Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

Why should I? You have no evidence.

It's very easy to imagine yourself like that ant, but there is no evidence for such a comparison. That's the problem with rejecting empiricism, nothing you say constitutes anything other than a personal fantasy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A better way to describe my point of view (projection) is with the example of the sculpturer, who sees his artwork within a raw piece of granite. He is not hallucinating, nor is there a movie projector. He sees the finished sculpture in his mind's eye, which is another way to say imagination. This is not pathology, is but part of higher human potential since the result has high value.

The current estimate is we use 1-10% of the brain's capacity. The other 90-99% is not inert or brain dead. The 99% is the main frame part of the brain. The 1-10% of ego consciousness is like a terminal. The projection of the creative vision, comes from the main frame. This is why the creative process was usually personified as from the gods; higher than human. The ancient were objective to the fact this effect was not due to them, but from another ethereal source. Modern people seem unaware of this distinction and are easy to induce into projection.

When they built the pyramids, ego consciousness was not sufficient to do this, especially since they could not go to school and learn how to do what had never been done. Instead you needed the vision of the artist, so to speak, who could visualize how the blank canvas of desert could become the final effect; main frame projection. Many modern people will project this dynamics into aleins and UFO;s since they assume has to be higher than humans (ego). The brain has more potential than we use.

When I studied religions from around the world, I did so in the context of the main frame of the brain and assumed these were projection from the main frame that could map the psyche. Since we are all human, and we all have the same personality firmware, the projections and characters should be similar, which was the case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You not only have no evidence but you can't even advocate a system that is even theoretically capable of delivering evidence .... nevertheless it doesn't stop you

On the contrary, its a personal fantasy to expect empiricism to justify any statement about the essential/fundamental nature of the macro/micro-cosm.

IOW people who do make such statements are simply artificially borrow from the established authority of science in an attempt to prop up their value system .... all as a ploy to evade discussion on how their views are simply consequences of values.


IOW your views on this subject don't have a shred of evidence (nor can they ever hope to, due to the metonymic investigative properties of empiricism)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given that you didn't engineer these capacities, nor can you maintain them for any prolonged period, it appears you have simply got them on loan

 

Yeah, that's called having parents.

 

Now you are just being reactionary. Empiricism has brought us all the reliable information we have about the universe. It's not only theoretically capable of delivering evidence, it has practically done so.

Well that's too bad because we have no choice. There is no alternative. Praying and esoteric mental gymnastics aren't reliable.

Name one thing that has been discovered to be reliably true without empiricism.

 

incorrect

they also aren't involved in the "hiring and firing" of these capacities

 

as already mentioned, you can't say that on the authority of empiricism since the very nature of a prime mover/omnimax god (or indeed any explicit term coined to be fundamental to the macro/micro-cosm) is simply not something it can even hope to evidence.

IOW its irrational to expect empiricism to evidence such things since, in the eyes of the empiricist, all fundamental issues of the macro/micro-cosm are unevidenced to the degree that one could never hope to evidence them (In as much there is no hope for arriving at zero from dividing a number with value by two)

 

actually I am rust reiterating the the epistemological boundaries of the discipline.

Incorrect.

Empiricism is effective in tacit explanations ..... which by no means grants it a license to divulge anything about explicit explanations ...

Only in tacit fields - not explicit fields.

Which is why I said previously you are borrowing from empircism's expertise in tacit fields in an attempt to authorize your values/opinions/beliefs about explicit fields (most likely as a ploy to evade discussion on how your ideas are values/opinions/beliefs as opposed to anything inherently empirical)

Incorrect.

You always have the choice to not make so-called empirical statements that defy the very boundaries of empiricism.

Incorrect.

There is no alternative for a person sold out to reductionist values.

Given that you appear to be messing up at the point of theory, its no wonder that your claims of application fail.

But whatever the case, in this regard empiricism goes beyond being merely unreliable and is infact totally incapable (no matter how much you chant the glories of empiricist advances in the field of tacit expansion.)

Your acceptance of particular people as your parents despite not having witnessed their copulation

 

You're missing the point. There is a trove of evidence that suggests the gods of antiquity are man-made. Empiricism doesn't need to reach into this hypothetical untouchable realm. It can tell you that the gods we know of most likely aren't real on the same grounds it can tell you Bigfoot and unicorns aren't real.

 

Reliably, huh? So does that mean I'm the only person who ever found out later in life that the people who raised them weren't their biological parents?

 

(Why would anyone care if you have stopped beating your wife)

You will have to ask that question again in a different manner since atm its a loaded question

I have talked about the limitations of evidence one can rationally expect empiricism to offer.

If you want to extrapolate that to the claim that no systems of evidence exist as reliable outside of empiricism (or that empiricism can be duly relied upon to support explicit claims) , you haven't really come to terms with the manner that empiricism does and doesn't function.

 

sure

henological debate thrives on such premises also ... in case you hadn't noticed

if that's the case, it certainly doesn't explain why its authority is debased so frequently to support what are essentially metaphysical claims

seems you can't even be obedient to the statement you just made one sentence ago ..
:shrug:

 

and on account of this apparent experience of yours, you have undermined people's acceptance on who their parents are?
Or does the reliable system of discerning who these people are still prevail?

:shrug:

 

Did I miss something? Did henology ever demonstrate the existence of God? Because empiricism can demonstrate things.

It isn't debased in any way whatsoever, since you can't even show that such a realm exists.

It isn't a metaphysical claim to say the gods of the bible and other ancient texts aren't real. It's a claim based on physical evidence. Or are you saying that no one can make a claim regarding the existence of unicorns?

:shrug:

 

My own acceptance was undermined, so why not someone else's?

How is a system is reliable when it's based on criteria that is not necessarily related to the fact you're trying to establish? Children do not need to be raised by their biological parents, and many people all over the world are raised by someone or someones other than their biological parents.

Maybe you want to try a different example?

:shrug:

 

Did I miss something? Did empiricism ever demonstrate the non-existence of god (or, if we want to be kinder, did empiricism ever demonstrate something explicit?)

so you believe that because empiricism can demonstrate some things, it can demonstrate all things?

Its only debased when you expect or demand that it be capable of in/validating explicit terms

it most certainly is I'm afraid

feel free to show it, although most intelligent atheists tend from refrain from asserting absolute negatives

not sure how you could tie down unicorns to explicit terminology (without offering a facsimile of the FSM et al of course)

indeed
:shrug:

 

Indeed ... why is your apparent experience totally ineffective in undermining the (reliable) way in which people determine who their (biological) parents are?

Did I mention anything about the status quo between foster and biological parents?

Maybe you should try sticking to the topic, trollface ...
:shrug: