• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Miracles probably do happen

Jacksprat said:
Panpsychism is not religious or theistic. It only states that all objects have consciousness. The ancient Greeks referred to thought and intelligence as nous.
Later Christians made nous into a subjective being, God. Thus, intelligence is just a property of the universe.
Click to expand...

Whatever. That’s not what the scientists say.
 
Jacksprat said:
Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other.

Click to expand...

If the “middle way” has no scientific merit to back it up, then it just becomes another figment of imagination.
 
watsup said:
What do you mean by “primary property”? Surely you can’t mean that there is consciousness outside of life and thought outside of hominid life?
Click to expand...
That is what I mean. Many do not realize that there is no proof that thought exists only as function of biology.
 
watsup said:
If the “middle way” has no scientific merit to back it up, then it just becomes another figment of imagination.
Click to expand...
I do not care what science says. They are limited by their description of physicality.
 
Jacksprat said:
I do not care what science says. They are limited by their description of physicality.
Click to expand...

Science is about discovering the physical reality of the universe. If that is not that important to you, well, “it’s a free country”.
 
watsup said:
Science is about discovering the physical reality of the universe. If that is not that important to you, well, “it’s a free country”.
Click to expand...
I am too knowledgeable to limit myself to what scientists say. You may as well be quoting the Bible.
 
Jacksprat said:
I am too knowledgeable to limit myself to what scientists say. You may as well be quoting the Bible.
Click to expand...

It’s a free country. Messing around with ESP, for instance, can be interesting. The problem arises when conclusions are drawn without sufficient objective real-world evidence, such as Mith claiming that so-called “miracles” require divine intervention, or that a “Creator” is needed for the universe.
 
watsup said:
It’s a free country. Messing around with ESP, for instance, can be interesting. The problem arises when conclusions are drawn without sufficient objective real-world evidence, such as Mith claiming that so-called “miracles” require divine intervention, or that a “Creator” is needed for the universe.
Click to expand...
Nothing I said has anything to do with miracles, Creator, or God.
 
watsup said:
You’re the one making the claim. Why are you so afraid to expand on it?
Click to expand...
Not afraid. You clearly did not understand anything about panpsychism that I posted.
 
watsup said:
Has nothing to do with ego battles. Simply don’t understand why you won’t expand on your claims.
Click to expand...
I have. Sorry, I am not interested in very elementary discussions in philosophy.
 
Mithrae said:
You've constructed a worldview of brains and bodies and planets and so on, all made of nonconscious material stuff and all following certain "rules."
Click to expand...
No i have not. Every observation ever made and every shred of evidence ever collected has done that.

Every shred. All of it.

Mithrae said:
You don't seem able to even question this worldview, to even comprehend the possibility that it might not be accurate.
Click to expand...
Except when i have right here in this very thread. You don't seem to understand that "contemptlating something" doesn't mean just saying "golly, could be true!" and then going to breakfast.

It means inspecting the idea and applying skepticism to it. Which is what I have done.

And all of your ideas have quickly fallen apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. And the fact that all of the evidence ever collected shows no need for any of it is kind of an important factor.

When you are not engaging in special pleading, you are engaging in argumet from ignorance orange.

"It could be true, because you can't prove it to be wrong."

Surely you understand the nearly infinite, steaming pile of nonsense that falls under that.
 
Galactic Spin said:
No i have not. Every observation ever made and every shred of evidence ever collected has done that.

Every shred. All of it.


Except when i have right here in this very thread. You don't seem to understand that "contemptlating something" doesn't mean just saying "golly, could be true!" and then going to breakfast.

It means inspecting the idea and applying skepticism to it. Which is what I have done.

And all of your ideas have quickly fallen apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. And the fact that all of the evidence ever collected shows no need for any of it is kind of an important factor.

When you are not engaging in special pleading, you are engaging in argumet from ignorance orange.

"It could be true, because you can't prove it to be wrong."

Surely you understand the nearly infinite, steaming pile of nonsense that falls under that.
Click to expand...

Superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom