|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 20, 2017 23:47:59 GMT
I am not talking about what is or is not the truth, we simply don't know the truth. At the end of the day the interpretation of the universe that I have (based mostly on judeo-Christian mystery thought) lends itself better to being started by an intelligence, I am not making any kind of truth claim, I am not arrogant enough to assume I know, I know that I do not know. All I am saying is that when I interpret the universe it makes more sense to me to interpret it as based off intelligence. To be clear there is no currently known truth value to this question, at the end of the day everyone is either ignoring the question or making up a truth value (assuming the claim to have a truth), I am very careful to not claim any truth as I am aware that as humans we simply do not know it yet. If you realize we don't know then just say you don't know and stop saying it lends itself better to an intelligence. No, It doesn't. You don't know, as you've said yourself. You're just pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 20, 2017 23:55:57 GMT
I am not talking about what is or is not the truth, we simply don't know the truth. At the end of the day the interpretation of the universe that I have (based mostly on judeo-Christian mystery thought) lends itself better to being started by an intelligence, I am not making any kind of truth claim, I am not arrogant enough to assume I know, I know that I do not know. All I am saying is that when I interpret the universe it makes more sense to me to interpret it as based off intelligence. To be clear there is no currently known truth value to this question, at the end of the day everyone is either ignoring the question or making up a truth value (assuming the claim to have a truth), I am very careful to not claim any truth as I am aware that as humans we simply do not know it yet. If you realize we don't know then just say you don't know and stop saying it lends itself better to an intelligence. No, It doesn't. You don't know, as you've said yourself. I am not sure you are justified in the beginnings of hostility, I have not once said I know the truth nor have I said that everyone should think like me, I have toldyou how I feel and what I believe and I am correct, MY interpretation of the universe lends itself to an intelligence behind it, you are welcome to your own interpretation, but please don't tell me not to voice my opinion in a thread where you asked for that very opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 20, 2017 23:59:35 GMT
If you realize we don't know then just say you don't know and stop saying it lends itself better to an intelligence. No, It doesn't. You don't know, as you've said yourself. I am not sure you are justified in the beginnings of hostility, I have not once said I know the truth nor have I said that everyone should think like me, I have toldyou how I feel and what I believe and I am correct, MY interpretation of the universe lends itself to an intelligence behind it, you are welcome to your own interpretation, but please don't tell me not to voice my opinion in a thread where you asked for that very opinion. It's just that all you're doing is pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Saying it makes more sense doesn't make it so, and saying it's more comfortable doesn't make it valid. You're justifying being delusional about reality. Your interpretation has no merit. Opinion shouldn't have anything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 21, 2017 0:03:20 GMT
Again, there is no proof to be had of any empirical claim. So how can we talk about burden of proof when it comes to empirical claims? That's a big red herring, because it's asking for something that can't really be had. Would you ask someone for proof of God if they made the claim that he existed? No, of course not. That should be obvious from my comments about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 21, 2017 0:08:54 GMT
I am not sure you are justified in the beginnings of hostility, I have not once said I know the truth nor have I said that everyone should think like me, I have toldyou how I feel and what I believe and I am correct, MY interpretation of the universe lends itself to an intelligence behind it, you are welcome to your own interpretation, but please don't tell me not to voice my opinion in a thread where you asked for that very opinion. It's just that all you're doing is pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Saying it makes more sense doesn't make it so, and saying it's more comfortable doesn't make it valid. You're justifying being delusional about reality. Your interpretation has no merit. Opinion shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Making or not making (more) sense to someone can be relatively ineffable beyond that. And it's necessarily going to be subjective. Although of course we can make educated guesses or even just speculate why someone's mind may be working as it is, so that one thing versus another makes (more) sense to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 21, 2017 0:12:37 GMT
I am not talking about what is or is not the truth, we simply don't know the truth. This is likely a comment about what I'd characterize as "knowing what's objectively the case." I think that we can know what's objectively the case for some things, and I believe this includes knowing what's objectively the case re gods . . . which is that there are none. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 0:13:17 GMT
It's just that all you're doing is pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Saying it makes more sense doesn't make it so, and saying it's more comfortable doesn't make it valid. You're justifying being delusional about reality. Your interpretation has no merit. Opinion shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Making or not making (more) sense to someone can be relatively ineffable beyond that. And it's necessarily going to be subjective. Although of course we can make educated guesses or even just speculate why someone's mind may be working as it is, so that one thing versus another makes (more) sense to them. If it's subjective, then don't form a belief on the matter. Wait until there is a demonstration of truth. The main thing wrong about religious beliefs is the desire to pretend they represent answers, when they don't reflect reality whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 21, 2017 0:22:44 GMT
Making or not making (more) sense to someone can be relatively ineffable beyond that. And it's necessarily going to be subjective. Although of course we can make educated guesses or even just speculate why someone's mind may be working as it is, so that one thing versus another makes (more) sense to them. If it's subjective, then don't form a belief on the matter. Wait until there is a demonstration of truth. The main thing wrong about religious beliefs is the desire to pretend they represent answers, when they don't reflect reality whatsoever. "Subjective" basically refers to location. Namely, saying that x is subjective is saying that x is a mental phenomenon, or in other words, it's occurring in a brain functioning in ways that amount to mentality. So whether something makes sense or not is subjective, because making sense to someone is a matter of whether they're in particular mental states in relation to it. Beliefs are also subjective--beliefs are mental phenomena. In my view, truth is subjective as well, though that hinges on a technical issue re how truth is viewed in analytic philosophy (namely, it hinges on the fact that truth is seen as being a property of propositions, and then it's an upshot of my analysis of what propositions are ontologically, what properties of propositions are ontologically, etc.) What a lot of people are referring to in their truth talk is something like, "What's the case in the world objectively (mind-independently)." But we call that a fact in analytic philosophy, and there's a standard, technical reason that there is a significant distinction made between facts and truth(s). |
|
|
|
Post by primeone on Aug 21, 2017 0:27:19 GMT
In the past, I would think that people considered it an intuitive idea, which was heavily reinforced by society. Nowadays, I think that most people remain 'convinced' out of fear. I believed they used the idea of the Sun and Stars or something like that in the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 0:35:44 GMT
If it's subjective, then don't form a belief on the matter. Wait until there is a demonstration of truth. The main thing wrong about religious beliefs is the desire to pretend they represent answers, when they don't reflect reality whatsoever. "Subjective" basically refers to location. Namely, saying that x is subjective is saying that x is a mental phenomenon, or in other words, it's occurring in a brain functioning in ways that amount to mentality. So whether something makes sense or not is subjective, because making sense to someone is a matter of whether they're in particular mental states in relation to it. Beliefs are also subjective--beliefs are mental phenomena. In my view, truth is subjective as well, though that hinges on a technical issue re how truth is viewed in analytic philosophy (namely, it hinges on the fact that truth is seen as being a property of propositions, and then it's an upshot of my analysis of what propositions are ontologically, what properties of propositions are ontologically, etc.) What a lot of people are referring to in their truth talk is something like, "What's the case in the world objectively (mind-independently)." But we call that a fact in analytic philosophy, and there's a standard, technical reason that there is a significant distinction made between facts and truth(s). That's why you should based beliefs on demonstrated, non-subjective, criteria.
That's why water is made of H2O is a valid statement, and god exists is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 1:14:55 GMT
I am not sure you are justified in the beginnings of hostility, I have not once said I know the truth nor have I said that everyone should think like me, I have toldyou how I feel and what I believe and I am correct, MY interpretation of the universe lends itself to an intelligence behind it, you are welcome to your own interpretation, but please don't tell me not to voice my opinion in a thread where you asked for that very opinion. It's just that all you're doing is pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Saying it makes more sense doesn't make it so, and saying it's more comfortable doesn't make it valid. You're justifying being delusional about reality. Your interpretation has no merit. Opinion shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Just because I have not walked you through my reasoning does not mean I have no reason, to be fair I have only alluded to it, but when I say this is a long conversation I mean exactly that. I did not come down in the last shower, my view on the nature of the universe is not uninformed. Opinion has everything to do with it, given that we do not (and possibly cannot) know what the truth is. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 1:17:08 GMT
Would you ask someone for proof of God if they made the claim that he existed? No, of course not. That should be obvious from my comments about this. Yes that seemed like the likely answer, I simply asked because a number of people will ask Christians to prove God exists and then in the same breath make the statement that there is no God and balk at providing proof of their stance. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 1:18:24 GMT
I am not talking about what is or is not the truth, we simply don't know the truth. This is likely a comment about what I'd characterize as "knowing what's objectively the case." I think that we can know what's objectively the case for some things, and I believe this includes knowing what's objectively the case re gods . . . which is that there are none. Which is why I asked the question about proof. How can you know the objective truth about God(s)? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 1:19:30 GMT
It's just that all you're doing is pretending it makes more sense when you have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Saying it makes more sense doesn't make it so, and saying it's more comfortable doesn't make it valid. You're justifying being delusional about reality. Your interpretation has no merit. Opinion shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Just because I have not walked you through my reasoning does not mean I have no reason, to be fair I have only alluded to it, but when I say this is a long conversation I mean exactly that. I did not come down in the last shower, my view on the nature of the universe is not uninformed. Opinion has everything to do with it, given that we do not (and possibly cannot) know what the truth is. Well all that really matters is if you can demonstrate it is real or not.
Just thinking about it isn't going to ever make it real. We didn't discover how light works just by thinking about it. We didn't discover black holes just by thinking about it. And we aren't going to know anything about the origin of the universe just by thinking about it.
Saying it makes more sense to think intelligence is involved means absolutely nothing until you demonstrate that an intelligence was involved.
If you can do that, then great, I'd sincerely love to hear about it.
Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it, as opinions about the origin of the universe have no merit and no educational value. We don't learn anything by perpetuating made up idea about thing we know nothing about.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 1:25:19 GMT
Just because I have not walked you through my reasoning does not mean I have no reason, to be fair I have only alluded to it, but when I say this is a long conversation I mean exactly that. I did not come down in the last shower, my view on the nature of the universe is not uninformed. Opinion has everything to do with it, given that we do not (and possibly cannot) know what the truth is. Well all that really matters is if you can demonstrate it is real or not.
Just thinking about it isn't going to ever make it real. We didn't discover how light works just by thinking about it. We didn't discover black holes just by thinking about it. And we aren't going to know anything about the origin of the universe just by thinking about it.
Saying it makes more sense to think intelligence is involved means absolutely nothing until you demonstrate that an intelligence was involved.
If you can do that, then great, I'd sincerely love to hear about it.
Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it, as opinions about the origin of the universe have no merit and no educational value. We don't learn anything by perpetuating made up idea about thing we know nothing about.
I am an agnostic theist, I do not believe we do know the truth about God(s), in fact a part of me thinks we never can. If we do not (or cannot) know the truth than all anyone has is an opinion. Of course I cannot demonstrate that an intelligence was involved, but then I am not saying I believe that there was. I am saying that the universe (in my opinion) is best INTERPRETED as if it was created by an intelligence, this actually makes no claim as to whether it was or not, simply that my interpretation of the universe works with that in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 1:48:01 GMT
I am an agnostic theist, I do not believe we do know the truth about God(s), in fact a part of me thinks we never can. If we do not (or cannot) know the truth than all anyone has is an opinion. Of course I cannot demonstrate that an intelligence was involved, but then I am not saying I believe that there was. I am saying that the universe (in my opinion) is best INTERPRETED as if it was created by an intelligence, this actually makes no claim as to whether it was or not, simply that my interpretation of the universe works with that in mind. Ok that's fair then, and clears up where I thought you were at.
What about it takes intelligence though? We know that gravity organizes galaxies and solar systems, we know that under intense gravity balls of gas form heavy elements through nuclear fusion that we call stars, we know gravity forms planets out of debris from stars, we know that RNA a molecule and building block of life can form naturally, and we know that the initial energy of the universe could have formed naturally through quantum fluctuation as well.
So what does an intelligence better explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 2:00:21 GMT
I am an agnostic theist, I do not believe we do know the truth about God(s), in fact a part of me thinks we never can. If we do not (or cannot) know the truth than all anyone has is an opinion. Of course I cannot demonstrate that an intelligence was involved, but then I am not saying I believe that there was. I am saying that the universe (in my opinion) is best INTERPRETED as if it was created by an intelligence, this actually makes no claim as to whether it was or not, simply that my interpretation of the universe works with that in mind. Ok that's fair then, and clears up where I thought you were at.
What about it takes intelligence though? We know that gravity organizes galaxies and solar systems, we know that under intense gravity balls of gas form heavy elements through nuclear fusion that we call stars, we know gravity forms planets out of debris from stars, we know that RNA a molecule and building block of life can form naturally, and we know that the initial energy of the universe could have formed naturally through quantum fluctuation as well.
So what does an intelligence better explain?
Again it's not a matter of explaining it better, I accept science and use it in all endeavours, there is nothing that I need to explain with a belief in an intelligent creator. I don't know how much you know about Jewish philosophy but they hold God as Unknowable, that is to say all we know of God is the effect that the entity has on the universe. At some point we (you and I) will both agree that we do not know how the universe was created (not implying creation by an entity just it beginning of existence, just the only word I can think of there), and we have to make a leap of decision, was it intentional by an intelligence or was it random by some natural force. For me it makes more sense given the other metaphysical theories I follow that I treat that force as intelligent. Honestly in terms of metaphysics it makes no day to day difference to me, and I imagine that I live my life in a very similar way to you, at the point that the question comes into play it really is just an intellectual exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 3:16:46 GMT
Again it's not a matter of explaining it better, I accept science and use it in all endeavours, there is nothing that I need to explain with a belief in an intelligent creator. I don't know how much you know about Jewish philosophy but they hold God as Unknowable, that is to say all we know of God is the effect that the entity has on the universe. At some point we (you and I) will both agree that we do not know how the universe was created (not implying creation by an entity just it beginning of existence, just the only word I can think of there), and we have to make a leap of decision, was it intentional by an intelligence or was it random by some natural force. For me it makes more sense given the other metaphysical theories I follow that I treat that force as intelligent. Honestly in terms of metaphysics it makes no day to day difference to me, and I imagine that I live my life in a very similar way to you, at the point that the question comes into play it really is just an intellectual exercise. I'm asking, in what way does it make more sense that intelligence was involved, when everything else we see has a perfectly natural cause? In what way do you look at existence and think that it makes more sense that intelligence was involved?
I'm trying to get a grasp on your perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 21, 2017 7:36:32 GMT
To be clear there is no currently known truth value to this question, at the end of the day everyone is either ignoring the question or making up a truth value (assuming the claim to have a truth), I am very careful to not claim any truth as I am aware that as humans we simply dojavascript:void(0); not know it yet. Or, as I like to say: Truth is relative. What is true for one person may not be true for another. Or what is true in one context may not be true in another context. At least to humans. It is possible that some Kantian absolute truth exists; but humans will never be able to grasp it; unless they become omniscient. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 21, 2017 7:57:08 GMT
Any belief is all a construct and product of the mind. It is not real. We can convince ourselves anything, but at the end of the day it is all mind games. The notion of God being a separate superior entity is only limiting anyway. This isn't true unless this is just a semantics statement. How is in not true? All beliefs are just thought and where does the thought\thinking exist? It is not real. All thoughts are vengeful in a sense, as they take us out of the moment.
|
|
