[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

Chriliman · Jul 17, 2015

True Scotsman said:
Is this true because you want it to be?

I believe it to be true and I realize this does not make it true, but if something makes sense, its most reasonable to believe it until further evidence proves it is wrong. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for me to not believe something that makes sense.

Do you agree with the above statement?

True Scotsman said:
But you told me there is no mind-independent reality so what is there to define?

I've always said its most reasonable to believe there is a reality independent of the mind. I'm not sure where you pulled this false claim from.

True Scotsman said:
Where did I ever claim that I know everything there is to know about life? Can you point me to where I said this? Also since you deny the primacy of existence, and therefore the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity. How could there be anything to know, anyone to know, or a consciousness to know it? So you are contradicting yourself.

When you claimed to know there is no God and that you can prove it. This claim implies you think you know all there is to know in order to determine that God does not exist.

I don't deny the primacy of existence, I'm saying a God that infinitely exists in timelessness would not contradict the primacy of existence, but this concept of an entity that infinitely exists in timelessness is too hard for you to grasp for some reason, I suppose if you could grasp it you would realize it doesn't contradict the primacy of existence, but then you'd have to accept that God exists and apparently you can't do that.

True Scotsman said:
You said that there is no mind independent reality so what is it I'm supposed to consider?

Again, I've never said this, I've always said it's most reasonable to believe reality is independent of the mind. Why do you insist on making false claims about what I say? If your trying to justify your position by being insincere, I assure you, you're not going to get very far.

Chriliman · Jul 17, 2015

HitchSlap said:
Well, that's the thing, Chrili, most of us have considered "the new concepts," that in fact, they're old concepts to us, and we've come to the conclusion that your assertions are untenable and without merit. I've pointed out numerous times how your syllogism is fallacious. And each time, you've ignored my points. I have honestly considered the concept of a god as real, and based on all available evidence at this point in time, I accept the null hypothesis, that is, unless you can demonstrate the existence of god/s, I will not accept your claims to knowledge of god/s. I have at length pointed out to you that we cannot prove absolutely that reality exists, which is why assumptions must be made: Reality exists. Secondly, if reality exists, and most of us believe this, then we can learn something about reality. Lastly, the best way to learn about reality are models that are falsifiable and have predictive capabilities.

Your argument, it would seem, has devolved into one of special pleading, unless of course, you can demonstrate your god/s exist,

Maybe you should talk to True Scotsmen about demonstrating his claim that he knows God does not exist and that he can prove it. I've never claimed I can prove God exists, I'm only claiming it makes sense to believe in God, especially after considering everything we know about existence.

True Scotsman · Jul 17, 2015

Chriliman said:
I believe it to be true and I realize this does not make it true, but if something makes sense, its most reasonable to believe it until further evidence proves it is wrong. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for me to not believe something that makes sense.

Do you agree with the above statement?

I've always said its most reasonable to believe there is a reality independent of the mind. I'm not sure where you pulled this false claim from.

This doesn't exactly answer my question but belief is a type of conscious activity, so you have conceded the argument. You agree that existence exists independent of conscious activity which is what my second premise affirmed. There is now no rational challenge you can bring against my argument. Of course nothing says you have to be rational.

When you denied that my argument is sound you performatively affirmed that there is no mind-independent reality. That's where I pulled it from. So Now you have an important decision to make.

True Scotsman · Jul 17, 2015

Chriliman said:
Maybe you should talk to True Scotsmen about demonstrating his claim that he knows God does not exist and that he can prove it. I've never claimed I can prove God exists, I'm only claiming it makes sense to believe in God, especially after considering everything we know about existence.

I have done so. It's called reason. See the argument I presented.

Chriliman · Jul 17, 2015

True Scotsman said:
This doesn't exactly answer my question but belief is a type of conscious activity, so you have conceded the argument. You agree that existence exists independent of conscious activity which is what my second premise affirmed. There is now no rational challenge you can bring against my argument. Of course nothing says you have to be rational.

When you denied that my argument is sound you performatively affirmed that there is no mind-independent reality. That's where I pulled it from. So Now you have an important decision to make.

When you say "You agree that existence exists independent of conscious activity", you are referring to human consciousness, which can't even be proven to exist, other than in ones own mind. As I've pointed out before, human consciousness is not physical and so could possibly have originated from non-physical existence. This non-physical existence could take any form and whatever form it takes would be unprovable by us mere physical humans. So it could very easily be infinitely timeless meaning it exists and is conscious simultaneously, so your primacy of existence principle would have no effect on it whatsoever. Again, this makes sense, so why shouldn't I believe it, especially when you can't prove that its false, even though you claim you can.

HitchSlap · Jul 17, 2015

Chriliman said:
I've never claimed I can prove God exists...

This is a great place to start.

Can you prove reality exists?

Chriliman · Jul 17, 2015

HitchSlap said:
This is a great place to start.

Can you prove reality exists?

No, but I believe it exists and I reject the notion that it does not exist. So from here on out, I make no assumptions about reality because I've accepted the truth that it exists. So I refuse to go back and base my reasoning on the assumption that reality exist because I do not wish to contradict my acceptance that reality exists. So I believe reality exists, now we can ask more questions and reject assumptions.

HitchSlap · Jul 17, 2015

Chriliman said:
No, but I believe it exists and I reject the notion that it does not exist. So from here on out, I make no assumptions about reality because I've accepted the truth that it exists. So I refuse to go back and base my reasoning on the assumption that reality exist because I do not wish to contradict my acceptance that reality exists. So I believe reality exists, now we can ask more questions and reject assumptions.

Right. But you just said you can't prove, yet believe = assumption.
And that's ok!
There's nothing wrong with basing beliefs on reasonable assumptions.

ScottA · Jul 17, 2015

dlamberth said:
That's not totally true. God has also revealed Himself to many others in other spiritual paths. He is way too big to fit into any single religion. God is very alive and vibrant with in folks who follow different spiritual paths. There is no way to contain God and any longer I think it ridiculous when people try. I used to do that in my Christian days, not any longer though.

.

God goes where he wants. In the world and among people, he has only gone into ONE lineage...his own, starting with his first created son. To have a complete understanding of his lineage (if you follow what he has revealed) it goes from one generation to the next and does not include all people. Then with Christ, the lineage changed from being physical lineage to spiritual, again, not including all people. But if you are not aware of just what this world is (a creation of non-living beings, out of which we can be reborn into his living realm)...then none of this will make any sense. At best, without this knowledge, it would appear that ALL people were equal...and they are, but only in the sense that none are living. We are all like the pixels of an cyber space reality, which isn't real at all...unless you have been paying attention to the WHOLE lineage story. If not, sorry, but that would mean a rabbit whole of non-existent pixels beings...cartoon characters.

True Scotsman · Jul 17, 2015

Chriliman said:
When you say "You agree that existence exists independent of conscious activity", you are referring to human consciousness, which can't even be proven to exist, other than in ones own mind. As I've pointed out before, human consciousness is not physical and so could possibly have originated from non-physical existence. This non-physical existence could take any form and whatever form it takes would be unprovable by us mere physical humans. So it could very easily be infinitely timeless meaning it exists and is conscious simultaneously, so your primacy of existence principle would have no effect on it whatsoever. Again, this makes sense, so why shouldn't I believe it, especially when you can't prove that its false, even though you claim you can.

Is this true because you want it to be or is it true indepedently of anyone's conscious wishes or desires?

I'm going to just keep asking you this question and watch as you affirm the very thing you are attempting to deny over and over again.

ScottA · Jul 17, 2015

KCfromNC said:
The big difference here is that one can learn to understand how the scientific method works and show that is in fact not magic. People who understand it produce useful testable results which others can reproduce.

None of these are hallmarks of divine revelation, so the comparison really doesn't work.

The scientific model of which you speak, is a closed circuit of activity and understanding, limited to itself. The comparison that I was attempting to demonstrate, is that they are comparable, not that they are the same, but that they each are their own closed circuit. As such, respectable and reasonable people should grant each their own place and expertise.

Render therefore to science that which is science, and to God that which is God's.

HitchSlap · Jul 17, 2015

ScottA said:
The scientific model of which you speak, is a closed circuit of activity and understanding, limited to itself. The comparison that I was attempting to demonstrate, is that they are comparable, not that they are the same, but that they each are their own closed circuit. As such, respectable and reasonable people should grant each their own place and expertise.

Render therefore to science that which is science, and to God that which is God's.

Which god/s?

ScottA · Jul 17, 2015

HitchSlap said:
Which god/s?

There is but ONE.

HitchSlap · Jul 17, 2015

ScottA said:
There is but ONE.

The ONE you can imagine?

ScottA · Jul 17, 2015

HitchSlap said:
The ONE you can imagine?

No, the One who has made himself known to me (and millions of others throughout all of history).

HitchSlap · Jul 17, 2015

ScottA said:
No, the One who has made himself known to me (and millions of others throughout all of history).

How do you know it's the same one?

ScottA · Jul 17, 2015

HitchSlap said:
How do you know it's the same one?

You seem to be assuming that it is I who have decided they are the same. It is not I, but he, whom being the revelator, did not leave me to guess or to wonder, or even to "believe", but to "know" him. You may have read how he revealed himself as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the connection which he made by name. In my case, he did the same in name, but also without name but by association. There are many was to connect the dots. He has use them all.

GrowingSmaller · Jul 18, 2015

When I s

Eudaimonist said:
Is there really any point to such airy philosophizing?

I am not sure - I am not that much of a practical persion. Its just a thought, we have to "label" Tao, or the labeless, or the unnamed. Then we get used to the names so much that it becomes obvious that the name applies.

Like calling someone "adam" which stems from a root meaning ground or earth. (see the analogy with physical)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(given_name)

Or, we may call someone ruhi - meaning spirit or soul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(given_name)

I think that the answer is that we infer that there is a physical realm from life experience. It is meaningless to talk about a "test" for physicality, when our very idea of "testing" involves physicality.

eudaimonia,

Mark

That was a sly snipe at the verificationists, or the falsifiability-ists. Meaning, I am not sure you can verify something is pyhysical withour a prior 'christening ceremony' or reference to a name on a metaphysical 'birth certificate'.

Etymology of the term "physical": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=physical

A physicalist will say that the mind is in fact physical. But cant we deconstruct this and say that the world is spiritual?

{Physical: of or relating to the body as opposed to the mind}

Or, more scientifically, when the folk psychological opposition is undermined, bacause "all things are physical, including minds" then the primary definition and usage (bodily as opposed to mental) changes. Itslike saying "black is opposed to whice, and white is in fact black."

Ruhi is adam, the mistake suddenly makes sense.

KCfromNC · Jul 18, 2015

ScottA said:
The scientific model of which you speak, is a closed circuit of activity and understanding, limited to itself.

It is limited to the things it can study, namely stuff we have evidence for.

The comparison that I was attempting to demonstrate, is that they are comparable, not that they are the same, but that they each are their own closed circuit. As such, respectable and reasonable people should grant each their own place and expertise.

I do grant theology and revelation all of the respect they deserve - which in the field of learning about reality is basically zero. Even people who claims that they are useful only believe the results when those results agree with what they already hoped was true. That says a lot.

Render therefore to science that which is science, and to God that which is God's.

So reality goes to science, and gods are left with the rest.

Chriliman · Jul 18, 2015

I believe it's true because it makes sense. Me believing in it has nothing to do with the sense that it makes. Now if it is actualy true then this infinite timeless entity would be truth itself and I would have nothing to ad or detract from that truth, I can only believe in it and experience it as truth. Until you experience this truth for yourself you will not understand. If you believe the truth can be found, then it will find you.

[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Objectivist

Objectivist

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Objectivist

Author: Walking Like Einstein

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Author: Walking Like Einstein

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Author: Walking Like Einstein

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Muslm Humanist

Regular Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency