Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Wildswanderer]

You're the one that thinks objectives observations are not objective.

But I commend you for unwittingly acknowledging that you just demolished one of the key excuses religionists typically provide for accepting bible lore uncritically - that it contains objective truths.

How can an observation be objective if you go back the to origin argument that started this line of thought that says our perceptions are subjective, therefore we can not trust religious experiences? If that's true, we can't trust any experiences because they all depend on our senses. We surely can't trust that we are reading instruments right or that we even created them properly because it's all based on our senses.

 

[Wildswanderer]

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

That's impossible according to science. How can anything have reality independent of the mind? Everything we observe requires the use of the mind. So, the only objective reality must be that which is outside of what science calls reality.

 

[night912]

By whom?

By definition.

 

[ppp]

By definition.

Definition is not a whom.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There's no such thing as objective perception.

Absolutely. There is no view from everywhere, as there is no view from nowhere - every view is from somewhere, and therefore subjective.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not sure what definition of objective you're using ...

objective
adjective

ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsobjective artan objective history of the waran objective judgment
bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimumEach question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE

Let me know when you meet someone capable of “perception without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations etc.”, and another to confirm his perception of any given object.

1a clearly describes an abstraction, an unobtainable ideal like Plato’s perfect circle.

 

[ppp]

Let me know when you meet someone capable of “perception without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations etc.”, and another to confirm his perception of any given object.

1a clearly describes an abstraction, an unobtainable ideal like Plato’s perfect circle.

That's why we invented science; in order to filter out bias through process. No one says that it is perfect, but it is a reliable process. As evidenced by every piece of technology that you come in contact with today.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's why we invented science; in order to filter out bias through process. No one says that it is perfect, but it is a reliable process. As evidenced by every piece of technology that you come in contact with today.

Yes, science is great at developing new technologies - everything from the iPhone to the H bomb. That’s not the only, or even the primary purpose driving the spirit of scientific enquiry;

“The programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists, irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation.”
- Albert Einstein

“Our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”
- Stephen Hawking

These goals have not been achieved yet; perhaps they never will. That’s not a reason to stop pursuing them. But without an ontological interpretation, physics cannot provide a vision of the fundamental nature of reality; pursuit of a coherent ontology brings us into the realm of metaphysics; and a consideration of metaphysics necessarily requires being open to aspects of existence which perhaps cannot be calibrated, quantified or defined through empirical observation of material entities.

If you are happy to place your faith in empirical scientific methods, and only that, then find; you will have lots of toys to play with, as the world burns. But it will not bring you a complete vision of the world, nor is it likely to help you make peace with yourself and the world. You may not have any interest in the former, but most of us find we need some help with the latter. God can provide that help; faith in God and interest in science btw, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ppp]

If you are happy to place your faith in empirical scientific methods, and only that, then find; you will have lots of toys to play with, as the world burns. But it will not bring you a complete vision of the world, nor is it likely to help you make peace with yourself and the world. You may not have any interest in the former, but most of us find we need some help with the latter. God can provide that help; faith in God and interest in science btw, are not mutually exclusive.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot distinguish between the stuff that you believe that is fact and the stuff that you believe that is fiction. Moreover you can't demonstrate that you know or are capable of knowing any of the things that you say regarding God and whatnot. Dire threats of the world burning or whatever other predictions of Doom that you have queued up cannot disguise that fact.

Show me that you have a way to reliable distinguish fact from fiction and I will pay attention. But I cannot be frightened or condescended into belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The fact of the matter is that you cannot distinguish between the stuff that you believe that is fact and the stuff that you believe that is fiction. Moreover you can't demonstrate that you know or are capable of knowing any of the things that you say regarding God and whatnot. Dire threats of the world burning or whatever other predictions of Doom that you have queued up cannot disguise that fact.

Show me that you have a way to reliable distinguish fact from fiction and I will pay attention. But I cannot be frightened or condescended into belief.

Well we have brains to use, and intelligence with which to reason. But we have other gifts too, including intuition. And we have eyes to see, but we we will have only limited perspective until we decide to open all of them.

 

[night912]

Definition is not a whom.

When did I ever say that "definition" is a whom? Can you point me in that direction please. ?

 

[ppp]

Well we have brains to use, and intelligence with which to reason. But we have other gifts too, including intuition. And we have eyes to see, but we we will have only limited perspective until we decide to open all of them.

Show me that you have a way to reliably distinguish fact from fiction and I will pay attention.

 

[ppp]

When did I ever say that "definition" is a whom? Can you point me in that direction please. ?

Well:

Technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not.

By whom?

By definition.

 

[night912]

Well:

Well.................where is it? I don't see it anywhere where I said that "definition" is a whom?

Can you point to me exactly where I said that "definition" is a whom, because I still couldn't see it even after you pointed out the direction where you thought it was being said.

 

[ppp]

Agan, when did I ever say that "definition" is a whom? Can you point me in that direction please. ?

I showed you. If you want to pretend you don't know how language works, that is your prerogative. But the fact of the matter is that you were either answering the question by using definition as a whom. Or you replied with a non sequitur.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Show me that you have a way to reliably distinguish fact from fiction and I will pay attention.

I have the same tools at my disposal that we all have, and arrive at most of my beliefs through investigation, experience, intuition, common sense and trust. In truth, I probably lean most heavily on the last of these; for instance, I don’t need to conduct detailed research into medicine when it’s easier just to trust my doctor.

 

[ppp]

I have the same tools at my disposal that we all have, and arrive at most of my beliefs through investigation, experience, intuition, common sense and trust. In truth, I probably lean most heavily on the last of these; for instance, I don’t need to conduct detailed research into medicine when it’s easier just to trust my doctor.

Those words are very carefully nonspecific. I asked how do you go about distinguishing the fact from the fiction of your god beliefs. And that response does not even tell me if you understand the question. Or why being able to reliably make such a distinction is of value. I won't twist your arm on the matter. But I will say that this is one of the reasons that I am unconvinced that you know, or have the ability to know the things that you claim.

 

[tas8831]

By definition.

So.... you don't know what "extra" means?

 

[tas8831]

Well.................where is it? I don't see it anywhere where I said that "definition" is a whom?

Can you point to me exactly where I said that "definition" is a whom, because I still couldn't see it even after you pointed out the direction where you thought it was being said.

You wrote "technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not."

I asked by whom - that is WHO considers ESP to be one of our senses?

Name a person that considers ESP to be one of our senses, please.

 

[night912]

You wrote "technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not."

I asked by whom - that is WHO considers ESP to be one of our senses?

Name a person that considers ESP to be one of our senses, please.

If I wrote, "technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not" then who do think considered ESP to be one of our senses?