You Can't Argue Against God

[F1fan]

No it is not sabotage, I see it as the more plausible explanation of creation.

What you describe isn’t fact based. Another liability of religious assumptions.

After all we are only and assemblance of atoms, with a power that gives life, firing the electrical impulses in the brain.

And we are independent, conscious beings with autonomy. But many humans have been highly influenced by society in ways that limit their freedom of thought.

Take that power away, we dissipate back into atoms.

There’s no power as you claim.

Yet the mind is not lost. That is a reasonable and logical statement based on our ability to dream, NDE experiences and plausible psychic events.

Cognitive psychology explains the electrochemical process of brains. And NDE claims are baseless. I understand the desperation to find something special and supernatural about being human, but the evidence isn’t there.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And we are independent, conscious beings with autonomy. But many humans have been highly influenced by society in ways that limit their freedom of thought.

How do cultures maintain their autonomy historically?

 

[F1fan]

How do cultures maintain their autonomy historically?

Destroying others.

But I can’t think of any cultures that are autonomous. And not sure why you ask.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Destroying others.

But I can’t think of any cultures that are autonomous. And not sure why you ask.

This explains a lot.

 

[firedragon]

I don't see where your original statement makes any sense unless you think someone's epistemology can't change.

Oh you could change your epistemology of course. No one said that you cannot. So what are you getting at?

 

[Balthazzar]

Anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hitchen's razer seems appropriate enough, although I can't reject the existence of God. I was thinking earlier about Jesus and the claims that only by him can we be saved. Jesus is my teacher, among others, and that's yet to be evidenced. However, I still hold him as my teacher and worthy of my studious nature. Salvation, whatever it means will need to be evidenced later, but ... I am getting older sometimes I feel it's only by grace that I'm still alive. A few too many close calls for my comfort. One day, I'm sure that grace will fall short, although I'm unsure when or how. Next life salvation? I dunno, but I'm, storing up the better part of me anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh you could change your epistemology of course. No one said that you cannot. So what are you getting at?

Trying to understand what you are getting at.
However if you have no interest in explaining your statement, that's fine. I'll leave you alone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hitchen's razer seems appropriate enough, although I can't reject the existence of God. I was thinking earlier about Jesus and the claims that only by him can we be saved. Jesus is my teacher, among others, and that's yet to be evidenced. However, I still hold him as my teacher and worthy of my studious nature. Salvation, whatever it means will need to be evidenced later, but ... I am getting older sometimes I feel it's only by grace that I'm still alive. A few too many close calls for my comfort. One day, I'm sure that grace will fall short, although I'm unsure when or how. Next life salvation? I dunno, but I'm, storing up the better part of me anyway.

That's why I maintain religions, theistic or otherwise, are personally tailored for you and no one else.

As Twain quoted....


"I begin to see that a man's got to be in his own heaven to be happy".

 

[Balthazzar]

That's why I maintain religions, theistic or otherwise, are personally tailored for you and no one else.

As Twain quoted....


"I begin to see that a man's got to be in his own heaven to be happy".

I shudder at the thought of being in someone else's who's ways are far different than my own. The funny thing is, it's very likely all the same. Maybe one day we'll learn to accept our differences. Most people like me honor a do what you will and harm none, mentality. I can't say I'm opposed.

 

[firedragon]

However if you have no interest in explaining your statement

Which statement? About epistemology? Cmon brother. You are better than this. Don't be so pedantic.

Scientism is an epistemology. Physicallism is an epistemology. Empiricism is an epistemology. If you are an empiricist you need empirical evidence for a proposition. If the proposition is metaphysical, then it's a category error to expect empirical evidence to a metaphysical being. It's nonsensical. That's what I meant.

I hope you know what a category error is.

Cheers.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

A person's acquisition of knowledge via their method of determining what is true from what is false.



I don't see where your original statement makes any sense unless you think someone's epistemology can't change.

It strikes me as odd to imagine epistemology as fixed, when I read anthropologists talking about things like “transvaluation” and “creative epistemology”.

How can something as creative as epistemology be fixed and unchanging?

If nothing changes and nothing evolves, in what sense is it creative?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

That's why I maintain religions, theistic or otherwise, are personally tailored for you and no one else.

As Twain quoted....


"I begin to see that a man's got to be in his own heaven to be happy".

My heaven is a library big enough to hold all of my books.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Which statement? About epistemology? Cmon brother. You are better than this. Don't be so pedantic.

Scientism is an epistemology. Physicallism is an epistemology. Empiricism is an epistemology. If you are an empiricist you need empirical evidence for a proposition. If the proposition is metaphysical, then it's a category error to expect empirical evidence to a metaphysical being. It's nonsensical. That's what I meant.

I hope you know what a category error is.

Cheers.

You just defined anthropology as a category error,

But most anthropologists don’t know a thing about Category Theory, unless they are studying mathematical cultures.

And they don’t care if I think they should know, for the most part.

On the other hand, my favorite historian almost did his graduate study in pure mathematics, and I’m glad he didn’t, because I like his historical research.

 

[firedragon]

You just defined anthropology as a category error,

I didnt even bring up anthropology. This is a strawman.

And you are bringing an irrelevant point. Maybe you did not understand.

Tell me nevertheless, how would an anthropologist engage with the metaphysical being? Give me a quick explanation please. How would Anthropology prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical being?

Thanks.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I didnt even bring up anthropology. This is a strawman.

And you are bringing an irrelevant point. Maybe you did not understand.

Tell me nevertheless, how would an anthropologist engage with the metaphysical being? Give me a quick explanation please. How would Anthropology prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical being?

Thanks.

We’re talking about epistemology, right?

Things like transvaluation?

Things like creative epistemology?

Anthropology studies epistemology.

 

[Madsaac]

Ok, I'll make a claim.
God is all knowing.
So what is your argument against that claim?
Other than outright rejection of it.

Yes maybe you are right, that you can't argue against god because the notion of god is purely subjective.

So, I couldn't argue against the claim of 'God is all knowing' because he is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, geese!

 

[firedragon]

We’re talking about epistemology, right?

Things like transvaluation?

Things like creative epistemology?

Anthropology studies epistemology.

It was not about all kinds of epistemology, making a list of them. I have given specific examples.

Anyway, I don't wish to engage with you any more due to these strawman attempts. See you in another thread. Not this. Cheers.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, yes, But so is the claim that the universe is natural as far as I can tell. What I am trying to say, we end in different beliefs about what objective reality is and that is not limited to religion.
So the overall question is what can be known about objective reality as such?

Yes, so everyone has there own subjective take on what objective reality is.

However, some things are what they are, regardless of what any individual believes or feels about them. And god is not one of them.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

It was not about all kinds of epistemology, making a list of them. I have given specific examples.

Well, you missed one, then.

Does creative epistemology change?

Or does it just remain the same?