For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So psychological phenomena are not real but zombie ants are?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:59 am Whatever the most successful and most tested theory in history and being empirical-rational, it will not be able to prove and justify God is real because God is illusory and an impossibility
My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Shall we discuss the logical implications of non-locality and quantum tunneling?
Prove? No. Justify? Yes. Your conclusion (God is illusory and an impossibility) is merely the opinion of a closed mind.Whatever the most successful and most tested theory in history and being empirical-rational, it will not be able to prove and justify God is real because God is illusory and an impossibility
I certainly hope it can be tested in the way you suggest as the brain is thought by some to be analogous to a radio receiver. What makes you think it isn't?My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.
The concept of God emerged from experience evolving over time.It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.
I will admit I have not dug deep into QM.Reflex wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:42 am logousShall we discuss the logical implications of non-locality and quantum tunneling?
Your above is merely an opinion.Prove? No. Justify? Yes. Your conclusion (God is illusory and an impossibility) is merely the opinion of a closed mind.Whatever the most successful and most tested theory in history and being empirical-rational, it will not be able to prove and justify God is real because God is illusory and an impossibility
If the idea of God emerges from mad people, those with brain damage, etc. how can you rely on that?I certainly hope it can be tested in the way you suggest as the brain is thought by some to be analogous to a radio receiver. What makes you think it isn't?My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.
Note the evolution of the idea of God from empirical conjectures [man with beard in the sky, energy, radio waves, etc.] to pseudo-rational conclusion of the ontological God.The concept of God emerged from experience evolving over time.It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.
I had never concluded reality is comprised of discrete particles giving rise to consciousness.Your ideas are grounded in the illusion that reality is comprised of discrete particles giving rise to consciousness. There is nothing to suggest that is true and a lot to suggest it is not. If science advanced to where every impulse of every neuron could be measured (and even now there are machines that can read minds), it would tell us absolutely nothing about consciousness.
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htmVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:23 am According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.
I specifically stated that proof is out of the question. In any case, the latter belies the formerVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:23 am
I would be interested in hearing how you would argue QM could make my conjectures untenable.
Nevertheless regardless of how you argue, there is no way you will be able to prove God is real based on the general principles as I had mentioned earlier, i.e.
The above is an invalid syllogism. (P2 is an appeal to authority and illustrates my point even if it were valid.)
- QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.
The definition of rational is "consistent with or based on or using reason." A concept does not need to be empirical in order to be rational. QM in general and quantum tunneling in particular is evidence of a non-empirical reality -- a reality underpinning yet transcending spacetime. Your disagreement does not make it "pseudo rational."From another perspective there is a non-sequitor as follows;
In this case the premises are of a difference senses thus the conclusion cannot be valid.
- 1. P1 Science = Empirical Rational
2. P2 God = Transcendental Pseudo Rational
3. C non-sequitor
Your "argument" (Absolute perfection is impossibile > God must be perfect > God is impossible doesn't make any sense (except in your own mind). What does perfection mean? What does it entail? Why is it impossible? It's simply too vague to mean anything at all. It also completely ignores a basic theistic tenet: "In the end, we know God as unknown."
I certainly hope it can be tested in the way you suggest as the brain is thought by some to be analogous to a radio receiver. What makes you think it isn't?My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.
A receiver is not a transmitterIf the idea of God emerges from mad people, those with brain damage, etc. how can you rely on that?
Those who are mad and have experiences of God are cured when given the appropriate medicine and counselling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
If God is that great, then the person would feel great and want to continue to broadcast for God.
It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.
News flash: no one is interested in your unfounded opinions.Note the evolution of the idea of God from empirical conjectures [man with beard in the sky, energy, radio waves, etc.] to pseudo-rational conclusion of the ontological God.
These are all illusory.
The highest idea of God is the ontological God which is an impossibility.
Your arguments (such as they are) clearly imply that matter is the bottom line.I had never concluded reality is comprised of discrete particles giving rise to consciousness.
My approach to reality is based on empirical-rational experiences emerging and its empirical-rational possibility.
I experience and know I am conscious within a reality and that is based on the empirical-rational but I have not concluded consciousness has an absolute source or origin.
It seems you have difficulty discerning between the relevant and the irelevant.The problem with theists is they are deceived to believe a God [which is illusory] is real and for the majority, to the extent God is so empirically real that God sent his commands in holy text via a messengers and exhorting believers to kill non-believers if theism is threatened [vaguely defined]. This is the reality of theists [SOME] driven by their believing in an illusion.
If proof is out of the question, then you cannot make any conclusion.Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:09 amI specifically stated that proof is out of the question. In any case, the latter belies the formerVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:23 am
I would be interested in hearing how you would argue QM could make my conjectures untenable.
Nevertheless regardless of how you argue, there is no way you will be able to prove God is real based on the general principles as I had mentioned earlier, i.e.
You are very short on intellectual in this case.The above is an invalid syllogism. (P2 is an appeal to authority and illustrates my point even if it were valid.)
- QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.
My use of "empirical" in the initial presentation is rather crude.The definition of rational is "consistent with or based on or using reason." A concept does not need to be empirical in order to be rational. QM in general and quantum tunneling in particular is evidence of a non-empirical reality -- a reality underpinning yet transcending spacetime. Your disagreement does not make it "pseudo rational."From another perspective there is a non-sequitor as follows;
In this case the premises are of a difference senses thus the conclusion cannot be valid.
- 1. P1 Science = Empirical Rational
2. P2 God = Transcendental Pseudo Rational
3. C non-sequitor
I have presented my point in detail regarding what is 'perfection' [empirical vs transcendental] in that thread.Your "argument" (Absolute perfection is impossibile > God must be perfect > God is impossible doesn't make any sense (except in your own mind). What does perfection mean? What does it entail? Why is it impossible? It's simply too vague to mean anything at all. It also completely ignores a basic theistic tenet: "In the end, we know God as unknown."
There is no ultimate God which is absolutely perfect.I certainly hope it can be tested in the way you suggest as the brain is thought by some to be analogous to a radio receiver. What makes you think it isn't?My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.
That is a fact.A receiver is not a transmitterIf the idea of God emerges from mad people, those with brain damage, etc. how can you rely on that?
Those who are mad and have experiences of God are cured when given the appropriate medicine and counselling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
If God is that great, then the person would feel great and want to continue to broadcast for God.
It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.
I have argued for the above very extensively elsewhere.News flash: no one is interested in your unfounded opinions.Note the evolution of the idea of God from empirical conjectures [man with beard in the sky, energy, radio waves, etc.] to pseudo-rational conclusion of the ontological God.
These are all illusory.
The highest idea of God is the ontological God which is an impossibility.
That is a wrong implication as I had explained above.Your arguments (such as they are) clearly imply that matter is the bottom line.I had never concluded reality is comprised of discrete particles giving rise to consciousness.
My approach to reality is based on empirical-rational experiences emerging and its empirical-rational possibility.
I experience and know I am conscious within a reality and that is based on the empirical-rational but I have not concluded consciousness has an absolute source or origin.
Irrelevant?It seems you have difficulty discerning between the relevant and the irrelevant.The problem with theists is they are deceived to believe a God [which is illusory] is real and for the majority, to the extent God is so empirically real that God sent his commands in holy text via a messengers and exhorting believers to kill non-believers if theism is threatened [vaguely defined]. This is the reality of theists [SOME] driven by their believing in an illusion.
