Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. — Pantagruel

And we care when it's wrong because it has real-life consequences. When speculation is wrong it's quickly forgotten because it's just one theory out of many, none of which are known to be true.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask @Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books. — praxis

I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma?

By your own admission, you have no expertise whatsoever in metaphysics. And by your own admission, you probably have below average intelligence. Given those apparent truths, why do you keep listening to yourself on metaphysical subjects? Do you think that's wise?

Speculation isn’t authoritative. For example, I speculate that the amount of ad homs coming from you have a direct correlation to your level of insecurity, but I’m no expert.

but I’m no expert. — praxis

Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means.

You know when someone says "I'm not a racist, but...." We all now know that we're about to hear something horribly racist, yes?

When someone says "I'm no expert, but..." we all know that the person believes with total confidence in the truth of whatever follows that 'but' and doesn't think anyone knows more about it than themselves.

That's you that is.

but I’m no expert.
— praxis

Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks

I don’t have the background or enough information to accurately determine the level of your insecurity. I speculated, as I said. Your amount of ad homs is remarkably high. There is some explanation for why you rely so heavily on logical fallacies. But I could care less. I’d rather you acknowledge that speculation isn’t authoritative or address the point in some way.

Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about?

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.
— praxis
I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma? — Pantagruel

It certainly could become dogmatic, and cease speculation.

Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about? — Bartricks

Expert or know-nothing. This doesn’t demonstrate good critical thinking.

Are you an expert critical thinker? I don't think you are, because you don't seem to know what follows from what. So, once more, your views on what does or does not demonstrate good criticial thinking are not views you should take very seriously.

You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. The only distinction you'd draw is between one you agree with and one you don't, yes?

You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. — Bartricks

I didn’t claim that you were a good or bad critical thinker. I said that something you wrote demonstrated poor critical thinking. Logical fallacies, for that matter, demonstrate poor critical thinking. But it could be that you realize your fallacies and are doing it intentionally for some reason. I can’t imagine a good reason but you may have one nevertheless.

Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks

Why? What would the point be? I mean...

You are here to tell us what it means, even when it comes from another's pen.

Sigh...

Experts are generally specialized... They are often called "experts" in a field, in some specific 'domain of discourse', I suppose you could say. Either way, generally... experts are specialized...

...you like that?

:wink:

So...

An expert in a field(at a minimum) is familiar with the current knowledge base in that field. They well may also be familiar with the history of that field. One's expertise can be said to run parallel to one's knowledge of that field. An expert in metaphysics would be one who knows about 'metaphysics' as a subject matter.

But...

If the field has been wrong for centuries...

So too is the expert, usually. It's not always the case though. For example, an expert in metaphysics can reject much of the convention agreement of his/her time. Nonetheless... experts can be wrong.

In philosophy, it seems quite readily evident to me - when it comes to my forte - than many are.

He's jerking your chain...

Bartricks has knowledge about the existence of God that he will not divulge since we are untrained in the intricacies of metaphysical analysis, and thus unworthy. But if we collectively plead with him, he might give us a glimpse of the Truth. :sad:

The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom. — praxis

This does not negate the fact that we can and do give our true self because we don't need to hide it.

Whether our true self is the emotional content that governs us in expressions of philosophy, is actually true or not, is not debatable; we give our true self whether we know what it is or not.

In fact, most people here on the board, if not all of us, think of ourselves as the smartest, wittiest person. For one. We also think we are each always right. Obviously neither of these two statements are true for all of us. But our true self dictates that we think so.

So our true self... is not what the truth IS about our own personality and persona and reactions, but what WE perceive of our own selves of our persona.

This is a difficult concept and I accept if you can't see it. The "true" self is as used by you, @praxis and by me, are not the same concepts. You equated "your true self" as "how you really are"; I equate "your true self" more in a literary sense (not literally, but figuratively) to "do what your impulses dictate you to do without holding back".

An expert in metaphysics would be one who knows about 'metaphysics' as a subject matter. — creativesoul

What a brilliant piece of analysis. Do say more.

Nonetheless... experts can be wrong. — creativesoul

Really? I never realized. Me learn lots. clap clap.

In philosophy, it seems quite readily evident to me - when it comes to my forte - than many are. — creativesoul

Hm, that's a bit of a thinker.

Bartricks has knowledge about the existence of God that he will not divulge since we are untrained in the intricacies of metaphysical analysis, and thus unworthy. But if we collectively plead with him, he might give us a glimpse of the Truth. — jgill

Partly right. It would be like showing a Rembrandt to a dog. But also it would be off topic.

Experiencing God is inherently a private phenomenon. One can have an experience of God that is impossible to prove or even convey to others. Another person might have such an experience and attribute it to hallucinations or wishful thinking. Almost all of us have had some kind of experience that we cannot explain without invoking God or explaining it away as neurons firing in the brain.

Why is it so much better to explain an experience as hallucinations or wishful thinking than to accept it as an experience of God? If you’re a physicalist, then you would call it a hallucination. If you believe that consciousness is an essential part of existence, then you are probably more open to God. Neither philosophy is provable. I happen to find one of the two more compelling personally.

Why is it so much better to explain an experience as hallucinations or wishful thinking than to accept it as an experience of God? If you’re a physicalist, then you would call it a hallucination. If you believe that consciousness is an essential part of existence, then you are probably more open to God — Noah Te Stroete

Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe?

As far as the ongoing pissing match, appeal to authority is generally a poor argument and can itself be a fallacy. Experts validate their credentials through the inherent strength of their actions or arguments, they don't rely on them for validation.

i was nodding off in front of the computer screen, and I had a dream.

A person wants to take the elevatore to the top floor of the building. But he is invisible. He can not exert force on the world, but he can hear, see, and smell the world. He can touch, but he can't exert force.

How is he going to go up to the top floor on the elevator, if he can't push the buttons?

His only chance is to ride up with someone who will push the button to the top floor.

He can't ask anyone to push it. He can't tell anyone anything, but he hears everyone talk, and he sees everyone.

A god-experience is a bit like that. It's fully experienced, fully realized, but it can't go outside the system of the experiencer. He will never be able to tell anyone "go to the top floor", even if god is waiting for them there. The inivisible man is jumping up and down in frustration, screaming at the top of his lungs, "push the friggin' button to the top floor" and nobody pays him any notice.

So replace god with ? — Pantagruel

1. A newt.
2. A two-headed snake.
3. Medusa.
4. Me. Me, me, me!!!!
5. Peter Goddard. (Not much adjustment in spelling is required.)
6. A piano.
7. Sticky glue.
8. Air.
9. Many people who believe in him.
10, Another god.

As far as the ongoing pissing match, appeal to authority is generally a poor argument and can itself be a fallacy. Experts validate their credentials through the inherent strength of their actions or arguments, they don't rely on them for validation. — Pantagruel

No argument from me.

Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe? — Pantagruel

Of course. Many people have had bad experiences with religion, especially the Christian religion. I think that is mainly the fault of the preachers and evangelists. “God” shouldn’t invoke such resentment from so many people. I think it’s bad experiences with believers that make God so controversial. “God” is just a term when it comes down to it. Even believers in God know nothing of what He is like. If you want to call it the “cosmic unknown” to avoid controversy with your atheistic acquaintances, then have at it.

You omitted my option. Surely no one would deny the role of the unknown in stimulating discovery.

Well, if this is the case: that one can prove it in metaphysics, using those tools, then the proof has not effectively convinced, certainly the lay public, and even within metaphysics the proof (or proofs) are not consensus accepted as holding up. So we do not have the consensus, or even I think a majority, of the relevant experts supporting the proof(s). It seems like a lay person is in the position of considering it not resolved within metaphysics. And since there are experiential methods to pursue, I don't really see a reason to become an expert in metaphysics to make sure one has the defenses in relation to metaphysical arguments. First, many theists continue to believe due to experiences or faith or combinations, despite not being able to refute arguments. Second the theist basing the beliefs on something other than verbal expertise in metaphysical argument can refer the person trying to make them doubt their belief to the metaphysicians with proofs. Just as one might in a number of mundane situations, where someone tells us there is nothing wrong with our carburator or temporal lobe and then present us with an argument we cannot refute, not knowing enough about brains or cars to refute the argument. We can still respond - well, expert X said A and I even got a second opinion. You'd have to take it up with them. Or in some fields of knowledge we refer them to expert consensus or majority opinion.

We have to pick our spots in terms of gaining expertise and when to trust experts and, in the end, also have to develop our intuition - when to get a third opinion, when to distrust consensus or majority expert opinion, when it's time to become an expert or at least a more knowledgeable layperson in a field, when to trust the marginalized expert, when to doubt the mainstream opinion and more.

I agree that if we are trying to see who has the arguments about the existence of God, we should head to metaphysicians (who might or might not be experts in other fields).

I just don't think it's a good heuristic for developing one's own belief or developing a relationship with God or unlearning certain modes of experiencing/not noticing.

You omitted my option. Surely no one would deny the role of the unknown in stimulating discovery. — Pantagruel

I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged.

He's jerking your chain... — creativesoul

If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap.

When is a good time to give up?

Note that sometimes when people argue, their words are spontaneous(I know because I have done it); instinctively, we think we know. Again, sometimes, sometimes I know.

I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged — god must be atheist

If a man in a third world nation somewhere stood up to an oppressive military regime because of his belief in God, inspiring a revolution and freedom, would that be nothing? Things like this have happened. Granted, it is the "idea of God" but, really anything that anyone does is because of "the idea of" something, not because of the thing itself.

The "true" self is as used by you, praxis and by me, are not the same concepts. — god must be atheist

True.

You equated "your true self" as "how you really are" — god must be atheist

False. I tend to regard it as emptiness.

I equate "your true self" more in a literary sense (not literally, but figuratively) to "do what your impulses dictate you to do without holding back". — god must be atheist

And this is why you fit the role of the forum clown so well.

So replace god with ? — Pantagruel
1. A newt.
2. A two-headed snake.
3. Medusa.
4. Me. Me, me, me!!!!
5. Peter Goddard. (Not much adjustment in spelling is required.)
6. A piano.
7. Sticky glue.
8. Air.
9. Many people who believe in him.
10, Another god. — god must be atheist

11. The manifestation of an illusion.