understand how putting them together into a sentence works. Next time that happens, how about you don't type the sentence.
But hey, let me try to dumb it down for you.
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".
Now, the nature of the above belief relates to whether or not something "exists", in particular a "being" of some kind, then note that "Ontology" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of "being" and "existence". Ok, so now note that the definitions of both "Atheism" and "Ontology" involve the words "existence" and "being", so it also follows that "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Ontology".
See how that works, so yes, the words you put together into a sentence do each have definitions, and it's a good idea to know the definitions of the words you use in a sentence, but there's more, when you do put them together into a sentence you need to put them together in a certain order, and you also need to relate the words to each other in a way that allows the sentence to have meaning. If you don't do that, it's not really a sentence, its just a list of words.
If you still don't understand, then there's nothing more I can do to help you, I guess you'll just have to keep posting lists of word that don't mean anything.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows
Yes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, I am not committing anything. I dont know where you got that from.Do you just assume that everyone who says "children can consent" is a rapist?
We assume that everyone who says they went to prison for acts of pedophilia is a rapist.
"Legally unable" is not an argument.
If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
If you claim children are not physically ready, then explain why.
You are a pedophile, you probably aren't capable of understanding why.
All you really need to understand is that there are consequences if you act, you began this thread by telling us you know what the consequences are, if you act, there are a lot of parents in prison that will explain it to you.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.If it applies to Atheists it also applies to Christians.
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explain
Oh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.
No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.
His recommendation was don't go to prison, my recommendation was don't commit the crime so you don't go to prison.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.what is your specific claim ?
It's not really that complicated, pay attention.
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to hear that."Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.
Your point was already refuted when you went to prison.
You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.Child is the only one who can decide."Children are naive and need to be protected"Children need to be educated.
Pedophiles need to be incarcerated.
"would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"This is you confusing education with force.First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison. If forbidding pedophiles to have sex with children does not deter them, then the law will be using force to decide how long you will be incarcerated.
One of the strongest instincts is that of a parent protecting a child, many of the people in prison are parents, this should be enough of a deterent, and if not, then accept that it will be the other prisoners that make decisions about your welfare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?the same thing that makes me think my car doesn't have a soul
Comic book? The one that made you think robots are organisms maybe?
Created:
Posted in:
What makes a vote a troll vote, when it occurs, can you give an example, when it occurs, is it always intentional or can a voter unintentionally cast a trull vote, do both sides of the debate usually agree that it's a troll vote?
I'm wondering if you are defining it as a vote you disagree with?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questionsApparently, you don't know what epistemological means.there are many self-identified "atheists" who have no idea what epistemological limits are
I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?If he knew he would not have asked the question in the first place. And you would have answered if you knew the answer, but you didn’t either.
I know
why I think a dragonfly is conscious, what I don't know, is whether or not
3RU7AL is actually conscious, since he doesn't appear to be aware or in any way responsive.
Dictionary definitions of consciousness refer to “awareness”, a sensate
being is “aware” and therefore posseses consciousness to some degree. To avoid philosophical or
metaphysical implications, lets define consciousness as the ability to perceive
sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful action or by a behavioral change, and
therefore an organism that demonstrates those abilities can be said to possess
consciousness.
Seen the way
evolution demands that we see it then; there is a direction to life, towards greater
complexity and higher forms of sentience. At the historically base level of life we have the
prokariotic single celled organism, the bacteria, which demonstrate a rudimentary form of
consciousness as sensate
beings with complex behavior responses well beyond contrived mechanistic
explanations regarding “robots” or “data processing”.
Bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli,
demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities.
They have shown themselves to be extraordinarily perceptive, demonstrating
elaborate behavioral responses and adaptations to a wide range of attractants
and repellants and other environmental stimuli such as light. They have complex
signaling capabilities, show the ability to communicate, and change their
behavior based on population size, which implies some kind of quorum sensing
ability and clearly demonstrates social behavior on at least a rudimentary
level. They have been proven to have some form of memory and a rudimentary
ability to learn, and the discriminatory ability to “choose” among
alternatives, regarding among other things, gene expression. They clearly
integrate these capabilities into a self-organized and sensate being that in at
least an extremely attenuated way is perceiving, discriminating, remembering,
and even “thinking”, on some level it is conscious.
On the developmentally
increasing spectrum of sensate beings, a dragonfly falls somewhere between
bacteria and human beings both evolutionarily and in terms of complexity, so I consider it to be aware, sensate, and therefore
conscious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.Now here is something new that might confuse you, or might help. In the standard physics theory, the galaxies are all getting farther apart; that is the expansion of the Universe. Yet in the way the theory describes it (I mean in General Relativity Theory) none of the galaxies are actually moving. All that is happening is that the amount of space (vacuum) in between them is increasing.No, you will not learn this in school, or even in college (unless you have an extraordinary professor). It is usually taught in graduate school, when you are earning a Ph.D. degree. At that point the language you will encounter is this: "In the Big Bang Theory, all galaxies have fixed coordinates. (That means they are not moving.) The 'expansion' is described by the 'metric tensor', which describes the distances between those fixed coordinates. In the Big Bang Theory, it is the metric tensor which is changing; that represents the expansion of the Universe, even though the galaxies aren't moving. The recent discovery of accelerated expansion means that the rate of expansion is increasing."
Yeah, I know, that's why in the post you are responding to I said "it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, the Universe is temporally and spatially finite, and it is expanding.The question becomes, what is it expanding into?The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time
Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?
What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
its gone way beyond interpretation of observations to become a tower of abstraction that is completely detached from the reality it was meant to interpret.Why do you think that?
Because
we have confused the tools of science with the substance of science.
That the universe is expanding is observation.
No, Redshift
is the observation, “that the universe is expanding” is one possible interpretation of that observation.
The way space acts, is geometrically curved. The mathematics of curved and expanding space is a description of what reality is actually doing - so in this respect it is actually very specifically tied to reality.
Reality
is not actually doing Geometry, the geometry of Einstein’s model is only an
abstract representation of reality, it’s
map, not territory.
As well as being a description that best matches the observations we see and offers a descriptive model that correctly predicts a multitude of other observations.
My point is that the so called “facts”
of science have become conceptually inconsistent. What you say here applies equally to our two
best scientific models, Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory. We have our
quantum physics and we think it explains matter and energy, the so-called
standard model, which consists of the electroweak theory (QED) and the theory
of the strong force (QCD) sitting side by side, only partially connected. And
way over there on the other side of the room is the theory of gravity: Einstein’s
general theory of relativity, a theory that bears no resemblance whatsoever to
the standard model and it is pretty clear that they will never be reconciled
because their basic presuppositions about the very ontology of existence. To say that they are “what reality is doing”,
is to say that reality is both discrete and continuous, deterministic and probabilistic,
space and time are both stable and dynamic, even within one theory reality
demonstrates the mutually exclusive characteristics of both particles and waves.
It is easy to get carried away, taking our symbols for reality instead of as mere tools of description. Are we uncovering a preexisting order, converging on the way the universe really is, or is it all just a human construction, just a fitting of the data into a carefully crafted mental framework? When are we doing physics? When are we just conjuring with numbers?It is becoming harder and harder to tell how much of the order is truly woven into the world and how much is imposed by the brain’s hunger for pattern. We build these systems to represent the world, and then we are left to wonder what they mean.Physics is particularly complex because the most predictive, most accurate models of reality that we have accurately match what we see - have no intuitive corresponding analogy in our daily lives.The reason for the complexity and the difficulty you see is not with the maths, or the equations, those equation can accurately predict events we see to very high margins of accuracy, and have predicted really strange and bizarre behaviour that have no business being true otherwise.
If truth
is correspondence with reality, implicit in the term truth then, is a need for
representation, truth is a matter of how we choose to represent reality to
ourselves. The maths are abstractions,
they are not the reality.
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater.
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater.
The issue is not the maths; it’s our tiny ape like brain that evolved to hit things with sticks, and to observe and survive in a very limited portion of the universes 4 primary dimensions - the universe doesn’t make sense to us on an intuitive level; and that makes it hard to really appreciate what relativity means, or what paulis exclusion principle is, and how it creates electron degeneracy pressure. But those things are both observable, measurable and conform to the predictable models of our world that we have - whether their implications are intuitive or not.
That is
my point, and it’s why we can’t confuse the tools of science with the subject
of science, the map with the territory. We have no compelling grounds for regarding
current theories as being anything more than a form of approximation to actual
physical reality.
The last century brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; it was shown that the presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
The last century brought the very nature of reasoning, deductive logic, and rational thinking into question; it was shown that the presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances.
Rather
than recognize that our mathematics and our theories are practical tools that
help us interpret experiments, we decide that
the standard model tells us what matter and energy are, the actual stuff of the
universe is made up of waves of probability, a realm of pure possibility that
goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, who apparently conjures
the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze. We can’t ever see these particles directly of
course, they are hypothetical particles acting according to theory, interacting
with other hypothetical particles, whose existence is built on a very long chain
of inferences, but at the end of this series of hypothesized reactions, matter
and energy come into being. We know the
particles exist because they were verified by experiment; and we know the
experiment was designed correctly because it found the particles. But we are
too self-absorbed with our technology to wonder whether perhaps, just maybe, we
are interpreting mathematical theory, instead of nature.
Created:
-->
@Shila
it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questionsApparently, you don't know what epistemological means.If one is an atheist, there is little reason to believe in an afterlife
OK, and that also isn't what epistemological means.
Created:
-->
@Shila
GQM is an organization of Christian, Protestant, evangelical, theologically conservative, and non-denominational. It is church ministry, coming alongside the church to help people find answers to their spiritually related questions.
You really can't comprehend the Copyright policy, the subject here is one sentence, a very sinple sentence:
Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.
I get what it is, and they want you to identify the organization as the author when you thier articles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious? Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?For the brain to process a stimulus it has to be conscious and tuned in with the five senses. Touch, smell, taste etc.
For there to be an experience, there needs to be an experiencer, consciousness is the conceptual space within which we find the experieence, it's the entity that experiences, no consciousness, no experience, no consciousness, no knowlege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
My Mom and both sisters are in Sarasota, all of you, hunker down and stay safe.
And if you are in the evacuation zone, do it, don't make first responders risk thier lives because you were stubborn.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
Apparently, you don't know what epistemological means.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.Putting the link would make little difference because the site does not reveal authors names.Why doesn’t GotQuestions.org give the names of the authors of its articles?Their Copyright Poliy is explicit, either provide the link or clearly identify Got Questions Ministries as the author.Why are you arguing it, do you want us to think it's your work?The link explains why GotQuestion.org does not reveal authors names.Now you know why I provided the article but did not reveal the author’s name.
No. That is not why you violated thier copyright policy, the policy says you can reprint it if "Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author". GQM is the author.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processingData processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing. Where does this data processing take place.At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?does a dragonfly have "consciousness" ?does an eagle have "consciousness" ?what about an ape ?maybe a dog ?does an infant human have "consciousness" ?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious? Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?how can an insect interact with its environment ?
Why wouldn't they?
how can a robot interact with its environment ?
You think robots are conscious beings that are having an
experience? Please explain.
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
Data processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing. Where does this data processing take place.
At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious? Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
How do you explain General Anesthesia?
General anesthesia can
put a person into an unconscious state, so can sleep, how does that relate to
the question of mind being a causal agent?
The very process by which physicalism translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
How do you solve the “hard problem” of consciousness?
The very process by which physicalism translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
How do you solve the “hard problem” of consciousness?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.Putting the link would make little difference because the site does not reveal authors names.Why doesn’t GotQuestions.org give the names of the authors of its articles?
Their Copyright Poliy is explicit, either provide the link or clearly identify Got Questions Ministries as the author.
Why are you arguing it, do you want us to think it's your work?
Created:
-->
@Shila
-> @ShilaCopyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.Perfectly legitimate source.Perfectly legitimate source when they are clearly identified as the source.So you are confirming my source was legitimate now that you identified it.
It's legitimately a source, but one that has a copyright policy that says you must attribute when you reproduce it.
I use links in posts from time to time, but in putting the link in I'm lso letting you know the source. Maybe it would be best if you put the link in the post, and if you do cut and paste, then let us know where it came from per the source's copyright policy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gas used to be 2 dollars a gallon.
Gas used to be a quarter a gallon.
America used to be less diverse.
The Republican party used stand for something.
White Supremacists used to be losers, now they are, well, they are still losers.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
all that matters is the price in novemberAfter November, America can get fucked for another 2 years.
If the Republicans take the House and Senate in November, Americans ARE fucked for the next two years.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.Perfectly legitimate source.
Perfectly legitimate source when they are clearly identified as the source.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I would further contend that Monotheism and Polytheism are referential to each other, which would mean that by definition they are one and the same.How can Monotheism and Polytheism by definition be one and the same when they are totally opposites of each other?Monotheism definition, the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.Polytheism definition, the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.
By
recognizing that they are “polar opposites”, which is to say much
more than they are opposed or separated, it is to say that they constitute a
whole. They are not mutually exclusive
at all, in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature.
Our mind thinks of them as basically separate from each other but in reality
they constitute a whole in the same way that the earth’s poles are the ends of
a single entity. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being
described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each other, they are
contingent upon each other, you just can’t have the one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a
coin, or the two ends of a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one
and the same thing.
The Christian Bible says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). The Jews were Monotheists and the Greeks were Polytheists, and yet, they were one according to the Christian Bible.
It also says that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (1 Corinthians 12:7). All people are different, there is diversity of dispositions and cultures, and as the Spirit must speak to the needs of all, it necessarily must spread out in almost endless diversity, and yet, it is one and the same Spirit manifesting in all faiths. It strikes me as unpardonably arrogant to make limiting claims about who the Holy Spirit can move in, or how it can manifest in others. and I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is in any way denominationally limited.
When Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment of all, he summarized all of His teachings into “Love God intensely, and love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Mark 12:28-31), and I contend that the only way we can do that is by recognizing our neighbor’s faith is to them, what our faith is to us.
Created: