Metaphysical Absolute

@pettytalk said
You do realize that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a strong believer in the spiritual world? At the time of his death on July 7, 1930, he had long been recognized as a prominent advocate of Spiritualism, the belief that the deceased can communicate with the living through an earthly conduit, or medium. For over fourteen years, he dedicated significant portions of his time, ener ...[text shortened]... to promoting this cause, which he frequently referred to as "the most important thing in the world"

Yes, as a teen I read a book about Harry Houdini, an escape artist, who met Doyle. Houdini was shocked that someone who created such an iconic character known for logic could believe that nonsense.

But Sherlock still kicks ass and I choose not to let my image of the character be tainted by his author.

@vivify said
Yes, as a teen I read a book about Harry Houdini, an escape artist, who met Doyle. Houdini was shocked that someone who created such an iconic character known for logic could believe that nonsense.

But Sherlock still kicks ass and I choose not to let my image of the character be tainted by his author.

Elementary, my dear dr. Vivify.

Absolutes are not elementary subjects. For infinity, an absolute, to be determined to be a fact, absolutely, one much go from here to infinity, and then come back and tell us that it's a fact. Good Luck, Houdini.

You are welcome to physically go the distance, for a fact.

Regarding our cheap trick magician, Houdini, the record shows that before his death, Houdini made a pact with his wife, Bess, that if either of them passed away first, the surviving partner would try to communicate with the departed through a prearranged code message. Houdini died first, and Bess held séances for over ten years, hoping to receive a message from him. However, she never received any communication from Houdini. The code must have escaped her memory, but I have heard that they were happily reunited when she too crossed over to the other side.

Break on through to the other side. --Jim Morrison, The Doors.

Obviously Houdini was intrigued by spiritualism, but being a skeptic he wanted to become a believer. Houdini escaping death would have been his greatest act, the absolute trick an escape artist can pull.

@kellyjay said
Spouting an Atheistic viewpoint does not prove anything, all you are doing is declaring what you believe is true, is true. How about bringing to bear your views on evidence not just making declarations? More is required if you want to prove a point instead of declaring it as if that is all that is required. When you say get rid of God from my viewpoint, that adds nothing t ...[text shortened]... is only an illusion as if that proves anything, they acknowledge what they see, but deny it anyway.

I don't know what you think it is I'm trying to 'prove'. I don't have a 'view' on scientific evidence; if I see a fossil which is proven by carbon dating (you know, science) to be ten million years old, I say 'Look, there's a fossil which is ten million years old.' I don't have a 'view' on it. When did I say 'get rid of god' from your viewpoint? As I've said so many times now, I don't give a tinkers' cuss about your viewpoint. (That's an English expression which you may not have heard of)

The 'complex work we see in life' is called nature, I don't need to give 'reasons' for that, because there need be no 'reasons' for it.

I don't know what on earth you're banging on about in your last paragraph.

Here's the thing; you believe in your particular god, and I and others have asked you many times to explain some of the many contradictions, illogicalities and such which are inherent in your beliefs, and you have been able to answer none of the questions put to you, simple though they are. Makes you think, doesn't it?

@indonesia-phil said
I don't know what you think it is I'm trying to 'prove'. I don't have a 'view' on scientific evidence; if I see a fossil which is proven by carbon dating (you know, science) to be ten million years old, I say 'Look, there's a fossil which is ten million years old.' I don't have a 'view' on it. When did I say 'get rid of god' from your viewpoint? As I've said so many ti ...[text shortened]... ble to answer none of the questions put to you, simple though they are. Makes you think, doesn't it?

When information processing occurs, it is not a natural undirected goalless process at play but a mind habitually. I've asked you pointed questions in the past, and then you go away and don't engage. If you think I'm avoiding such things you ask and I will ask a question and we can have a dialogue I doubt you will if your history means anything.

@pettytalk said
It's only fair to ask @KellyJay if he is speaking for himself, when he argues for God's sake? God's existence sake for the discussion.

Has God requested him to be his representative and spokesperson?

The term "Metaphysical Absolute" refers to the concept of an unconditional reality that transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is often used as an alte ...[text shortened]... r philosophical contexts, is a complex task due to the inherently subjective nature of these fields.

All "truth" is absolute if it isn't absolute is it true?

@kellyjay said
All "truth" is absolute if it isn't absolute is it true?

Slavery is morally sound.

Slavery is morally unsound.

Is either of these statements an absolute truth?

@kellyjay said
When information processing occurs, it is not a natural undirected goalless process at play but a mind habitually. I've asked you pointed questions in the past, and then you go away and don't engage. If you think I'm avoiding such things you ask and I will ask a question and we can have a dialogue I doubt you will if your history means anything.

There you go again, stating your beliefs as if they mean something to anyone but you, and I'm not sure what 'habitually' has to do with anything.

I've stated my position before. Can I unlock the mysteries of the universe? Nope, and nor can anyone else. Do I think that nature is enough as and of itself to explain natures' processes? Yep. Is the scientific process the only way by which we can better understand the natural world? Yep. Do I think that looking at the world through the prism of belief in a supernatural being, or using text which is thousands of years old going to help us to understand the world around us? Nope. Is the scientific process complete, and has it done as much as it can in terms of studying the natural world around us? Nope.

I could go on, but I think that about covers the basics. As for asking each other questions, we know from experience that you can't and don't address a single question which is put to you regarding your beliefs, so I see no point in asking again. These forums are thick with questions which you have been asked, please feel free to address any of them.

As for 'going away', as I have explained before, there is more to my life than obsessive reading or posting of or on a chess forums, so I 'go away' to do other things, and will in all likelihood 'go away' again quite soon.

@indonesia-phil said
There you go again, stating your beliefs as if they mean something to anyone but you, and I'm not sure what 'habitually' has to do with anything.

I've stated my position before. Can I unlock the mysteries of the universe? Nope, and nor can anyone else. Do I think that nature is enough as and of itself to explain natures' processes? Yep. Is the scientific process th ...[text shortened]... ss forums, so I 'go away' to do other things, and will in all likelihood 'go away' again quite soon.

My beliefs reside only in me, but that isn't the topic. I'm not sure what you think you can do with science if you cannot look at the universe and figure out what is and isn't real which would be an absolute. You are suggesting nature is enough, and that is what an absolute truth, or just what you want it me.

@indonesia-phil said
I don't know what you think it is I'm trying to 'prove'. I don't have a 'view' on scientific evidence; if I see a fossil which is proven by carbon dating (you know, science) to be ten million years old, I say 'Look, there's a fossil which is ten million years old.' I don't have a 'view' on it. When did I say 'get rid of god' from your viewpoint? As I've said so many ti ...[text shortened]... ble to answer none of the questions put to you, simple though they are. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Concerning fossils, we see creatures show up and disappear in what we can see in the fossil record over time, and the search goes on the transitional life from one creature turning into another, and many "just so stories" show up when someone thinks they found one.

A question I have concerning fossils isn't about transitional ones, it is why we see the sudden appearances of static life in the fossil record at all. People are always looking for the transitional ones that have life moving from one to the next, but why the static lifeforms in the first place? If evolution is small changes over time why would there ever be a static lifeform that hangs around for millions of years?

If true then all life would always be in a state of change continually; therefore, the question shouldn't be limited to missing fossils in transition, nor should the question be only about millions of years ago either. Today, why don't we see a string of similar lifeforms in different forms, instead of the static unique forms we see today and in the past? Doesn't matter how you date things if the premise itself isn't evident.

@kellyjay said
A question I have concerning fossils isn't about transitional ones, it is why we see the sudden appearances of static life in the fossil record at all.

Your question doesn't make sense. Provide a link regarding what you're talking about. What do you mean by the "sudden appearance" of static life? And what do you mean by "static life" in the first place?

Please provide a source for answer.

@vivify said
Your question doesn't make sense. Provide a link regarding what you're talking about. What do you mean by the "sudden appearance" of static life? And what do you mean by "static life" in the first place?

Please provide a source for answer.

We find life that according to our dating methods suggests they appear at one time go away another. So questions are where are the lifeforms that were before and after? If all life is always mutating while evolving why are there lifeforms suddenly appearing and disappearing? Why are we not seeing constant evolutionary changes everywhere including today? No link this is my question but I am sure I can’t be the first to ask this.

@kellyjay said
We find life that according to our dating methods suggests they appear at one time go away another. So questions are where are the lifeforms that were before and after? If all life is always mutating while evolving why are there lifeforms suddenly appearing and disappearing? Why are we not seeing constant evolutionary changes everywhere including today? No link this is my question but I am sure I can’t be the first to ask this.

Your question doesn't make sense and is likely not based in any facts. That's why I asked you to provide a link because it seems your question has no basis scientifically.

@vivify said
Your question doesn't make sense and is likely not based in any facts. That's why I asked you to provide a link because it seems your question has no basis scientifically.

The question revolves around what we do see not what is missing. The sudden appearance of a new lifeform then later it dies off should not be the norm.

@kellyjay said
The question revolves around what we do see not what is missing. The sudden appearance of a new lifeform then later it dies off should not be the norm.

Give a specific example of a "sudden appearance" of a "new" lifeform then later dies off.

@vivify said
Give a specific example of a "sudden appearance" of a "new" lifeform then later dies off.

Dinosaurs, but there are several species that we find fossils for that we place in one time period, not others. Cenozoic Era, Mesozoic Era, Paleozoic Era, and Cambrian have fossils we date and place at different times.