We all had one

@indonesia-phil said
But....If the god who does the inspiring doesn't exist then it renders the scripture (which is only a posh word for people writing stuff down, the Daily Telegraph is also scripture, and who believes that? ) meaningless, and the existence of gods can't be proved, which is why it's called 'faith.'

The study of evolution is based on observable scientific evidence; the ...[text shortened]... , but at least we now know that we both roll our own cigarettes; common ground, let's build on that.

"But....If..."

If one bases one's belief about consciousness, which it appears is the context of these recent series of posts, on purely scientific analysis of the human body with regards to its(conscience's) location within the body's framework, then, I believe, much much more of what we are and how we are put together is neglected.

Since science is concerned with the purely physical realities of our existence, and cannot be applied to the spiritual component of our existence, one is invariably consigned to a single and restricted point of view.

At best the unbeliever, (or is that non-believer), can only deny the existence of man's spiritual essence, and does not do so based on scientific observation or investigation, but on some other level of the intellect.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I agree that only one of those views is true. It is also the case that only one of us will ever get to know they were correct (and it won't be me).

Hilarious! You have an interesting but convoluted sense of humor.

Looking closer at your comment it appears you are admitting my point of view is the correct one. 😉

@secondson said
Two opposing points of view. The one has it that matter/energy has always existed in some form, and the current state of the existence of the universe is the result of a process called, or named, evolution, arrived at by scientific investigation.

The other point of view has it that all matter/energy came into existence, before there was anything, at a point in time calle ...[text shortened]... ing, makes the discussion of the origins of the universe that much more fascinating and interesting.

Some people believe that dividing things in to two mutually exclusive points of view that must be debated against each other is more a product of the way human beings think than a requirement of the things being discussed. A product of thinking through binary logic.

You wouldn't have to go back too far in history to find a point where Suzianne's description of an integrated way of thinking in which combining religious and scientific ideas would have been considered impossible with a preference for debate between two perceived incompatible opposites.

I like the idea from Zen Buddhism that points out that for every thesis there can be an antithesis, but if your journey aims for the mid point between the two that creates a new thesis for which you can create an antithesis once again. So this process can be repeated infinitely never arriving at truth, but also helping your journey.

It is increasingly clear that the human brain is not an empty vessel to be loaded with information. It comes with a lot preloaded with childhood seeming as much about learning to use and manage that which was already within us as it is the introduction of new material. There is a commonality about the development of isolated minds wherever that development is taking place. Personality is discovered as well as given.

So if the substrate of the things that populate our minds like conscience, expectations about who people might be etc came loaded in the DNA there is a commonality that is within us all and is available to us all, just as people talk of 'God moving within us all' and 'searching within ourselves'. Perhaps there is a biological story to be combined with the idea of a 'message' to be sought within us?

@petewxyz said
Some people believe that dividing things in to two mutually exclusive points of view that must be debated against each other is more a product of the way human beings think than a requirement of the things being discussed. A product of thinking through binary logic.

You wouldn't have to go back too far in history to find a point where Suzianne's description of an integrat ...[text shortened]... haps there is a biological story to be combined with the idea of a 'message' to be sought within us?

"Perhaps there is a biological story to be combined with the idea of a 'message' to be sought within us?"

As touching on the subject of duality that the greater part of your post is devoted I would have to say that human experience has made it abundantly clear there's no escaping the reality that there are two sides, or more, but predominantly two, with regards to the differences between the spiritual and the material, (or carnal if you will), relative to the debate about the origins of the existence of the universe.

There may have been a time when science and faith were intertwined, but no more. Science has erected the divide that exists between the concept of creation and the reason that matter/energy exists. Duality is increased exponentially as a result.

To address your question, I believe it quite possible that the story of our existence is indeed written in our DNA, and the closer science gets to unraveling the mystery written therein it will be discovered that our origin began at a specific point in time.

After all, isn't science, and all knowledge, written in creation? Or if you prefer, in matter/energy?

@secondson said
Hilarious! You have an interesting but convoluted sense of humor.

Looking closer at your comment it appears you are admitting my point of view is the correct one. 😉

Simply that if I am indeed correct, and death is final, I will be in no position to revel in my correctness.

@suzianne said
At the Big Bang moment and immediately afterward, there was nothing but energy representing all possible frequencies, I'm pretty sure it was awash in light. Matter later coelesced from this over-abundance of energy.

Do not fall for his cheap tricks. He is talking about "visible light" within the spectrum humans can see and not about how "light" is used as a term in science and this "light" can also be "seen" using the right instruments.

This is a nice article about the subject:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/30/science-uncovers-the-origin-of-the-first-light-in-the-universe/#4ed532fa3487

@secondson said
"But....If..."

If one bases one's belief about consciousness, which it appears is the context of these recent series of posts, on purely scientific analysis of the human body with regards to its(conscience's) location within the body's framework, then, I believe, much much more of what we are and how we are put together is neglected.

Since science is concerned with t ...[text shortened]... ot do so based on scientific observation or investigation, but on some other level of the intellect.

You seem to be saying that without belief in your particular god a person can have no 'spiritual essence' . Is that what you're saying?

@indonesia-phil said
You seem to be saying that without belief in your particular god a person can have no 'spiritual essence' . Is that what you're saying?

Not at all. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that strictly speaking science can observe, measure, probe, detect and investigate etc the material universe, but it cannot use scientific method to do the same with the immaterial aspects of the spiritual component of man.

Question is, is there such a thing? Is there more to man than just the physical and material frame? If so, science cannot tell. If not, I am delusional for believing there is.

I am not delusional. So then, how do I know? That's the million dollar question. If I could prove such a thing....ergo the great debate. Is there a creator God? Who is He if there is? How can I know without going crazy trying to find out?

Of course my argument, or assertions, are based in the fact that I do know, which nets me all manner of refutations. I'm good with that, no sweat. 🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Simply that if I am indeed correct, and death is final, I will be in no position to revel in my correctness.

Preemptive reveling? There's a chink in that armor somewhere! 😉

@secondson said

Of course my argument, or assertions, are based in the fact that I do know, which nets me all manner of refutations. I'm good with that, no sweat. 🙂

Sorry to break it to you sir but your assertions and arguments on this matter stem from a fallible source (a fallibility we all share) so can in no meaningful way be described as factual. We can both certainly agree that you 'think' you know, but no more than that.

For example, I know a chap who (as far as he is concerned) knows for a fact that ghosts exist. Now, I fully accept that he believes ghosts exist 'as a matter of fact' but does his assured assertion actually make the existence of ghosts a factual certainty?

My answer is no.

@secondson said
Preemptive reveling? There's a chink in that armor somewhere! 😉

There is no revelling to be had sir in the finality of death.

@secondson said
"Perhaps there is a biological story to be combined with the idea of a 'message' to be sought within us?"

As touching on the subject of duality that the greater part of your post is devoted I would have to say that human experience has made it abundantly clear there's no escaping the reality that there are two sides, or more, but predominantly two, with regards to ...[text shortened]... fter all, isn't science, and all knowledge, written in creation? Or if you prefer, in matter/energy?

I think that's the point where we would have to agree to differ, but it's a helpful conversation as it allows me to reflect on why I think looking for middle ground and the possibility of integration of thinking is important to me and why I don't want to accept duality as inevitable. For me duality creates a vision of a divided and tribal future where human beings are not being helped to move forwards by their favoured spiritual philosophy. But I think the desire to create duality within processes of thought comes from a natural tendency of the human mind.