Why should I believe there is a kingdom of god? Assuming that there is a god not all religions believe that the kingdom of god is within. This is just your brand of theology and clearly looking within won't resolve the conflicts of belief. I can look inside until doomsday and I won't get anywhere. People who look inside don't find god or Christ until someone else tells them to look and THEN tells them what to find.
But this tells us nothing about the universe. Why do you conclude that the universe is very much a part of that?I think, therefore I am. And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell.
But we can empirically observe the universe. If our experiments could not be replicated by independent means then you would have a point. The empirical nature of the observable universe demonstrates that the universe isn't simply subjective.
Because to every inside there is an outside ... and a door.
Ah, but what are the ideas "evidence" of? They must be evidence of some "form" of reality, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Neither could we claim to grasp the reality that we've claimed to grasp. How could scientists claim to understand anything if they didn't work with ideas?
What gives rise to your abiltiy to say such a thing? Where did "it" come from? Somewhere outside of yourself perhaps? How can you conceive of any dimension whatsoever if wasn't already within you to conceive? So, your experiece of three dimensions must be "internal."
Or so you assume, and posit. Do you also only assume that thought exists?
Why? Is your existence in 2 dimensions?Belz... said:
The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course
) if we were incapable of experiencing it? So, the key to understanding the Universe, is to understand how we are capable of experiencing it. However, in order to understand anything, we must first yield to the truth of that understanding, which is to say, the understanding must be paramount even before it's discussed. Which is, after all, really all we've discovered, something that already "is."Wow. I actually agree with you up to this point. Of course, the next thing to say is that understanding how we are capable of experiencing it is the territory of experimental psychology--the study of sensation, perception, memory, cognition, behavior...it is imperative that we critically examine these processes, because if we do not, we are subject to biases inherent in them, without the slightest idea that we are thus biased. We are likely to take our subjective experience at face value, not understanding that it is a terrible way of gaining understanding.The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course
No. Not at all. That way madness lies. Your circularity does not allow for critical analysis; it accepts something before examining it. This is precisely what we must *not* do if we are to be certain of our findings. If we follow your reasoning, we are doomed to make no distinction between fantasy and reality...and while ignorance may be bliss, it is still ignorance.
So, do you associate your "self" with your brain? Most people don't. When I speak, I certainly don't believe that I'm speaking from my brain. I believe that I'm speaking from "myself."
Oh really, and at what point does it not involve you "rationalizing" about it in the space between your ears? In fact, if there was no "rational" mind in the first place, to "rationalize" about the existence of anything, then who cares? The ability to rationalize must be preeminent, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. By the way, I think we all can agree (through our ability to rationalize that is) that a physical reality does exist. However, beyond our ability to rationalize, we may not be able to prove it.
If, however, we were able to prove that it were a subset of an even greater reality, then yes, because we would have the vantage of looking at it by means of that reality.
I take that as a "no".
Circular only if you are unwilling to accept that we are all a part of this greater process of rationalization. Is there a greater reality of rationalized thought than ours, thus including thought and matter? That is the question.