Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[alwight]

In an imaginary ideal universe that may be true. But in ours, it's not really possible. Our bias is built into our hypothesis, our tests, and our interpretation of the results. Like it or not.
It's kind of like language: where the tools of expression end up dictating the ideas that are being expressed. The tale waging the dog.

Whereas one's own bias is almost certainly built into a personal metaphysical conclusion, at least for the demonstrable and testable there is a fighting chance of removing at least some of it, if not all. The testable experience is shared and correctable by many, not just one.

Or, which is why we should not only rely on those, but should explore other means of expanding our experience and perception: like intuition, chance, or even deliberate perversion of the norm.

But if such conclusions never enter or influence the material realm what is the point?

Science is itself a kind of 'confirmation bias'. Biased in favor of material physics.

But its only concern is material physics by definition, not what is supposed to be metaphysical by individuals without testable evidence.

"To be seen"? Human experience involves more than just seeing, don't you think? Just as existence involves more than just physical matter.

I think you knew as well as I did that I was using a figure of speech but instead you created a straw man, come on PX. Next time I'll use "detected" instead so you can't quibble.
Perhaps you simply didn't want to answer the question: is a supposed metaphysical alone really good enough?

Empiricism is a bias in itself; like science. Which is why we need to use and respect all the tools at our disposal, not just empirical science.

Why? Since apparently it is only the empirical that actually does stuff?

 

[rexlunae]

No, the concept of Causality will rather confirm the existence of the Primal Cause because It is found at the beginning of the process of Causality.

Causality is the principle that everything has a cause. Therefore, any hypothetical first cause is a violation of causality. Now, it may well be that causality isn't an absolute principle, but that doesn't help your case. The various cosmological arguments try to carve out an exception of causality to place God in, but they don't really comport with causality.

If you posit one thing that doesn't have to obey causality, you've imagined a world where it isn't an absolute principle.

 

[bybee]

Causality is the principle that everything has a cause. Therefore, any hypothetical first cause is a violation of causality. Now, it may well be that causality isn't an absolute principle, but that doesn't help your case. The various cosmological arguments try to carve out an exception of causality to place God in, but they don't really comport with causality.

If you posit one thing that doesn't have to obey causality, you've imagined a world where it isn't an absolute principle.

And that won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

 

[PureX]

Whereas one's own bias is almost certainly built into a personal metaphysical conclusion, at least for the demonstrable and testable there is a fighting chance of removing at least some of it, if not all. The testable experience is shared and correctable by many, not just one.

Sure, but the testable experience isn't all there is. Which is what the materialists are basically asserting.

But if such conclusions never enter or influence the material realm what is the point?

For many of us, the more important aspects of our experience of life are not physical. So the explorations and conclusions we develop on a metaphysical/transcendental level matter a great deal. Science can tell us how to live. But it can't tell us why to live. For that, we need art and philosophy (and sometimes religion). And on that level, consensus and repeatability are not required. Subjectivism is the standard medium.

But its (science) only concern is material physics by definition, not what is supposed to be metaphysical by individuals without testable evidence.

Thus, it's 'bias', and it's limitation. It's a good tool, but it's not universally useful.

Perhaps you simply didn't want to answer the question: is a supposed metaphysical alone really good enough?

In many instances, and for many people, it's essential.

Why? Since apparently it is only the empirical that actually does stuff?

And yet it's our subjective experiences of the metaphysical/transcendental that determines and values much of what we do.

Science can tell us how to live more effectively in the material world. But we need art and philosophy to tell us why to live in it, and what "living more effectively" means to us.

 

[alwight]

Science can tell us how to live more effectively in the material world. But we need art and philosophy to tell us why to live in it, and what "living more effectively" means to us.

To my mind it's the sharing of a common experience that gives art and philosophy value, while art itself is derived from the physical, even if words or shapes on a page or canvas. I think even to postulate a purely metaphysical itself is to bring it into our physical reality.
Btw I'm sure that even great artists will tell you that their art is typically created and refined of and in the physical world.

Your problem imo is that unless your metaphysical transcendence is a shared and common experience with others then there is nothing to distinguish it from a personal fantasy and a creation of one mind alone, and thus not an actual valid experience of another reality beyond this one.

 

[PureX]

To my mind it's the sharing of a common experience that gives art and philosophy value, while art itself is derived from the physical, even if words or shapes on a page or canvas. I think even to postulate a purely metaphysical itself is to bring it into our physical reality.
Btw I'm sure that even great artists will tell you that their art is typically created and refined of and in the physical world.

Transcendence IS a physical phenomena as well as being transcendent. Life springs from matter and energy even as it transcends it. Consciousness springs from life even as it transcends it. So when we humans explore these new realms of our own being, we don't have to leave the physical realm behind.

Your problem imo is that unless your metaphysical transcendence is a shared and common experience with others then there is nothing to distinguish it from a personal fantasy and a creation of one mind alone, and thus not an actual valid experience of another reality beyond this one.

How is that not "an actual valid experience"? And why do you assume that transcendence of the physical realm must mean a separation from the physical realm?

Think of the experience of revelation, or of epiphany; even as we become aware of a whole new way of understanding ourselves and the world around us, we don't forget our own past: who we were and how we saw things, before. And in fact, our old way of understanding things will be an essential part of the our new way of understanding because transcendence is build on that which it transcends. It doesn't discard it.

We don't stop being physical phenomena as we become living phenomena. Nor do we stop being living phenomena as we become conscious phenomena. We simply transcend each realm of phenomena, into something new.

 

[PureX]

Causality is the principle that everything has a cause. Therefore, any hypothetical first cause is a violation of causality. Now, it may well be that causality isn't an absolute principle, but that doesn't help your case. The various cosmological arguments try to carve out an exception of causality to place God in, but they don't really comport with causality.

If you posit one thing that doesn't have to obey causality, you've imagined a world where it isn't an absolute principle.

I agree. And yet we cannot escape the concept, because in THIS world, causality rules.

Causality only falls apart as a concept when we speculate beyond the realm of existence that we experience. But then that would be expected, wouldn't it? I mean, mathematics ceases to function if we try to apply it to a qualities of a fragrance, for example.

Causality is a human concept, born of human experience. Of course it will cease to function when our imaginations take it to places that we cannot possibly experience.

 

[Ben Masada]

Causality is the principle that everything has a cause. Therefore, any hypothetical first cause is a violation of causality. Now, it may well be that causality isn't an absolute principle, but that doesn't help your case. The various cosmological arguments try to carve out an exception of causality to place God in, but they don't really comport with causality.

If you posit one thing that doesn't have to obey causality, you've imagined a world where it isn't an absolute principle.

This type of "absolute" Causality you are talking about, breaks with the concept of Logic. The universe cannot be composed of only caused elements ad infinitum. The Primal Cause must be met by necessity or we would not have the Primal Cause. Besides, the Primal Cause is not of the nature of matter. Therefore, It excludes Iself as if it were an exception to the rule.

 

[PureX]

Right.

The kids still need to be fed, the grass mowed....etc. I'm just offering up distinctions between the qualia of living a human existence over the mundane, rote examination of such.

Had to look up "qualia", … excellent word! Thanks!

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Here's something I keep hearing about that I never get a satisfactory explanation for. Maybe you can help? What do you actually mean when you use the term "create-created-creation"? Its a broad brush isn't it?

eg, I produce ambient electronic music so you could say I create the tunes. But to do so I use instruments, synthesizers, samples, a little skill perhaps along with modern production techniques, all of which is possible because of a well established music theory, and of course, for the most part, powered by electricity. The whole thing probably started with someone beating a log with a couple of sticks thousands of years ago and evolved from there.

But when theists talk about creation they don't mean anything like that, do they? For them it seems to mean: there was nothing, then a creator performed, and then, supernaturally there was something that didn't exist before.

Now, I know you guys don't like this being called "magic" but for the life of me I cannot see any alternative description. So there appears to be no difference between a supernatural event and magic. A miracle is also magic. God creating a universe from nothing = magic. A fully grown human being from dust of the ground = magic. I could go on but you get the point?

Is that right? If not then what?

If by magic you mean the ability to manipulate the natural material world by powers that are beyond our comprehension, then yes.

 

[alwight]

Transcendence IS a physical phenomena as well as being transcendent. Life springs from matter and energy even as it transcends it. Consciousness springs from life even as it transcends it. So when we humans explore these new realms of our own being, we don't have to leave the physical realm behind.

Yes but you can't know that transcendence actually flows on within and without you, to quote George Harrison, only within you alone unless others report the same or something very similar, beyond a mere coincidence of course.

How is that not "an actual valid experience"? And why do you assume that transcendence of the physical realm must mean a separation from the physical realm?

You can't have it both ways, either it does impinge on physical reality or it doesn't, if it does then it can be put to the test, otherwise it can be filed under "personal fantasy".

Think of the experience of revelation, or of epiphany; even as we become aware of a whole new way of understanding ourselves and the world around us, we don't forget our own past: who we were and how we saw things, before. And in fact, our old way of understanding things will be an essential part of the our new way of understanding because transcendence is build on that which it transcends. It doesn't discard it.

Then you are perhaps guided by the metaphysical and that alone imo will affect the physical realm in a testable way, since you are physical, presumably. If your new found reality is true then others too will likewise independently acquire the same knowledge, and not something quite different. Is that what actually happens?
I don't think so btw.

We don't stop being physical phenomena as we become living phenomena. Nor do we stop being living phenomena as we become conscious phenomena. We simply transcend each realm of phenomena, into something new.

All very mystical and transcendental I'm sure Maharishi.

 

[PureX]

Yes but you can't know that transcendence actually flows on within and without you, to quote George Harrison, only within you alone unless others report the same or something very similar, beyond a mere coincidence of course.

Why would that matter? And, of course, such personal experiences of transcendence are fairly common. Though not universal.

You can't have it both ways, either it does impinge on physical reality or it doesn't, if it does then it can be put to the test, otherwise it can be filed under "personal fantasy".

Why these arbitrary restrictions?

The conceptual realm does "impinge" on the physical, through us. And through any life forms that physically act on their conceptualizations of physical reality (as many of them do). Even as these conceptualizations arise from the physical realm. So I don't see any rules here that would imply or insist on a dogmatic separation.

Then you are perhaps guided by the metaphysical and that alone imo will affect the physical realm in a testable way, since you are physical, presumably. If your new found reality is true then others too will likewise independently acquire the same knowledge, and not something quite different. Is that what actually happens?

Yes and no: meaning that's what happens, to a degree, but that's also not what happens, to a degree. Because all of our conceptions of physical reality are somewhat the similar, and somewhat different. So that to the degree that they are the similar, our influence on physical reality will be quantifiable (testable). But to the degree that our concepts of physical reality are different, our influence will not be quantifiable in any predictable (testable) way.

Yet one thing is certain, and that is that our concepts of physical really do effect physical reality in a very 'real' and physical way. Evidencing the fact that a conceptual realm does 'exist', and that it does transcend the physical realm from which it springs.

 

[Tyrathca]

The conceptual realm does "impinge" on the physical, through us. And through any life forms that physically act on their conceptualizations of physical reality (as many of them do). Even as these conceptualizations arise from the physical realm. So I don't see any rules here that would imply or insist on a dogmatic separation.

That was a lot of equivocation when in the end you did choose one of the options - it impinges on the physical. Why you seem to dance around that simple answer I can only presume is because you don't like the started logical conclusion that you can then test for it.

Yet one thing is certain, and that is that our concepts of physical really do effect physical reality in a very 'real' and physical way. Evidencing the fact that a conceptual realm does 'exist', and that it does transcend the physical realm from which it springs.

Ahhhh noooooooooooo... Our entropy also really does affect physical reality in a very 'real' and physical way, did that evidence that it to had an 'entropy realm' that transcends the physical realm from which it springs?

What you are doing is circular. If we assume conceptualisation is a separate realm to reality then the fact that conceptualisation affects reality is evidence that a septate conceptual realm exists and is separate from reality.

 

[PureX]

That was a lot of equivocation when in the end you did choose one of the options - it impinges on the physical. Why you seem to dance around that simple answer I can only presume is because you don't like the started logical conclusion that you can then test for it.

I don't see how you think this even matters. We can quantify and establish some probability for any phenomena we can observe. That doesn't make the probability absolute. That doesn't eliminate bias from the exercise. That doesn't change the transcendent nature of the phenomena observed (if such is evident). And that doesn't make empiricism anything but relatively useful. So what exactly is the point of belaboring this point? No one has ever suggested that the scientific process is not useful. Only that it is biased and limited and therefor only relatively useful in exploring and understanding the full nature of existence.

...entropy also really does affect physical reality in a very 'real' and physical way, did that evidence that it to had an 'entropy realm' that transcends the physical realm from which it springs?

Entropy is a characteristic of the physical realm. It is not transcendent of it. It does not manifest in a new realm of existence.

What you are doing is circular. If we assume conceptualisation is a separate realm to reality then the fact that conceptualisation affects reality is evidence that a septate conceptual realm exists and is separate from reality.

Apparently you don't understand what transcendency is. Perhaps because as many atheists tend to do, you have defined it out of existence, and therefor can't see how it could possibly exist.

The realm of life transcends the realm of matter and energy because it embodies a whole new expression of being, replete with it's own set of possibilities and limitations, not exhibited by the material realm. This does not require that it exist apart from the material realm, or that it not interact with it. Life exists within matter, and yet manifests as something more. As something beyond the mere physicality of the material.

 

[Hedshaker]

If by magic you mean the ability to manipulate the natural material world by powers that are beyond our comprehension, then yes.

Well that's honest. First time I've seen that admission, it's usually a merry dance around the apologetics tree. So your God is actually a Wizard. I don't believe in Wizards any more than Gods so makes no difference to me.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Well that's honest. First time I've seen that admission, it's usually a merry dance around the apologetics tree. So your God is actually a Wizard. I don't believe in Wizards any more than Gods so makes no difference to me.

The attempted word trap hasn't done anything. Your position that the material has no creator beyond it is based on an unprovable premise with no empirical evidence, it's on faith.

 

[Granite]

The attempted word trap hasn't done anything. Your position that the material has no creator beyond it is based on an unprovable premise with no empirical evidence, it's on faith.

More of your typical gibberish.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

More of your typical gibberish.

Which you know is true.

 

[Granite]

Which you know is true.

Gibberish never is and your word salad machine-like posts are no different. Basically your entire little swami shtick boils down to "I'm right, and I say so." :yawn:

 

[Hedshaker]

The attempted word trap hasn't done anything. Your position that the material has no creator beyond it is based on an unprovable premise with no empirical evidence, it's on faith.

No word trap. You said it yourself, magic. It's perfectly clear to non believers but theists usually have hard time accepting it. Creating something with pre existing resources is how we would use the term creation or to create but creating something from nothing is pure magic, like the proverbial bunny out of the hat. No getting around it.

And you are the one positing a creator/wizard so you are the one with the burden of proof. The absence (or hiddenness) of your creator in the material world stands on its own. I don't have to provide empirical evidence for its non existence when I merely state I disbelieve in it.

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though, but you'll find seasoned sceptics are well used to that.