Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Atheologian]

If you try to make a theist speak in absolutes and tangibles, they always regress into namecalling and hurling insults. This is because "God" is intangible, insubstantial, and indescribable. Therefore he/she/it is undiscoverable, unprovable and not only improbable, but illogical and incompatible with modern knowledge, as well silly and laughable.

 

[PureX]

You are trying to bend the theory of relativity to something as intangible and unreal as "Truth". There is no "relative truthfulness". Truth is only an idea. However, the notion of truth allows only ONE of any number of alternatives to be "True".

But truthfulness requires a criteria. And that's what it's always relative - relative to the criteria being used to assess it.

if A is only true in relation to B and C, than D and E don't exist.

That's nonsense. D and E are simply irrelevant to the issue of A, B, and C.

Relativity works when you are speaking of the realtionship between space and time, not you and your deity.

That's exactly why we are unable to determine the truthfulness of "God". "God" is an absolute concept, and the only truth we can possess is relative.

 

[PureX]

Regardless of whether it works for you, it doesn't mean it's real or true.

But given the fact that we can't know what's real or true about God, that distinction has no meaning. I won't know that my idea of God is NOT true, either. So what's the point?

What I do know is that my God works for me.

Believing something does NOT make it so.

Again, in this case, so what? It doesn't make it not so, either.

Since you pride yourself on being practical, what are the chances that the god you put together in your own head is REAL?

Why do you keep asking questions that neither of us can answer?

What makes him any more real than a god that encourages human sacrifice or slavery?

My God "really" works for me. Those other gods "really" do not. That makes my God more real to me than theirs.

 

[Atheologian]

But given the fact that we can't know what's real or true about God, that distinction has no meaning. I won't know that my idea of God is NOT true, either. So what's the point?

What I do know is that my God works for me.

Again, in this case, so what? It doesn't make it not so, either.

Why do you keep asking questions that neither of us can answer?

My God "really" works for me. Their God "really" does not. That makes my God more real to me than theirs.

Who are you to say a God that sacrifices humans doesn't work for someone else?

You are the only one that can't answer that question.

And, like I said before, something that makes you happy != Truth.

 

[Atheologian]

But truthfulness requires a criteria. And that's what it's always relative - relative to the criteria being used to assess it.
That's nonsense. D and E are simply irrelevant to the issue of A, B, and C.
That's exactly why we are unable to determine the truthfulness of "God". "God" is an absolute concept, and the only truth we can possess is relative.

The criteria required for truth is FACT. Not philosophical nonsense. And as far as A,B,C,D and E go, I can spin meaningless equations all day and apply pretend significance, but the point is, if A is true as far as B and C are concerned, as long as were are not speaking of bodies moving through space and their location and distance relative to each other, A is true. It will be true in relation to D and E as well, were they inculded in the equation. The only time truth is "relative", in any way at all, is when dealing with the relation between distance and accelleration. This is because the speed of light (the truth, in this case) is constant and the same for all observers. So, in fact, the truth is not relative here, either, but only those things measured in realtion to the "truth", or the speed of light.

I can relate this to the belief in God quite readily. If the truth is either the absence or presence of GOD, any views relative to the truth will be measured differently. This does not mean, however, that the truth is relative, only the observer's position, or in this case, the observer's point of vew. There either is a God, or isn't, there is only ONE truth.

 

[Commoner]

My God "really" works for me. Those other gods "really" do not. That makes my God more real to me than theirs.

"real to me" being the operative term. But does that make it the "real deal"? Are you really satisfied with "truthiness"?

And since you like the popular argument, would their god be more real than your god if it "worked" for more people?

 

[PureX]

The problem is bigger than that. People believe so many nonsensical things - things on which even we would agree without doubt are absurd and we are so bad when applying "common sense" to problems in which common sense fails, that there is no way to distinguish the "good beliefs" from the "bad beliefs" by measuring popular opinion. By itself, numbers say nothing, they don't present evidence - you need to back it up some other way. And if you have another way, popularity becomes irrelevant anyway.

What's the difference between "40% of Americans believe in ESP", "37% of Americans belive in ghosts" and "39% of Americans believe evolution". How do you tell which one is a "good belief". They certainly all "work" for people, so how would you know if not for some other evidence?

That doesn't mean that opinions that are "only" opinion and ideas that are "only" ideas don't matter, it's just that the frequency of these ideas among the population is not sufficient to warrant calling it "evidence" and is not only not sufficient but is in many cases the complete opposite of the facts.

I agree with a lot of this. But I don't see how it negates my point about how the value of a concept is relative to the number of people who use it and claim it works for them.

 

[PureX]

"real to me" being the operative term. But does that make it the "real deal"?

There you go asking those unanswerable questions, again. How could I tell the "real deal" from what "really works" for me? They're the same thing, from my experiential perspective.

Are you really satisfied with "truthiness"?

Are you? It's all we're going to get. I have learned to accept that.

And since you like the popular argument, would their god be more real than your god if it "worked" for more people?

That would increase their God's credibility, yes. But it wouldn't change my path unless I was looking for a change.

 

[PureX]

Who are you to say a God that sacrifices humans doesn't work for someone else?

I didn't say that.

 

[Commoner]

I agree with a lot of this. But I don't see how it negates my point about how the value of a concept is relative to the number of people who use it and claim it works for them.

What does value have to do with it?

Is ESP then of more value than evolution? Does that say anything about it being real?

 

[Commoner]

There you go asking those unanswerable questions, again. How could I tell the "real deal" from what "really works" for me? They're the same thing, from my experiential perspective.
Are you? It's all we're going to get. I have learned to accept that.
That would increase their God's credibility, yes. But it wouldn't change my path unless I was looking for a change.

You should start every post with a disclaimer that you do not believe in an objective reality.

 

[Commoner]

There you go asking those unanswerable questions, again. How could I tell the "real deal" from what "really works" for me? They're the same thing, from my experiential perspective.

Demonstrable results, predictive power, testability... that's how you'd know.

Are you? It's all we're going to get. I have learned to accept that.

We can do a lot better than "gut feeling". Yes, ultimately there's no "absolute truth" we can attain, but there are methods that give reliable results and methods that don't. "Gut feeling" is one of those methods that fails in comparison to others.

That would increase their God's credibility, yes. But it wouldn't change my path unless I was looking for a change.

Then you'd believe in your god even when another god was more credible? Strange. I guess it should baffle you a little then, why atheists are the fastest growing group (and pretty soon the largest, unless you sum different gods together).

 

[themadhair]

So forgive me, but when someone points one out and shouts "gotcha!" it appears to me a lot like pointing at one gnat in a whole cloud of gnats and shouting; "a gnat, oh my God, kill it before it eats us all!" *haha*

I can’t really change your interpretation if this is how you view my approach. It really is a case of that I think the theology you are presenting is horribly flawed and inconsistent, and I am pointing such out. Call it cheapshottery if you want. I don’t really care so longs as those inconsistencies and flaws exist.

I enjoy logic and I can see it's a valuable intellectual tool, but it's a far, FAR cry from the 'totem of all truth' some people around here think it is. Same goes for the scientific process.

And yet again you attack these without really proving a reason for why they are wrong, why they shouldn’t apply, why your alternative is better or why such attacks even help substantiate the theology you have been trying to present. It’s vacuous rhetoric PureX, and I suspect it was said more for your own benefit than for mine.

They were using tools like intuition, empathy, fantasy, brutal self-honesty, intellectual/emotional/spiritual deconstruction, chance, rigid conformity, and a lot of others I can't think of at the moment.

Relevancy? I’m assuming since you think logic and such is flawed, and have presented these you must think these are useful – so care to you know actually explain how these apply to this topic? I also resent the implication here that others in this thread lack intuition, empathy, brutal self-honesty or intellectual/emotional/spiritual deconstruction. But you do seem to have demonstrated rigid conformity to your idea so I concede that one. But I have to reiterate, what does this have to do with your theology?

And they weren't just talking about these tools, they USED them. They APPLIED them to their lives and to physical world around them to see what the results would be. These are people of real insight and courage, living the ideas that we just talk about. They have beaten back their egos and are able to adopt all sorts of new ideas and let go of all their old ones, just for the joy of exploring new ways of seeing the world around them. They really do this!

To reiterate the key point which the above ignores – what does this have to do with whether those ideas are true or not? I know folks who sound like the above after getting high, but I somehow suspect this isn’t something many would recommend.

Probably a cheap blow (I admit when I do low blows you know), but consider the above while reading this quote from the Scientology website:
” If you could discover the truth about life and the mind you would not only understand your true spiritual nature, you could also help your friends, associates, family and community. Scientology has practical tools you can use right away to improve life.

Simple tools one can use immediately to help such things as improving relationships, getting your career on track, working out and accomplishing goals, helping family and children, handling drug dependency, and gaining greater self-esteem. These and other vital Know-How are covered in the Scientology Handbook.”

I'm just throwing this out there so you'll maybe understand why those old and tired nineteenth century philosophy class rules don't mean all that much to me. I agree with you about how intellectual dishonesty is unhealthy and annoying, and all.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second. Labelling an idea as ‘old’ when you seem unable, or unwilling, to explain its irrelevancy doesn’t sit well with me. You can’t claim to be intellectually honest when you do this. But, and this is what puzzles me, rather than actually addressing this you try to explain it away by burying it under prose like the above and the below.

But with we humans, rigorous honesty is something that comes only with a lot of practice, and we never really get it down fully. So along with the honesty, we need a lot of patience and forgiveness, too. But most of all we need open ears, eyes, hearts, and minds. As an artist I can honesty tell you that breaking the rules teaches us as much as following them ever will.

Lovely. But since my sole concern here is intellectual honesty you’ll understand why I ask how this has anything to do with whether the idea is true or not.

The problem with you 'argumentum ad populum' objection is that it comes from an old philosophical format that was designed to get at a static, objective idea of truth. In the several hundred intervening years since these philosophical rules were invented, our collective concept of truth has changed considerably, to the point where many of these old rules just don't apply, anymore.

This is still a fallacy today. Most people in the world don’t think a being called PureX posts on this forum – does that mean you don’t or does that mean that the proposition I have presented is flawed? Appealing to numbers has no bearing on the truth value of the proposition being presented – it was a fallacy in the 19th century that is still as much a fallacy today. When you take on arguments against logic like this you really aren’t helping yourself. In fact I think the above is one of the most foolish quotes I’ve ever seen on this forum. You may take insult at that, but the comment above mandates this description of it.

In the case of our discussion, we are not pursuing an objective truth, like those philosophers of days of old. We are pursuing a concept of truth, now, that does in fact live in the minds of humans, only.

We call such concepts ‘imaginary’. No doubt you’ll take objection to this, but read your own words here.


<offtopic>
This whole “real to me” business reminds me of the following which is used to see Sceintology:

3. Salvage: Definition of salvage: "to save from ruin." Before you can save someone from ruin, you must find out what their own personal ruin is. This is basically-What is ruining them? What is messing them up? It must be a condition that is real to the individual as an unwanted condition, or one that can be made real to him.

</offtopic>

 

[PureX]

The criteria required for truth is FACT. Not philosophical nonsense.

Facts are true or not true relative to each other.

And as far as A,B,C,D and E go, I can spin meaningless equations all day and apply pretend significance, but the point is, if A is true as far as B and C are concerned, as long as were are not speaking of bodies moving through space and their location and distance relative to each other, A is true.

But that's just it. We have the ideal, and then we have reality. Reality involved bodies moving through space.

It will be true in relation to D and E as well, were they inculded in the equation. The only time truth is "relative", in any way at all, is when dealing with the relation between distance and accelleration.

We are always dealing with relativity because in this case it's philosophical relativism. We are ALL experiencing reality from/through our own unique and limited paradigm.

I can relate this to the belief in God quite readily. If the truth is either the absence or presence of GOD, any views relative to the truth will be measured differently. This does not mean, however, that the truth is relative, only the observer's position, or in this case, the observer's point of vew. There either is a God, or isn't, there is only ONE truth.

This only works of "God" is an object. But very few definitions of "God" are objective.

Does love exist? Does beauty exist? Does justice exist? These, like "God" are concepts based on relational experiences.

 

[PureX]

What does value have to do with it?

Value trumps truth when truth is not available. And sometimes even when it is available.

Is ESP then of more value than evolution? Does that say anything about it being real?

I don't know. We're mixing apples and and wing nuts.

 

[PureX]

You should start every post with a disclaimer that you do not believe in an objective reality.

I acknowledge an objective reality, but I see no special relevance in it. What's more "real", love or a chair?

 

[PureX]

Demonstrable results, predictive power, testability... that's how you'd know.

But we have already established that these things will not apply to "God". And we have established that these things do apply to the use of the concept of "God" and the practice of religion.

We can do a lot better than "gut feeling". Yes, ultimately there's no "absolute truth" we can attain, but there are methods that give reliable results and methods that don't. "Gut feeling" is one of those methods that fails in comparison to others.

How do you propose one go about using these methods to determine the reality of "God"?

Then you'd believe in your god even when another god was more credible?

That other god would not likely be more credible to me. But if it were, then yes. But by "credible", I mean that it works in a positive way in my life.

I guess it should baffle you a little then, why atheists are the fastest growing group (and pretty soon the largest, unless you sum different gods together).

They can't be expected to understand what they have not experienced. Also, most atheists are young. When the sh*t of their life hits the fan of their atheism, many of them will seek out a 'higher power' for help, just as so many of the rest of us have.

But besides all that. If people don't need "God", then they don't need God. That's OK by me.

 

[themadhair]

Demonstrable results, predictive power, testability... that's how you'd know.

But we have already established that these things will not apply to "God". And we have established that these things do apply to the use of the concept of "God" and the practice of religion.

Didn't you argue against this?

Apparently yes:

On the other hand, I see no reason to accept the charge that the concept of "God" is not predictive. In the example I gave, it would seem reasonable to predict that were one to follow a religious/spiritual path toward becoming a better human being (however they choose to define that), and carry out the prescribed practice in earnest, they would achieve at last some improvement toward that goal.

 

[PureX]

I can’t really change your interpretation if this is how you view my approach. It really is a case of that I think the theology you are presenting is horribly flawed and inconsistent, and I am pointing such out. Call it cheapshottery if you want. I don’t really care so longs as those inconsistencies and flaws exist.

The difficulty we're having is is that we view things very differently. You see an "inconsistency" and judge it to be a flaw. I see inconsistency as a sign of broadness of vision and of versatility, and judge it an asset. I don't really see how we can overcome these differences.

And yet again you attack these without really proving a reason for why they are wrong, why they shouldn’t apply, why your alternative is better or why such attacks even help substantiate the theology you have been trying to present. It’s vacuous rhetoric PureX, and I suspect it was said more for your own benefit than for mine.

It's only vacuous rhetoric to someone who can't understand it. And I'm not attacking anyone. I'm simply trying to explain my viewpoint. But I suspect you aren't capable of perceiving it. And that's OK. No one understands everyone.

I read the Tao te Ching when I was in my 20 and got angry at it because it was full of deliberate self-contradiction.

I read it again in my 30s and sort of understood some of the poems, but still just didn't get what it was trying to tell me.

I read it again in my 40s and finally was able to laugh at the many humorous images in it, as well as grasp the poignance of it.

Now I read it and it's like breathing in cold mountain air on a sunny day in the Himalayas.

 

[PureX]

Didn't you argue against this?

I'm not going around this circle again. Please read the quote you posted from me CAREFULLY.