On 10/21/2014 8:27 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
You seem to be just trolling.
>
/Now that's a thought-stopper!/
>
Do you practice TM?
>
/Non sequitur.//"TM" has not been defined./
>
I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they
can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot
prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and
father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence
does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of
universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that
there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is
a non entity)
>
/Non sequitur.//"Spiritual" has not been defined./
>
As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is
indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is
true?
>
/In Buddhist philosophy, karma is the theory of action and result based
on the theory of interdependent co-arising or dependent origination
which states: everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and
conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. /
>
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
a. How has it been established that this is true?
b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a
cause'?
That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god,
because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes
other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is
beyond me.
>
/All change must have a beginning and an end. In order to have a
beginning there must be a cause. This is simple Philosophy 101. There is
nothing in the universe that exists without change. In order for
anything to change there must be a cause agent.//Causality is the
relation between an event and a second event in which the second event
is a consequence of the first./
>
It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite
regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more
respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have
Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the
existence of god.
>
/Non sequitur./ <SNIP>
>
To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no
reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently
think it is true. Why?
>
/Obviously consciousness is prior to everything else in the cosmos. In
fact, consciousness is all there is in the universe. The only certainty
you have is that you are self-conscious that you exist. Time, space and
physicality occur within consciousness, not the other way around. The
present is the only real moment of experience./
An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality
by Sam Harris
http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/an-atheists-guide-to-spirituality
>
If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly
unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in
general, and the great variability of possible human experiences.
>
/In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at
least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary
philosophy.//
//
//Non sequitur./ <snip>
