Belief is Nothing When Compared to Experience

[beenherebeforeagain]

but as we lack 'proof'.....all we can do is reason

We still have to have something to reason about. This is what Kant went on about in the Critique of Pure Reason: reasoning without valid experiences to reason about can only be used to ensure that the form of our reasoning is legitimate.

So, what we have to do is look to our experiences--and in Kant's, and many others' meaning, experience that can be replicated by others is the only valid kind of experience that reasoning can be applied to (that is, empirical evidence).

So, humans have created a logical model that says there is an order of superlatives, which culminates in one and only one "Almighty."

That is a reasoned model, and as far as it goes, the logic seems valid. The only thing lacking is empirical evidence for the proposed Almighty. And in fact, empirical evidence is weak for any sort of spirit, soul, demigod, god, or close to almighty entity.

One last point: just because we can build a valid logic model that could allow an Almighty, there is absolutely no imperative that there is an Almighty. Just because something COULD be, does not mean IT IS.

So, you can have your flight of fancy, valid reasoned construction that it is, and conclude there is an almighty--without any empirical evidence to support it.

I look for valid empirical evidence that there is an Almighty...and see no such evidence.

 

[Thief]

We still have to have something to reason about. This is what Kant went on about in the Critique of Pure Reason: reasoning without valid experiences to reason about can only be used to ensure that the form of our reasoning is legitimate.

So, what we have to do is look to our experiences--and in Kant's, and many others' meaning, experience that can be replicated by others is the only valid kind of experience that reasoning can be applied to (that is, empirical evidence).

So, humans have created a logical model that says there is an order of superlatives, which culminates in one and only one "Almighty."

That is a reasoned model, and as far as it goes, the logic seems valid. The only thing lacking is empirical evidence for the proposed Almighty. And in fact, empirical evidence is weak for any sort of spirit, soul, demigod, god, or close to almighty entity.

One last point: just because we can build a valid logic model that could allow an Almighty, there is absolutely no imperative that there is an Almighty. Just because something COULD be, does not mean IT IS.

So, you can have your flight of fancy, valid reasoned construction that it is, and conclude there is an almighty--without any empirical evidence to support it.

I look for valid empirical evidence that there is an Almighty...and see no such evidence.

so.....look up on a clear night
and then tell yourself.....

Substance created it's......SELF....all by it's ......SELF
defying the reality we know.....that substance does not move by it's SELF

in the beginning.......

 

[Thief]

btw......without a Creator....

there is no reason
for you to exist

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

so.....look up on a clear night
and then tell yourself.....

Substance created it's......SELF....all by it's ......SELF
defying the reality we know.....that substance does not move by it's SELF

in the beginning.......

On what empirical basis are you assuming that "substance created it's....SELF," etc.? My--or your--personal experience is irrelevant, as are our speculations, unless they can be empirically validated by others.

You're still using your assumptions and a [perhaps] valid chain of reasoning as evidence--which it cannot be.

That you look at the night sky and conclude that substance does not move itself is not verifiable empirical evidence, because you ASSUME that your observation is valid...and as I understand physics, your--or my--observation is not valid.

So, when I look up at the night sky, or at the variety of things happening in my environment, and I understand that humans are limited beings, I conclude that it's all a Great Mystery...I see that there could be some universal Almighty, but, I don't see any evidence.

Certainly, EXISTENCE by itself is evidence for nothing but the fact that we EXIST.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

btw......without a Creator....

there is no reason
for you to exist

So?
You can't see a reason to exist without an Almighty Creator...THEREFORE, an Almighty Creator MUST and DOES exist?

Sorry, but that only makes sense if one ASSUMES that there must be a reason for you and me to exist. What is the EVIDENCE that an Almighty Creator Exists.

 

[Milton Platt]

Suppose I tell you there's a tree in my yard. What difference does it make whether you believe or don't believe there's a tree in my yard? In either case, you have not experienced the tree in my yard. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether you believe or disbelieve there's a tree in my yard -- for all your belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Suppose you tell me there's a god. What difference does it make whether I believe or don't believe there's a god? In either case, I have not experienced that god. I might as well flip a coin to decide whether I believe or don't believe there's a god -- for all my belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Your greatest belief about the tree in my yard is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of the tree than the thought of taking a brisk walk is exercise. My greatest belief about your god -- no matter what it is -- is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of your god than the experience of seeing a dot on a map of France is the experience of having visited Paris.

No matter how hard I study a biology textbook, I cannot lose my virginity by studying it. No matter how hard I study what I think is god, I cannot experience god by studying it. I say, "Yes, but studying a biology textbook prepares me to lose my virginity". But it's not that simple. The textbook can't and won't tell you everything, and you will have little or no idea without the experience itself what has been left out of the textbook. The textbook can give you false expectations. And some of those expectations might even become self-fulfilling prophecies so that you experience what you expect to experience rather than what's really there. And so forth. Beyond a point, your textbook is useless to you as a guide to experience, even though you might not have studied all of it yet.

Do you think belief, by itself, is of any great significance when compared to experience? Why or why not?

I disagree. I know people have "yards"...yards exist. I know that trees exist. I know that trees exist in yards. It is therefor no problem assuming you could have a tree in your yard. The claim that there is a supernatural, invisible, all powerful, all knowing being that can speak universes into existence and at the same time worries about my sex life is a different sort of claim. It requires much more evidence. I have never seen a god, I have never watched while a universe was spoken into existence.

 

[Thief]

On what empirical basis are you assuming that "substance created it's....SELF," etc.?

no...no....no....
I put forth what you must claim to deny God

deny God......and then substance takes His place

and life is nothing but chemistry
and when your chemistry fails

nothing more

 

[Thief]

So?
You can't see a reason to exist without an Almighty Creator...THEREFORE, an Almighty Creator MUST and DOES exist?

Sorry, but that only makes sense if one ASSUMES that there must be a reason for you and me to exist. What is the EVIDENCE that an Almighty Creator Exists.

you are the evidence

you did not create yourself

and substance is not SELF motivated

it was all set into motion .....in the beginning

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

no...no....no....
I put forth what you must claim to deny God

deny God......and then substance takes His place

and life is nothing but chemistry
and when your chemistry fails

nothing more

I disagree with your proposition that I 'MUST claim' to deny God. Inserting "I don't know" into this means that I don't know.

I don't know how substance came to be; while humans can investigate such a question, it seems to be likely beyond our ability to ascertain. An Almighty deity is one possible explanation, but it is not the only possible explanation.

You are the one asserting definite conclusions form statements that are not proven, and as far as I can tell, cannot be proven. You are assuming God, and then that one must assume other things to deny God. Your assertion of God is prior, and therefore is the proposition that must be validated with evidence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

you are the evidence

you did not create yourself

and substance is not SELF motivated

it was all set into motion .....in the beginning

No, I do not see myself as evidence of anything beyond evidence that life has occurred. It's origins are a mystery at this point...

It's POSSIBLE but by no means certain (or even supported by empirical evidence) that some Almighty deity was the first cause...

but it is also POSSIBLE that there are entirely natural explanations, none of which have been demonstrated yet...

and it's also possible that there are "supernatural" explanations, explanations involving deity, yet there not be a universal Almighty deity, at least not of the sort you seem to be proposing...

And it might also be that humans cannot really understand, except in the vaguest of metaphors, the reality of how we came to be, or what the universe is "for" or about...

Regardless, instead of assuming an Almighty, I recognize that our origins and purpose are currently a Great Mystery. We can investigate that mystery (through science) and interpret our experience (through the arts). I personally may never understand the Great Mystery, but it's possible that some humans eventually will...

In the meantime, I choose not to fill in that Mystery with an Almighty omnimax creator deity, for which there is no empirical evidence...

 

[Thief]

I disagree with your proposition that I 'MUST claim' to deny God. Inserting "I don't know" into this means that I don't know.

I don't know how substance came to be; while humans can investigate such a question, it seems to be likely beyond our ability to ascertain. An Almighty deity is one possible explanation, but it is not the only possible explanation.

You are the one asserting definite conclusions form statements that are not proven, and as far as I can tell, cannot be proven. You are assuming God, and then that one must assume other things to deny God. Your assertion of God is prior, and therefore is the proposition that must be validated with evidence.

it's one or the other.....
substance first....or Spirit

and I do not believe substance can create.....it's ....'self'

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

it's one or the other.....
substance first....or Spirit

and I do not believe substance can create.....it's ....'self'

but you believe spirit can create substance...an unsubstantiated claim...as unsubstantiated as that substance are create spirit...or that substance creates itself, or that spirit creates itself.

I observe that there is substance. I observe that there are spirits.

I have not observed that there is One Almighty Spirit that created substance, although many insist that there is, and many others insist that there is not.

I withhold judgment on the matter until evidence is provided.

 

[Thief]

but you believe spirit can create substance...an unsubstantiated claim...as unsubstantiated as that substance are create spirit...or that substance creates itself, or that spirit creates itself.

I observe that there is substance. I observe that there are spirits.

I have not observed that there is One Almighty Spirit that created substance, although many insist that there is, and many others insist that there is not.

I withhold judgment on the matter until evidence is provided.

there will never be evidence for your eye or your hand
all you can do is think about it

and it's one or the other
Spirit first.....or substance
if you choose substance.....dead stuff can form the living
and the living will die and become dust

you will end

I on the other hand choose Spirit First
I do not believe all of this chemistry (called Man)
is a futile effort (on the part of substance)

substance cannot make a willful effort to be creative

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

there will never be evidence for your eye or your hand
all you can do is think about it

and it's one or the other
Spirit first.....or substance
if you choose substance.....dead stuff can form the living
and the living will die and become dust

you will end

I on the other hand choose Spirit First
I do not believe all of this chemistry (called Man)
is a futile effort (on the part of substance)

substance cannot make a willful effort to be creative

Interesting that you conclude that there will never be evidence, that all we can do is think about it. I disagree: we CAN look for evidence, and see what we find. Maybe we will and maybe we won't find evidence, but to give up and conclude a prior that we can't/won't find evidence is not justified, in my opinion. Of course, I'm still skeptical of human ability to know much about the ultimate questions, but pragmatically it's possible we can learn a great deal.

As to your artificial duality, I have no problem with you choosing to believe that spirit was first, and somehow created substance; I personally will not follow you down that rabbit hole; been there and done that...I found that it's not productive.

As for matter creating spirit--there is considerable evidence that matter comes together in ways that cause emergent properties to emerge--spontaneous order, for example, and intelligence--from "inert" matter.

Finally, has it ever occurred to you that "matter" and "spirit" are one and the same thing? That your dichotomy is artificial and without basis? Or, that spirit, like matter, is multiple and not singular?

These are possibilities that I consider; some of them can at least in theory be tested, others cannot. But I try to resist jumping to conclusions when our best information at present in not conclusive.

You're welcome to jump all you want; as long as you continue to ask everyone else to jump your way, I'll be offering alternatives for you and anyone else who's interested.

 

[Thief]

Interesting that you conclude that there will never be evidence, that all we can do is think about it. I disagree: we CAN look for evidence, and see what we find. Maybe we will and maybe we won't find evidence, but to give up and conclude a prior that we can't/won't find evidence is not justified, in my opinion. Of course, I'm still skeptical of human ability to know much about the ultimate questions, but pragmatically it's possible we can learn a great deal.

As to your artificial duality, I have no problem with you choosing to believe that spirit was first, and somehow created substance; I personally will not follow you down that rabbit hole; been there and done that...I found that it's not productive.

As for matter creating spirit--there is considerable evidence that matter comes together in ways that cause emergent properties to emerge--spontaneous order, for example, and intelligence--from "inert" matter.

Finally, has it ever occurred to you that "matter" and "spirit" are one and the same thing? That your dichotomy is artificial and without basis? Or, that spirit, like matter, is multiple and not singular?

These are possibilities that I consider; some of them can at least in theory be tested, others cannot. But I try to resist jumping to conclusions when our best information at present in not conclusive.

You're welcome to jump all you want; as long as you continue to ask everyone else to jump your way, I'll be offering alternatives for you and anyone else who's interested.

your rabbit hole is shallow
I estimate....six feet deep

I anticipate a greater....expanse
and more than 7billion souls to keep me company

I think my line of thought will 'prove' far more productive

 

[rusra02]

Belief in gravity beats the experience of jumping off a cliff, IMO.