Logic and reason attempt to kill spirit, or at least deny spirit, in order to advance the agenda of technology and scientific materialism. The material is something we sense with our major subjective senses ie. sight, hearing, sense of touch, sense of taste-- but our inner senses are also subjective, yet the scientific world discounts the value of our subtle senses and places high value on our skills in regards to sensing the outer world.


Reason kills spirit. If you disagree with this please respond.


"In every attempt to prove the mystery of the universe the intellect moves away from comprehending spirit"
~~carefulcarpenter

God is paradoxical

"In defining relationship is the importance of rational knowledge; proliferation of relationship embraces the creative and the mysterious"
~~carefulcarpenter

Well, that's what Thumbscrew is doing, really. TS is probably a gray. If you know that term. Ya, TS is an alien, and wants to destroy the spirit of this world, so the grays can take over.

But ah, seriously, it's like I said before, some people don't experience the other half, so they conclude it don't exist. Unfortunately for em, they are not the centre of the universe, and many people do experience what they do not ...

They are like blind people telling everyone that colors don't exist. They will never see color, and they'll never accept from me that they exist. Yet they do.

..

I like the analogy of how some see colors when, of course, most people do. Maybe someday technology will find away to manage who sees in color and who doesn't. They can give credentials to those who only see gray and ship the others out to labor farms.

I like the analogy of how some don't see colors when, of course, most people do. Maybe someday technology will find away to manage who sees in color and who doesn't. They can give credentials to those who only see gray and ship the others out to labor farms.

I found my spirit upon logic and reason. They do not always agree, but they agree to disagree.

I can see what thumbscrew is arguing though. One can believe in God and not believe that every coincidence and every strangely shaped rock is a sign. Believing in something doesn't mean you have to believe in everything. I don't not believe in God, but everything I've observed about the universe suggests to me that, if God created it, He probably didn't do much more than set it in motion. I certainly doubt that He wills every particle and would arrange for me to see the ghost of the Loch Ness Monster if He actually wanted me to believe in him.

Logic and reason establish the environment for which paradox can be perceived. You must be on a growth path? Someday you will allow the spirit to move you to greater heights of awareness. This logic and reason can take you just so far--then you must let go and soar on your own--here is where imagination is more important than knowledge.

Reason is not the enemy of imagination. It's what allows us to imagine truly fantastic things. Reason, reality, stimuli, make our imagination useful to us, rather than merely fantasy. Without reason, what we imagine can only take us so far, and can only become so much.

It is actually religion that tries to destroy the complexity, scale and beauty of the universe by simplifying it with it's silly little stories and explanations.

If that's you philosophizing in a serious manner, then I'd hate to see when you aren't. Saying that people (and I know you are referring to scientific people) don't think something exists if they don't experience it is complete rubbish. I'll say it again for the millionth time, we do not know what causes things beyond what has been supported by evidence. This does not mean that they think nothing exists because they haven't "experienced" it. You are just jumping to conclusions by thinking that you know what has caused it.

Colour is your eyes intepretation of a certain part of the wave spectrum. It has nothing to do with god.

I think that colour thing was meant as an analogy, babycheeks.

You know what I hate hearing? The "what if the way I see colours is different from the way someone else does?" conversation. I mean, fair enough, I guess everyone's got to have it once, but some of these people are my age and still haven't got their head round the fact that there's no way to know, that perception is fundamentally subjective, and that given the nature of... well, nature, no, almost certainly we don't, but that given the names of colours are arbitrary anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you see things that I see as blue the way I see things that are red, since it applies more or less across the board.

yeah I know, and my reply was meant to be an analogy to say that just because she can "experience" something, it doesn't mean it was god, it can also be explained in other ways. It has nothing to do with whether someone is "blind" to the fact or not. It is actually religious people that would be considered "blind" by her defition, as they are "blind" to anything outside of what the bible says, whereas scientific people and philosophers take onboard any type of theory, and are happy to change their opinion, as long as it can be supported by evidence.

yeah thats a popular topic of discussion by philosophers. My own opinion is that while we can never experience someone else's colour experience first hand, if we knew enough about it, e.g. we could measure the exact wave length hitting the retina, and measure the exact dimensions (and other related properties) of the retina's sensor area, then we could technically deduce that two people could be experiencing the same thing. But I doubt the technology would be available to do that in my life time.

What would be the point though? Colour does not exist until we perceive it, it is merely light oscillating at certain frequencies. (For the same reason, no, a falling tree doesn't make a sound if there's no-one around to hear it.) So we have no yardstick by which to measure what the "right" colours are. We can establish it through number, but we can't know how another colour is seen by someone else without effectively making our own eyes into theirs. And what would really be the point in that? Science permits some wonderful things to be done, but surely the argument about colour is merely a way of illustrating the subjectivity of perception compared to the supposed objectivity of matter/energy, so the "answer" is not necessarily the goal of asking.

"What use is a flower to intellect? If my husband had his way there'd be no flowers. He'd tear them all up to measure their mass, circumference and volume." - some chick in Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift

"What need the periwinkle or the poet?
If ne'r there be a God
To add the majesty;
A common weed it be
No use, most certainly
No point to spring this year"
~~carefulcarpenter

Nah, Swift didn't say anything about God. He was against the intellectualism and academia of the likes of the Royal Society, but he was categorically not against reason. I referenced him specifically because he saw the importance of reason as a lens through which to observe the beauty and absurdity of the world, through satire and commentary. Had the strange countries Gulliver visited not been grounded allegories of our own societies, had they been pure flights of fancy cut loose from cynical reality, you'd probably never have even heard of him.

..