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.
[...]
However, the logical position is that we don't know whether the universe was created by an entity or not or even whether the basics of matter are eternal. Where we don't know we logically have to be agnostic - we don't know. and what we don't know we logically don't believe until we do know. An atheist is someone who does not believe in what they do not know.
[...]
In the 'They are all talking about the same god' argument one ignores the differences and simply looks at the similarities. It is thus easy (but wrong) to argue that they are all in fact talking about the same 'God'. (they may be talking about the same delusion but that is another matter).
[...]
logic is not necessarily any way to find definative truth, or any sort of objectivity. This is why there are many religious theists, because people can seemingly chose to believe whatever they want.
Lets not go insulting people with your anger. the more politically correct way to phrase that is "they may be talking about the same non-existant concept..." Not to worry, I have found myself guilty of insulting many people on many different occassions for various reasons.
logic is not necessarily any way to find definative truth, or any sort of objectivity. This is why there are many religious theists, because people can seemingly chose to believe whatever they want.
Lets not go insulting people with your anger. the more politically correct way to phrase that is "they may be talking about the same non-existant concept..." Not to worry, I have found myself guilty of insulting many people on many different occassions for various reasons.
I'm truly astonished. Where was there even a shred of anger or insult in my last two posts?
And I have to say that I am firmly convinced that verified evidence and logical reasoning ARE the only valid ways to arrive at conclusions. One can speculate. Speculation is fine. Speculation is useful. Speculation is necessary. Science relies on hypothetical speculation to throw up new ideas.
But, until they have been validated speculation and hypothesis they must remain. If one does not accept that, they have abandoned logical and scientific credibility and are relying on Faith - and an arbitrarily selected kind of faith, too - as a basis for their worldview.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 06:06 AM..
Though my views fit perfectly with secular logic and scientific credibility, all of that could be wrong. Also, you called their God a "delusion" instead of a "non-existant concept". Don't get me wrong, AREQUIPA, you are among the best and most polite of all people. I suppose their delusion would be more along the lines of "their shared belief in the existence of a non-existant concept". But the way I read it, you called God a delusion... a lot of people would be upset by such an insult, though I understand that is their problem for being so insecure. "God" itself is not the delusion, "God" is the concept.
Though my views fit perfectly with secular logic and scientific credibility, all of that could be wrong. Also, you called their God a "delusion" instead of a "non-existant concept". Don't get me wrong, AREQUIPA, you are among the best and most polite of all people. I suppose their delusion would be more along the lines of "their shared belief in the existence of a non-existant concept". But the way I read it, you called God a delusion... a lot of people would be upset by such an insult, though I understand that is their problem for being so insecure. "God" itself is not the delusion, "God" is the concept.
I'm sorry if you thought that it was insulting to suggest that the common god - feelings that people get might be delusions. But the fact is that it is as possible that these feelings are just feelings and the ideas that they are down to an outside god are delusionary is just as valid an explanation as a real external entity.
I wouldn't use your term 'non - existent concept' as it is inherently contradictory. A concept 'exists' in a purely conceptual way and I would be asking to be shot down in flames if I used it. Delusion is a known and understood term and is perfectly applicable as an equally valid explanation of what is being perceived. I appreciate that you are not personally miffed and are just putting me straight, but I think you are proposing faulty semantics and, if anyone is offended by my suggesting that God - feelings are delusionary, they are going to get horribly offended if they hang around the religion debate.
Well, AREQUIPA, the "god-feelings" are not delusions. The interpretation of such feelings as being separate from the self, might be the delusion.
you are right on your second part, perhaps instead of "non-existent concept", one might use the phrase "[purely] imaginary concept".
This is why I value you and your contributions so highly AREQUIPA. Also, arequipe (Dulce de Leche from Colombia) happens to be one of my favorite foods.
Well, AREQUIPA, the "god-feelings" are not delusions. The interpretation of such feelings as being separate from the self, might be the delusion.
you are right on your second part, perhaps instead of "non-existent concept", one might use the phrase "[purely] imaginary concept".
This is why I value you and your contributions so highly AREQUIPA. Also, arequipe (Dulce de Leche from Colombia) happens to be one of my favorite foods.
Point taken, but a perusal of my argument would show that while the feelings are accepted as empirically validated, the interpretation as being some perception of an outside entity might well be a delusion. If anyone if offended by such a suggestion, tough leche.
Ok. So how do you determine how reasonable an idea is?
Again a reasonable question and it's not so easy to answer. Especially in the religion debate where the question eventually gets asked: what basis we can have for concluding anything - what I call the 'How do we know what we know?' question.
Let's suppose that we accept that nothing can be known for sure. Let's make no assumptions about anything, whether we are here or only think we are, that anything is real or might be some huge cosmic computer simulation, that our senses and beliefs are totally unreliable and we can know nothing for certain.
(a) very well, how do we go about our lives? If we can assume nothing, we don't dare step outside in case we are buried under a heap of radioactive Tuna or get into our car in case it decides to turn into a thermonuclear explosion or there is no point in going to work as the office or supermart might well have turned into a recycling plant for Dinosaur sewage.
This is no way to live. We would soon find that certain patterns repeated again and again. The sun always rose in the sky, the car always started (or if it didn't we knew where to go to get it fixed), the pizza shop was where you left it and if you walked into a wall you could expect some bruises.
Belief or faith in what experience told us was reliable would give us a body of reliable data. We might not know how or why. We might not know how our TV works or what makes lightning or why water boils. we just know it always does. Then some clever fellows find ways of testing what works and what doesn't and why and we stop telling ourselves that the TV works because of gnomes inside or what makes lightning is angry yetis in the Rockies or water boils because we said a prayer to the Coffee - god before we turned the kettle on. We have a reliable and ever -growing corpus of validated knowledge, not only what can be relied upon but why it can be relied upon.
I expect you will also want a step by - step validation of the rules of logic, too. Well, if so, let me hold that in reserve for the moment.
(b) well, if nothing can be known for certain then everything is equally possible. So we can believe in God - or whichever god we like. or invent our own, like the spaghetti monster. Or the Force or Galadriel or just about anything. Of course I suppose one could believe as a firm fact anything that one could imagine but I wouldn't even like to try.
Well, rather than pre -empt the reasoning from there, granpa, how about you reason from there (unless you can show the conclusion faulty) about what and whether one might have beliefs in or about. And we'll see how we get on.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 07:39 AM..
nothing is ever known beyond all doubt.
But somethings are known beyond a reasonable doubt.
a reasonable doubt is a doubt that we have a reason for.
we start life not knowing anything.
we only have expectations.
we expect that aristotle is a man.
we expect that all men are vain.
we expect that aristotle is vain.
our initial efforts to determine how reasonable an idea is are subjective.
subjective means that we tend to see whatever we want to see.
it is by developing objectivity that we finally learn to determine how reasonable things are.
nothing is ever known beyond all doubt.
But somethings are known beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right. It is a question of the weight of evidence, not a 100% proof (I wouldn't drink it anyway) but reasonable proof and reasonable doubt.
Quote:
a reasonable doubt is a doubt that we have a reason for.
Not just a '"reason" for . A good reason for - a soundly based reason for - not just any doubt that happens to suit our book
Quote:
we start life not knowing anything.
we only have expectations.
we expect that aristotle is a man.
we expect that all men are vain.
we expect that aristotle is vain.
Yes, as I say, we know certain things can be relied upon. We know that men are vain - to some certain extent - and as Aristotle is a man he is probably vain. At least to some extent.
Quote:
our initial efforts to determine how reasonable an idea is are subjective.
subjective means that we tend to see whatever we want to see.
it is by developing objectivity that we finally learn to determine how reasonable things are.
Spot on. We should not decide on doubt or credibility on a subjective basis. The only credible way of assigning doubt or validity of gods or anything else is by using the experience of repeatability, the corpus of validated data and belief in what has been demonstrated. Anything other than that has to be the subject of doubt until that supportive data is forthcoming.
In the case of the infinite number of possible things to believe (including gods) we must look at the supportive data. Which one is the one with the evidentially validated support?
Well, I would undertake to demonstrate, none of them. All of them are without any objective support. There is no reason to believe in any of them. All are equally the subject of doubt.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 08:25 AM..
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.
