/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9234066
Define "living" in the context of living spirit, and explain how it is a meaningful distinction from the materialist position.

God didn't create the universe, but he will observe it. The Real Observer is proven fact

>>9234066
That's some neato burrito evidence you've got there homeslice.

>>9234068
The living spirit understands itself in context to the universe. Material knowledge only has meaning when understood by the spirit. Knowledge of the material universe only has purpose to augment self actualization leading to the eventual evolution of God.

>>9234074
Better than studying Cell Bio

>>9234080

You're claiming the universe is conscious?

>>9234088
That or maybe just Earth. The atmosphere somhow created a cellular environment The microbiome is quite peculiar. Bacteria control your brain maaaaan

>>9234066
>we can all agree that the energy that constitutes the universe is a living spirit, else we wouldn't be alive.
Nah, that's stupid.

We have no example of consciousness without a brain, we have no example of reasoning without very specific brain physiology, we have no evidence that the universe reflects a brain or exhibits any of the specific physiology we associate with brain function, thus no reason to suspect energy has the property of sentience. If your claim is that energy is eternal, then as someone else said: No meaningful distinction between pantheism and naturalism.

>>9234066
if a theory isn't testable or refutable then it isn't worth much. (see string theory)
refute that there isn't a quiet, invisible and generally undetectable elephant in your room right now.

>>9234066
>spirit

At this point we've already invoked some kind of supernatural higher order force that can't be tested in a way that yields reproducible results assuming it can even be tested at all. Based on this we can't come up with any definition that would hold up to any basic level of scrutiny so no, we can't all agree that the energy that makes up the universe is living.

>>9234113
>>9234121
>>9234143
Much rhetoric, such fun. I appreciate your constructive participation

>>9234066
Prove to me you're not a brain in a jar hooked up to a bunch of electrodes and then we'll talk

>>9234066
Pan
Nap
You do the math

>>9234214
pan = -nap

Proof:
ab = -ba
Therefore
pan = -pna = npa = -nap

clearly pan is the exact mathematical opposite of nap; obviously this means it is woke. the parameters of the morphism which maps "nap" to "woke" is a mystery, but I hear Mochizuki has a proof

>>9234066
Those are empty words. Start being more specific.

>>9234066 (OP)

>re·fute
>rəˈfyo͞ot/Submit
>verb
>prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or >false; disprove.

>a·gree
>əˈɡrē/Submit
>verb

>have the same opinion about something; concur.

While I do not disagree with pantheism, I am refuting the logic of your original statement; not through opinion, but through syntax alone.

>>9234066

There is logic to be found in the statement:

>the energy that constitutes the universe is a living spirit, else we wouldn't be alive

but this statement and its capability of being logically sound does not teeter on whether or not one is suicidally depressed; nor does it have anything to do with its being refuted (or if someone agrees or disagrees).