spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 5:45 pm But to answer your questions
yes thoughts do exist and they differ from physical things because they are mental
That's interesting. I tend to agree.

The problem in justifying that is always this: we know how to prove brains exist, because brains are physical structures. It's a bit more difficult and a bit more inductive, to show that minds exist. They're real, but they're not physical...hence, metaphysical.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 6:10 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
How do we open the door to metaphysical realities without opening the door to superstition and confusion
Begging the question there by assuming that there are such things as metaphysical realities.
Well, your last message makes it logically necessary. If minds are real, and are not brains, then what are they but metaphysical realities?
I only accept as true that which can actually be demonstrated to be so.
A good axiom...so long as we keep in mind that "demonstration" is only ever inductive. And in the case of non-physical entities like minds, that makes the job more difficult. I would say it's not impossible, and in fact, very good evidence; but it's not strictly physical in the way a brain is a lump of meaty stuff.
And truth claims that cannot be demonstrated [ either way ] I regard with neutrality or scepticism. I cannot accept anything as true without evidence. Not even if it is true. Since for me it is entirely necessary.
Then you would have to be neutral to skeptical on the question of whether or not minds exist at all, wouldn't you? Unless you have a "demonstration" or "evidence" (to use the words you chose) to show the existence of mind more definitely. And what would that be?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by surreptitious57 »

The brain exists. Mind is a function of the brain. So the mind also exists
Without a brain a mind cannot exist and without a mind a brain is dead
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 11:30 pm The brain exists. Mind is a function of the brain. So the mind also exists
Without a brain a mind cannot exist and without a mind a brain is dead
But interestingly, one can have all the physiology of the brain intact, and the mind can be gone, as is in the case of people who have been euthanized. The two may be coordinated; but your intuition that they aren't identical is a good one, I would say.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Dontaskme »

Vendetta wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 11:36 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 10:07 am
uwot wrote: Thu May 18, 2017 2:48 pm
By observation. Physical reality is not what people think. For example, the phenomena all confirm that the 'physical reality' is that if you drop something, it falls. You can make up any story you like to explain the phenomena, none of which are as 'real' as the phenomena. Don't confuse 'physical' with 'material'.
What is observed is real in the very act of observation. Who is making that observation cannot be demonstrated to exist, the very act of observation is taken on belief and faith only...since the observer is this unseen seer.
Exactly. Even what appears to be physical and universal is subject to differentiation based on the observer. If there is any fluctuation in the way that two observers interpret an object, then the idea of a consistent physical reality is already one that cannot be truly grasped by humans.
How about each observer is taking their own unique snapshot of the same one reality...therefore, each interpretation will only be a copy of the original, and not an identical picture of the true reality.

For example: Imagine 6 artists are out in some field somewhere painting the surrounding landscape on their own personal easel ....each painting is going to be a different look of the same landscape...the chances of a painting being an exact identical copy of the original landscape would amount to zero possibility.

Therefore, this tells us that true reality is never what it is perceived to be. Reality is only ever true reality when it is not interpreted.In other words, nature does not make copies.

The problems begin when the mind says something should not have happened. That's when the suffering enters reality.

That's why Jesus was said to have absorbed all the sins, pains and suffering of humanity when he gave of his life gracefully so that humanity would be saved from themselves...he even said forgive them Father for they know not what they do....That proves that Love will always win out over evil...because Love's strength is enduring to the bitter end.

.

And when he was seen after the resurrection ...he said look, I'm not dead...you do not die, I am the living proof. There is only Love here. And that's what Love wants for you.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by surreptitious57 »


Jesus was not seen after the resurrection because he was still dead and has been so ever since

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 11:07 am
Jesus was not seen after the resurrection because he was still dead and has been so ever since

Yet the records show He did appear to His disciples, on several occasions and over a substantial period. During that time, he also appeared to five hundred others as well. (1 Cool. 15:6) That's an extremely bold factual claim for the Apostle Paul to make at a time when the involved parties on both sides were still almost all around. He could have been instantly proved wrong. In fact, all of these 500 supportive witnesses were themselves alive and capable of contradicting the disciples' stories, if that's what they were.

Not only that, so could the Romans and the Jews of the day -- and they had a huge stake in doing so, if they could. The proof was easy: just produce the body of the crucified Christ, and the whole thing goes away instantly. They didn't, for some reason.

Moreover, many of Christ's disciples, as we know from independent accounts, actually preferred to be killed themselves than to deny the resurrection. That would be incomprehensible, if what they had been saying was known by them to be a lie. I don't know about you, but if I'm circulating something I know darn well to be a lie and somebody says, "Tell the truth, or I'll saw you in half, set you on fire, throw you to the lions or crucify you upside-down," then I'm spilling the beans right away! :shock:

Whatever else we can safely say, we can say that the early disciples fully believed in -- and in fact, died for -- the Resurrection of Christ. And nobody did the obvious, and simply disproved them.

So "seen" He most certainly was.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 6:21 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 11:07 am
Jesus was not seen after the resurrection because he was still dead and has been so ever since

Yet the records show
They're not records, they're words written by men that wanted to sell the lie at all costs.

He did appear to His disciples, on several occasions and over a substantial period. During that time, he also appeared to five hundred others as well. (1 Cool. 15:6) That's an extremely bold factual claim
You don't "know" that it's a factual claim, all you can do is "believe" that it is.


for the Apostle Paul to make at a time when the involved parties on both sides were still almost all around. He could have been instantly proved wrong. In fact, all of these 500 supportive witnesses were themselves alive and capable of contradicting the disciples' stories, if that's what they were.
Not necessarily true, as one can't know if they'd ever seen him before, such that they could be sure it was him, and not an imposter. Of course the disciples definitely had reason to create a lie! Then again this comes from the "King James Version," correct? Notice that last word, "Version!" And even if not that particular "version," still "version" might apply! As the "Old Testament" was denounced by the church as being no longer applicable, instead the "New Testament" is said to apply. I can see that the reason for that is the old testament was very easy to pick apart. So it was a "smart move" on their part. Smart Move???


Not only that, so could the Romans and the Jews of the day -- and they had a huge stake in doing so, if they could. The proof was easy: just produce the body of the crucified Christ, and the whole thing goes away instantly. They didn't, for some reason.
That's ridiculous, of course his disciples moved it to a hidden location, even those people back then were that smart, surely!

Moreover, many of Christ's disciples, as we know from independent accounts, actually preferred to be killed themselves than to deny the resurrection.
Well that surely makes my point, of how important they believed their deception was!

That would be incomprehensible, if what they had been saying was known by them to be a lie. I don't know about you, but if I'm circulating something I know darn well to be a lie and somebody says, "Tell the truth, or I'll saw you in half, set you on fire, throw you to the lions or crucify you upside-down," then I'm spilling the beans right away!
And that says more about the pampered men of today such as you, relative to the poor people of those days, full of desperation! What desperation? Disagree with the ruling class and you'd be crucified, nailed to a cross! They felt they had a responsibility to sell their deception so as to sway popular belief away from Mercury, Mars, Venus, Neptune, etc! So that 'their' god, was 'the' god, and they succeeded, as the largest church of all is the "Roman" Catholic Church. Job well done, in the day of martyrs!

:shock:
Not so shocking to me! As I'm beginning to know you well!!! ;-)


Whatever else we can safely say, we can say that the early disciples fully believed in -- and in fact, died for -- the Resurrection of Christ.
A lot was at steak, with his crucifixion, in their minds, they had to do something drastic and bold! Even Jesus while nailed upon the cross, supposedly said, "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" What? He suddenly didn't know he was the son of god. Yeah right. Of course when a 'human' is nailed to a cross, they'll say just about anything, right? But the supposed son of the god of all???? Hmmmm...

And nobody did the obvious, and simply disproved them.
Simply? Where had they moved the body? We may never know!

So "seen" He most certainly was.
You can't 'know' that, you can only 'believe' that!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Immanuel Can »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 2:11 am
You can't 'know' that, you can only 'believe' that!
True. In that way, it's just like science. In science, nobody has ever done the complete set of possible experiments in any particular experiment. What they do is do a few, hopefully enough to be indicative, and then assume a "law" from that. Sometimes that's right, and sometimes it turns out wrong. But science goes with the highest probability, given the available evidence.

All human empirical knowledge is like that. You can't "know" anything absolutely; you can only say, "believe with highest probability." Then you can supply the evidence that makes your theory the "highest probability" one. But there's no more that can be done.

That scares some people: but it shouldn't. They fear we're saying that science is "weak" or "untrustworthy" in some way. We're not. We're just saying it's good but not absolute. Only mathematics and symbolic logic can give us absolutes, and then only because they are non-empirical symbol systems with a set of absolutely, defined terms. Life in the empirical world is not like that.

Going with the best reading of significant available evidence is exactly what I'm doing in the question of the Resurrection. It's as "scientific" a way to go as historiography can ever offer us.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Dontaskme »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 2:11 am''Yet the records show''

They're not records, they're words written by men that wanted to sell the lie at all costs.
Is that actually true, or is that something you just want to believe is true..how the heck do you know what is true and what isn't?

In The University of Manchester’s John Rylands Library England .. There is A 1,500 year old papyrus fragment which has been identified as one the world’s earliest surviving Christian charms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_L ... apyrus_P52

There are many more actual real historical documented records of the life and times of Jesus to be found by doing some intensive research.

When you say these writings are lies ..you are making a mockery of your fellow human being. People are people just like you and I ..human beings have always recorded history in the making by writing it down on paper... historical records of the way distant past are no different than what you would find today in the historical section of any modern 21st century library....why would people lie about certain historical actual events....? why would a reporter be happy to die to cover up for what they knew to be a lie..that doesn't make any sense? ..and most of the first witnesses of Jesus after he rose from the dead were women...so it's not like they were going to be taken seriously according to your idea that women in those days were treated as nobodies.

FYI..Jesus was not a religious man either...religion has developed into a man-made control structure designed to make money at the expense of gullible desperate people.

Jesus was a simple pious human being who lived a sinless life ..he advised people to follow by his example as a way of life ..and not as a religion to follow...he advised not to trust in growing religions that were sprouting up all over the place that had actually nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus at all...he said beware of false prophets for they come as wolves in sheep clothing.

You need to get your facts straight about what you are talking about when it comes to all things metaphysical.



.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: spirituality is based on subjective experience, science has no evidence against it

Post by Dontaskme »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 2:11 am Even Jesus while nailed upon the cross, supposedly said, "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" What? He suddenly didn't know he was the son of god. Yeah right. Of course when a 'human' is nailed to a cross, they'll say just about anything, right? But the supposed son of the god of all???? Hmmmm...
You simply have no understanding of the metaphysical God of oneness do you? Not that you would anyway unless it's a subject you have personally studied intensely...and remember all things metaphysical are written in different literary styles according to their contextual meanings.

There's a very good reason why Jesus cried out those words of despair... He did already know he was the living God in flesh, but that knowing came with the meaning of separation, what it was like to feel separated, much like a child feels when experiencing separation from it's parents for the very first time...meaning he cried out because he'd never felt that separation before, and now he was experiencing a separation from God for the very first time, and it was obviously a very painful experience for him, one that utterly overwhelmed him so completely, he doubted his ability to carry out the agonising sacrifice, and so prayed for strength to endure to the bitter end, which he did, and in doing so said in his final breath..''IT IS FINISHED''. ...well what an absolute trooper! so you see, you have to put these things into their proper context according to what the story of Christ was trying to show you, and not make up your own ideas about such stuff. Lets also remember that the living God in form is only ever a story, we all live our own personal stories as God's offspring, and each story is unique to the one experiencing it. . . the Vedas call the stories dreams ...dreams appearing real, illusions they are, but real illusions all the same and is why the illusion maker /creator is known as a supernatural metaphysical entity.


And so, Jesus's cries were not the cries of the God-forsaken God, but was the heart cry of every single human being on earth. It is the cry we have been voicing since the beginning when we fell into sin, sin being separated from our divinity of oneness...and in the belief we are separate came the agony of suffering, we became separated from God the I Am

Separated in the sense of our sense of ''me'' I am my name context...when in truth you are never separated from that which is always oneness/wholeness God.
Though Jesus cried out, “Why have you forsaken me?” He was NOT forsaken. And neither are we.

This is a feeling that Jesus experienced, which is a feeling we ALL experience.

And this feeling does not come because we are forsaken, but because of sin. Sin has separated us from God; it has not separated God from us. This is why God had to reconcile the world to Himself (1 Cor 5:19). He didn’t need to reconcile Himself to the world, for He never left or abandoned us.When we feel that God is ignoring us, or has abandoned us, Jesus aka God knows what we feel, and He cries out to God himself on our behalf
Do you understand? ...I simply can't understand how anyone can't understand that?

Everyone is welcome to heaven, but they have to create it by leaving sin outside the door. Sin in the sense of absolute EVIL..which is not an attribute, quality or aspect of LOVE...

You need to study the story of God in the flesh of Jesus Christ more closely, you'll be pleasantly surprised, it's so awesomely brilliant and beautiful, it takes my breath away... it's the greatest love story ever told in living history.

.
Post Reply