Religion's Future or Lack of it

[mikkel_the_dane]

It’s just a meaningless thing people say.

Yeah, but that is not absolute that it is meaningless for all time(induction problem). Thus it is unknown if there is an ultimate truth.

In other words for now there are no absolute truths, but if that holds is unknown. Not that there are no absolute truths, because that is an absolute truth. The same applies to ultimate truth.

And yes, I don't believe in them or know any of them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There’s nothing dark about facing reality. What is ‘dark’ is living in a state of pretence.

The darkness is turning away from our true reality, which is a spiritual being. This world is the illusion that veils the light.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There’s nothing nihilistic about living authentically. Many things are true, genuine, authentic. What isn’t ‘true’ is this frippery about ‘ultimate truth’. No-one who says that kind of thing has any idea what they mean, just some vague religious-y notion that some such thing must exist.

Well, you can find similar ideas in some philosophical systems or political ideologies. It is not unique to religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The darkness is turning away from our true reality, which is a spiritual being. This world is the illusion that veils the light.

Regards Tony

I have a different faith or belief system.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have a different faith or belief system.

That is the choice we have in this matrix.

Regards Tony

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but that is not absolute that it is meaningless for all time(induction problem). Thus it is unknown if there is an ultimate truth.

In other words for now there are no absolute truths, but if that holds is unknown. Not that there are no absolute truths, because that is an absolute truth. The same applies to ultimate truth.

And yes, I don't believe in them or know any of them.

Ok, but even saying ‘there is no ultimate truth’ has no meaning. Just what is ‘ultimate truth’? This idea that there is some sort of statement or idea that explains ‘the truth’ of everything that every is or will be is just daft. I mean, what’s the ‘truth’ of why I ate a cheese sandwich yesterday? What is the truth about what my dog dreams about? What is a ‘true’ circle? If this ‘truth’ is ultimate then it needs to explain everything, and that whole notion is plain daft. If what people mean oh like yeah god really exists, man, that is just something that would be true about one thing (if it were true). It’s just a nonsense term, and anything that can be said about it is nonsense too, so questions about whether or not there is some undefined ‘ultimate truth’ are meaningless.

 

[Tomef]

Well, you can find similar ideas in some philosophical systems or political ideologies. It is not unique to religion.

I’m not saying it is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, but even saying ‘there is no ultimate truth’ has no meaning. Just what ‘ultimate truth’? This idea that there is some sort of statement or idea that explains ‘the truth’ of everything that every is or will be is just daft. I mean, what’s the ‘truth’ of why I ate a cheese sandwich yesterday? What is the truth about what my dog dreams about? What is a ‘true’ circle? If this ‘truth’ is ultimate then it needs to explain everything, and that whole notion is plain daft. If what people mean oh like yeah god really exists, man, that is just thing that would be true about one thing (if it were true). It’s just a nonsense term, and anything that can be said about it is nonsense too, so questions about whether or not there is some undefined ‘ultimate truth’ are meaningless.

No, it is unknown. If you can't understand the limit of knowledge and how you can't know for all time and space if there is an ultimate truth or not, then I can continue to point out the induction problem and it won't change anything.

 

[Tomef]

No, it is unknown. If you can't understand the limit of knowledge and how you can't know for all time and space if there is an ultimate truth or not, then I can continue to point out the induction problem and it won't change anything.

Yes, but firstly you have to define what is meant by ‘ultimate truth’. If you can’t define a thing, questions about whether or not it exists are meaningless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but firstly you have to define what is meant by ‘ultimate truth’. If you can’t define a thing, questions about whether or not it exists are meaningless.

No, they are for now unknown. Existence is a philosophical terms which has no actual propeties. It is the idea of being as being as something that is. But that has no actual property or referent. So existence might be, but for now it is without evidence.

And meaningless is a subjective state in you and doesn't say anything about that independent of your subjective state.

 

[Tomef]

No, they are for now unknown. Existence is a philosophical terms which has no actual propeties. It is the idea of being as being as something that is. But that has no actual property or referent. So existence might be, but for now it is without evidence.

And meaningless is a subjective state in you and doesn't say anything about that independent of your subjective state.

Existence is a term used by philosophers, not a philosophical term. You’re proving my point, if ‘ultimate truth’ has no subjective meaning then it cannot exist, by definition. Anything ‘ultimate’ is either ultimate or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, then it doesn’t exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

There’s nothing dark about facing reality.

No, there isn't.

What is ‘dark’ is living in a state of pretence.

What is dark is living in the dark, if the religion is reality and light to the world.

 

[Tomef]

No, there isn't.

What is dark is living in the dark, if the religion is reality and light to the world.

If

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Existence is a term used by philosophers, not a philosophical term. You’re proving my point, if ‘ultimate truth’ has no subjective meaning then it cannot exist, by definition. Anything ‘ultimate’ is either ultimate or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, then it doesn’t exist.

Yeah, you know all time and space and that it doesn't exist is true for all time and space.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, but firstly you have to define what is meant by ‘ultimate truth’. If you can’t define a thing, questions about whether or not it exists are meaningless.

No, they are for now unknown. Existence is a philosophical terms which has no actual propeties. It is the idea of being as being as something that is. But that has no actual property or referent. So existence might be, but for now it is without evidence.

And meaningless is a subjective state in you and doesn't say anything about that independent of your subjective state.

We have been given that definition, it is the Messengers from God that are our ultimate truth about all that we can know.

Regards Tony

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, you know all time and space and that it doesn't exist is true for all time and space.

No, but if the idea of ‘ultimate truth’ doesn’t encompass the subjectivity of a conscious being, then it isn’t ultimate truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have been given that definition, it is the Messengers from God that are our ultimate truth about all that we can know.

Regards Tony

I am not your we.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but if the idea of ‘ultimate truth’ doesn’t encompass the subjectivity of a conscious being, then it isn’t ultimate truth.

Well, we don't agree. So I will leave it there.

 

[Tomef]

Well, we don't agree. So I will leave it there.

I’m not arguing with you, I just can’t make any sense of the term. Have a stab at a definition, if you want.

 

[Ostronomos]

Well it seems through the numbers, people who actually love the truth (i.e Reasons mentioned in OP), Jesus can be annoying

Metareligion as Human Singularity:


Causal inference is interactive and linear; events are predicted from prior events occurring along timelines. Formal inference is derivational; specific relationships are substituted for more general ones (or vice versa) irrespective of temporal priority. A supertautology evolves self-dually or “metaformally”, in a way that couples formal and causal evolution. This is the proper mode of evolution of an ontological metalanguage capable of not only supporting causation, but of justifying existence, including its own existence, without the help of any other language. Metaformal inference, elsewhere referred to as “telic causation”, properly includes both formal and causal inference as aspects; thus, it supports both generative origination and causal evolution, and can be understood as a higher mode of inference embracing logical deduction, empirical induction, and metalogical reasoning about reality as a whole.

There already exists a branch of logic, model theory, that deals with the interpretation of empirical phenomena in theories and the mathematical structures of which they consist, but its standard formulation is dualistic. It now has a reflexive self-dual extension called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU; Langan, 2002), or as some have called it in more traditional and religiously loaded terms, Logos, mainly in recognition of its status as a metaphysical formulation of logic. Technically, the CTMU is a reflexive, high-level kind of model theory designed to support the description of reality on the ontological level of discourse ... the level on which reality exists independently of anything external. On this level and all of those beneath, the supertautological structure of the CTMU is virtually unassailable. Just as standard logic requires no assumptions, neither


Taken from: View of Metareligion as the Human Singularity

It is said that "God is dead". But that more accurately describes faith. Thus, the time for religion and science to unite is nigh. The above was written by one of the most prolific authors of the new God science, Christopher Langan. His logic is irrefutable.