Comments

  • Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)
    I like being able to hit a “like” button to show appreciation for someones post because just chiming in with a post that says “well said” or something seems awkward for both parties.
  • Taking from the infinite.
    2
    I was unable to take any calculus classes due to being in special ed (because of stupid) so I never learned very much about infinites so bare with me. If someone took a single drop of water of finite size from an infinite ocean would it actually be taking from the ocean? Would the ocean replace that exact drop immediately upon it being taken or would it simply never matter? I assume there could be no butterfly effect and nothing could really be changed by it? Is the drop a free gift?     — TiredThinker

    The infinite ocean would have an infinite amount of drops for you to take. You would still be able to take drops, thete would just be an infinite number to take.
    I think the drop being removed wouldn't matter as to the size of the ocean but that doesnt mean there would be no “butterfly effect”, it just means whatever that butterfly effect happens to be it will not effect the infinity of the ocean.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪Possibility


    Likewise, thanks.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? — Yohan

    So that you don’t have to waste time on every stupid idea people come up with. Its practical. Its a way of filtering out baseless nonsense.
    I used poor phrasing in my last post, its not an assumption but a neutral position moved on only by evidence…or at least a good argument.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪Possibility


    When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god. — Possibility

    They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common.

    I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.

    As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind.     — Possibility

    Lot to digest there, thanks for the explanation.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    ↪Banno


    No what I meant was that if there are no good arguments for theism, and by that I mean convincing ones, then you're going to end up at atheism.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist.

    In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved.     — Banno

    But of course by showing there are no good arguments for theism, the remaining position can only be atheism.
    Thats rather the point isnt it? Atheism requires no argument.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only becau — Possibility

    Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway.

    As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist? — Possibility

    Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
    Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic.

    I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist? — Possibility

    Hmmm, harder to parse. What exactly do you mean by that first sentence?
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality. — Yohan

    I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪Possibility


    Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
    Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
    Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    ↪Yohan


    My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    ↪Kinglord1090


    Ya, it depends on what the specific religious claim is being made,
    My point was that forcing someone to face the truth isnt always a bad thing and though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out. If someone isnt making sense or believes nonsense we should correct them, and if the nonsense is religious then that should offer no special protection from correction. Bad ideas are bad ideas.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    ↪SteveMinjares


    What if the person actually is wrong, and their wrong belief causes harm?
    Isnt it important to correct peoples incorrect beliefs? Of course it is. The question is why should we make an exception for incorrect beliefs being held to account just in the case of religious or spiritual thinking? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    ↪Kinglord1090


    Flat earthers are wrong because the earth isn't flat, forcing a belief on someone has no bearing on whether or not that belief is true.
  • Arguments Against God
    ↪SophistiCat


    Oh lol
  • Arguments Against God
    ↪SophistiCat


    He got banned/
  • How Movement Happens
    Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position. — elucid

    Huh? That isnt clear at all. How else would the object get to the new position except by moving through the space between its positions?
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ya I meant “things”, like in the sense that logic is describing something about the way the world works, an observation about physics for example. It seems like things have a logic to them and our grammar is an attempt to describe it. So I would say yes logic is grammar in one sense but it is also a reference to something as well, something observed and not created by humans.
    Im not sure what is being described by logic if logic is just grammar alone, so I inquired about what exactly you meant.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Logic is just grammar how exactly? You don’t think logic describes anything about the way you things work?
  • What is moral?
    Morality is trying to be good.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ill try that
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ya I’m not really understanding why necessity entails all possible worlds. I dont see why we couldn't talk about possibilities of just the one we know about.
    Ok, so this is about defining “necessity” as used by the religious folk as an argument for gods existence? And you are unsatisfied because you cannot quite articulate whats wrong with the arguments from necessity? Is that right?
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    I dont think modal logic requires “all possible worlds” in order to make sense of possibility (which is what modal logic is about). It can, but modal logic can also be just about single world possibility, or any other framing of possibility.
    So I am not abandoning modal logic I just think when you posit god as necessary across all possible worlds you run into problems in the answer, and like an argument that is logically valid but not sound then the answer to your syllogism isn’t satisfying.
    What if instead of all possible worlds you just considered god as necessary to this one? My thought was that you would find a more satisfying answer than when you consider all possible worlds.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    I think that a “necessary” designation doesnt necessarily entail all possible worlds. Why would it? A being can be necessary for one possible world or many or all of them, so by formulating your question like you did you have forced the answer
    to be unsatisfying.
  • Euthyphro
    As to Plato, how do we diagnose his metaphysics if not based on the dialogues? — Fooloso4

    Maybe you can’t, because the dialogues do not provide enough information to draw a proper conclusion. We shouldn't let our desire to know more about Plato’s views make us see things that aren’t really there.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪StreetlightX


    Dismissing content of what others say in favour of dismissal is a pretty common human tendency, especially in politics. What you said in the OP seems like an example of that but nothing particularly insightful. What an I missing?
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪frank


    Makes sense.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪frank


    Well people ask for civility but in my experience not in topics like that.
    What do you mean by natural selection?
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    When for instance, someone points out that Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land, or that Donald Rumsfeld is an architect of mass murder, and the response is: "why can't you be civil about these things?", — StreetlightX

    Not cherrypicking, but wanted to follow up on this. I’ve never heard anyone respond with a demand for civility or niceness to those points, usually its an uncivil response in return.
    Who says that?
  • The First Infinite Regress
    Ya, “why not?”. Fight infinite regress with infinite regress.
  • Bannings
    ↪StreetlightX


    Roger that.
  • Bannings
    3.7k
    Banned Foghorn
    — Baden

    I'm guessing not for the first time.     — praxis
  • Bannings
    Come on, Foghorn Leghorn? I cant be the first only one that noticed.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Banno


    Excuse me for ruining it with a rebuttal. We’ll call it even. :wink:
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Banno


    Obviously not the context I was using “belief” in, but yes ok there are some “beliefs” that do not need to be justified to be taken seriously.
    If he doctor said “i believe the best remedy for your gut pain is stabbing you in the gut with a knife” then he would need to justify that belief if we are expected to take it seriously. Thats what I meant.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    Ah, right. My mistake.
    So what is the difference between formal connotations and personal connotations that are pertinent here?
    If its just a matter if of justifying to others or justifying to yourself then what I said still applies, the metric of justification doesnt change.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Wheatley


    Im not sure why a personal belief would be any different. Seems like we might have different ideas of “belief”, could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief”?
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Wheatley


    You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others.
    The metric for what is justified is varied, but generally the metric will be what others are willing to accept. Generally reason and logic are accepted by other humans but some humans have a very low bar for justification (like “faith”) or very high bar (a skeptic or scientist).
  • Survey of philosophers
    ↪Olivier5


    Well my point was about complexity and detail not necessarily the indiscernibility between reality and a sim but yes its quite possible it makes no difference. I would say however you that it could, depending on the nature of the sim. If we have a Matrix situation then there are ways of telling the difference, and the difference between sim and reality would be whether or not the human race has been transformed into batteries by robots, that breaking free of the sims is means of survival etc, just as an example.
    Also the complexity and detail could be just as rich but there could still be telltale signs of the sim, like everyone is a cartoon or some other obvious sign.
    Have you seen the movie “Ready Player One”?
  • Happy atheists in foxholes?
    In general, even most wars where religion was heavily involved were primarily to build empires — T Clark

    That's true but you can have religious empires so the question is where to draw the line between the empire building and the religion as the source.
    I think its a worthwhile distinction to make.
    Also I think whats really being referenced on the “religion as source” side is just an example of human nature, specifically the tribalism of which religion is an extension of. I think its tempting to blame religion because it’s such a good example of what dumb apes get up to in groups but its really about the sociological burdens evolution equipped human beings with.
Home » DingoJones