The Theory of Relative Motion and Natural Purpose

[gorillagrower0840]

Yes all measurement, all science, is a matter of subjective perception, but it is grounded in logic, I believe that some aspects of objective reality are beyond the scope of our finite minds but the finite is observable and understandable.

I do get your point, even though we have logic to base our understanding, and as practical as it may be, it is still subjective, to attain a realization of ultimate reality we must snap out of logic all together, we must stop thinking and become directly aware of Space, the Space in the Present Moment, we must be directly aware of the universe as it truly exists, and not as our minds perceive it.

Isn't that the goal of science, the whole point of science, and what science attempts to do?

 

[gorillagrower0840]

Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.

In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important to us. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...

No offense intended.

 

[gorillagrower0840]

 

[gorillagrower0840]

I love this quote from Brian Cox (British Pop-Star turned Physicist)

“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”

Gotta love this guy.

 

[tyler.durden]

yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.

Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?

 

[allinat420]

This....

 

[New Age United]

Isn't that the goal of science, the whole point of science, and what science attempts to do?

I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.

 

[New Age United]

Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?

In my experience it is not to try and attain a secular view of strict objectivity, that is good for a whole understanding of science but not for a whole understanding of life. Great picture quote.

 

[New Age United]

This will be a good exercise: you show us where you think that happens and we'll examine those instances together...

You thinking that me quoting the prophets makes me less credible and I recall you saying that " no one honestly believes that the cosmos did not exist before consciousness evolved". Now I see your point entirely but it is still incredulity. You can not possibly prove that anything exists other than what is right in front of you, but we can use logic and intuition to know what is truth and what is not, but it is a fallacy to simply deny a possibility just because you can't imagine it being true.

 

[tyler.durden]

I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.

The scientific method itself is purely objective. Humans may make errors of bias or subjectivity, which is why all serious science goes through the process of peer review: to provide checks and balances for any subjectivity that tries to seep in. It seems like you will eventually learn how science actually works. Atheism is not an argument from ignorance, it is a rejection of all the specious positive claims that are made concerning deities. Atheism addresses belief, not knowledge. Atheists do not say that there is no creator, they couldn't possibly know that because there is no way to look everywhere in the cosmos at once. Atheists are claiming that they lack belief in a creator. There is a small subset of atheists that claim that there is absolutely no gods, but they are relying on faith as most theists do. Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, not of belief although modern vernacular has hijacked the term from Thomas Huxley from what he originally meant. The possibilities are -

Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god(s), but realizes he cannot know if one exists
Gnostic theist - One who believes in god, and claims absolute knowledge god exists (this is most theists)
Agnostic Athiest - One who lacks belief in gods, but realizes he cannot know if one exists. This is most atheists (and me)
Gnostic Atheist - One who lacks belief in gods, and claims absolute knowledge god does not exist (only Pad IME)

To know whether or not you are an atheist, ask yourself if you believe in a god. If the answer is anything but yes, you are an atheist. If you realize no one can know for sure, you are also agnostic...

 

[tyler.durden]

You thinking that me quoting the prophets makes me less credible and I recall you saying that " no one honestly believes that the cosmos did not exist before consciousness evolved". Now I see your point entirely but it is still incredulity. You can not possibly prove that anything exists other than what is right in front of you, but we can use logic and intuition to know what is truth and what is not, but it is a fallacy to simply deny a possibility just because you can't imagine it being true.

Good. The reason my statements are not an argument from incredulity is because I did not make a positive statement of fact, I qualified them as my thoughts or opinions. One can only be committing a logical fallacy if they are making a positive claim of fact, i.e. 'There are no gods', 'there is a purpose to mankind and the universe', ect.. If one states, 'I think there are no gods', or 'IMO that saying x makes you less credible', these are not positive claims of fact, they are subjective claims outside the realm of facts and reality. So, it is wise to qualify a statement as opinion, belief or fact; the first two genres cannot be fallacies, but the last category can be...

 

[gorillagrower0840]

I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.

I must disagree with you there. I don't think atheism is an argument from ignorance. If that's the case, then religion or theism is an argument from extreme ignorance. If anything, atheism is an argument against ignorance and is the most enlightening system of belief known to exist.

What is religion and theism ignorant to? All the scientific evidence and contradictions against their beliefs. And logic, reasoning, and rationality.

What is atheism ignorant to? Illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or highly improbable or highly unlikely things.

I know it may not technically be possible to make an outright claim that there are absolutely no god(s), but I do see that as how reality truly is.
The simple fact that we have incredibly so much scientific knowledge and evidence and understanding about nature, especially in certain fields like biology and physics for example, is enough for me to realize that no god(s) exist. I don't know about you, but it's enough for me.

Even if we didn't have all the knowledge and evidence that we have today (say, similar to 2015 years ago), I still wouldn't consider god(s) a good explanation or even a remote possibility.

 

[gorillagrower0840]

And I'm also gonna have to disagree that science is subjective. Although I can and do see where you are coming from with that. I understand your point completely.

But then, isn't everything subjective then? If that's the case, then science is surely the least subjective thing.

Science is about as objective as it can get I'm afraid.

I don't believe in science, I understand its logic and evidence based conclusions.

 

[New Age United]

I'm debating in my head whether I'm theist or atheist. I believe in a conscious and effective intelligence that operates the universe, but no a separate, singular supreme being, what does that make me?

Can you be atheist and still believe in providence.

These beliefs are not irrational I have good reason and will try to collect my thoughts some more on the subject.

 

[New Age United]

The scientific method itself is purely objective. Humans may make errors of bias or subjectivity, which is why all serious science goes through the process of peer review: to provide checks and balances for any subjectivity that tries to seep in. It seems like you will eventually learn how science actually works. Atheism is not an argument from ignorance, it is a rejection of all the specious positive claims that are made concerning deities. Atheism addresses belief, not knowledge. Atheists do not say that there is no creator, they couldn't possibly know that because there is no way to look everywhere in the cosmos at once. Atheists are claiming that they lack belief in a creator. There is a small subset of atheists that claim that there is absolutely no gods, but they are relying on faith as most theists do. Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, not of belief although modern vernacular has hijacked the term from Thomas Huxley from what he originally meant. The possibilities are -

Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god(s), but realizes he cannot know if one exists
Gnostic theist - One who believes in god, and claims absolute knowledge god exists (this is most theists)
Agnostic Athiest - One who lacks belief in gods, but realizes he cannot know if one exists. This is most atheists (and me)
Gnostic Atheist - One who lacks belief in gods, and claims absolute knowledge god does not exist (only Pad IME)

To know whether or not you are an atheist, ask yourself if you believe in a god. If the answer is anything but yes, you are an atheist. If you realize no one can know for sure, you are also agnostic...

A part of me strongly attaches itself to atheism, but I can not deny my own logic and reasoning, I guess I would have to classify myself as an agnostic theist. Can you read the previous post and give me your honest opinion.

 

[New Age United]

God damn you guys and your intelligence, I can actually feel your knowledge eroding my beliefs. This is gonna be a book some day, if you see it "the Theory of Reative Motion and Natural Purpose". If you see it pick it up, I promise it will be an actual theory and I will wait till I'm much more educated.

 

[New Age United]

What if, there was a way to intuitively express the truth, but the only way is to use the notion of God and Satan. What if I were to refer to Awareness as God and to the Ego as the devil, Satan, Lucifer. You are either following the will of God or you are following the will of Satan. From my book- Jesus speaking to Satan. "What is it worth to win the world and lose your soul, what is it worth to lose the Vastness of Eternity, to fall into this little trap of words that you have set, what is it worth to lose the Glory of the Kingdom, where righteousness is an easy way of life, to fall into the darkness, where your cleverness is a powerful deception"

Would this make me less credible in your opinion, could you ignore all of the religious dogma and find the truth that I am to express.

 

[New Age United]

Btw my book is free of charge, i'am no woo - woo charlatan con - artist. "You shall not charge a mean price for the word" Muhammad. It is entitled The Vision of Humanity- The Immortal Truth. It was written quite fast because I was honestly in fear that Satan would off me before I got it written lmfao. No worries it's all good now and I did take the time to properly edit the book.

If you are interested you can email me at [email protected]. I will reply with the pdf.

 

[New Age United]

Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.

 

[New Age United]

Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.