Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

If we would all just realize that we are somewhat right and somewhat wrong...

I think most rational people will accept this.

...and accept the other points of view as amendments, we might actually broaden our understanding.

Except you can't just accept anything at all as an 'amendment' because you'd end up with endless contradictions. That's why you need to ask for some objective reason to take people's ideas seriously.

 

[ratiocinator]

By that definition atheist have belief about god.

No, nothing in what I said precludes a lack of belief. The point is that if you think something is true, that is a belief. It may be a belief that is backed up by endless evidence or it may be just blind faith.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no goal to change minds, we are just exchanging views on reality.

Fair enough. In that case, I don't find any reason to accept views about spirituality as something more than simple emotional expression.

For me, truth is determined by objective evidence and testability. Opinions are those beliefs (ideas we accept) that cannot be tested or verified.

So, for example, it is my opinion that tomatoes are vile. Other people have a different opinion about this and there is no objective way to express this, so it is an opinion with no truth value.

Some people have deep emotional experiences that they label as spiritual. I do not deny that experience. But I am skeptical about the *interpretation* of that experience and whether it has an objective (i.e, truth) content, or whether it is all opinion (personal belief).

I don't hold the BB beliefs religiously. When and if evidence comes out that shows the BB model to be wrong, I will happily change my mind. But, given the weight of the evidence, I find it highly unlikely that the basics (expanding universe, for example) will be disproved. In that way, it is similar to my belief that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. The cumulative evidence is so strong that any other interpretation is highly unlikely.

And, furthermore, it is my *opinion* that certain systems of belief are actually unproductive or even dangerous. This is a value judgement (like all opinions). Those belief systems that ask people to accept without evidence are much more likely to be unproductive and/or dangerous.

Those that can get us to believe absurdities can get us to commit atrocities.

 

[We Never Know]

No, nothing in what I said precludes a lack of belief. The point is that if you think something is true, that is a belief. It may be a belief that is backed up by endless evidence or it may be just blind faith.

"if you think something is true, that is a belief"

Exactly!

I think a god doesn't exist because there is no evidence of a god. Therefore I have a belief about a god.

 

[Polymath257]

You speak from your own limited atheistic belief.

And you speak from your own limited theistic belief.

You believe your view is more encompassing than the atheistic one, but the atheists simply see your beliefs as wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you speak from your own limited theistic belief.

You believe your view is more encompassing than the atheistic one, but the atheists simply see your beliefs as wrong.

You don't want the more general view, I know.
This is a game of objective, social and individual and the end result is that all 3 factors are limited.
In the end because of biology for humans we do all 3. We just mix them differently in some cases and the world is not just one of them. It is a combination and I know how to do subjective if you claim you are objective but that is not case. That is the same with Ben Dhyan, you 2 just do it differently with some variation.

 

[PureX]

I think most rational people will accept this.

Except you can't just accept anything at all as an 'amendment' because you'd end up with endless contradictions. That's why you need to ask for some objective reason to take people's ideas seriously.

The truth is contradictory. And the reason is that our minds are basically a binary (compare/contrast/repeat) mode of cognition, while the truth is holistic and omnipresent. We humans want the truth to be linear so we can prognosticate and control outcomes. And so that's how our brains evolved. But even when that works for us locally, it blinds us holistically, and we struggle with that blindness all the time.

 

[ratiocinator]

The truth is contradictory.

Not only a baseless assertion but, if true, then it follows directly (via basic logic) that absolutely every single statement is true (including, of course, that your assertion is false).

And the reason is that our minds are basically a binary (compare/contrast/repeat) mode of cognition, while the truth is holistic and omnipresent. We humans want the truth to be linear so we can prognosticate and control outcomes. And so that's how our brains evolved. But even when that works for us locally, it blinds us holistically, and we struggle with that blindness all the time.

Just wondering if there is some actual point hidden somewhere in that word salad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not only a baseless assertion but, if true, then it follows directly (via basic logic) that absolutely every single statement is true (including, of course, that your assertion is false).



Just wondering if there is some actual point hidden somewhere in that word salad.

Well, here is a trick for you. Add up all human experiences of everything including the different models of the world and morality as all cases of happening in the world and then please present the rest of us with a coherent answer. You treat an abstract ideal/norm as an objective fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, you do not. You may post links, but that's about it. Sometimes you use phrases that are above the ordinary knowledge, like mine, and you do not want to explain them. Then you tell me to get an education. So talk to the crowd...

You are venturing the realm outside 'ordinary language' into the science of Quantum Mechanics and Physics, and a basic knowledge in the topic is essential. There is also the problem of your religious agenda and a bias against the science as in the question of physics, Quantum Mechanics and evolution. The language I use concerning Quantum Mechanics, research sources like Hawking are in language of the layman level of understanding, and you do not seem to understand this. The source cited concerning Quantum Mechanics refers to layman level sources with explanations.

You make broad statements asking for evidence. This does not work without a basic level of the science involved in Quantum Mechanics.

IF you have a specific question concerning a phrase I used please ask a specific question and cite the phrase and I will respond. So far your request was general and not specific concerning a request for evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, here is a trick for you. Add up all human experiences of everything including the different models of the world and morality as all cases of happening in the world and then please present the rest of us with a coherent answer.

I can't provide a coherent answer to something that isn't a question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't provide a coherent answer to something that isn't a question.

Add up everything and tell us the result.

 

[ratiocinator]

Add up everything and tell us the result.

Still not a coherent question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still not a coherent question.

Can you with coherence truth explain all of the world for all human experiences and all models of the world in a coherent manner?

 

[shunyadragon]

The truth is contradictory. And the reason is that our minds are basically a binary (compare/contrast/repeat) mode of cognition, while the truth is holistic and omnipresent. We humans want the truth to be linear so we can prognosticate and control outcomes. And so that's how our brains evolved. But even when that works for us locally, it blinds us holistically, and we struggle with that blindness all the time.

It is best to say 'claims of truth are contradictory. Human knowledge does not met the criteria of what would called 'Truth' in any absolute sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you with coherence truth explain all of the world for all human experiences and all models of the world in a coherent manner?

In terms of human knowledge of science and other academic disciplines we have to qualify our knowledge in a relative coherent manner and not in absolutes. Our knowledge is based on the objective evidence is consistent and well grounded, but will always be subject to change when new information is available.

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you with coherence truth explain all of the world for all human experiences and all models of the world in a coherent manner?

Not only do we not have a basic 'theory of everything' yet, but the complexity of human minds will probably make such a exact and full explanation forever intractable anyway. Many human models of the world have been shown to be wrong - there are obviously reasons why they were adopted but they were (and are) nevertheless, wrong.

I don't see that this has any relevance at all to anything. The claim was that "The truth is contradictory." - not that people's claims about it are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In terms of human knowledge of science and other academic disciplines we have to qualify our knowledge in a relative coherent manner and not in absolutes. Our knowledge is based on the objective evidence is consistent and well grounded, but will always be subject to change when new information is available.

Ever heard of Charles Sanders Peirce?

 

[Polymath257]

You don't want the more general view, I know.

I want a more general view that can be tested and verified.

To say it is 'the' more general view suggests there is only one way to generalize. That is clearly wrong.

This is a game of objective, social and individual and the end result is that all 3 factors are limited.

Absolutely. Which is why the requirement of testability is so important. We all make mistakes, so there needs to be a mechanism for repairing them.

In the end because of biology for humans we do all 3. We just mix them differently in some cases and the world is not just one of them. It is a combination and I know how to do subjective if you claim you are objective but that is not case. That is the same with Ben Dhyan, you 2 just do it differently with some variation.

I insist on a certain type of testability that has been shown to help eliminate mistakes over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Word salad!

It is so sad to see people try to use phrases that they do not understand.