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.
what I believe and why, and you can't deny the validity of my perceptions without all knowledge.
A nice narrative but one that basically says "You will never believe what I do unless you are me". Which... if you forgive my obscenity..... is patently obvious.
But the actual discourse of explaining "What I believe and why" is one that can only go so many ways. One of which is where people entering into such a discourse spend some time identifying points where they agree and they proceed from there.
The other is one we see too often where someone espouses their conclusions from a self erected pedestal based upon their own opinion of themselves. From which the only way anyone is even judged worth of discourse is if they climb up to that pedestal or show themselves to be on one of equal subjective measure themselves.
I put it to the OP therefore that the reason people avoid tough questions is that all too often they can not even agree upon the language with which they will readily pose or accept questions.
So I put it to the OP..... how often are people avoiding tough questions....... or how often are those people operating under different protocols. Or, to render it in programmers language like I am wont to do..... do older TCP/IP systems "avoid" IP6 systems.... or do they just need to be shown how to communicate?
A nice narrative but one that basically says "You will never believe what I do unless you are me". Which... if you forgive my obscenity..... is patently obvious.
But the actual discourse of explaining "What I believe and why" is one that can only go so many ways. One of which is where people entering into such a discourse spend some time identifying points where they agree and they proceed from there.
The other is one we see too often where someone espouses their conclusions from a self erected pedestal based upon their own opinion of themselves. From which the only way anyone is even judged worth of discourse is if they climb up to that pedestal or show themselves to be on one of equal subjective measure themselves.
I put it to the OP therefore that the reason people avoid tough questions is that all too often they can not even agree upon the language with which they will readily pose or accept questions.
So I put it to the OP..... how often are people avoiding tough questions....... or how often are those people operating under different protocols. Or, to render it in programmers language like I am wont to do..... do older TCP/IP systems "avoid" IP6 systems.... or do they just need to be shown how to communicate?
We can only witness to our own perceptions. It is when tha witness given by someone elsaconflicts with out perceptions that discussion could ensue, investigating why the conflict. I submit that any question, however worded is worthy of a comment, if only "try rewrding that showing a little respect." If you wanted to lean over, it would not be unreasonable to reword the meat of the question and aske if that's what they meeant to say I agree though that there are times when I get ...uh, upset by the manner in which someone conducts himsself.
Yes, tutoring in communications goes on here all the time. I try to heolp out when I see where there is a msunderstanding.
We can only witness to our own perceptions. It is when tha witness given by someone elsaconflicts with out perceptions that discussion could ensue, investigating why the conflict. I submit that any question, however worded is worthy of a comment, if only "try rewrding that showing a little respect." If you wanted to lean over, it would not be unreasonable to reword the meat of the question and aske if that's what they meeant to say I agree though that there are times when I get ...uh, upset by the manner in which someone conducts himsself.
Yes, tutoring in communications goes on here all the time. I try to heolp out when I see where there is a msunderstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
But not, apparently, when there is a a misspelling.
My typing is so pathetic that I need a spell checker to keep from posting paragraphs like nate's or sentences like yours, mordant.
I thought we were past this since the ONLY objection you have is to plausibility as my basis of support and you do not consider that sufficient. But there is a HUGE difference between something that has a plausible explanation grounded in known science and something that has "not one shred or REASON" to believe. Plausibility is SOME reason to believe . . . just not sufficient for you and my other detractors.
And maybe this is my fault for using your phrasing here. I was intending to convey that, unlike 6 day creationism or global floods, your ideas do not, on their face, contradict what we have learned about our reality using science. Simply not contradicting what we already know is a good start, but that is a long way to go from being a "reason to believe". What is needed is to show how one can get from extant science to your ideas, why we should prefer your idea over any other explanation, and ways to test your idea. I understand you are not proposing a scientific hypothesis here, so even if we leave out the idea of experimental validation, we still need some way to get us from the Standard Model, a mind arising from a biological brain, and a non-dualistic model of consciousness in a rational methodical manner. This is the part that gets criticized as insufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is what irritates. Your standard of what is sufficient for BELIEF is applicable only to FACTS . . . not mere beliefs. Beliefs by definition have a lower standard of support and plausible beliefs are definitely superior to those with no plausibility whatsoever. You deny the distinction and that is why you deny the significance of "We do not know" as insufficient grounds to deny plausible beliefs. All the mocking and ridicule using FSMs or Unicorns, etc. are applicable ONLY to implausible beliefs.
This too is probably confusion generated by my use of plausible. As I said, it is not inherently contradictory, but also is mostly supposition with little evidence to support it. Beyond that, "we don't know" is a perfectly good reason to deny a belief. For example, "If MysticPhd has a body in his freezer, then it is clear he is a murderer". If we pick apart that sentence we can see that it contains a great number of logical flaws but it is a "plausible" belief. But it is contingent on that body in the freezer. To argue that it is still a plausible and reasonable belief to hold when the answer to "does Mystic have a body in his freezer?" is "I don't know." would be not only silly, it might be legally actionable in some parts of the world. In this case "I don't know" is a perfectly good reason to discard the belief that MysticPhd is a murderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have never denied that my certainty and my entire quest for understanding emanated from my personal experiences. You and others call it my confirmation bias. I endeavored to be as objective as such a subjective quest would allow because I really did want to learn how it could be possible.
Well, in general, the idea of starting with a predetermined, immutable conclusion and trying to create a framework to explain it, regardless of the evidence is a the very definition of a confirmation bias...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The immense antipathy and vitriol directed at me and my knowledge was definitely responsible for my less than agape-loving reactions and assessments of my detractors' intellects and knowledge. What can I say, I am only human. I have never demanded that anyone believe as I do, only that they cease denigrating my synthesis as if it is scientifically implausible . . . like fairies and unicorns, etc. It would appear that is unlikely given your rejection of plausibility as any support.
I think you would need to define plausible pretty rigorously for me to agree at this point. For example I think your ideas are less contradictory than 6 day creation, but since I could borrow a lot of your frame work and use it do defend George Lucas's version of "the Force" (only Edisodes 4,5,and 6. Midichlorians are an abominations!), I hesitate to use plausible in the sense that I think you mean, that is something that is a reasonable and likely explanation.
For you to get to "plausible" in that sense, you would need to fill in a lot of the holes that you have. Right now to make your theory work, you have to assert dualism, an undetectable consciousness field that has constant interactions with the observable world, the sentience of that field as a whole, and the existence of something transcendent, beyond reality itself ( the "en" in Pan-en-theism). It is orders of magnitude less "plausible" than, say, multiverses or quantum foam, and those are things I wouldn't hang my hat on either...
I'll be blunt here, my recollection of how things went down is somewhat different. You posted a lot of psuedo-science in defense of your ideas, and did not state that you didn't mean that science to be taken literally ( in fact, you made quite a show of how your beliefs were scientificly based). When those of us who recognized that "Energy is mass accellerated to the speed of light" is just wrong called you on it, instead of revisiting your ideas, you started in with the "you're to dumb to get it" defense. After a couple months of that, then you moved on the the "It was analogy" argument. You spent a week trying to argue to me that you could prove the existence of God by constructing a syllogism with one axiom ( which is not a syllogism at all!). You have a history of playing word games, and being insulting and demeaning at any criticism.
If you notice none of what I posted has anything to do with your ideas. It has to do with how you have consistently presented your ideas. From my perspective, it feels like you have gotten your sense of self and your divine revelation tangled up in the logic and theories you use to support it. Criticism of your theories is not the same as criticism of you, or at least it doesn't have to be. But when you defend your theories by saying that you are genius and a professors and no lesser beings can hope to follow your mighty intellect, well, you end up making it about you and not your ideas at all...
The very use of the word "apologetic" reveals your bias in this matter and the lack of openness and honesty in the discussions. My critics REALLY do not understand my views . . . either out of a lack of knowledge, a lack of due diligence, or a lack of intellect . . . or just an unwillingness to accept a God concept of any kind. Their attacks and focus on their perceived errors in my analogies reveals the shallowness of their grasp of the actual issues. Pretending to suggest that it is a lack of willingness to engage on my part is false and has been repeatedly demonstrated as pure nonsense.Duh!!!
I wouldn't . . . but my adversaries seem less inhibited, nate.
Absolutely! The "making it up" is the favorite and repeated refrain of those whose agenda seems to be denigration of theist beliefs, period. The next most popular is "there is not one shred of evidence or reason to believe." It is pathetic! Amen and Amen!!
It is not that I am unwilling to accept the idea of a god or gods existence at all. I'm certainly willing. But I would like someone to show me some evidence. And so far there is none. Thus, the next most popular argument that you have stated is a valid point indeed. If there is no evidence, what is the persuasive reason I should believe that a god(s) exist? There is no evidence leprachauns exist, or unicorns, or Bigfoot, thus I dismiss these possibilities. I don't believe religious people are stupid ar anything; just that they accept something as fact that I don't.
I thought we were past this since the ONLY objection you have is to plausibility as my basis of support and you do not consider that sufficient. But there is a HUGE difference between something that has a plausible explanation grounded in known science and something that has "not one shred or REASON" to believe. Plausibility is SOME reason to believe . . . just not sufficient for you and my other detractors. This is what irritates. Your standard of what is sufficient for BELIEF is applicable only to FACTS . . . not mere beliefs. Beliefs by definition have a lower standard of support and plausible beliefs are definitely superior to those with no plausibility whatsoever. You deny the distinction and that is why you deny the significance of "We do not know" as insufficient grounds to deny plausible beliefs. All the mocking and ridicule using FSMs or Unicorns, etc. are applicable ONLY to implausible beliefs.I have never denied that my certainty and my entire quest for understanding emanated from my personal experiences. You and others call it my confirmation bias. I endeavored to be as objective as such a subjective quest would allow because I really did want to learn how it could be possible. The immense antipathy and vitriol directed at me and my knowledge was definitely responsible for my less than agape-loving reactions and assessments of my detractors' intellects and knowledge. What can I say, I am only human. I have never demanded that anyone believe as I do, only that they cease denigrating my synthesis as if it is scientifically implausible . . . like fairies and unicorns, etc. It would appear that is unlikely given your rejection of plausibility as any support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
And maybe this is my fault for using your phrasing here. I was intending to convey that, unlike 6 day creationism or global floods, your ideas do not, on their face, contradict what we have learned about our reality using science. Simply not contradicting what we already know is a good start, but that is a long way to go from being a "reason to believe". What is needed is to show how one can get from extant science to your ideas, why we should prefer your idea over any other explanation, and ways to test your idea. I understand you are not proposing a scientific hypothesis here, so even if we leave out the idea of experimental validation, we still need some way to get us from the Standard Model, a mind arising from a biological brain, and a non-dualistic model of consciousness in a rational methodical manner. This is the part that gets criticized as insufficient.
This too is probably confusion generated by my use of plausible. As I said, it is not inherently contradictory, but also is mostly supposition with little evidence to support it. Beyond that, "we don't know" is a perfectly good reason to deny a belief.
I think you would need to define plausible pretty rigorously for me to agree at this point.
I'll be blunt here, my recollection of how things went down is somewhat different. You posted a lot of psuedo-science in defense of your ideas, and did not state that you didn't mean that science to be taken literally ( in fact, you made quite a show of how your beliefs were scientificly based). When those of us who recognized that "Energy is mass accellerated to the speed of light" is just wrong called you on it, instead of revisiting your ideas, you started in with the "you're to dumb to get it" defense. After a couple months of that, then you moved on the the "It was analogy" argument. You spent a week trying to argue to me that you could prove the existence of God by constructing a syllogism with one axiom ( which is not a syllogism at all!). You have a history of playing word games, and being insulting and demeaning at any criticism.
If you notice none of what I posted has anything to do with your ideas. It has to do with how you have consistently presented your ideas. From my perspective, it feels like you have gotten your sense of self and your divine revelation tangled up in the logic and theories you use to support it. Criticism of your theories is not the same as criticism of you, or at least it doesn't have to be. But when you defend your theories by saying that you are genius and a professor and no lesser beings can hope to follow your mighty intellect, well, you end up making it about you and not your ideas at all...
-NoCapo
::Sigh:: The emotional antipathy is almost overwhelming. I suspect it is too great to afford an entry to your intellect. But I accept your chastisement and acknowledge my own communication failures. I do not know of a better way than analogy to summarize and communicate scientific material as complex and nuanced as those involved in a unified field theory of reality to a lay audience of unknown knowledge in an online discussion forum. The fact that the analogies conflate with an attempt to reveal the implications for the concept of God using speculative extrapolations from the science truly aggravates the difficulty of the task.
Using analogy does not make it unscientific or pseudo-science if the purpose and principles underlying the analogies are actually understood. I obviously failed to make the purpose and principles clear. My Synthesis was not an academic paper or a rigorous explication of the science it took me decades of study to decipher. It was an attempt to communicate a synopsis of my views in a way that was accessible to a lay audience in response to repeated requests from a friend. In my estimation, it is a more than reasonable effort under the circumstances. I simply did not anticipate the level of misunderstanding (or antipathy) it and my efforts to defend it would evoke. God is a volatile subject indeed.
I avoid something if it is a waste of my time and energy. There are a lot of posts on this forum that state basically anyone who believes in God is an idiot. Anyone with that view loses all credibility and shows a remarkable lack of intelligence. I try to avoid engaging with those who are hostile or toxic.
Wait a minute. A person who says that someone lacks intelligence is showing a lack of intelligence, according to someone who points out that lack of intelligence. I think you just called yourself an idiot.
To a degree. But perceptions have a habit of being mappable onto a shared reality. As the discourse of science shows. We can all lie on the ground and see shapes in a cloud and aid others to seeing the shapes we do.
Alas however the narrative of there being a non human consciousness responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of our universe is one that lends us no substantiation at all, of any time. You and your fellow theists have simply failed to substantiate any of it, or for many of you, to even try.
In fact more and more it is not just avoiding the tough questions I observe. But a complete avoiding of the topic in general. For example in my years of talking with theists on line, at the beginning I got into all kinds of "god exists" debates. Now a days it is rare to find any theist defend the notion at all. Forget avoiding the tough questions, many avoid the entire subject. In fact I have never once seen your good self for example, here or on IGI, ever enter into a discussion on arguments, evidence, data or reasoning for thinking a god even exists.
Now a days it is rare to find any theist defend the notion at all. Forget avoiding the tough questions, many avoid the entire subject. In fact I have never once seen your good self for example, here or on IGI, ever enter into a discussion on arguments, evidence, data or reasoning for thinking a god even exists.
I know god exists
however there is no reason or motivation whatsoever for me to explain or prove it to anyone else
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.
I suspect it is too great to afford an entry to your intellect. But I accept your chastisement and acknowledge my own communication failures. I do not know of a better way than analogy to summarize and communicate scientific material as complex and nuanced as those involved in a unified field theory of reality to a lay audience of unknown knowledge in an online discussion forum. The fact that the analogies conflate with an attempt to reveal the implications for the concept of God using speculative extrapolations from the science truly aggravates the difficulty of the task. 
