All Religions Are False.

So you do believe in God after all? To be clear, I don't think the abrahamic god is at war with anything just because it is written down in the bible or koran or told by certain of His/Its followers. Lots of things are projected onto God/gods and then that seems to be regarded by atheists as proof that there exists no such thing, but it merely proofs that we don't know. If there is a god It transcends abrahamic religions (which of course does not automatically makes those religions false, as they originally came from good intent).

 

Wow... I didn't know that...


You must be very smart.

 

Don't Muslims insist on that to make their religion more palatable?

 

That's NOT what I said matter was. I said matter was nothing BUT energy time and space.
I don't have time to argue with kind of shady tactic bullshit.

 

Only some. And not all for that reason I think.

 

Any of the omni(omnibenevolent, omniscent) attributes proposed of God which can shown to be false in "God's creation", disprove that particular conception of God, therefore that God as well because (s)he does not possess those qualities at all times.

Now if God is not an omni type entity and is subject to changes in it's constitution or is in flux for whatever reasons, it makes me wonder why the religious still cling to millenia old 'holy books.' If the Bible is not meant to reflect God's word and be taken literally, then what purposes does it serve? An initial intent does nothing to vindicate a model's failures of 'truth'. Are you going to vindicate Nazism due to economic prosperity?
So what do we make of many of the established traditions of religion and in the instance of Christianity it's 'Holy Book?'

Is the bible pratically nothing more then a 2,000 year old self help book? A historical document littered with archaic magical notions of the world? Philosophy with some colorful proverbs and metaphor? A work of fiction?

If we are to suggest God is unintelligible to the human mind, then the idea of a book filled with organizational principles in which is said to reflect God's character is nonsense.

I understand as social beings, the need for communal gathering for those who want to share in like-minded precepts of the divine, or to wonder and reflect on whatever spiritual experiences may have been transformative in one's life, but I don't understand the necessity for all this to be informed from a book that is several millenia old.

 

Just as you don't have the time to provide a logical argument.

 

I would guess that the majority of the people who believe in the Bible have never even read it front to back. Isn't that just crazy? Do they even know who wrote it?

Did you know the first five books were written by Jewish priests after they returned from their captivity in Babylon? So, roughly 500 BC-ish or around there.

 

People can believe in something and not read anything about it. Does the average person who believes that black holes are real read about them? Probably not.

 

They should.

I think a lot of people care more about who wins the Super Bowl, though. I don't see that changing, either. That's the type of thing that just makes me want to give up.

 

Give up what?

 

I don't know. It just felt cool to say at the time.

The fact that you could not convince a good portion of the population that the Super Bowl is of zero importance is frustrating at times. Especially when these guys have wives and children and I do not. I want to run up to their wife and say "I'M BETTER THAN HIM!!! MAKE MY BABIES!!!" Lol.

Or maybe I should just go out somewhere.

 

I'm not going to watch that whole lecture, but I happened to choose a random segment of the video and it illustrates an issue I have with the statement "There's no such thing as nothing."

If you watch Gott's demonstration at around 42 mins, he describes how the universe can intrinsically exist using a prop. I understand that competently enough, however De Grasse Tyson raises a good point which I was thinking while watching the demonstration and that is what is existing outside the prop? Gott retorts nothing. Someone else mentions Why does it exist? Then they resort to the philosophy of Leibiniz.

The human mind seems to wrap around the formulation of concepts with questions if there is no room to further validate a theory, we regress to this toddler type of questioning when something is so thoroughly explained that we can't point out ways to improve it. Perhaps we do this because something so thoroughly explained negates our ego and metaphorically speaking our existence.

I see these threads on HF with Philosophy and Science, constantly bringing up quantum mechanics and it makes me wonder why does QM currently have so much more of a grasp on the general public's consciousness and imagination than the rest of science. The answers I have arrived at are that QM is so open to interpretation and yet promise to be so fundamental to reality, that it allows for the ego to explore and roam free, as most of these concepts are either on a scale or a level which is not immediately accessible to humans.

I think Hawking was premature when he proclaimed "Philosophy is Dead"

I found this video interesting.

http://youtu.be/ZacggH9wB7Y

 

True or false is contingent on the perspective of the observer.

As Bill Hicks said, ''All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, and we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.''

So technically it's real, and paradoxically, all false.

 

Those look like some good 'shrooms!

 

Based strictly on observation, do you believe that no viewpoint is more authentic or 'real' than another?

For instance, if we had someone hold an apple and we presented it to a few people. One of them has an agnosia and can't recognize the object, the other recognizes it as we normally would and sees just someone holding an apple and let's say the other person is on shrooms and is getting good trails, sees about a dozen apples.

Are you suggesting all those observations are on equal grounding as far as truth? And if we introduce our other senses other than sight, does that change the degree of truth in someway?

 

what u see is a symbolic internal representation of your external reality [qualia] ... it is impossible to prove that one person experiences the same qualia as another but that doesn't change the reality, although that might complicate communication, and it could be ambiguous in the sense that it could be difficult to prove that the two persons are in observing the same thing.

 

Not to that extent, I guess.

I'm not the type of guy to argue on whether an apple is an apple. Through evolution and language, as a ''unit'', we are evolved to the point which there's a general consensus on what is considered basic, like an apple for instance. I guess you could see this as part of the ''shared consciousness'', with your two exceptions (dementia, shrooms) having strayed from it, like a damaged or dying cell no longer performing its function - still part of the total, but not experiencing the same thing as the vast majority.

I was talking more about the intangible things. Like an opinion, a taste, a spiritual path, an experience...

EDIT: Oh and hi GB, good to see you are still around

 

does qualia extend to not recognizing an object though? I understand qualia as the internal response one has to an object, in this instance is the green in the apple one person sees, different from the green in the apple another sees? However there is a consensus in the reality that the apple in question exists. The proposition that Shivaya raises has much more frightening consequences.

 

Hi, hope you been well!

Thanks for clarifying!