look, dudes, you aint gonna figure it out..
just enjoy the ride
just enjoy the ride
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you determine existence?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Quote from Thunderdog:
I'm guessing that, apart from being uses as a political device and a proxy for an internal moral compass for an amoral crowd, the thing that religion tries to "cover over" is man's mortality. It seems that a lot of people are sufficiently egomaniacal to believe in eternal life. They simply refuse to share the fate of road kill or their dinner. And so, there is ceremony, pomp and circumstance to "cover over" man's limited life. The downside is that, while it gives people the foolish hope of a "beyond," it also causes them to not fully appreciate the only lives they are ever going to have, as they are having them.
Probably applicable re most believers but not necessarily for all. Some folks reason their way into believing in God, etc. just as some reason their way into believing in the validity of political or economic concepts. The notion that belief is always based solely on needs-driven faith doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
Quote from Hansel H:
Probably applicable re most believers but not necessarily for all. Some folks reason their way into believing in God, etc. just as some reason their way into believing in the validity of political or economic concepts. The notion that belief is always based solely on needs-driven faith doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
Hugh Ross become a Christian over it. I believe Paul Davies is in the agnostic/deist bandwidth and he created a recent controversy over this issue. It's not as obvious as some people like to make it out...
The notion of belief in the absence of empirical validation does not stand up to such scrutiny either. And I refer to specific empirical validation rather than the product of dots strained out of proportion in a misguided effort to connect them ("the sky is blue, so there must be a God").Quote from Hansel H:
...The notion that belief is always based solely on needs-driven faith doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Came across a theistic evolution blog and he had a nice summary of his debate with atheists or rather a list of q's that really got to the heart of their arguments.
The bolded questions below are really the key q's to the debate if you ask me. Do you think there will ever be an answer to these questions? Or will it always be faith versus fact? Is it truly objective versus subjective?
http://theisticev.informe.com/blog/2007/11/
How do atheists come to the conclusion that God doesnât exist based solely on the fact that they have not themselves objectively seen Him? Why do they believe that God is simply a made-up notion in light of their lack of reasons to believe?
In order for the above questions to be answered, this question, which is central to this thread, must be answered: how do we determine if something exists or not? <--the hot question.
Still, in order for the hot question to be answered, we must also consider what is reality, and whether there is a difference between subjective and objective reality, or if subjective and objective realities are the same. Indeed, some may contend that objective reality is that which you and I can observe; however, as the aforementioned poster pointed out, this leaves a problem for such things as emotions. This would suggest that emotions (and internal thoughts) are, essentially, not a part of objective reality. I envision some of you saying now âwell, I can observe your emotionsâ. This, however, is a weak answer, and still doesnât place emotions in objective reality as defined above, as display of emotions may be false; what we see is not necessarily the true emotions, but rather a display of emotions that is impossible to distinguish from true feelings. One might contend that one âknowsâ the person; however, truth to be told, one really canât fully know someone insofar as one cannot tell their thoughts. So the question of what is reality, in a way, may be viewed as the fire that heats the hot question.
......
So the question still stands: what is reality?
And in answering that question, we curse ourselves with the hot question: how do we determine if something exists or not?
And ultimately this leads into the question of Godâs existence, and whether it is indeed best to assume the strictly negative position.
The Archemedian objective POV is unachievable by any mind. All observations are subjective. The best we can hope for is a strong correspondence between the world and our experience of the world; that this correspondence is achievable is evidenced in the success of science and technology and some other disciplines. The further we get away from numbers-definable observations the less confidence we can have in the correspondence between the world and our mind-maps of the world.
One thing you can know exists is your own conscious experience; this includes illusory experience because in the case of illusion the illusion is your experience.
Quote from Thunderdog:
I'm guessing that, apart from being uses as a political device and a proxy for an internal moral compass for an amoral crowd, the thing that religion tries to "cover over" is man's mortality. It seems that a lot of people are sufficiently egomaniacal to believe in eternal life. They simply refuse to share the fate of road kill or their dinner. And so, there is ceremony, pomp and circumstance to "cover over" man's limited life. The downside is that, while it gives people the foolish hope of a "beyond," it also causes them to not fully appreciate the only lives they are ever going to have, as they are having them.
It's difficult to know where to even begin.
You call it egomaniacal to believe in God's word? I suppose that determining your own rules for life is considered 'humble'.
Not fully appreciating the life we have here on earth? Yeah, those commandments prohibiting murder, adultery, etc, really screw up the party, don't they?
Control people politically? I suppose that is why the federal register, (codifying legislation), goes up dramatically more when the left is in power. I guess you just don't see the left wanting to control people, even though a child could see that a leftist gov't seeks to control far more of a person's life than a conservative gov't. It's just that those much lesser things that conservatives want to control comprise such a large part of the liberal life. Like abortion controls screwing up the liberal desire to have uninhibited sex with anything walking.
Quote from Thunderdog:
The notion of belief in the absence of empirical validation does not stand up to such scrutiny either. And I refer to specific empirical validation rather than the product of dots strained out of proportion in a misguided effort to connect them ("the sky is blue, so there must be a God").
Are you suggesting that the only route to truth is empirical validation? If so, which use of "empirical" are you using - empirical in the scientific sense ( test of theoretical prediction - observation ) or the philosophical sense ( based simply on observation )?
Anything other than wishful thinking.Quote from Hansel H:
Are you suggesting that the only route to truth is empirical validation? If so, which use of "empirical" are you using - empirical in the scientific sense ( test of theoretical prediction - observation ) or the philosophical sense ( based simply on observation )?
We are so far apart, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with your reference to "God's word." On whose say-so? Did you hear it? If not, and until then, it's just another case of he said He said.Quote from fhl:
It's difficult to know where to even begin.
You call it egomaniacal to believe in God's word? I suppose that determining your own rules for life is considered 'humble'.
Not fully appreciating the life we have here on earth? Yeah, those commandments prohibiting murder, adultery, etc, really screw up the party, don't they?
Control people politically? I suppose that is why the federal register, (codifying legislation), goes up dramatically more when the left is in power. I guess you just don't see the left wanting to control people, even though a child could see that a leftist gov't seeks to control far more of a person's life than a conservative gov't. It's just that those much lesser things that conservatives want to control comprise such a large part of the liberal life. Like abortion controls screwing up the liberal desire to have uninhibited sex with anything walking.
If you need someone to tell you how to live properly, then you have not yet grown up. If you need a book to be your moral compass, then you are a sociopath.
I know religious people who are spending far too much of their time in pious worship, filling their minds and lives with the notion of a hereafter that no one in history has ever been able to validate, waiting for something...better. Time that could be far better spent either enjoying their own lives or helping others.
If you don't also see the use of religion as a political device, then you are ignorant of history. Have a nice day.