There is no logical argument for the middle ground.

[fncceo]

You do realize though that the consequence of your belief is that things like love are nothing more than electrochemical reactions in you brain, right?

The consequence being we are better able to process the feelings and make more logical relationship decisions?

It would seem to be a double edged sword. But putting that aside wouldn’t what you just wrote be considered purpose? Why would the material world care?

A belief that the euphoria we get from love is based on destiny, true love, or soul mates, sets you up for a major disappointment when that euphoria inevitably wears off.

If our relationship decision was made on the basis of that belief, we are doomed to continue to seek that feeling, over and over, at the risk of the original relationship, or many relationships.

Knowing that our reaction to a certain person is based on pre-programmed biological conditions means that we can use the period of initial euphoria to dig deeper and find a basis for a more lasting relationship after the initial chemical reaction has faded.

 

[ding]

I believe it is a binary condition. Either existence has no meaning or purpose or it does.

Not believing in a spiritual origin doesn't mean that existence is bereft of meaning or purpose. That meaning or purpose just might be much more complicated than we can imagine.

An ant colony in the middle of New York's Central Park has no idea that it owes its existence to a decision made by an unknown entity to create a park in the middle of the world's busiest metropolis.

The entities who decided by create the park never gave a moment's thought that the decision would ultimately lead to the creation of the ant colony in the middle of the park.

However, the connection in there, even it it can't be recognized by the ants or the humans.

We are getting off track here. This is a discussion for another thread.

 

[ding]

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Yes thank you. It seems that I was interpreting the OP too much in relation to the thread about materialism. My view is that spirituality is entirely a human phenomena, and thus it originates from the natural world, because humans originate from the natural world. So my view is not a middle ground by your definition. I think phrased as above I tentatively agree that there is probably no middle ground, but I haven't thought about it much.

However, I also think some of your other comments suggest you're using different definitions at times, because for example you talked about thought as incorporeal, but the "incorporeality" of thought does not make it "spiritual" using the normal definitions of those words. It just makes it something that bears a complex relationship to physical matter. This kind of problem is why I assumed there would need to be some wrangling about definitions of corporeality.

I would tend to describe thought as "corporeal" in the sense that it logically supervenes upon the physical world -- there is no evidence for thoughts without a physical substrate to think them, e.g. actual thinking creatures in the natural world.

We are getting off track.

As I recall you agreed with my boundary conditions.

I appreciate that we don’t agree on which condition is the correct one.

We should have that discussion in another thread.

 

[Taz]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Can you make a logical argument for the middle ground?

Since you haven’t proven shit, a middle ground is possible.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

in·cor·po·re·al
[ˌinkôrˈpôrēəl]
ADJECTIVE

1. not composed of matter; having no material existence.
   "ghostly presences and incorporeal beings"
   synonyms:
   intangible · impalpable · nonmaterial · nonphysical · bodiless · unembodied · disembodied· ethereal · unsubstantial · insubstantial · airy · aerial · spiritual · ghostly ·
   [more]
   • law
     having no physical existence.

Since you can't CREATE matter or DESTROY it (or time or energy for that matter) --- your question has no effect on spirituality UNTIL such time as corporeal takes on a consciousness.. Your argument only matters if you believe that consciousness, hence spirituality, can exist in an incorporeal world.

Since we understand the duality of energy, matter and something about the dimensions of time, its beyond our reasoning to suppose that the incorporeal could CREATE matter, time, energy. But that's not something we can solidly prove.

Or --- it would be hard to prove that there was INTENTION to create matter, time, energy from a complete void. But possibly complete voids simply do not exist. I'm not up to validating that assumption, but, it's a distinct possibility..

If we can "will" a pizza to show up at our doorstep, (and technically we could) , I'd rate that assumption as not completely ridiculous..

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

in·cor·po·re·al
[ˌinkôrˈpôrēəl]
ADJECTIVE

1. not composed of matter; having no material existence.
   "ghostly presences and incorporeal beings"
   synonyms:
   intangible · impalpable · nonmaterial · nonphysical · bodiless · unembodied · disembodied· ethereal · unsubstantial · insubstantial · airy · aerial · spiritual · ghostly ·
   [more]
   • law
     having no physical existence.

Since you can't CREATE matter or DESTROY it (or time or energy for that matter) --- your question has no effect on spirituality UNTIL such time as corporeal takes on a consciousness.. Your argument only matters if you believe that consciousness, hence spirituality, can exist in an incorporeal world.

Since we understand the duality of energy, matter and something about the dimensions of time, its beyond our reasoning to suppose that the incorporeal could CREATE matter, time, energy. But that's not something we can solidly prove.

Or --- it would be hard to prove that there was INTENTION to create matter, time, energy from a complete void. But possibly complete voids simply do not exist. I'm not up to validating that assumption, but, it's a distinct possibility..

If we can "will" a pizza to show up at our doorstep, (and technically we could) , I'd rate that assumption as not completely ridiculous..

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

It seems that you are arguing for the latter.

This is largely a philosophical argument informed by logic. There can be no direct evidence, but we do have indirect evidence that can be examined. Specifically what was created.

The purpose of this thread was to identify the boundary conditions.

 

[hobelim]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

 

[Taz]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

 

[hobelim]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

 

[Taz]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

What about the person who convinced you that the only way to find god was through a book of fiction?

 

[hobelim]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

What about the person who convinced you that the only way to find god was through a book of fiction?

No one ever told me that. Many moons ago I heard all of these sanctimonious assholes talking trash in the name of the Lord so I got myself a copy of the book, read it carefully, and discovered that they are all full of shit.

I really wasn't surprised.

I suppose you can blame it on the Jew who told me there was secret teaching hidden in the book of the law, so I Iooked and looked and kept on looking until I found it.

I won't name names.

 

[Taz]

The question is fundamentally did spirit create the material world or did the material world create spirituality.

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

What about the person who convinced you that the only way to find god was through a book of fiction?

No one ever told me that. Many moons ago I heard all of these sanctimonious assholes talking trash in the name of the Lord so I got myself a copy of the book, read it carefully, and discovered that they are all full of shit.

I really wasn't surprised.

I suppose you can blame it on the Jew who told me there was secret teaching hidden in the book of the law, so I Iooked and looked and kept on looking until I found it.

I won't name names.

So you found god through a book of fiction.

 

[hobelim]

I think the greater question is , "Who fucked up your head?"

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

What about the person who convinced you that the only way to find god was through a book of fiction?

No one ever told me that. Many moons ago I heard all of these sanctimonious assholes talking trash in the name of the Lord so I got myself a copy of the book, read it carefully, and discovered that they are all full of shit.

I really wasn't surprised.

I suppose you can blame it on the Jew who told me there was secret teaching hidden in the book of the law, so I Iooked and looked and kept on looking until I found it.

I won't name names.

So you found god through a book of fiction.

I found what was hidden.

After that it takes an additional effort to see God even from a distance, or stand close enough to hear his words.

So no, not through a book of fiction, by eating the flesh of Jesus and by drinking his blood.

God is the God of the living.

Life is in the blood. In the doing.

 

[Taz]

And also hob, who fucked up YOUR head?

lol... Its more like who hasn't tried.... and failed.

What about the person who convinced you that the only way to find god was through a book of fiction?

No one ever told me that. Many moons ago I heard all of these sanctimonious assholes talking trash in the name of the Lord so I got myself a copy of the book, read it carefully, and discovered that they are all full of shit.

I really wasn't surprised.

I suppose you can blame it on the Jew who told me there was secret teaching hidden in the book of the law, so I Iooked and looked and kept on looking until I found it.

I won't name names.

So you found god through a book of fiction.

I found what was hidden.

After that it takes an additional effort to see God even from a distance, or stand close enough to hear his words.

So no, not through a book of fiction, by eating the flesh of Jesus and by drinking his blood.

God is the God of the living.

Life is in the blood. In the doing.

But you're saying that it all started with a book of fiction. And now you're imagining what that book says that god is. In other words, you live in a self-made fantasy world.

 

[Montrovant]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

What about the option that the material and/or incorporeal were not created, but have always existed?