Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[The Hammer]

Ah, this is tedious… Do you not think, then, (which is more to the point) if YHVH exists, that he desires for humanity to believe that he exists?

Why? Best they figure it out for themselves?

 

[F1fan]

That depends on what true is and what useful is.

But how can you know what is true? You clearly think you know definitions and rules of language, but how do you know they are true and useful?

See, you can't decide there are exception to protect your flawed and HIGHLY subjective beliefs and thinking behaviors. The rules of reasoning apply to all thoughts if there is integrity in your philosophy.

The problem is that there are at least 5 different versions of true, if not more.

Really, is this true? Which version of "true" applies to your claim here? And where's the evidence?

So which one is true and how do you know that the other ones are false.

And you don't explain anything.

As for useful, that has no objective referent or method for true as objective. So what in some cases can be useful to you, is useless to me and so in reverse.
We are no debating if a part of the everyday world is in effect and in practice objective. We are debating if from that follows, that all what is true and useful are objective. That is not the same.

You seem to be going off on irrelevant tangents. It's not that I don't find belief in a supernatural, or supernatural concepts useful or not, it's whetehr these idea have any basis in evidence, and can be judged true by an unbiased mind. The only unbiased minds are those who don't find belief in these ideas useful for their identity, social belonging, social cohesion, emotional security, etc. So since you are admittedly a believer, and you go to great lengths to waffle around the unbiased assessment of supernatural ideas, your comments are part of the body of evidence that skeptics use to understand why some folks believe. Let's note theists are not able to present justification for their beliefs from a rational, evidence-based argument, so why would the logical default of not being convinced be faulty?

It appears that you for some forms of subjective are unable to understand that you are subjective and that in some cases true and useful, is what is true and useful to you, but not me.

No, I understand it. This is why any time a believer claims there is a superiantual I ask them for evidence and a coherent explanation, and when they can't (which is always) I reject it as excessively subjecive. Why can you doubt basic knowledge, but skeptics can't doubt claims of a supernatural?

The falsifacition of whether something is objective or subjective, is in one version if it can be done differently subjectively. And that is the case here, since we in effect disagree subjectively.

Yet you believe in a god.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To be fair, no one sees Plato's Republic as the unassailable Word of God either. I am not suggesting that Biblical claims be cast off as absolutely untrue without sincere examination of evidence, but the Bible is uniquely held as something more than history and philosophy. Plato's Republic is not.

I agree really. I don’t think there are any reasonable grounds on which to justify the Bible as the infallible and unchanging word of God. But I don’t think that’s ever been mainstream Christian theology. With the exception of Revelation, I’m not aware of any book in the Bible which claims be a revealed text, in the manner of the Quran.
@Rival will know better than me, whether that’s the case.

I do believe personally, that divine inspiration may have on occasion guided the hand that held the pen, but I think that’s equally true of much poetry and art, from Rumi to Blake to Emily Dickinson. Divinely inspired or not, God to my knowledge never put pen to paper; human beings do that, and even the most enlightened are limited and fallible.

 

[Polymath257]

Leaving aside for a moment the question of mind independent reality, it seems to me entirely self evident that no account of the universe can be complete, which fails to offer a full account of the consciousness of the observer.

Hmmm..only in the sense that any account of the universe can be complete that fails to account for volcanoes.
But I would not expect a fundamental theory to deal specifically with volcanoes.

Consciousness is, from everything we have observed, a phenomenon of brains. So it is NOT a fundamental issue, but one requiring explanation from fundamental laws in some hierarchy (like volcanoes).

It seems similarly axiomatic, that if a distinction has to be made between mind and matter, the former must have primacy over the latter. Our experience of the world is built on that, and experience is everything to us.

That seems to be entirely wrong to me. Mind is a phenomenon of matter. I don't know how to determine 'primacy' or in what context you mean it here, but in terms of explanations, it seems that mind is a very high level phenomenon and not a fundamental one.

I’m not a solipsist. Neither, I think, are you? I don’t consider the universe to be a figment of my imagination. I do consider consciousness and the material world to be inextricable and inseparable.

The materiality of Jupiter has nothing to do with consciousness, so the two seem to be very separable. Some aspects of the material world are conscious. others are not. Just like some aspects have the property of being charged and others do not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So tell me the actual practical application
of metaphysics or religion to anythjng in science.

“There are critical junctures in science when metaphysical considerations come to the fore, whether we like it or not.”

- Thomas Hertog, On the Origin of Time

What Hertog is specifically referring to here, is the observation by Stephen Hawking that all of cosmology ( including Newton and Einstein) had been operating from the wrong perspective. That science has been misled into trying to take a God’s eye perspective, as though outside the universe looking in. “We are within the universe looking out” Hawking argued, and “the failure to recognise this has lead us into a blind alley. We need a new philosophy of science for cosmology.”

 

[F1fan]

Yes, and the same can be said of many other non-visible substances. Electricity…the flow of electrons, for instance, cannot be seen, but I dare anyone who questions its existence to take a grab on a charged naked high power line.

It's pretty shallow to question whether air exists when it is a fact. It illustrates the desperation tactics going on, to attack our ability to know anything as an objective fact, and also able to use our reasoning skill to reejct ideas that not only lack evidence, but are also incompatable with what we DO know. They want a Bizzaro World illusion. I wonder if they understand what they are doing, or just responding emotionally in the moment, as in a panic.

Unfortunately, I must agree. I understand the great difficulty in surrendering one’s faith in deity, and so I frankly do not ask anyone to do so, but the making of absurd arguments in trying to support the theistic position is a bit too much to countenance.

I's the sinking ship approach. Since reason and objectivity doesn't help the theist debate they attack the reliability of reason, and that we can't know what we know (even though they demonstrate they they themselves know quite a bit reliably). They want knowledge to work just far enough for them to convey their beliefs, but beyond that, we can't know anything.

Back when I was in college for pyschology I worked in the pharma school, and one day I saw a coy of Cell magazine. A magazine that is dedicated to current research on cells. That's all it covered, just cells. I figured cells were fairly simple things and all figured out. I flipped through the copy I found and man it had amazing detail, and covered biology with words way beyond my understanding of biology. I was stunned how this one edition explained about what cells are and what they do. We humans have an amazing amount of knowledge that lay people don't know about, so I can see how easy it is to be ignorant about what is known about reality, and how a believer can fool themselves that we humans don't have much more knowledge than they do, and all to justify belief in ideas that have no basis in evidence. And they are trying to dumb the rest of us down. That is the sinking ship, no one wins, we all go down when they go down.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Leaving aside for a moment the question of mind independent reality, it seems to me entirely self evident that no account of the universe can be complete, which fails to offer a full account of the consciousness of the observer.

It seems similarly axiomatic, that if a distinction has to be made between mind and matter, the former must have primacy over the latter. Our experience of the world is built on that, and experience is everything to us.

I’m not a solipsist. Neither, I think, are you? I don’t consider the universe to be a figment of my imagination. I do consider consciousness and the material world to be inextricable and inseparable.

Well, no, I am not a metaphysical solipist. As for science and philsophy, I just always claim that when I want to claim I know something, I have to account for all 3 parts in "I know something" and how they are related.
So in a sense I am neither an idealist or physicalist, but a pragmatic. How does it work and are there any limits?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But how can you know what is true? You clearly think you know definitions and rules of language, but how do you know they are true and useful?

...

I don't know for the strong idea of justified true belief and neither do you. That idea have been tested for close to 2500 years now and it doesn't work.
Just as some people don't doubt God, you don't doubt what truth is and in that sense you are a Believer, where as I am a believer.

 

[Audie]

“There are critical junctures in science when metaphysical considerations come to the fore, whether we like it or not.”

- Thomas Hertog, On the Origin of Time

What Hertog is specifically referring to here, is the observation by Stephen Hawking that all of cosmology ( including Newton and Einstein) had been operating from the wrong perspective. That science has been misled into trying to take a God’s eye perspective, as though outside the universe looking in. “We are within the universe looking out” Hawking argued, and “the failure to recognise this has lead us into a blind alley. We need a new philosophy of science for cosmology.”

So, you find it difficult to see how to do cosmology
without metaphysics.

I asked for practical application.

And have observed that religion and metaphysics has
been anything but helpful to date.

Someone calls for a new metaphysics. Which kinda
underscores the " to date".

Something real new from the metaphysics people
would be in order. Maybe it would help- nobody knows

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, you find it difficult to see how to do cosmology
without metaphysics.

I asked for practical application.

And have observed that religion and metaphysics has
been anything but helpful to date.

Someone calls for a new metaphysics. Which kinda
underscores the " to date".

Something real new from the metaphysics people
would be in order. Maybe it would help- nobody knows

You can't observe as observe helpful.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hmmm..only in the sense that any account of the universe can be complete that fails to account for volcanoes.
But I would not expect a fundamental theory to deal specifically with volcanoes.

Consciousness is, from everything we have observed, a phenomenon of brains. So it is NOT a fundamental issue, but one requiring explanation from fundamental laws in some hierarchy (like volcanoes).

That seems to be entirely wrong to me. Mind is a phenomenon of matter. I don't know how to determine 'primacy' or in what context you mean it here, but in terms of explanations, it seems that mind is a very high level phenomenon and not a fundamental one.


The materiality of Jupiter has nothing to do with consciousness, so the two seem to be very separable. Some aspects of the material world are conscious. others are not. Just like some aspects have the property of being charged and others do not.

The human mind may be a ‘high’ level phenomenon. It may emerge from electro-chemical activity in the brain. But we don’t know that; what we know is that consciousness and activity in the brain are correlates. That doesn’t mean consciousness itself is not fundamental, perhaps in the same way that time and space are both fundamental and, in certain theories, also emergent phenomena.

Consciousness has primacy in our experience, because all our understanding of the world begins there. Jupiter, Saturn, the Atlantic Ocean, the music of Beethoven the plays of Shakespeare, the colour red, and the taste of an apple all appear to us as objects, concepts or events unfolding in the mind. Consciousness, to quote neurologist Guilio Tononi, is what leaves us when we go to sleep at night, and is there when we awake again in the morning. It is, in that sense, the Alpha and the Omega.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hmmm..only in the sense that any account of the universe can be complete that fails to account for volcanoes.
But I would not expect a fundamental theory to deal specifically with volcanoes.

Consciousness is, from everything we have observed, a phenomenon of brains. So it is NOT a fundamental issue, but one requiring explanation from fundamental laws in some hierarchy (like volcanoes).

That seems to be entirely wrong to me. Mind is a phenomenon of matter. I don't know how to determine 'primacy' or in what context you mean it here, but in terms of explanations, it seems that mind is a very high level phenomenon and not a fundamental one.


The materiality of Jupiter has nothing to do with consciousness, so the two seem to be very separable. Some aspects of the material world are conscious. others are not. Just like some aspects have the property of being charged and others do not.

You can take up a vantage point outside of any volcano. You can’t take up a vantage point outside of consciousness.

 

[Rival]

Ah, this is tedious… Do you not think, then, (which is more to the point) if YHVH exists, that he desires for humanity to believe that he exists?

That sounds more probable, but under which guise he's worshipped seems to be the clincher. Remember that Paul tells the Atheniens the Unknown God they have an altar to is Yahweh.

 

[Zwing]

Why? Best they figure it out for themselves?

Oh, @The Hammer. Like you, I consider myself a pagan, but an atheist pagan who reverences (as opposed to worships) nature as the basis of observance, so I feel a certain kinship with you, but this is bad. Do you not see the foolishness in that response? Am I to suppose, then, that the God of the universe is a game player who plays hide-and-seek with mankind, peeking out and giving glimpses to some while not to others? If there is a God and he/it is like that, then you can have him, as I have no interest. I think it superlatively unlikely, though.

 

[Zwing]

That sounds more probable

Yes, then why does He hide himself away, when he might achieve his wish with a little revelation from time to time (as the generations change)?

Remember that Paul tells the Atheniens the Unknown God they have an altar to is Yahweh.

A purposeful lie, for sure.

 

[Polymath257]

The human mind may be a ‘high’ level phenomenon. It may emerge from electro-chemical activity in the brain. But we don’t know that; what we know is that consciousness and activity in the brain are correlates. That doesn’t mean consciousness itself is not fundamental, perhaps in the same way that time and space are both fundamental and, in certain theories, also emergent phenomena.

I've always found this argument to be strange. For example, when we notice a correlation between temperature and the average kinetic energy of molecules, we don't suppose an 'extra' that is really temperature that is produced independently of the motion of the molecules.

Why would we think there is a separate thing going on when we see a consistent correlation with no observed common cause? At the very least, the *first* thing we would hypothesize is that the neurology causes the consciousness. if that hypothesis fails, we can go to a common cause, but nothing in the observations even suggests that.

Consciousness has primacy in our experience, because all our understanding of the world begins there. Jupiter, Saturn, the Atlantic Ocean, the music of Beethoven the plays of Shakespeare, the colour red, and the taste of an apple all appear to us as objects, concepts or events unfolding in the mind. Consciousness, to quote neurologist Guilio Tononi, is what leaves us when we go to sleep at night, and is there when we awake again in the morning. It is, in that sense, the Alpha and the Omega.

Again, I have always found this argument to be strange. Yes, *we* interact through consciousness. So what? That is *our* limitation, not a limitation on the universe as a whole. We cannot observe the world directly and are limited by our senses and the fact that *we* need to interact.

The fact that our sense organs cannot detect ultraviolet light is irrelevant to the fact that ultraviolet light exists and is an important part of the world. Our consciousness about it is completely irrelevant as far as I can see. And, when it comes down to it, the limitation we have in our senses or our abilities to learn about the world are irrelevant to the vast majority of the universe. To think our limitation is a fundamental part of the universe seems like the height of arrogance to me.

You can take up a vantage point outside of any volcano. You can’t take up a vantage point outside of consciousness.

Yes, that is one of our limitations. So? Does that say anything fundamental about the universe? not that I can see.

In the same way, a robot will be limited to interacting via its senses and its ways of processing data. As far as I can see, our consciousness is simply one aspect of how we process data. And yes, that causes problems in epistemology, but I don't see those problems as being that deep or even that interesting.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I agree really. I don’t think there are any reasonable grounds on which to justify the Bible as the infallible and unchanging word of God. But I don’t think that’s ever been mainstream Christian theology. With the exception of Revelation, I’m not aware of any book in the Bible which claims be a revealed text, in the manner of the Quran.
@Rival will know better than me, whether that’s the case.

I do believe personally, that divine inspiration may have on occasion guided the hand that held the pen, but I think that’s equally true of much poetry and art, from Rumi to Blake to Emily Dickinson. Divinely inspired or not, God to my knowledge never put pen to paper; human beings do that, and even the most enlightened are limited and fallible.

Well said!

 

[F1fan]

I don't know for the strong idea of justified true belief and neither do you. That idea have been tested for close to 2500 years now and it doesn't work.
Just as some people don't doubt God, you don't doubt what truth is and in that sense you are a Believer, where as I am a believer.

There is no rational reason to NOT doubt the many versions of gods through human history, most all being invented well before the age of reason. That anyone believes in any of the many gods do so for non-rational reasons.

The standards for belief of critical thinkers is vastly more reliable and accurate than theists. When you suggest I am a believer too as if I believe in weak ideas like those in religion is deceptive. Any idea I believe is true has endured critical thought that has followed significant evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no rational reason to NOT doubt the many versions of gods through human history, most all being invented well before the age of reason. That anyone believes in any of the many gods do so for non-rational reasons.

The standards for belief of critical thinkers is vastly more reliable and accurate than theists. When you suggest I am a believer too as if I believe in weak ideas like those in religion is deceptive. Any idea I believe is true has endured critical thought that has followed significant evidence.

Okay, here is a text. It will show you that truth is about God and teach you the correct version of truth. Then you read the next text and it will teach you how reason and doubt leads to God.

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

And when you are done, you will understand there is only one truth, reason and God.

 

[Zwing]

may emerge from electro-chemical activity in the brain. But we don’t know that…

We know it well enough, for where there are no brains, there are no minds.