God did it

[David T]

? Haven't you got Google!

Apparently you cant experiemce indepently of a dictionary or the internet. Is that aspergers? .

 

[shmogie]

You do that to, concerning all revelations of rival religions, don't you?

You know better than that, why even ask the question ?

Just say what you want to say and get it over with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My list stands. You just replace 'nuthindidit!' To remove the absurd caricature from your preference. I included both.

Unknown is an admission of ignorance, not a possibility of the nature of the universe. The dichotomy is 'goddidit!' or 'nuthindidit!'

It's a false dichotomy.

Claims of ignorance do not change the actual possibilities.

Actually, they do......... Or at least, they acknowledge that there might be possibilities that we don't yet know about.

To declare before hand, in ignorance that the possibilities are restricted to either Y or X, is to pretend to have the answers before asking the questions.

'Origins', of the universe, life, and man are the exact Questions we face.

The origins of man have already pretty much been determined to be the evolutionary process.
Origins of life and the universe, yes, those are questions that science faces.

But again, these things are presently unknown. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

Default position? You mean the one most people believe?

No. He means the one that rational reasoning would result in.

And the default is never to just believe a claim. Not in rationality land anyway. Belief in a claim is rationally directly related to the evidence in support of it.

No evidence, no belief.

This is why you (likely) don't believe in the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, scientology, etc.
If the default was to accept things as true until proven wrong, you'ld be required to believe every unfalsifiable claim ever made.

Tell me about the 'default position!' for beliefs on origins.. I'm all ears.

"we don't know, let's work to find out".

Also, he was talking about the default position on claims people would make.

So, tell me, what is the default position if I would claim that an undetectable 7-headed dragon is following me around everywhere?

 

[Valjean]

My list stands. You just replace 'nuthindidit!' To remove the absurd caricature from your preference. I included both.

Unknown is an admission of ignorance, not a possibility of the nature of the universe. The dichotomy is 'goddidit!' or 'nuthindidit!' Claims of ignorance do not change the actual possibilities.

Neither Goddidit nor nuthindidit is an explanation. Neither Helps us understand the phenomenon.
When we don't have sufficient evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion, an admission of ignorance is the only proper position.

Default position? You mean the one most people believe? Or the one that has indisputable proof? ROFL!!

Tell me about the 'default position!' for beliefs on origins.. I'm all ears.

What are you talking about? In the absence of sufficient evidence the default position would be a deferral of opinion pending evidence. The default position is no position.
An admission of ignorance; "I don't know," is a legitimate and reasonable position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know better than that, why even ask the question ?

Just point out the obvious.
You deny 99% of "god revelations" out there, because they happen to be associated with gods you don't happen to believe in. Or the "revelation" doesn't fit with your a priori religious beliefs.

Just say what you want to say and get it over with.

I think I already did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see how just "declaring" that god is this "objectively real thing that can't be defined properly", somehow solves anything at all.

It solves the following. If there e.g. is a limit to human mobility, i.e. I can't fly unaided here on earth and and if I try for a high enough position I fall to my death.
This example is evidence of a limitation in human mobility.
Mobility is not everything, in that you can't do everything you like using mobility.
Mobility is not nothing, in that if your body allows it or you use technical aide, you do have mobility.
Mobility is a limited human behavior.

So what do I try to solve?
I try to solve this question:
Just as mobility as a human behavior has limits, do evidence, falsifiable, reason, logic, objectivity and so on have limits?
I am ask a question.

It's still a poorly defined hodgepodge of supernatural shenannigans with no evidence, no reason, no logic whatsoever to back it up.

No amount of mere words in the form of assertions or declarations is going to change that.

I am not doing religion, I am doing critical thinking on the limit of words used in science. I am testing if science as a human behavior has a limit.

At some point, you're going to have to cross that river and come up with some independent objective evidence to power this idea. Unless that happens, it is to be shelved with all other (potentially infinite) unfalsifiable claims one could make about reality.

You are a Believer, I am a believer. The difference is this. I know the limits of science and you believe differently.

So here is an example:
Take inflation in physics. Use it as a premise along other premises and using logical deduction the multiverse is true, because the premises are true and the deduction is valid.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.

Again for the core words as relevant - unknown, paradigm.
So whoever make the argument that from inflation follows the multiverse with truth and logic necessity, can learn something, not that the person needs it, will do it, ought to do it, can do it, should do it or what ever.

Rather something about humans in general; there are 4 categories of humans relevant for these kinds of debates:

1. Those who don't have the cognitive abilities.
2. Those, who don't care.
3. Those, who cares and Knows.
4. Those, who cares and knows there is a limit to knowledge.

You are #3. I am #4. So for falsifiable, if there is a limit to that human behavior, just like mobility as a part of it, it is psychology.
It applies to both #3 and 4. It is the combination of the following words in science about cognition and feelings/emotions.
It involves mentalization, meta-cognition and the understanding of what learning in a human involves,
So here it is:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Accommodation
– This happens when the existing schema (knowledge) does not work, and needs to be changed to deal with a new object or situation.

That is it. You as an individual have a schema. I have a different one.
So here is the falsifiable and indeed the falsification of your schema.

Premise 1: I have the Correct schema for all humans.
Premise 2: There are other humans, who have other different and thus contradictory schemas.
Conclusion: That is not possible, because only mine works with knowledge, evidence, reason, logic and so on.

The problem is that there is a hidden premise, which is not true. The hidden premise is this:
There is only and only one way to have a life with knowledge, evidence, reason, logic and so on and that is mine.
When someone does that, I answer with the falsification of: No!

You are functionally unable to understand that your schema is in part individual for you and doesn't not apply one to one for all other humans.
Your core assumption is that of all Believers: I Know, because if I don't, that doesn't make sense to me!
That is not knowledge, that is the psychology of how some people deal with their life.
And it is that you do accommodation differently than me.
Science have already answered for everyday life, how it is possible to fundamentally believe differently about what reality really is. It is a belief, if you test it. Because the test, is that you observe for all humans, that it is subjective. All the words given are subjective in the end, because the all involve, how we individual make sense of everyday life.. Yours, mine and everybody else. I know and you Believe.

You don't accept a limit to knowledge, I do. The evidence is that everybody else still have a life. The reductio ad absurdum is that if you only with Knowledge could have a life, there would be no humanity and you wouldn't have been born.
In all of all these different threads, all all Believers do, are that they all with some variation in effect do the same:
I Know how Reality makes senses and you don't.
The falsification of all variants are the same: For all of everyday life all the rest of us are still here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
4. I know there is a natural world. I have no clue about a supernatural world and no reason to believe there is one. I also wouldn't know why anyone would even suggest such a world.
...

You are functionally unable to understand that the bold part is subjective, because your reason is subjective. It can't be your reasoning without being yours and that is what makes it subjective. It is right there for everybody else to observe. You are subjective and you deny that, because you believe, that you are objective in effect. You are not. All cognition about what is outside cognition, is still cognition, because it requires cognition. That is the joke!!! The joke is that you get that everybody else thinks differently about what reality real is, but you don't get that you think too.
But you wrote it yourself, you are just not aware of as subjective. Because you believe in Objectivity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The poorest and most worthless aspect of religion really is theology and apologetics. I tend to say "i have a degree in theology, its worthless in application to the bible, its a great psych tool for the development of the intellect over the last 2,000 years".
Thats a very very limited narrow region of the human brain.

I am not here on RF to convert anyone.l, but rather why the topic is so muddled and how i can better express my own Experiences. Personally i am more like John Muir who isnt afraid to interject religious language into his experience of nature. That really is the only healthy way to understand religion as far as i can tell. Where nature and religious experience is aligined. Religion tends to be severely book bound and isnt healthy. But, thats, books imformation, culture, in general.

Notice, i slid into psycholgy, but isnt psychology at the same time. That too can be problematic.

And there it is. That is your Dogma. But I do it differently. I accept that you do it differently and I accept that you don't accept, that I can't really do it healthy. But I know I can, because I know it is in part variation, nature is variation and that applies to you and me too.
You are a Dogmatists, because you really know the only true way. I hope your beliefs work for you individually, but please don't apply them to me. If you persist, I go reductio ad absurdum on you all the way.
Science, philosophy and religion are all parts of how humans make sense of everyday life. You are not the authoritative source of that. Neither am I. So I don't use what really works as dogma. I personally use reductio ad absurdum and what is left, is what works for me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are functionally unable to understand that the bold part is subjective, because your reason is subjective. It can't be your reasoning without being yours and that is what makes it subjective. It is right there for everybody else to observe. You are subjective and you deny that, because you believe, that you are objective in effect. You are not. All cognition about what is outside cognition, is still cognition, because it requires cognition. That is the joke!!! The joke is that you get that everybody else thinks differently about what reality real is, but you don't get that you think too.
But you wrote it yourself, you are just not aware of as subjective. Because you believe in Objectivity.

Honestly, I'm losing track about what exactly you are arguing about or against.

Do you have evidence that a supernatural world exists?
If yes, what is it?
If no, then you'ld have no reasonable reason to believe such a world exists, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is something relevant for what is going on:
https://explorable.com/history-of-the-philosophy-of-science
Science(the same as the objective as independent of all brains and observable in principle for all humans), philosophy(similar as inter-subjective reasoning and logic) and religion(the individual difference as how we all with variation make sense of what reality really is).
So for science, it can't be separated from philosophy and there is still philosophy in modern science.
In short - I don't do philosophy, because I know with science, what reality really is - is also in part philosophy, because nobody can do knowledge without philosophy. Now you can claim - I Know what reality really is, but then you are not doing science nor philosophy. You are not even doing religion, you are doing Dogma. You have some assumptions in your thinking, that you are not willing or unable to question. That can apply for some humans regardless of atheism versus religion.

Not that my way is objectively better, but rather that my way of doing is, accept there is no ultimately objective way of doing it.
Now for the believers in effectively scientism, you can spot them by the fact that they do philosophy; i.e. the philosophy of science, but they don't know it. To them you only have to do scientism. It comes in many variants, but it always involves that you always have to use science, even when you use opinions.
So I will test that:
Someone: You have to use opinions based on science.
Me: No! That "no" is the falsification, because all opinions are subjective and all science is objective at its core. In philosophical terms it is the Is-Ought problem. There is no formal way with reason and logic to get from a fact to an opinion. The opinion is always a subjective process in a given brain back to this: "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. The word measure here is about opinion.

The trick is this:
Opinions about the objective can get you killed if you go against the fact.
Opinions about the inter-subjective are dissidence against how a given culture understand with cultural variance reason and logic.
Opinions about how to make sense of what reality really is, is always that. How do I know that? Because in everyday life just like the word "god", the word "real" have no objective and observable referent. That is joke about overall western culture, we replaced "god" with "real". But "really real" is not different "god" as words go.
So you can spot a Believer in Real, if you point out to them that "really real" is as subjective as "god".
The words "real" and "existence" are no different that "god". They only work, if you believe in them. That is the dirty secret of the myth in western culture.
You can't see real, existence or God. You believe in them or not. And if you do, that is subjective.

Just as "god" you can only subjective define "real" and "existence", because it depends on your cognition.

With regards

PS - I am a hard core skeptic. We are not fun to be around, because we tell it as it is. There is no Salvation in the objective sense. You have to believe in it, no matter how you combine science, philosophy and religion. Even if you believe, that science is the salvation for humanity.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Just read. To understand that requires that you understand the connection between all of the words: Science, philosophy and religion. You don't have to be like me. But if you for an universal we and the everyday world do so with Knowledge, I will point it out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It solves the following. If there e.g. is a limit to human mobility, i.e. I can't fly unaided here on earth and and if I try for a high enough position I fall to my death.
This example is evidence of a limitation in human mobility.
Mobility is not everything, in that you can't do everything you like using mobility.
Mobility is not nothing, in that if your body allows it or you use technical aide, you do have mobility.
Mobility is a limited human behavior.

So what do I try to solve?
I try to solve this question:
Just as mobility as a human behavior has limits, do evidence, falsifiable, reason, logic, objectivity and so on have limits?
I am ask a question.

How does any of this address the quote you are responding to? Hint: it doesn't.

Again: "I don't see how just "declaring" that god is this "objectively real thing that can't be defined properly", somehow solves anything at all."

You haven't addressed this at all.

You are a Believer, I am a believer. The difference is this. I know the limits of science and you believe differently.

You have no clue what I believe because I never told you.
You seem to think I believe that science doesn't have limits.
I can only inform you that you are horribly wrong.

Now you may start yapping again about the word "wrong".

So here is an example:
Take inflation in physics. Use it as a premise along other premises and using logical deduction the multiverse is true, because the premises are true and the deduction is valid.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Again for the core words as relevant - unknown, paradigm.
So whoever make the argument that from inflation follows the multiverse with truth and logic necessity, can learn something, not that the person needs it, will do it, ought to do it, can do it, should do it or what ever.

No idea what you are saying once again. Probably something based on yet another strawman, I figure.

Rather something about humans in general; there are 4 categories of humans relevant for these kinds of debates:

1. Those who don't have the cognitive abilities.
2. Those, who don't care.
3. Those, who cares and Knows.
4. Those, who cares and knows there is a limit to knowledge.

You are #3. I am #4. So for falsifiable, if there is a limit to that human behavior, just like mobility as a part of it, it is psychology.
It applies to both #3 and 4. It is the combination of the following words in science about cognition and feelings/emotions.
It involves mentalization, meta-cognition and the understanding of what learning in a human involves,
So here it is:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Again no idea what you are saying.
It sounds like you are once again trying to label me based on (false) assumptions about me and you still not getting the point I was making in that other thread concerning inflation / multiverse. Which I'm still baffled about, considering I dumbed it down beyond belief and repeated the actual point a couple dozen times.

I was comparing it to religious claims concerning supernatural things. I wasn't defending a multiverse nore inflation. Because I actually don't care one bit. Which ironically also contradicts your label of me above, since that asserts that I actually cared.

That is it. You as an individual have a schema. I have a different one.
So here is the falsifiable and indeed the falsification of your schema.

Premise 1: I have the Correct schema for all humans.
Premise 2: There are other humans, who have other different and thus contradictory schemas.
Conclusion: That is not possible, because only mine works with knowledge, evidence, reason, logic and so on.

More strawmen and failed mindreading.

The problem is that there is a hidden premise, which is not true. The hidden premise is this:
There is only and only one way to have a life with knowledge, evidence, reason, logic and so on and that is mine.
When someone does that, I answer with the falsification of: No!

For starters, just saying "no", is never a falsification of anything.
Secondly, that again does not properly reflect my views at all.

You should really stop trying to mindread. You are terrible at it.

I also detect quite an ironic amount of projection....

You don't accept a limit to knowledge

False. And as this seems to be the base premise of your entire wall of attempted mindreading nonsense, I don't really need to say much else and can simply ignore those points. It all falls like a house of cards anyway, considering your starting point is an invalid premise.

I Know how Reality makes senses and you don't.

Yes, yes, you are such a genius.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

PS - I am a hard core skeptic.

If you are SO skeptic that you literally feel the need to question every single word in every single sentence on its meaning that you lose the ability of recognising sentence structure, figures of speech, conceptual communication to exchange ideas, ........... then communication becomes practically impossible. And I think our entire conversation (cross thread) has been a fine example of that.


You need to understand that more then half of the times you respond to posts of mine, you are so far out there that you miss the actual points being made completely. On top of that, you also make false assumptions about me, which just makes a bad situation even worse.


It seems as if you are completely missing the big picture, because you are too busy focussing on an irrelevant pixel - which might not even be part of the picture under discussion....

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, now I am not going to be nice.
Someone is delusional if characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
I have a mental disorder. Now apologize. You have just dehumanized me.
Stop being so full of yourself. Atheists are humans. You are a human. I am a human. If there is a personal God, you might want to reconsider. You are judging humans as for their worth as humans. Only God can do that. So you might be going to Hell, if there is one and God doesn't like that you judge other humans as for their human wroth.

Not with regards

I don't understand--you want me to apologize to you even though you are claiming I have a mental disorder?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are outstanding reasons to believe God exists

Such as?

, and it cannot be that everyone except a few atheists are delusional.

or just honestly mistaken, off course.

But why can't that be the case? Is there some rule that the majority is always correct or something?


Also, it's not really "just a few atheists".

You are a christian I see. 70% of the world's population doesn't believe the god you worship is real.

You are aware that among all people, christianity is a minority belief, right?

 

[David T]

And there it is. That is your Dogma. But I do it differently. I accept that you do it differently and I accept that you don't accept, that I can't really do it healthy. But I know I can, because I know it is in part variation, nature is variation and that applies to you and me too.
You are a Dogmatists, because you really know the only true way. I hope your beliefs work for you individually, but please don't apply them to me. If you persist, I go reductio ad absurdum on you all the way.
Science, philosophy and religion are all parts of how humans make sense of everyday life. You are not the authoritative source of that. Neither am I. So I don't use what really works as dogma. I personally use reductio ad absurdum and what is left, is what works for me.

Smart being stupid isnt something to brag about.

 

[viole]

That is a case of cognitive relativism. I.e. what you understand with rational is only true for you and those who think like you. The word is not scientific in itself, it has no objective referent.
I admit I am subjective. You seems to think that rationality is purely objective. It is not. It is cultural and so on.

You can call it as you like, but if it is always the case that supernatural explanations are replaced by natural ones, while the vice-versa never happens, and there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, which seems to only serve the psychological needs of a few primates on a planet, then, I mean, it is obvious where we should put our money.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Just point out the obvious.
You deny 99% of "god revelations" out there, because they happen to be associated with gods you don't happen to believe in. Or the "revelation" doesn't fit with your a priori religious beliefs.


I think I already did.

You are correct. However, what does that mean to you? Of course it is obvious, does it bother you ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are correct. However, what does that mean to you? Of course it is obvious, does it bother you ?

What it means is that you understand how it is to "deny divine revelations", because you deny plenty of them for the exact same reason as non-christians deny yours.

Your religion isn't special.

 

[shmogie]

What it means is that you understand how it is to "deny divine revelations", because you deny plenty of them for the exact same reason as non-christians deny yours.

Your religion isn't special.

If you actually look at the theology of Christianity, and numerous other religions that I have examined, you will Find Christianity to be unique, and special.

Which is appropriate for the only true religion.

Deny away, itś your life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you actually look at the theology of Christianity

I'm well aware of christian theology and many of its incarnations in various denominations.
Your religion is not special.

, and numerous other religions that I have examined, you will Find Christianity to be unique, and special.

I understand you, being a christian, believe that.
Hindu's think their religion is special.
Muslims think islam is special.
Scientologist think scientology is special.
Mormons think mormonism is special.


But it's not. None of them are special.
Sure, they are all unique.... that's kind of what makes them different religions.
If islam and christianity were the same, we wouldn't have different words for them.

Which is appropriate for the only true religion.

Shocker. A believer of religion X, thinks religion X is the "only true religion".
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

Deny away, itś your life.

Haaaa. Here come the implied threats.



So tiring, so tiring,...