997,518
The saying is over 3,000 years old and no modern scientist is really eligible to question it, science will even deny the obvious truths to ensure that the universe seems idealistically computational. The same people knew atoms existed before the microscope and had a much better understand of life and harmony, internal and external life. The saying was by Democritus, ironically he also said something very similar "Nothing exists except space, everything else is opinion", which from a scientific aspect is absolutely true, it parodied since for what it really is "the study of external life", distinguishing it from philosophy which is "the study of internal life", it's highlighted that external life exists within internal life and not the other way around and this is even proven with the ESP of subatomic particles, which shows that the universe is paradoxical and somewhat of a hologram projected from an unknown actuality that schools of thought have long described as ether. Not to be confused with the Mark Twain quote "Nothing exists; all is a dream. God--man--the world--the sun, the moon, the wilderness of stars--a dream, all a dream; they have no existence. Nothing exists save empty space--and you!" To argue this is untruthful is actually to deny science's belief that the spiritual does not exist and rather the universe is meaningless.
So thus everything is the illusion from a nothingness, yet because it is in essence a void, science cannot see it, yet from this void you experience life and you are conscious, it is a paradox and the universe's only purpose is to serve as an opposite to the void, it is binded and we can observe this in the forces, even science cannot argue that forces exist, it can only measure them. For science is observation of the external life, and for what cannot be observed in the external life is regarded as. And we can tell the internal and external lives are separate because we live it. We are all uniquely bound with our own bodies and our own minds yet beyond our habitual body's peripheral elements, we cannot very easily experience the entirety of external life, and so are stuck between both worlds. Some choose to live in their internal world, others choose to live in the external world, I prefer to reside in both because of the equal opportunity, an to convey are internal world into the external world in mutual respect is what helps binds others socially, consider any interest. Of course, the workings between are very real, for the point soul becomes mind it is already a part of the external world, yet the body and soul flow into one another to create the mind, we experience the body and the body experiences us, the body is both automatic and manual, so to speak, even scientists are aware of the concepts of the body's autopilot, yet some knowledge is only required for the body, all else may well be forgotten when one dies unless there is a way to manifest this.
Hmm... Or are we all mindless biological machines?
I know the answer to this, and the very fact I can speak of it feels it shows enough, it can be realized, and everything observed by science is an echo of what really is as it is what makes sense to our sensory experience. Does this not make any sense to you? How so? May be if you cannot understand, perhaps you are a mindless robot, but the minute you exist in my mind you at least have a soul to me, on the biological end this is conjured via empathy. Why does life exist? Why does anything exist? Does anything exist? Does nothing even exist? You need not science to realize the answers to this, only the fact you do exist, you experience life and are as you are.
997,522
Oh dear, you're arguing about the merits of science to me, Ahem, ok lets do this.
The saying is over 3,000 years old and no modern scientist is really eligible to question it
Ok first of all that doesn't really make sense. You are suggesting that an old idea is indefinitely better than a new idea and if that were true, we'd still be living in caves. Technology would of never progressed, society would of never progressed and nothing would of progressed. Owning slaves has been around for thousands of years, does that meet we should own slaves because it was around longer? Your argument is essentially [against change] and that simply does not work in such a dynamic universe.
science will even deny the obvious truths to ensure that the universe seems idealistically computational
The definition of computational is "Of or relating to computers" or "Using computers: The computational analysis of the earth", so I don't know where you go that from. However, what science is doing is trying to make a uniform and consistent theory, with results that can be predicted through patterns.
The same people knew atoms existed before the microscope and had a much better understand of life and harmony, internal and external life.
This shows a clear lack of understanding of science, first of all you can't see atoms through a microscope. Second of all, I doubt there was a culture that knew that atoms existed
and knew their exact behavior and was able to use that behavior to their advantage if I'm wrong please prove it with a reliable source(s).
"Nothing exists except space, everything else is opinion", which from a scientific aspect is absolutely true
First of all that's not scientific, science relies heavily on the ideas of observation and uniform measurements, not philosophy. However, what you have dived into is the concepts of relativity which I do believe in, but that quote you just said assumes that there is an existent property. What I believe is the concept of absurdism, in the sense that there is a table, the table itself exists but all we can know or tell of the table is our own perception or "opinion" of the table. We can never truly understand what the table actually is, in reality, but we can only say what the table appears to be. The difference between my theology and your theology is that your theology says that no table exists at all, and that we are seeing concepts of an imaginary table, which raises all the questions I stated before.
this is even proven with the ESP of subatomic particles
But ESP of subatomic particles isn't proven, you can't use something that's unproven to prove another thing that's unproven.
To argue this is untruthful is actually to deny science's belief that the spiritual does not exist and rather the universe is meaningless.
First of all I don't know how it shows what you say it shows. Secondly it shows how little you know about what science is about. Science doesn't believe anything, it doesn't believe the universe is meaningless, it's not a belief! It's knowledge gained through the scientific method and the scientific method is simply, and only, a really, really, really, really, really harsh and unforgiving way of getting information. A way where, a million right data-points can be very easily proven wrong with one wrong data-point, in the case of General Relativity. Science doesn't have an opinion nor does it care whether the universe has a meaning, or whether a god exists, or whether nothing exists, all it "cares" about is what it finds. If it finds a meaning to the universe, science will /say/ "THERE'S A MEANING TO THE UNIVERSE" but in order to find said meaning it needs to be proven through the scientific method, no meaning has been proven with the scientific method. This does not mean science is against meaning, it just means that meaning is probably something humans made up, but if science could discover meaning, then if it discovers it that's it! It doesn't hate meaning, it just hasn't discovered anything to suggest there's a meaning.
So thus everything is the illusion from a nothingness, yet because it is in essence a void, science cannot see it, yet from this void you experience life and you are conscious, it is a paradox and the universe's only purpose is to serve as an opposite to the void, it is binded and we can observe this in the forces, even science cannot argue that forces exist, it can only measure them.
You made some conflicting points in this sentence. You say that things are "in essence a void" but then you say the universe (which is things) is "the opposite of the void" which means that the universe is the opposite to itself, which is a logical paradox and usually means an argument is incorrect. You also say the universe is "binded" to something but don't say what it's binded too and say the forces show how it's "binded" which, again, I don't see how the forces show the universe is "binded"
And we can tell the internal and external lives are separate because we live it.
When you talk about internal life, you are talking about consciousness (I assume) and external life as perception. In which case, you have to ask yourself what consciousness really is, do you know what consciousness is? There's a lot of argument about consciousness so I might not actually dive into that, instead I offer the theoretical scenario of the an artificial intelligent computer, and ask you whether that computer has consciousness. If this AI acted the exact same way as a human would under all stimuli, would you say it has consciousness? If it doesn't what separates it from a human?
Some choose to live in their internal world, others choose to live in the external world, I prefer to reside in both
I think everyone but a
very select few don't pick both of your theoretical external world and internal world.
Of course, the workings between are very real, for the point soul becomes mind it is already a part of the external world, yet the body and soul flow into one another to create the mind, we experience the body and the body experiences us, the body is both automatic and manual, so to speak, even scientists are aware of the concepts of the body's autopilot, yet some knowledge is only required for the body, all else may well be forgotten when one dies unless there is a way to manifest this.
Of course and this is the idea of the subconscious, not the soul. The automated part of the body comes from "code" (just like computer code) made of proteins in something you've probably heard of called DNA. The larger automated processors are made through the subconscious, which is part of your brain that is not processed by the conscious part of you. The effects of the subconscious has been extensively observed, even going as far as having conscious patients in brain surgery test certain effects of the brain and how the brain reacts to these effects (sending electronic signals through the speech center of the brain, for example, caused the patient to temporarily lose the ability to speak) these are not used for science but rather medicine as we don't have a good understanding of the brain so it's best to use this method for some brain surgeries.
Hmm... Or are we all mindless biological machines?
That quote assumes the mind if only possible with a "soul" or what ever you described (I honestly couldn't quite follow), I believe a mind can be possible purely in the physical, that it works similar to a computer, but much more complicated. (seeing as there's no central processor, it probably would be more likened to the internet)
I know the answer to this, and the very fact I can speak of it feels it shows enough, it can be realized, and everything observed by science is an echo of what really is as it is what makes sense to our sensory experience. Does this not make any sense to you? How so? May be if you cannot understand, perhaps you are a mindless robot, but the minute you exist in my mind you at least have a soul to me, on the biological end this is conjured via empathy. Why does life exist? Why does anything exist? Does anything exist? Does nothing even exist? You need not science to realize the answers to this, only the fact you do exist, you experience life and are as you are.
As I said before, you are quite wrongly assuming that a mind cannot exist without a soul. You continually ask "why" and we can explain it, to a degree, through science. "Why do things exist" we've been trying to figure that out, but the problem is Kio the answer isn't simple. I know you want the answer to be very simple, the answer to be something you can comprehend, but it simply doesn't seem to be that way. The answer is under a pile of abstract concepts and intense mathematics, this has been observed and has been able to make extremely accurate (to a 0.0000000000001% inaccuracy) of how the universe works. The answer isn't simple, it may be so complex that humanity can't even comprehend it, but it certainly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Topic: Counting backwards from 1,000,000 (Read 33383 times)