[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong? If you can't determine why it is wrong, wouldn't it be intelligent to take the same reasoning and apply it to your own life to then truly determine if it is right or wrong for you?

Also, if you can't tell me why my reasoning is wrong, why should I ever change my reasoning? Shouldn't I be expected to keep my sound reasoning until I'm proven wrong?

Or, they are unable to present their beliefs in a coherent, falsifiable fashion, and define the terms that they are using is a robust manner.

From your position, absolute truth has not been defined, this is why you ask questions. Lets imagine we do somehow fully realize absolute truth, would it make sense for that absolute truth to be falsifiable? It would not makes sense, right? Because if it was falsifiable, it would not be absolute truth. What I mean by absolute truth, is just the absolute truth about life, whether that being that life is pointless or that life has a deep meaning.

What "reason for life"?

I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.

2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.

Why does there even need to be a "reason for life"?

If there is no reason for life then searching for truth does not makes sense because in the end the absolute truth would be that there is no reason for life, rendering truth meaningless.

I do not accept you religious opinion as "truth".

This is not my "religious opinion", but rather my honest opinion and if you do not accept my honest opinion as "true", then you accept that truth has no meaning as I've explained above.

Define "God".

Infinite timeless existence, in which you're finite existence on this earth depends upon.

Exactly how would one falsify your "God" concept?

As I've said above, its unreasonable to expect absolute truth to be falsifiable. Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven. All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.

If you've never believed in extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, in then becomes wise to believe in them, until evidence is provided that proves that aliens do not exist because you would then be expected to stop believing in aliens if that evidence is provided, BUT there is no physical evidence that proves aliens do not exist so you would still be justified in believing in aliens. Make sense?

Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago. I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist. You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.

What is this reason that you allude to?

Jesus

I have thought about it more than I care to admit.

Good! Keep thinking, it'll come to you eventually

 

[bhsmte]

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong? If you can't determine why it is wrong, wouldn't it be intelligent to take the same reasoning and apply it to your own life to then truly determine if it is right or wrong for you?

Also, if you can't tell me why my reasoning is wrong, why should I ever change my reasoning? Shouldn't I be expected to keep my sound reasoning until I'm proven wrong?



From your position, absolute truth has not been defined, this is why you ask questions. Lets imagine we do somehow fully realize absolute truth, would it make sense for that absolute truth to be falsifiable? It would not makes sense, right? Because if it was falsifiable, it would not be absolute truth. What I mean by absolute truth, is just the absolute truth about life, whether that being that life is pointless or that life has a deep meaning.



I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.

2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.



If there is no reason for life then searching for truth does not makes sense because in the end the absolute truth would be that there is no reason for life, rendering truth meaningless.



This is not my "religious opinion", but rather my honest opinion and if you do not accept my honest opinion as "true", then you accept that truth has no meaning as I've explained above.



Infinite timeless existence, in which you're finite existence on this earth depends upon.




As I've said above, its unreasonable to expect absolute truth to be falsifiable. Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.



Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven. All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.



Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago. I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist. You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.


Jesus



Good! Keep thinking, it'll come to you eventually

In another thread, many have specifically pointed out to you, why they disagreed with your personal logic. If all those comments flew over your head, no use in recanting them again.

And when it comes to personal beliefs changing; this happens when a person gets to a point, where they can no longer reconcile a certain belief they currently hold, as being reconcilable. Acquiring new knowledge, we did not possess before, is one way, we may end up changing a belief we currently hold.

Everyone has their own unique tipping point though, and it depends on their personal psychological makeup.

 

[Chriliman]

In another thread, many have specifically pointed out to you, why they disagreed with your personal logic. If all those comments flew over your head, no use in recanting them again.

And when it comes to personal beliefs changing; this happens when a person gets to a point, where they can no longer reconcile a certain belief they currently hold, as being reconcilable. Acquiring new knowledge, we did not possess before, is one way, we may end up changing a belief we currently hold.

Everyone has their own unique tipping point though, and it depends on their personal psychological makeup.

Thanks bhsmte, You're right, no reason to recant anything. I'd like to get some fresh perspective in order to think about this in a different way that may help me realize where I'm wrong or help you realize where your wrong. Does this seem like a reasonable thing to do?

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks bhsmte, You're right, no reason to recant anything. I'd like to get some fresh perspective in order to think about this in a different way that may help me realize where I'm wrong or help you realize where your wrong. Does this seem like a reasonable thing to do?

One can only repeat the same things, so many times.

 

[Chriliman]

One can only repeat the same things, so many times.

Right, then it becomes apparent that you should start doing something different, instead of the same thing and expecting different results.

 

[bhsmte]

Right, then it becomes apparent that you should start doing something different, instead of the same thing and expecting different results.

I'm not expecting any specific results from sharing my views.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not expecting any specific results from sharing my views.

I'm not expecting specific results either, however I am expecting results, otherwise I wouldn't share. It's comparable to a scientist who wants to conduct an experiment in order to verify his hypothesis. He takes action and conducts his experiment which either confirms or denies his hypothesis. If his hypothesis is confirmed he then shows others and tells them what he did so they can conduct the same experiment and corroborate his findings. If the findings are corroborated the hypothesis then becomes a theory, if the theory is never proven wrong, it will stand for eternity as truth.

 

[plummyy]

Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago. I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist. You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.

Actually, there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do exist, and it isn't a matter of receiving a radio response. Space is endless, yes? As far as we know. But that's not the main point to be made: one of the issues with granting the "intelligent" life award, is that we immediately compare it to our own---which is bound to happen, but it messes with how we make those judgments. We can't expect other intelligent life forms to use the same technology that we use, or view them as beings that must travel through space enough to come across our planet---we can't even do half the stuff we expect "them" to do. We don't know if this other life form has even cared enough to leave it's own planet, or have any desire to explore space or even find us (a weight that has been dropped on these other shoulders, assuming they have shoulders). It's highly probable that somewhere in this (expanding?) universe, there are other solar systems, and there must be another planet that can sustain life, and there must be other intelligent life forms on one or more of those planets. As far as our own exploration, we haven't even left our neighborhood! If we're not technologically advanced enough to leave this galaxy and go into another, I can hardly think there would be another civilization that could----or perhaps the one closest to us, is younger than us? Perhaps there is life older than us, more advanced, and they have only just reached the galaxy above ours. Perhaps they have already come across us and shook their head, "I'm not opening that door".

Even though we should not simply believe in things because they cannot be proven wrong, there's good chance that if you don't know all there is to know, there's probably something you don't know---and our oceans are like. In relation to the universe, and how much of it we have explored, saying that there are no "aliens" would be like me walking around my house and upon finding no horses, stating, "there are no horses on this entire planet". Or taking a telescope and upon viewing my neighborhood and finding no horses, resting with the conclusion that horses do not exist at all.

^I wanted to respond to that, but that's all.

(just ignore me)

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not expecting specific results either, however I am expecting results, otherwise I wouldn't share. It's comparable to a scientist who wants to conduct an experiment in order to verify his hypothesis. He takes action and conducts his experiment which either confirms or denies his hypothesis. If his hypothesis is confirmed he then shows others and tells them what he did so they can conduct the same experiment and corroborate his findings. If the findings are corroborated the hypothesis then becomes a theory, if the theory is never proven wrong, it will stand for eternity as truth.

This isn't a science experiment.

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do exist, and it isn't a matter of receiving a radio response. Space is endless, yes? As far as we know. But that's not the main point to be made: one of the issues with granting the "intelligent" life award, is that we immediately compare it to our own---which is bound to happen, but it messes with how we make those judgments. We can't expect other intelligent life forms to use the same technology that we use, or view them as beings that must travel through space enough to come across our planet---we can't even do half the stuff we expect "them" to do. We don't know if this other life form has even cared enough to leave it's own planet, or have any desire to explore space or even find us (a weight that has been dropped on these other shoulders, assuming they have shoulders). It's highly probable that somewhere in this (expanding?) universe, there are other solar systems, and there must be another planet that can sustain life, and there must be other intelligent life forms on one or more of those planets. As far as our own exploration, we haven't even left our neighborhood! If we're not technologically advanced enough to leave this galaxy and go into another, I can hardly think there would be another civilization that could----or perhaps the one closest to us, is younger than us? Perhaps there is life older than us, more advanced, and they have only just reached the galaxy above ours. Perhaps they have already come across us and shook their head, "I'm not opening that door".

Even though we should not simply believe in things because they cannot be proven wrong, there's good chance that if you don't know all there is to know, there's probably something you don't know---and our oceans are like. In relation to the universe, and how much of it we have explored, saying that there are no "aliens" would be like me walking around my house and upon finding no horses, stating, "there are no horses on this entire planet". Or taking a telescope and upon viewing my neighborhood and finding no horses, resting with the conclusion that horses do not exist at all.

^I wanted to respond to that, but that's all.

(just ignore me)

So its reasonable to expect that in time we will find out if there are extraterrestrial aliens within the universe somewhere, right? But if we scan thousands upon thousands of inhabitable planets and find no life at all, what would you begin to think then?

If this happened it would only confirm my belief that God has created us humans for a specific reason and that God wants us to know He exists, therefore, it would become reasonable to believe that in time He would show Himself to all people alive and dead.

On one hand you say "aliens could very well exist because the probabilities are overwhelming" (paraphrasing), yet we see no aliens anywhere, then on the other hand you say "God is unknowable", yet God is possible and if He does exists, its reasonable to believe He will reveal Himself because it makes sense that He would. This is the reasoning that I base my thinking that your agnostic view is unreasonable.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, don't ever think you should be ignored

 

[Chriliman]

This isn't a science experiment.

Are thought experiments any different than physical experiments? Both should help us find the truth, right?

 

[bhsmte]

Are thought experiments any different than physical experiments? Both should help us find the truth, right?

Again, sharing opinions, is not to the level of a scientific experiment, using the scientific method.

I share my opinions on this site and explain why I have the opinions I do. What people do with them, is up to them.

 

[Chriliman]

Again, sharing opinions, is not to the level of a scientific experiment, using the scientific method.

I share my opinions on this site and explain why I have the opinions I do. What people do with them, is up to them.

So you think the scientific method is more important to adhere to than truth?

 

[bhsmte]

So you think the scientific method is more important to adhere to than truth?

If you have a better method to determine how the universe works, let us know.

 

[Freodin]

I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.

2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.

Interesting.

Of course there is the problem of the excluded middle to consider here... but let's say that you are correct with these two options. There is also the problem that you offer no way to determine the truth of these two options... well, beyond: "I don't like the one option, so it must be the other." Let's ignore that also for now.

But the real fascinating point that I see here is the demonstrated ability of religious people to declare the "absolute truth" of something... and then build a whole worldview around negating it.

Brilliant! Or a sign of cognitive dissonance!

Or perhaps both.

 

[Chriliman]

Of course there is the problem of the excluded middle to consider here... but let's say that you are correct with these two options. There is also the problem that you offer no way to determine the truth of these two options... well, beyond: "I don't like the one option, so it must be the other." Let's ignore that also for now.

Does it makes sense for an excluded middle to even exist? If we consider an excluded middle, what would it be? That life has partial meaning? How would this make any sense?

But the real fascinating point that I see here is the demonstrated ability of religious people to declare the "absolute truth" of something... and then build a whole worldview around negating it.

I don't understand how you conclude that I've built my whole worldview around negating absolute truth? I've built my worldview on what makes sense and what I've experienced. Is there something unreasonable about that?

 

[Freodin]

Does it makes sense for an excluded middle to even exist? If we consider an excluded middle, what would it be? That life has partial meaning? How would this make any sense?

You presented the options: "Life has no meaning at all" and "Life has a single meaning that lies beyond life, unknown to us"
There would be (amongst others) the option of "Life does have a meaning and this meaning is limited to this life."

I don't understand how you conclude that I've built my whole worldview around negating absolute truth? I've built my worldview on what makes sense and what I've experienced. Is there something unreasonable about that?

To clarify my previous post: I don't really think that you build a worldview around negating this "absolute truth" that life's meaning lies beyond. Rather, I think you invented this idea of an "absolute truth" to give credence to your worldview, even if that proclaimed idea contradicts your worldview.
It is unreasonable in that way: you didn't think it through.

Consider your two previous "options":
- Life has no meaning, so we can do anything we want, because nothing matters "in the end".
- Life has a meaning, that "will be realized some time in the future" so everything we do matters, and we should do "right" and not-do "wrong".

But Christianity is focused around the idea that there is just one single thing that really matters and everything else is meaningless. "Accept Jesus"... and good things are waiting for you. "Reject Jesus"... and bad things will happen to you.

 

[Chriliman]

You presented the options: "Life has no meaning at all" and "Life has a single meaning that lies beyond life, unknown to us"
There would be (amongst others) the option of "Life does have a meaning and this meaning is limited to this life."

I'm not saying the meaning lies beyond life, I'm saying the meaning is eternal life, which is not currently comprehensible because we currently live in a finite version of eternal life.

To clarify my previous post: I don't really think that you build a worldview around negating this "absolute truth" that life's meaning lies beyond. Rather, I think you invented this idea of an "absolute truth" to give credence to your worldview, even if that proclaimed idea contradicts your worldview.
It is unreasonable in that way: you didn't think it through.

Again, how am I contradicting myself or being unreasonable?

Consider your two previous "options":
- Life has no meaning, so we can do anything we want, because nothing matters "in the end".
- Life has a meaning, that "will be realized some time in the future" so everything we do matters, and we should do "right" and not-do "wrong".

But Christianity is focused around the idea that there is just one single thing that really matters and everything else is meaningless. "Accept Jesus"... and good things are waiting for you. "Reject Jesus"... and bad things will happen to you.

Your miss-understanding my beliefs. I believe everything has a meaning or purpose. If I choose wrong, I will be punished for choosing wrong because there is meaning in choosing wrong. If I choose right, I will be rewarded for choosing right because there is meaning in choosing right.

This finite life on earth is my only chance to actually make choices and every choice I make has a consequence, as I've stated above. Ultimately, correct right choices lead to the belief that life has meaning and only God who is separate from me can give life meaning(because its very self righteous to think I give life its meaning) and if I believe in this God, He will make Himself known to me and confirm that He is the truth that I've been seeking and that He has paid a great price so that I may enjoy eternal life after the end of my finite life on earth. This great price paid is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and if I accept this as true I will be rewarded with great understanding in the finite life I have left here on earth, but more importantly, I'll be rewarded with eternal life for which I was truly designed to have.

 

[plummyy]

So its reasonable to expect that in time we will find out if there are extraterrestrial aliens within the universe somewhere, right? But if we scan thousands upon thousands of inhabitable planets and find no life at all, what would you begin to think then?

It depends on where you hold your beliefs. Science-searching-knowledge (whatever you want to call it) is not about belief, and the findings aren't influenced by what people want to find. People who want to believe in other life in the universe, will always think so even if we make it around the entire thing and lift up all the rugs, and look at every dust bunny. Just as anyone who wants to believe in gods or goddesses, will think so no matter how many other civilizations are found. The reasonable probability of there being life outside of our own is high because of our lack of knowledge, but it's not a belief, it's just a reasonable thing to presume. I don't know if we will ever actually reach the ability to zoom around space because a lot of that.... well, are we really that intelligent? In time, we may plateau with our abilities and never get to find out if we have neighbors. The same could happen to those potential "neighbors".... as I said, perhaps it's already happened to them. And although I may have a decent amount of understanding in Mulder's "I Want to Believe" poster, it's less of a "I want to find more people to play mahjong with" and more of "I doubt that we are the only ones". So whether or not there are other life forms is a matter of "water is wet", you know, it's either discovered or it isn't.

On one hand you say "aliens could very well exist because the probabilities are overwhelming" (paraphrasing), yet we see no aliens anywhere, then on the other hand you say "God is unknowable", yet God is possible and if He does exists, its reasonable to believe He will reveal Himself because it makes sense that He would. This is the reasoning that I base my thinking that your agnostic view is unreasonable.

• I never mentioned a god in my post

Gods and goddesses are absolutely possible, as are Mulder's precious zeta, and yet the public majority (including scientific community) have have seen neither. But there seems to be a great deal of those who claim to have experienced God, just as there have been those who were abducted and probed. And that kind of person is a believer, but we cannot use their fallacy as a means of closing the book of what is real and what isn't. Because of the lack of scientific evidence concerning both, we are agnostic (towards both) but not in the same way. It actually doesn't make sense for either extraterrestrial life or God, to reveal them/it-selves because... something does not exist in order to satisfy religion/ prove that we are not insane for wearing tin hats. God is not like an extraterrestrial life form, and it's hard to talk about those two things in comparison when one comes down to absolute ability of recognition from day 1, and the other is possibly not yet sure of it's own language. One has the possibility of being in the throws of evolution, while one is with supposed omniscience. An extraterrestrial life could be discovered in time, but only a god can reveal itself, or choose not to.

 

[Davian]

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong? If you can't determine why it is wrong, wouldn't it be intelligent to take the same reasoning and apply it to your own life to then truly determine if it is right or wrong for you?

Also, if you can't tell me why my reasoning is wrong, why should I ever change my reasoning? Shouldn't I be expected to keep my sound reasoning until I'm proven wrong?

It depends. How, exactly, could someone prove you wrong?