Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Agnostic vs Non practicing denomination. Difference?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Agnostic vs Non practicing denomination. Difference?
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:26:26 PM
Is there a difference between an agnostic and a non practicing Catholic? If you non practice, you clearly dont take the dogma seriously. So why even say Catholic? Do you not take god seriously? Then why not agnostic? I'm assuming that non practitioners do not believe their own religion since hell often awaits those who do not follow the rules.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:21:53 PM
Would a "non practicing Catholic" be the same as an agnostic? What's the difference? oooo. this might make for a good new thread topic.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:14:17 PM
These are all from the same poster wanderer1999 but figured I'd comment individually because they address very common opinions when it comes to atheism...


Unless you are absolutely, postively sure that you believe in nothing, stick with Agnostic..

First, I am an atheist. But I believe in dogs. I believe the sun exists. I believe in billions of things. But there is an infinate amount of things I also DONT believe in. The difference being... i have some sort of evidence and logical justification for believing the things I do. Theists certainly believe in more than JUST god. So WHY is it that atheists are accused of believing in nothing. It's a rediculous statement and often hurts the credibility of the person asserting it.

A Christian does not believe in Alah or Zeus or any of the other hundreds of gods that their followers were positive existed. And I'll bet they lost little sleep over knowing that if they were wrong about Alah that they'd be going to hell. is anyone absolutely POSITIVE Zeus doesn't exist? Alah? Santa Claus? They all have many followers and "eye witness" accounts of their existence. If being positive is necessary to hold a belief, than being agnositc should be the ONLY religion out there. Beliefs are not the truth. They are only what we think are true based on the information we understand. This is why the percentage of atheists among the scientific community (those who thoroughly study the natural world) is drastically higher than non science educated communities.


Also, alot of people with a religious bent find Agnostics significantly more palatable than Atheists..

First of all, an atheist calling himself agnostic for the sake of fitting in is as dishonest as a gay person calling himself striaght or BI for the sake of fitting in.


So, unless you're looking for social conflict, Agnostic is easier and less confrontational. If that doesn't matter to you, then keep it to yourself unless the discussion comes up and you feel comfortable sharing that information.


Same as above as far as fitting in. But religions are seldom chosen based on reason... it's very much social conditioning. Upbringing. Local culture, tradition. basically, whatever your parents were. keeping with the analogy of gay rights, even today, it's still more convenient for gays to call themselves straight. However, they will never feel free if SOMEONE isn't the first to come out, others will follow, AND, those who support them should also say so, despite the conflict they face among the masses. And this is where the anology becomes a literal example. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. By making my beliefs about religion known and public and showing my pride in my beliefs, I am supporting those innocent people who have been oppressed for centuries and helping make a better world through change.

Also look up nazi Germany, Slavery in The US and the civil rights movement, etc.... for more examples as to why going with the norm to avoid social conflict is not always the moral or best way to go.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:01:04 PM

Polls, schmolls. If you ask people about their religious and political beliefs, you will ALWAYS get a lot of really bombastic, outspoken opinions either way. Why do you think the religion and politics forums have been hidden here?


There's a religion and politics forum here? just hidden? how do I find that?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/20/2012 9:00:40 AM
Um.... Being an atheist does not require any doctrines. It simply means NOT believing in any gods. That is really all it means.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/19/2012 6:43:27 PM
WOW Procol Harem!

So... on a philosophy site, with a title that says the word "atheist".. that YOU clicked on, designed to keep conversations contained within the walls for those who want to join in, YOU rant about having views pushed upon you? unless you were critisizing ME about the spirituality thing and/or billboards in the states... But I was kind of championing yoru cause there. about pushing views..

I actually dont mind views being pushed. If you believe in something to be true, and for good reason, and if it's consequencial.... LIKE MY ETERNAL LIFE... I'd like to know about it. But I happen to disagree... but I will continue inviting the discussion. I DO enjoy the discussion. So, in fact, I ironically invite you to keep expressing yourself.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/19/2012 6:37:25 PM
To elaborate, because I'm JUST in that mood, It even baffles me when religious people say they are spiritual. I have no idea what they mean. I can guess. People liek to think they are enlightened. they can't demonstrate they are educated because people can call them out on that and they have little to back it up. However, SPIRITUAL somehow gives you a special connection to nature maybe... like having a special power that others dont. Except.. I dont know what the power is. And if they are asked, i guess it realy just means "religious" to most.

I know that was a mocking rant... sorry. I dont think that of you. in fact, I guess I'm trying to envourage you to laugh along with me and probably agree that old language habits die hard. I'm assumiong it's out of habit.. but this is why it bothers me even more when someone sais....

"I'm not religious but I'm very spiritual". What exactly does that mean? Since they feel the need to follow "spiritual" after saying they are not religious, I assume it's related to being religious. Like... religious light? It can't be a completely different thing? The word comes from "spirit" after all. The eye rolling skeptic in me assumes that when people dont want to say they are religious, they still want to cling to something else that lets them feel a bit "better" than others. Or it's just a word used to describe "nature lover" or " i really like camping, gardening and the outdoors". because it doesn't seem to mean anything else.

Again.. I'm hoping you're laughing with me.... just having fun. insedrt yor own jokes and I look forward to them.

Fellow

How can you tell a spiritual person from another
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 6/19/2012 6:04:56 PM
Congratulations guignol1971

I'm also an atheist. I'm also a Canadian. Being an atheist is always going against the current. A strong atheistic comment on facebook will always offend more of your friends than a strong religious comment, despite the non religiouslness of some of yoru friends. People dont like the boat being rocked, etc.

however, trust me that being in the states, you have it much worse. I notice a big difference the moment I cross the border. The countless billboards and bumper stickers of "jesus is Lord" and stuff like that is dramatically noticeable compared to Canada. There are plenty of exceptions granted. We have plenty of bible belts here too... but it's commonly noticed. So... just sayin'... no, it's NOTHING like coming out as gay in the 70's. But it's still going against the currents.

However, by the way, as an "atheist", I was surprised to see you use the word "spiritual".... especially say you were VERY spiritual. I have to ask... what do YOU think "spiritual" means and why YOU would be more "spriritual" than most other humans? You like to daydream a lot? Think love is a really cool thing?

I mean no disrespect by that because Im actualy mocking others who actually DO think that but credit "God" for pretty sunsets and their appreciation of sunsets and enjoying naps somehow makes them "spiritual". Just saying... you may want to reconsider the word if you've given up on the idea of SPIRITS in general.

I'm sure it was just habit but it'sa thing with me.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Afterlife vs. Agnostic
Posted: 6/19/2012 11:48:25 AM

Over the years, there have been more than 70 points on which so-called science supposedly "proved" the scriptures to be wrong and to date, in every case, the false "science" has been proved to be wrong and the scriptures correct.


I'm curious... what methods were used to prove the "false science" wrong and the sciptures correct?

And also, can you explain the difference between the "false science" and real science? Was it REAL science that proved the scipture correct? If so, that would be a fascinating paper to read.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
 
21st century industry vision
Posted: 6/5/2012 9:35:39 AM
red_fir,

My main gripe is your solution being space travel for expansion. Population issues are often caused by political boundaries. Some countries are over populated while a neighbouring one can have a very high standard of living.

If it's all about needing more space to occupy, There's antartica, the arctic, multiple deserts and the oceans. ALL of which are WAY more hospitable to human life than any planet in our solar system, Mars or The Moon being the only ones we could go to anyway. If you're thinking about going all star trek amnd going to other solar systems looking for an earth like planet, how many people do you think would go? like, most of us? How long do you think it would take to get there? Even if we COULD travel light speed the whole way, building a ship to hold everyone, feed everyone, keep them healthy, breed, build a colony once there, etc. trust me. By the time you get there, back on earth still has the same problems. And many generations would have gone by.

ANY area not occupied on earth would be way more feasible for expanson and require a minor fraction of the resources to acheive. If the issue is lack of resources for the population, trust me, space travel is NOT the answer.

Expansion is great if your goal is simply to increase numbers. But that's what you also seem to be against.

A simple and gradual change in economic situation can radically change population and food problems. those with food and population problems are often nations with political conflict, low education standards, and other disadvantages with competing globally.

Look at how people in north america are having fewer children and having them much later in life. Not just from being poor but the economic situation that encourages both man and woman to work outsode the home and the carrot of success always lingering in the distance, this is after years of unaffordable schooling. it's not ideal, there are many problems with EVERY society. but if population is the problem, that can be managed in much more feasible ways than space travel ever could.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 10 (view)
 
21st century industry vision
Posted: 6/5/2012 8:53:20 AM
Aristotle_Amadopolis,

I wont comment as much on this as I will simply say "LOL" to how you wrapped up. I think we both have a little feeling about when it comes to choosing what we feel is thew best way for society to live and prosper, eventually that comes down to a small group enforcing their agenda, no matter how well intensioned it is. and yes, it usually involves priviledges to mirror the same system we already have now and have for a while. The Royal leaders haves and the working class have nots.

And of course I would program the media to spread material I like and only that.

Ultimately, the first priority, as an individual, would be to promote learning, education, critical thinking. It's much harder to to heard a large mass of intelligent critical thinking sheep. This would lead to smaller gaps between rich and poor.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums
Posted: 6/5/2012 8:29:40 AM
totally agreed sciencetreker.

And to add to that, car radios of those who actually have cars are either tuned into classic rock, 80's and 90's retro, etc. Which were not much of a thing for rock and roll listeners in the early days obviously. Not to mention tons of variety on radio. More impoertantly, it wasn't until the mid 70's or later that listening to ANYTHING other than radio in the car was a popular thing like 8 tracks or cassettes. Now, mp3 players are huge, cd's, etc.

So, you're right. of course.

Sometimes people aks if the Beatles came out today, in today's culture, would they be as big? of course not, No band will. When they played Sullivan, it was like the ONLY thing on. try to get everyone watching the same show on the same network nowadays that doesn't involve footage of a major city under attack by jet planes or something. Even THEN...... not quite Sullivan/beatle ratings.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 7 (view)
 
21st century industry vision
Posted: 6/4/2012 6:25:46 PM
Aristotle_Amadopolis,

I'm not really going to disagree with anything you said in your last post and upon rereading your earlier post, I guess my first comments were less directed at you. But mainly because I'm not quite sure what you're saying yet.

Of your choices, Do you feel it's better to leave us to our own devices like we would with other species in nature or should we continue to breed animals and go back to eating real food to prolong our life here? So... prolonging life IS a good idea? Not sure where you stand I guess. Maybe it;s just late here for me. Not quite seeing straight.

Also, I totally agree that we should respect our limited abilities to control life span. And we DO have a limited life span, not able to change that, only the lengths of that limit.

I know what you mean about the needs of the many out weighs the needs of the few or the one too. However, I dont necessarily see the polio vaccine as being an unnecessary risk of how that MIGHT affect the many in the distant future. So far, vaccines, thus flexing the muscles of our genetic evolutionary advantage, I believe has outweighed any disadvantage it may have caused us. It's kind of our strength and reason we survived. Ability to change our environment when adapting to it wasn't possible. BUT, with great power comes great responsibility.

I guess my point is this...

I dont think stopping actions is the answer. I think just continuing to learn to make smarter actions IS.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 5 (view)
 
21st century industry vision
Posted: 6/4/2012 4:57:03 PM
Is putting the welfare of humanity anything lower than number one priority on a list designed to better the welfare of humanity anything less than totally insane?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 4 (view)
 
21st century industry vision
Posted: 6/4/2012 4:53:07 PM
so, the general wisdom of the past couple posts on this thread is that it would somehow benefit humans more of humans were stopped helping other humans in times of need, stop even trying, withhold information that could protect them, totally ignore every advantage the species had to let it survive in the first place and go against it... even promoting more and earlier deaths, ..... in favour of this somehow creating a bigger income to spend on space travel... to go WHERE? somewhere where it is 100 times less hospitable to human life than our own empty deserts here on earth? Really? I mean......

....... seriously with a straight face?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums
Posted: 6/4/2012 2:43:46 PM
Something else I hate on these types of lists is modern releases that are fresh and never had a chance to digest into popular culture. Including movies like The Avengers and Dark Knight and Titanic close to the top of movie list would be premature and probably change quite a bit as the years go by, Not from new competition but how the art lasts the test of time.

I remember albums like Don Henley's End of the Innocence and The Stone's Steel Wheels making the top 10 or 20 on these lists back when they were within a year old. I'l bet they are not on this list at ALL now.

Blockbuster movies that got nominated or won oscars made the movie lists at the time were Shakespear In Love, Babe, Life Is Beautiful, etc. Do they make the list now? no. Blade Runner was a huge critical AND commercial failure when it came out. and I'll bet it's on the lists today.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums
Posted: 6/4/2012 2:34:36 PM

Re the 60's and 70's being gigantic for albums....sort of. Teens bought single 45's until the mid 60's...most kids couldn't afford an album. Also, many of the top selling albums are from the 80's.


Thanks for the compliments on my original post. Sciencetreker. Lovin' the nickname by the way. We probably have more than just music in common.

As far as 80's selling more, the 80'd had great albums too. I think of Thriller, Faith, Born In The USA, etc. The 90's had Nirvana, REM's big explosion, Pearl jam, Dave Matthews and the jam band explosion, Metallica are STILL huge sellers and not to mention rap and hip hop and so on. They cannot be ignored and I agree. However, I kind of compare it to movies too.

In movies, They are like a decade behind. I think it's safe to say that the 70's in movies are what the 60's did for music. Arguably, Star Wars being the beatles of the movie world. Fast forward several decades and you have the biggest money makers of all time having been made in the past 10-15 years, if THAT. BUT, how many of them would come close to the top of a list of the best movies of all time?

Because of the timing, cultural impact and longevity, movies like Star Wars, Godfather, Jaws will always score higher than even The Dark Knight or Goodfellas or any new Speilberg movie. Because they simply "earned" their place into people's hearts over years of culture and they lasted for whatever reason. it's hard not to think of them as the best.

Superman The Movie is my number one all time favourite movie. because it's the best? The Avengers, no matter how much I enjoy it or how well it does, will never beat Superman in my mind because I grew up with Superman and has become part of my life that I held all other fun fantasy blockbusters against. No other movie made me more excited when the ABC Sunday night movie came on with it's preview of what's coming up RIGHT NOW on TV.

Anyway... just more of what I already said I guess.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums
Posted: 6/3/2012 12:47:51 PM
Lists are great fun simply because of discussions like this. The more familiar you are with popular music, the more fun it is BECAUSE it is subjective and creates fun contoversy. Beatle fans love asking each other what each other's favourite albums are. and so on. Same with movies, books, etc. Quality is only a small consideration. Cultural impact gets it to the top of the list for consideration.


The list of experts who decided upon the list is impressive but each probably came up with their OWN list. The individual's own lists would be interesting... such as what was Elton John's favourite albums vs Clive Davis?

The final list is the common denomenator from all these others lists. That's why The Beatles have so much prominence. They would be pretty much where you start when it comes to lists like this because they pretty much invented the idea of the "classic album". The sixites and 70's were gigantic for albums in general. And some 80's. but eventually, the singles took over again in the form of downloads, cd singles, radio play, videos, etc. that's why 60's and 70's are so heavily represented. When it comes to "albums" as we know them, THESE were the decades that made them so. Once MTV kicked in, it started to become broken up in different types of markets and then downloading changed everything. Still great albums, but the ALBUM was not a heavy a focus as back in those decades. Plus, the older something is and still loved, the better hold it will take on popular culture and in our hearts.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Confronting Paranormal/Spiritual Disturbances
Posted: 5/29/2012 12:40:30 PM
Oloroso,

I posted this quote in your other thread but as it seems to be the same thread, I figured I would post it here too. Also, I mean no disrespect. I may sound like I'm lecturing or poking at you specifically here Oloroso. I'm not. I'm actually trying to appeal to your curiosity because you have perfectly legitimate questions... This is just a little rant that applies to many who do not question ENOUGH and something I also had to figure out for myself. I'm also not convinced you're not just asking these questions to make a greater point. If that's the case, I'm preaching to the choir. None the less, I hope this is taken as intended.

These questions remind me of the movie "Stand By Me" where the kids have a discussion about who would win in a fight... Superman or Mighty Mouse. One kid speaks up "Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon... Superman'sa real Guy!". to which another kid replies "Yeah, I suppose... but it would be a good fight though!"

I've had similar discussions as a youth and until this day... How does spider-man deal with telephone wires? Answer? He doesn't. There is NO SPIDERMAN. If A vampire has "no breath", how can they talk? Answer? They don't. There ARE NO VAMPIRES.

You may as well ask how a Muslum would deal with a vampire. Could they create water to burn one? this would be a perfectly legitimate question if Vampires have been observed to be burnt by christian holy water but unaffected by unblessed water. However, since this has never actually been observed in reality, there is no need to ask logistical questions on anything else. There are no vampires to throw any water at anyway, holy water or not.

You have very good questions of logistics. I would have them too if ghosts and demons or other "supernatural" things were observed in reality to be affected by things liek holy water and the bible. But they haven't outside of literature and fiction. If they HAVE, and have been studied and proven to react to holy water, just do the same test again with muslim water and you'll have yrou answer. That's why science is great. You just never know until you try it out.

If you're just assuming ghosts and other "supernatural" things exist based on you own personal beliefs, just go the extra step and simply make up any answer that best suits your belief. Maybe only the bible and holy water work or maybe Muslims, hindu's etc., have their own solution. Who knows... but if you see these easy answers as problems and feel the need to question them, then go the extra step and go back and ask the same questions about ghosts themselves... if you're inconsistent on when and what you question, you'll continue coming up with these conflicts. If you're consistent, it will probably all start to make sense.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Confronting Paranormal/Spiritual Disturbances
Posted: 5/29/2012 12:29:40 PM

Many modern rational secular societies use a prescription for amoxicillin or azithromax for most of those common intestinal disturbances..
After the isolated eccentric self-described warlocks/crazies/schizo/5150 mental cases have been ruled out...

Human "relationships" are amazingly complex enough, that nobody should further confuse themselves or others around them by attributing anything to someone's so-called paranormal "powers"...


If there was a "like" button next to this quote, I would have clicked it.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Afterlife vs. Agnostic
Posted: 5/29/2012 12:20:39 PM
These questions remind me of the movie "Stand By Me" where the kids have a discussion about who would win in a fight... Superman or Mighty Mouse. One kid speaks up "Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon... Superman'sa real Guy!". to which another kid replies "Yeah, I suppose... but it would be a good fight though!"

I've had similar discussions as a youth and until this day... How does spider-man deal with telephone wires? Answer? He doesn't. There is NO SPIDERMAN. If A vampire has "no breath", how can they talk? Answer? They don't. There ARE NO VAMPIRES.

You may as well ask how a Muslum would deal with a vampire. Could they create water to burn one? this would be a perfectly legitimate question if Vampires have been observed to be burnt by christian holy water but unaffected by unblessed water. However, since this has never actually been observed in reality, there is no need to ask logistical questions on anything else. There are no vampires to throw any water at anyway, holy water or not.

You have very good questions of logistics. I would have them too if ghosts and demons or other "supernatural" things were observed in reality to be affected by things liek holy water and the bible. But they haven't outside of literature and fiction. If they HAVE, and have been studied and proven to react to holy water, just do the same test again with muslim water and you'll have yrou answer. That's why science is great. You just never know until you try it out.

If you're just assuming ghosts and other "supernatural" things exist based on you own personal beliefs, just go the extra step and simply make up any answer that best suits your belief. Maybe only the bible and holy water work or maybe Muslims, hindu's etc., have their own solution. Who knows... but if you see these easy answers as problems and feel the need to question them, then go the extra step and go back and ask the same questions about ghosts themselves... if you're inconsistent on when and what you question, you'll continue coming up with these conflicts. If you're consistent, it will probably all start to make sense.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Would this happen?
Posted: 5/25/2012 3:34:42 PM
A time machine wont rid the world of religion. It would shake it up... like evidence like evolution already has, but that's all. Adding new evidence doesnt affect someone who's world view is NOT evidence based. There will always be the argument... "God created an illusion within your time machine so you wouldn't be able to witness what you MUST HAVE FAITH to believe in.".
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 403 (view)
 
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/20/2012 12:14:13 PM
dwight_the,

Do you do drugs? like pot, mushrooms, opium, etc? And even alcohol? have you tried them? if it's joy you are looking for, they are VERY effective.

I'm not trying to be disrespective here at all. It's a real question. For instance, I enjoy pot but it's not my joy that helps me solve problems, find true answers, etc. It simply solves the problem of needing joy to feel better about not having other problems solved and not having answers or anything else that's stressig me out or makes me want to relax and have fun.

So I wonder if you enjoy these things too. and if not, why not?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/20/2012 11:07:17 AM

"is there any reason to believe anything unphysical exists? "


Yes. Unless we are to agree that even "nothing" (non-existence if you prefer) is a physical thing, or that there is no such thing as "nothing" (in which case we have to either ask what lies outside of "existence" (all that exists), or entertain the thought that the universe/multiverse is infinite and everywhere infinitely dense with a physicality that has no "gaps" of "nothingness").

Either "nothing" is a physical thing, or it isn't…What do you contend that it is?


JustDukky,

I think you steered the conversation exactly in the right direction. The question of existence/non existence (nothingness) is what must be asked and clarified before we can reach any conclusions to this thread.

So to answer your question, with my view of course,

"Nothing" does NOT exist unless it's used figuratively... in the same wasy that we can say "a glass is empty". It's a false statement because we're only refering to the lack of liquid or any other expected substance the glass was designed to hold. It's not actually empty, as we know. Just filled with something different. something equally physical but probably less dense like air.

Philosophically, lets look at this statement: "Nothing exists". surely that isn't true. i think the idea of actual nothingness gets confused with the figurative one like the empty glass scenario. thus, we assume "nothing" is empty space. However, it's my view that "nothing" is something that is NOT there, measurable in any way, including volume, space it occupies, etc. If something occupies space, has volume, etc, it;s not nothing.

To ask the question "what lies outside of existence" is to completely disregard the meaning of the word exisitence. There IS NO OUTSIDE, unless you're simply refering to anything that does not exist. it's like the idea of life after death. If life continues, then death did not occur. Or at least STAY dead. Can't be dead and have a quality of life at the same time. unless you're refering to spirits and heaven and so on. There's a reason I dont believe those either but one thing's for sure. It's not life as we know it. doesn't involve our bodies.. thus, a different term shoudl be used. Not life.

This is the point of my entire thread. I dont believe "nothing" exists. thus, I dont think the big bang was something coming from nothing. Like everything else that exists, it was something coming from something else different. Something changed. Like an atom into an atomic explosion.

We wont be able to FIND "nothing". it's not there. if we found anything, what we find is a physical quality. takes up space, has energy, or force potential, or mass, or something. Anything that do not have any physicality will not be found in the universe because it's what DOES have physical qualities that define the universe. and also, by definition, if the universe HAD AN OUTSIDE, that would be part of the universe.

see where I'm coming from?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 101 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/19/2012 9:52:23 AM

'''According to the laws of physics, everything that exists does so according to such physical laws. If it lies outside the existing laws then it is purely theoretical and cannot at this time be proven to exist'''

but whats being provable got to do with whether things exist or not?


This actually gets to the heart of my main point. Except I'll ammend my question a bit. Since we can't prove a negative, I'll take the same position as a proper skeptic would take.

instead of saying "nothing unphysical exists", I'll ask "is there any reason to believe anything unphysical exists?"

Thus allowing for new information to be entertained later if new evidence is discovered. Presently, is there any reason to believe in any notion of an unphysical existence of anything? Is it even a thing?

Thus, the ultimate question, how do we define existence or non existence if it's not the physical properties of such a thing? We all believe some things more than others. We're more likely to believe in the sun than we are superman... at least I hope... otherwise, our opinions probably aren't much good for solving problems or answering other questions. With that in mind, are we less likely to believe in superman than we are that something with no physical qualities at all (which one would expect from something that doesn't exist) exists? If this thread title was "superman does not exist", would there be as much debate as there is here? why? what is the criteria for existing?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 94 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/12/2012 10:58:28 AM
@A_GENT
yes, yes, yes, no, yes, depends on your definition, yes, yes and yes. AND every one that exists are words describing something physical, a physical process, event, arrangement, etc. ;)
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/11/2012 4:00:50 PM
@earthlingsrevenge


I'll say it again. you are my advocate and i barely have to say a word as long as you keep posting. Granted, I have to admit, there are a few other posts out there that also invoke silence from me because i dont think my point would be understood as our perceptions of reality are obviously too different to expect each other to understand each other.


Sorry if this implied I was talking about YOU. The line was but the rest is refering to a small number of OTHERS. I totally get what you are saying. same as me. Thus, no need to comment much. I'm sitting back and letting you address stuff because we would say the same thing. Sorry for the confusion.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/11/2012 3:57:23 PM
EarthlingsRevenge....

I'll say it again. you are my advocate and i barely have to say a word as long as you keep posting. Granted, I have to admit, there are a few other posts out there that also invoke silence from me because i dont think my point would be understood as our perceptions of reality are obviously too different to expect each other to understand each other.

Otherwise, many good points out there that I've long since battled with myself.

MATHMATICS:

it's a system to interpret the physical world. Dealing with measurable physical units... that's the only thing numbers are ever assigned to, even when hypothetical/theoretical equations are in play (x+y=z).

many use music as an example. "Surely a song is not physical". Well, by definition, if you can hear it, we KNOW it's physical... but then the "pattern" is what some people say is non physical. If it's written on paper, it's written on paper, physical. if it;s in our heads as a memory, physical. If it's not recorded anywhere in any form, despite having once existed, it no longer exists.

With music, math, methods, philosophies, etc., it's easy to label them as a thing all themselves without definginn out louod what they are. are martial arts physical? It;'s not the body, the arms, the kick but the METHOD and pattern to the whole thing. But take away the books, the ideas in your head, any recoding descibing the method or the physical activity demopnstrating it and the martial art will stop existing.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Thoughts exist
Posted: 5/8/2012 10:17:52 AM
Here here earthlingsRevenge.

I feel sympathy for people just joining the conversation because so much gets discussed with these long threads that by the time you join in, without reading the whole thread, a point could have been made and addressed several times already, going around in circles. Not a critism, thus why I sympathise, and sometimes either skip a thread for being too long or skip to the end to see where the conversation is currently at.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 74 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/7/2012 6:15:44 PM

Even space itself isn't empty. The earth bends the fabric of space and time and creates a void and the moon spins on it like the edge of a barrel. These aren't "physical", but they cause physical effects and they're real. Time itself physical things, but it's not physical and it's real, too.........


so.... space itself is not empty (true) but is it possible to fill space with something non physical? By definition, energy is the ability or potential to do work. the fuel required for existence, force, basicaly ANYTHING to happen. How can something void of energy, thus the ability to create force or affect anything, CAUSE a physical affect?

Perhaps you think I mean "solid". LIGHT is physical. a magnetic field is physical. all energy is physical , thus the field of "physics". THAT's what I mean by physical.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 72 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:04:16 PM

To the OP, it's not clear to me that nothing non-physical exists. There are some philosophers, like David Chalmers, who think that Consciousness does not supervene on the physical


First of all, I'm about to pick this quote apart but not YOU. A perfectly valid statement but just happens to touch upon a variety of pet peve arguments of mine... and they are extremely common.

My point of the question is this... EVERYTHING that has ever been discovered, observed, perceived, all of reality as we know it, is physical. It appears that in all of history, when it came to discovering things that were never known to exist before, it was only the physical qualities that changed it from non-existent to existing. It's so extremely obvious that it's hard to see. Start wording it in different ways to yourself and it will start to seem silly that it even needs saying in the first place.

Watch...
when i say physical, I'm not talking about just solid and touchable. I'm talking about anything that has any amount of matter, energy, force, volume, ability to affect other physical things, etc. Just show a sign of any of these and it;s a physcial quality. Otherwise, it's not taking up space, mass, energy, etc. It's literally not there. That seems to be how we define not exisisting. To say something unphysical simply hasn't been discovered yet is a meaningless statement because the act of discovery depends on noticing SOMETHING... otherwise, you're noticing NOTHING... are we actually debating wether "NOTHING" exists? is someone really going to come out and say that? I dont think it does... do you? say it... nothing may exist? something that is not there actually might exist?

Most of what we know about matter, energy and well, everything, has come from our advancements in understanding through science in the past 400 years or so. Before that, we went thousands with very little change in understanding... sure the stories and explanations changed but none of them were the least bit useful to practical application. along comes science and all of a sudden, we're solving problems left and right because we knew the questions we needed answered and we suddenly had a way to figure out the right one, which changed everything. The field of PHYSICS discovered all these laws and developped many theories based on them that are statistically 100 percent reliable to the point where even a child knows a lot of them and are able to confirm them time and time again themselves. It is often embarassing how often "science" is passed off as not to be taken seriously...

So when it comes to the big questions of wether the non-physical (having no physical quality) exists, instead of all the advancements in the field of PHYSICS to look at, you offer a quote from a philosopher? Not a physicist who has a background in EXACTLY this topic, credentials and experiencen and trainign and education and is a SCIENTIST?

Dont get me wrong. I'm not coming down on philosophers. I quote them all the time too. It's my favourite thing. Which is why i'm bothered by the comment.

MY philosophy is that WHAT someone believes is not nearly as important, relevant, interesting or revealing as WHY they believe it.

I'm not saying for 100 percent sure that the philosopher is wrong. I'm just curious WHY you give it credit. When the question is wether existence is dependant on physicality or not, of all the information from science and physicists that is available, why is a quote from a philosopher hold weight and convincing to you? More so than others, you, me or the many obvious non experts that fill these threads. Why is that an argument for you and maybe the answer would be reason to consider looking at it more heavily than all the other bullshit people with mouths and fingers can spout off

Lastly... not directed at you. Just venting from past experience. in fact, i think you are just a guy caught in the middle so I hope you laugh at the obvious obsessiveness of my rant.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 4/30/2012 10:16:52 AM
actually, i was hoping for a difference in criteria between existence and non existence. is it anything other than physical and non physical. Unless we're saying EVERYTHING exists, what characteristics are we looking for to determine non-existence. Or more appropriately, since proving negatives are always impossible, what primary characteristic are we looking for that would label something as "exsisting" instead of "non-existing"?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Is Materialism wrong?
Posted: 4/29/2012 9:55:04 AM

A strict moral relitivist point of view. I can't agree with that. It completely rejects objectivity as a form of thought. No man is an island unto himself.


I know there's no context here but I only wanted to ask why moral relativism has anything to do witht the ability to think objectively. I would suggest the latter can often lead to the former.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 67 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 4/29/2012 9:37:23 AM

The laws of physics? Surely they exist, yet are unphysical?

Unphysical: they simply describe/govern how the physical interacts with itself and have no form in and of themselves. They are not a construct of our physical mind; they existed long before intelligent life forms evolved.


This is usually the first kind of argument i get. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, plans, designs, music, laws, rights, patterns, etc...

each of these are our ways of interpreting physical. None of these interpretations exist independant of physical qualities. Ideas require brains. it's a physical function. When you say "laws of physics", you're refering to patterns. constant and reliable behavior of physical phenomena. the law itself is a physical phenomena. ex:"rate of acceleration" is a short form of describing the physical phenomenon. The law can be referenced in books, heard said by others, knowledge stored physically in the brain, stored physically and displayed physically on the internet. Even the law itself is very much physical. Yes, the pattern existed before we ever noticed, the pattern is something we define within the physical phenomenon. In no way is anything i or you mentioned "unphysical".

One of my main points is that if you were to describe something that DOES NOT EXIST, could you really say anything else other than "has no physical quality or presense at all"

FOR EVERYONE: how to define existence vs non-exisitence. What's the primary criteria that would separate the 2?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 65 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 4/26/2012 6:36:10 PM

Msg #5, Lynn said it right.
"But since we have no "unphysical" way to detect the "unphysical" one can't prove or disprove this statement."

This is the problem with us. We think we are given everything needed to understand the universe. Chances are we lack many qualities.

Here is another way to take a stab at the question.
What we see around us, the macroscopic world, in this world there is nothing unphysical. But once we enter the microscopic world, we discover there is nothing physical. I always argue with people in science websites that there is a huge disconnect between micro and macroscopic worlds and no one knows how to connect them.


First, it's commonly known that you can't prove a negative. Thus, can't prove we're NOT in the matrix and thus rendering everything we know of the natural world meaningless. Can't prove that we're not actually pigs and not humans and so on. However, at least most of us have ways of favouring one idea over another despite not being able to prove that any scenario one can possibly imagine is NOT true. It's usually based solely on evidence to support a positive. I cannot prove that a brick will never or has never fallen up to the sky when dropped. But based on a virtually unlimited number of overwhelmingly consistent observations of bricks falling down when dropped, and absolutely zero evidence that a brick has ever or will ever fall upwards, it is reasonable to form a theory that under the same conditions, bricks will fall downwards when dropped.

How do I prove it? ALL proof is based on an ability to accurately predict an outcome that would be consistent with your theory. Can I say for 100% certainty that the result will always be the same? No, because maybe the matrix is designed to deceive us.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 4/22/2012 1:58:26 PM

You've merely repeated what I said. It has physical qualities, that would make it exist. It in itself is represented but not necessarily being composed of them. I will never see "nothing unphysical exists" on an EEG scan, at least not yet.


If something did not in fact exist, would it surprise you that it did not in fact show up on an EGG scan? Wouldn't that be a common quality of all things that don't exist? That they dont show up on EGG scans?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:34:17 AM
In fact, perhaps the very use of the word "spirituality" might be inappropriate then. Like someone misusing the word "ironic" when they actually mean "coincidence". It's popular, SOUNDS cool and everyone else is using it. But what does it really mean? I have to admit, sitting back and not being concerned with understanding the word and the world around us is the easiest way to justify using it and I can see why it feels appropriate to use it to fill in the blank.... The home of ALL supernatural things. The more the world is studied and understood, the less frequent words like "spirituality" are used. It's not that the "spiritual" experience stops happening but better and more appropriate words are used to describe it because we understand it better.

Isn't it ironic that Alanis' song "ironic" contains no examples of "irony"? I think the word "spirituality" gets used in a similar way.
 Musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/18/2012 9:31:52 AM
I'm not quoting here as I'm on iPhone but Meja, this is for you.

You strike me as someone who thinks quite a lot, critically and thoroughly but have yet been able to abandon some of your early learnings, terminology and expectations of the world and universe. You seem to know what it is people are labeling "spirituality" and are probably correct. Yet, you use the term anyway, probably because others tend to relate despite the word implying "spirit" or some other supernatural entitlement to that "something more" you refer to.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue against there being "something more". Of course there is. We see something more everyday with telescopes and microscopes. We learn more every day about the "drive" behind the universe through physics, quantum mechanics and so on. However, these aren't the answers we were originally expecting. We have a very deep root of stories, legend, ideas and thus perspective and expectations of the universe. We also humanize EVERYTHING. we give gender to objects. We literally give and see human traits in the objects that surround us, make the front of cars look like faces, see human body parts in vegetables, we see US in EVERYTHING. we expect it. It makes sense to us even when it doesn't logically. We see AND FEEL the humanness in the universe. Many call it God. Many call it "Something more that drives the universe".

We're nor trying to learn the truth. We're trying to satisfy and justify our expectations. We are asking questions that have already been answered but not to our satisfaction because it wasn't what we expected. It wasn't god/human/us, etc.

If you FOUND that something else you're looking for, the wizard behind the curtain pulling all the strings, would you stop thinking "there must be something more that drives the universe"? If so, why would you stop wondering if there isn't something more?
 Musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:06:36 AM
I have to disagree with the idea that "spiritual" people are less vain.

And before I rant, this is against the wording and ideas implied in the post. Not ranting at the person as person. So, to poster, feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted something. I've been guilty of that before. But if taken in the spirit of fun discussion, here I go.

If for no other reason than the statement itself is grasping at something, anything it seems, even something completely non definable to separate them from other people, and imply a moral higher ground. The reasoning itself actually suggests MORE vain to me. When someone is desperate to feel as if they are "better" than other people but don't actually excel at anything measurable or "real" enough to do the trick, other words and myths are made up to apply that can't be refuted properly because the definition is vague and the rules can be changed to whatever makes you feel as if you are better than others. Thus, a religion can be created to make virtuous what was once a weakness or sin. Less educated than others? Make it a virtue to have to rely on faith in the stories you're familiar and comfortable with despite being only a small amount of information in the vast sea of knowledge and is not based on evidence.

Commit a crime or something you're not proud of? No problem! Create a myth (or choose an existing one) where your guilt is actually a virtue, thus actually somehow making you feel morally superior to those who don't see guilt as a virtue and thus more motivated to avoid the guilt, and thus the crime, in the first place.

Feeling ordinary? Say you're more "spiritual" than others. How does. One become more spiritual? Just say that you are because no one can prove you're not and no Ome can really tell a real spiritual person from a fake anyway... BUT, people who SAY they are more spiritual than others simply have a need to feel more "something" than others without having to make any actual changes in their lives that might help them feel better than others.

Point being, the need to feel better, morally superior, special, is VAIN to me.

Also, why is it that when someone doesnt believe in something without evidence that they don't believe in anything? NOBODY believes in nothing. It's just something else.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/17/2012 9:04:53 PM
Not only am I dying to know how you reply, I'm also now, very curious about how you would explain "spirituality" for me. It's always been a near meaningless word once all interpretions are compared. Regardless of the answer, I'm looking forward to the read.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/17/2012 9:00:26 PM
I HAVE to reply to this right away!

First, that may be the most intelligent, humorously appropriate and effective reply to make me do a near 180 of my interpretation of a post.

Consider my first post "taken back" and I stand corrected.

Well done!

I guess my only thing I'd question for the sake of seeing the game through to the end, is that I don't understand why being an uber intelligent "enlightened" being is any less "animal" for being so. Or maybe I'm jumping the gun again and missing the implied mockery of "enlightened" being anything more than an evolutionary quality of a link of a very large and complex animal chain.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/17/2012 6:33:16 PM
By special request and dedicated to Mejehoward. ;)

This is for you so I wont bother putting context on this.

so here we go... step by step...

so for starters, I COULD be misinterpreting this all wrong and maybe we agree more than I thought... but taken another way, well, i originally took it more literally and thus, disagree...

"Some people do glow".... taken literally, I dont think I'm alone when i disagree... aside from wearing something that glows of course. I interpreted it as an "aura" which as far as all inquiry has ever found, is fictional. However, if you're talking about body language and interpretations of THAT, additudes and so on, then of course I DONT disagree at all.

"maybe it's less about the person and more about the observer. " I think this statement is true so I'm already backpaddling as I dont actually disagree with EVERYTHING but it still depends on context. Since it's YOU who think other people glow, and if you mean that literally, then it is CERTAINLY more about the observer than the person being observed.


"Social status is bogus, people who are attracted to those types are exhibiting less intelligence and more animism." I'm mixed on this quote. it sounds more like a passion statement from an ethical idealistic but intelleigent person. I could easily be caught sayingn something similar but if I were hard core real about it, social status is at least somewhat important to all of us when choosing a mate or finding them attractive. Statistically, women find success and power is an attractive feature for men to have. Not universally of course.... Men may even find the opposite, finding it intimidating to be coupled with a more powerful woman. Again, not universally, just statistically very relevant. However, with all else being equal, would you not favour a man with an admirable career, reputation and means of support to a homeless man with no impressive background to speak of? Social status DOES play a part and it's not necessarily unintelligent to at least recognize it. at least on some level... but there ARE extremes, gold diggers, sugar daddies/mommies, etc... obviously so to THAT extreme, I at least can apreciate the statment, regardless of nitpicking.

As for the word animisn, which I had to look up by the way, I can see how intelligence and animism can not co-exist... but that's my little teasing jab there... doesn't sound like a very intelligent thing to take seriously... but again, just looked it up so I'm no authority.

I'm going to do the rest later... gotta go for now.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Spirituality and attraction
Posted: 4/16/2012 8:11:59 AM

Some people do glow (like your username states), I think it's just that you can see they are happy/loved.
It's odd...that's what I see when I look at my children, so maybe it's less about the person and more about the observer.

Social status is bogus, people who are attracted to those types are exhibiting less intelligence and more animism.

As a society/species we have developed excuses for our instinctive behavior but attempted to maintain our dignity by proclaiming superior intellects. Unfortunately it doesn't work both ways.
Either you're an animal or an enlightened (aware) being, make a choice and go with it.


With all respect given in the world, and I hope this is taken as only fun discussion when I say this...

I completely disagree with every single word of the entire quote... almost to the degree of believing the exact opposite. to elaborate would start me ranting... and I'll wait and see if anyone is even interested in that. Especially the poster.. which I'm happy to... no argument fishing here. just joining the conversation... respectfully of course.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 55 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:09:01 PM

Your opinion that nothing unphysical exists is definitely unphysical, yet has notable effects on what you are saying. You can effect it, it can effect others, it can effect you. Does it exist then? What about a woman's scorn? You will meet it as an obstacle to your objective just as surely as the end table in front of you. Existant?


I understand upon first thought that certain things do not appear to be obviously "physical" in the way we normally attribute physical like a rock or a tree. Music, thoughts, concepts, were all brought up as examples of non physical but upon deeper examination, they are still very much physical.

For instance, my opinion... based on physical observations with my physical senses, information gathered is stored and processed in my physical brain consisting of chemicals and their reactions, electrical activity and so on. Expressed and communicated through physical voice or physically typing on a physical computer to a network that allows you to read it and start the process over again to others. At no point does a "non-physical" process occur that is required for opinions to exist.

Is there any part of an "opinion" that I may have missed that you consider not to have any physical qualities but is integral to the existance of an opinion?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 3/31/2012 8:27:18 AM

I am philosophically having a problem with physical existence.
In that I don't believe in it.

I see it all as waves within waves.
In short...... a movement within the void.

Slow down atoms to a complete stop....
Molecules disappear.
Slow down atomic parts to a stop...
Atoms disappear.

You can go as tiny as you want,
and stop the motion of quantum parts of parts,
and waves within waves.....

and you will be left with nothing
......really
................there.
Nothing solid.
No part.

Just movement.

We....and everything....is merely a disturbance in the force.
A wind in the void.
Rippling motion within nothingness.

who knows when motion started.
Maybe God sneezed.
beats me.


stray__cat , Some of this reply may sound a little smartassy and I hope you see some of the humour in good spirit. Feel free to retort with equally appropriate jabs if you like. It will all be taken with good sportsmanship and winks.

That being said, I cannot avoid replying this way when I say...

To clarify, when I say "physical", I'm refering to the real word with the real definition... from a dictionary if you will. Something studied in the field of physics... not a made up word which I assume you used since you breathed and typed at a keyboard the very phrase..."I am philosophically having a problem with physical existence. In that I don't believe in it." Otherwise, if you actually meant the real word "physical" as it is commonly known, perhaps you meant to use the word "psychologically" instead of "philosophically". I hope you dont take offense as I assume you wont as you dont believe in me anyway as I am physical, and in fact, you probably dont believe in yourself as you are probably physical, I assume based on the message having been sent with what I assume was a computer of some sort, requiring some sort of physical touch to function properly.

Also, I'm refering to the ACTUAL universe in THIS REALITY, not a hypothetical one. You seem to assume that if an alternate reality can be imagined, then all other realities become false. You argued that if ALL motion stopped on every level (motion being completely relative of course but whatever, we'll go along for the sake of argument) that existence would also end. I think that's liek saying you dont believe in light because of light suddenly lost it's ability to travel, then would it still be light? How would it reach our eyes? And I KNOW you dont believe in WATER because it;s physical but if all H2O was suddenly gone, water wouldn't exist.

Well, I guess I was having a discussion about REALITY.

Also, if you're logica is that everything is just waves, how exactly are "waves" non physical?
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Beam me up Scotty
Posted: 3/26/2012 5:28:47 PM
ASSUMING any of this was possible, for the fun of the discussion, I'll even assume they are perfect copies. because otherwise, we're just getting into what's possible, logistics and whatnot and if we're doing that, why bother even going past the scanning process much less the deconstruction and reconstruction.

If they are ALL perfect copies, then they would ALL be YOU. Each one would assume they are the real one and for all physical evidence available, they'd be right.

I do not buy into this whole degredation with each copy thing. If it's perfect, then there is no degredation. Its an outdated plot device in science fiction but in today's world of digital, degredation is hardly a reality when it comes to information storage. We're assuming the raw materials will be copied with exact percission so there's no reason to assume the information used will lower in quality any more than an email would.

AND... if we're using star trek as an example, when "teleported", the original dies immediately, or at least is destroyed then recreated elsewhere. Every character on star trek is a copy of the original after they "transport" once and they get destroyed and copied from the previous copy every time they "TRANSPORT".
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 3/26/2012 4:01:29 PM

I suggest what I call "contingency living." Choose to have three giant tubs to sort all concepts into.

One for stuff we're sure we have to deal with, and all of the underpinnings of physics required to deal with them;

Once for stuff we'll never have to deal with, and all the nonsense that we therefore don't have to answer to;

And one for all the stuff that we just aren't sure about, and which we might wish were true, or we hope is false, and all the stuff that underpins THAT stuff.

Then as we go about planning our day, and allocating time and money, we only spend on tub One, but we continue to pay to rent space in tub Three.

Where it gets challenging is this:

To maximize our possibilities, while minimizing our losses of wasted time and energy, when we plan for the future, or work on a project, we put about 5-10% extra effort in, by stopping to take a glimpse into Tub Three, before we go ahead.


igorfrankensteen, nice analogy. And yes again, that is pretty much the allocation i would give too. BUT, and this is the purpose of the thread, what qualities would a concept have to have to qualify for tub 2? If there are any concepts that DO fall into tub 2, why would THEY qualify for tub 2 while "non-physical" falls in tub 3?

So, to celebrate your analogy, I guess I'm supporting the idea of "non-physical existence" falling into tub 2 instead of tub 3. Having given it a lot of thought, I'm not sure what else could possibly qualify for tub 2 if not this.

Thanks for clarifying my objective here and making a clear analogy. tub 2 or tub 3? THAT is the question.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Nothing unphysical exists
Posted: 3/26/2012 10:55:19 AM
IgorFrankensteen,


What is the goal of declaring this "nothing physical exists" thing, and defining it's terms?

My own first thought is, that the purpose of saying something like this, is to lessen our burdens a bit. That is, if we declare something doesn't exist, we can put it in the universal dumpster of existence, and never spend time and energy in it again.

So is that the goal of the title thought?

If that is the case, then, I have some opposition to it. I would be opposed to it primarily, because of what I mentioned earlier, that all to often, it is discovered that something which we didn't recognize, does actually exist, and the problem wasn't that it had no physicality, it was that our technology couldn't detect it. Or, that our existing way of thinking about the universe, our learned prejudices if you will, caused us to prevent ourselves from seeing it.

Entire species and subgroups of living entities have been said to be discardable, and have even enslaved, because the prevailing belief was that they didn't have recognizable "souls."

Call me a conceptual pack rat if you wish, but I'm wary of purposely closing my eyes to possibilities. I do support sorting, and prioritizing, so the goal of avoiding spending too much of our lives on what looks like nonsense is on my agenda.

So what are we up to here?


Good questions. To answer, yes, most of the goal is to lessen our burdens. To DEFINE what it means to exist. So we can narrow down and descriminate by not considering everything we can conceive of as being worthy of equal consideration. That is part of any good problem solving process.

I agree that it is often unwise to completely overlook ANY possibility... but what about impossibilities or probabilities? Higher probabilities, by definition, are more likely to right answer which is why they are considered more heavily than low probabilities. It always makes sense to eliminate impossibilities from consideration however, which makes it necessary to properly define impossibilities. Thus my question. Would "non-physical" be a logical impossibility.

Assuming "what we know to exist and NOT exist is based on what we know SO FAR and may change in the future but cannot DETECT it now with our present technology", than sure... maybe it's too early to say it's impossible. But we're not talking about something specific like a dragon or unicorn. We safely say they dont exist but that's only based on having never detected or studied one. At least we can imagine the detection of a dragon. We know roughly what we would be looking for to confirm the existence of a dragon.

If we to detect something "non-physical", what qualities would it have to distinguish it from physical phenomena? In other words, is physicality required for detectability? If so, non detection may not mean non existence but would certainly be a necessary quality of non existence. This thought is to narrow down a proper discussion on existence. It's too easy to say that if I cannot detect something that I claim exists, to say that it simply transcends physicality, space and time, or exists "outside" the physical and so on. are these just other ways of expressing a logical "non-existence"?

THAT's my point of the discussion.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 13 (view)
 
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/23/2012 6:15:32 PM

It wasn't until that advancements in microbiology, DNA and so on did the story of Adam become scientifically significant. Noah Ark the same way. From a DNA standpoint you only have to load or save if you like, males and females of their "kind". What kind actually means I'll leave to your own research.


I assume "kind" means variety or lets even be more vague and just say species. So when you think about it, you only need 2 of every species that existed on earth right? Not every one... So lets see. Lets start with some big ones like T-rexes, Elephants, giraffs, gorillas, brontosauruses (or whatever they call them now), lions, tigers and bears oh my and...as many tons of food and fresh water to keep them all alive for a year.... that seems like a lot for most boats.. especially with the t-rexes. But how many more species could there be right? Oh and parots! But I can;t think of any more.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 12 (view)
 
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/23/2012 5:57:37 PM

Following right in step with the typical atheist, godless and liberal gaga. Nothing of substance to post but pie-eyed commentary.


Fair enough. Perhaps I spoke too soon. As a proper scientist, I'm always open to new evidence. I, in fact, find that more evidence is always helpful. I have to admit that a lot of what I know started in school, textbooks, scientific papers and through my own research. I didn't realize that there were more reliable resources out there debunking the evolution theory, that it's not actually a scientific theory and so on. Can you send us some links to your sources? I haven't seen them and that's probably why we dont understand your position. Unless, of course it was YOU who have debunked a lot of this with your own studies and if that's the case, I assume you're holding back the details until your paper is properly published. I can't wait to read it. especially can't wait to see the documentation on the peer review. I assume your peers on the review were equally impressed. This is going to turn the field of biology on it's head if your sources and research is valid. Very exciting. Please... whatever you can share. Very exciting! thanks in advance!
 
Show ALL Forums