Nicko wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method.

Why not?

God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense. Its the wisdom of Kant, God is purely a metaphysical concept and hence lies outside the domain of science. I find it absolutely stupid when atheists demand evidence for God from a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal. There will never ever be scientific evidence for God.

Even if Theurgists practice Theurgy and demonstrate human teleportation, precognition (Oracles) and other empirical effects it can never ever be evidence for any God because the experience of God is always subjective and never objective. We can never know whether they got that knowledge from some divine spirit or from some tooth fairy and hence any distortions in reality caused by Theurgists cannot be evidence for the existence of any gods.

Theurgists cannot show gods directly to other human beings for it is the nature of gods to exist and influence human beings by being outside of human sight. So the only way to see gods is to repeat the method performed by the Theurgist and that demands one to have prior belief in the existence of gods before even testing them and this is against the spirit of science. So Theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

Even Arthur Versluis agrees with me.

“While I am convinced of the critical importance of historiography in the study of esotericism (and for this reason all of my academic books are firmly grounded in historical method) I do not believe that historiography is adequate in itself to convey the complex, multivalent nature of esoteric thought, traditions, or most of all, experience. Esotericism, given all its varied forms and its inherently multidimensional nature, cannot be conveyed without going beyond purely historical information: at minimum, the study of esotericism, and in particular mysticism, requires some degree of imaginative participation in what one is studying.”

- Arthur Versluis, Methods in the study of Esotericism.

That's why the pagan culture or more importantly a Theurgist never forcefully proselyte others. So God by definition is not falsifiable. For example even quarks do not have direct evidence for their existence but we know that they exist indirectly through a process known as bremsstrahlung and anyone can repeat the experiment and confirm their existence, no prior belief in quarks is required but in the case of gods belief in them is a must before one can see them. Gospel of Philip says "no one can receive gnosis without faith". This is esotericism and it can never ever be scientific and never secular. Scientific method is not viable for the study of gods. Even Kant agrees with this.

savithru wrote:

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

If you are defining something as "beyond all understanding", you do realise that logically includes your understanding as well?

Yes as an initiate or a novice into Theurgy it is beyond all understanding but as an expert after years of practice its not beyond all understanding.

savithru wrote:We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

We've noticed.

Now, if you're through with the posturing, care to make it explicit as to what it is you are claiming "theurgy" can accomplish?

Pierre A. Riffard: "Theurgy is a type of magic. It consists of a set of magical practices performed to evoke beneficent spirits in order to see them or know them or in order to influence them, for instance by forcing them to animate a statue, to inhabit a human being (such as a medium), or to disclose mysteries."

Well, if there was anyone left who wasn't here just for the Lulz before, I'm sure there ain't now.

hackenslash wrote:You don't have a theory, you have a collection of rectally extracted blind assertions.

That's your wishful thinking.

New Study Shows Yoga Has Healing Powers

People in the west practice yoga as just a stretching exercise and hence they see Yoga's Healing Powers only. If they had practiced yoga as a theurgy then they would have seen Yoga's mystical powers too. The next news will be "Yoga has mystical powers" with one of the assertions claimed by me in this thread being demonstrated and shown to be fact then all skeptics will be fucked up for their rectal position.

All that needed was a So there! after it!

savithru wrote:*God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense.

Then it's worthless.

Its the wisdom of Kant,

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Further, you presumably wouldn't cite 'the wisdom of Kant' in his extremely strong criticism of ritual and superstition, which is pretty much what your entire 'theurgy' consists of.

God is purely a metaphysical concept and hence lies outside the domain of science.

How do you know this? By what methodology did you come by this knowledge?

I find it absolutely stupid when atheists demand evidence for God from a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal. There will never ever be scientific evidence for God.

If god intervenes, there is evidence of that intervention. This is really basic stuff you're fucking up on.

Even if Theurgists practice Theurgy and demonstrate human teleportation, precognition (Oracles) and other empirical effects it can never ever be evidence for any God because the experience of God is always subjective and never objective.

False conflation between subject and object here, which again contradicts your beloved Kant, whose major work was in this distinction. The experience of god is not god (even assuming such a preposterous entity actually exists.

We can never know whether they got that knowledge from some divine spirit or from some tooth fairy and hence any distortions in reality caused by Theurgists cannot be evidence for the existence of any gods.

In other words, you can't even cite this as an example of knowledge, not least because, along with the possible sources of said knowledge you cite, we can also posit that they extracted it directly from their recta.

Theurgists cannot show gods directly to other human beings for it is the nature of gods to exist and influence human beings by being outside of human sight.

How do you know this? This statement is epistemologicall identical to the claim that such entities even exist. In other words, this is mere theology or, as I like to more accurately call it, making shit up about made-up shit.

So the only way to see gods is to repeat the method performed by the Theurgist and that demands one to have prior belief in the existence of gods before even testing them and this is against the spirit of science. So Theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

It can't be a discipline at all. It's mental masturbation, nothing more.

Even Arthur Versluis agrees with me.

Who gives a flying fuck what Arthur Versluis (whoever the fuck he is) agrees with?

You really do love the argumentum ad verecundiam, don't you?

“While I am convinced of the critical importance of historiography in the study of esotericism (and for this reason all of my academic books are firmly grounded in historical method) I do not believe that historiography is adequate in itself to convey the complex, multivalent nature of esoteric thought, traditions, or most of all, experience. Esotericism, given all its varied forms and its inherently multidimensional nature, cannot be conveyed without going beyond purely historical information: at minimum, the study of esotericism, and in particular mysticism, requires some degree of imaginative participation in what one is studying.”

- Arthur Versluis, Methods in the study of Esotericism.

He's convinced, I'm not. Why would we be interested in what somebody whose profession is making shit up about made-up shit is convinced of?

That's why the pagan culture or more importantly a Theurgist never forcefully proselyte others.

And yet here you are, evacuating your intellectual bowels in public.

So God by definition is not falsifiable.

Which god? You make it sound like there's a single, coherent definition of god, and no doubt, given your penchant for fallacious arguments from authority, you'll say something like the god of classical theism, yet that isn't the fuckwitted entity you're here to sell to us. How does that work, then?

For example even quarks do not have direct evidence for their existence but we know that they exist indirectly through a process known as bremsstrahlung and anyone can repeat the experiment and confirm their existence, no prior belief in quarks is required but in the case of gods belief in them is a must before one can see them.

We know quarks exist? Really?

Thanks for demonstrating how little you understand of scientific epistemology.

As for the rest, well, I could counter with the factually correct statement that, in order to experience delusion, one must first be delusional. See how that shit works?

Gospel of Philip says "no one can receive gnosis without faith". This is esotericism and it can never ever be scientific and never secular. Scientific method is not viable for the study of gods. Even Kant agrees with this.

Yet Kant doesn't agree with you concerning 'theurgy'. Again, see how this shit works? Cherry-picking quotes regarding what people thought lends no support to your guff.

As for what some book of bollocks like the Hokey Blurble has to say, there's little of interest to be taken from a book that failed to correctly count the number of legs on an insect.

Yes as an initiate or a novice into Theurgy it is beyond all understanding but as an expert after years of practice its not beyond all understanding.

Then it isn't beyond all understanding and your previous comment was bollocks.

Nice U-turn.

Pierre A. Riffard: "Theurgy is a type of magic. It consists of a set of magical practices performed to evoke beneficent spirits in order to see them or know them or in order to influence them, for instance by forcing them to animate a statue, to inhabit a human being (such as a medium), or to disclose mysteries."

Cite another fuckwit. Go on.

savithru wrote:

hackenslash wrote:You don't have a theory, you have a collection of rectally extracted blind assertions.

That's your wishful thinking.

New Study Shows Yoga Has Healing Powers

People in the west practice yoga as just a stretching exercise and hence they see Yoga's Healing Powers only. If they had practiced yoga as a theurgy then they would have seen Yoga's mystical powers too. The next news will be "Yoga has mystical powers" with one of the assertions claimed by me in this thread being demonstrated and shown to be fact then all skeptics will be fucked up for their rectal position.

People who exercise are healthier? Hold the front fucking page!

As for the rest, more assertions.

And finally, how is any of that connected with your idiotic claims concerning the existence of your celestial peeping-tom?

ADParker wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Why do so many repeatedly say shit like that; "Theurgy is not science", as if that makes it immune to scientific examination? Gravity, germs and evolution aren't science either. Science is the rational critical examination of observed things like them.

If theurgy produces actual effects then that can be scientifically examined. If it doesn't produce actual effects then it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

Theurgy doesn't deal with the observed universe and hence it is not a scientific discipline. Just because some fucking ignorant people doesn't know how theurgy works it is not my problem.

savithru wrote:We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

You do go on about it when you think you can twist it to sound like it might agree with you though, if even just a little.

But why should we give a damn fuck about what you say? At least science offers demonstrable results.

Because agnostic atheism and materialism is a fundamentally flawed position to hold on to. As John eccles says "promissary materialism", enough for the secular ones to keep the world in ignorance and have full control over others. You can't hide your position anywhere.

hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:*God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense.

Then it's worthless.

Not for theurgists. No one asked scientists to be theurgists, its a non-overlapping magisterium.

Its the wisdom of Kant,

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Further, you presumably wouldn't cite 'the wisdom of Kant' in his extremely strong criticism of ritual and superstition, which is pretty much what your entire 'theurgy' consists of.

Kant neither said God exists nor he said that he doesn't exist. He said God deals with the metaphysical and hence such things are impossible to know.

God is purely a metaphysical concept and hence lies outside the domain of science.

How do you know this? By what methodology did you come by this knowledge?

I have a plan to read Kant's critique of Pure Reason to understand his full arguments, that's one of the methodology how I have arrived and the other is by studying all the mystical traditions of the world and from the works of religious scholars.

I find it absolutely stupid when atheists demand evidence for God from a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal. There will never ever be scientific evidence for God.

If god intervenes, there is evidence of that intervention. This is really basic stuff you're fucking up on.

Sure, there can be evidence for theurgy, I didn't denied that, I said theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

Even if Theurgists practice Theurgy and demonstrate human teleportation, precognition (Oracles) and other empirical effects it can never ever be evidence for any God because the experience of God is always subjective and never objective.

False conflation between subject and object here, which again contradicts your beloved Kant, whose major work was in this distinction. The experience of god is not god (even assuming such a preposterous entity actually exists.

It builds on the work of Kant if there is a route to know the noumena which Kant didn't knew.

That's why the pagan culture or more importantly a Theurgist never forcefully proselyte others.

And yet here you are, evacuating your intellectual bowels in public.

I never forced anyone to be a theurgist, you can continue to be an atheist but know that your position is a fundamentally flawed one because all evidence from science and religion is showing that the numinous exist.

So God by definition is not falsifiable.

Which god? You make it sound like there's a single, coherent definition of god, and no doubt, given your penchant for fallacious arguments from authority, you'll say something like the god of classical theism, yet that isn't the fuckwitted entity you're here to sell to us. How does that work, then?

Bullshit, shouldn't I cite evidence to support my position? There is a coherent definition from comparative religion which you are not fucking aware of. I can defend this definition in a court of Law. I know you don't want to know it so why the fuck should I cite it.

For example even quarks do not have direct evidence for their existence but we know that they exist indirectly through a process known as bremsstrahlung and anyone can repeat the experiment and confirm their existence, no prior belief in quarks is required but in the case of gods belief in them is a must before one can see them.

We know quarks exist? Really?

Thanks for demonstrating how little you understand of scientific epistemology.

I said there is indirect evidence for the existence of quarks.

We can never know whether they got that knowledge from some divine spirit or from some tooth fairy and hence any distortions in reality caused by Theurgists cannot be evidence for the existence of any gods.

In other words, you can't even cite this as an example of knowledge, not least because, along with the possible sources of said knowledge you cite, we can also posit that they extracted it directly from their recta.

Theurgists cannot show gods directly to other human beings for it is the nature of gods to exist and influence human beings by being outside of human sight.

How do you know this? This statement is epistemologicall identical to the claim that such entities even exist. In other words, this is mere theology or, as I like to more accurately call it, making shit up about made-up shit.

So the only way to see gods is to repeat the method performed by the Theurgist and that demands one to have prior belief in the existence of gods before even testing them and this is against the spirit of science. So Theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

It can't be a discipline at all. It's mental masturbation, nothing more.

Even Arthur Versluis agrees with me.

Who gives a flying fuck what Arthur Versluis (whoever the fuck he is) agrees with?

You really do love the argumentum ad verecundiam, don't you?

“While I am convinced of the critical importance of historiography in the study of esotericism (and for this reason all of my academic books are firmly grounded in historical method) I do not believe that historiography is adequate in itself to convey the complex, multivalent nature of esoteric thought, traditions, or most of all, experience. Esotericism, given all its varied forms and its inherently multidimensional nature, cannot be conveyed without going beyond purely historical information: at minimum, the study of esotericism, and in particular mysticism, requires some degree of imaginative participation in what one is studying.”

- Arthur Versluis, Methods in the study of Esotericism.

He's convinced, I'm not. Why would we be interested in what somebody whose profession is making shit up about made-up shit is convinced of?

As for the rest, well, I could counter with the factually correct statement that, in order to experience delusion, one must first be delusional. See how that shit works?

Gospel of Philip says "no one can receive gnosis without faith". This is esotericism and it can never ever be scientific and never secular. Scientific method is not viable for the study of gods. Even Kant agrees with this.

Yet Kant doesn't agree with you concerning 'theurgy'. Again, see how this shit works? Cherry-picking quotes regarding what people thought lends no support to your guff.

As for what some book of bollocks like the Hokey Blurble has to say, there's little of interest to be taken from a book that failed to correctly count the number of legs on an insect.

Pierre A. Riffard: "Theurgy is a type of magic. It consists of a set of magical practices performed to evoke beneficent spirits in order to see them or know them or in order to influence them, for instance by forcing them to animate a statue, to inhabit a human being (such as a medium), or to disclose mysteries."

Cite another fuckwit. Go on.

Yeah, as for the rest of this insults which you have done is the very evidence for scientism and arrogance on other independent disciplines which I explained in the beginning of this thread.

savithru wrote:Not for theurgists.

Yep, and ass-raping lizard aliens aren't worthless for David Icke. Let us know how that works out for you.

No one asked scientists to be theurgists, its a non-overlapping magisterium.

NOMA is the biggest pile of bollocks ever uttered by an accomodationist. Gould should have known better.

Kant neither said God exists nor he said that he doesn't exist. He said God deals with the metaphysical and hence such things are impossible to know.

Well done. You just failed utterly at answering the point. Kant's major work is aimed at criticising the core of your entire system.

Other than that, how did Kant know this? Another example of effing the ineffable?

I have a plan to read Kant's critique of Pure Reason to understand his full arguments, that's one of the methodology how I have arrived and the other is by studying all the mystical traditions of the world and from the works of religious scholars.

I see, so you've arrived at this knowledge by planning to read a fucking book you haven't yet read?

Please let us know when you bring this plan to fruition, because a good deal of it is concerned with debunking exactly what you're selling.

Sure, there can be evidence for theurgy, I didn't denied that, I said theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

If there is evidence, it can be studied scientifically.

It builds on the work of Kant if there is a route to know the noumena which Kant didn't knew.

Kant didn't actually establish the distinction, he merely asserted it.

I never forced anyone to be a theurgist, you can continue to be an atheist but know that your position is a fundamentally flawed one because all evidence from science and religion is showing that the numinous exist.

And you think I reject the 'numinous' because..?

Do you even know what an atheist is?

Bullshit, shouldn't I cite evidence to support my position? There is a coherent definition from comparative religion which you are not fucking aware of. I can defend this definition in a court of Law. I know you don't want to know it so why the fuck should I cite it.

Yet you seem unable to give it. Does Thor come under the rubric of this definition? Bacchus? Ra?

Oh, and since when were courts of law the arbiters of usage?

I said there is indirect evidence for the existence of quarks.

No there isn't. There's evidence in support of the model in which quarks are a feature. If you understood what QM, and specifically QFT, had to say about this, I'm sure you would be a good deal less confident.

Quarks are a model only. Nobody who has any idea of what they're talking about asserts that they are real, existence things (and indeed there are some things about all the massive particles in the standard model that are flatly refuted by QM). Are quarks, for example, black holes? They certainly are in the standard model.

Yeah, as for the rest of this insults which you have done is the very evidence for scientism and arrogance on other independent disciplines which I explained in the beginning of this thread.

Insults? What fucking insults?

As for scientism, you've got the wrong man. I do not assert the universality of the scientific method, because I know better. Of course, much easier for you to accuse me of scientism than to actually address the arguments or provide a shred of support for your idiotic arse-water.

savithru wrote:
God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense

God is purely a metaphysical concept and hence lies outside the domain of science

Saying God cannot be falsified in the scientific sense suggests an alternative methodology by which he can be

Anything outside the domain of science cannot be investigated and so non testable hypotheses are disregarded

hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:Not for theurgists.

Yep, and ass-raping lizard aliens aren't worthless for David Icke. Let us know how that works out for you.

There is no conspiracy in the practice of theurgy. If you are not interested in it don't pursue it. I know something and I want to pursue it.

Why pursue theurgy?

No one asked scientists to be theurgists, its a non-overlapping magisterium.

NOMA is the biggest pile of bollocks ever uttered by an accomodationist. Gould should have known better.

NOMA is the default view of the majority of theologians and theists. The criticism of New Atheists against Stephen J Gould is bollocks and is based on a complete lack of understanding of theology. The slogan "truth cannot contradict truth" goes well with science and religion.

Well done. You just failed utterly at answering the point. Kant's major work is aimed at criticising the core of your entire system.

Please let us know when you bring this plan to fruition, because a good deal of it is concerned with debunking exactly what you're selling.

Contrary to what you think the mystical philosophical view is very much similar to Kantian philosophy. While mystics arrived at that philosophy through theurgy Kant arrived at his conclusion through his philosophy. Kant was very much aware of it and so were the mystics. Kant neither had a positive view nor a negative view on mysticism.

Kant, Swedenborg, and Kantian Mystics

Other than that, how did Kant know this? Another example of effing the ineffable?

At some point or the other one has to answer Kant while discussing western philosophy. Kant arrived at it through his philosophical works.

Sure, there can be evidence for theurgy, I didn't denied that, I said theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

If there is evidence, it can be studied scientifically.

Will scientists utter magic spells and worship our gods if evidence is shown for theurgy?

It builds on the work of Kant if there is a route to know the noumena which Kant didn't knew.

Kant didn't actually establish the distinction, he merely asserted it.

Kant was the one who established the Analytic-synthetic distinction.

I never forced anyone to be a theurgist, you can continue to be an atheist but know that your position is a fundamentally flawed one because all evidence from science and religion is showing that the numinous exist.

And you think I reject the 'numinous' because..?

Do you even know what an atheist is?

God is not in the numinous realm, the whole numinous realm is in God so you have to reject the realm of numinous.

Bullshit, shouldn't I cite evidence to support my position? There is a coherent definition from comparative religion which you are not fucking aware of. I can defend this definition in a court of Law. I know you don't want to know it so why the fuck should I cite it.

Yet you seem unable to give it. Does Thor come under the rubric of this definition? Bacchus? Ra?

While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanishads may well have influenced the writings of early Mahayana thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well.

- Alan Wallace, Is Buddhism really Non-theistic?

This single theory will bring the secular world down and will also mark the end of atheism.

Oh, and since when were courts of law the arbiters of usage?

Because you doubt that I have made up this all by myself.

I said there is indirect evidence for the existence of quarks.

No there isn't. There's evidence in support of the model in which quarks are a feature. If you understood what QM, and specifically QFT, had to say about this, I'm sure you would be a good deal less confident.

Quarks are a model only. Nobody who has any idea of what they're talking about asserts that they are real, existence things (and indeed there are some things about all the massive particles in the standard model that are flatly refuted by QM). Are quarks, for example, black holes? They certainly are in the standard model.

I just gave the example of quarks as an analogy. For particle physicists it does certainly seem real just as information seems real for those physicists working on quantum information science. I very well know its just a model.

Yeah, as for the rest of this insults which you have done is the very evidence for scientism and arrogance on other independent disciplines which I explained in the beginning of this thread.

Insults? What fucking insults?

As for scientism, you've got the wrong man. I do not assert the universality of the scientific method, because I know better. Of course, much easier for you to accuse me of scientism than to actually address the arguments or provide a shred of support for your idiotic arse-water.

By discarding other possible ways of knowing and studying Nature you have put scientism in action, of course you don't assert it you practice scientism.

savithru wrote:There is no conspiracy in the practice of theurgy.

Way to completely miss the point. Not come across the concept of analogy yet, then?

If you are not interested in it don't pursue it.

Like all shitty ideas, I'm interested in demolishing it.

I know something and I want to pursue it.

Rectally extracted blind assertions do not constitute knowledge.

NOMA is the default view of the majority of theologians and theists.

verecundiam/populum combo! Going for the title?

The criticism of New Atheists against Stephen J Gould is bollocks and is based on a complete lack of understanding of theology.

Wrong, because Gould's position wasn't based on theology. He was an atheist. I don't know who these 'new atheists' are, but my criticism is based on the demonstrable fact that it is a tacit admission that belief in a deity and a true scientific mindset are fundamentally incompatible. It doesn't resolve the issue, it amounts to putting one's head in the sand and saying, 'whatever you do, don't look at it'.

The slogan "truth cannot contradict truth" goes well with science and religion.

Slogans? Rituals in linguistic form.

Contrary to what you think the mystical philosophical view is very much similar to Kantian philosophy. While mystics arrived at that philosophy through theurgy Kant arrived at his conclusion through his philosophy. Kant was very much aware of it and so were the mystics. Kant neither had a positive view nor a negative view on mysticism.

He says, just after admitting he hasn't read the book.

At some point or the other one has to answer Kant while discussing western philosophy. Kant arrived at it through his philosophical works.

I don't have to answer the contents of Kant's rectum any more than I have to answer yours. Still missing the point by light years, though. If one has to answer Kant, how do you answer his criticism of ritual and superstition (now there's a tautology)?

Will scientists utter magic spells and worship our gods if evidence is shown for theurgy?

Lovely bit of question-begging. Let us know how that works out.

Kant was the one who established the Analytic-synthetic distinction.

He didn't establish that the distinction between noumena and phenomena has any meaning. Do try to keep up.

God is not in the numinous realm, the whole numinous realm is in God so you have to reject the realm of numinous.

Ah, assertion. How's that been going for you? As you'd hoped?

snip copypasta

And this was supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

This single theory will bring the secular world down and will also mark the end of atheism.

You don;t have a fucking theory. Learn what a theory is.

Because you doubt that I have made up this all by myself.

What the fuck are you blathering about? Am I in discussion with fucking babelfish, or what?

I just gave the example of quarks as an analogy.

Quarks are an analogy.

For particle physicists it does certainly seem real just as information seems real for those physicists working on quantum information science. I very well know its just a model.

Hahaha. You think you have a better handle on it than the world's particle physicists. Ahahahahaha. Agahahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha.

By discarding other possible ways of knowing and studying Nature you have put scientism in action

How the fuck do you know what I've discarded? You haven't demonstrated that you actually have another way of knowing, because all we've seen is fucking stupid assertions.

, of course you don't assert it you practice scientism.

Treating your obvious fuckwitted bollocks in the appropriate manner is not scientism. That's clearly another term you need to reduce your abject ignorance with regard to.

Man, some people read a book on philosophy and think they've found the keys to the fucking cosmos. Wibble, all of it.

Still not convinced that this isn't a show of trollurgy, or possibly poesophy...

hackenslash wrote:
my criticism is based on the demonstrable fact that it is a tacit admission that
belief in a deity and a true scientific mindset are fundamentally incompatible

Not all scientists are agnostic or atheist but as long as what those who are not do not allow their belief to in any way interfere with the day job then there is no incompatibility. Human beings can compartmentalise so that contradictions do
not become impractical in reality. Also belief is not something which can be referenced by the scientific method anyway so
it matters not what scientists believe as long as it is entirely separate from their science. And they all have them. They do not have to be at the profound end of the spectrum but can just as easily be at the mundane end. And those beliefs - what ever they may be - are just as unscientific as a belief in a deity. You may say that that does not matter because there is no conflict of interest. But all belief by definition is unscientific regardless of whether it is profound or mundane. But no one questions what a scientist believes only when the belief pertains to a deity. But as long as all belief is disregarded when
they are doing science then it matters not what it is

hackenslash wrote:
Like all shitty ideas, I'm interested in demolishing it.

I know something and I want to pursue it.

Rectally extracted blind assertions do not constitute knowledge.

Man, some people read a book on philosophy and think they've found the keys to the fucking cosmos. Wibble, all of it.

You don't know any better and contrary to what you think I have read many things, not just some fucking Philosophical book.

Since you don't allow other ways of thinking with your fucked up scientific mindset care to explain these papers since you are an expert in human thinking.

Is Thinking Computable?
Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic Information Theory
The Brain is not computable

There are many theories competing to explain human consciousness, for example - Penrose Orch-OR model is one, we theurgists have our own theory and we know better than neuroscience. I am convinced that my Neo-platonic religion is absolutely right and your campaign to demolish it is at best asinine.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Not all scientists are agnostic or atheist but as long as what those who are not do not allow their belief to in any way interfere with the day job then there is no incompatibility.

Why does everybody raise the same utterly irrelevant objection to that statement?

Read it again. You cannot apply a scientific mindset to god and come away a believer, It isn't possible. Thus, they are incompatible. It doesn't matter what anybody believes, or how many believing scientists there are. This is an entirely irrelevant appeal, and I do wish people would think about what's actually been said before erecting it, because it's fucking stupid.

Oh, and the rest of your post was idiotic bollocks as well, but I couldn't be bothered.

savithru wrote:You don't know any better and contrary to what you think I have read many things, not just some fucking Philosophical book.

Since you don't allow other ways of thinking with your fucked up scientific mindset care to explain these papers since you are an expert in human thinking.

Is Thinking Computable?
Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic Information Theory
The Brain is not computable

There are many theories competing to explain human consciousness, for example - Penrose Orch-OR model is one, we theurgists have our own theory and we know better than neuroscience. I am convinced that my Neo-platonic religion is absolutely right and your campaign to demolish it is at best asinine.

You are convinced, but far from convincing, not least because all you have is the same argumentum ad verecundiam. Your entire presentation is rooted in fallacy, and you have no answer to the objections raised. Why should I bother to do your homework for you?

And that's entirely aside from the fact that I think you're a former member having a troll.

hackenslash wrote:
Why does everybody raise the same utterly irrelevant objection to that statement

Well if everybody is doing it then it may be because it is worded rather ambiguously

Having read it again I can see what you meant but it is not as obvious as it should be

Be nice if savithru would pick a position and stick with it. He seems to be having a little confusion as to whether science can or cannot study ... whatever it is he's on about.