God did it

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what you are saying: Reality is the objective parts independent of human subjectivity,

Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period.

The problem is that this claim is a subjective idea in your mind and when I answer

It's not. I present my functioning PC as evidence.
If the workings of reality (electromagnetism, etc etc etc) were just a matter of "opinion", it would not be possible to use such "opinions" and build functioning devices - which literally depend on things working a certain way and not some other way.

If you build a pc according to the objective workings of electromagnetism etc, it boots.
If not, it doesn't.

If you build a rocket and calculate the energy required to achieve escape velocity according to the well tested objectively obtained knowledge of gravity etc, it will achieve such velocity. Otherwise it will explode or just fail to achieve the velocity and come crashing down.

None of this are matters of subjective opinion.

If you build GPS satelites with recalibrated internal clocks to account of relativity, it works. Otherwise it doesn't.
Not an opinion.

That we can in effect disagree and continue to do so, is because we are both subjective in regards how to understand the everyday world.

And if you disagree with me that jumping from the empire state building will result in death, you may jump while I take the elevator. And by the end of it, only one of us will be standing to tell the story - and it won't be you.

Not an opinion.

You talk science as objective and I answer that science is not everything nor does it work on everything in all regards

Nobody said that science "works on everything".
You're arguing strawmen again. I clarified the scope within which I am talking multiple times.

It's downright bizar, even unbelievable, that you still don't comprehend it.
Almost like you are doing it on purpose. It's borderline trolling, really.

And that I can do that, is all the evidence you need. Because you are observing it. You are observing the falsification of your model, because I am in fact doing something non-scientific.

It's funny, because it accomplishes the opposite: it's validating my model, as you are showing us clearly how irrational reasoning is resulting in getting it very wrong and unreasonable.

It is a fact, that some humans believe in religion. It is that simple.

Did I claim otherwise?
Arguing strawmen again?

Now you want to subjectively convince those humans that you can do it better. But that better is subjective. That is it.

Faith based beliefs are irrational.
Evidence based beliefs are rational.

I already explained this. It was also clear from context what kind of beliefs I was referring to (things pertaining to observable reality). But for some reason, in your response you suddenly started babbling about ethics and morals - none of which was withing the scope of the subject matter.

I never denied people hold religious / superstitious beliefs.
I just explained how such beliefs are irrational.

And I wasn't expressing an opinion either. It's just what the word "irrational" means.... faith based beliefs happen to fit the definition of that word.

But it doesn't work on me, because I can spot when you are subjective.

Please, you couldn't spot a rational statement or objective fact, if it came up and hit you upside the head with a 50 foot pole, that much is clear now.


Now, go ahead and cherry pick another statement from this post to quote and subsequently turn into a strawman, while off course ignoring everything else being said.

 

[Darkstorn]

He's still trying to reduce everything to subjectivity. Once more: Metaphysical naturalism would LIKE it to be the case that reality is a subjective idea in peoples' heads. Because it would validate the view.

But it hasn't been validated. Therefore his confidence is hilarious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what you are saying: Reality is the objective parts independent of human subjectivity, The problem is that this claim is a subjective idea in your mind and when I answer: No!., then I am doing something subjective, yet real, with existence and a part of reality, otherwise we couldn't talk about it and subjectively disagree.
That we can in effect disagree and continue to do so, is because we are both subjective in regards how to understand the everyday world.

You talk science as objective and I answer that science is not everything nor does it work on everything in all regards. And that I can do that, is all the evidence you need. Because you are observing it. You are observing the falsification of your model, because I am in fact doing something non-scientific.
It is a fact, that some humans believe in religion. It is that simple. Now you want to subjectively convince those humans that you can do it better. But that better is subjective. That is it.
But it doesn't work on me, because I can spot when you are subjective.

You know.... I would like to try something.

Perhaps you can clarify what you understand to be the difference between:
- subjective data and objective data
and
- rational beliefs and irrational beliefs.


use examples if that makes it easier to explain.

 

[Darkstorn]

You know.... I would like to try something.

Perhaps you can clarify what you understand to be the difference between:
- subjective data and objective data
and
- rational beliefs and irrational beliefs.

If he's anything like a real metaphysical naturalist...

"No difference."

 

[ecco]

In the Bible, God acts logically.

Eternal God did nothing for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of his existence. Then, in six days, created everything.​

That doesn't appear to be logical.

Omniscient/omnipotent God created Adam & Eve as fully formed adults with a knowledge of language and a specific level of morality. God tempted them knowing that they would fail. When they failed, He blamed them.​

That is either illogical or just childishly nasty.

Omnipotent God created a worldwide flood that killed almost everyone and almost everything. Innocent children and infant lambs were brutally killed.
Omniscient God knew beforehand that He was going to be upset at how his creation turned out.​

It was illogical for Omniscient God to make such a mess of his own creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There isn't.



Or "all people, like most animals, have a tendency to be superstitious".

That's one I would agree with.




I'll rephrase this one as well:

"The BELIEF in superstitious claims, seems to be part of general human psychology"

Mere beliefs aren't knowledge, first of all. And as I explained several times already, lumping all religions into a single camp is dishonest. If you wish to go for generalities, you need to speek in generalities.

And the red thread here, are superstitious beliefs.
That doesn't just cover religions btw. It also covers moon landing conspiracies, alien abduction claims, bigfoot spotters, crystal healings, tarrot readers and other fortune tellers, etc etc etc.

They can certainly be lumped, along with superstitions--Occam's tells me that since most religions have duality and/or God and a devil, that we see the numinous four ways only:

1) self-deception
2) others deceiving us
3) God
4) the Devil

It's instead disingenuous of you to look at billions of people's profound life experiences, and feel we are all prone to mistakes, except for a few skeptics who think they're better than us via their un-spiritual nature--quite the opposite is true! A simple look at the (lack of) philanthropy among atheists speaks VOLUMES.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's okay. I never considered you intelligent.



This is literally nothing to do with the supernatural OR falsifiability. It's a random anecdote.

Maybe this isn't about intelligence at all. Maybe it's about medication.

Would certainly explain the delusional content in your post.

I considered you highly intelligent, but may have to downgrade that to, "Takes umbrance when meets a Christian as smart as self."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period.
...
Faith based beliefs are irrational.
Evidence based beliefs are rational.
...[/QUOTE]
No, because neither are independent of humans.

You talk about reality independent of humans, but when you talk about evidence, you are talking about cognition.
Further for "Evidence based beliefs are rational" are not independent of humans, because you have admitted that.
You admit, that this how you think about it:
You think as not independent of humans including you that:
Faith based beliefs are irrational.
Evidence based beliefs are rational.

Both cases of "are", are a result of how you think and thus not independent of human thought.
Both "are" are both not about facts independent of humans. They are about how you think.
So here is objective:
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
Notice the first one. Notice "in the realm of sensible experience" and "perceptible by all observers". There are still humans there.
Objective describes a relationship between humans and other aspects of the everyday world."In the realm of sensible experience" is a relationship.

You use the second one: having reality independent of the mind.

But here it is as absurd as it is: Reality independent of humans, requires at least one human using those words and the thoughts, which caused those words. So reality independent of humans as it stands as a sentence on your screen now is not independent of humans.
You are talking about something you can't talk about, because when you talk about it, it is not independent of humans.
You are in effect doing philosophy and you don't know it.

Talk about the everyday world we are all a part of and how that works in different ways.
Stop mixing philosophy and science, the way you are doing it. It doesn't work in practice.
That is so, because the everyday world is not independent of humans nor are all parts dependent on humans.
Just as human mobility has a limit, reason, logic, evidence and all that have limits in the everyday world.
That you are subjective are some processes in your brain. Your brain is not everything nor is it nothing.
Everything is in practice different relationships and some are objective, others inter-subjective and others are individually subjective.
Everything is not subjective nor is everything objective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Eternal God did nothing for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of his existence. Then, in six days, created everything.​

That doesn't appear to be logical.

Omniscient/omnipotent God created Adam & Eve as fully formed adults with a knowledge of language and a specific level of morality. God tempted them knowing that they would fail. When they failed, He blamed them.​

That is either illogical or just childishly nasty.

Omnipotent God created a worldwide flood that killed almost everyone and almost everything. Innocent children and infant lambs were brutally killed.
Omniscient God knew beforehand that He was going to be upset at how his creation turned out.​

It was illogical for Omniscient God to make such a mess of his own creation.

I don't follow your logic. Six days/day of rest sets up rest for man and pictures of Christ, but six nanoseconds is too long for God to do it. And of course, "God did nothing" is saying:

1) no universes preceded this one (science disagrees with you)
2) timelight was the same before this universe (science disagrees here, often)
3) the whole thing with angels and Heaven is "nothing"
4) Etc.

I can refute your Flood and Adam assumptions also, but I'm more concerned that your logic is unscientifically rooted!

My preference is to debate spiritual people and/or logical people.

 

[Darkstorn]

I considered you highly intelligent, but may have to downgrade that to, "Takes umbrance when meets a Christian as smart as self."

1. That has not happened yet so it'd be a guess at best.

2. I have nothing against Christians so you're projecting.

3. You're so insecure you think everyone who disagrees hates Christians so I guess your persecution complex is shining through as well.

I'll upgrade you in my perception if you stop being so ridiculously biased. Any disagreement or argument i'll ever have with you has nothing to do with faith or religions. It has everything to do with you trying to bend everyone to see things your way.

But if you have to actively DO that, it means your arguments are too weak on their own.

What you mean by evidence is not the same others mean by it, for example, yet you are not seeing this divide of viewpoints. You just cry persecution for any sort of disagreement.

I honestly am worried about your medication.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can certainly be lumped, along with superstitions--Occam's tells me that since most religions have duality and/or God and a devil, that we see the numinous four ways only:

1) self-deception
2) others deceiving us
3) God
4) the Devil

That's not a proper application about Occam's razor.

If anything, Occam's razor is the last thing I would invoke to try and support my case, if I were you...
Because Occam's razor is this: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Another way of formulating that, is that the explanation that requires the least assumptions is the most likely one.

The idea that religion is just another manifestation of superstition, requires no assumptions at all. We know superstition exists. And purely by the number of vastly, vastly different and mutually exclusive faith based beliefs systems, we KNOW that MOST of them HAVE to be incorrect. At best, only one is correct. But since they all make the same type of faith-based superstitious claims, it is far more likely that all are incorrect.

So, in summary:
We know people are easily deceived.
We know people are very prone to superstition, confirmation bias, etc
We know that most religions have to be wrong
And last but not least, the "faith" in "faith based beliefs", literally means that unjustified assumptions are being made.

On the other hand, concluding that the religious are most likely mistaken, requires no assumptions at all - or at least no unjustified assumptions and / or far less assumptions then thinking a small group of believers happens to have stumbled on the one correct religion.


So to conclude: invoking occam's razor properly, actually leads to the opposite conclusion then you are shooting for...............

It's instead disingenuous of you to look at billions of people's profound life experiences

It is in fact disengenous of you to pretend as if these "profound life experiences" all agree with eachother and/or can be lumped together. I can guarantee you that the "profound life experiences" of hindu's will be vastly different from the ones of scientologists which in turn in vastly different from the ones of christians, wiccans, voodoo sjamans, bigfoot spotters or alien abductees.

Please do not pretend as if you agree / believe the claims of such experiences. You don't.
You don't believe the experiences of scientologists, because you are not a scientologist. You think that's nonsense. You think they are wrong / mistaken.
You think the same about the experiences of muslims, hindu's, wiccans, voodoo sjamans, alien abductees etc etc etc.

Please do not pretend otherwise, unless you are really going to claim that next to being a christian, you also believe in Shiva, Allah, Bigfoot, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Xenu and our immortal inner Thetans, voodoo magic, etc etc. I'm guessing though, that you don't.

So clearly, that must mean that you, just like me, think these people are mistaken, do you not?

Consider how you feel about these people's beliefs and their experiences. Now realise that I think the exact same about yours.

And for the record: I don't doubt people's experiences. I accept that they had experiences. I think most people are sincere. But that doesn't mean that I believe their explanation / interpretation of these experiences.

Take alien abductees for example. Did you know that there are those that actually pass lie detector tests etc? They are really sincere. They really do honestly believe that they were abducted by aliens. I don't doubt that they had an experience wich makes them believe this. I just think they are mistaken about what they think they've experienced. Maybe they just had a really really life-like dream - that would also be an experience. Perhaps they had a fever and started hallucinating. So many options are possible.

Note also that atheists aren't immune to superstition. An atheist is capable of believing all kinds of non-religious nonsense as much as the next person.

, and feel we are all prone to mistakes

That's not a feeling. That's a fact. A fact that is extremely easy to point out.
A stupid stereotype optical illusion already illustrates it. A few cleverly arranged lines on a piece of paper and your brain can't figure it out and gets it completely wrong.

A magician's entire carreer is build around the fact that humans are hilariously easy to deceive.

, except for a few skeptics who think they're better than us via their un-spiritual nature--quite the opposite is true! A simple look at the (lack of) philanthropy among atheists speaks VOLUMES.

What speaks volumes, is your pathetic attempt at changing the topic just to try and get an opening to bash atheist's morals and ethics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because neither are independent of humans.

The moon does not disappear when no humans are looking.

I scanned over the rest of your post, but it's the same drivel as previously and I grew tired of having to repeat myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And of course, "God did nothing" is saying:

1) no universes preceded this one (science disagrees with you)

Does not follow.

2) timelight was the same before this universe (science disagrees here, often)

Does not follow.

3) the whole thing with angels and Heaven is "nothing"

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

I can refute your Flood and Adam assumptions also, but I'm more concerned that your logic is unscientifically rooted!

Well, it's kind of hard to use scientifically grounded logic when talking about a hypothetical world that is filled with magic and which is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy..................

After all, if scientifically grounded logic was the starting point, then bronze age mythologies wouldn't even be suggested in the first place, because science comes forth from evidence and data, not from "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The moon does not disappear when no humans are looking.

I scanned over the rest of your post, but it's the same drivel as previously and I grew tired of having to repeat myself.

And that is irrational, because it is not independent of you.
Yes, we both use irrational beliefs not ground in reality independent of humans. Welcome to humanity. You are subjective just like the rest of us.
You use a first person experience, which wouldn't be there if it was for you. That is irrational according to your own system. You used both an emotion and a feeling. You are normal like the rest of us.
So back to this gem of yours:
Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period.

Here is how that works. I think no. That thought causes me to type it on my computer. Now it is in reality regardless of humans, but how can that be, because the formation of the pixels on your screen are caused to be so in part back to a human, me.
We have: Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period. That is typed by you and originate as a thought in your brain. In then travels from a human through reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, period, back to me.
How does that work? How can a human communicate through something, which is what it is regardless of humans?
I really don't get it.
I don't get the causality in your model. How does that work? I mean you must cause something in reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, for it to arrive with me. But you can't because you can't do anything in regards to reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, period, yet you communicate through it so you must change/cause something in this reality, which is what it is regardless of humans?!!

You don't get that you are in the everyday world and that this reality of yours are only real in your brain. It only exists as an idea in your brain. And there is not such reality other than as a subjective belief in your brain.
The everyday world doesn't work like you describe it, because we are both in it and parts of it.

It fails the most basic test, because communication is not possible though such a reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is irrational, because it is not independent of you.
Yes, we both use irrational beliefs not ground in reality independent of humans. Welcome to humanity. You are subjective just like the rest of us.
You use a first person experience, which wouldn't be there if it was for you. That is irrational according to your own system. You used both an emotion and a feeling. You are normal like the rest of us.
So back to this gem of yours:
Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period.

Here is how that works. I think no. That thought causes me to type it on my computer. Now it is in reality regardless of humans, but how can that be, because the formation of the pixels on your screen are caused to be so in part back to a human, me.
We have: Reality is what it is regardless of humans, period. That is typed by you and originate as a thought in your brain. In then travels from a human through reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, period, back to me.
How does that work? How can a human communicate through something, which is what it is regardless of humans?
I really don't get it.
I don't get the causality in your model. How does that work? I mean you must cause something in reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, for it to arrive with me. But you can't because you can't do anything in regards to reality, which is what it is regardless of humans, period, yet you communicate through it so you must change/cause something in this reality, which is what it is regardless of humans?!!

You don't get that you are in the everyday world and that this reality of yours are only real in your brain. It only exists as an idea in your brain. And there is not such reality other than as a subjective belief in your brain.
The everyday world doesn't work like you describe it, because we are both in it and parts of it.

yes, i think and observe reality using my own brain.

it's not like I have another choice or something.

Your objections are simply laughable and meaningless.

It fails the most basic test, because communication is not possible though such a reality.​

And yet, here we are, communicating anyway.

In fact, we are using an internet capable device to do so. Devices that can only exist if they are build on the objective knowledge of electromagnetism.

Your pc booting isn't dependend on any human observing it to boot dude...

If I'm not home and my cat presses the power button, it boots as well.

​

 

[ecco]

I don't follow your logic. Six days/day of rest sets up rest for man and pictures of Christ, but six nanoseconds is too long for God to do it. And of course, "God did nothing" is saying:

1) no universes preceded this one (science disagrees with you)
2) timelight was the same before this universe (science disagrees here, often)
3) the whole thing with angels and Heaven is "nothing"
4) Etc.

1. You have no authority to talk about science. You don't believe in science.
2. What is timelight?
3. Are you saying that God spent eternity making angels and heaven? If that is that case, why do people say "God needed another angel in heaven" when a child dies?

I can refute your Flood and Adam assumptions also, but I'm more concerned that your logic is unscientifically rooted!

That's really funny. But I can see how you might come to that conclusion since I sometimes write about Adam & Eve and the Flood as if I actually believed in them.

My preference is to debate spiritual people and/or logical people.

That's quite a spread since spiritual people are not logical and logical people are not spiritual.

 

[Jim]

@mikkel_the_dane Can you give some examples of how people who see things the way you do, on this topic, might behave differently in Internet discussions, from the way other people do?

 

[Jim]

@mikkel_the_dane I see some possible beneficial uses for words like “objective,” “subjective,” “true,” “real” and “exist.” I see some problems arising from people unconsciously using those words for their psychological and social effects, destroying their usefulness for communication purposes, or even for clear thinking about anything. No amount of discussion is going to change that, until they find better ways to serve those purposes. Meanwhile, I just try to find other ways to say what I want to say, and to understand what other people are saying, and to experiment with different ways of doing those.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

yes, i think and observe reality using my own brain.

...
​

No and yes. You are in reality as a part of reality and you think as you and interact with other parts.
Some of what you do come from you and other parts come to you.

You use this weird duality of humans not in reality as reality is independent of them yet you then turn around and describe how you as you make sense of it and acts as: Of course, I am in reality and I am a part of it, because I interact with it and make sense of it and describe my part in it.

The duality is that of an on off relationship. In one sense reality is so independent of humans, that there can't be any relationship: Reality is regardless of humans. Yet you interact with that and are a part of it.

You describe how there are parts of reality you can't control using thoughts and feelings and you use thoughts and feelings to describe how we all ought to get it like you. You prescribe how we as humans ought to interact and understand.
The prescription part is your rules of right/wrong and rational/irrational, yet in a weird sense they are not yours.
They are so independent of all humans including you because you treat them as description of objective knowledge. They are not. They are your personal interpretations of how you act.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No and yes.

No, just "yes".

You are in reality as a part of reality and you think as you and interact with other parts.
Some of what you do come from you and other parts come to you.

You use this weird duality of humans not in reality as reality is independent of them yet you then turn around and describe how you as you make sense of it and acts as: Of course, I am in reality and I am a part of it, because I interact with it and make sense of it and describe my part in it.

The duality is that of an on off relationship. In one sense reality is so independent of humans, that there can't be any relationship: Reality is regardless of humans. Yet you interact with that and are a part of it.

You describe how there are parts of reality you can't control using thoughts and feelings and you use thoughts and feelings to describe how we all ought to get it like you. You prescribe how we as humans ought to interact and understand.
The prescription part is your rules of right/wrong and rational/irrational, yet in a weird sense they are not yours.
They are so independent of all humans including you because you treat them as description of objective knowledge. They are not. They are your personal interpretations of how you act.

Yea yeah, whatever.

You win. Everything is subjective and mere opinion, facts don't exist and objective research is impossible. Whatever. Have fun using your internet capable device wich apparantly only works because of the "subjective opinions" of some engineer.