I appreciate that sentiment. I honestly think we die because we believe that. I really do know. The definition of existence is fairly simple; it is anything to exist - boundless, prepositional or real. It matters, or not; with magic smack evident in the middle - we decide. It's not an easy endeavor to turn around and simply live forever by the sheer belief though. But that is at least the theory. There is much to esteem in that regard. Any decision matters and that is what makes civilization a mighty interesting endeavor. I'm happy to be here. A fine crew aboard this vessel. — Eleonora

The whole forum topic was mocked by the mass majority of us including you. Yeah i agree with you.

How do you feel about the positive movement or "the secret" (i think there is a book called that)?

Do you study Kabbalah?

Considering the complacent and apathetic nature of modern people who adhere to the religion that i've chosen, i'm not sure i can argue that my religion is worth defending based on performance. Many of my chosen religion, construe a complacent and apathetic spirit as the Holy Spirit ("the comforter"). While i believe the Holy Spirit does sometimes condone complacency and apathy, it seems these people only embrace these spirits. That Holy Book says "test the spirits" (not that this implies not doing this is blasphemie against the Holy Spirit) meaning there are more than one spirit(s) according to that Holy Book amd not all of them are holy. The last "book" in this Holy book says there are 7 Holy Spirits (to my understanding of what is written)

As for all religions being the same, temple prostitution and child sacrifice was common among the Amorites (canaan and Iraq) and also other city states of Iraq, Hindu/India, Parthian/Greek, and also Roman, and i would guess there are more, i don't think its fair to say all religions have the same god/gods.

Also there have been Atheist rulers in history that have ruled with a rod of iron even to the point of imposing fear by randomly shooting citizens in the back of the head.
— christian2017

I seem to have overlooked the dark side of atheism but I don't think atheism per se flips a switch inside our heads that make us go from peace loving, docile lambs to murderous, bloodthirsty villains. I'm not calling for criticism of religion because of the violence associated with it, although that would make a very good argument. What concerns me is the violent opposition of religious folks to subjecting the doctrines of their religions to proper scrutiny. No atheist will kill you for being a theist but the converse isn't true. — TheMadFool

The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.

I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.

Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues.

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation.
— christian2017
I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.

So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.

The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers. :cool: — Gnomon

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? I understand there is a connection but not a 1 to 1 or even necessarily a linear relationship. Basically what i am saying is i know there is a connection but what is that connection?

My assumption is you know the onion is a parody website. Yeah i'll read the article. The onion is very often funny.

thats fair.

Hey All, with the current boredom of isolation rounding out a free semester before transfer to Uni for Philosophy & Religious Studies, I'm writing more! I am trying to add too ongoing pieces Ive done on different opinions & discussions for publication, later down the road ideally as my education continues.

Right now Ive worded as well as I can an ongoing thought which turned into a "Parable of Mans Relationship with God"I plan on expanding on along with other parables geared toward what I have written below. Any feedback is appreciated, critical & supportive. Hope to keep posting as time goes on, until then I leave you with this. P.s. if this is not a parable plz let me know, god I hope I'm using the term correctly.

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. They grasp it, & at first it was a friend, a lead, a guide in the confusion to be followed & protected by; eventually this hand was the only thing mankind could rely on for stability. Their eyes slowly opened to the sights of perception, their ears listened to reasoning & logic, slowly; they lose their grip on the hand. Once Mankind opened their eyes wide & bright, opened their ears full & clear, they turned their heads hoping to see who it is attached to the hand. Yet in all but an instant, the feeling of the hand was lost, & there was no one standing next to them. Mankind looked & listened to the world around them, seeking that which is perceptible, finding only things of reason & logic. They learned of many great things, wonders which would baffle past imaginations of their blind past. Yet, for all this searching; it was in the name of finding the hand, which guided them through the darkness long ago. "

- StoicToad — Stoic Toad

Considering humans are some of the few animals that have complex speach/communication, perhaps religion arose out of understanding death better than other animals and also because we are social we wanted to promote good behavior in these groups of people.

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation.

It is communicated as a concept. Black to white grayscale is a simple concept of linear variable, brightness varies from 0 to 255 for example. So then RGB frame for color concept is combination of three such variables: Red, Green, Blue. But it might not be a simple combination, don't know.
— Zelebg
Concept is just a mental category. We categorize part of our brute visual experience as the concept, color, and language isnt necessary to do this. We can mentally categorize the world without using words. They are communicated as words. The concept stays inside your head and are translated into words, scribbles and sounds, to communicate the concept that is in your head to others.

If language is only social, and you can only derive concepts from language, then how did the first person acquire concepts? — Harry Hindu

Humans probably weren't the first "ape" to have a language. As for how man's predecessor stopped being able to procreate with our species, i don't know. I guess many would say the previous "ape" was wiped out or perhaps we killed them off.

Humans possibly weren't the first animal to have some rudimentary concept of math. I could be wrong and i have nothing to prove my point. This is conjecture.

Hey All, with the current boredom of isolation rounding out a free semester before transfer to Uni for Philosophy & Religious Studies, I'm writing more! I am trying to add too ongoing pieces Ive done on different opinions & discussions for publication, later down the road ideally as my education continues.

Right now Ive worded as well as I can an ongoing thought which turned into a "Parable of Mans Relationship with God"I plan on expanding on along with other parables geared toward what I have written below. Any feedback is appreciated, critical & supportive. Hope to keep posting as time goes on, until then I leave you with this. P.s. if this is not a parable plz let me know, god I hope I'm using the term correctly.

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. They grasp it, & at first it was a friend, a lead, a guide in the confusion to be followed & protected by; eventually this hand was the only thing mankind could rely on for stability. Their eyes slowly opened to the sights of perception, their ears listened to reasoning & logic, slowly; they lose their grip on the hand. Once Mankind opened their eyes wide & bright, opened their ears full & clear, they turned their heads hoping to see who it is attached to the hand. Yet in all but an instant, the feeling of the hand was lost, & there was no one standing next to them. Mankind looked & listened to the world around them, seeking that which is perceptible, finding only things of reason & logic. They learned of many great things, wonders which would baffle past imaginations of their blind past. Yet, for all this searching; it was in the name of finding the hand, which guided them through the darkness long ago. " — Stoic Toad

Have you ever read Noah Harrari's "Sapiens". He is an atheist that would agree with you completely. Some would say he is a naturalist.

If you don't want to read the book then watch some of his youtube videos related to his book "Sapiens".

a. we actually see colors (colors exist)
b. we only think we see colors (colors do not exist) — Zelebg

It all depends on how you define colors. If you define colors as indicators our eyes and brains perceive from the varying electromagnetic spectrum that hits our eyes after having bounced of an object that rejected that particular frequency (red rose rejects red light), then yes colors exist. Also the typical definition of color common (substantial subset of population) to most people, colors also exist.

Perhaps with a different definition of light, then colors in that case don't exist.

:)

In trying to revisit some theories relative to EM fields of consciousness :

"My hypothesis is that consciousness is the experience of information, from the inside. There is a postulate in physics that information is neither created or destroyed – the conservation of information ‘law’. It is however just a postulate, nobody has ever proved it. But, if true, it would suggest that awareness (associated with that information) – in some form – might survive death." JJ McFadden

There have been some new studies (2007) in physics that I'm looking at now, which I'll report back later on to see if there are some other clues... .

In the meantime, we all know William James. He had this feeling that the brain filters our access to a vast consciousness that extends beyond the limits of neural activity.

I guess in both instances, one could analogize to the computer 'cloud server' idea... . — 3017amen

thats actually pretty cool. You actually couldn't prove it whether that is true or false. The only way to prove that was false is if all "intelligent" life forms on earth were wiped out... wait it is possible to prove it is unprovable or it is possible to prove it is true, but you can't prove it is false because if all life forms were wiped out, no one could confirm. lol.

I don't even trust personal testimonies when it comes to deciding the veracity of the humdrum theories of behavioural psychology, let alone for deciding the veracity of pseudo-scientific mystical hypotheses.
— sime

Most everything you believe has come from the testimony of others, if you doubted most of it you would be reduced to silence. Professors, books, language, science was given to you by others, you probably had little to do with creating the information yourself.

The argument is logical (inductive argument), don't give your opinions, give reasons why the argument fails. — Sam26

Good point. Math and all rational thought is reduced (or deduced?) to basic definitions. Definitions build on definitions. Intuitive thought can't be proven (even if correct) until it is proven with defintions. Everything can be quantified whether it should or shouldn't be quantified.

Imagine you are born as adult, fully intelligent, in a completely empty universe. What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? Or do we get born with some kind of basic information with which we could then derive some basic concepts and eventually geometry and math? By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

I would imagine if this person didn't have atleast some basic starting point in basic mathematical concepts, this person would not be able to move beyond to creating anything. The person and universe would be in perpetual limbo. Complex mathematical concepts (as you know) build off of simple mathematical concepts including geometry.

magine you are born as adult, fully intelligent, in a completely empty universe. What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? Or do we get born with some kind of basic information with which we could then derive some basic concepts and eventually geometry and math? By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

If you were so good at running scenarios in your head that you knew extremely well what would happen in any given scenario with all parameters set up a certain way, does that mean that scenario happened or is it still a figment of your imagination? I'm not that good at running scenarios so i wouldn't know.

I would imagine running the scenarios to this degree of accuracy might also involve feeling what every creature feels within the scenario (offset by time).

Imagine you are born as adult, fully intelligent, in a completely empty universe. What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? Or do we get born with some kind of basic information with which we could then derive some basic concepts and eventually geometry and math? By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

I would imagine the universe could be built several different ways (atleast a handful), but i would imagine that person would build it in such a way to benefit his/her self the most, simply because that person got there first and probably believes he/she did the most planning. The book of Job covers this.

Yes i believe atleast some mathematical principles are not invented but are based on simpler mathematical principles. Perhaps all mathematical principles are just logic and none are invented.

I believe after much thought and anguish and scenario running (running scenarios in his/her head involving feeling the consequences), that person would pick a solution that best suited that person or atleast approached the threshold of the optimal solution for his or her self.

Because you know you'll die. — Anthony

alright you are the winner. Mine was just like everyone elses but that was different.

How do we define exist and how do we know if we die is the next stupid question that will be asked.

I just ate some kielbasa. — Terrapin Station

That is a lie straight from hell. I just ate that kielbasa, back in your dark hole you arragant thought inside my head!

Every person, as a self, body, or both, knows they exist. But that knowledge is certainly variable with concern to each one, as a lot of philosophies about proving one's existence have emerged, and are known for their common contradictions.

What's yours? I would like to hear from you. — Unlimiter

If i go to work, i get paid at the end of the week. I believe that is definite proof that i exist.

How do you define exist?

Don't make fun of James Kirk, he was a great man. Could you have managed the Star Ship Enterprise? I don't think so buddy.

People might think that it's narcissistic to indulge in self love; but, I contest that notion.

Jesus is said to have claimed that one ought not treat others in a manner that they would not treat themselves. I believe that such a sentiment cannot arise without self-love. Self-love requires one to be consistent and have a high self-esteem.

Yet, many people tend to become assholes or pretentious due to this.

So, my question is twofold.

1. Is self-love possible without negative and highly selfish traits arising?
2. If so how does one go about doing this?
— Shawn

Being on the low end of the love spectrum, herein meant as desirability I know how tough it is to find love; all these fairy tales about "true" love, if such a thing as "true" love event existed/exists, are simply too unrealistic to make it from fiction to fact. Thus, why not indulge yourself in some self-love, given how finding a person to do that for you is simply beyond the reach of ordinary mortals like myself. You may not deserve it though but isn't that what true love is? To love that which doesn't deserve love is the highest form of love, isn't it?

Also, the very notion of loving others is maybe based on how bad one feels when unloved. Just saying... — TheMadFool

If you want a woman that is relatively thin but can also eat alot, date a girl who likes to lift weights alot. She might be able to kick your ass, but she'll have a pretty face and a somewhat thin body. Women love to eat.

If you don't want to have kids then marry a girl who already has kids so when she asks you to help you with her kids, your the hero and at the same time you don't have to worry extensively about them because they aren't really your kids. The edge is taken off that way.

The phrase dates back to a time when most people had religion. Even back then according to the constitution/bill of rights it was legal to be atheist.

Are you saying religion should be banned by american government?

I don't want to insert something into what you said that you didn't say which is why i'm asking?
— christian2017

No, I don't believe religion should be banned but what worries me is that if philosophy has discovered anything, it's is that there's no such thing as a right answer to many of the issues we deem important and that too after thinking long and hard over many years.

Religion, on the other hand, not only claims to know the correct answers to everything but also prohibits rational inquiry into the validity of these answers. While I believe that no religion is completely wrong, I'd prefer it to be welcoming to positive, rational criticism.

Every religion I know of has a special word for those who don't believe in it and I believe most of these words translate to ignoramus. The upside of this practice of calling nonbelievers ignorant is that the faithful are under the impression that their religion counts as wisdom which, if anything, gives wisdom due recognition. The downside is once religion is equated to wisdom (in the traditional sense), it gains the advantage the latter has in terms of being both good and true, in the process making religion practically immune to any kind of criticism.

The problem with this line of thought is that believers have the wrong end of the stick re wisdom. If humanity has learned anything it's that sometimes, maybe even most of the time, we don't have the right answers. The traditional view that to have wisdom is to know everything thoroughly has been supplanted by the more realistic notion of wisdom as not only knowing stuff but also admitting ignorance. In a way then, religion, by claiming to know the truth and labeling nonbelievers as ignorant is actually proving, not that it possesses wisdom but in fact lacks it. It follows then that religion, by claiming perfect wisdom, makes itself unworthy of the attribute of wisdom. Ergo, it must open itself to critique or else continue on as an wisdom's impostor.

All what I've said up until this point is premised on religion being wrong but only as it appears to us, in this day and age. I'm open to the possibility, with great reluctance of course, that religion is correct and that either we don't understand or misunderstand religion. You know how it is...It's as easy to understand a fool as it is to misunderstand a sage. — TheMadFool

Considering the complacent and apathetic nature of modern people who adhere to the religion that i've chosen, i'm not sure i can argue that my religion is worth defending based on performance. Many of my chosen religion, construe a complacent and apathetic spirit as the Holy Spirit ("the comforter"). While i believe the Holy Spirit does sometimes condone complacency and apathy, it seems these people only embrace these spirits. That Holy Book says "test the spirits" (not that this implies not doing this is blasphemie against the Holy Spirit) meaning there are more than one spirit(s) according to that Holy Book amd not all of them are holy. The last "book" in this Holy book says there are 7 Holy Spirits (to my understanding of what is written)

As for all religions being the same, temple prostitution and child sacrifice was common among the Amorites (canaan and Iraq) and also other city states of Iraq, Hindu/India, Parthian/Greek, and also Roman, and i would guess there are more, i don't think its fair to say all religions have the same god/gods.

Also there have been Atheist rulers in history that have ruled with a rod of iron even to the point of imposing fear by randomly shooting citizens in the back of the head.

Does the conclusion follow, that is, I'm interested in knowing where the argument fails, if it fails at all.

Before I put forth the argument, which is based on testimonial evidence, I want us to clarify several points.

First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge.

Second, since the argument will be based on testimonial evidence, and given that testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, what criteria makes testimonial evidence strong?

Third, if testimonial evidence is of something out of the ordinary, say extraterrestrials or something mystical, then it would seem to follow that the evidence would require a higher standard than what is generally required of good testimonial evidence.

Fourth, since the argument falls under the category of metaphysics, how do we understand what is meant by reality? I'm a later Wittgensteinian when it comes to understanding words, that is, I don't believe there is a definition or theory that will cover every use of certain word (for example, words like real or reality). However, I don't believe Wittgenstein was correct in his assumption that the mystical can only be shown (prayer and meditation for example) and not talked about in terms of what's true or false. Wittgenstein believed this in his early and later philosophy, which is one of the reasons why he was against arguments for the existence of God. Although he was sympathetic to man's reach for the mystical, which is why he didn't agree with the logical positivists.

In the next post I will describe what I believe to be the ingredients of strong testimonial evidence. I'm interested in all comments, but I'm especially interested in the comments of those of you who have a strong background in philosophy, and also in the related sciences.

I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification. — Sam26

While i agree with your OP and your method, the conclusion i've come to at this point in my life is there are numerous variables (and alternative theories of why something....) and finding an exact solution isn't impossible but very hard. Perhaps you can find a book or write a book about this subject. I probably wouldn't read the book because i'm already convinced. If you wrote the book and just posted parts of the book, i would read the parts.

consciousness survives the body.
— Sam26

This I don't see.

Death is the most extreme trauma one's body can suffer. What you have are reports of living people who experienced this extreme trauma.

What you do not, and presumably cannot, have are reports from disembodied consciousnesses.

I understand that the claim is that, perhaps for several minutes, someone's consciousness persisted during a period when their body met one or another definition of death. But you do not, and presumably cannot, have reports from people made during this period. You can only have the reports of those who were revived.

Those who were revived suffered extreme trauma. Isn't the most natural assumption that such a traumatic experience would leave traces? Wouldn't a neuroscientific explanation be the most natural? — Srap Tasmaner

It could be they wanted to see themselves in third person as that would be the reasonable assumption if your feeling/consciessness was separate from your brain. Basically i'm saying there belief that they saw something is imagined because they "went crazy" and thought they experienced something they didn't experience because of "stress". This is a possibility.

I believe in the supernatural because i can't explain "feeling" beyond the possibility that the whole universe feels and we are just a subset.

Just Three Orbiting Black Holes Can Break Time-Reversal Symmetry, Physicists Find
Michelle Starr
ScienceAlert
Mar 2020

Nifty work.
At some point "micro chaos" "bubbles up" to give temporal irreversibility, albeit in a round-about way here. — jorndoe

Thats really cool. We've all seen the common grid 3d example of how general relativity works and i've always wondered how that example would work with more objects coming from different directions.

I'm an amatuer arm chair physicist like most people here, but i feel that going back in time is impossible without some wacky and "religious" solutions.

Thanks for the post.

Perhaps you know more about this subject.
— christian2017

I've read a little about it. Ancestor worship is very popular in other religions. I personally think it may have been a more comforting religion in times of crisis than the Jewish rabbi one now popular — Gregory

I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi?

a ruler bought at walmart is a certain size.
— christian2017

Not if the ruler is moving very fast relative to the speed of light. This was actually known before Einstein. It's the Lorentz contraction. — fishfry

i agree.

Military command decisions are not exactly the same as the Trolley problem because the trolley problem presents a choice between two certain events, whereas in the real world there is an element of uncertainty. No one in the British or US Military is ever ordered onto a suicide mission. Uuslaly a few people escape. However, the loss rate of torpedo bomber crews in British service (and possibly US) in WW2 was higher than in the Japanese Kamikazi units. In one of the few real "trolley problems" occurred when a runaway freight train was switched away from station to a branch line in low density housing. No one died even though a woman had a lucky escape.

I am drawn to the trolley problem because it is about people forced to make unpalatable choices. There are several accounts of the stress of the "burden of command" on commanders and he guilt over the deaths of dozens, hundreds or thousands of people on their own side. In 1984 I heard a British WW2 general, Michael Carver, in 1944 a 28 year old Brigadier General talk about how he had to dismiss all three of the commanders of his tank regiments, because they were tired after two years of making these decisions every day.

The thinking about these philosophical experiments may offer an insight in how different armed forces approached the problem of the risk of friendly fire.

It took the French and British armies in the first world war about 750,000 casualties over eighteen months casualties to accept the idea that it was better to take 5% casualties from your own artillery than 30% from enemy machine guns in a tactic known as the creeping barrage. An assault was a rock paper scissors game That became an unspoken doctrine. There were manuals telling soldier that they had to be really close to the barrage, but nothing in writing about the likely cost. The Germans never adopted the idea and even promulgated a myth that the allies were firing dud shells. Even 20 years later in Normandy an SS General repeated the claims. It never seems to have occurred to them that their enemies would be so callous.

In the German air assault on Crete in 1941 Luftwaffe planes were ordered to attack the targeted airfields until "Y" Hour when German paratroops and gliders were landing - amidst cannon fire and bombs.

Three years later in 1944 the Western Allies had huge arguments planning the assault on the coast of France about the risks of friendly fire casualties. The resulting plan left the beach defences themselves un-attacked by allied aircraft and a ten minute gap between the last shell landing on the defenders and the first man ashore.

The ideas provoked by the Trolley problem may help to understand why these different decisions were made, and why previous (utilitarian) experience was ignored. — Frank Baldwin

People who enjoy life (nothing wrong with that) don't want to be "sacrificed" unnecasarily. People who are depressed to a certain degree, will move to Chicago and walk down the street in the middle of the night. No wrong answer because we each have our purpose. Our wives can always remarry.

The David of history (real or fake) wasn't a christian so didn't believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (nor do all christians). There is an appearance from scriptures that David didn't just throw himself into danger for no reason indicating he saw value in living a long life.

A depressed christian might move to chicago....

Much of history is dictated by religious and philosophical beliefs.

People who join the modern military know they might die. Some who join hope they die.

I find the whole notion of separation of church and state to be an oxymoron. If the freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right, doesn't that mean religion is still prevalent in the general populace? And, where do politicians come from? From the general populace of course. So, while a nation is protected from devolving into a theocratic nightmare, it accomplishes only half the task because I'm sure the majority of the government officials are theists, guided, as it were, in their decisions by religious doctrine. It's like imposing a ban on the meat industry but still allowing people to consume meat. — TheMadFool

The phrase dates back to a time when most people had religion. Even back then according to the constitution/bill of rights it was legal to be atheist.

Are you saying religion should be banned by american government?

I don't want to insert something into what you said that you didn't say which is why i'm asking?

Absolute points in space is the spot on my desk where my pencil is resting can in the future be occupied by another object and also possibly be the approximate center of another galaxy far far away at some point in the future.
— christian2017
The spot on your desk is not an absolute point. It is always in motion due to the rotation of the earth about its axis, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the entire solar system around the center of the Milky Way, and the movement of the entire galaxy through space. Motion is the reality, points and instants are our artificial creations. — aletheist

I agree with that. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in all these many posts, stretched out over this forum. Considering i agree with your answer to the two galaxy example, i don't see any point in going through the many posts and trying beat this dead horse even further. Actually your answer to the two galaxy example was one of my main questions on the OP.

I didn't come up with the term absolute points in space so i'm not going to give an exact definition.
— christian2017
If you do not know what the term "absolute point" means, then why do you keep using it? Why do you keep imposing it on me? In ordinary English, absolute is the opposite of relative; and again, coordinates are relative, not absolute. That is all I am trying to clarify. — aletheist

ok.

@aletheist

Can a galaxy that is traveling through space at some point in time occupy the same space that another galaxy (there are many galaxies) used to occupy? I'm not saying i know the answer to this but i was wondering what your answer was?
— christian2017
Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.

I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"?
— aletheist

Ok great! I agree with that. — christian2017

Just in case you forgot.

Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.

I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist

I didn't come up with the term absolute points in space so i'm not going to give an exact definition.

I couldn't find one on the internet.

I'm not sure why you are asking since i agree on the above paragraph you stated and once again i didn't come up with the phrase. And once again for the 3rd time i agree with the above paragraph.

Absolute points in space is the spot on my desk where my pencil is resting can in the future be occupied by another object and also possibly be the approximate center of another galaxy far far away at some point in the future.

Since i didn't come up with the phrase (once again), and the concept seems fairly simple, i hope that definition is good enough for you.

Why do you ask? And once again i agree completely with the above paragraph you stated. Stop trolling me and/or add information to the conversation.

The speed of travel, finance and communication has been increasing for 4000 years. So no, I don't consider the advent of internet revolutionary at all. — Benkei

The gutenberg printing press and also paper and stone (writing) tablets changes things alot. Shouldn't we think a giant database of good and bad information at our finger tips would change things alot?

Someone educated beyond his intelligence. I forget who said that. — NOS4A2

How would you prove someone was educated beyond their intelligence. What people output at any given point in their lives is contigent on thousands of factors. How do you feel about nurture versus nature? It is commonly said that a person can't prove they are intelligent if they don't produce anything.

The Dravidians were conquered by the "aryans" (not being racist because they would tell you this) in India/Pakistan. This is part of why there is still a caste system in India to this day. The aryans are commonly said among "scientists" to be indo-european. I'm not implying superiority, what i'm saying right now is a common cliche of what happened. Perhaps you know more about this subject.

I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book?
— christian2017

For an Eastern view, yes. For a Western view, the German idealists — Gregory

Druidism and alot of (at the very least indo-european) non abrahamic religions share a significant (maybe not tremendous) similarities to Hinduism. I don't know much about the deeper aspects of Viking and Saxon religion.

An "intellectual" is someone who always reads with a pen or pencil in hand. (G. Steiner?) — 180 Proof

thats funny.

Sometimes I hear people saying that a certain person is "intellectual".
What does that even mean?
One person told me that it could mean that a person is analyzing stuff ans really going through them in depth. I guess this is why some say that Nicolai Gedda was an intellectual singer. I would call myself an "intellectual" but never an academic (I have no such education). I guess even a simple farmer or busdriver can be an "intellectual".
What is an "intellectual"? How should this term be used. — musicpianoaccordion

Not getting a college education and instead getting a CDL makes a person an intellectual. I'm only half kidding. There is no nobler job in the world than to drive a Class A tractor trailor. I wish i was smart.

back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at.
— christian2017

We and the world have all the reality to exist on our own, yet we are dependent on nothingness. I can't settle that paradox, but it is not a contradiction. If it feels like a contradiction, the thought will take time. We don't all share a common soul nor experience the same things. So we are "collective" only through the womb of nothing. "A medium" as Hegel put it — Gregory

Hinduism and Buddhism actually have alot in common. There are actually subsets of both Hinduism and Buddhism that approach the threshold of being atheist (to put it simply). I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book?

If there is no god (and i acknowledge that possibility) then all of history is interpreted by flawed humans and flawed perspectives very often create even more or even worse flawed perspectives.
— christian2017

True, but the same is true with God existing. God itself, one may argue, is a name for a "perspective" too. — Xtrix

I guess it depends on how capable that god is at seeing "at all angles" and making accurate discernments/judgements. It also is contigent on if that god is good and/or doesn't take bribes and doesn't prefer physically attractive women. Lets be honest god is a man. lol.