Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, my reasoning is correct. It was an analogy, which is why I needed to use an item which you would understand to exist. It's like if I were trying to describe the game of cricket to an American who was completely unfamiliar with the game, I might use baseball as an analogy. I'd say that it was like baseball in that it involves a ball and a bat and pitching the ball and hitting it with the bat and running to a certain point and scoring runs, and that it's a national pastime in England much like baseball is the national pastime in the USA. It wouldn't make sense for the person I'm explaining this to to turn around and say, "No, your logic is flawed; cricket isn't American so it can't be like baseball." Of course cricket isn't exactly like baseball; I'm using the similarities between cricket and a point of reference my target understands to describe it, not to define it.
Same here. I'm using the search for car keys as an example because you are familiar with them (I presume, since most people are). I can't use the search for another metaphysical concept to describe the search for a metaphysical concept since it is precisely the metaphysical concept that you are not relating to. That would be like using high school cricket to describe professional cricket to a person who has no idea what cricket even is.
So, no, my reasoning is not flawed, nor is my analogy; it is an analogy and not a precise description or explanation.
Your analogy is flawed because like I said, the keys already exist...and I do understand the concept of a god...
Metaphysical? There is no proof anything metaphysical exists. None at all.
So you can't talk about something you have no proof for. It would be like me arguing to you that unicorns exist. Same thing.
That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that spirituality as a method of finding truth is unreliable.
Wrong. Spirituality is, in fact, the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth. Just because different people have different beliefs about what is true doesn't mean that using various spiritual methodologies invalidate spirituality altogether.
The same can be said about science. Various scientists use scientific method to determine natural truths yet they can disagree about what is "true" despite all of them having used science to determine the "truth". Some things they almost universally agree upon, but from there they branch out to where there are many different beliefs about what is "true" or "false", from a scientific standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
So what do you use in addition to spirituality to confirm that your version of truth is really true? If spirituality is the first road you take to get somewhere, what do you call the rest of the trip?
Because we are beings comprised of physical and spiritual parts, we use both physical and spiritual methods to determine our beliefs about both. As for spirituality being the "first road", spiritul methodology is also used for the second and following "roads" to determine the truth; however, they may be different spiritual methodologies. The whole "trip" is spiritual.
Again, to use science as an analogy, if two scientists are doing experiments on apples, the first scientific "road" that they would take would be to acknowledge what an "apple" is. Most, probably ALL, scientists would be on the same "road" at this stage in using scientific method. The second "road" for each scientist may be different, however; one may cut the apple to look at it, while the other may cut the apple to smell it. Both "roads" are still scientific but they are not the same. Which is right? Both could be right at that early stage in the process. If we look many "roads" down the "trip", we may be able to decipher which scientist is still on the right route to the facts and which one isn't.
Spirituality works the same way. Just because all steps taken are "spiritual" in nature, it doesn't mean all steps will be beneficial in leading to the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
And how do you confirm that spirituality actually has a connection to anything beyond the individual? How do you know it isn't just a mind trick you play on yourself?
Through logic and reason. It's no different from science, where we ultimately believe in our physical senses that our minds aren't playing a trick on us, making us believe the things we sense are real and not just a computer program running through our "minds" which sit in a jar, a la "The Matrix". At some point, everyone must exercise faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Yes I generalized the beliefs, but most people who believe in god do believe that he created the world, and you can't deny that natural disasters are part of this world.
I believe that He created the world. But that doesn't mean He created the natural disasters, per se. That's a long stretch you make to connect the two. That's like saying that Honda is responsible for every car accident involving a Honda since they created the car to begin with. If you really, really stretch and extrapolate the facts, a case can be made that yes, if Honda never made the car, then an accident involving the Honda car would never have happened, and therefore Honda can be blamed. But that's irrational; there are so many other factors involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Assuming god has the power to stop natural disasters, this is completely immoral.
Assuming Honda has the power to stop car accidents, their production of cars that are susceptible to car accidents is completely immoral. If they really wanted, they could make cars that were encased in shock absorbing foam, thereby greatly reducing the number of damage/injury/fatality-inducing auto accidents. Of course, that would be ignoring a lot of other factors, such as the facts that people wouldn't want to buy such cars and that such cars would be impractical on many levels (cost, driveability, etc.). Irrational again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
What of the innocent children who have no choice where they sleep? What about disasters that no house can withstand? You sound like a victim blaming yourself for the hurtful actions of another.
What of the innocent children who are injured or killed in car accidents, having no choice in the matter of whether they must ride in a car or not? What about those accidents in which no Volvo + car seat combination can defend a child from injury or death?
As for a victim who blames himself for the hurtful actions of another, that's a weak thing to say. Most people take a degree of responsibility for their actions rather than just playing victim and blaming external factors 100% of the time. While our rights can be violated, that doesn't mean we can't do what we can to prevent harm from coming to us. It's against the law for sommeone to mug me and rob me; however, I'm not going to go walking around Bed-Stuy with 100-dollar bills hanging out of every pocket because people are legally and morally supposed to not mug and rob me. If I did such a thing and got mugged and robbed, I could blame the thief, and indeed in such a case the thief would be in the wrong, but I would be remiss to not look at what I could have done to have prevente the situation. Thieves are thieves, they are out there. I'm not that "innocent" a victim if I didn't do all I could to avoid being robbed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
And god created man right? Including man's wicked, evil, immoral tendencies..
Well God's morality certainly won't save innocent children. God thinks it's OK to put innocent children at the mercy of evil people, to erupt volcanoes on unsuspecting families, to utterly destroy lives with the weather, and simply to not stop evil. How is that moral?
God created the world perfectly. The one thing that makes a created being of God's a spiritual being is that of Will. God provided us with our own wills. In order for us to have our own wills, we have to be free to make choices. If there are no choices to make then we're nothing but pets, property. It sounds like you're angry at God for not just making us into obedient pieces of property with no choices and keeping us "safe" that way.
When a parent raises a child, he goes through a similar process of giving that child choices. A parent COULD keep a child in a home where everything is bubble-wrapped and the kitchen is off-limits. He could prohibit the child from leaving the home. There are lots of things parents could do to take away a child's choices in order to protect them, but that wouldn't be good for a child, since children have their own wills and don't want to be controlled like animals either.
The whole argument against God of "well why does he let us get hurt" is whiny and irrational, because the very freedom that one is exercising in questioning God with such a criticism is due to the fact that God is not controlling that person's mind but is rather providing that person with the freedom of choice to ask such questions of his own free will.
I remember when my brother was learning to ride a bike and he fell off and got hurt and was bawling. He got angry at my dad and said, "Why did you let me fall off???" Of course, my dad explained to him that the only way he can learn to ride the bike is to at some point take the chance of riding without daddy there to protect him, and that the fun of riding is to do it alone.
That's how I see people who whine about God not protecting us; they are taking an irrational, childish attitude. They're making, in essence, a plea for God to just protect us and not provide us with our own choices, while ironically making their own choice in doing so, thereby demonstrating that they fully appreciate and take advantage of their freedom of will.
Your analogy is flawed because like I said, the keys already exist...and I do understand the concept of a god...
It's the best analogy possible to use with you. I have to use an analogy in which the item is something that is previously believed to exist, which in your case is something physical, only. If it makes you feel better, though, then consider that I never said that I had seen my car key before. I simply said I was looking for my car key. So, to clarify, the key was for my new car which was a gift, given to me by my brother, who dropped off the car earlier that day and told me he left the key in my house, on a ring of keys that he had made for me for some other things in addition to the car key.
So, in my analogy, I am looking for a car key for my car which is brand new, sitting in the driveway, which I just got that day, but I don't know for sure the key exists because I have not seen or held them, and for all I know the car was delivered by towtruck and the key was not ever provided. The analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Metaphysical? There is no proof anything metaphysical exists. None at all.
There is PLENTY of evidence of the metaphysical and there is proof of it. Your problem is that you have the narrow view that both evidence and proof must be physical, but that's not correct, philosophically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
So you can't talk about something you have no proof for. It would be like me arguing to you that unicorns exist. Same thing.
I'm talking about something for which I have proof. You just refuse to accept the proof or evidence because you have a different premise which you accepted a priori.
I'm talking about something for which I have proof. You just refuse to accept the proof or evidence because you have a different premise which you accepted a priori.
You have no proof and that is the whole problem. Because you say it is so, doesn't make it.
Analogies don't prove anything. They are used to demonstrate ideas. But they aren't proof.
There is PLENTY of evidence of the metaphysical and there is proof of it. Your problem is that you have the narrow view that both evidence and proof must be physical, but that's not correct, philosophically.
Plenty of evidence? Isn't the whole thing that it can't be proved, because it's all "spiritual"?
Yes, I have the view that it must be physical. How else is one going to see it? How else is one going to see the proof?
How is my view narrow? Because I won't accept a bunch of words with nothing to back them up?
Proof is not about philosophy.
Wrong. Spirituality is, in fact, the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth. Just because different people have different beliefs about what is true doesn't mean that using various spiritual methodologies invalidate spirituality altogether.
Stop there. Spirituality is the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth? Oh, but there are thousands of variants of truth, generally based on the culture one is born and raised in?
If two scientists independently studied an apple, they would arrive at the same conclusions! Yet, a muslim and a christian, for example, use "spiritual science" and come up with completely different answers that are directly related to what their society has taught them? Spirituality is NOT RELIABLE to determine truth! otherwise every "spiritual person" would have the same conclusion!
I'm talking about something for which I have proof. You just refuse to accept the proof or evidence because you have a different premise which you accepted a priori.
You have no proof and that is the whole problem. Because you say it is so, doesn't make it.
Analogies don't prove anything. They are used to demonstrate ideas. But they aren't proof.
My analogies weren't supposed to be proof; I don't know why you made that assumption. I have proof, not just because I "say it is so". The problem is that you don't understand "proof" outside of your chosen parameters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulous1
There is PLENTY of evidence of the metaphysical and there is proof of it. Your problem is that you have the narrow view that both evidence and proof must be physical, but that's not correct, philosophically.
Plenty of evidence? Isn't the whole thing that it can't be proved, because it's all "spiritual"?
Yes, I have the view that it must be physical. How else is one going to see it? How else is one going to see the proof?
How is my view narrow? Because I won't accept a bunch of words with nothing to back them up?
Proof is not about philosophy.
No, just because it's spiritual doesn't mean it can't be proven; it means that it is beyond the boundaries of the physical and therefore can't be proven physically, but rather must be proven philosophically. Spirituality is "metaphysical", which means "above physical"; spirituality is not bound by the physical world, but rather the other way around.
Your view is narrow because you actually believe as you stated, "Proof is not about philosophy." Actually, it is. "Proof" is a construct developed through philosophy, as is logic and reason. Try taking the entry-level class in philosophy in any college; typically it will be called "Logic and Reasoning". Using logic and reason to develop "proofs" is a philosophical exercise. Your narrow view, like so many anti-religionists, is that "proof" comes from natural science, but that is wrong. Science itself is derived from philosophy, and scientific method and scientific proof are based on philosophical constructs of logic and reasoning.
It's amazing to me, and very sad, that so many people are so ignorant that they think proof has nothing to do with philosophy, when, in fact, what we call "proof" only exists due to philosophy.
Stop there. Spirituality is the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth? Oh, but there are thousands of variants of truth, generally based on the culture one is born and raised in?
Spiritual methods are necessary to determine spiritual truth. Not on their own, but they are a necessary part of the process of determining spiritual truths, and Truth. It's no different from how scientific methods are necessary for determining physical truths. Still, scientists often arrive at conclusions that are different; this, too, can be based on the culture in which one is born and raised. For exampe, in China physicians believe a lot of different truths than western physicians believe, particularly regarding herbal medicine and techniques like acupuncture, and this is largely due to the culture in which they are born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
If two scientists independently studied an apple, they would arrive at the same conclusions! Yet, a muslim and a christian, for example, use "spiritual science" and come up with completely different answers that are directly related to what their society has taught them? Spirituality is NOT RELIABLE to determine truth! otherwise every "spiritual person" would have the same conclusion!
So why do scientists disagree on so many things? Are you so naive as to think that all scientists agree 100% on everything? There are many things they believe in common, but there are typically as many beliefs as their are scientists. Is a glass of red wine a day good for you? Some scientists say it is, some say it's not. Is the Atkins diet (eliminating carbs so the body goes into ketosis) a healthy approach for overweight people to take? Some scientists say it is, some say it's not. Why will a Chinese doctor prescribe Jin Bu Huan but an American doctor can't because our FDA doesn't approve it, because our science disagrees with their science, because they were born into a different culture??? Why isn't science 100% in agreement on these things? How can you say science is an effective method when so many scientists who use scientific method come up with different truths?
Science is NOT RELIABLE to determine truth! otherwise every "scientific person" would have the same conclusion!
Johnny, you make the claim that science isn't reliable, yet science depends on perceivable things as proof.
Saying "spirituality" is proof is like saying if I believe in ghosts, they must be true.
No religion has any proof. No person has any proof of any god. There are plenty who think they got the key, or have made the claim, but when you press them, they know nothing. It is always just the same old belief system.
Wrong. Spirituality is, in fact, the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth. Just because different people have different beliefs about what is true doesn't mean that using various spiritual methodologies invalidate spirituality altogether.
The same can be said about science. Various scientists use scientific method to determine natural truths yet they can disagree about what is "true" despite all of them having used science to determine the "truth". Some things they almost universally agree upon, but from there they branch out to where there are many different beliefs about what is "true" or "false", from a scientific standpoint.
I strongly disagree with your statements. You describe spirituality as the most reliable way to determine spiritual truth but there's not a shred of evidence that the spirit world even exists. I believe that what someone who is religious may consider to be spiritual is simply what is churning around in their own brain and there is no connection with any outside entity that we call God because God doesn't even exist.
Your comments about science only reveal that the scientific method is very different from religious beliefs because it is constantly being revised as new information is being considered and it is only natural that there is alot of turmoil among scientists who have opposing points of view. Nevertheless progress is made in science and at some point when the evidence is overwhelming for any particular scientific theory it will finally become recognized as being factual and will be accepted by virtually all scientists. This is the process that makes the scientific method so productive. The disagreements among scientists is a very healthy and intellectual part of expanding human knowledge. This is exactly the opposite of religion which takes the stance that all knowledge has already been handed down to us and we shouldn't question anything.
Spiritual methods are necessary to determine spiritual truth. Not on their own, but they are a necessary part of the process of determining spiritual truths, and Truth. It's no different from how scientific methods are necessary for determining physical truths. Still, scientists often arrive at conclusions that are different; this, too, can be based on the culture in which one is born and raised. For exampe, in China physicians believe a lot of different truths than western physicians believe, particularly regarding herbal medicine and techniques like acupuncture, and this is largely due to the culture in which they are born.
So why do scientists disagree on so many things? Are you so naive as to think that all scientists agree 100% on everything? There are many things they believe in common, but there are typically as many beliefs as their are scientists. Is a glass of red wine a day good for you? Some scientists say it is, some say it's not. Is the Atkins diet (eliminating carbs so the body goes into ketosis) a healthy approach for overweight people to take? Some scientists say it is, some say it's not. Why will a Chinese doctor prescribe Jin Bu Huan but an American doctor can't because our FDA doesn't approve it, because our science disagrees with their science, because they were born into a different culture??? Why isn't science 100% in agreement on these things? How can you say science is an effective method when so many scientists who use scientific method come up with different truths?
Science is NOT RELIABLE to determine truth! otherwise every "scientific person" would have the same conclusion!
You forget that science is very limited to our ability to test things. When scientists disagree, it is because it is difficult to test due to confounding factors or large amounts of time needed for the test. Medicine is especially difficult to test because of these factors. And if you want to get into why the FDA does things, it is largely political and for profit. But as time goes on, every time a drug is taken it is 'tested' by the patient, thus we gather more results from tests and find out more about the actual ways things work. For example, the FDA only spends a couple years testing products, then it approves them for a big chunk of lobbyist cash, then 10 years later we find out it kills people and it is taken off the market, thus our knowledge of that drug is improved.
However, "spirituality" is not testable at all, so you have absolutely zero verification there. Whatever you scry can be whatever you want it to be and there is no way to test it to set you straight. Anyone can look to their imaginary friend and get it to reinforce what the person wants to believe; the mind can run wild in delusion when there are no boundaries such as observation and testing to verify a belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
