Do animals share in this 'more' and 'beyond'?

[romansh]

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

Let's finish one conversation at a time for right now. I raised questions and made different statements. Your answers, response?

[thormas]

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. 

[romansh]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

If time is not as it seems, what is science telling you is reality (if that is the right word)?

It is as good as any. Science describes reality. We can debate how accurately.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

the tools are limited, the 'evidence' or the truth of science is never final; what is 'accepted' today might be discarded/ next week, next year, next ? and any knowledge we have is through our senses, subject to interpretation and as admitted if 'it (nothing) is as it seems' the objects of scientific study must be illusory.

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,

18 hours ago, thormas said:

you don't know what time is but you have perceptions that suggest cause and effect over time,

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.

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

 there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all contingent reality -. every-thing, every object -  is dependent.

 I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along

Edited May 21, 2018 by romansh

[romansh]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

 I was thinking you identified the reality as energy and both as being.  it seems you do not and I guess it is fair to say there is reality for you, that it has many descriptors but you have no idea what reality is. 

Energy = mass x length (squared) / time (squared). ... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

 

[thormas]

37 minutes ago, romansh said:

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.

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.

42 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along

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?

[romansh]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 7:43 AM, thormas said:

And, it is probably best to keep opinions like. "Separateness is bordering on delusion" out of the conversation as they are unhelpful.

cf

Quote

You have yet to respond to my comment that I meant what I said about your comment on delusion. anything?

You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object -  is dependent.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

cf

You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object -  is dependent.

 

 

You missed the point, it is not about separateness, believing it or not - it is about your comments on the opinions of others.

 

[romansh]

12 minutes ago, thormas said:

You missed the point, it is not about separateness, believing it or not - it is about your comments on the opinions of others.

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".

[thormas]

42 minutes ago, romansh said:

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".

you seem to be avoiding the question on the table

You were asked and I await your response....

[romansh]

Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.

[thormas]

4 minutes ago, romansh said:

Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.

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!!

[romansh]

17 hours ago, thormas said:

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:

Note these are not questions Thormas ... For the most part assertions. For example:

17 hours ago, thormas said:

in effect you are saying anyone who disagrees with what you believe is delusional: mistaken, misunderstanding, misapprehending.

Depending on the context possibly true. Do you believe two people can hold diametrically opposing views and at least one of them is not mistaken? The delusional comment is pure nonsense. But certainly I do think certain views are bordering on the delusions.   eg the ability to speak in tongues is one of the milder ones.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

....... I'm saying is be a little more careful with your descriptors.

To be clear ... I did not say they [people] were delusional.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

..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. 

Yes science is limited ... but it [scientific method] is a really good method to test our intuitions. Again you will have to explain ... unconditional reality ... if you mean bits of the universe that don't respond to cause and effect, then I am at a loss unless you are referring to a universe where there is no cause and effect. And that too has some implications.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

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. 

Where did I call anyone deluded? I think certain positions are deluded. Possibly some of mine. But I can put a rational argument for most of mine. For example saying God is Love. And God is in everything. One has to jump through tortuous pathways and exclusions to try and make any sense of it. If we look at the evidence, the evidence is against such propositions. I also understand that the positions we hold can be extensions of ourselves sometimes very deeply held extensions.

Now I can see how someone might come to such a position and whether that position is deluded is in the eye of the beholder and to some degree a semantic debate.

Edited May 22, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

Note these are not questions Thormas ... For the most part assertions. 

Rom, you really have to remain calm. I already said I referred to them as statements (or if you prefer, assertions - who cares) so I was simply and repeatedly asking you to respond. Not that hard.

So, sure people disagree and sometimes it is easy (at least supposedly) to say one is mistaken and the other correct, However if, as admitted, there is no absolute certainty, then who is mistaken and who correct is probably difficult (and increases in difficulty in given the topic) - actually impossible to determine.  And it is obvious the delusional comment is not nonsense - since you doubled down, plus we are not talking about speaking in tongues (but even this one - what did the biblical writer mean, what does a modern mean by speaking in tongues?) is not as easy as it might seem. 

We, or you, have been through this before concerning ignorance. And even Joseph pointed out "better left unsaid when it comes to the word ignorant or inference that a view is pinned to just our perceptions as if that is inferior to our own on a particular matter. Don't you think so ?.  As it doesn't seem to me to play out very well in a conversation or civil discussion that way."  So, substitute, "Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion."  If another person believe there is separateness (which seems to fall under opinion especially since we can't be certain) and you say it (that opinion/beliief) is bordering on delusion, you have implied and one may infer (again) you have said the person who holds such a belief is...... deluded or delusional. All Joseph was saying was such comments were better left unsaid; all I'm saying is you (we) should be a little more careful with our words. Okay, that's settled.

So we are agreed that science is limited, that the scientific method has value - and no one is trashing science. 

One issue at a time, but you do realize, don't you, that not everyone has to jump through torturous pathways (catchy though) concerning God. Also, you impose your reliance on (demand for?) evidence on others yet some others believe (operative word) that "God" is not an object and, therefore, there is no evidence against .......or for "God."  Even with evidence and scientific tools, you have stated that there is no absolute certainty; that science has no answer. Therefore you have opinions, you make 'rational' arguments and you present 'evidence' however there is no certainty: when you make statements that life has no meaning, when you make statements that "god" is not and/or is not Love, or everything, being, unconditional reality, etc. - these are opinions, these are your beliefs. This is not to deny science, it is only to agree, with you, on its limits. The religious believer also does not have absolute certainty, when they say, "God" is........it is a belief statement.  

The assumed delusion of another is in the eye of the beholder, in other word, it is opinion - so, the suggestion is to keep these kinds of opinion on the down low or simply mute them.

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom, you really have to remain calm. I already said I referred to them as statements (or if you prefer, assertions - who cares) so I was simply and repeatedly asking you to respond. Not that hard.

I am thanks. The agitation you sensed was an illusion on your part.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

So, sure people disagree and sometimes it is easy (at least supposedly) to say one is mistaken and the other correct, However if, as admitted, there is no absolute certainty, then who is mistaken and who correct is probably difficult (and increases in difficulty in given the topic) - actually impossible to determine.  And it is obvious the delusional comment is not nonsense - since you doubled down, plus we are not talking about speaking in tongues (but even this one - what did the biblical writer mean, what does a modern mean by speaking in tongues?) is not as easy as it might seem. 

So post modernism rules. So when I point out the illogic you use (an opinion admittedly) there is no problem. Good. 

Double down? Really I tried to walk away from my comment yet you insisted a few times on an explanation. Really thormas. I was giving an example of what might be considered on bordering on delusion. I left to the reader to which side it is. Plainly you think of it as delusional. Interesting? I don't care what modern writers think. I was thinking of a nice lady (my opinion) who demonstrated her ability. I sat through the episode politely and expressed my doubt politely. There was no point on pressing the issue.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

We, or you, have been through this before concerning ignorance. And even Joseph pointed out "better left unsaid when it comes to the word ignorant or inference that a view is pinned to just our perceptions as if that is inferior to our own on a particular matter. Don't you think so ?.  As it doesn't seem to me to play out very well in a conversation or civil discussion that way."  So, substitute, "Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion."  If another person believe there is separateness (which seems to fall under opinion especially since we can't be certain) and you say it (that opinion/beliief) is bordering on delusion, you have implied and one may infer (again) you have said the person who holds such a belief is...... deluded or delusional. All Joseph was saying was such comments were better left unsaid; all I'm saying is you (we) should be a little more careful with our words. Okay, that's settled.

Again it is you who pressed for an explanation ... I tried to walk away. You still are pressing. 

Opinion? Based on evidence. Based on assertion. 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

So we are agreed that science is limited, that the scientific method has value - and no one is trashing science.

But are we using it to the full? Are we ignoring the way the universe appears to tick.? 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

"God" is not an object and, therefore, there is no evidence against

But there is evidence against Gods if we give them properties like loving. There is no evidence against Roman and Norse Gods. Really?

2 hours ago, thormas said:

The assumed delusion of another is in the eye of the beholder, in other word, it is opinion - so, the suggestion is to keep these kinds of opinion on the down low or simply mute them.

Quite. But is there evidence? Then it becomes more than just opinion. If everything is opinion and belief can be discounted as that, then why on Earth express your opinion? Are all opinions equally invalid? 

This is a debate and discussion forum. If we are simply going to stick to our opinions no matter how much contrary evidence is brought to bear, and we simply discount the evidence and effectively say ... there is no evidence for what I believe and that is OK. This is OK as a personal belief but in a debate and discussion forum?

Edited May 22, 2018 by romansh

[romansh]

What did you think of Krauss's A Universe from Nothing? where the sum total of energy in the universe is hypothesised to be zero. Interesting no?

[thormas]

Two comments only:

On delusion:

So just walk away: stop the comments! Opinion or not - they are unnecessary, especially on a site like this. 

on God:

You have just nailed the difference: you speak of gods, I and others speak of "God" quotes and uppercase intentional (cf Hart). The gods, not "God" are objects that we can comment on.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

Then treat the word illusion as not as it seems

And I won't need to give examples of the unmentionable.

It would appear "God" is not an object; but we still can comment on?

Edited May 22, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Then treat the word illusion as not as it seems

And I won't need to give examples of the unmentionable.

It would appear "God" is not an object; but we still can comment on?

I have been using that meaning, actually wrote a couple of larger posts on it after Joseph's comments.  Interesting idea but the jury is out for me. 

And if by unmentionables, you mean what I think you mean, a good step. But it is not a quid pro quo.

Of course we still comment on "God" while at the same time stating he is not an object. It is human nature to try to grasp, to say something of that which some believe is and is in their midst.

Isn't this similar (not identical) for those who think all is illusion (defined above) but posit a 'as it is' that underlies, if you will, the illusion? Is there proof, certainty, for such a supposed reality? Can such a supposed reality be analyzed or, if it is indeed, reality, is it beyond the tools and efforts of being who live in and actually are illusion? 

[thormas]

The scope of science is the entirety of the universe; science posits theories, offers descriptions and delves into secrets of the universe. However, as said, we can debate its accuracy: there is no absolute certainty with science. Many of us, (atheists, agnostics, theists, humanists, pantheists and panentheists) agree that science gives us more and more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks and also that it has limitations.

It is because we 'don't actually know anything' (although I prefer to say everything) that I have referred, numerous times, to opinions or beliefs, however, I think this statement needs a clearer explanation. I want to make two simple points (meant to be explanatory not argumentative).

First, science: we do have facts, hypotheses and theories about the universe and the things, laws and processes in the universe, so, on one hand, we do know some-things. However, there currently seem to be two possibilities (perhaps there are others), either seemingly acceptable: if all is illusion then, then the objects of scientific inquire are illusory and, we portray the universe as it seems while speculating on what is real. Conversely, if we accept that the universe is real, then, the vast range of scientific tools, is giving us greater insights about the universe, as it is. If those who are more versed in science care to elaborate, please do.

Most of us appreciate the sciences and, seemingly, all of us rely on the sciences. Furthermore, many people (me included) see no contradiction or problem(s) with science as it relates to religious belief (some obviously do, but they are not the present concern). For me, and if you read Hart's 1st chapter, you'll see that 'believers' or religious persons, should have no issue with science (nor fear it). The point is that, for me, for Hart, for many others, science describes the universe and we are better for it: the universe (illusion or real) is the object(s) on which science focuses and postulates.  

Second, religion: "God" is not believed to be part of the universe. Or, to use language from this thread: "God" is the reality, the substrate/ground of all objects (be they not as they seem or as they seem). "God" is not the universe or the multiverse; not in or part of the universe or multiverse, as one object among others. Rather, "God" is the very possibility of every-thing: "God" is ontologically prior to and the continuing ontological possibility of the universe, of creation, of all. "God," so understood, is not an object and, as such, is not within the scope of scientific inquiry. This is why I have referred to "God" as the subject of faith - different from the objects of science. You will see, in this paragraph that I have continually use the word, believe. Religion, by definition is belief and for all theistic religions, that belief is (in) "God."  

Religion, the best of religion and its best thinkers is not (should not be) anti-science. The primary focus (although not the only one, since its adherents are inhabitants of the universe) of religion is not the universe (in the way it is for science) but the ultimate meaning of life and the living of that meaning. It believes that meaning is found in "God," or the meaning is "God."  

"God" says Hart is not a proper name (his use of quotes signifies this and also that he is not talking about gods). The best religious thinkers talk about the human 'experience' of 'God" - realizing they cannot talk about what is referred to as "God" in himself. So too, when I say “God” is Love, it is a belief statement, a human insight, of the "Reality" that is experienced in creation.

 

I fully accept that some do not accept this explanation of religion or “God” and I have no problem with that. I fully accept that some people do not believe there is anything ontologically prior to the universe or creation (i.e. what some call “God”). I fully accept some people believe that creation, whether it is real or illusory, is all there is and, I assume, they believe this because there is no evidence to prove there is anything other than the universe - even at the same time they acknowledge there is no certainty either way or any way! However, if some others posit there is no “God” (as understood above) but that there is a reality 'beyond' the universe or 'behind/ beyond or transcending' illusion, and since they cannot know this with certainty, this seems to be a statement of belief. 

Moreover, for someone to ask for evidence of “God” is to disregard (which is their right) the difference between science and religion (see above): it disregards that there can be no evidence, for or against, that which is not an object; it disregards that there is, there can be no certainty. And, such requests can be disregarded.

Finally, I don’t have a problem with ‘illusion’ although I sometimes felt it was not always clear – especially when coupled with free will as illusion and the meaninglessness of life (the first two I can see as valid lines of scientific inquiry , the last is, regardless of what side you come down on, a statement of belief). Be that as it may, I believed the concept of ‘illusion’ could be linked to a Christian understanding (cf. an earlier post in this thread). 

 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Second, religion: "God" is not believed to be part of the universe. Or, to use language from this thread: "God" is the reality, the substrate/ground of all objects (be they not as they seem or as they seem).

To me these two statements are contradictory ... the substrate effectively is the universe so how could it not be part of the universe?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Rather, "God" is the very possibility of every-thing: "God" is ontologically prior to and the continuing ontological possibility of the universe, of creation, of all. "God," so understood, is not an object and, as such, is not within the scope of scientific inquiry

Frankly this does not make sense to me. Plain language please. Your use of ontological does not make sense. Are concepts objects? Are concepts within the scope of scientific inquiry? Does God have an effect in this universe. If "yes" then God is subject to inquiry. If no then God is totally irrelevant.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

 Religion, by definition is belief 

That is how the word is used. Most dictionaries claim that the etymology of the word comes Latin Re Ligare ... re has the common English use, again and ligare is connect as in ligament or ligand. The question reconnect to what? Society, community church, nature, the universe?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

God" says Hart is not a proper name

Then why do we insist on a upper case G?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

"God" is not the universe or the multiverse;

And can you show me the working as to how we get to this point?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Moreover, for someone to ask for evidence of “God” is to disregard (which is their right) the difference between science and religion

I don't think they are disregarding the difference, they are just hoping for a discussion based on some rational basis. Otherwise we throw in a few ontologicals and epistemologicals for good measure and quote good theological thinkers who have thought about that which cannot be thought about or at least any conclusion they may come to is without basis ... ie stuff that is not part of this universe.

[romansh]

Quote

But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Joseph Campbell ... a great theological thinker.

 

[thormas]

2 minutes ago, romansh said:

To me these two statements are contradictory ... the substrate effectively is the universe so how could it not be part of the universe?

To you is the operative statement. Or simply, I can just omit the word substrate (actually, I never liked ground and used substrate to speak your language). You belief the substrate, whatever that is, is the universe - while others believe "God," again not a proper name is that which enables the universe to be and is the 'source' of all that is. 

Frankly this does not make sense to me. Plain language please. Your use of ontological does not make sense. Are concepts objects? Are concepts within the scope of scientific inquiry? Does God have an effect in this universe. If "yes" then God is subject to inquiry. If no then God is totally irrelevant.

Yes it does, simply not to you. 

That is how the word is used. Most dictionaries claim that the etymology of the word comes Latin Re Ligare ... re has the common English use, again and ligare is connect as in ligament or ligand. The question reconnect to what? Society, community church, nature, the universe?

Precisely, I am using the word as it is used: belief in "God."  However, I am fine with ' re-connect' and the 'what' is obvious. Faith, is not blind acceptance of information about god, it is relationship with "God." Relationships are connections: religion seeks to connect or re-conect one  with "God." 

Then why do we insist on a upper case G?

Already answered, see above. Read Hart!

And can you show me the working as to how we get to this point?

Again see above: the universe is an object as is all that is part of the universe. "God" is not an object

I don't think they are disregarding the difference, they are just hoping for a discussion based on some rational basis. Otherwise we throw in a few ontologicals and epistemologicals for good measure and quote good theological thinkers who have thought about that which cannot be thought about or at least any conclusion they may come to is without basis ... ie stuff that is not part of this universe.

Actually, I have never know anyone who has thrown in a few ontologicals and epistemologicals (catchy phrasing though, you might have a gift) but I'll keep an eye out and report them. Now I know certain philosophers have different takes on epistemology and even ontology - actually ancient philosophy was incredibly interesting with their understandings of being. However, none ever just threw ontologicals and epistemological in for good measure -  because they were serious, rational thinkers.

However, you are disregarding what has been said about religion so it is logical that your disregard would carry over to theologians and religious thinkers. It is interesting that the religious person is more tolerant, more open than the person of science.

 

 

 

[romansh]

39 minutes ago, thormas said:

It is interesting that the religious person is more tolerant, more open than the person of science. 

Sad.