1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Baha'i faith is not blind faith.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Seeker of White Light, Jul 3, 2022.

  1. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation

    The argument is worth investigating. It's not proven to be false. My bad, valid isn't what I meant.

    As far as is known energy might be eternally existing, or something else exists as an anchor to everything that exists and is the foundation for all things that are contingent.

    If our universe is a part of reality then the whole picture of reality is not yet known. Can we know that some part of reality is foundational and self existing through logic?, Or must it be demonstrated.

    Is the argument good enough to begin to answer the next question, is there a necessary being?

    How do we even know that physics won't change over the long haul? What makes known laws fundamental throughout the whole of the Universe's history?

    I see that Josh Rasmussen has a Phd in philosophy. Do you think he is totally ignoring science to arrive at his conclusions?

     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    I already granted that there are reasons. Just saying there are reasons does not indicate that the reasons are good ones.
    12.
    I agree. The position "All that exists is physical" is fallacious. Usually based on an argument from ignorance or a hasty generalization fallacy.

    If you mean that there are some phenomenon that can never be explained solely in physical terms, I would ask how did you go about determining that to be the case?

    I have heard a lot of people assert that, but I have never heard any type of rational grounding. Like with physicalism, I am usually presented with an argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy.

    Religion usually involves assertions that there is literally a spirit or spiritual realm with esoteric rules that we ought to center our decisions around. And if we do not then we are at some sort of deficit in morality and/or wisdom.

    People who tout such things begin with is statements about the nature of ourselves and reality. There is a soul or there is a spirit. There is a spiritual realm. There are beings in that realm that are wise and have rules for us. Or that realm has inherent rules that we must navigate to live the best life. Or to be saved. Or to be reborn at a "higher" level.

    And on top of those is statement y'all build ought statements. Because of what is, you ought to do x, y and z.

    I see no evidence that there is any reason to believe that y'all know or are capable of knowing the things that y'all claim.
    If you are talking with an atheist, that is the first thing that you need to establish.
     
  3. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    Ah. You are thinking in ex nihilio terms.
    We have agreed that it is irrational to think that non-being could ever be. That there must always have been something.
    At least I think we agree there?

    All that we currently have evidence of is of thing coming into existence via the rearrangement of existing things..
    No evidence that anything has ever come into existence ex nihilo.

    I am fine with the tentative working hypothesis that humans (and the universe for that matter) are just rearrangements of the reality (in whole or in part) that has always existed. I don't insist on it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    That's argued in philosophy of mind with the philosophical zombie that has no consciousness. I believe it's David Chalmers who came up with it. No one has established causal connection between mental states and physical states as well.

    When you move your body to the fridge in response to a desire for a snack, or take medication in response to pain, or lock the doors due to a fear of burglars, there is no causal connection between those conscious states and the physical effects of your body moving. This view isn’t fatal to the physicalist theory, but it puts it on critical life support. Our mental states cause actions which move matter constantly, giving us a lot of evidence it’s true. Any arguments those powers are illusory will need to be stronger than our confidence our conscious states cause our bodies to move.

    PRUDENCE LOUISE, “THE IMPOSSIBLY HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS” AT MEDIUM (OCTOBER 30, 2021)

    Imagine you meet your doppelganger. Someone physically identical to you, atom for atom. The only difference is the doppelganger has no inner consciousness. They look happy or sad, they even tell you of their hopes and dreams.

    But there is nothing more than physical processes moving in response to physical causes. Their lips move and sounds which are meaningful to you come out, but they experience nothing at all. From the outside you are identical. But from the inside the zombie is a hollow imitation. That is a philosophical zombie. The physical structure, functions and behavior are identical, but there is no consciousness.

    What exactly is the missing ingredient?

    PRUDENCE LOUISE, “THE IMPOSSIBLY HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS” AT MEDIUM (OCTOBER 30, 2021)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation

    Why do we have an entirely new phenomena of inner experience if all it is is a rearrangement of what is already there?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,265
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Joshua did not present a coherent argument for the necessity of a necessary being, is God. I believe in a 'Source' some call God{s), but fully realize there is no logical nor rational argument for the existence of God(s) beyond belief and subjective claims of evidence concerning the possible existence of this 'Source'

    The problem arises with the lack of objective evidence to support the concept of 'Intelligent Design that could support an argument that the nature of physical existence ford did not have the possibility of natural origins,; There is no objective evidence that at any point our physical existence had begun. Our physical existence is 'possibly' infinite and eternal.

    The existence of a 'Source' would necessarily be universal beyond human comprehension, and nature of our existence would reflect naturally the attributes of the Source.

    Objectively there are so many different fallible conflicting human views of God none ref;ect a universal beyond teair own are culturally

    The possibility of the existence of a 'universal Source; logically demonstrates that in all the ancient religions God(s) likely do not exist.

    I am open to someone that can present a coherent logical argument or scientific hypothesis that demonstrates the existence of a necessary Source, but I am not holding my breath.
     
    #86 shunyadragon, Jul 5, 2022
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2022
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    No problem. And I apologize for getting so didactic. That was more mansplainy than I intended. :facepalm:
    Or the "something" that always existed are fundamental components; simple dumb components that merely combine and react to one another -- building and destroying structures. Much like quarks, fields and forces in this universe. It doesn't take any one complex thing to generate more complexity. It certainly doesn't take one complex and aware thing.

    It must be demonstrated. Always.

    He would have to justify his first premise.
    1) We don't. 2) The same times of interactions of the same types of particles.
    He doesn't present any arguments in that video. He does say that he does not think that the arguments are rationally compelling (timestamp 1:40). If that is the case, then he is ignoring science. But, as I said, I have not heard his arguments
     
  8. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    Im not willing to say that a spiritual realm has rules. I'm not willing to rule out that karma has no effect on relationships. I go at this journey alone; I'm only religious in a general sense. I don't have a God. I do think there are moral universals but humanity has a hard time with those universals. I can only apply my morality to myself, and I have to prove it otherwise to others.

    My main point is inner experience is unique to the individual as to how they interpret their own experience and people should not meddle in other people's religious conditions.

    I'm not an is ought person. I see virtues and I see vices, plus I also see that humanity is often forced into taking a lesser of two or more bad options to bad situations approach to their decisions sometimes.

    I agree that forced claims need the utmost challenge to them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    My intuition is that there are higher orders of function that take some kind of purpose to pull off. Complexity does not imply form and functionality. My intuition is we grow out of a crude intellect that is not conscious but has it's source in consciousness.

    Humanity and all living creatures is like cave art from ancient, primitive times. It's forms and functions tell a story. I'm aware of the contrary intuition that purely physical properties and emergent complexity from mindless processes creates all the form, and structure in the world.

    I don't question evolution. I don't think it addresses my intuition though.
     
  10. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,265
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I do not believe the emergence of complexity is a problem for science. The evidence is overwhelming that the process of evolution of life a natural environmental process driven by changing and adaptation to environments.

    Many laymen are concerned with the apparent randomness in nature, but fortunately true natural randomness does not really exist in our physical existence. The outcome of all-natural events has outcomes in limited ranges constrained by natural laws and at the evolution, level limited by the environment. The apparent variation within possible outcomes in nature are all fractal and well described by 'Chaos Theory.' This is actually true of all-cause and effect events in our natural existence. All stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, and other objects in our universe may be different, but all fall within a range of possible outcomes limited by natural laws.





    Sciences use intuition as a contribution to the development of hypotheses to come up with ideas that contribute to the research and discoveries.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    Intuitions are inferred from evidence. Might they be precise, useful approximations of reality, but merely projections onto reality. Direct evidence is indisputable, but intuitions are always subject to being wrong without direct evidence. I'm thinking of Ptolemy.
     
  12. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    Maybe I am not clever enough to understand some subtly of the thought experiment, but I have never accepted the hypothetical of p-zombies. It assumes its own conclusion -- that it is actually possible to have an exact atom for atom copy of me that lacks an inner life.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    Your question implies that there is some conflict that I need to resolve, but I don't see the problem. You are probably working from some assumption that I do not share.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    That raises the question, do atoms have an inner life apart from their organization and the forms and structures that come about from them?
     
  15. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    I strongly disagree. Other people's religious conditions affect their views, which in turn affects their behaviors which in turn affects the rest of us. Another persons religious views are no different than their political or their cultural views. And should be afforded no more (or less) respect. Other people's religious conditions are not benign features behind a glass case. Those religious conditions rudely, invasively and disastrously meddle in everyone else's conditions every day.

    I assume that you mean that you are not a person to enforce oughts on other people? As opposed to having no opinions on oughts. And that's cool. And you are right, some times all of the available decisions are bad. We could all get along better by exercising "a sympathetic understanding of the human nervous system".
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    It's not a contrary intuition. There is just nothing else on the table to consider. There is no definition for non-material to chew on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    Non material might be a substance that has never been detected before, and can't be classified as baryonic matter.
     
  18. Policy

    Policy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2020
    Messages:
    6,467
    Ratings:
    +3,651
    Religion:
    none
    Yeah, but that's not a definition. I could tell you there is a dinishoolim out there. And when you ask me what that is, I would say that a dinishoolim is not a cat, and not classified as shiny matter.

    Non-cat and non-shiny are useless definitions, and they are far, far more specific than non-material and non-baryonic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,750
    Ratings:
    +9,265
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Good examples of intuition in science is On the basis of the notes of scientists like Einstein, and the discoverers of the Double Helix of DNA intuition from 'what if . . . ", guesses to thought experiments are at the foundation of many great scientific achievements and discoveries. Intuition is often used to explore the possibilities and alternatives of objective evidence.

    Yes, many intuitions fail in the process of falsifying a hypothesis, but it is not objectively verifiable evidence..
     
    #99 shunyadragon, Jul 5, 2022
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2022
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  20. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,161
    Ratings:
    +2,695
    Religion:
    Independently religious with no affiliation
    Well I could for the sake of consciousness define the substance by what it does not do, only that the substance is real, and operates unlike anything known of in the material world.

    From thought to bodily action what substance could fill that gap. Contrast it to what is known of the bodily action. Thought to action seems instantaneous for one thing.

    Stop me if I'm out of line here.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
Loading...