Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Which is what video 3 gets into. The end of video 3 sets out that no theories are true, but some are useful. This extends to the standard model. And Hoffman posits that there can never be a TOE. 

 

 

 

That's fine Josh, but then you'll have to modify what you can expect from Hoffman.  You therefore shouldn't accept that anything your senses can tell you is true, but only what is useful for your continued survival.

 

And if, according to Hoffman's theories, all you can expect your senses to tell you is what is useful and not what is true, then where does that leave the possibility of evidence-based confirmation of predictions - the absolute bottom line in all of science?  

 

So was the evidence-based confirmation of the predicted Higgs boson something that is true or is it something that our senses are telling us because that information is useful to our survival?  If ALL scientific evidence is filtered by evolution to tell us only what is useful for our survival, then how does evolution know what is useful to us about particle physics and what is not?   How can evolution decide that our knowing the mass of the Higgs boson will confer an evolutionary advantage to us?  

 

Perhaps you could apply yourself to these questions and see if your answers are tenable?

 

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't truth directly tied to survival in myriad ways?  Or is this just one of those deeper things a shallow mind like mine cannot fathom?

 

I think that what we see going on here is people talking past each other using truth in different senses. Which seems to be what the critical review is doing. 

 

Because clearly, you're right that a type of truth is tied to survival. But it's not the truth Hoffman is referring to. He's referring to the truth behind the "representation," the truth behind the shadows on the cave wall of Plato's cave.

 

The truth you're referring to would be true things that have to do with the shadows on the cave wall. I can see how the shadows, even though representations of something deeper, are true in their own way. And represent a type of truth involved with primal fitness in early evolution. 

 

To where you and Hoffman would both be right, in each according to the perspective they are speaking to. 

 

Survival became tailored to the shadow world on the cave wall. Fitness being tuned in to how well a species works with the "representations" of perception. The shadow world is all the cave people see directly. And that is what the appearance of material in the universe is - representations of core energies / vibration. And to that, I think we all agree I would imagine. 

 

Everything moves, everything has motion, everything vibrates with energy. 

 

We don't have a divergence between Naturalist Materialists and Naturalist Idealists until we try and go further in to the mystery of energy itself. Everyone can probably agree that we exist in something like Quantum Field. That's our "cave wall." And within that Quantum Field what we visually are "representations" of core energy vibrations that vary in rate, giving us the perception of different forms. Myriad types of energy-based matter. 

 

The Naturalist Idealists venture further out of the cave. That's where things begin to diverge. The Quantum Field is given the quality of base level Awareness. Raw or Pure Awareness devoid of thought content. The field itself is Aware. This brings more explanatory power to those thinking of what must exist behind the cave wall shadows. 

 

The idea is that we have evolved to see that necessity. Fitness began with survival being suited to species which did the best job of navigating the world of representations / cave wall shadows. But at some point, with higher level cognitive ability and the evolution of technological advancement, a shift in fitness is taking place. 

 

And this shift gives more credence to the truth I suspect you're referring to. 

 

Now, it's more fit for our survival that we stop thinking in terms of isolation, competition, and discrete separateness, and learn to work as individual freethinking minds within a well-organized collective of freethinking minds. To stop self-destructive tendencies, war, bigotry, hatred of fellow humans, racism, murder, rape, slavery, and everything else which operates on the basis of the psychological soil of dualistic thinking. 

 

The fittest for survival in the long run, isn't "might equals right." A message that I suspect the old mystics were trying to get through concerning the Roman Empire. They didn't do a hell of a good job, though. They were products of the bronze age mentality of humanity and weren't able to transcend the biases of time and place. Advanced for their time in certain ways, but not advanced for our time 2,000 years later. 

 

The truth of direct experiential awareness has an associated logic which is preferrable, socially, to the alternatives. 

 

Through this lens we have good reason not to steal, rape, murder, wage war on ourselves, or destroy the planet. We do have reason to work together towards something 'like' achieving a level 1 planetary status. Then level 2. Then level 3. 

 

It's all interwoven: The mystical insight, the philosophy, the science, the natural spirituality, the potential economic and socio-political aspirations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

I really do think that as well as looking to the videos for answers to the questions raised in this thread, you should also try and work through the logic of the criticisms and objections raised by Leslie.  That is, don't just rely on Hoffman or one of his spokesmen to provide the answer.  Work it through for yourself.

 

Here's a worked example of what I mean.

 

If evolutionary fitness does not equal truth, then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us what is true.  If that is so, then why would Hoffman et al rely on the evidence of their senses in the form of scientific results to validate or support their theories?  They must surely concede that any scientific data wouldn't be the truth, but would only be what makes us fitter to survive?  Which means, that by their own argument, no scientific data can ever support Hoffman's theory.  They cannot rely on truth to support their argument because they have already ruled out that possibility.

 

Can you please work through the logic of this argument by yourself and tell me if it stands up?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

That's fine Josh, but then you'll have to modify what you can expect from Hoffman.  You therefore shouldn't accept that anything your senses can tell is true, but only useful for your continued survival.

 

And if, according to Hoffman's theories, all you can expect your senses to tell you is what is useful and not what is true, then where does that leave the possibility of evidence-based confirmation of predictions - the absolute bottom line in all of science?  

 

They are not untrue. 

 

See my Plato's cave analogy to the professor. They are true for what they are.

 

Evidence-based confirmation of predictions that have squarely to do with modeling "representations." The representations are true of our experience. And that may need to be brought up to Hoffman. He can't be too narrow in his word usage where "truth" is concerned, lest he make unnecessary confusion that need not be made. 

 

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So was the evidence-based confirmation of the predicted Higgs boson something that is true or is it something that our senses are telling us because that information is useful to our survival?  If ALL scientific evidence is filtered by evolution to tell us only what is useful for our survival, then how does evolution know what is useful to us about particle physics and what is not?   How can evolution decide that our knowing the mass of the Higgs boson will confer an evolutionary advantage to us?  

 

Perhaps you could apply yourself to these questions and see if your answers are tenable?

 

 

Walter.

 

You've jumped ahead from primitive to contemporary evolution. Useful is relevant to the period in question. As I explained in my post the RP. We don't see the true energy underlying the existence of material when we're looking at matter. We see the true energy "represented" as solid matter. 

 

Conceptual knowledge allows us to know that things are not as they appear at face value. During primitive evolution, we had only face value representations with no way of conceptualizing the inner core through conceptual thinking.  Conflating the two periods is what doesn't make any sense. Which is what they were hinting at with the answer to objection #10 as far as I can tell. 

 

Now, sure, knowledge of deeper reality is becoming useful. It renders technology and advancement, which, is the current stage. Just ask yourself how do we get from primeval status to something like a level 1, 2, or 3 planetary civilization? 

 

Entire sets of CA's combine to form a singular CA. Then those singular CA's combine form even bigger CA's. And it's a process that can grow, and grow, and grow in complexity. 

 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Josh,

 

I really do think that as well as looking to the videos for answers to the questions raised in this thread, you should also try and work through the logic of the criticisms and objections raised by Leslie.  That is, don't just rely on Hoffman or one of his spokesmen to provide the answer.  Work it through for yourself.

 

I have a post at a Hoffman group awaiting approval. Requesting Hoffman responding to the critical review so I can see how he responds to it. I think that information would give us a much better understanding of where he's at in his own mind with these objections. Hopefully I can get that information. I said that if there is no response, then I'd like an admin or someone who feels up to the challenge to respond to the criticisms. 

 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here's a worked example of what I mean.

 

If evolutionary fitness does not equal truth, then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us what is true. 

 

first, you have to specify what Hoffman's argument is. 

 

"If evolutionary fitness does not equal 'visually seeing the truth behind the representations of matter,' then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us 'what is true behind the representations of matter." 

 

You start from a premise that doesn't specify what exact "truth" you're referring to. Then try and draw a line of conclusions that don't follow from Hoffman's actual position. As if Hoffman isn't specific about what "truth." When he is specific that he's referring to the "truth" behind our "representations." 

 

This is what I expect to see when they answer my questions at the Hoffman group.

 

But I'll go ahead and confirm whatever it is that they do say in response. Or what Hoffman himself says in response. 

 

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If that is so, then why would Hoffman et al rely on the evidence of their senses in the form of scientific results to validate or support their theories? 

 

You mean making predictions using mathematically precise CA's to predict scattering amplitudes at the LHC? 

 

(note: making predictions with his theory that will predict what happens at the particle accelerator collisions?) 

 

Those collisions are computer animated, which Leslie noted in the review. But our sensory relations to the computers have nothing to do with anything, which further illustrates the lack of comprehension involved in the critical review. Everything is only "representation." Physical observation, computer observation, any observation - all observation of "representation."

 

 

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

They must surely concede that any scientific data wouldn't be the truth, but would only be what makes us fitter to survive?  Which means, that by their own argument, no scientific data can ever support Hoffman's theory.  They cannot rely on truth to support their argument because they have already ruled out that possibility.

 

Can you please work through the logic of this argument by yourself and tell me if it stands up?

 

Why are we still conflating primitive evolution that molded our species-specific perceptions in the remote past with contemporary particle accelerators?

 

Our perceptions were 'formed' by evolution millions of years ago. And it only means that our perceptions, which were formed millions of years ago, are geared towards only seeing "representations" of what actually does exist. Energy exists. And Hoffman argues that Energy IS Consciousness. 

 

We are never going see Energy-Consciousness in primary form, as it actually is, only it's "representations."

 

Particle accelerators don't change that. Nothing perceptual changes that. Collide particles, see more and more "representations" of what actually does exist, via the computers.

 

Let's visualize what's actually happening. 

 

Hoffman uses CA's (abstract mathematically precise thinking) to predict the outcome of particle collisions. To predict what the "representations" of energy will look like, to human beings, at these collisions. 

 

In Plato's cave analogy, this would be cave people engaging in abstract thinking to predict what the shadows on the wall will appear as. The observational end is always indirect observation. And if they predict correctly, then it could indirectly verify something predicted. 

 

Imagine if the cave people staring at the shadows on the cave wall were able to suspect that the shadows were in fact, shadows? And not the true underlying reality "represented" by the shadows on the cave wall? 

 

And then found something that confirmed, indirectly, that the shadows on the cave wall were in fact as they suspected. And that something deeper was going on behind the shadow representations on the cave wall. Which is causing the human 'perception of the shadows' on the cave wall. 

 

"If the shadow maker is this (CA's), then I should expect to see that (predicted scattering amplitude) as a shadow." 

 

And then it happens, the cave people do see the shadow (scattering amplitude) on the wall (computer screen) appear as predicted (by the CA's).

 

1) Scientific observation in the cave is shadow-based observation. It's true, as a shadow-based observation and fitness involves that shadow-based truth. (RP correct)

 

2) It's not true as the core reality 'behind' the observed shadow-based representations on the cave wall. (DH correct)

 

How does 'cave science' cross over to dealing 'directly' with what is making the shadow-based representations on the cave wall? It can't very well do that. 

 

It can only theorize, predict, and make assumptions. Hence no 'cave model' or 'cave theory' will ever be absolute truth. Only representational truth, which is useful within the cave, and always subject to change over time. 

 

3) No one is even arguing that the representational truth isn't useful, it has to be. It's what we have to work with. It's what we've used so far to get where we are with current technology. This is why no model is absolutely true, only useful where it can be. Including the standard model of cosmology and physics. 

 

Welcome to the limitations of the scientific path with materialism just exactly the way that it currently is. It's only true in a representational-oriented utility sense (fitness).

 

Never in the sense of direct, core truth beneath the surface representations. 

 

"Fitness over Core Truth" 

 

See illustration below. Hopefully this explanation resolves the confusion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Maybe if we don't assume science is "truth" then Hoffman's theory would probably work out. 

 

If we assume Hoffman is a physical human being locked inside a material universe then I see Walter's point. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Maybe if we don't assume science is "truth" then Hoffman's theory would probably work out. 

 

If we assume Hoffman is a physical human being locked inside a material universe then I see Walter's point. 

 

 

 

Hoffman is huge about claiming that his theory isn't true, just useful until something better comes along. Noting that nothing better currently exists. He's looking for something more useful than not having anything at all, basically. That's what he says in the interviews. 

 

All this can do is get science looking in the direction they are now, beyond the cave that we're in (space-time). Which they have done now through indirect abstract math's.

 

And found these mathematical based, static geometric shapes (amplituhedron), and stuff beyond that (Decorated Permutations). Then Hoffman comes along and gets the math to look beyond all of that stuff too (Conscious Agents). And then the math's break down and they don't get to any more stuff. 

 

This is a more detailed shake down of the limitations of science. 

 

It can point to a primary Conscious Source for the entire cave and beyond through abstract thinking and mathematics, and then it breaks down completely. 

 

It takes philosophy to press on to anything further below where the math's break down. 

[walterpthefirst]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

They are not untrue. 

 

See my Plato's cave analogy to the professor. They are true for what they are.

 

Evidence-based confirmation of predictions that have squarely to do with modeling "representations." The representations are true of our experience. And that may need to be brought up to Hoffman. He can't be too narrow in his word usage where "truth" is concerned, lest he make unnecessary confusion that need not be made. 

 

Now here we have to be careful Josh.

 

If you and Hoffman are freely jumping between science, philosophy and metaphysics in your argument then two things are going to happen.  First, you'll leave the likes of me, midniterider and Weezer behind because we won't know when you are talking philosophy, when you are talking metaphysics and when you talking science.  Second, we won't be able to tell if you are doing this mixing and jumping in an unjustified way.  You may genuinely believe that you aren't, but if others can't keep you honest then you could well keep on making unjustified arguments.

 

You need to keep your thinking and arguments as transparent as possible.  Not just for us, but also for yourself.

 

I suspect that we are talking at cross purposes about what evolution can and can't do.  You citing the example of Plato's cave seems to indicate that.  You've widened what I was talking about (biological evolution) so that you can talk about it in philosophical terms and so you've stretched my very strictly defined scientific definition into an argument about how truth is relative and experiential.

 

I do not accept that.  

 

The whole point of science is that any scientist anywhere can perform the same observations, calculations or experiments and get the same results as any other scientist.  This is willingly done even though these scientists would readily agree that they experience reality in their own way.  In science one puts one's own interpretation of reality to one side and you adopt the commonly agreed standard.  That way a scientist in Pakistan can work with a scientist in Peru.  

 

As a scientist this is what Hoffman should do too.  And if you describing Hoffman's scientific work, this is what you should do too, Josh.  To take what is science and then apply your philosophical or metaphysical definitions to widen it enough to agree with your worldview is the equivalent of the logical fallacy of shifting the goalposts.

 

If you are going to talk science then you stay within the parameters and definitions of that discipline, you don't modify them to suit yourself.  So No, I don't agree that you can use the allegory of Plato's cave here to say that Hoffman's claims are not untrue.  In scientific terms and in terms of the logic he uses, they are not untrue.

 

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You've jumped ahead from primitive to contemporary evolution. Useful is relevant to the period in question. As I explained in my post the RP. We don't see the true energy underlying the existence of material when we're looking at matter. We see the true energy "represented" as solid matter. 

 

Conceptual knowledge allows us to know that things are not as they appear at face value. During primitive evolution, we had only face value representations with no way of conceptualizing the inner core through conceptual thinking.  Conflating the two periods is what doesn't make any sense. Which is what they were hinting at with the answer to objection #10 as far as I can tell. 

 

I'm worried and confused by your use of two terms that I'm unfamiliar with Josh.  So I Googled 'contemporary evolution' and 'primitive evolution'.  Here are my results for contemporary evolution.

 

 https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199941728/obo-9780199941728-0126.xml#:~:text=Contemporary%20evolution%20is%20most%20apparent%20when%20organisms%20experience,as%20commercial%20fisheries%2C%20climate%20change%2C%20pollution%2C%20or%20urbanization.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702000447

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3314

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19437-x

https://www.redalyc.org/journal/351/35145329015/html/

 

And here are my results for primitive evolution.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_(phylogenetics)

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

https://sciencing.com/theory-of-evolution-definition-charles-darwin-evidence-examples-13719059.html

 

Nowhere can I find a proper scientific explanation for either contemporary or primitive evolution.  There is only evolution, with no split or dichotomy being made between evolution in earlier times and modern times.

 

So, I have to ask you Josh, where are you getting these terms from and why are you making a division between these two 'types' of evolution when none of the sources I can find do that?

 

I hope this isn't another example of you (and Hoffman?) widening and stretching scientific definitions and terminology beyond what they should strictly be?  If you are going to talk about the science of evolution then you need to stay within the accepted scientific boundaries of it.  Are you doing that in this thread? 

 

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Now, sure, knowledge of deeper reality is becoming useful. It renders technology and advancement, which, is the current stage. Just ask yourself how do we get from primeval status to something like a level 1, 2, or 3 planetary civilization? 

 

Entire sets of CA's combine to form a singular CA. Then those singular CA's combine form even bigger CA's. And it's a process that can grow, and grow, and grow in complexity. 

 

 

I'm sorry Josh but in the second paragraph you've lapsed into gobbledegook by using an acronym that I'm not familiar with.  So I don't understand what you mean by a singular CA.  Could you please explain without resorting to jargon or shorthand that you are familiar with but others are not?  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

If you like, we can ask The Redneck Prof if the terms 'contemporary' and 'primitive' can be properly used in evolutionary science.  He is a scientist and this is his field of expertise. How about it?

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Josh,

 

If you like, we can ask The Redneck Prof if the terms 'contemporary' and 'primitive' can be properly used in evolutionary science.  He is a scientist and this is his field of expertise. How about it?

 

 

Walter.

"Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are two terms that should not exist, and are not used in any of the labs I've ever worked in.  Nor by any of the other scientists I've ever worked with.  These terms exist solely for the benefit of creationists who need to draw a distinction (that does not actually exist) in order to accept that speciation by natural selection (micro-evolution) really does occur; but man evolving from monkeys over millions of years (macro-evolution) is an absolute lie.  This is an unfortunate case of a group of people attempting to broaden the definitions of words in order to fit the belief they hold dear.   In this case,  they have not only broadened the definitions; they have invented entirely new words that literally do not mean anything to anyone except themselves.  There is no such distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.  Micro-evolution is how macro-evolution works.  Micro-evolution is macro-evolution, just in smaller, more measurable segments.

 

I would urge caution with adding terms like "primitive" and "modern" to a fundamental singular.  And for the same reason.  It seems to draw a distinction that does not actually exist.  Primitive evolution is modern evolution.  Primitive evolution is how we got to the point at which we currently are; and it will be the same evolution that remains in play millions of years from now.

 

Evolution is not a conscious entity; and it remains to be seen if it can be guided by consciousness or not.

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you, Prof.

 

I've seen something similar, many years ago, on Christianforums.com.  Two Christians were debating the meaning of a certain NT passage and even though they went to the Koine (NT Greek) they could not agree.  So, one of them searched around through the many, many different bible translations until he found one that agreed with his position on the issue.

 

Then he declared that scripture confirmed what he was saying about the passage in question.  After that he could not swayed or persuaded by anyone that he was wrong.  This was clearly the same kind of situation you've described above Professor.  Albeit in another context.  But the mindset of the unpersuadable Christian was just the same.

 

He had a belief that he held dear and was prepared to do anything to support it.  Ok, he didn't invent new terminology, but he certainly played fast and loose with the subtleties of bible translation so as to get the result he wanted.  And this is a behaviour we Ex-Christians, atheists, sceptics and agnostics must be very wary of.  We mustn't find ourselves doing what the Christians and the religionists do - compromising our integrity by 'massaging' a word or a concept that doesn't fit into our worldview until it does.

 

 

Josh, if you are reading this I hope that the tone of my earlier post didn't sound too combative and confrontational.  I'm persisting with this discussion, not for reasons of ego nor just to be difficult.  No.  My reason for persisting can be seen in what I wrote on Monday.

 

This is where I tend to disagree with what mideniterider said.  Christians aren't the enemy in this forum.  Sloppy thinking, illogic and emotionalism are the enemies of rationality and reason.  In my opinion we Ex-Christians, atheists, agnostics and sceptics should make our stand on rationality and reason.  That way there is no 'Them vs Us'.  If the Christians are hopelessly prone to sloppy thinking, illogic and emotionalism, then its our job to show them the error of their ways by using coherent thinking and logic and by being dispassionate about what we believe.

 

In my opinion we have to be better than the Christians and the religionists when it comes to our arguments.

Where they are illogical, we have to be logical.  Where they are prepared to overlook evidence, we mustn't.  Where they commit logical fallacies, we must guard ourselves about committing them too.  Where they are driven by their feelings to want things that comfort them, we must be driven by our desire for truth, no matter what it costs us.

 

And if they invent new words and terminology or change the meanings of words to get the outcome they want, then we mustn't do this.  We have to demonstrate ourselves as more honest than they are and with a higher level of integrity.  Do you follow?  And, more importantly, do you agree?

 

That is why, when we discuss evolution our definition of that word must be only what science says it is - nothing more.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Now here we have to be careful Josh.

 

If you and Hoffman are freely jumping between science, philosophy and metaphysics in your argument then two things are going to happen.  First, you'll leave the likes of me, midniterider and Weezer behind because we won't know when you are talking philosophy, when you are talking metaphysics and when you talking science.  Second, we won't be able to tell if you are doing this mixing and jumping in an unjustified way.  You may genuinely believe that you aren't, but if others can't keep you honest then you could well keep on making unjustified arguments.

 

You need to keep your thinking and arguments as transparent as possible.  Not just for us, but also for yourself.

 

It's fair to want some sort of mechanism or way of trying to somehow hold to some sort of standard as you suggest, though. Which is where this is headed anyways. I just have to get through the weeds of where science breaks down. Then philosophy will also break down. Both have limits. Which I'm getting to. 

 

All I'm doing is revealing limitations right now, that's it. The cave analogy lays it out pretty clearly. But people don't always readily get the analogy. Does everyone reading feel like they do or do not get the point of the cave analogy right now? 

 

What standard shall we hold to? The scientific standard that I've just explained to its natural dead end? We can't very well use that as the standard for anything except 'predicting and observing shadow-based "representations" on the cave wall (space-time). After that, we're facing a complete loss. 

 

I know this looks scary to most ex chrstians. Most think that if science is that limited in terms of core truth and reality, then anything is possible, including the possibility that christianity is true. But don't worry, that's not possible. Dualism isn't possibly literal, christianity is 100% dualistic, therefore christianity can never be core truth. It's completely off the table. There's no reason to be shy or anxious about stepping away from the more dogmatic views that many ex christian's understandably develop about materialistic science as a firm ground. It can't be firm in terms of absolute truth, that's not even possible. 

 

I'm working towards the issue of standards.

 

But we have to first see what's on the table and to what extent any given standard applies to reality. The dualistic religious standard is obviously weak. The scientific is better for sure, has much more utility and relevance to life. Give us all of this technology, and I love it, quite frankly. I have no disregard for science and technology as useful. It's just not useful where core truth and reality is concerned.

 

So, the truth-seeking path took me further along. I'm just describing a truth-seeking path, that's all. You can consider it as story time, if you will. Just a story of a walk-through various worldviews with demonstrable outcomes. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I suspect that we are talking at cross purposes about what evolution can and can't do.  You citing the example of Plato's cave seems to indicate that.  You've widened what I was talking about (biological evolution) so that you can talk about it in philosophical terms and so you've stretched my very strictly defined scientific definition into an argument about how truth is relative and experiential.

 

I do not accept that.  

 

Truth cannot be anything other than relative and experiential, in science or otherwise. That's the point. And this indicates that you have yet to understand that unavoidable fact of human reality. I don't know if you will ever be able to see it for yourself or not, accept it or not, and ultimately, the ball falls into your court where acceptance is concerned. 

 

Another analogy, can you do anything for Ed or the Russian guy where acceptance of christianity's limitations are concerned? You and I both know that we can't. But we talk to them anyways. We try just for the hell of it.  Maybe something will change. Maybe something will click. I think that we'd like to see them suddenly, "get it." Something is holding them back. And that something turns out to be having a blind spot where personal limitations are concerned. Remove the blind spot, and perhaps they can advance in understanding beyond that particular limitation. 

 

I look at individual lives as a small lifetime scale of evolving. Personal growth in understanding through the course of a given lifetime. Past generations had less availability to grow faster and cover more territory from a personal perspective. Things are changing, though. We have access to vast amounts of information and contact with others across the globe which can accelerate personal growth during a given lifetime. I just want to be clear and transparent about objectives and goals. 

 

When I left the church and stopped believing at age 15 in the year 1991, I had very limited access to fast rate personal growth as an ex christian.

 

I see people come in here and advance to levels that would have taken me 10 years, in just a few years. How many people here were sitting church pews praising "jesus" just 5 - 10 years ago or less? This is largely a group of newbies compared to the few of us who have been out for 20-40 years now. And yet, these newbies learn a hell of a lot in a considerably short period of time. 

 

We can reflect back on that as needed. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The whole point of science is that any scientist anywhere can perform the same observations, calculations or experiments and get the same results as any other scientist.  This is willingly done even though these scientists would readily agree that they experience reality in their own way.  In science one puts one's own interpretation of reality to one side and you adopt the commonly agreed standard.  That way a scientist in Pakistan can work with a scientist in Peru.  

 

All scientists live in the SAME CAVE. They all observe the same species-specific perceptions. They all work with the same shadow-based "representations" of what actually does exist beneath the "representations." Something is real, but it's not what we're looking at directly at face value. Truth in the ultimate sense, then sense that Hoffman's platform is based on, is forever out of anyone's direct perception.

 

Experiments change that in what way? You cannot point to experiments to get yourself out of this one. It's not possible to get out of it that way. In fact, experiments can only reveal more and more about how much we don't understand and don't know about the Nature of Reality. It's gets increasingly mysterious through science and experiment. Not solid grounded and completely revealed. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

As a scientist this is what Hoffman should do too.  And if you describing Hoffman's scientific work, this is what you should do too, Josh.  To take what is science and then apply your philosophical or metaphysical definitions to widen it enough to agree with your worldview is the equivalent of the logical fallacy of shifting the goalposts.

 

That is why he's using mathematically precise methods that anyone can do and confirm. He's taking it to SCIENCE. That is why he wants to predict, with math, the scattering amplitudes. What he is doing is what he is doing, and that's science. And anyone can repeat it and test his results - that is the very point of what's he's trying to do. 

 

I'm just explaining the limitations of science from the Plato's Cave analogy. Which, you may now understand better after the last few attempts at trying to explain it better. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If you are going to talk science then you stay within the parameters and definitions of that discipline, you don't modify them to suit yourself.  So No, I don't agree that you can use the allegory of Plato's cave here to say that Hoffman's claims are not untrue.  In scientific terms and in terms of the logic he uses, they are not untrue.

 

Now that you know that I'm talking about the limitations 'of science,' which are very absolute and unavoidable, then it should be clearer now after the explanations in this post, maybe. I'll have to see. 

 

And the cave analogy always stands, regardless of anything, unless you would like to argue that scientists are directly observing reality as it actually is. Which is the argument that the shadow-based "representations" on the cave wall really are the ultimate, final, core true reality and nothing else exists behind the shadows. That would be to argue that they are not shadows or "representations," they are "the thing in itself" (see Kant)

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I'm worried and confused by your use of two terms that I'm unfamiliar with Josh.  So I Googled 'contemporary evolution' and 'primitive evolution'.  Here are my results for contemporary evolution.

 

Why would you do that? I made them up on the spot to try and figure out what you were doing by talking about contemporary issues like observing particle interactions versus way back in time, millions of years ago, when our primitive evolutionary period was forming our perceptions which are limited to seeing in terms of "representations"? 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Nowhere can I find a proper scientific explanation for either contemporary or primitive evolution.  There is only evolution, with no split or dichotomy being made between evolution in earlier times and modern times.

 

So, I have to ask you Josh, where are you getting these terms from and why are you making a division between these two 'types' of evolution when none of the sources I can find do that?

 

 

That's the problem in a nutshell. 

 

But after the responses I've given earlier in this exchange, the confusion should be over. We'll see. 

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I'm sorry Josh but in the second paragraph you've lapsed into gobbledegook by using an acronym that I'm not familiar with.  So I don't understand what you mean by a singular CA.  Could you please explain without resorting to jargon or shorthand that you are familiar with but others are not?  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Hahahahaha! 

 

Conscious Agents (CA's) form up entire sets. And those sets become a unified CA. A unified set of CA's, as one, can combine to form many CA's again. Which then form larger sets as unitary. Then those unitary sets can form up into one again. And increase in complexity as they expand and grow. 

 

Listen, if you'd like to see where this all is headed for just for the hell of it, then we can agree to leave science at the limitations outlined and move on to the next step in truth seeking. It's not like there's any pressure to convert your ways or "beleive" in something that you don't very well believe in or any of that. You don't have take the guarded approach.

 

Or else we'll be spinning circles around and around like the christians who can never get past Genesis 1:1 because they can't manage to just lay back and see what happens next. They could just as easily stop trying to resist and say, ok, let's say your right, Genesis 1:1 isn't literally true, what happens next if we start moving forward from that point. And you know that there's a ton of discovery beyond that point. 

 

There is also a ton of discovery beyond the point of laying back and saying ok, let's say science only deals in terms of "representations," where does that lead? 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

would urge caution with adding terms like "primitive" and "modern" to a fundamental singular.  And for the same reason.  It seems to draw a distinction that does not actually exist.  Primitive evolution is modern evolution.  Primitive evolution is how we got to the point at which we currently are; and it will be the same evolution that remains in play millions of years from now.

 

Evolution is not a conscious entity; and it remains to be seen if it can be guided by consciousness or not.

 

I have explained myself to Walt. 

 

But aside from that, I agree with your post here. And your post in completely in line with the Plato's Cave analogy that I was using to try and make the points to Walt. 

 

If it is guided by consciousness, I'll add, that guiding is far, far from anything that ID apologists can use to their own benefit. Because it would mean losing their "dualistic" platform in the process. There's no external, separate god, guiding anything from afar is so. It has to be that consciousness is primary, within everything, and interacting with itself. Detrimental to their theistic and supernatural positioning. Landing on naturalist conclusions. 

[midniterider]

If there was one universal truth then why wouldn't everyone just accept it?

 

Maybe there are only individual truths. 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

What standard shall we hold to? The scientific standard that I've just explained to its natural dead end? We can't very well use that as the standard for anything except 'predicting and observing shadow-based "representations" on the cave wall (space-time). After that, we're facing a complete loss. 

 

I don't understand why we shouldn't be happy to stay in the cave forever, accept that we will never know the true nature of reality and rely on a system of knowledge (science) that we know works well and that we rely in our everyday lives.  Anything else, like trying to leave the cave just seems hubristic to me.  A failure to acknowledge our limitations and a dissatisfaction with the status quo.

 

So what if science comes to a natural dead end?  I realize that there are many, many things that science will never be able to tell us, but I'm not dissatisfied with that outcome and I think its more realistic to accept it than to not accept it.  I consider myself to be a realist, not an idealist.

 

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Truth cannot be anything other than relative and experiential, in science or otherwise. That's the point. And this indicates that you have yet to understand that unavoidable fact of human reality. I don't know if you will ever be able to see it for yourself or not, accept it or not, and ultimately, the ball falls into your court where acceptance is concerned. 

 

Boldly claimed!  Now, if you were debating a Christian apologist I would ask them to justify their claim/s with evidence.  So, to be fair, I'm going to have to ask you to do the same thing Josh.  Show me your evidence.  Not your metaphysical arguments or your philosophy, but the common denominator that everything pivots around in this forum - hard evidence!

 

When you've made an evidence-based justification of your claim, then I might accept it.  But as a sceptic I simply cannot accept what you claim without evidence.  The ball is not in my court to accept your claim without evidence.  Instead, the onus is on your to justify your claim with evidence.  Until you do that I'm under no obligation to just accept what you claim.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

All scientists live in the SAME CAVE. They all observe the same species-specific perceptions. They all work with the same shadow-based "representations" of what actually does exist beneath the "representations." Something is real, but it's not what we're looking at directly at face value. Truth in the ultimate sense, then sense that Hoffman's platform is based on, is forever out of anyone's direct perception.

 

And what is so very wrong with any of that?  Science has served us supremely well so far and no doubt it will continue to do so.  Is the fact that it cannot give you the 'truth' that you want such a bad thing?  If so, be careful, Josh!  Christians are often dissatisfied with science because it cannot give them the truth they want.  And then they go about changing scientific concepts and terminology to suit their ends.  They redraw the proper lines of demarcation so that they get their truth on their terms.  Please be careful here, Josh. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Experiments change that in what way? You cannot point to experiments to get yourself out of this one. It's not possible to get out of it that way. In fact, experiments can only reveal more and more about how much we don't understand and don't know about the Nature of Reality. It's gets increasingly mysterious through science and experiment. Not solid grounded and completely revealed. 

 

I disagree.  

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

That is why he's using mathematically precise methods that anyone can do and confirm. He's taking it to SCIENCE. That is why he wants to predict, with math, the scattering amplitudes. What he is doing is what he is doing, and that's science. And anyone can repeat it and test his results - that is the very point of what's he's trying to do. 

 

I'm just explaining the limitations of science from the Plato's Cave analogy. Which, you may now understand better after the last few attempts at trying to explain it better. 

 

I'm happy with those limitations.  Why aren't you?

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now that you know that I'm talking about the limitations 'of science,' which are very absolute and unavoidable, then it should be clearer now after the explanations in this post, maybe. I'll have to see. 

 

And the cave analogy always stands, regardless of anything, unless you would like to argue that scientists are directly observing reality as it actually is. Which is the argument that the shadow-based "representations" on the cave wall really are the ultimate, final, core true reality and nothing else exists behind the shadows. That would be to argue that they are not shadows or "representations," they are "the thing in itself" (see Kant)

 

As I said before, please justify your claims about Plato's cave with evidence.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Why would you do that? I made them up on the spot to try and figure out what you were doing by talking about contemporary issues like observing particle interactions versus way back in time, millions of years ago, when our primitive evolutionary period was forming our perceptions which are limited to seeing in terms of "representations"? 

 

You made them up on the spot?  How is that playing by the rules of science?  The science of evolution ceases to be science if you play fast and loose with the rules governing it.  Like making up new terms on the spot.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's the problem in a nutshell. 

 

But after the responses I've given earlier in this exchange, the confusion should be over. We'll see. 

 

 

Hahahahaha! 

 

Conscious Agents (CA's) form up entire sets. And those sets become a unified CA. A unified set of CA's, as one, can combine to form many CA's again. Which then form larger sets as unitary. Then those unitary sets can form up into one again. And increase in complexity as they expand and grow. 

 

Listen, if you'd like to see where this all is headed for just for the hell of it, then we can agree to leave science at the limitations outlined and move on to the next step in truth seeking. It's not like there's any pressure to convert your ways or "beleive" in something that you don't very well believe in or any of that. You don't have take the guarded approach.

 

Or else we'll be spinning circles around and around like the christians who can never get past Genesis 1:1 because they can't manage to just lay back and see what happens next. They could just as easily stop trying to resist and say, ok, let's say your right, Genesis 1:1 isn't literally true, what happens next if we start moving forward from that point. And you know that there's a ton of discovery beyond that point. 

 

There is also a ton of discovery beyond the point of laying back and saying ok, let's say science only deals in terms of "representations," where does that lead? 

 

I am happy with where it leads.  What I fail to understand is why you need to see further and beyond the acknowledged limits of human perception.  Why aren't the representations good enough for you?

 

I don't know if we will ever see eye to eye on this Josh.

 

 

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Josh, 

 

With regards to Hoffman's Fitness based theory of evolution, we are waiting, as per what you said earlier.

 

 

first, you have to specify what Hoffman's argument is. 

"If evolutionary fitness does not equal 'visually seeing the truth behind the representations of matter,' then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us 'what is true behind the representations of matter." 

You start from a premise that doesn't specify what exact "truth" you're referring to. Then try and draw a line of conclusions that don't follow from Hoffman's actual position. As if Hoffman isn't specific about what "truth." When he is specific that he's referring to the "truth" behind our "representations." 

This is what I expect to see when they answer my questions at the Hoffman group.

But I'll go ahead and confirm whatever it is that they do say in response. Or what Hoffman himself says in response. 

 

 

We have also established on three counts that evolution is not broken down into primitive and contemporary types or phases.  The first count is that there is nothing on the internet to support the use of this division.  The second count is the Redneck Prof’s input as a scientist and the third is your candid admission that you just made those terms up.

Therefore, until Hoffman delivers the goods, my questions below still stand, because they are based upon what we now know is the correct premise – that evolution is not divided into primitive and contemporary periods or types. 

 

 

If evolutionary fitness does not equal truth, then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us what is true.  If that is so, then why would Hoffman et al rely on the evidence of their senses in the form of scientific results to validate or support their theories?  They must surely concede that any scientific data wouldn't be the truth, but would only be what makes us fitter to survive?  Which means, that by their own argument, no scientific data can ever support Hoffman's theory.  They cannot rely on truth to support their argument because they have already ruled out that possibility.

 

 

Depending on what Hoffman says my usage of the word truth here may or may not be acceptable.  We can go from there.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 Walter: What I fail to understand is why you need to see further and beyond the acknowledged limits of human perception.  Why aren't the representations good enough for you?

 

It's human nature to ask 'what if'. 

 

Why do you limit yourself to consensus scientific thought?

 

I don't let Jesus freaks boss me around. I'm not going to let scientists tell me what I should think either. 

 

Sometimes an atheist will say, "Why become a pagan after quitting Christianity? You're just trading one religion for another."

 

Well, because I like paganism more than scientism. I am my own personal authority regarding truth. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

It's human nature to ask 'what if'. 

 

Why do you limit yourself to consensus scientific thought?

 

I don't limit myself to that, midniterider.  Science does not proceed by consensus of opinion.   So perhaps it would be more accurate would be to ask why I limit myself to the scientific methodology.  And I can list some of the reasons why I do that.

 

1.   Because we know science works and we all rely upon it.

2.  Because science is coming under attack from different quarters by denialists, the religious, political ideologues, philosophers, relativists (No, not Einstein's relativity. Those who assert that truth is relative.) and others.  Yet all of these people rely on science just as much as scientists do.  

3.  Because its human nature to ask 'what if, why and how' and science has a proven historical track record of giving evidence-based answers to these questions. 

4.  Because science has the power to unify different people from diverse backgrounds and cultures into one common enterprise - something that it sorely lacking in our fractured and self-obsessed global culture.

5.  Because science teaches us humility in the face of a vast, complex and ancient universe. And humility is another quality sadly lacking in the self-fixated, self-serving me, me, me culture of today. 

6.  Because it's fun.

 

I'm sure that given time I can think of other reasons too.

 

 

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I don't let Jesus freaks boss me around. I'm not going to let scientists tell me what I should think either. 

 

And nobody has suggested anything like that in this thread.  All I have done is to point out that if someone refers to science to support something they've put forward, then they have to follow the rules of science when doing so.  It's the mixing and mixing up of the separate disciplines of science and philosophy and metaphysics that I've been arguing against.

 

And there's a precedent in this forum for this.  How many times have we had to correct the Christians about mixing science and their religion together?  So, to be consistent, we shouldn't do any mixing up of our own.  

 

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

Sometimes an atheist will say, "Why become a pagan after quitting Christianity? You're just trading one religion for another."

 

Well, because I like paganism more than scientism. I am my own personal authority regarding truth. 

 

 

And I respect that, midniterider.

 

But I must once again point out that nowhere in this thread have I even suggested that you should change anything in your life.  In fact, you cited my question to Josh about these matters.  That question was not directed to you and wasn't for your attention.  It was between him and me.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

It's human nature to ask 'what if'. 

 

Why do you limit yourself to consensus scientific thought?

 

I don't let Jesus freaks boss me around. I'm not going to let scientists tell me what I should think either. 

 

Sometimes an atheist will say, "Why become a pagan after quitting Christianity? You're just trading one religion for another."

 

Well, because I like paganism more than scientism. I am my own personal authority regarding truth. 

 

 

Oh I've just noticed this, midniterider.

 

I'm just as much against scientism as you are, but for different reasons.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"

 

For the record I do not hold to the opinion that science is the best or only way to discover the truth about reality.  Instead I consider science to be reliable and trustworthy within certain limits.  And that it should be duly acknowledged as that.

 

Nor do I think that science can be successfully applied to philosophy.  These two disciplines work along totally different lines and use radically different methodologies.  

 

So please don't consider that I hold to or agree with Scientism in any way.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TABA]

The preceding messages have been moved to this new thread from their original place under the topic, "What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?" so that thread can remain primarily as a Christian vs Apostate discussion.

 

Please continue...

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, midniterider said:

If there was one universal truth then why wouldn't everyone just accept it?

 

Maybe there are only individual truths. 

 

There is only one universal truth, the truth of "raw experience." No individual can exist without it. 

 

And yet, people would attempt to deny it, while engaged in it. Very odd...

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Josh, 

 

With regards to Hoffman's Fitness based theory of evolution, we are waiting, as per what you said earlier.

 

 

first, you have to specify what Hoffman's argument is. 

"If evolutionary fitness does not equal 'visually seeing the truth behind the representations of matter,' then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us 'what is true behind the representations of matter." 

You start from a premise that doesn't specify what exact "truth" you're referring to. Then try and draw a line of conclusions that don't follow from Hoffman's actual position. As if Hoffman isn't specific about what "truth." When he is specific that he's referring to the "truth" behind our "representations." 

This is what I expect to see when they answer my questions at the Hoffman group.

But I'll go ahead and confirm whatever it is that they do say in response. Or what Hoffman himself says in response. 

 

 

We have also established on three counts that evolution is not broken down into primitive and contemporary types or phases.  The first count is that there is nothing on the internet to support the use of this division.  The second count is the Redneck Prof’s input as a scientist and the third is your candid admission that you just made those terms up.

Therefore, until Hoffman delivers the goods, my questions below still stand, because they are based upon what we now know is the correct premise – that evolution is not divided into primitive and contemporary periods or types. 

 

 

If evolutionary fitness does not equal truth, then according to Hoffman our senses can never tell us what is true.  If that is so, then why would Hoffman et al rely on the evidence of their senses in the form of scientific results to validate or support their theories?  They must surely concede that any scientific data wouldn't be the truth, but would only be what makes us fitter to survive?  Which means, that by their own argument, no scientific data can ever support Hoffman's theory.  They cannot rely on truth to support their argument because they have already ruled out that possibility.

 

 

Depending on what Hoffman says my usage of the word truth here may or may not be acceptable.  We can go from there.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

 

How can I say this nicely, your last two posts are incoherent against what my points and position actually is. You keep doing this, and I'm not going to respond to nonsense. 

 

Please make the effort to join me on the what the issue actually is or else there's no point in engaging this incoherent arguing. 

 

Hoffman's argument, pay close attention, posits that the truth behind material objects would be like starring at a world of code in the matrix. The true reality behind the appearances of objects and living things is information based and something that we are shielded from "seeing directly" as it actually is. That is what he means by evolution favors fitness over truth.

 

That is the "truth" in "Fitness over Truth."

 

You've made it clear that anything further along will be a complete loss on your ability to conceive or comprehend. That just is what it is. We can let it stop, again. I've already walked away once. And you thought it smart to insert yourself back in while I was talking to someone else and bid you good day. 

 

I've had enough of seeing you circle the encampment around and around several times over. 

 

Hey, good luck. 

 

And have a nice life. 

 

I'm actually pulling the plug on this forum permanantly. You've made the decision clear. Anyone I care to know is already on my facebook and I bid you all a farewell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There is only one universal truth, the truth of "raw experience." No individual can exist without it. 

 

And yet, people would attempt to deny it, while engaged in it. Very odd...

 

What is more odd is that you would have others accept your claim that there is one universal truth, without first providing evidence for this claim.

 

If you cannot see how this is exactly the way Christians behave when they expect us to accept their universal truth, then that is very odd indeed.

 

Christians accept things without evidence because the bible tells them to do that.

 

So quite why you are asking us to do the same about your beliefs is beyond me.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

How can I say this nicely, your last two posts are incoherent against what my points and position actually is. You keep doing this, and I'm not going to respond to nonsense. 

 

Please make the effort to join me on the what the issue actually is or else there's no point in engaging this incoherent arguing. 

 

Hoffman's argument, pay close attention, posits that the truth behind material objects would be like starring at a world of code in the matrix. The true reality behind the appearances of objects and living things is information based and something that we are shielded from "seeing directly" as it actually is. That is what he means by evolution favors fitness over truth.

 

That is the "truth" in "Fitness over Truth."

 

You've made it clear that anything further along will be a complete loss on your ability to conceive or comprehend. That just is what it is. We can let it stop, again. I've already walked away once. And you thought it smart to insert yourself back in while I was talking to someone else and bid you good day. 

 

I've had enough of seeing you circle the encampment around and around several times over. 

 

Hey, good luck. 

 

And have a nice life. 

 

I'm actually pulling the plug on this forum permanantly. You've made the decision clear. Anyone I care to know is already on my facebook and I bid you all a farewell.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to see you go Josh, but your departure does solve one problem that was revealed in our discussion.

 

Specifically, that you were so wedded to your beliefs that you were prepared to make stuff up in our debate.

 

Which meant that in the future that if we challenged a Christian, saying that they were just making shit up, they could point to you doing the same.

 

So how can we Ex-Christians, atheists, agnostics and sceptics demonstrate that we think more clearly and conduct ourselves more honestly than the Christians if we behave just like them? 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I'm actually pulling the plug on this forum permanantly. You've made the decision clear. Anyone I care to know is already on my facebook and I bid you all a farewell.

 

I really hope you change your mind about this decision Josh. This forum needs people like you and I. I'm not as vested in my alternate beliefs as you are but I do have hope that there is more to life than what we experience here on earth. And I enjoy contemplating the possibilities now that I know heaven and hell are just myths and legends. 

 

We are the other option to Christianity. Us being on this forum can show others that it is OK to still believe in something after they have realized Christianity is a lie. There is no reason not to explore other beliefs and possibilities. 

 

This is an Exchristian community. Not an Atheist community. To many people in the Christian community already assume that if one leaves or stops believing in Christianity that they are Atheist. And that just isn't the case. It hasn't been the case with me or you and it is important that others know that it is OK to explore other options just like we have. Even if hard nosed athiests can't stand the idea. Atheism isn't for everyone. I'm perfectly happy with my Agnostic/non-theist status. And I have hope that the truth far surpasses all our greatest hopes in the end. 

 

I don't think it is in this communities best interest to attack a fellow exchristians alternate belief like we would a Christian coming in trying to reconvert us. I honestly didn't read all the posts because universal consciousness and idealism vs materialism just aren't things that catch my attention much. A lot of that tends to go over my head and I can't wrap my mind around the concepts. But I'm glad you have found peace in serenity in your new beliefs. 

 

@walterpthefirst I'm disappointed that you would want to see a fellow ExChristian leave this community. This type of display will not make anyone want to join our ranks. It is OK to agree to disagree before it gets to this point. Everyone involved in this conversation have made great contributions to this community and I would hate to see anyone leave. Including you. We shouldn't let ourselves get to this point amongst ourselves. I feel that we can be better than that. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Dark Bishop