Jesus V. Religion - Page 14

On January 17 2012 18:23 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 17 2012 12:08 Night2o1 wrote:   Loco say: --snip-- : nice posts even tho I don't agree with all of it, learned some stuff I read that chapter 7 essay, the argument appears to me as, 'since (typically) everything which recognizes its existence wants to continue to exist, none of us is an individual/unique.' Why does acknowledging that everyone else has the same desire to exist strip us of our individuality rather than simply enhance our respect for one another? I also don't understand how it implies a universal soul/being, which I think is what you're describing in your above post, to me it seems enough to acknowledge that there were, are, and will be eternal, unending processes occurring in the "universe" -- but nothing more. (there is a bit more to the essay but lemme know if/how I'm totally missing the point) You start way too late. To understand the argument you need to understand the earlier point made for Schopenhauer's Will as being 'our true being' early on (I'll quote it at the end). But in the place you are quoting, he's saying that every manifestation of the will wants to exist, so it is the will itself that seeks to exist, and therefore it strips us of our individuality, since it's all temporary phenomenon manifesting from one eternal unity (the will). "I— I— I want to exist you alone do not say this, but everything, absolutely everything, that has only a vestige of consciousness. Consequently this desire of yours is just that which is not individual but which is common to all without distinction. It does not proceed from individuality, but from existence in general[...]" A bit unrelated but it makes me think of this one popular quote that you've probably heard which says: "you are absolutely unique... just like everyone else!" Impossible to deny that you are indeed unique in every way possible, and occupy a unique place in space and time... and yet other people are the same.   Phil. Transcendental knowledge is that which, going beyond the boundary of possible experience, endeavours to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves; while immanent knowledge keeps itself within the boundary of possible experience, therefore it can only apply to phenomena. As an individual, with your death there will be an end of you. But your individuality is not your true and final being, indeed it is rather the mere expression of it; it is not the thing-in-itself but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time, and accordingly has both a beginning and an end. Your being in itself, on the contrary, knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor the limits of a given individuality; hence no individuality can be without it, but it is there in each and all. So that, in the first sense, after death you become nothing; in the second, you are and remain everything. That is why I said that after death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to give you a more exact answer to your question than this and to be brief at the same time; but here we have undoubtedly another contradiction; this is because your life is in time and your immortality in eternity. Hence your immortality may be said to be something that is indestructible and yet has no endurance — which is again contradictory, you see. This is what happens when transcendental knowledge is brought within the boundary of immanent knowledge; in doing this some sort of violence is done to the latter, since it is used for things for which it was not intended. He's being playful with the fictional socratic dialogue, which is at the end of the actual essay that would help you understand it more clearly, but I can't find it online.

Schopenhauer's Will is like a stepping stone to understanding much of 20th century Euoprean philosophy. Contrasting Schopenhauer's conception of man with what Europeans believed in before will do a lot to change a person's perspective.

On January 17 2012 15:31 Night2o1 wrote: I'm aware of Popper, I'm aware of the way that confirmation cannot prove something to be true lol. If you read what was posted carefully you'll see that I didn't say anything about universal truths, but was focused on describing the principle that the scientific method is designed to allow people to start from certain basic philosophical assumptions (we can all touch this object, we agree it occupies a certain space, we can see that this object reflects certain spectrums of light, we can each feel that it is heavy to lift; we will say that it is made of Matter, we will say it has Volume, that it has a certain Color, that is possesses Mass, we will define it as a Table) and from these shared assumptions to begin collecting information and forming ideas about the world around us. I don't get what we're even talking about at this point except that working from the evidence, based on our shared assumptions, there is no evidence for any supernatural influence on our surroundings

Reading this made me think of double or multiple meanings of words and expressions. Are these meanings simply a matter of "chance" (whatever that might be) or are there other reasons intended in implied meanings, dual meanings and ambiguity in general, could they exist on purpose?

Light: Good, little weight, little fat, lighting, day, photon, wave/particle duality, Logos, God
Mass: Weight, religious mass, many, much, weight(behind words)
Matter: Physical matter, things that matter etc.

There are many meanings of a single sentence, and to me many (or all) of these meanings actually makes sense if I think about it for a while.

I have a simple question for all the atheists here (or everyone here for that matter). Do you believe that rainbows exist objectively? Is there such a thing as a rainbow existing independant of an observer? I'm interested in everyone's thought process for arriving to their conclusion. Please make an effort to answer if you have been posting in this thread.

Is this like the "If a tree falls in a forrest..." one?

Light = God => The Sun = The Son

Here is what I think: Everything is on an infinite (or circular) spectrum, even religion. We have a "free choice" in defining our own value on these spectrum's of options. Same as the uncertainty principle (and also quantum mechanics in a 4d environment, four axises to define at once). As God is both particle and wave, so too can we choose to be particle or wave (or a bit of both), individual or social, logical or emotional, republican or liberal, capitalist or communist, left brain hemisphere or right brain hemisphere, eastern or western world, materialistic or spiritual etc.

But we can not be both strictly particle and strictly wave at the same time, at any given moment. We have to chose either strictly one of them, or a combination in between. This gives us (like particles) uncertainty because we can only define one or the other value at any given moment, not both at the same time.

more like god made us in his image and lives within us so we can be in relationship with him but then he had to make himself to sacrifice himself to save us from himself which is him saving himself from himself

On January 17 2012 23:12 LikeASet wrote: more like god made us in his image and lives within us so we can be in relationship with him but then he had to make himself to sacrifice himself to save us from himself which is him saving himself from himself

Yeah I see you know about stellar fusion and the ever expanding universe!

By the way "reason" is also a spectrum going from strictly logical to strictly illogical (or emotional) for some people.

On January 17 2012 22:09 Funktion wrote: Is this like the "If a tree falls in a forrest..." one?

Doesn't matter. Simply answer to the best of your ability. I want to know where people get their science and the answer will provide it.

On January 17 2012 21:32 Loco wrote: I have a simple question for all the atheists here (or everyone here for that matter). Do you believe that rainbows exist objectively? Is there such a thing as a rainbow existing independant of an observer? I'm interested in everyone's thought process for arriving to their conclusion. Please make an effort to answer if you have been posting in this thread.

I don't think so. A phenomenon without an observer is as meaningless as information without a recipient.

Its like Schrodinger cat, in quantum superposition where everything is possible

Rainbows are just bent beams of light usually from raindrops but could also be seem through prisms, mirrors, sweat, etc, and vary depending on the observer, for example if you are with your 4 year old son watching a rainbow, you both won't actually see the same colours from the same raindrops, but you will still see all the colors because theres millions of raindrops bending light at the same time. If theres no one to see the rainbow it doesn't matter, particles of light are still being bent inside the raindrop and back out to create the different colours.

some people in this thread are so... smart..........................................

I really don't see how it reveals where I get my science when I say the rainbow happens whether I see it or not.

Thanks for responding locoo. I'm interested to see who agrees/disagrees. You state two different positions as one though, in the first part you say the rainbow varies depending on the observer, then that it doesn't matter if no one is there. That's a definite vote for objectivity though, so let's see how many agree. Again this is from a purely scientific perspective.

On January 18 2012 00:04 Funktion wrote: I really don't see how it reveals where I get my science when I say the rainbow happens whether I see it or not.

Only one answer can be grounded in science, that's why it matters. Your answer will either be scientifically acceptable or not...

Rainbows are an optical effect caused by the refraction and wavelenght of the rays, rainbows are as "real" as are the colors of your clothes

We are able to observe them because we have biological photon detectors (eyes), we arent able to detect other effects happening in higher or lower frequencies.

On January 18 2012 00:07 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 18 2012 00:04 Funktion wrote: I really don't see how it reveals where I get my science when I say the rainbow happens whether I see it or not. Only one answer can be grounded in science, that's why it matters. Your answer will either be scientifically acceptable or not...

I don't think science has a yes or no answer either. It has the potential to be there and not be there in the same time, only when an observer actually looks will the potential become the actual. It is dependent on the observer and the observer influences the outcome.

On January 18 2012 00:17 Baalim wrote: Rainbows are an optical effect caused by the refraction and wavelenght of the rays, rainbows are as "real" as are the colors of your clothes We are able to observe them because we have biological photon detectors (eyes), we arent able to detect other effects happening in higher or lower frequencies.

But these other phenomena are objectively there just like the rainbow?

On January 17 2012 21:32 Loco wrote: I have a simple question for all the atheists here (or everyone here for that matter). Do you believe that rainbows exist objectively? Is there such a thing as a rainbow existing independant of an observer? I'm interested in everyone's thought process for arriving to their conclusion. Please make an effort to answer if you have been posting in this thread.

Yes, rainbows exist objectively. They are there. They are scientifically understood, and well documented/proven. People make 'artificial rainbows'. Yes, They are there if no one (wait, what? define observer please.. actually don't, just making a point) can observe them. If a bear shits in the woods, and on one see's it happen... did the bear still take a shit?

I believe if a tsunami happens in SE asia, and I don't witness it, that it still occurs. Think of the fishies man

On January 17 2012 22:17 Zorglub wrote: Light = God => The Sun = The Son Here is what I think: Everything is on an infinite (or circular) spectrum, even religion. We have a "free choice" in defining our own value on these spectrum's of options. Same as the uncertainty principle (and also quantum mechanics in a 4d environment, four axises to define at once). As God is both particle and wave, so too can we choose to be particle or wave (or a bit of both), individual or social, logical or emotional, republican or liberal, capitalist or communist, left brain hemisphere or right brain hemisphere, eastern or western world, materialistic or spiritual etc. But we can not be both strictly particle and strictly wave at the same time, at any given moment. We have to chose either strictly one of them, or a combination in between. This gives us (like particles) uncertainty because we can only define one or the other value at any given moment, not both at the same time.

you high?

Like I said I don't understand. Everyone I know who has done early high school physics learns about refraction and reflection and how different types of light interact with various objects (from memory I think we did water, a prism and water on glass). Do you expect people to post here saying "I think when unicorns fly across the sky they leave a trail of magic and this creates a rainbow"?

Of the people who are going to answer the question most will already know exactly what causes a rainbow and of those remaining who still want to answer they will google it.