Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Well, just to show I did try (and I referred to the following as a question (perhaps implied) but also, a statement and I was awaiting your response. So here is the relevant part: ........ in effect you are saying anyone who disagrees with what you believe is delusional: mistaken, misunderstanding, misapprehending. ....... I'm saying is be a little more careful with your descriptors. You must realize that many people (present company excluded) might be offended by having their beliefs called delusional and, by extension, being called deluded themselves. You say, if positions were reversed, you would weigh the evidence - but you rely for everything on evidence. You must realize, that not everybody relies on it as you do and not all believe (the) evidence is conclusive, ........plus, some/many others simply believe that science studies the universe, has a limited (but expanding) array of tools to assess (judge, gauge, estimate, appraise, analyst, determine) the universe and that this work is on the objects in, the laws of, the energy of universe - in other words, all that is part of the universe (or even the multiverse); they believe the universe is continent (fortuitous), objective reality and, as such, is the proper focus of scientific study. However, they believe, to put it in classical terms, there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all continent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent. Given 'unconditional reality' and given what science is, there is no-thing, no object for it to assess, gauge or analyze. I know you do not, will not - ever -accept this - and not only am I fine with that and respect (but disagree with) your position - I have no need to call you deluded. Such would be a fruitless comment and a waste of time. Plus, in the best way, I simply don't care: your beliefs, your reliance on evidence I take as sincere, and I accept that never the twain shall never. And there you go!!
  3. Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.
  4. you seem to be avoiding the question on the table You were asked and I await your response....
  5. Perhaps ... it appears you missed my two points too. Yes I have views about certain opinions. Don't you? My second point ... there appears to be a contradiction between separateness and "contingent reality".
  6. You missed the point, it is not about separateness, believing it or not - it is about your comments on the opinions of others.
  7. cf You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object - is dependent.
  8. But how is science describing reality? What does it say? Or, does it say different things? Descriptions ........just looking to clarify that I understand what you are presenting. If there is no knowledge with absolute certainty then is all scientific knowledge conditional or just some of it? Or can we say that there is some real knowledge say about the big bang, evolution and that all is illusion but no absolute knowledge/certainity about reality? Again looking to clarify. I believe I follow when you say science only sifts out what is not true but, logically, if we are admitting it gives us no knowledge with absolute certainty, then to say something is not true seems to be a statement of certainty? Again, to clarify: if something is a cause that effects something else, is that 'in time?' And I'm not making an argument, I am seeking to clarify yours. Thanks for clarifying: you agree and have been arguing that "there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all contingent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent." Although, as said above, we do not know what that reality is and can never know with absolute certainty. But this seems to contradict your statement that 'science describes reality?' And how can we debate the accuracy of science's description(s) of reality if science doesn't provide certain knowledge and that only of what is not true? You have yet to respond to my comment that I meant what I said about your comment on delusion. anything?
  9. Energy = mass x length (squared) / time (squared). ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
  10. I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along
  11. It is as good as any. Science describes reality. We can debate how accurately. And ... we get better descriptions so what? I never said science give us knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. For example the fact that our GPS works is because time is not what it seems. And the relativity that our GPS calculations are based is likely wrong. Ultimately science does not sift out the truth. It sifts out what is not true, Personally I go with cause and effect ... but I also understand with our relativistic and quantum phenomena, it is not as simple as that. Having said that it does not help your arguments one iota. Now if you can have a go at answering my questions please.
  12. correcting a typo that I was too late to edit: there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all contingent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent.
  13. Let's finish one conversation at a time for right now. I raised questions and made different statements. Your answers, response?
  14. thormas

    Heathens! 2

    The Heathens are back!!!!!!
  15. Last week
  16. What are your beliefs based on Thormas?
  17. Perhaps my question to Joseph needed more detail ... For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means. Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself. But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life. Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words. What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be. Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion.
  18. Okay, helpful: ground of being = the universe (and I suppose a multiverse if it exists). When you say 'whatever it is actually' are you referring to reality or something else? You lost me: what is the 'separate' that Joseph might have implied? All I believe he said is 'being encompasses existence.' I can get what Campbell means, although in this one quote it is vague. However, in my question, "are being, reality, energy the same and one?" you have only mentioned being (and equated it with the universe). Are reality and energy the same as being, in your present opinion? And, my other question: "(in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?" Let me rephrase: if the illusion (all that is - 'it not as it seems') is in time (also shares the illusion since time is understood as illusion, is being which equals the universe, or is reality eternal? And, it is probably best to keep opinions like. "Separateness is bordering on delusion" out of the conversation as they are unhelpful.
  19. To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. For me the substrate and universe are one. If as I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion. Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.
  20. romansh

    Heathens! 2

    Who's the odd man out?
  21. Are you playing with the goalposts? Earlier, you said, "They (when I was asking a question about mass and energy) are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality." And, in another thread, you agreed with Joseph that the ground of being could be understood as the substrate of being. Joseph then replied, "For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen . ..... Is being existence ? ..... perhaps one could say being encompasses existence ...." So we have ground/substrate of being, we have an underlying reality for all illusions and we have being that encompasses existence (which seemingly includes time). So, if we have being, and if being encompasses existence, and there is an underlying reality to illusion (including time), are being, reality, energy the same and one? How, do you understand it (in plain speak)? We do function whether time is illusion or not, and if illusion, whether we recognize it or not - but, again, is (in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?
  22. Burl

    Heathens! 2

    Caption Contest
  23. Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal. I don't understand your "then". We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.
  24. If we apply any sort logic to this statement we can only come up with the conclusion is unjustified. This energy argument is akin to New Agers and the ilk talking of vibrations. Again remember you are talking to an agnostic here. If I were writing this sentence it would go something like ... We don't actually know anything, but science gives us more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks. Alternatively we just fall for the memes that abound.
  1. Load more activity