I found that somewhat painful to listen to. While you, Stefan, are very articulate with your arguments, the other gentlemen weren't nearly as refined so it often sounded like they were talking in circles.
I was also a little disheartened with the thought of there being a thousand and one different flavors of non-religion (be it atheism or some gradient of agnosticism.
Does Stefan Molyneux believe that there cannot be technologies able to produce what to us would be 'reality bending' effects which in principle could be no different from how we (humans) can affect matter? The same way a primitive might believe a man from a plane to be a god, to us would be a 'miracle'. Certainly ability (or technology) advances in 'real time', presuming some sort of possibility. Also, something exists in different way before it is proven, (until an actual scientist is there to measure it) concurrent with the way it exists after it is proven. Events may also be predicted. There are fulfilled predictions in dreams or the pre-knowledge of a rigged setup through unconventional means. Can an experience be 'experientially' proven? Or does it require an on-the-scene witness capable of exercising the scientific method? Does he allow for the possibility of extra-terrestrials or maybe even 'extra-dimensionals'? Another problem is that the meaning of the word 'God' has changed over time; it must have originally described an experience and over time it accumulated many artifacts of insecurity (which came to express the emotional part of what we bring to debates about 'god'). If it is allowed that other beings may exist, one must at least allow that they may have at least the capabilities of will demonstrable in man. Possibilities exist, all specifics of which cannot be proven (unless we ourselves are all-knowing), they are coming into fruition all around us, the difference being between 'now' (the occurrence in matter) and the point before we knew of it).
3 comments:
Is the second hour posted somewhere?
I found that somewhat painful to listen to. While you, Stefan, are very articulate with your arguments, the other gentlemen weren't nearly as refined so it often sounded like they were talking in circles.
I was also a little disheartened with the thought of there being a thousand and one different flavors of non-religion (be it atheism or some gradient of agnosticism.
-BWB
Does Stefan Molyneux believe that there cannot be technologies able to produce what to us would be 'reality bending' effects which in principle could be no different from how we (humans) can affect matter? The same way a primitive might believe a man from a plane to be a god, to us would be a 'miracle'. Certainly ability (or technology) advances in 'real time', presuming some sort of possibility. Also, something exists in different way before it is proven, (until an actual scientist is there to measure it) concurrent with the way it exists after it is proven. Events may also be predicted. There are fulfilled predictions in dreams or the pre-knowledge of a rigged setup through unconventional means. Can an experience be 'experientially' proven? Or does it require an on-the-scene witness capable of exercising the scientific method?
Does he allow for the possibility of extra-terrestrials or maybe even 'extra-dimensionals'? Another problem is that the meaning of the word 'God' has changed over time; it must have originally described an experience and
over time it accumulated many artifacts of insecurity (which came to express the emotional part of what we bring to debates about 'god'). If it is allowed that other beings may exist, one must at least allow that they may have at least the capabilities of will demonstrable in man. Possibilities exist, all specifics of which cannot be proven (unless we ourselves are all-knowing), they are coming into fruition all around us, the difference being between 'now' (the occurrence in matter) and the point before we knew of it).
Post a Comment