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.
The easy answer is that we have personal experience that demands belief, Grand. In my case, It is sufficient FOR ME to claim I KNOW.
But it is not sufficient for anyone who uses sound reasoning rather than faith - based wishful thinking.
Nobody doubts the reality of your experience, but what caused it? Something outside you body? Something inside? Something (as you argue) inside but giving real information about something outside? How can you possibly know?
So your analogy using the chair is astonishingly flawed for someone with a Phd in Philosophy. I can only assume its Plantinga's disease - a well read and competent Philosopher who nevertheless is unable to think straight because of religious faith.
The analogy (imperfect, but close) might be sitting on a chair, but with eyes closed. Is it a chair, a bench, a box, a bed? Not only do you claim it is a chair but you know what wood it is made of, the designer, manufacturer and how much it cost - all with your eyes closed.
Can you just for once step outside your cocoon of patronizing contempt for anyone who does not buy your faith - claims sight unseen and see why it is that we take leave to disagree with your arguments?
Regardless, assuming your God has some natural source, we have other possible explanations for your experience. Whether you choose to discount these explanations is entirely up to you, but in future posts please be careful to qualify your claims as only being what you believe and what cannot be considered evidenced for others' considerations.
I have always carefully separated the science-based reasons for my extrapolations and hypotheses . . . from my beliefs based on my personal experiences and faith that we have the consciousness of God for our inspirations (if we are sensitive to them). The latter is why I credit the existence of God inspirations even for our ignorant ancestors.
I have always carefully separated the science-based reasons for my extrapolations and hypotheses . . . from my beliefs based on my personal experiences and faith that we have the consciousness of God for our inspirations (if we are sensitive to them). The latter is why I credit the existence of God inspirations even for our ignorant ancestors.
That's where the rub is initiated. I haven't seen any science-based reasons from you, which I believe is the majority opinion, only your belief in consciousness as energy, which is part of the cosmic consciousness, which is God, if I understand correctly.
Yes, you do, but we do see this as a bit of an artificial distinction. The process is very well known from Flat earthism, Creationism and the like. The faith comes first and the science is then ransacked for anything that can be used to make it work.
I gather that your science is fairly sound, which is why it impresses me as a hypothesis, but the only reason for it even being there is the Faith.
Of course we need to keep our options open, what with the very woo behaviour of some of those particles, but keeping options wide open is far different from opting for one as a faith -based Fact and closing off all the others as not worthy of consideration, because you 'Know'.
Can you just for once step outside your cocoon of patronizing contempt for anyone who does not buy your faith - claims sight unseen and see why it is that we take leave to disagree with your arguments?
I am wounded by this image of me that I have apparently earned here on C-D. I have no patronizing contempt for anyone . . . least of all for those who have sincerely struggled to understand my views as you and others have, Arq. I will admit a bit of pique for those who allow no possibility that my hypotheses have any basis in science because they obviously are extrapolated from science. Forgive me, if I have ever made you feel contempt or patronized, Arq. I have far too much respect for you and your efforts to understand than that.
I am wounded by this image of me that I have apparently earned here on C-D. I have no patronizing contempt for anyone
Let's see what a quick google search turns up :
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your quaint and simplistic understanding of the scientific method has NOT been exclusively characterized by empiricism (read experiments for those in Rio Linda . . . like Gplex) since Einstein's theories. You are not too behind the times, Gplex . . . but you have brass ones to presume to educate a PhD scientist on scientific method. It takes all kinds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
So glad to see you posting again, Gaylen. I wish you luck in your quest (though I am not sanguine about your chances given my personal experiences). Sadly despite your outstanding efforts to explain the subjectivity/qualia problem from an atheist perspective . . . the IDA ("Intransigent Dogmo Atheists" . . . to borrow from Rifleman) . . . have not even begun to acknowledge the issue is real. In fact, they have become even more dogmatic and intransigent about it . . . largely I suspect in abreaction to my theist views invoking the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If you attended one of my graduate classes for an entire semester . . . I doubt you would understand the facts you are ignorant of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Superficial understanding frequently leads people to foolish misunderstandings . . . it is why a "little knowledge" really is a dangerous thing . . . especially where the philosophical implications of knowledge are concerned.
Quote:
It should be adequate (except for a few obnoxious self-congratulatory know-it-alls who THINK they understand science and our reality). They stroke their own egos in the mistaken idea that all who believe in God are intellectual midgets or deluded. They puff themselves up with their minute understanding of the ACTUAL nature of our reality . . . as if it is the only plausible one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If the know-it-all ridiculers and mockers would stop pretending they are Mensans by attacking ALL believers to bolster their self-congratulatory estimates of their intelligence . . . AS IF only dumbsh*ts believe in God . . . i would not feel a need to disabuse them of their belief in their intellectual superiority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the unrelenting ridicule of their extreme irrational views and the arrogance of pushing equally unsupportable extreme polar opposite views . . . that stirs my anger and sets the tone of the discussions. The certainty of either extreme is completely unwarranted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That . . . and the fact that you are clueless about the philosophical and epistemological issues involved
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is no way to settle it. For my part . . . this is explanatory with a goal to disabuse atheists of their unwarranted feelings of intellectual superiority over theists and the religious. There is NO scientific basis for their hubris.
If you're really hurt that people perceive you as patronizing, perhaps some introspection is in order into the reason for their perception.
Also to Arequipa - note that he claims to be a PhD scientist, not a PhD philosopher. Maybe he's changed his story in the past few years, though, I don't have time to keep up with all of the puffery.
I am wounded by this image of me that I have apparently earned here on C-D. I have no patronizing contempt for anyone . . . least of all for those who have sincerely struggled to understand my views as you and others have, Arq. I will admit a bit of pique for those who allow no possibility that my hypotheses have any basis in science because they obviously are extrapolated from science. Forgive me, if I have ever made you feel contempt or patronized, Arq. I have far too much respect for you and your efforts to understand than that.
I had to think carefully how to respond.
My intent is not to wound, but to explain that your posts (not so much to me, these days) do come across as lecturing wearily to a bunch of half -educated 1st years who simply fail to grasp what you are explaining.
This is particularly grating when each and every one of those who have got into a discussion with you have seen the same serious flaws in your case. And the logical cow -pat of your analogy of the chair is just the last in a long line of reasoning flunks.
While it is not our business to tell you what to believe, it is our business to defend the logical underpinning of our reservation of belief, especially when it comes under attack.
If you're really hurt that people perceive you as patronizing, perhaps some introspection is in order into the reason for their perception.
Also to Arequipa - note that he claims to be a PhD scientist, not a PhD philosopher. Maybe he's changed his story in the past few years, though, I don't have time to keep up with all of the puffery.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I was taken aback (almost choking on my breakfast) when I read his post, but hadn't the time nor desire to provide the contradictory evidence.
If you're really hurt that people perceive you as patronizing, perhaps some introspection is in order into the reason for their perception.
I did say EARNED, KC. My culpability in no way mitigates the hurt from the result . . . especially from those whose intellects I respect, like Arq or mordant.
Quote:
Also to Arequipa - note that he claims to be a PhD scientist, not a PhD philosopher. Maybe he's changed his story in the past few years, though, I don't have time to keep up with all of the puffery.
I realize there may be phony PhD mills out there, KC . . . but all TRUE PhD's are science degrees. The essential requirement is to know science and be able to advance the frontiers of existing knowledge.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I was taken aback (almost choking on my breakfast) when I read his post, but hadn't the time nor desire to provide the contradictory evidence.
It didn't take much time at all to find these examples. That fact should tell you something.
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.
