How many GODS do you have?

[Arik]

You typed an awful lot of words just to say Nuh uh and restate the same fallacious/weak argument.

I fully understand Hydra.

It must be quite hard to be unable to reply when the evidence is behind destruction.
Sad, isn't it Hydra?

[Arik]

Dream on. The goal of life is mere hope of. The vastness of this world is misery. Kill and survive, kill or be killed, kill in order to eat, killed to be eaten, die and be eaten. Anyone who thinks this was the "design" is a fucking idiot. This is merely the course as it is now and has been, and may very well always be. But there are instances that things can change, be changed and accept change. The problem of course is that the people who recognize this possibility, cannot convince those intent of maintaining the current system, and those who cannot escape the current systems, do not have the luxury of time and safe haven to be able to hope that the system can be changed, let alone be given the opportunity of trying.

Materialists have the faulty idea that with the physical death is all over.
Where is the evidence for this?

Of course human may kill and be killed so what?
Who said that once you are killed you are gone for ever?

That is your problem Mister.
The reality is totally different.
If people have to suffer there is a reason for.
Without justice the whole universe would disintegrate in less than a second but this is a notion that will become more and more clear as you go along.

Good luck with that.

[Simon Moon]

Materialists have the faulty idea that with the physical death is all over.
Where is the evidence for this?

Again, we don't need to provide evidence for our disbelief in your claim that there is an afterlife. We both agree that we share a reality where there is physical death. But you are the one claiming there is an afterlife. You are the one who needs to provide evidence for your claim.

Unless you provide evidence for your claim of an afterlife, what justification do I have to believe you?

I on, the other hand, am not claiming with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. But until you  and your ilk are able to support you claim with demonstrable evidence, I will remain unconvinced. I am completely open to being convinced there is an afterlife. All I need to be convinced is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

Of course human may kill and be killed so what?
Who said that once you are killed you are gone for ever?

Insufficient evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife is all that is necessary to disbelieve in an afterlife.

Once again, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain that there is no afterlife. My position is that there is no evidential warrant to believe there is an afterlife.

You really have zero understanding of: critical thinking, skepticism, and what constitutes good evidence.

That is your problem Mister.
The reality is totally different.
If people have to suffer there is a reason for.
Without justice the whole universe would disintegrate in less than a second but this is a notion that will become more and more clear as you go along.

Again with the unsupported bald assertions.

Please support, with demonstrable evidence, that:

1. There is a 'reason' for suffering
2. That the universe will disintegrate in less than a second if there is no ultimate justice.

Please tell us how you know any of this is true.

[Unbeliever]

Arik doesn't seem to realize that he came to us here at our forum to tell us what he believes. We didn't come to him to tell him what we believe or don't believe. The burden, then, is not on us to agree with him just because he asserts something, the burden is on him to convince us that what he asserts is worthy of our belief.

But he doesn't seem to have any convincing arguments, only assertions that are unsupported.

[Baruch]

Lack of metaphysics.  Better than nihilism (no physics or metaphysics).  A materialist has no metaphysics.  Physics corresponds to externalities and objectivity.  Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity.  A full person has both.  An fantasist has no physics.  They are mentally handicapped/phobic.  A materialist has no metaphysics.  They are mentally handicapped/phobic.

So ... don't be afraid of anything.  Don't be afraid of physics/metaphysics or objectivity/subjectivity or materialist/fantasist.  Be all those things.

[Simon Moon]

Lack of metaphysics.  Better than nihilism (no physics or metaphysics).  A materialist has no metaphysics.  Physics corresponds to externalities and objectivity.  Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity.  A full person has both.  An fantasist has no physics.  They are mentally handicapped/phobic.  A materialist has no metaphysics.  They are mentally handicapped/phobic.

So ... don't be afraid of anything.  Don't be afraid of physics/metaphysics or objectivity/subjectivity or materialist/fantasist.  Be all those things.

Please let me know how this "Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity" would manifest in one's thoughts, actions and reality. The standard definition for metaphysics seems to be, "examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality". So, by that definition, I have metaphysics.

The other problem I see in your above statements, is that you seem to be conflating "philosophical materialism" with "methodological materialism".

Philosophical materialism holds that the physical is all that exists. I do not hold that position.

My position is, that, I am not convinced that the 'spiritual', supernatural, etc, exists, therefore I disbelieve it does. I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. I am just not convinced otherwise.

I hold that methodological materialism is the single best, most reliable, method devised to explore reality.

[Sal1981]

To me reality is that which can be explained via physical sciences, metaphysics is more or less a loose explanation about those physicalities, like philosophy or ideology. Objectivity and materialism (realism) come under physical sciences, while subjectivity and "fantasist" is just our personal take.

[aitm]

The reality is totally different.

No, it's not. You're just supplanting a god with bullshit. 3 months here you haven't changed a single persons opinion of your bullshit. Not one. You are here because you can't find any other place that will tolerate your bullshit. Even you think it's bullshit, that's why you are here, trying desperately to get one.....just ONE human that won't laugh at you. Good luck with that here. You haven't got a "prayer". If your idea had any merit you would be in those nut job forums being praised as a mental giant...here you're just an babbling idiot.

[Simon Moon]

No, it's not. You're just supplanting a god with bullshit. 3 months here you haven't changed a single persons opinion of your bullshit. Not one. You are here because you can't find any other place that will tolerate your bullshit. Even you think it's bullshit, that's why you are here, trying desperately to get one.....just ONE human that won't laugh at you. Good luck with that here. You haven't got a "prayer". If your idea had any merit you would be in those nut job forums being praised as a mental giant...here you're just an babbling idiot.

HaHa!

Pretty much this 48 page thread in a nutshell.

[Baruch]

Please let me know how this "Metaphysics corresponds to internalizes and subjectivity" would manifest in one's thoughts, actions and reality. The standard definition for metaphysics seems to be, "examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality". So, by that definition, I have metaphysics.

The other problem I see in your above statements, is that you seem to be conflating "philosophical materialism" with "methodological materialism".

Philosophical materialism holds that the physical is all that exists. I do not hold that position.

My position is, that, I am not convinced that the 'spiritual', supernatural, etc, exists, therefore I disbelieve it does. I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. I am just not convinced otherwise.

I hold that methodological materialism is the single best, most reliable, method devised to explore reality.

You can disbelieve in pink elephants if you want.  They may or may not exist.  I suspect not.  Like a coelacanth.  But that isn't what metaphysics means.  That is xeno-zoology.  A speculative part of biology.

There may have been a second shooter at the JFK assassination.  I showed evidence by someone who seems to know what they are doing, that there was another shooter.  But not like any of the conspiracy theories presented before.  Accidental kill shot by excited untrained Secret Service agent.  Followed by a massive coverup.  The evidence is there, but can be interpreted more than one way.  And pretty much after this much time and the coverup, we will never know.

So for physics ... I can lift my hand and move my fingers and type out letters.  Exactly what the thoughts are, behind what any person types, that is metaphysics.  We can demonstrate that these letters were typed, and maybe demonstrate that I was the one who typed them.  But the intentions and emotions behind them .. are subjective.

For someone, perhaps my emotions and intentions don't matter.  Or autism prevents the necessary empathy which allows someone to imagine those.  Just as blindness might prevent one from seeing them.  But most of us, fortunately, are not blind or autistic.

Categories.  For some, there is both natural and supernatural.  Often these are misunderstood.  If I associate physics with the natural and metaphysics with the supernatural (and I do), that isn't what most people use those words for.  Most people consider everything natural, by definition.  So both the objective and subjective (psychological) are natural.  That is word game we often face with very abstract words.

So why can't we agree to terms?  Only people who are very close to each other's position, already ... can agree to terms.  Otherwise definition of terms is part of the rhetorical combat.  So funny to see people here then appeal to authority, of a book.  If that applies to a dictionary, why not a Bible?

[Arik]

Again, we don't need to provide evidence for our disbelief in your claim that there is an afterlife. We both agree that we share a reality where there is physical death. But you are the one claiming there is an afterlife. You are the one who needs to provide evidence for your claim.

Unless you provide evidence for your claim of an afterlife, what justification do I have to believe you?

I on, the other hand, am not claiming with absolute certainty, that there is no afterlife. But until you  and your ilk are able to support you claim with demonstrable evidence, I will remain unconvinced. I am completely open to being convinced there is an afterlife. All I need to be convinced is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

Insufficient evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife is all that is necessary to disbelieve in an afterlife.

Once again, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain that there is no afterlife. My position is that there is no evidential warrant to believe there is an afterlife.

You really have zero understanding of: critical thinking, skepticism, and what constitutes good evidence.

Again with the unsupported bald assertions.

Please support, with demonstrable evidence, that:

1. There is a 'reason' for suffering
2. That the universe will disintegrate in less than a second if there is no ultimate justice.

Please tell us how you know any of this is true.

Try to touch an open wire where electricity run.

You probably die, don't you SM?

That is when energy has been disconnected from consciousness.
That is how the universal laws work.
As far as energy-consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet stay together everything is fine but when that doesn't happen then trouble may start.
The atomic bomb when is discharged will kill millions but when the atom is left alone then nothing happen.

Negative and positive also must always go hand in hand within this material-physical universe and that involve that an action must have an equal and opposite reaction that is why we see a lot of bad things going on all the time.
We do not know why they happen but a cause must be there.

That is how the universal system works.
For every action there must be a reaction in everything and if that wouldn't be the case then all would collapse because this system is based on action and reaction.

As you would die if you touch an open wiring also the whole universal system could not survive if there wouldn't be reactions for our actions that is why justice always prevail.

Only when we do good use of our free will the rot will stop but that is something that most people forget too often.

[josephpalazzo]

Arik is your typical specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Absolute_Agent]

A little of both.
Good.
The only reason why you would not be able to disclose "scientific evidence" is precisely because it isn't published anywhere. While technically that counts as "not widely published," your wording is deceptive. Furthermore, there may be a reason for that. Anyway, once published in a journal, there is literally no advantage to keeping such evidence under wraps.

As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.
Correction: You think that your beliefs logically explain all the ultimate answers. However, from what I have seen of your logical ability, with repeated appeals to known fallacies, I don't think that your logic would hold up under scrutiny. For instance, there is a very real possibility that what you are seeing your personal subjective experience is the result of cherry picking and confirmation bias.
Since you have been very cagey about how the immaterial supposedly generates reality, I'm not surprised. Fighting vapors is always difficult. You don't have anything specific enough to attack. If you're content to let your contention remain forever vague, then good for you. However, nobody will take your word for it or even credit you with the idea should they actually find the immaterial. The "theory" you have presented thus far doesn't really take any actual work. If I decided I believe you, develop and test a hypothesis of the immaterial, and publish my findings, and eventually it takes its place among the great ideas of science, I'm going to be the one having the Nobel prize coming to me. There'll be nothing for you.
So? Humans are quite clever little monkeys. Cheeky, too.
The scriptures are not evidence. The scriptures are the claims. There is nothing in them that could not have been written by the humans who wrote them. They also don't really distinguish themselves as different from every other mythology out there.
I said that time is part of the universe, not part of matter per se. That's a different statement. As to time being an illusion, it's complicated. Time itself is definitely real in that not everything happens all at once. It's a very real dimension on par with the other dimensions of space, and freely mixes with them. Time passing is in part an illusion, because eternalism (past, present, and future exist all at once) is the only way relativity makes sense. However, in most situations it can be treated exactly as it appears to us, where it passes inevitably into the past. We need to be cautious as we deal with the edges of that domain, like at the beginning of the universe.

I'm glad we have found a point of agreement, i.e. the notion of eternalism.  The idea that consciousness generates reality is not mine, but it meshes nicely with eternalism since I would think you agree that the illusion of time is generated by the mind.  Since everything we perceive seems to occur as a sequence of interrelated events, it's not too much of a stretch to say that those events themselves and perhaps matter could also be an illusion of the mind.  If you would take these ideas and scientifically pursue them I would be ever so grateful.  I have no need or interest in such things as Nobel prizes and thus you would be welcome to that. 

If you desire additional evidence I would be happy to do so, however this is of little value unless we first establish a mutual philosophical framework from which to interpret evidence.  The understanding of time is a great step forward in this regard.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Eternity doesn't mean ... something that lasts a long time, like a certain band of batteries.  Temporality and eternity are qualitative, not quantitative.  Similarly consciousness is qualitatively different from the vegetative or mineral.  Nobody knows how to drive mere quantity into a different quality.  Consider beach sand ... all the grains have the same quality.  Twice as much sand, and it is still a beach, not an elephant.

Raw reality is "Qualia".  No amount of sensation or subsequent gestalt or conceptual perception allows us to know the Qualia.  We can only form a sensual or conceptual simulacrum.  A ship in a bottle, not a ship.

[Mike Cl]

The idea that consciousness generates reality is not mine, but it meshes nicely with eternalism since I would think you agree that the illusion of time is generated by the mind. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect.  Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth.  No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't.  Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it.  Time, not so much.  There is a 'real' time that is measurable.  The Earth revolves around the Sun and it's axis in precise time frames.  We measure it.  But I know for a fact, that not all hours are of the same length in that some hours flash by and others crawl.  But that is on me--it is my perception of time which is real to me.  But not to those around me or anywhere else.  So, I would say that my mind creates it's own reality out of the actual reality.  My perception does that, but it does not impact the actual reality of the universe.  That's why my 'reality' is not yours or anybody else.

Eternalism, as I see it, is simply wishful thinking.  I can't prove eternity isn't real but the universe isn't eternal.  It was created by the Big Bang at a precise point in time.  Prior to that time, it did not exist.  And we have no way of knowing if this universe will last forever; but probably not, since it had a beginning.  To think we are eternal or the universe is eternal is simply wishful thinking at this point.