Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Joe K., Aug 11, 2010.

1. ### nirakar( i ^ i )Registered Senior Member

Messages:
3,383
How would a person separate any interpretation of their own state of being from self delusion? Why should others believe somebody else's assertions about their interpretations of their own states of being?

3. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
If a state of being is characterized by certain qualities its quite obvious.
For instance lower states of being are characterized by an inability to control one's senses.

5. ### Jan ArdenaValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,112
Let's say science is a car and you want to go abroad to another country.
Once at the coastline do you proceed to drive the car into the ocean, or do you look for alternative forms of transport?

jan.

7. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Or how about we pay the toll, and use the bridge, that scientists and engineers built?

8. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
We could add a new variable to each and every formula;

$G_{0}$.

It would have to equal zero, so it didn't change any of the results.

9. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
If you want to pay money to drive your car into the shores of the pacific ocean that's fine with me

Messages:
29,390

11. ### NMSquirrelOCD ADHD THC IMO UR12Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,478
hmm..sounds like this may be a mental,emotional,physical,spiritual thing..

our senses are not just tied to physical (see,hear,smell,taste,touch)
definatley not just to our emotional (love,hate,fear,etc)
spiritual..(faith,trust,compassion)
mental..(the mind,thoughts,..)

what happens when we focus our state of being on just one of those things..
that means the others can have a lower state of being while our attention is on the other..does this come with an inability to control?..if we don't have our attention on it,it is very suceptable to loss of control.

or

How can i control my senses if i can't find them?

12. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Er, there's a bridge. Missed that, did you?

13. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
empiricism = incomplete by definition ... unless you have some wonderful philosophy how a metonymic discipline grants access to something holistic ... hence you are driving your car into the ocean

14. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
even if that's a fact, it doesn't change anything ... much like if it is required that a professional scientist not be a moron, your being a moron wouldn't change the parameters of scientific professionalism

Messages:
10,342

16. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
let me make it simple for you : science is limited

17. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
So?

Let me make things simple for you: Limits aren't a bad thing.

18. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
It pays to remember that - it becomes easier when one remembers exactly what it is that limits the said issue (for a car, usually a road ... granted that stunt car drivers can do a few tricky things .... and for science, the senses, which brings in the whole problem of moving outside of anything metonymic )

it only looks bad when one tries to encompass a world view within those limits - like for instance relegating all issues of transport to cars

19. ### chaos1956BannedBanned

Messages:
238
but aren't all values expressed in some aspect what we perceive as god making our scientific judgments unlimited...

wouldn't that add value even if it were equal to 0?

Messages:
10,342
No.

No.

21. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Dude, drop the car analogy. You are starting to look hopeless by continuing with it.

22. ### lightgiganticBannedBanned

Messages:
16,330
just don't try crossing the pacific anytime soon, k?