Faith in no God

[rrobs]

Oh, goody. You have come to understand that there are two definitions for the word "faith".

However, I have little faith that you will not conflate the two in the future.

Oh ye of little faith!

 

[rrobs]

I read the scriptures and had them explained to me in Sunday School when I was ten. I found the story of Adam & Eve to be nonsensical. I found the story of the giraffes and the elephants and the lions going onto a wooden boat to be silly.

Every reading since then just confirms what I learned way back then.


Just to add...back in Sunday School they never discussed God having young men and older women killed while giving the young women to the victorious warriors.

I can relate. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, one hour of religion, five days a week. At the end of 12 years I also thought what they taught me was nonsense. Sparing you the details, I later found someone who actually knew the scriptures who taught me things the priests never taught me. I haven't looked back.

Speaking of priests, the scriptures clearly say the last priest was Jesus (Hebrews chapter 7, if you are interested). So you have to wonder why the RC insists on making up their own priests in direct contradiction to the scriptures they supposedly guard. Then there is the whole Jesus being 100% God and 100% man. What! If that's true he's neither God nor man. To their way of thinking Jesus is his own father. Insanity. There is not much difference between the RC and Protestants. Anyway, the bottom line is that what you were taught may not be actual scripture. At least that was my experience

 

[rrobs]

Well, you don't see that you won't need faith to see the chair is real.

The same can't be said about God, which mean God is less real than the chair.

So every time you sit in a chair, you do so with doubt that it will hold you up? Must be awful to live like that. Have faith in that chair! Life will go by a lot smoother for you.

 

[gnostic]

So every time you sit in a chair, you do so with doubt that it will hold you up? Must be awful to live like that. Have faith in that chair! Life will go by a lot smoother for you.

No, that’s not what I said, rrobs.

We are talking about faith. But I am also talking about the real world, whether it be natural (hence nature) or man-made objects (eg chair I am sitting at my desk, and my computer on desk) these are all real, and therefore you don’t need faith.

With real experiences, faith are not needed.

So any chairs that I have sat on in the past or present, they are real, regardless if they hold my weight or not.

In the past, I have read the Bible, believe in god because of my faith, but I have never seen him, he has never given me answer to my prayers where I could hear him speak, and I could never touch god like I can touch a chair that I have sat on.

Belief in god, required faith, which is not real-world experience.

So I am sitting on the chair at my desk, so the chair is real as are my desk and my computer. I don’t require belief, and I certainly don’t require faith.

My chair existed because I am sitting on it. I have seen no evidence of god and I have never seen god, excepting reading about him in a book, so god is a myth, isn’t real.

If you are sitting on chair right now, but you are thinking it isn’t real and require faith to believe in a chair, then I am afraid to say that you are delusional.

 

[blü 2]

Burn incense to it and see if it moves.

Thanks for the .

But if anyone knows the answer, I'm still interested to hear.

Go well.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, take a very simple example.
Someone: Reality is physical.
Someone else: No, reality is from God.
Me: I wonder how that is possible at all.

I have three foundational assumptions: that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it, and that reason is a valid tool.

They're assumptions, because in each case I can't present an argument for its correctness without assuming it's already correct.

I have an hypothesis, rather than a basic assumption, about how everything exists, namely that the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero consisted solely of mass-energy, hence that everything that exists in reality is either mass-energy or a property or consequence of mass-energy. (It wouldn't really make much difference if the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero were instead a salad, but Occam whispers, Fewer is better.)

One corollary of that would be that time and the other dimensions exist because mass-energy does, not vice versa.

We can't see, touch/hold or otherwise use our external senses to experience wrong beliefs. It is going on in the mind. So reality includes at least one mind, yours.

Indeed, but in my view the sense of self is a datum, not an assumption.

That is the problem with ontological solipsism. You are not the only thing going on. You are not just a mind on its own, There is something else.

As I said, I address that point by assuming it's correct.

"Since I am a cognitive relativist I don't believe in proof at the core of what reality really is. I believe and that seems to work."

Because of my assumptions, I think truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.
So I think
(a) if there are absolute truths about reality we have no access to them ─ which I paraphrase as "Outside of this sentence, there are no absolute truths".
(b) "proof" outside of the context of formal systems like maths and symbolic logic, has the legal sense "satisfactory demonstration", a subjective test.
(c) consistently, truth is the best opinion of the best informed minds for the time being.

But what is beyond your experiences?

If 'my experiences' include my learning eg the conclusions of those I trust as authorities, then there's a spectrum of credibility across what I know.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

I'd be okay with that if I knew what you meant by "within a system".

So what is reality really independently of your mind?

How would I know? My dealings with reality are essentially pragmatic, with the additional virtue of being for all formal purposes consistent with my outlook. But there are no absolute etceteras.

I am an epistemological solipsist. Not that I am the only thing existing. But that I have only external and internal experiences. So I don't know and nor do you. You trust reality to be fair and not "feed" you wrong beliefs, whether you are a Boltzmann Brain or not.

I understand what you say, but forgive me if I don't rush to embrace labels.

"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists." William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis.

I think that's simply false. The properties of the universe depend on the assumptions of the observer (you have mine above). If I think instead that spirits ─ immaterial, undetectable entities ─ make everything happen, and that my great great grandparents are watching my every move and feeling free to intervene regarding it, I'll come to different conclusions about what's real and what's not.

 

[Bird123]

Doubt it.


Doubt it.

Let me guess - you are hinting at some crazy deity curse or something?

What kind a sick thug curses an entire species for all eternity? Sick.

Clearly not - why does this God you fall back on wish for creatures to endure pain and suffering?

Seems sick and thuggish.


Glad I don't live near you.

Deity curse?? There is no deity cursing. You focus only on pain. Isn't there much more about hyenas you have yet to discover? It will make sense once you have discovered more. You will be able to see the entire picture.

I do not understand your statement this God I fall back on. How am I falling back on???

Pain and suffering have reasons to exist. God places limits on it all. Life isn't about pain and suffering. If that is all you see, you are missing so very much.

We all have the Power to choose what we deem important. I have always thought it was strange that when some people are hurt that they hold onto the hurt for dear life rather than working toward resolution.

Are you holding onto your pain for dear life? Is that all you choose to see? Life is about Living, Learning, and Growing. If you would let your pain go, you would discover. There are much better things in life to focus on and make more important.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Aman Uensis]

I'm not sure there are degrees of faith. We may not be sure of what we believe, but once we decide what to believe, we believe. It's a binary thing.

I think life is based on more faith than we'd like to believe (excuse the circular reasoning. I trust you can see my point). We like to think we all know, when what we really do is believe.

I'm not sure why everyone is disregarding your point. I think your argument has merit. In the absence of absolute truths the debate of faith becomes moot. A lack of belief in God may take just as much faith as belief in God if the defining standard is unanswerable, which it is if one acknowledges that existence is infinite.

But I am curious. As a Christian, does God not then become your absolute truth? Your defining standard?

 

[Bear Wild]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

The clear problem here is that there is not a God - There are many gods and goddesses. How silly to say there is a God without even a mention of a Goddess, that makes no sense at all. We would not have Angus without Dagda and Boann. And without Odin and Jord we would not have Thor. Clearly you need to reword your post to reflect the reality of our world of many gods and goddesses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me see, if I can explain how I see your approach and why it might be flawed, because I think you are asking the wrong question to begin with, to then end up drawing a near impossible conclusion, which then loop back to asking the wrong question again, because you are using the wrong conclusion to ask the wrong question. Which at some point seems to have gotten you stuck in what I would call some strange limbo and your critical thinking or reasoning are unable to get you out, At least that is how I see it. But will try to highlight where I think you are going wrong and maybe that will explain what I mean with this, a bit better.

If the conclusion you reach is that you do not know whether or not you are a Boltzmann Brain, then the initial question regarding who has a wrong belief doesn't matter, because you can't verify whether or not these people even exists to begin with. Because the only thing you can be certain of, is that one mind exists, and that is yours since you are experiencing this conflict. But since you have no way of verifying whether or not, those holding the contradictory beliefs exists or not, or whether only one of them does, means that you are stuck in this position.

No, I am not certain that I exist, Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) nor am I only my mind. You are not paying attention to what I say.

So again.
Something is happening and I am aware of it. That is 3 parts: I - am aware of - it.
But that is not all, because now I notice a difference between different versions of it. So I can control some cases of it other than being aware of. Some happen to me and I can't control them. I can do the same with time and space.
Some of my experiences/awareness of it are thus mine. I can change my mind and do something else. Some I can't.

You insist on constructing a straw man out of what I wrote above in the post you quoted.
So I will continue.
I - first part
am aware of - second part
it - third part
I - first part
can do - second part
other things than being just aware; other experiences, where I am not just aware -third part.

So now I stop that, but point out that it is called a triad. Someone - action - something. BTW That is Charles Sanders Peirce in a short and somewhat sloppy version.

Lets use what you at least know to look at the initial question again. "At least one mind exists, which is your own".

Then I ask, are the other minds?
Yes, among all the experiences there are some, which leads me to believe that. This conversion is one. This conversion only makes sense if I assume that you have a mind. Not all experiences leave me to believe that all things have minds, but this one is of them. There are words I use which are 1st person and you do the same. You assume other minds that yours alone. That is good enough for me.

Based on that, lets assume that the person, saying that "Reality is physical" doesn't exists, but the other one does. Then there is no contradictory beliefs, correct? And therefore wrong beliefs doesn't exists at all.

I don't buy that assumption.

You simply assume that both of them are existing and therefore they are able to make the statement they do. But again looking at what you can know with certainty from asking the question the first time, is that only your mind exists. But since you have absolutely no way, based on that reasoning to know, which of the people actually do exists or doesn't. it makes no difference.

Could you quit assuming certainty in me?!! I can confident that my overall model holds and I will accept a falsification of it.

Besides that, both of them could be wrong, then you are stuck with only wrong beliefs, which would change the question completely, to whether or not right beliefs even exist?

No person can be wrong unless they themselves experience first person being wrong.
Sidebar about logic and being wrong.
The second classical law of thought/logic states that something(not everything) at the same time and space can't have a property and not have it in the same sense.
So a little test. We need 3 humans.
Someone: Everything is physical.
Someone else: No, everything is immaterial. You are wrong and I am right.
First someone: No, you are wrong and I am right.
Me: This is funny. I don't believe in right and wrong as you two use it.
... (Some negative words about what I say doesn't make sense)

So now we go deep down into how reality works.
There are no positives and negatives as experience outside the mind.
Standard empiricism; you can't establish right nor wrong using your senses and there is no scientific law of right and wrong. There are no instruments to measure it and indeed there is this.
There is a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The one is science and the other philosophy. I can do methodological naturalism, but I don't do philosophical naturalism and I am not dead yet. More later.

So back to logic as the second classical law of thought. You and I can be different, because we don't happen at the same time and space. So if we are different neither of us can be neither wrong nor right as per logic.
So what is a contradiction as an experience. From a slight feeling of "off" to profound negative emotions. A contradiction is cognitive and a result of how brains work. They are in brains as an experience.

So back to "Reality is physical". What about that? Well, it is to simple. Just as reality is immaterial, is to simple.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Apparently Einstein
And now something really funny. Non-reductive emergent properties. Google it, if that is new to you.
Short and brutal version within methodological naturalism. The physical apparently give rise to the mental, but the mental as an emergent property can't reduces to the physical.
Short test: Everything goes on in the mind is physical. No, because you only understand that in your mind.
Everything can be controlled from the mind and in the mind as nothing but in the mind. No, because you as the mind can't control what I write next. Some people regardless of believers or non-believers as relevant for this thread simply use naive versions of philosophy in the end.

Now something with a little more variation.
Physical - bodies as bodies and other relationships as experienced physically and done as human physical activities and engineering.
Logic and math - testing how brains (and computers in part) work and has a relationship to science. More generally rationality.
Cultural and social - how we interact as humans.
Psychology, arts and so on. How humans experience themselves and the world first person.

Contimue...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is even to simple because there are overlaps and you pointed something out:

1. Where do you think history comes into this reality? You didn't live when the dinosaurs walked the Earth, so did they actually exists or did they jump into existing as you did?

No, I do experience history because I have an experiences of the past. I notice that as a young person, old people talk about a past I hadn't experienced first person and now as older I notice the same with young people now. It is called the arrow of time. Add a lot of methodological naturalism and we get dinosaurs.

2. If you are just a mind, then what is the need for your parents and did they even exists before you were born or is that just an illusion? Why would you have to spend such a long time being a baby?

Are you saying my parents had sex?!! The rest I have already answered indirectly.

3. How do you explain new technology and scientific development, which you can see popup in front of your eyes pretty much daily, Because you know that you are not the maker of all of these. So where do they come from, who is making them?

Well, we humans are naked upright walking apes, which over time, got better at using technologies than a stick. (Douglass Adams and I can find that one on Youtube)

Eventually if you believe that you are a Boltzmann brain, the only true conclusion that you can reach, as I see it, is that all of what you are experiencing is purely made up in your mind and that reality is simply an illusion or a simulation. If your conclusion is that the only thing you can know for certain is that "Your mind exists". Then there is not basis for you to assume any other conclusion, from a rational point of view and if you want to be true to the only piece of evidence you have.

And now finally metaphysics and ontology. Someone - aware - something. So what is that something in itself? What exists independently of the mind? I don't know, hence how epistemological solipsism works and not your version of a straw man - ontological solipsism.
Metaphysics and ontology, they are great fun, but don't take them to seriously.

And even if it were the case, that it was all just an illusion or a simulation, it would make absolutely no difference, as you wouldn't know which of them it is and therefore you would never be able to do anything about it anyway.

Now assuming that we can't tell the difference, between it being a Boltzmann brain or not. So simply working within that limitation.

We are just missing 2 concepts: Cause and effect.
I am caused by something else and I am the effect. So are you.
Now the fundamental question - Something else causes your awareness and you. How can you know it other than through your awareness as you? You can't and you are not even you and your awareness is not yours. Both cases are caused by something else.
But it doesn't stop here.

We can start asking questions whether or not, it is reasonable to hold such belief.

No, we can't because I am not really you and you are not really me. So here is the problem for a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
This universe consists of a long lasting power-supply and a computer running your mind and your awareness and simulating your experiences. It is not simulating the universe as such. It is simulating your experience of it.
So what is that we that you refer to? Does that "exist"? No, there is no external universe as you experience it. That is an illusion or simulation if you like.

1. We have no clue what a thought is, where it exists, how long it exists. But we can measure a brain and see that it shows activity when we are thinking. So is it reasonable to assume that in order for a thought to exist, we also need a physical brain?

Again with this "we"!!! That is noting but an assumption. As for measuring a brain, what good will that do? It is a simulation in BB computer.

2. So if we need a physical brain to create thoughts, despite us having no clue what exactly they are, is it reasonable to assume that, reality can both be physical things and non physical things?

Well, yes, but the brain might not be a brain. It could be a Boltzmann Brain computer. I might not exist as me from your POV. I might just be a part of the simulation.

So as I have posted it elsewhere, again:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis.

William C. Keel is a physicist, yet he understands the limits of knowledge. I have just presented you with the same problem just with a difference in scale and the idea is not even mine. The credit in the western tradition goes to Rene Descartes.

3. Since we know that whatever thought a brain makes up or what to say, is part of what we consider either part of our natural world, that being culture, history etc. But can also be imaginary things, like wizards, trolls etc. That we at least have a somewhat common understanding of the reality we live in. Meaning I can say the word "Polar bear" and most people would have an idea what I might refer to. I don't suddenly start talking gibberish about something that is completely outside our common understanding. Except if we are talking imaginary things, like a science fiction story, where an explanation usually follows of what these imaginary things im talking about is, so others can understand them as well. So is it reasonable to assume that we are all sharing some common reality?

No, it is not reasonable nor unreasonable. It is unknowable. You are right now thinking all these troughs as a computer simulation or not as a computer simulation. You won't be able to tell the difference.

4. If people are able to make up imaginary things and all thoughts are part of the reality that we share, which is immensely complicated and not all that well understood. That people can be wrong about it? And therefore reach wrong conclusions and wrong beliefs?
A belief is simply nothing more than a thought, which can't exists without a physical brain.

Yes, you are now the original version of a Boltzmann Brain. The universe is your brain and nothing but that. You will die in a few seconds. Of course this brain is physical, so what?

We know that our brains are not perfect and that it make mistakes all the time, as it is easily fooled to believing things which are not true. Like optical illusion, which in reality as Neil deGrasse Tyson would put it, is a brain failure. Our brain have a really hard time seeing the difference and therefore reach wrong conclusions or because it take shortcuts.

Looking at these questions from a rational point of view, again taking into account that we do not know whether or not we are actually part of a Boltzmann brain or not. That at least approaching life, based on it being false is more rational than not?

We have been doing this to test the limit of reason, logic, evidence and so on, and to figure out how it is that some people say that knowledge is nothing but a set of assumption. How come that in biological terms humans as individual animals live inside a cognitive bubble? That is the biological version of these questions?

Your core psychology is to trust the universe. So was mine, but I am a skeptic. But if you apply reason and logic to this like Descartes and question what you really know, you end here. Whether you use a powerful evil demon, who tricks you and it is all a dream or this version of Boltzmann Brain.
You below demand to know how another person knows that the Bible is true.
Well, I demand of you to know, how you know, that you can trust your senses, reasoning, logic, evidence and what not?

The core assumption behind knowledge, reason, logic and what not is that the universe is fair and thus knowable, even if it is physical.

Continue...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because going back to your initial questions.

Someone: Reality is physical.
Someone else: No, reality is from God.
Me: I wonder how that is possible at all.

What you ought to ask instead, is how did these people reach such conclusion and why should I believe them?

So close yet so far. You have figured that people believe different things and you ask them different questions like below. How about asking that of your self? Before you question other people's beliefs, what about questioning your own?

Here is the modern version part of this as per the Enlightenment in western history and on. Rene Descartes questioned his own beliefs and not just others and figured out that he had to believe that God was fair. Then fast forward to the cosmological principle and the problem is still not solved, The scale is different, but the problem is the same:
Is the universe knowable and is it playing fair with you and your "we" of scientists?

Well, I am not a scientist, but the answer has been known since Descartes. You can't take reason, logic and empirical evidence for granted, because once you question the core base of this, you end here.
So here it is, as how I was taught this. Before I question everybody else's beliefs I question my own, before I claim reason, logic, empirical evidence and so on.
The same goes for you. Before you start with why should I believe them, you start with what should I believe myself?
You question everybody else but yourself and your "we". I question everybody including myself, because I don't assume that I am that special.

I personal have a huge interest in beliefs myself, probably not all that different from you I think. But I also initially wondered, how come people having access to the same information reach completely different conclusions?

Well, the answer is as old as western philosophy. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras. Plato didn't like that and we have been at it ever since the old Greeks. What are the core limits of reason, logic and empirical evidence? Well, that depends on what you take for granted.
The modern version is this:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
There is also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Wiki will do here, since you can do it on your own. It doesn't require years of training and what not. It requires that you question your own beliefs just as you question everybody else's

I am not that bright or intelligent. I just pay attention, when somebody else says something to me and the core is this:
Somebody tells you to check your own thinking and feelings, before you do it with others. Now I have done that to you. Now you do that or this happens.
We end with Boltzmann Brain, a powerful evil demon and what not.

ILike im an atheists, I have read the bible and don't think it is true based on this and that...etc. A Christian might also have read it, but is firmly convince that it is true. How is that possible? And to me, its a questions of faith (or wants) and our way of approaching things for which we are not sure, what the right answer is suppose to be.

As I got interested in religion, I obviously also ended up listening to a lot of lectures from Pastors, debates etc. Having asked the very question I posted to you above: How do these people reach such conclusion and why should I believe them?

Well, I live in a secular culture (Denmark), so I questioned the base of science, religion and philosophy.

And listening to a Pastor telling how we can trust in God and Jesus and if we don't, then we go to hell. (Just a over simplified example):

And listening to someone telling me that reality is physical, I questioned that. And then I questioned myself, how do I ask a question at all? I am a general skeptic after all.

The rest of your post is you questioning the Bible. I have do that too. But I didn't stop there.
If people in general have a hard time questioning their own culture as a result of nature and nurture, that might also apply to you and me too?
And you know what? It does!

Now question wrong, false and all those variants and check your own culture.
They are social constructs in part.

I didn't stop when I became an atheist. I had figured out that other humans were a product of nature and nurture. So what about me or indeed you as an atheist?

Check your own nature and nurture, before you question everybody else's.

Yeah, welcome to the "freak" show of what reality really is as objective reality having reality independent of the individual mind?
The answer is, that it is unknowable.
Next question! I don't know everything, so for some questions you must ask someone else than me.
But for what reality really is? That one, I know! Or do I?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have three foundational assumptions: that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it, and that reason is a valid tool.

...

I have three foundational assumptions: that a part of the world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it but in a limited sense, and that reason is a valid but limited tool.

As to how "but limited", that is simple. No one have solved the Is-Ought problem with neither rationalism nor empiricism.

E.g. I believe in God. I accept that it is not Rational nor with Evidence. I don't care, because it works for me and I accept that you do it differently. The fun starts with "we", "them" and what "we ought to do".
That one can't be done without non-empirical and non-rational assumptions.

So I have four. One for the ought. I believe that all humans are scared and have worth and dignity.

 

[blü 2]

I have three foundational assumptions: that a part of the world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it but in a limited sense, and that reason is a valid but limited tool.

I see the self, the view through my eyes to greatly oversimplify it, as one frame of reference, and the world external to me as another. Information via the senses includes things learnt and things detected by instruments as well as things directly perceived. Reason is matchless at what reason does, but it's a tool, and has no agenda of its own. We're not too far apart.

As to how "but limited", that is simple. No one have solved the Is-Ought problem with neither rationalism nor empiricism.

"Ought" is from Old English ahte, 'owed', so it principally suggests (moral) obligation. All statements about moral obligation are judgments, with the additional spice that we're born with evolved moral tendencies ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of virtue through self-denial ─ plus conscience ─ the sense that some of our moral opinions have universal application, though we may not agree on what ─ plus mirror neurons, explaining empathy (though some dispute their existence). The rest of our morality comes from our upbringing, culture, education and experience, and is far more variable from tribe to tribe.

Since the question 'What's the right thing to do here?' will always call for a judgment which may vary from person to person, what part of the 'ought' problem do you think is solvable-in-principle but unsolved?

E.g. I believe in God. I accept that it is not Rational nor with Evidence. I don't care, because it works for me

All my close friends and relatives who are believers agree with you, and I don't argue with them.

So I have four [assumptions]. One for the ought. I believe that all humans are [sacred] and have worth and dignity.

I don't think all humans are equal in worth / worthiness, but none is worthless. How do you see it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I don't think all humans are equal in worth / worthiness, but none is worthless. How do you see it?

No beef with the ...
The one left is the big one.

I will do it without God as with methodological naturalism in the broad sense.
There is no objective standard for equal or not equal. Both are subjective.
"I don't think all humans are equal in worth / worthiness, but none is worthless." That "think" is actually not pure thinking. It is in part a feeling or sort of a belief.
"How do you see it?" Since I can't judge humans with an objective standard, I chose to try to believe in that one "all humans are equal" and always reflect on my behavior and try to improve it. I.e. do the work even in effect a secular sense.
I fail regularly and then I try to learn to do it better next time, knowing it will never be "Good". It will hopefully get closer, but it will always be good enough.

Regards Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I fail regularly and then I try to learn to do it better next time, knowing it will never be "Good". It will hopefully get closer, but it will always be good enough.

Yes, my good intentions outnumber my good deeds too.

Good luck to us both!

 

[Nimos]

Well, I demand of you to know, how you know, that you can trust your senses, reasoning, logic, evidence and what not?

I don't disagree with you, that I can't proof whether or not anything outside my mind actually exists or not. But to me, that is simply part of a philosophic thought game, which is interesting to talk about, but in regards to how one experience reality, its utter useless.

Because again one will be stuck in a loop, where you will never get any wiser in regards to how you want to approach reality, as I see it.

Where do you see this way of thinking getting you in regards to understanding the world in which you live or at least how you experience it?

So here it is, as how I was taught this. Before I question everybody else's beliefs I question my own, before I claim reason, logic, empirical evidence and so on.
The same goes for you. Before you start with why should I believe them, you start with what should I believe myself?

I agree with you, that one should question their own beliefs. But you can't do that, without accepting some sort of common reality and existence with people around you. How would you do that without doing so?

As an example:

"I think apples are good for me, because they taste good." That is my belief.

How do I question my believe, without accepting a common reality with other people, as it is from them, that I can verify whether or not my belief is reasonable or not.

So a scientist might know exactly, what an apple is made of and another which of these things are good for us as humans. And combining their knowledge they can confirm that an apple in good for me, not because it taste great, but because of what it is made of.

Which means that I can change my belief based on what they tell me.

"I think apples are good for me, because it contains things that are good for my body"

But if I go back to the initial philosophic mind game, but how do I really know, if only my mind exists, couldn't I just have convinced my self that this is what I wanted to believe? And if that is the case, well then I can't really trust what these people told me.

To me, its interesting to think about, but completely useless in regards to how one ought to live.

So again, how do you use this for anything?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't disagree with you, that I can't proof whether or not anything outside my mind actually exists or not. But to me, that is simply part of a philosophic thought game, which is interesting to talk about, but in regards to how one experience reality, its utter useless.

...

No, it drives out certainty about this in the quote below in connection with morality, science and religion and that "I am right and you are wrong".

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

To learn to understand one's own culture and the combination of nature and nurture you have to learn to suspend judgment of all the big words. Reality, objective, truth, logic(proof), reason, evidence, knowledge and what not.
When you then do that, you realize that there is no single or combined sets of methodology for all humans to do this, which science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science, Religion, Philosophy and what not can't solve subjectivity and cognitive diversity in humans.

In there is one we have been circling around - supernatural beliefs as metaphysics. Whether reality is physical or from God? Both are to simple if either is answered in the positive, because it is unknown in both cases. That is what I have been trying to show.

So now we are sharing that we trust our senses and reasoning.
We are now inside methodological naturalism and then the limits show up.
Cognitive relativism.
Cultural relativism.
Moral relativism.
Non-realism for ethics.
And so on.

Now if someone are so certain as to the correct answer for all of us universally, then that one is also likely certain what reality really is. It is connected and has nothing to do with just religious believers.
It is the certainty that "I am Right and you are Wrong. And how dare you question that? I am Rational and with Evidence or Faith I Know what Reality and all of the Rest Really Is."

That is not just some religious believers. Religion is a natural phenomenon and some of the culture and psychology are also present in some non-believers.
Yeah, I said it out load.

Regards Mikkel

 

[Native]

Karolina said: ↑
Where do the natural laws come from?

Ultimately, I don't think that is a meaningful question. To discuss 'where something comes from' requires the use of a physical law. So, if you have the most fundamental physical laws, there *cannot* be a deeper explanation.

Philosophically it is a meaningful question. And you don´t require the physical laws in order to make and explain a Big Bang, do you? This just happened via pure metaphysics or what? So of course the question is meaningful.

But to label the universe as a 'creation' already begs the question. Is it a 'creation' or does it 'simply exist'?

This equally also counts if you use the Big Bang assumption and the formational description.

Karolina said:
A world without God would be a world without natural law.

And why would you assume that? A universe with structures and natural ways of interaction would be a universe with natural laws and could potentially have no deity, right?

Sure. Just like this Universe never had a Big Bang in where the natural laws suddenly and metaphysically appears from nothing.

 

[Native]

Either way, the universe has existed whenever there was time. And, it makes no sense to say it was 'created'.

It also makes absolutely no sense to claim that the Universe suddenly was FORMED in a Big Blow from a initial stage where "time" and the fundamental laws didn´t exist.