Logic VS, Faith

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am indeed just a guy on the internet. But I'm pretty confident you know I'm right. All you have to do is explore and learn, and then you'll know for sure.

You made the claim about science, real and existence. You deliver!!! Or it is just your subjective idea.

 

[ppp]

Challenge yourself to think on some basic questions: What is free will, or agency?

Are you always this pointlessly condescending, or is it just a defense mechanism designed to obscure flawed arguments?
Even if we pretend that libertarian free will is a real thing, you have already acknowledged that God in the Bible banned murder. Which means that you already agree that banning an evil act does not abridge freewill. Therefore had God banned slavery, it would have no more impact on free will than banning murder. The freewill argument is no defense.

BTW, your god not only failed to ban slavery, but he went so far as to institutionalize it; incorporating in several of the standard forms - including indentured servitude, chattel, sex slavery, and forced marriage.

 

[halbhh]

Are you always this pointlessly condescending, or is it just a defense mechanism designed to obscure flawed arguments?
Even if we pretend that libertarian free will is a real thing, you have already acknowledged that God in the Bible banned murder. Which means that you already agree that banning an evil act does not abridge freewill. Therefore had God banned slavery, it would have no more impact on free will than banning murder. The freewill argument is no defense.

BTW, your god not only failed to ban slavery, but he went so far as to institutionalize it; incorporating in several of the standard forms - including indentured servitude, chattel, sex slavery, and forced marriage.

If you're thinking my post is condescending, then the best possible thing to do would be to review your own posts, to see if it's really you doing that more than me. Just as the first step.

Human nature --> we tend to want to blame others for what we ourselves do too much. (we've all made this common mistake also I bet)

 

[halbhh]

God in the Bible banned murder. Which means that you already agree that banning an evil act does not abridge freewill. Therefore had God banned slavery, it would have no more impact on free will than banning murder.

Now this is a highly pertinent and good question (in my view)!

And it has a good answer too.

Human culture cannot change rapidly, all at once. Even what appear at times in history to be faster changes are in reality only the final piece of a much longer process.

Before that final outward change, first many key interior, hidden things must change, in human hearts.

The final outward change is only the culmination of that far longer process.

It's much easier for the human mind to realize that murder is wrong than it is to realize it's wrong to take advantage of others (aka, "slavery").

Most all people take advantage of others at times when young. It seems innocuous to them.

Murder is far easier to recognize as a wrong.

The 10 commandments (having the prohibition on murder), were really basic and easier to accept laws.

Getting rid of a deeply human tendency like slavery -- not treating others as you'd have them treat you -- is not at all an easy ask. It's so difficult.

Even today, in 2020, slavery continues as a commonplace, just in new forms that aren't the old forms (or rather, the old forms are much more hidden and also less common now; the new forms have replaced them).

 

[ppp]

If you're thinking my post is condescending, then the best possible thing to do would be to review your own posts, to see if it's really you doing that more than me. Just as the first step.

I think that if this were more than just a hollow rejoinder of "you too", then you would cite such an instance. Moreover, while I dinged you for the pointless remark, I did not huff off and ignore the issue that you raised - freewill. I directly addressed the problem with your under lying assumptions and the false applicability of freewill to the situation.

Toodles!

edit: ahhh. I apologize. you did not huff off. the first part stands, though

 

[ppp]

And it has a good answer too.

Perhaps. But the your reply was not that answer. It was not even relevant to my post.
You just bounce back and forth between bad free will arguments, and treating god as a limited ignorant human who must bow to social convention. I think you are repeating arguments that you have heard, but don't fully understand.

 

[halbhh]

When you wrote: "God in the Bible banned murder. Which means that you already agree that banning an evil act does not abridge freewill. Therefore had God banned slavery, it would have no more impact on free will than banning murder."

I thought your idea worth responding to, and here's the response that corrects the mistaken idea there:

It's useless/harmful to make Laws that few or none can follow at a given moment in time in a culture.

A law from the 19th century could not work 3400 years earlier. No one would obey it, and it would then discredit Law itself (a bigger disaster yet).

An example of a law many broke and that caused a great increase in corruption: Prohibition in the 1920s in America.

The 10 Commandment law against murder most of Israel could follow, but at that moment they could not follow an modern style law against slavery, or even too big a step of a law about how they mistreated the disadvantaged people among them, the slaves.

Human culture cannot change that rapidly, all at once. Even what appear at times in history to be faster changes are in reality only the final piece of a much longer process.

Before that final outward change, first many key interior, hidden things must change, in human hearts.

The final outward change is only the culmination of that far longer process.

It's much easier for the human mind to realize that murder is wrong than it is to realize it's wrong to take advantage of others (aka, "slavery").

Most all people take advantage of others at times when young. It seems innocuous to them.

Murder is far easier to recognize as a wrong.

The 10 commandments (having the prohibition on murder), were really basic and easier to accept laws.

Getting rid of a deeply human tendency like slavery -- not treating others as you'd have them treat you -- is not at all an easy ask. It's so difficult.

Even today, in 2020, slavery continues as a commonplace, just in new forms that aren't the old forms (or rather, the old forms are much more hidden and also less common now; the new forms have replaced them).

 

[ppp]

So - if these records are accurate - this commandment would have had even more of an impact on Abraham than the Bible portrays.

Let's keep with the text and ignore the fan fiction.

Either way - Abraham knew that God did not work in human sacrifice and he knew that God had made promises to him that would have been broken if Isaac were to die at that time.

I don't buy your interpretation, but I do understand. You are saying the Abraham having dealt with God for nearly a century would have been basing his actions not on faith, but upon an accumulated experiential knowledge of God's character. Whereas, I think that in order for Abraham to do what he did, he would have had to a) believe that God was capable of requiring demanding sacrifice to show devotion and b) be willing to kill Isaac. That second part is what get me.

If you are doing as the Lord commands - your faith is not "blind" - because you are receiving witness after witness for passing your trials of faith.

Only if there is a Lord. And only if he is giving commands. And only if you can demonstrate the difference between your thinking there is a lord giving you command and there actually being one. Otherwise you are just blindly doing things and assigning your actions to commands.

Let's say your neighbor told you that there was an elephant running rampant in your neighborhood.

If you immediately dismiss it as crazy and go back inside claiming that you would never believe such a story unless the elephant were to present itself to you - you may never know if there had actually been an elephant.

So - what if you exercise a particle of "faith" in what your neighbor said and stay outside and look around a bit?

No. Looking around is not faith. Faith is being convinced without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence.

I would be right there cursing them with you.

However - I would become offended if you tried to force people to violate their beliefs.

I wouldn't be "offended". I would understand. And sympathetic. But if I were on the jury I would vote to convict the person who used force of assault. But then I would also vote to convict the parents of negligence and child endangerment. SO there you go.

People have the right to to live according to their beliefs - no matter how dumb we think they are.

Until their beliefs sufficiently and directly impact the welfare of another person. The argument is over the gray areas of sufficient and direct.

Perhaps - but the scientific community has been wrong before.

I'm not claiming that actual evidence is wrong - but the theories that people formulate based on the evidence can and have been wrong before.

I am not sure what point you are making. The point I am making is that the only rational course is to follow the evidence. No one is saying that the conclusions will never be wrong. But people who follow the evidence are right more often than those who do not.

Faith is important though. I believe many things that I cannot prove. There just is not way I could prove it. That doesn't mean those things are not true.

I believe that it is illogical to reject an idea because it cannot be proven.

I think that it is irrational to accept an idea for which there is no evidence, or which has evidence against it.

 

[halbhh]

@Joe W I forgot to add your name or quote to post #187 above, which was in response to you.

 

[ppp]

You just bounce back and forth between bad free will arguments, and treating god as a limited ignorant human who must bow to social convention. I think you are repeating arguments that you have heard, but don't fully understand.

@halbhh There is no point in discussing this with you until you stop spinning in circles

 

[paarsurrey]

Magenta refers.
The Truthful Religion is different than depicted by one, I understand.
It presents a path treaded by the previous truthful messengers/prophets of G-d. It is like one who say lives in Tokyo who has not yet visited London but believes that there is a city in England and has met many persons who have gone to London and decides to go to London for business and has purchased a ticket of an airline to go to London. Shouldn't he have the belief/faith that there is a city called London in England, please. Right, please?

Regards

My truthful religion, I understand, is reasonable and methodological, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

That's not the complete picture. In addition to our accumulated experiences, we have the accumulated experiences of everyone else. As I have said elsewhere, we are fallible, imperfect creatures. The only way to have confidence in an idea is if it holds up over many observation, by many individuals, over time.

This is simply untrue. We are only somewhat less limited as a collective, as our limitations are mostly structural.

The greater the corroboration and predictive reliability for future observations, the greater the confidence in a particular observation, thought, or idea.

Again, this is only moderately true. "Corroboration" is just a species-wide bias. And "predictive viability" is just functionality. That something works does not tell is how or why it works, or what it means in relation to anything else. So using functionality to determine "truth" is a very weak methodology. Leaving us in the dark about a great many things.

 

[MikeF]

This is simply untrue. We are only somewhat less limited as a collective, as our limitations are mostly structural.
Again, this is only moderately true. "Corroboration" is just a species-wide bias. And "predictive viability" is just functionality. That something works does not tell is how or why it works, or what it means in relation to anything else. So using functionality to determine "truth" is a very weak methodology. Leaving us in the dark about a great many things.

I am smiling because, in essence, you have agreed with me. You equivocate and downplay the agreement because you are afraid of the logical conclusions that result from this agreement.

You said the following: "That something works does not tell is how or why it works, or what it means in relation to anything else." Really? Do you want to stick by that? We know a plant works, it grows, it bears fruit, it dies. We know how a plant works, through cell division, photosynthesis, etc., we know why it works because we can demonstrate how all the individual functions inter-relate to make a functioning whole. We know why plants exist in the first place, because we see the evolution and adaption of plant precursors that resulted in plants.

You and I have always been in agreement that we are in the dark about a great many things. And being in the dark, it means that we do not know what lies in the dark for us to eventually discover.

It is time to stop being afraid and get comfortable with not knowing.

 

[PureX]

I am smiling because, in essence, you have agreed with me. You equivocate and downplay the agreement because you are afraid of the logical conclusions that result from this agreement.

I am not equivocating, nor am I afraid any logical conclusions. I am simply pointing out that consensus, and function, do not the equal of truth or real understanding. Being able to predict physical behavior is certainly useful to our continued survival, but for we humans, there are other challenges besides just surviving. And those challenges are at least as important to most of us, as survival. And those challenges cannot be met by consensus, or by physical functionality, alone.

You said the following: "That something works does not tell is how or why it works, or what it means in relation to anything else." Really? Do you want to stick by that?

Yes. Because the 'how' is an endless chain of causes and effects, the origin of which is a mystery to us, and the why is even more-so. So pretending that because we understand that photosynthesis exists, we still don;t really know how it works, or why. Because like everything else, when we investigate it, it just leads us back down that endless chain of cause and effect, again. The origin and purpose of which remain a big mystery. The more we 'know', the more we don't know.

You and I have always been in agreement that we are in the dark about a great many things. And being in the dark, it means that we do not know what lies in the dark for us to eventually discover.

It is time to stop being afraid and get comfortable with not knowing.

I am not in the least uncomfortable with the unknown. In fact, the older I get, the more grateful I am for it, as I realize that life is better without omniscience than I could ever imagine it being, with it. But I worry for humanity when I see people presuming that the mystery of it all is negligible because they think science has or will have all the answers that matter. Because all science can or ever will give humanity is increased functionality. And functionality without value or purpose is a recipe for self0destruction.

 

[metis]

The Four Gospels Record 37 Miracles. As A Christian Do You Believe Them?

My inclination is no, but I won't go as far as to say that they can't exist. Another thing is that what might be considered by many to be a "miracle" today may have a logical explanation that we find out about later on.

I tend to take a naturalistic perspective, but I won't go so far as to claim that this is the only one that's logical.

 

[Eyes to See]

My brother. My dear brother @Eyes to See, I am more endeared to you, not only for your graciousness, but your love, ardor, courage, and other things which I won't mention now... but I want to thank you for your posts in this thread.
They put the meat on the bones, in all the right places. Now the lion is fat. Who can contend.

Here I am, six pages from your post, and no one has even attempted to touch your post with a ten foot pole.
I think you drove that nail in good.
One has to destroy the wood to get it out.

I normally wouldn't get much of a challenge to my responses on faith, but yours were much more simple, and complete. Like BRAM! 5 seconds out the oven, and we are eating.

So I just want to say thank you for staying connected to the source of wisdom (So good), and ask... 'Can I link to your posts here', in the event that this subject raises its ugly head again?
To me, it's like the Hammer said...

Spoiler

Cant touch this.

No offense with the gif. I know as a faithful brother, you probably, like me, don't "hang" with these guys.

Love it.

Thank you for taking the time to write some encouraging words. I feel the same about you. Of course all honor and praise go to Jehovah. You are certainly welcome to use what may be of use.

 

[nPeace]

Thank you for taking the time to write some encouraging words. I feel the same about you. Of course all honor and praise go to Jehovah. You are certainly welcome to use what may be of use.

Thank you my brother. Praise Jah.

 

[MikeF]

...but for we humans, there are other challenges besides just surviving....

But I worry for humanity when I see people presuming that the mystery of it all is negligible because they think science has or will have all the answers that matter. ...

...And functionality without value or purpose is a recipe for self-destruction.

I, too, worry for humanity. And yes, there are many, many challenges to face. But this is the fear that I am talking about. This is what you are afraid of. This is the fear that needs to be addressed.

Because like everything else, when we investigate it, it just leads us back down that endless chain of cause and effect, again. The origin and purpose of which remain a big mystery. The more we 'know', the more we don't know.

The big mystery you speak of is simply what I refer to as that which is unknown. You fail to appreciate how the boundary of what we know and don't know has changed throughout history. Your attempt to attach meaning and purpose for us to something residing in the unknown is no different than our earliest animistic ancestors. These early hunter-gatherers had an extremely limited understanding of their world and as a consequence, this boundary of known and unknown was much closer to home. Animism assigned consciousness to the inanimate objects in the hunter-gatherers life because they could not conceive how systems (weather, rivers, plant growth) moved and changed without it.
As humanity's knowledge grew, this boundary moved farther and farther afield until now, it rests at the Big Bang and the origin of life. The track record is clear: the gods did not live behind the clouds or under the sea. We must resist the urge to assign anything to the unknown, for all that is ever there is a deeper understanding of the reality in which we live. This is what you should not be afraid of.

Because all science can or ever will give humanity is increased functionality.

And here we need to be specific about what you are describing as outside of science. If you are referring to things like beauty and aesthetics, then yes, scientific methods are not needed. These fall under the category of individual preference or desire. They are relative to the specific individual only. There is no absolute or universal beauty, or best piece of music. It is all in the eye of the beholder. Additionally, it is highly influenced by the way you are socialized. Concepts of beauty and music vary by culture.
Morals and ethics are simply mutually agreed upon principles and values that help us live and interact together in large groups. And again, we see that this can vary from society to society.

Because the 'how' is an endless chain of causes and effects...
we still don't really know how it works, or why.

And this gets us to the big why. Why are we here, why did this all happen, and what is the purpose of it all.
The simple answer is that we don't know. What we do know is that it doesn't really get us any closer to the truth of reality when we create an artificial construct of reality to fill in all the unknowns. The universe was chugging along for billions of years before life existed on this planet, and life existed for billions more before we human beings ever showed up. It's clear that it is not about us. The universe is indifferent to us. If we become extinct tomorrow, the rest of reality will keep chugging along.

The important thing for you to understand is, that if there is no god or supreme consciousness, then all the things you value still exist. There is still morality, ethics, aesthetic, and beauty. It is just that those things are derived from us, we human beings, ourselves. And this is where the focus should be if you are worried about humanity. It is about consensus, it is about the laws and rules that we make for ourselves, that have allowed us to live in larger and larger societal groups. We have well surpassed the instinctual behaviors that allowed our primitive ancestors to survive and live in their small family groupings.

And what are the downsides of imagining an artificial construct of reality to create a guide post for the direction of humanity? If you create an artificial construct that can't be verified and you promote that concept, you are giving anyone permission to put anything they want in that artificial construct, and no one can argue against it since it can never be verified. All artificial constructs become equally valid. And since anyone can put anything in the unverifiable artificial construct, these constructs are extremely vulnerable to creating social stagnation, oppression, and abuse.

Value and purpose is for us to determine and set. We need a system that adapts and grows as our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the universe grows. A system that reevaluates and continually improves for the benefit of all its members.

This should be the goal. We should not be bound by the ancient artificial constructs of our ancestors.

 

[PureX]

You fail to appreciate how the boundary of what we know and don't know has changed throughout history.

And you fail to appreciate how little that boundary has moved. You think increased functionality represents some huge gain in understanding. When all it's done is give us the means to destroy ourselves, and our planet. Thereby making if far more likely that we'll do so. Because we've learned next to nothing about WHY we exist, or why it's important.

As humanity's knowledge grew, this boundary moved farther and farther afield until now, it rests at the Big Bang and the origin of life.

And we're still clueless. Even more than we were, as now the mystery is actual, not just speculative.

If you are referring to things like beauty and aesthetics, then yes, scientific methods are not needed. These fall under the category of individual preference or desire.

I am talking about existential value, and purpose. Also things that science cannot address. And sadly, things that "scientism" disregards as frivolous, and whimsical.

Why are we here, why did this all happen, and what is the purpose of it all.
The simple answer is that we don't know. What we do know is that it doesn't really get us any closer to the truth of reality when we create an artificial construct of reality to fill in all the unknowns.

Those artificial constructs are how science begins. And how all human understanding begins. Without our imagination, we are no more than hairless monkeys. And as for the truth, there is no truth without value or purpose. There is only mechanism; mindless, valueless, purposeless, mechanism.

The universe is indifferent to us. If we become extinct tomorrow, the rest of reality will keep chugging along.

The universe is not apart from us. We are a part of it. It's value and purpose, and ours within it, are the same. The universe has become self-aware through us. And very likely through a million other sentient forms of being. We are part of it's heart, and it's brain. It is not "indifferent to" us. It is indifferent without us.

The important thing for you to understand is, that if there is no god or supreme consciousness, then all the things you value still exist.

But they only exist. They have no value or purpose, and their existence is futile. Pointless. Meaningless. And so are we.

To adopt this ideology would be suicide for humans. We are already on the brink of annihilating ourselves with our own selfishness and stupidity. To adopt such a pointless mechanical ideology would surely be the end of us all.

There is still morality, ethics, aesthetic, and beauty. It is just that those things are derived from us, we human beings, ourselves. And this is where the focus should be if you are worried about humanity. It is about consensus, it is about the laws and rules that we make for ourselves, that have allowed us to live in larger and larger societal groups. We have well surpassed the instinctual behaviors that allowed our primitive ancestors to survive and live in their small family groupings.

There is no point to creating consensus when there is no point to existence. There is no value but that which serves our own desires if there is no value beyond ourselves. We need to see ourselves as being a part of a valuable, meaningful, whole, ... beyond ourselves, and bigger than ourselves, to be willing to set our selfishness aside for the sake of that larger ideal. And that is never going to happen in a universe of pointless, meaningless functionality. Yet that's the only universe that science can understand. Which is why science should NEVER be allowed to become a philosophy (as per "scientism"). It's incapable of philosophical imagination and discourse. It's incapable of determining value, or purpose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And we're still clueless. Even more than we were, as now the mystery is actual, not just speculative.

Life is a mystery. That's pretty much is how it's seen by scientist-life is a mystery not the mystery.

I am talking about existential value, and purpose. Also things that science cannot address. And sadly, things that "scientism" disregards as frivolous, and whimsical.

I can't find my comment this is referring to.

Those artificial constructs are how science begins. And how all human understanding begins. Without our imagination, we are no more than hairless monkeys. And as for the truth, there is no truth without value or purpose. There is only mechanism; mindless, valueless, purposeless, mechanism.

This isn't my quote. Do you have a post number? I can't find it with the little arrows.

The universe is not apart from us. We are a part of it. It's value and purpose, and ours within it, are the same. The universe has become self-aware through us. And very likely through a million other sentient forms of being. We are part of it's heart, and it's brain. It is not "indifferent to" us. It is indifferent without us.

But they only exist. They have no value or purpose, and their existence is futile. Pointless. Meaningless. And so are we.

To adopt this ideology would be suicide for humans. We are already on the brink of annihilating ourselves with our own selfishness and stupidity. To adopt such a pointless mechanical ideology would surely be the end of us all.

There is no point to creating consensus when there is no point to existence. There is no value but that which serves our own desires if there is no value beyond ourselves. We need to see ourselves as being a part of a valuable, meaningful, whole, ... beyond ourselves, and bigger than ourselves, to be willing to set our selfishness aside for the sake of that larger ideal. And that is never going to happen in a universe of pointless, meaningless functionality. And that's the only universe that science can understand. Which is why science should NEVER be allowed to become a philosophy ("scientism"). It's incapable of philosophical imagination and discourse. It's incapable of determining value, or purpose.

I found it. These are MikeF's comments. I think you missed quoted.