Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Chriliman]

Correct. And what the truth is does not depend on your (or my) beliefs concerning it.

Right and it's logical to believe that there is truth that can clear up the contradicting and confusing information being thrown at us everyday. For me personally, that truth has been the word of God.

No matter how firmly or vehemently held. That of itself changes the chances of the beliefs being right or wrong not one iota.
Many fall for that, but that is not so surprising because many still fall for the utterly false idea that point in a debate is more valid when it is shouted or delivered with high emotion.

What the truth is (I take it that reality is singular: any other idea rapidly gets into trouble) and how our beliefs or mental maps and models do or do not correspond to that... Big can of worms.

Opinions and thoughts of man are always changing in reference to each other, it's only when you find someone who's anchored in a truth that appears unshakeable, that you begin to take interest and listen to what they have to say and find out for yourself what this truth is that they believe.

In my experience, the men who've appeared to have unshakeable truth have always been men of God. There are also men who say true things, but this does not necessarily mean they don't end up contradicting themselves after you question them. When you find contradictions, it's safe to say that what they're telling you is based in falsehood. I realize religious people are some of the worst offenders of being contradictory, but this does not mean all religious beliefs lead to contradictions. Logically, the truth should not contradict itself.

 

[Chriliman]

The fish bowl is an awful example Chiliman. Even if one fish believed in the bowl and the other doesn't...the fish who believes can show the bowl to the other fish.

That's something you've never been able to do with your claims. It's not a matter of one fish thinking about it correctly and the other not....they can prove these things to each other.

For the analogy to work, there would have to be two fish floating around in space...no observable water or bowl....and then they make those dumb claims. One says they're in a bowl...but he can't give any evidence of it. In fact, he should be telling the other fish that the bowl is immaterial and timeless and that he has a deeply satisfying relationship with the bowl.

The fishbowl represents truth and that the truth can lead to deeper understanding of reality. Many people today believe the truth about our reality is not known to anyone, they think there are no fish who've experienced evidence of the fishbowl. However, just because people think no one knows the truth about our reality, does not mean the truth about our reality is not known to anyone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The fishbowl represents truth and that the truth can lead to deeper understanding of reality. Many people today believe the truth about our reality is not known to anyone, they think there are no fish who've experienced evidence of the fishbowl. However, just because people think no one knows the truth about our reality, does not mean the truth about our reality is not known to anyone.

I always get a LOL out of your posts.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We can only be so reasonable and logical, eventually our reason and logic points to the truth that we are right or wrong in our beliefs. We can then correct our beliefs according to the truth.

That really didn't answer the question. Do you realize that to convince anyone that what you believe is true, you'll have to give good evidence that it is actually true?

 

[Chriliman]

That really didn't answer the question. Do you realize that to convince anyone that what you believe is true, you'll have to give good evidence that it is actually true?

Depends on what you consider "good evidence" to be. I consider a logical explanation as good evidence of the truth. Other's are not so willing to accept logical explanations as evidence of truth, that's fine.

 

[Freodin]

Shorter Chriliman: "I'm right. I don't care what anyone else says."

 

[variant]

The only fact we have is consciousness.

For an absolutist view of facts maybe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it.

A first cause of what? It can't be a first cause of existence, because it would have to exist in order to be a cause, and therefore it can at best be a second cause, not a first.

There must be something that has always been, in order for anything to be, the question is: what is it?

Physical reality seems the most parsimonious option.

If we are going to try and understand what the eternal looks like, may I suggest we use facts to create any theory: as to use anything that cannot be proven as fact is to theorize about speculative ideas that will lead to faith based ideas and not factual based ideas. It is these faith based concepts that are belittled by science as having no bases in fact and that are rightly scoffed at by reasonable people.

Okay.

Having said that, the only fact we have that cannot be denied, is one's own conscious existence, not what one sees within their consciousness, but rather, the absolute fact that one exists: this is the only thing that one can be sure of.

This strikes me as unreasonably philosophically skeptical. In other words, you seem to accept science as a standard of fact, but then resort to the most extreme philosophical skepticism for no good reason. I can accept quite a bit more than my "own conscious existence" for facts, and if I were to limit myself to this standard, I would have to reject all of science, as well as common sense about my existence as a human being living a human life. I'm far from a solipsist, and that's all you leave me with.

If our own existence is fact and we are conscious of time as a linear concept, that is evidence of our finite existence.

I don't dispute that I personally have an origin, but with what little epistemology you've let me have, I'm not sure why I shouldn't say that I don't experience the past, only memories in the present, and therefore I am eternal. I am the eternal Now. Maybe I am God. Om...

Seeing consciousness is the only fact one has: eternal consciousness is the only theory that is factual and therefore reasonable.

You can't reason to eternal consciousness from the fact of one's own finite consciousness. You haven't established that there can even be such a thing as eternal consciousness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

A first cause of what? It can't be a first cause of existence, because it would have to exist in order to be a cause, and therefore it can at best be a second cause, not a first...

This question is the big hurdle that never gets crossed in discussions like this.

 

[Davian]

Not if you personally do not search for God.

I am not going to search for gods, Bigfoot, or visiting extraterrestrial aliens, as I have not been presented with evidence that they are anything but fiction.

Remember the water bowl and the fish? Just because the fish did not search for the evidence of the bowl of water, doesn't mean the bowl of water isn't real.

Failed analogy. The fish in that bowl have evidence soon enough if they simply swim in a straight line.

After thousands of years searching, by motivated individuals smarter than me, there is still no objective evidence for the existence for biblical-type gods.

 

[Chriliman]

I am not going to search for gods, Bigfoot, or visiting extraterrestrial aliens, as I have not been presented with evidence that they are anything but fiction.

Failed analogy. The fish in that bowl have evidence soon enough if they simply swim in a straight line.

After thousands of years searching, by motivated individuals smarter than me, there is still no objective evidence for the existence for biblical-type gods.

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe had to have been a non-physical eternal force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways? Similar to how we don't need our physical eyes to understand truth, but we can understand true things in many different ways.

Fish 1 to Fish 2: Do you think it's possible we're in a glass bowl of water that we can't comprehend, but can still feel in a real way?

Can you see the interesting aspects and implications of the analogy? If not, that's fine, just thought I'd give it another try.

 

[The Cadet]

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe had to have been a non-physical eternal force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways?

This is where the analogy falls apart. The fish can feel the fishbowl. They have an established, universal sense they can use to detect the existence of the barrier. But our ability to perceive god in "other ways" is highly disputable. I have no idea how you "feel" god. I don't know what faculty you use to detect god, and I don't know how to apply that faculty, or how to distinguish it from self-deception. This makes it very much unlike any of my other senses.

 

[Freodin]

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe had to have been a non-physical eternal force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways? Similar to how we don't need our physical eyes to understand truth, but we can understand true things in many different ways.

Fish 1 to Fish 2: Do you think it's possible we're in a glass bowl of water that we can't comprehend, but can still feel in a real way?

Can you see the interesting aspects and implications of the analogy? If not, that's fine, just thought I'd give it another try.

Fish 1 to Fish 2: Do you think it's possible we are flying through the desert on winged horses - something that we can't comprehent, but I still can feel it in a real way?

See, your fishbowl analogy only works because we as outsiders have the knowledge that the fish do not have, and thus can say: yeah, fish 1 is correct, fish 2 is stupid.
But if the fish made a statement like mine, you would be the first to shout: "But you are wrong! You are not believing in the truth!" But how would the fish know that?

Could fish 1 not say - just as you did in post #81 "Well, for me personally, I found that the truth that we are flying through a desert works." And would he not be wrong in this "truth" that works for him? How would he know?

 

[Chriliman]

This is where the analogy falls apart. The fish can feel the fishbowl. They have an established, universal sense they can use to detect the existence of the barrier. But our ability to perceive god in "other ways" is highly disputable. I have no idea how you "feel" god. I don't know what faculty you use to detect god, and I don't know how to apply that faculty, or how to distinguish it from self-deception. This makes it very much unlike any of my other senses.

I feel God through His word. His word isn't just contained within the Bible, it's alive and active through the body of Christ, which are God's people.

God's word is akin to the bowl of water. Always there for all fish to come to and be renewed both in mind and spirit. The bowl is designed so that no fish can miss it, but the fish are not forced to come to it.

Eventually the bowls going to dry up and that's death :/

 

[Davian]

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe

Why would I make the assumption that something started or preceded this universe?

had to have been a non-physical

Non-physical? What are the alternatives?

eternal

Why need it be eternal? What if it ceased to exist at the instantiation of this cosmos?

force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways?

Perceive in other ways, but cannot be explained by self deception or imagination? Always add that to your statements.

Similar to how we don't need our physical eyes to understand truth, but we can understand true things in many different ways.

Or, you only imagine them to be true.

Fish 1 to Fish 2: Do you think it's possible we're in a glass bowl of water that we can't comprehend, but can still feel in a real way?

If you can't comprehend it, how can it feel real?

Can you see the interesting aspects and implications of the analogy? If not, that's fine, just thought I'd give it another try.

You are still at a loss to explain how you get from this something-not-something-something-"force" to this undetectable "thing" that cares about what we eat, with whom we have sex, and what we wear on our heads.

 

[The Cadet]

I feel God through His word. His word isn't just contained within the Bible, it's alive and active through the body of Christ, which are God's people.

Congratulations, that's word salad that does absolutely nothing to explain the issue whatsoever. Want to try again? Let's say I, as someone who doesn't believe in God's word, wanted to independently detect God's word. How would I go about doing this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fishbowl represents truth and that the truth can lead to deeper understanding of reality. Many people today believe the truth about our reality is not known to anyone, they think there are no fish who've experienced evidence of the fishbowl. However, just because people think no one knows the truth about our reality, does not mean the truth about our reality is not known to anyone.

Right.

You do see the difference between the fish bowl and the claims you make though...right?

If we were in the fish bowl...and you didn't agree it existed...I could just smack you up against it multiple times. Eventually, you'd have to agree that it's there.

Your god on the other hand...appears to be entirely a figment of your imagination.

 

[Davian]

Conscious awareness is the proof,

Proof of what?

it is what you are seeing that is to be questioned.

The subject at hand is what I am not seeing. I don't see gods.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe had to have been a non-physical eternal force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways? Similar to how we don't need our physical eyes to understand truth, but we can understand true things in many different ways.

Fish 1 to Fish 2: Do you think it's possible we're in a glass bowl of water that we can't comprehend, but can still feel in a real way?

Can you see the interesting aspects and implications of the analogy? If not, that's fine, just thought I'd give it another try.

The strength of the analogy (just before one realizes that it falls apart) is that we as human beings know that fish can be placed in fish bowls, and we know this with our natural senses and natural reasoning abilities. It is a dishonest attempt to support mystical insight by leeching off of the strength of a different epistemology.

I feel God through His word.

IOWs, purely subjective and psychological. Not impressive as a way of determining truths of existence outside of your personal psychology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Person 1 to Person 2: Do you think it's possible that whatever caused/started/created/preceded this physical universe had to have been a non-physical eternal force of some kind that we cannot see with our eyes, but can perceive in other ways? Similar to how we don't need our physical eyes to understand truth, but we can understand true things in many different ways.

Person 2 to Person 1: I see no reason to assume this physical universe was caused, started, created, or preceded by anything but some other physical system. To suppose a force can be non-physical is contradictory - a force is a physical interaction, by definition. The idea that the immaterial or non-physical can influence the physical is a category error of substance dualism known as the Interaction Problem.

Also - truth, as I understand the concept, is correspondence to the facts of a situation; and facts are demonstrable, or objectively verifiable, correspondences to experience. As such, correspondence with the facts can only be acknowledged or denied; understanding concerns the explanation for, and demonstration or verification of, facts and their correspondences.