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.
I think whoever wrote the Rig Veda (1500 BCE) agrees with you.
I mean, let's face it no one really knows.
Here's the writing:
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.
Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.
Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know.
Yes, yes.It was reading the Rig Veda on a bus that set me thinking "This makes as much sense as Christianity". (I'd now say, more sense) that enabled me to leave go of the claims of the relgions of the Book that I hade been struggling with for abut 20 years.
The idea of God can come in handy when you have no one or nothing else to turn to in times of need.
So can drink or drugs when otherwise you can't cope. Not an idea I'd reccommend. It is better, I'd suggest, to go into battle clear headed, rather than tanked up of Hashish, though it may seem to make you fearless.
Human knowledge (i.e., our science) cannot go beyond the 3D environment we are living in, as experiments/observations and etc. cannot be done outside the 3D ball we are in.
So if a truth exists outside this 3D ball, the only efficient way for humans to reach such a truth is being told by a super entity who can reach such a truth.
To put it another way, if a super entity exists to tell us a truth beyond our 3D ball what we can do is to write it down then invite others' faith to believe. That's almost the only way for such a truth to convey.
The OP is as illogical as to assume that no truth no super entities can exist outside human knowledge (i.e., our limited science).
We hear this fallacy quite a lot, but the answer is as follows:
(1) we do not deny that there exists much wot we wot not, but to admit that we did not know what those Unknowns are is the factually correct and logically sound answer.
(2) to claim that Revelations have conveyed to us a truth about the Unknown fails obviously because the information is imparting contradictory information and wrong information.
(3) thus the logical and correct position and also the advantageous one is to not believe false claims and guesswork but to find ways of finding out what those unknowns are. It may feel good to delude oneself into believing that one had all the answers that matter, but recognizing that you don't really know is quite liberating and better in every way, as wlle as, of course being much more the logical position on Unknowns.
I like the distinction because unlike a prediction it establishes an expectation in the human psyche about how the complex interactions of humanity will evolve their understanding. We are fortunate to have the long look back to see the complex societal interactions that unfolded over millennia producing the effects stimulated by the existence of Christ. The fact that they can be matched to what was "forth-told" long before Christ ever existed is impressive. YMMV. You can bemoan the reality all you like if it comforts your disbelief, but the perfection that you demand is seldom if ever part of reality. It is just sad that you cannot see the difference or the significance of someone who existed so long ago fulfilling the societal impacts on humanity He was "forth-told" He would have long before He even existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So can drink or drugs when otherwise you can't cope. Not an idea I'd reccommend. It is better, I'd suggest, to go into battle clear headed, rather than tanked up of Hashish, though it may seem to make you fearless.
But God is not a drug and believers are clear-headed, Arq. You discount the effect of true belief sincerely held. The battle metaphor reminds me of an example of the effect of sincere beliefs. Imagine a Tribal War Chief who sincerely believes there are invisible evil demons to worry about but also sincerely believes his tribal witch doctor can ward them off with blessings and incantations to an invisible God. When he goes into battle he doesn't need to worry about the invisible demons because his invisible God is warding them off so he can concentrate on his real enemies. He WILL be more fearless and brave in battle, Arq.
Yes, but it is better (and more clear headed) if he doesn't worry about invisible demons because there is no good reason to think they exist. And the same is true of the baggage that some believers want to dump on the rest of us. Now, you don't do that - just you propose that we accept your claims. I've said before that we agree on more than we disagree on.
However if one is going to be 'clear -headed' it seems to me best to do it about everything, not just those things that one can identify as he kinds that may have a worrisome effect on one's life.
meaning can mean a few things to different people. A living universe would be meaningful to some and not so meaningful to others. The only dead wrong meaning I see is when people claim ...
"The only logical meaning is my personal emotional need."
We hear this fallacy quite a lot, but the answer is as follows:
(1) we do not deny that there exists much wot we wot not, but to admit that we did not know what those Unknowns are is the factually correct and logically sound answer.
(2) to claim that Revelations have conveyed to us a truth about the Unknown fails obviously because the information is imparting contradictory information and wrong information.
(3) thus the logical and correct position and also the advantageous one is to not believe false claims and guesswork but to find ways of finding out what those unknowns are. It may feel good to delude oneself into believing that one had all the answers that matter, but recognizing that you don't really know is quite liberating and better in every way, as wlle as, of course being much more the logical position on Unknowns.
As long as it is the only way how an unreachable truth is conveyed. It's logical for people to choose to believe, unless you can provide a more practical way for such a truth to be approached.
Your approach is to wait till our incapable science to discover, which may take forever as science is never efficient in discovering something outside our realm. Others may choose to believe the only way how such a truth can convey. Which is more logical and which is the fallacy?
"Unknown" is a neutral point for something which you can stand neutral, but not for a choice could possible concerning your own life. That's the difference.
The analogy is that there's serious message from someone who's willing to die to bring out the message saying that 'there's a bomb nearby', the only logical choice is to run as there's no neutral ground for you to choose to treat it as an 'unknown'. Any other choice you made remains your own illogical fallacy, and stupidity!
(in this analogy, evidence may take forever to come and the message becomes the only way you can approach a possible truth which could affect your own dead or alive)
As long as it is the only way how an unreachable truth is conveyed. It's logical for people to choose to believe, unless you can provide a more practical way for such a truth to be approached.
Your approach is to wait till our incapable science to discover, which may take forever as science is never efficient in discovering something outside our realm. Others may choose to believe the only way how such a truth can convey. Which is more logical and which is the fallacy?
"Unknown" is a neutral point for something which you can stand neutral, but not for a choice could possible concerning your own life. That's the difference.
The analogy is that there's serious message from someone who's willing to die to bring out the message saying that 'there's a bomb nearby', the only logical choice is to run as there's no neutral ground for you to choose to treat it as an 'unknown'. Any other choice you made remains your own illogical fallacy, and stupidity!
(in this analogy, evidence may take forever to come and the message becomes the only way you can approach a possible truth which could affect your own dead or alive)
Actually, its NEVER logical to choose to believe. Can you choose to believe you can fly? If so, would this be logical?
The only practical way to find out what is true is by using a valid mechanism for doing so. If a mechanism doesn't exist, such as ways to examine the supernatural, then we can only wait until such a mechanism is discovered.
As long as it is the only way how an unreachable truth is conveyed. It's logical for people to choose to believe, unless you can provide a more practical way for such a truth to be approached.
Your approach is to wait till our incapable science to discover, which may take forever as science is never efficient in discovering something outside our realm. Others may choose to believe the only way how such a truth can convey. Which is more logical and which is the fallacy?
Waiting until we can invest a certain plausible confidence as in Abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Until then "Don't Know" is the right and logical answer and 'I don't know, but I'll believe those who say they do and hang the lack of evidence' is the fallacy. You've seen the cartoon about a handful of customers at 'hard truths' and a long line at 'Comfortable lies'?
The bottom line is that admitting that you don't know spurs you on to find out. Thinking that you know on the basis of guess -work, and never mind anyone else guessing different, is that you may have no reason to look for an alternative answer to what you have opted to believe. It is rather an axiom that a rationalist will be happy to be proved wrong because he (or she) has improved their knowledge. The irrational fight not to accept the evidence of being wrong because it smashes their illusion of whatever they believe without evidence is nevertheless true, because they want to believe it. I would rather be shot on the spot than have a thinking method like that.
Quote:
"Unknown" is a neutral point for something which you can stand neutral, but not for a choice could possible concerning your own life. That's the difference.
If I got that correctly, there ARE some things where personal choice is not only your right but the only option. A rationalist telling me that logically I should listen only to atonal music and eschew all that Dvorak and Mahler stuff would be shortly given a close up view of the pavement. And you can refuse advice and do your own thing provided you take responsibility if it doesn't turn out right. But like they say, you are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts, or as I say "There are many religions, but only one science''. It is true that you can say "There is one common god -belief' aside from religion.' True, which is why I am fine with irreligious theists, provided they are ok with irreligious atheists - some are not . The thing there is that the theists have opted for one explanation of this God -feeling. They often do it vehemently, furiously and angrily. And always inherently illogically. because there is the other explanation that it is an evolved instinct.
Quote:
The analogy is that there's serious message from someone who's willing to die to bring out the message saying that 'there's a bomb nearby', the only logical choice is to run as there's no neutral ground for you to choose to treat it as an 'unknown'. Any other choice you made remains your own illogical fallacy, and stupidity!
(in this analogy, evidence may take forever to come and the message becomes the only way you can approach a possible truth which could affect your own dead or alive)
The analogy is back to front. The logical course would be to take the rational option. Make sure you are ok whether there is a bomb or not. The theist option is to cross their fingers and hope the choice they made is right (cue Pascal's wager). In any case, I am always suspicious of the rather theist habit of trying to Prove a claim by analogy. The analogy has to be exact to be able to do that (1) because inexact analogies are only ever useful in making a simpler explanation of something already proven but difficult to understand.
What is it that is proven that your analogy explains? I have already argued that it works as well (or better) the other way around.
(1) a classic example is the parable of the barber.. It purports to explain why God doesn't put things right. The Barber can only give people a haircut if they come to him for one, so God can only make things right for people that Come to Him. Inexact analogy see? No? Ok. Exact analogy. The barber has the power to give everyone a haircut by waving a magic wand. he also miraculously knows whether they need and want one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2016 at 09:31 AM..
Actually, its NEVER logical to choose to believe. Can you choose to believe you can fly? If so, would this be logical?
The only practical way to find out what is true is by using a valid mechanism for doing so. If a mechanism doesn't exist, such as ways to examine the supernatural, then we can only wait until such a mechanism is discovered.
*sigh* Why must people always show me up by explaining it better in two lines than I can in half a page ?
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.
would be shortly given a close up view of the pavement. And you can refuse advice and do your own thing provided you take responsibility if it doesn't turn out right. But like they say, you are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts, or as I say "There are many religions, but only one science''. It is true that you can say "There is one common god -belief' aside from religion.' True, which is why I am fine with irreligious theists, provided they are ok with irreligious atheists - some are not 
. The thing there is that the theists have opted for one explanation of this God -feeling. They often do it vehemently, furiously and angrily. And always inherently illogically. because there is the other explanation that it is an evolved instinct. 
The analogy is back to front. The logical course would be to take the rational option. Make sure you are ok whether there is a bomb or not. The theist option is to cross their fingers and hope the choice they made is right (cue Pascal's wager). In any case, I am always suspicious of the rather theist habit of trying to Prove a claim by analogy. The analogy has to be exact to be able to do that (1) because inexact analogies are only ever useful in making a simpler explanation of something already proven but difficult to understand.
?
