You Can't Argue Against God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

wisdom is knowing what goals to set, and why.

That's more or less how I defined the word. And it seems like you've accepted that wisdom is knowledge. Remember your words: "seek wisdom over knowledge."

The scientism cultists think everything is about functionality

No, not at all. I've explained to you what the value of understanding how the world works is. That's merely a means to an end. My goal in life was to be happy, which more or less means to be safe, be liked and respected, be comfortable, and to avoid various privations (hunger, poverty, etc.) and other dysphorias (anxiety, fear, loneliness, boredom, etc.). How does one get from recognizing that to one's goal? One must learn what things that one can do facilitate that vision. The value of understanding how the world functions is in manipulating aspects of it to achieve short-term desired outcomes, but one must also learn how he reacts to various situations to decide what long-term goals should be such as those I outlined above.

You are both foolishly defining existence as a physical phenomenon.

And you are foolish to think otherwise. All of reality is physical as far as we know, including mind.

you just keep making the same mistake over and over and over.

So you keep claiming, but you never explain why you call it a mistake or what benefit you claim derives from "seeing further."

I've given you my hypothesis for why you and others do this. Many people need more magic or power in their lives, or to think that they have left others behind with great insights, and so they invent stories to support that illusion. They tell us about the spiritual truths they've uncovered but never what those truths are or how they benefit him. Or they have spells or rituals.

This is why you refer to scientism and make comments like, "foolishly defining existence as a physical phenomenon." It gives you a sense of having greater knowledge and ability than you actually have. But where's the beef?

 

[PureX]

That's more or less how I defined the word.

No it really was not how you defined it at all.

And it seems like you've accepted that wisdom is knowledge. Remember your words: "seek wisdom over knowledge."

You just completely contradicted yourself.

My goal in life was to be happy,

Why?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No it really was not how you defined it at all.

Of course, you make no effort at all to support that comment (see the next section for an illustration of what that looks like). You didn't even try to do that.

Unsupported claim rejected.

You just completely contradicted yourself.

No, I contradicted you. You thought that wisdom was an alternative to knowledge. I said that it was knowledge.

Why?

Why is my goal to be happy? How does one answer such a question? Thats pretty much the way healthy minds work. It's also my dog's goal - the pursuit of happiness as she understands it. She is drawn to things she likes and avoids those that make her unhappy. She sees food and approaches. She sees the brush and hides. She chooses comfortable places to sleep.

You do the same (mutatis mutandis). We all do if we're mentally healthy. What appears to make you happy includes this strange behavior of calling others idiots and trying to imply that you're smarter despite having absolutely nothing to show for whatever kind of untethered thinking you're doing and recommending that others do as well. That must serve some need of yours.

Of course, it probably doesn't make you happy to do that, but that's where the wisdom part comes in - knowing what produces equanimity (ataraxia). You may be driven to certain behaviors in search of something, but your methods may be counterproductive and produce the opposite.

 

[Sargonski]

I defined what a god is when I use the word. I guess you didn't read it:

"Incidentally, my working definition of a god in the Abrahamic (monotheistic) sense is a sentient universe creator. For polytheistic pantheons, a god is an aspect of nature personified. I don't have any reason to believe that anything like the former exists, and no reason to disagree with the polytheists. If they want to give the wind a name, for example, I don't see anything to argue with there. It's poetry, like the phrases Mother Nature, Father Time, or the man in the moon." source

A god in the first sense? It would have to be conscious and to create a universe.

Impress or convince me that it was a god as I've defined it?

I've given you a definitive test for a god - create a universe. There may be others. I would be very impressed if it could make me immaterial, omniscient, and omnipotent. Of course, even these tests don't demonstrate supernaturalism, as sufficiently advanced extraterrestrials which came to be through natural mechanism (abiogenesis and evolution) might also be able to perform such feats. But I'd be impressed anyway.

Have you ever considered what the default position would become if evolutionary theory were ever falsified? I think it would have to be that some or all of the earth was intelligently designed and deceptively arranged to appear that evolution had occurred naturalistically, wouldn't it? What else could we conclude given all of the data we have today plus that falsifying find?

But we still wouldn't invoke supernaturalism or gods as I've defined them. Naturalistic hypotheses that can account for observations are always more parsimonious and thus preferred.

Good grief no wonder it took you so long to define your term God - but kudo's for finally doing so .. have now we something to work with.. but !, you failed to do so in context of the converstion ?! as persented .. although got really close in ways .

Entity walks into a bar ... claims to be HeyZeus .. .. Great ! vunderbar !! .. Pleased to meat you .. I hope you guessed my name .. "The Tester of Souls" at your service ..

Prove it you exclaim .. crying "I Do Not have Faith in no Jah Rasta mon com tolking like he got the divine Homoousios spark ... you say you got the Godly Powers .. what some have termed as "Magic" .. show me da money honey .. Right !? .. Right !

What our friend HeyZeus got to do to prove it to you .. that he be the one who really is a Son of God .. and what level .. are we Talking Achilles powers .. more human that God "demi-gods" offspring of God and mortal or do we need to see some "Son of God" .. as in the offspring of God and God .. style powers...

Did you miss when I posted the Shania video "That don't impress me Much" ... well .. OK then what it take to impress you Bro .. and then ... I will tell you how you gonna evolve into that be the divine grand plan Stan !

 

[F1fan]

But we don't need more control. We are about to control ourselves to extinction.

That's ironic. Control implies some wisdom and discipline to avoid dumb acts.

What we need is more wisdom. And science does nothing for us in that regard. Nothing. Yet you continue to disparage the areas of human endeavor that does pursue wisdom, while you way over-exaggerate the positive influence of science. Do you WANT mankind to destroy itself?

Yes thousands of years of religion hasn't prepared modern people very well. Religion has caused many millions to believe in false beliefs. Not very wise.

What is science doing to help those on the "dingbat fringe" of society besides giving them ever more powerful weapons to run amok with?

That would be religion's failure. Science just describes how reality works. If people misuse what science reveals then there has been a failure of the long traditions to mature the minds of developing nations.

Science explores how the human mind works and has many models and explanations why minds are flawed, and offers ways to improve function. Of course the unwise will have contempt for science.

Meanwhile the scientism crowd tries to disparage every course of inquiry that is intended to seek wisdom over knowledge because it has not achieved that goal to their satisfaction? And these idiots consider themselves "critical thinkers"? Not hardly!

See what I mean?

 

[Tiberius]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Do you tell the same thing to creationists who claim evolution is wrong?

 

[Madsaac]

Do you want the reason that it is unknown for better/best?

Yes please

 

[Madsaac]

If you are determined to limit your understanding of the world to things that 'are what they are', your perceptions will be superficial. Nothing in this world is quite what it appears to be. Indeed, science tells us this.

I have never suggested we should limit our understanding of the world to the confines of scientific thought. I believe science can only go so far.

I only suggest there are aspects of our world, like the H2O example, that cannot be disputed through an individuals subjective interpretations, they are an objective truth and science is the best way to explain the concept of H2O. But some people still think this to be false?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes please

Well, I am fond of trees and leaves so here is a calim about a tree. The leaves on the tree are green. For green you can observe as per empirical if something is green, thus it can be known.
Science is the best wat to know... We can stop and we don't need to continue the..., because we simply ask if we can observe best? And the answer is no. It is so for all variants of good and bad. None of those can be know with science as per your standard of knowledge. And your standard of knowledge is empirical, but good or bad are not that.

 

[Madsaac]

That is simply not true. There are a great many questions we humans have that science cannot even address, let alone answer with any degree of certainty. Not the least of which are all those questions we humans have about the complex proposition labelled "God". And all those questions we humans have related to the concept of fate, and destiny, and the meaning and purpose of it all.

Yes, I understand but everyone is different. And I think plenty of those answers can be answered by our science. And to me, the "God" proposition is not complex, because there isn't one, I think it's a figment of ones imagination. That doesn't mean I don't reflect on my own emotions, relationships and so on

Science is limited to questions regarding physical functionality. This can be very useful, but to ignore the great human need for ethics, values, and purpose in life, all that functionality just becomes a box of loaded pistols thrown into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. So it's time we stop praising science as the only and most accurate and important source of human knowledge when it DOES NOTHING to increase our collective wisdom. And knowledge without wisdom is a recipe for self-annihilation.

I don't think science is the only source of human knowledge, the understanding of our values, and purpose in life, all that functions can come from various avenues.

However, there have been countless beneficial social studies carried out to help us understand our relationships, our emotions, issues regarding ageing, meaning of life and so on. So please don't disregard the importance of methodological approaches to help us become better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I understand but everyone is different. And I think plenty of those answers can be answered by our science. And to me, the "God" proposition is not complex, because there isn't one, I think it's a figment of ones imagination. That doesn't mean I don't reflect on my own emotions, relationships and so on


I don't think science is the only source of human knowledge, the understanding of our values, and purpose in life, all that functions can come from various avenues.

However, there have been countless beneficial social studies carried out to help us understand our relationships, our emotions, issues regarding ageing, meaning of life and so on. So please don't disregard the importance of methodological approaches to help us become better.

That is not science and the core problem in the end for your text about in effect coping as a human.
It doesn't follow down to a single individual that the non-religious way is the best way to cope for all humans.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, I am fond of trees and leaves so here is a calim about a tree. The leaves on the tree are green. For green you can observe as per empirical if something is green, thus it can be known.
Science is the best wat to know... We can stop and we don't need to continue the..., because we simply ask if we can observe best? And the answer is no. It is so for all variants of good and bad. None of those can be know with science as per your standard of knowledge. And your standard of knowledge is empirical, but good or bad are not that.

Yes this is good, but some things are known to real or true without any opinion being paced upon it, the scientific method, objective truth.

And I think this is important because we need certain things to be without opinion because it may hinder our progress and understanding of the world.

However, I acknowledge some things require opinions and reflection, in large it is what makes us human.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes this is good, but some things are known to real or true without any opinion being paced upon it, the scientific method, objective truth.

And I think this is important because we need certain things to be without opinion because it may hinder our progress and understanding of the world.

However, I acknowledge some things require opinions and reflection, in large it is what makes us human.

And that is not science and as long as you don't understand that what is important is not within the methodology of science, you will countine to write as if it is self-evidence that what you think, is the way to do it for all humans.

 

[Madsaac]

And that is not science and as long as you don't understand that what is important is not within the methodology of science, you will countine to write as if it is self-evidence that what you think, is the way to do it for all humans.

What you have highlighted is simply a way to start a sentence about my idea. It has nothing to do with anything really.

I could write the sentence in the following way. "We need certain things to be without opinion because it may hinder our progress and understanding of the world" but that's not encouraged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you have highlighted is simply a way to start a sentence about my idea. It really has nothing to do with anything really.

I could write the sentence in the following way. "We need certain things to be without opinion because it may hinder our progress and understanding of the world" but that's not encouraged.

That we need is in effect an opinion or at least what subjectively makes sense to you and it is not a given that there is an universal we.

 

[Madsaac]

That we need is in effect an opinion or at least what subjectively makes sense to you and it is not a given that there is an universal we.

Yes my friend, but what really matters is the meaning of my point. Of course its subjective

We need certain parts of humanity to be without personal opinions because it works better, you know science

 

[blü 2]

No it really was not how you defined it at all.

I think @F1fan makes an excellent point (among others) in saying ─

"Yes thousands of years of religion hasn't prepared modern people very well. Religion has caused many millions to believe in false beliefs."​

What responsibility do you think religion has in this area?

Do you think public and political morality is primarily the responsibility of science, or of religion, or of culture, or of something else?

 

[Madsaac]

Just curious.

Are the countless beneficial studies done on human emotions, social cohesion, how to improve critical thinking, public morality, humans belief in the supernatural and so on, considered science?

Can you call these studies 'Science'?

If so, science goes a very long way to improving humanity, in all aspects.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Luj

Just curious.

Are the countless beneficial studies done on human emotions, social cohesion, how to improve critical thinking, public morality, humans belief in the supernatural and so on, considered science?

Can you call these studies 'Science'?

If so, science goes a very long way to improving humanity, in all aspects.

Can you identify some of these studies please?

In general, I am of the opinion that so called social sciences are qualitively different from the natural sciences, have different standards of evoidence, and operate from theories which are generally unfalsifiable (which is not, btw., to say they aren't valid).

If someone can produce an equation which predicts human behaviour as accurately as Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts the behaviour of massive objects, I will change my opinion on this.

 

[PureX]

I think @F1fan makes an excellent point (among others) in saying ─

"Yes thousands of years of religion hasn't prepared modern people very well. Religion has caused many millions to believe in false beliefs."​

What responsibility do you think religion has in this area?

Do you think public and political morality is primarily the responsibility of science, or of religion, or of culture, or of something else?

Believing in science is also a 'false belief'.

Believing is choosing to presume to know things that we don't actually know. And this is a problem for humanity both past and present. And it causes us problems in comerce, politics, religion and science, alike. For some reason we humans don't want to accept our conceptions of reality and truth provisionally. We want it to be certain. So we 'believe' it's certain even though we cannot possibly know this to be so. And then when it turns out to be wrong, we 'double down' on our phony certainty. We become 'at war with' reality.

This is not a religious issue. It's a human issue, and the scientism crowd is just as guilty of it as any religious zealot is. And is just as blinded by it, too.