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.
Again you pretend I have the problem. I am 'unreachable' because you can not provide the evidence for your god. But I can argue for a god being unnecessary using logic and mathematics. Not assertions, logic and mathematics. And they do not suffer from the problems the 'god did it' assertions have.
You are so fixated on the "God Did It" nonsense that your refuse to even contemplate that God just IS IT (nothing to DO at all). All your logic and mathematics and whatnot trying to show God is not needed to DO IT are completely irrelevant. You do not have the philosophical chops to bother with any further attempts to penetrate your fixated concept of God.
Sorry, I just saw this. These discussions are very difficult to keep track of. My thread about "Ten Alternative Truths" is probably more relevant, but I'll try here.
When you say "I have yet to see a god, and want to stick with observations," you are describing an epistemology similar to LearnMe's (or so it seems to me). Something like, "Reality is what can be empirically demonstrated or deduced." This seems to me a very limiting epistemology - a self-imposed intellectual straitjacket, as I say in my exchanges with LearnMe - but it's certainly not irrational.
On the other hand, if there is a deistic or theistic level of reality, or any sort of reality outside or beyond the natural order, science is never going to discover it. Such a higher reality is certainly a logical possibility. Some scientific disciplines provide evidence that is difficult to square with a purely materialistic reality and arguably points to a higher reality. Large bodies of experiential evidence point toward a higher reality. Some philosophical arguments point toward a higher reality.
I can choose to ignore everything but what science establishes to some level of certainty. But I believe the nature of ultimate ontological reality is too important - too important to this life - to limit myself in this manner. Hence, as I explain in "Ten Alternative Truths," I will consider anything and everything that seems relevant to me.
The inference to the best explanation that I speak of is to take the entire body of what I deem relevant and decide where it points - to atheism, to theism, or to whatever. Ditto for you - my only point being that to limit what is deemed relevant to the findings of science is going to pretty well guarantee materialistic/atheistic convictions since science operates on the basis of methodological (and often philosophical) materialism that disallows any other answer.
My only real point here, believe it or not, was that the most productive discussions are likely to be at the level of what arguments and evidence have led me to theistic convictions versus what arguments and evidence have led you to atheistic convictions, not (as is so often the case) why only irrational dummies could believe the doctrines of fundie Christianity.
Thank you for the reply.
Science for the most part has been limited to predictable phenomena such as the water cycle. We call this 'hard science.' But it doesn't have to be. If the term 'science' is stripped away of its most modern usage, then what can be found is that its etymon comes from a Latin root where one of the denotations is 'to know.' If a man gives a pendant to a woman, and she chooses to wear it, we can infer why she chose to wear it and be pretty accurate with our inference. We can "truly know" if she tells us directly that she loves him, but words can cheapen human sentiment.
While inference is "to know", this is different from the science "to know" which explains the water process or when a person tells us the true reason for wearing the pendant. You said it is "the best explanation when taking all of the information you deem relevant and decide where it points." That makes perfect sense. The etymon of inference comes from a root in Latin that has a denotation of "to carry, to bear." An inference then is something we carry inside of us and we apply it when we don't have a direct answer.
If the woman decides to wear another pendant, and won't tell us why, then all we can do is make an inference. Maybe her lover left her. Maybe she left him. Maybe her grandmother gave it to her. Until we have an answer from the source, it is an inference. One of those "best explanations" might be right, a combination of them might be correct, or none of what we personally know may be.
That is how I see belief in God. Belief in God is an inference.
Science for the most part has been limited to predictable phenomena such as the water cycle. We call this 'hard science.' But it doesn't have to be. If the term 'science' is stripped away of its most modern usage, then what can be found is that its etymon comes from a Latin root where one of the denotations is 'to know.' If a man gives a pendant to a woman, and she chooses to wear it, we can infer why she chose to wear it and be pretty accurate with our inference. We can "truly know" if she tells us directly that she loves him, but words can cheapen human sentiment.
While inference is "to know", this is different from the science "to know" which explains the water process or when a person tells us the true reason for wearing the pendant. You said it is "the best explanation when taking all of the information you deem relevant and decide where it points." That makes perfect sense. The etymon of inference comes from a root in Latin that has a denotation of "to carry, to bear." An inference then is something we carry inside of us and we apply it when we don't have a direct answer.
If the woman decides to wear another pendant, and won't tell us why, then all we can do is make an inference. Maybe her lover left her. Maybe she left him. Maybe her grandmother gave it to her. Until we have an answer from the source, it is an inference. One of those "best explanations" might be right, a combination of them might be correct, or none of what we personally know may be.
That is how I see belief in God. Belief in God is an inference.
It seems to me if we only trust one source of “to know†we may be losing a very important source of “to know.â€, which is ourselves where we “carry†this knowledge. Belief in God is to trust this knowledge which has no conflict with “to know†of science, and enhances and enriches our life in a way science cannot.
What “we truly know†because of what the woman says is less reliable than what she “carries†in herself as to what the pendent means. We will never know for sure and we have to settle for that, only her words which always fail us. By itself words have limited capacity to inform completely.
You are so fixated on the "God Did It" nonsense that your refuse to even contemplate that God just IS IT (nothing to DO at all). All your logic and mathematics and whatnot trying to show God is not needed to DO IT are completely irrelevant. You do not have the philosophical chops to bother with any further attempts to penetrate your fixated concept of God.
Christians seem to want to have it both ways. If something good happens, it's all god. And if something bad happens, it's not god. That's primary school thinking.
It seems to me if we only trust one source of “to know†we may be losing a very important source of “to know.â€, which is ourselves where we “carry†this knowledge. Belief in God is to trust this knowledge which has no conflict with “to know†of science, and enhances and enriches our life in a way science cannot.
What “we truly know†because of what the woman says is less reliable than what she “carries†in herself as to what the pendent means. We will never know for sure and we have to settle for that, only her words which always fail us. By itself words have limited capacity to inform completely.
Yes, you made this very good point earlier. Science cannot tell us everything. That is why we make inferences. Both are subjective because in science, people still make the decision on what to study. Inference is even more subjective because we carry our experiences into our present. You hear it in comments such as "I know what you are trying to do," when the accused is making an attempt to do things differently. It is a wrong assumption that the person hasn't changed, but it is still an inference. That is not science.
So when I place God belief under the category of inference, there is always the possibility that I am wrong about God or what I believe about it. It's not that I am determined to be against God. It's that I want to avoid the type of person in the bolded.
You are so fixated on the "God Did It" nonsense that your refuse to even contemplate that God just IS IT (nothing to DO at all).
No, my position refutes that idea too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
All your logic and mathematics and whatnot trying to show God is not needed to DO IT are completely irrelevant.
So evidence you do not like is irrelevant? That explains so much. Still, simply dismissing it as irrelevant is much more rational than arguing against the actual logic and mathematics .
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You do not have the philosophical chops to bother with any further attempts to penetrate your fixated concept of God.
We have seen what modern philosophy does when it ignores what we do know. If a philosophical argument is NOT based on evidence, it usually fails (as probability predicts it will). This is why the last resort of the theists is philosophy (or dishonesty), they can simply ignore the evidence they do not like, or redefine things to get the results they want.
Science for the most part has been limited to predictable phenomena such as the water cycle. We call this 'hard science.' But it doesn't have to be. If the term 'science' is stripped away of its most modern usage, then what can be found is that its etymon comes from a Latin root where one of the denotations is 'to know.' If a man gives a pendant to a woman, and she chooses to wear it, we can infer why she chose to wear it and be pretty accurate with our inference. We can "truly know" if she tells us directly that she loves him, but words can cheapen human sentiment.
While inference is "to know", this is different from the science "to know" which explains the water process or when a person tells us the true reason for wearing the pendant. You said it is "the best explanation when taking all of the information you deem relevant and decide where it points." That makes perfect sense. The etymon of inference comes from a root in Latin that has a denotation of "to carry, to bear." An inference then is something we carry inside of us and we apply it when we don't have a direct answer.
If the woman decides to wear another pendant, and won't tell us why, then all we can do is make an inference. Maybe her lover left her. Maybe she left him. Maybe her grandmother gave it to her. Until we have an answer from the source, it is an inference. One of those "best explanations" might be right, a combination of them might be correct, or none of what we personally know may be.
That is how I see belief in God. Belief in God is an inference.
Yes, I absolutely agree that a conviction about the existence or nonexistence of God is an inference, one based on the totality of what each of us regards as relevant. Since science operates on the basis of methodological (if not philosophical) materialism, then naturally I am most interested in those areas of science that are a challenge to materialism and arguably point to a higher reality.
Some (many) people seem to be capable of strong convictions - typically theistic but surely atheistic as well - that scarcely seem well-informed to me. This is always a puzzle to me, but I don't deny that strong convictions can be held on the basis of what seems like pretty thin inquiry and analysis to me. Across the board, there is also a lot of pretending, whereby one accepts that the truth can't be known and simply lands in a spot that is personally appealing and seems to offer cultural, social and perhaps economic advantages.
I have one good friend who genuinely seems to have no interest at all. He just shrugs and says "Eh, I'll find out when I die." My thinking has always been that the quest itself, and the convictions I reach, will inform and enrich every aspect of my life even if those convictions ultimately prove to have been very wrong. This can be as true, I suppose, for atheistic convictions and theistic ones.
Christians seem to want to have it both ways. If something good happens, it's all god. And if something bad happens, it's not god. That's primary school thinking.
If you have actually been listening to ME, as a Christian Panentheist it is ALL God but Not necessarily all God's WILL!! That s why we are asked to ENDURE with agape love to the end. If God could do something about it that would not be necessary!
If you have actually been listening to ME, as a Christian Panentheist it is ALL God but Not necessarily all God's WILL!! That s why we are asked to ENDURE with agape love to the end. If God could do something about it that would not be necessary!
Of course not. The Omnis are human wishful thinking, vanity. and hubris, IMO, except for Omnipresence and Omnibenevolence. I encountered Omnipresence and Omnibenevolence, so they make sense to me. The rest are just not evident.
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.
.
