Thief
Rogue Theologian
Misconception as a statment of truth?
Another contradiction in terms!
And you ask of me ...more thought!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Knowing vs Believing
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Misconception as a statment of truth?
Another contradiction in terms!
And you ask of me ...more thought!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And we 'know' the sunrise will happen tomorrow...blind or not.
I have experienced it, I just understand the brain.
You still have to prove this is objective reality.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have faith ....which requires no proving.
And as I said before ....I LOVE science!
So you accept your beliefs have and need no evidence or any such nonsense?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Back to the singularity.....
Let science take you there.
When you arrive...decide....
Spirit first?....or substance.
If logic prevails.....so does the Spirit.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I don't understand your answer. If you go to Libya, 99% of the people will know that Muhammed revealed God's Will and Word to humanity.
If you go to Europe, 99% of the people will know that the moon orbits the earth.
I think Falvlun is asking how you can know which 99% has the actual objective truth and which doesn't?
But here's my question: I understand the brain better than any other human on the planet. I'm afraid I understand it even better than you do.
So what is the objective truth: That I understand it better or that you understand it better?
I like the idea that objective truth is a high degree of certainty. We have empirical evidence that the moon orbits the earth, there is not one reason outside of faith to believe a deity even exists let alone the people of Libya are correct in their specific beliefs. The Europeans get the high degree of certainty.
What? Substance is obviously first, how can a physical universe logically come into being if nothing "physical" exists? So you've shown matter of some sorts have always exists, defeating your own beliefs. :clap
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Nay...science takes you to the singularity.
It goes no further.
Theology takes over from there.
Apparently you're not up for that.
Hey Doors,
I don't like the idea of calling anything "objective truth". At best, we can work towards building collective consensus on the intersubjective level. The closer the social circle, the more important the consensus becomes. We never have to agree about absolutely everything, but just enough for justifiable functionality.
I don't like the idea of calling anything "objective truth". At best, we can work towards building collective consensus on the intersubjective level. The closer the social circle, the more important the consensus becomes. We never have to agree about absolutely everything, but just enough for justifiable functionality.
Logic or theology? Can you be consistent just this one time? I'm open to the idea of some type of God, but it's a jump in the contingency argument. You, on the other hand, are not open to the idea of no God (no spirit = no afterlife) and so blindly make that jump.
But you said that "There is no knowledge free of experience.". So you are rejecting an experience, in favor of... what? Knowledge about the brain. Where did you get that knowledge? What experience? Why should that experience trump your God experience?
Do you really not understand this? There cannot be knowledge free of experience sure, because we cannot take ourselves out of the equation since we are gaining knowledge. If we have knowledge that shows the brain is completely creating the experience of God it shows the brain exists, not God. Rather simple to understand.
You haven't answered where that knowledge came from, and why that knowledge should trump other knowledge gained. I would particularly think that if experience was the criteria for acquisition of knowledge that a personal experience-- one that you experienced yourself-- should trump knowledge gained from other peoples' experience and that you therefore only get secondhand.
It's not that I don't understand your point of view. I am trying to get you to examine this view with my questions. The questions are not for my benefit, but yours.
EDIT:
Also, by and by, I do not think we have clear knowledge that the brain, and the brain alone, is creating these experiences. We know that the brain responds when it occurs, but then again, the brain responds to any stimulii. We know that our minds tend to assign agency even when there is none, but that is because it was beneficial for us to do that in case the agency actually did exist (so while it may be a false alarm 9 times out of 10, that 10th time is still real). And so on.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
OK. The Europeans get your personal high degree of certainty.
That's fine. The Libyans get a high degree of certainty from others.
Are you saying that the Europeans have the 'objective truth' since you personally agree with their opinion?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
So if I say that the God of the Bible is real, then Yahweh is objectively true... since your personal opinion against it doesn't affect its truth?
I'm really having a hard time understanding your take on this. It would be so much more helpful if you would answer my questions directly and thoroughly, but as you please.
I think at this point you may want to look into maybe like a logic 101 class. I don't have the time to spend teaching basics on a forum. Maybe if I had more than a phone, but I don't.