• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Iacchus said:
Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God.
Click to expand...
But this belief has no meaning. It is not THE truth. It will not save anyone. How is it that for two thousand years god revealed that he existed to people all over the world but couldn't quite reveal his name, the name of his church and the means to salvationto anyone except to a select few? The rest had to wait until word got out. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent diety could do better than that? This internal truth thing just doesn't fly if you have to rely on external hearsay to shore up your truth. We still have the problem that the external hearsay is largely rejected by opposing theologies.

Confuciusts tend to stay Confuciusts.
Muslims tend to stay Muslim.
Sikhs tend to stay Sighs.
Hindu tend to stay Hindu.
Mormons tend to stay Mormon.
Catholics tend to stay Catholic.
Baptists tend to stay Baptist.


The list goes on and on. What is the parsimonious reason for this? Also, why do religions mirror culture? What is the parsimonious reason for that?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
How would you know it were true except by means of that which is internal?
Click to expand...
This is not in dispute and is not relevant to the discussion. One more time. I concede that reasoning is an internal mechanism. But reasoning must examine the external to find the truth or ones beliefs. Otherwise there would be no need of the Bible and missionaries

Is it possible that when you look at something on the outside that you're looking at something (similar) on the inside as well?
Click to expand...
I have no reason to suppose this is true. Further it is not supported by the evidence. Why are people who grow up in a particular faith more likely to accept that faith to the exclusion of all others?

And let's not forget who or what is doing the looking in the first place. What is it about the observer -- you -- which, exists on the other side of the these brain signals, that is not internal?
Click to expand...
One more time, I don't deny that there is an internal process going on. This is a straw man that you have created to knock down. I have repeated the assertion over and over that the process for understanding the external world is internal. That there is an "internal" is not the subject for debate. What is the subject of the debate is that it is demonstrable that relying solely on the internal leads to chaos and disagreement. There is no reason to believe that relying solely on the internal one will find truth. A belief seemingly held by Christians since they hand out bible and send out missionaries.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Oh, I never said faith could not entail believing in something blindly. That's what they call "blind faith" ... I have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow, don't you?
Click to expand...

Is that blind faith or the Iacchus brand faith ?

I don't have FAITH in that. Excluding freak cosmological incidents, the sun WILL shine tomorrow. I guess you could call it a belief, but it's very strongly supported by evidence.

Besides, you were talking about KNOWLEDGE.
 
RandFan said:
Confuciusts tend to stay Confuciusts.
Muslims tend to stay Muslim.
Sikhs tend to stay Sighs.
Hindu tend to stay Hindu.
Mormons tend to stay Mormon.
Catholics tend to stay Catholic.
Baptists tend to stay Baptist.

The list goes on and on. What is the parsimonious reason for this? Also, why do religions mirror culture? What is the parsimonious reason for that?
Click to expand...
And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?
Click to expand...
15 yard penalty for illegal and inappropriate use of metaphor. Repeat the down...
 
Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky?
Click to expand...

Because there's more than one way to build a structure capable of photosynthesis.

Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun?
Click to expand...

No. It's indicative that they're all plants capable of converting energy from the sun into sugars.

It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?
Click to expand...

That and the necessary carbon dioxide, water and various other minerals use to build the rest of the structures not directly involved in photosynthesis.

Plants without an actual sun don't live.

People without actual gods can still have a religion.
 
RandFan said:
One more time, I don't deny that there is an internal process going on. This is a straw man that you have created to knock down. I have repeated the assertion over and over that the process for understanding the external world is internal. That there is an "internal" is not the subject for debate. What is the subject of the debate is that it is demonstrable that relying solely on the internal leads to chaos and disagreement. There is no reason to believe that relying solely on the internal one will find truth. A belief seemingly held by Christians since they hand out bible and send out missionaries.
Click to expand...
"The kingdom of God is within." Now, you can choose to look at that from the standpoint of a bunch of gobbledygook on your computer screen or, you can choose to understand what the words mean and "look within." I am not denying that these words appear on your computer screen, however.
 
"The kingdom of Zod is within." Now, you can choose to look at that from the standpoint of a bunch of gobbledygook on your computer screen or, you can choose to understand what the words mean and "look within." I am not denying that these words appear your computer screen, however.
 
cyborg said:
Because there's more than one way to build a structure capable of photosynthesis.

No. It's indicative that they're all plants capable of converting energy from the sun into sugars.

That and the necessary carbon dioxide, water and various other minerals use to build the rest of the structures not directly involved in photosynthesis.

Plants without an actual sun don't live.

People without actual gods can still have a religion.
Click to expand...
And you folks are no better than the Christian Fundamentalists who take things too "literally." Which, is the problem with science nowadays, in its attempts to spell everything out. It excludes the very thing which gave rise to it, an inquisitive mind.
 
And you folks are no better than the Christian Fundamentalists who take things too "literally."
Click to expand...

Ugh. You are a dumbass. I was illustrating why your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Which, is the problem with science nowadays, in its attempts to spell everything out. It excludes the very thing which gave rise to it, an inquisitive mind.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to put a full-stop there?

Nonetheless what you are saying is pure rubbish. What science has done has made people like you who pontificate endlessly irrelevant - you will not determine the truth of anything merely by arguing about it.
 
cyborg said:
Ugh. You are a dumbass. I was illustrating why your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Did you mean to put a full-stop there?

Nonetheless what you are saying is pure rubbish. What science has done has made people like you who pontificate endlessly irrelevant - you will not determine the truth of anything merely by arguing about it.
Click to expand...
Now, is this the scientist speaking in you ... or, the atheist?
 
One doesn't have to be an atheist to realise the futility of two people arguing over what the universe is when it would be a lot easier to actually go and find out what it is.
 
cyborg said:
One doesn't have to be an atheist to realise the futility of two people arguing over what the universe is when it would be a lot easier to actually go and find out what it is.
Click to expand...
I think, therefore I am. And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell. ;)
 
I think, therefore I am.
Click to expand...

This only means you as a consciousness exists - not that your thinking literally means your material existance is assured.

And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

You're using an inductive argument improperly. You think, therefore you are (misapplying it to mean you literally have physical composition), the universe is, therefore it thinks.

At least as far as I can tell you haven't demonstrated that all things that are think.

Try this again when you do.
 
Mercutio said:
Exactly.

Your method of knowing has not progressed since Descartes.
Click to expand...
Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion.
 
Iacchus said:
And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous question. The plants do not believe in a different sun.
 
Iacchus said:
Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion.
Click to expand...
And you will never see until you quit looking only within yourself. This is yet another limitation of your world view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom