But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. — Michael Ossipoff
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption — Michael Ossipoff
My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.
Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in. — Jake
So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. — Jake
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. — Rank Amateur
"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself. — Michael Ossipoff
Exactly. When we are wrong, we admit it. Has any religion ever admitted that they were wrong, or have people simply come to reject that for which there is no evidence (like the Norse and Greek gods)?The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth. — Rank Amateur
I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical. — Rank Amateur
Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. — Pattern-chaser
it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. — Pattern-chaser
you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts — Pattern-chaser
It (religion) is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. — Pattern-chaser
I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again. — Harry Hindu
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf
But it isn't reasonable to believe that. It isn't reasonable to believe that because believing that requires you to believe in another being that created the other in order to be consistent. It also adds a lot more complexity that isn't necessary to explain existence of the universe. Where does this being exist in relation to us?We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. — Rank Amateur
You seem to be conflating religious faith with inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, I can't really engage in a reasonable conversation with you.But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith. — Rank Amateur
What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
— Pattern-chaser
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — Pattern-chaser
"The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption" — Michael Ossipoff
I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? — Pattern-chaser
What is this miracle of philosophy?
If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.
I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.
— praxis
Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. — Pattern-chaser
As Jake says (above) it [religion] "helps us manage our relationship with reality." — Pattern-chaser
Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. — Pattern-chaser
."What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
.
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You have yet to speak for yourself.
.These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth
.How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists?
.,If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.
.The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.
.I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.
.The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.
.When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting. — Michael Ossipoff
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. — Pattern-chaser
.”It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist.
.According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps
., not me, in order to reject their existence.
No, I'm only talking about Humpalumps. Do you believe in their existence? You should. They created the universe. Humpalumps are also indesribable and undefinable.I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God. — Michael Ossipoff
You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff
You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff
Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because you did a similar thing with me, and it was a straw man.
How about this? To best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence are indeed evidence.
Now it's on you to either present an exception or accept the situation as it is. — S
I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith. — Michael Ossipoff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.