Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 916 of 1324 (704562)
08-11-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by onifre
08-11-2013 1:53 PM


oni writes:
Sure, but that's very vague. Responsible how? Started the Big Bang then left it alone to evolve naturally? Is there every step of the way from forming a sun to galaxies to solar systems to planets to biological life?
What role does Tom play?
Because it seems as though any time you (and others who believe as you do) see a gap in science you see fit to put Tom in that place. But that wouldn't be necessary if you were one of those believers who believe Tom started the Big Bang then let it function on it's own.
So when you say Tom was the cause for life to emerge on Earth, but not for the formation of Earth itself because we have a perfectly good workable theory of planetary formation, you A) commit the god of the gaps fallacy and B) run into a logical problem of having to explain why Tom didn't see fit to include himself since the Big Bang, and then only just to build a single cell organism then leave the project alone again.
It's very inconsistent at best and logically abhorrent at worse.
My reason for not claiming that Tom created the universe is because I’m not convinced it needing creating. I’m more inclined to believe that it always did exist as part of something greater and that the universe is the way it is as that is how we perceive it. In the sense that if Tom is responsible for life then he would be responsible for our sense of the reality of our perception of the universe. However that is obviously highly speculative and frankly I’m not really concerned whether or not Tom created the universe. I can’t do anything about that. The only part of the universe I can control is me, and so what I’m interested in is what does my belief in Tom mean to my life and how I’m to live it.
GDR writes:
Do you believe there is no truth beyond what can be known empirically?
oni writes:
Belief doesn't enter my conclusion.
I'm sure there are things about the universe we haven't yet discovered, if that answers your question.
Is there truth beyond what science can prove empirically?
oni writes:
That is an example of a selfish lie, that makes you look good even though you haven't earned it. So it's natural that you would feel guilt.
But when my kids were young and they showed me a terrible drawing of something they said was a dog, I didn't tell them the truth. I said it was the best dog I've even seen. I felt good about that lie because it encouraged them to keep drawing.
GDR writes:
How do you objectively know that?
oni writes:
I don't believe any of that. I don't believe in a universal standard for truthfulness or anything else you care to make up.
But you said that I should feel guilty because I told a selfish lie. On what grounds should I feel guilty? Who decided that selfish lying is wrong? If I want people to think I have a PHD in physics when I don’t and lie about it — who am I hurting? Still I feel guilty. Why?
We have instilled in us the sense that lying is wrong. , and I contend that even though we break it all the time that there is a universal standard of truthfulness even though there are exceptions to the rule as in the case you used.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by onifre, posted 08-11-2013 1:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by onifre, posted 08-12-2013 10:38 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 917 of 1324 (704565)
08-12-2013 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 912 by NosyNed
08-11-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Science of the Gaps
NosyNed writes:
I've been trying to figure out why you use this phrase other than to pretend that others are doing the same kind of reasoning you are. What you say implies you know you are using a god of the gaps (or is that Tom of the gaps) argument but you never say so.
It has essentially been said that because as science has uncovered more and more information about the natural processes that brought us to this point is there is no Tom. The gap is that regardless of how many processes there are filled it does not answer the question of whether the natural processes are part of an intelligent plan or that the mindless processes are all there is.
I use the fact that as there are so many things that have to fall into place to have made this all come about sure makes it all look like a plan. I do not claim it as proof but that it is simply the conclusion that I come to.
It isn't a scientific question. If we see a rock rolling down a hill we can study its movements but that won't answer the question of whether someone pushed it to get it started or if it was dislodged by some mindless cause.
NosyNed writes:
The difference is that the Tom version of the "I dunno" seems to disallow any further work. We have no other examples of a Tom-like thing to study, no math to describe it's behavior, no clue as to what to do next. The DE version of the "I dunno" allows for and requires a mathematical description of what the DE entity has to behave like and lots of clues as to what to try next.
Unlike theists scientists take their DE god and try to banish it or dissect it or both as soon as he pokes his head in the room. And the methods of science have been shown to be very powerful in doing this. The methods revolving around Tom have been shown to be utterly useless to date.
I agree with the point about DE. It is great that people have theorized about DE and then go out to try and prove it. I have no anticipation that Tom can be proven, however I could be wrong about that. I see no way that Tom could be disproven.
This isn't as clear as I would like it to have been but it's late and the best I can do right now.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2013 1:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 918 of 1324 (704567)
08-12-2013 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by GDR
08-10-2013 7:59 PM


Gaps
There are still numerous processes whether inevitable or not. (Of course you're making assumptions about what science is going to discover which is a "science of the gaps" argument.)
Think about how a god-of-the-gaps argument works. The gotg-er says: "We don't have an explanation for this ... but if we invoke god to fill in the gaps, that would be an explanation ... therefore god exists." Now when people such as NosyNed suggest that instead there's a natural explanation, this is not intended as an argument in support of the existence of natural things, since we already know that those exist.
So what you're describing as a "science of the gaps" argument is simply not the naturalistic mirror image of the "god of the gaps" argument. For one thing, it's legitimate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by GDR, posted 08-10-2013 7:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 11:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 919 of 1324 (704568)
08-12-2013 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by GDR
08-09-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Accepting Science Whilst Rejecting Science
With regard to human morality we will keep coming back to the same problem.
There is a scientific and wholly natural explanation for human moral behaviour as observed. This explanation does involve selfish genes and natural selection in the ancestral social environment but doesn’t involve Tom.
And then there is your take on human morality. An approach which considers the scientific view of morality to have been falsified by observed human behaviours (risking one’s life to save a puppy, sending money to people starving on the other side of the world, young men sacrificing themselves to save old women etc.) and which thus inserts Tom’s imperceptible influence as a necessary requirement to account for those moral behaviours which you personally have decided natural processes alone cannot account for.
You cannot maintain that the scientific conclusion regarding the origins of human morality has been falsified whilst also insisting that there is no conflict between your beliefs and the conclusions of science.
Straggler writes:
If Tom is literally imperceptible then how can you be doing anything other than inventing imperceptible Tom and his imperceptible influence?
GDR writes:
It isn’t a case of inventing Tom.
If something is imperceptible how can it not be a product of the human mind?
GDR writes:
We objectively know that we exist.
OK.
GDR writes:
It is simply a case of considering the basis for our existence and coming to our own conclusions.
Frankly that is just a posh way of saying that we can invent whatever answer we find subjectively appealing as long as we can justify it internally. This approach is utterly doomed to forego reliability and accuracy of conclusion in favour of wishful thinking and personal appeal.
It's a terrible approach to the question at hand.
GDR writes:
If we decide to think about it we subjectively conclude that there is nothing but mindless processes responsible for our existence or we are the result of an intelligent first cause.
To "think about it subjectively" is the same as inventing an answer. I'm perplexed as to what you think the difference is?
I'd suggest we do the exact opposite and try to look at the question objectively.
GDR writes:
There is no empirical evidence so it boils down to being a philosophical question.
If there is "no empirical evidence" of Tom or his influence then how can he be anything other than something internal to the human mind?
GDR writes:
If we conclude that we are the result of an intelligent agent, (Tom), then we form our opinions of the nature of Tom.
The problem is that having invented "Tom" people find Tom so personally appealing that they need him to be real and so that is the opinion (AKA belief) they come to regarding the nature of Tom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by GDR, posted 08-09-2013 9:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 1:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 920 of 1324 (704572)
08-12-2013 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 915 by GDR
08-11-2013 8:14 PM


GDR writes:
I don't ignore it. I just answered in the previous post how I deal with it.
You deal with it by admitting you have no answer, then repeating your beliefs about something else.
I won't deny that I have a great deal of sympathy with that POV.
I don't have a good answer but I'll go back to roughly what I said in my last response to you.
Basically, you're saying that suffering and evil don't fit with your personal knowledge of Tom so you call it a mystery and go on hoping for the best. But it's a profound and difficult problem for you and your beliefs; not a by-the-by thing that can be put aside whilst you go on believing the nice things that you prefer.
All these things are additive - the errancy of the bible, the human need to find agency and comfort, the corruption and terrible history of our religious establishments, our inability over thousands of years to detect or even conclusively deduce any kind of God. Which, when combined with our increasing knowledge of ourselves, our world and our universe which has never, ever, found any evidence of a single supernatural event but instead has confounded religious belief systems at ever turn, simply requires the conclusion that no kind of Tom exists.
Thi knowledge should accumulate to that obvious conclusion, but because of a belief - a very flexible belief in your case - it doesn't.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 915 by GDR, posted 08-11-2013 8:14 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(4)
Message 921 of 1324 (704585)
08-12-2013 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 916 by GDR
08-11-2013 11:04 PM


You evaded the question, GDR. You said you believe god created the first single cell life because you don't believe it could happen naturally.
I'm asking at what point does god intervene in nature and when doesn't god do that. That's why I asked if you believe god started the Big Bang then did nothing for 9 billion years THEN created the first cell on Earth?
I'm trying to understand how you rationalize the fact that the Big Bang was 9 billion years before Earth, give or take, where you would have to believe god did nothing between that time. Then, all of a sudden, decided to create life. Is this what you believe?
Is there truth beyond what science can prove empirically?
Dude, you have to realize that this question is nonsensical.
Do you mean a fact about the universe beyond what we can objectively prove? If that's the question, then, well who knows?! Will we ever be able to prove a multiverse system beyond mathematical equations? Maybe, who knows.
But the way you're asking that question doesn't make sense.
t you said that I should feel guilty because I told a selfish lie. On what grounds should I feel guilty?
Because you didn't earn a degree in physics. When you earn something it gives you a sense of accomplishment. Lying about that doesn't give you that same sense, so you might feel guilty about lying. But of course not everyone feels guilty. Some people are fine lying under and circumstance.
We have instilled in us the sense that lying is wrong.
No we don't. Just saying that over and over doesn't make it so. Your parents may not have wanted you to lie, or in school they said lying was wrong, because as children they want to know what you're doing. But there is no sense of lying being right or wrong.
and I contend that even though we break it all the time that there is a universal standard of truthfulness even though there are exceptions to the rule as in the case you used.
This is useless nonsense.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by GDR, posted 08-11-2013 11:04 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 922 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 9:11 PM onifre has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 922 of 1324 (704631)
08-12-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 921 by onifre
08-12-2013 10:38 AM


GDR writes
Is there truth beyond what science can prove empirically?
Oni writes
Dude, you have to realize that this question is nonsensical.
Then Oni writes
I'm asking at what point does god intervene in nature and when doesn't god do that. That's why I asked if you believe god started the Big Bang then did nothing for 9 billion years THEN created the first cell on Earth?
Seriously, Oni? You accuse GDR of being non-sensical, then you ask a question like the on above. if God ever stopped intervining in nature, you would stop breathing and cease to exists. its not possible for God not to intervine
How would you define or determine God "doing nothing"
Seriously?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 921 by onifre, posted 08-12-2013 10:38 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 923 by DrJones*, posted 08-12-2013 9:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 926 by onifre, posted 08-13-2013 11:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 923 of 1324 (704633)
08-12-2013 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 922 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2013 9:11 PM


if God ever stopped intervining in nature, you would stop breathing and cease to exists.
Indeed. Praise Odin!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 9:36 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 924 of 1324 (704634)
08-12-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 923 by DrJones*
08-12-2013 9:32 PM


Dr Jones writes
Indeed. Praise Odin!
Bertot writes:
But Dr Jones has told us hes not a real Dr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by DrJones*, posted 08-12-2013 9:32 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by DrJones*, posted 08-13-2013 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 925 of 1324 (704654)
08-13-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 918 by Dr Adequate
08-12-2013 5:04 AM


Re: Gaps
Dr Adequate writes:
Think about how a god-of-the-gaps argument works. The gotg-er says: "We don't have an explanation for this ... but if we invoke god to fill in the gaps, that would be an explanation ... therefore god exists." Now when people such as NosyNed suggest that instead there's a natural explanation, this is not intended as an argument in support of the existence of natural things, since we already know that those exist.
So what you're describing as a "science of the gaps" argument is simply not the naturalistic mirror image of the "god of the gaps" argument. For one thing, it's legitimate.
I disagree. I’ll try again. We see a rock rolling down a hill. We can see that it is just naturally rolling around by natural gravitational forces. The good Dr. A looks up and says see, it is all natural forces and there is nothing more at work here. What is being denied is that we have no idea evidence of whether or not someone at the top of the hill gave the rock a shove or if there was natural erosion that caused the rock to break free.
When someone claims that things that we see happen naturally is evidence or even proof that there is nothing else is filling in science or materialism of a gap for which we have no knowledge.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2013 5:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by onifre, posted 08-13-2013 11:53 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 928 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2013 11:53 AM GDR has replied
 Message 951 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2013 6:53 AM GDR has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 926 of 1324 (704656)
08-13-2013 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 922 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2013 9:11 PM


if God ever stopped intervining in nature, you would stop breathing and cease to exists. its not possible for God not to intervine
How do you know that?
How would you define or determine God "doing nothing"
You should read the thread first. GDR has stated that he can't see how life could have emerged without god intervening. From the rest that he writes, he believes every other aspect of the universe changes, evolves and functions naturally.
So I'm curious as to how he reasons with that.
How would you define or determine God "doing nothing"
There is no evidence for gods doing anything.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 927 of 1324 (704658)
08-13-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 925 by GDR
08-13-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Gaps
When someone claims that things that we see happen naturally is evidence or even proof that there is nothing else is filling in science or materialism of a gap for which we have no knowledge.
When there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for supernatural entities, AND there is a ton of evidence that humans create all kinds of imaginary things to answer what they feel is beyond their understanding, then there is no point to assume the rock rolled down hill because of invisible agents working behind the scenes.
Science is a noun; as in, to do science. To investigate. So even if the outcome is god, the way you got there would still be through scientific research that lead you to it.
What else would you be filling the gap with if it's not scientific research... Wishful thinking and an uncontrolable imagination?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 11:26 AM GDR has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(3)
Message 928 of 1324 (704659)
08-13-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 925 by GDR
08-13-2013 11:26 AM


No one home
quote:
I disagree. I’ll try again. We see a rock rolling down a hill. We can see that it is just naturally rolling around by natural gravitational forces. The good Dr. A looks up and says see, it is all natural forces and there is nothing more at work here. What is being denied is that we have no idea evidence of whether or not someone at the top of the hill gave the rock a shove or if there was natural erosion that caused the rock to break free.
When someone claims that things that we see happen naturally is evidence or even proof that there is nothing else is filling in science or materialism of a gap for which we have no knowledge.
  —GDR
In this analogy you aren't disagreeing that the gravitational forces etc. are natural and demonstrated adequately. You've said that before so we are on the same page so far.
Carrying on with the analogy we do know that erosion can work a rock free. It may even fall at a time suspiciously convenient to kill an unpopular person but we know that can happen.
But, as you point out, that doesn't mean that someone couldn't have been skulking around up there and gave it a well timed push.
Big but: we know that people exist and do, on occasion skulk and push rocks. And no one, without investigation, would try to claim that it isn't possible that one of those people did.
If that skulker is analogous to the mysterious force that kick started the universe there is a problem with the analogy. We'd have to be operating in a situation where we've never seen this skulker (perhaps it is impossible for a person to get up there where the rock came from), we have no idea about the skulkers mind set or methods, we don't know why he'd want to dislodge rocks. In face we know nada about this guy. Perhaps it's a yeti.
In this analogy no one would deny that a person could have pushed the rock. But we know enough about persons to make reasonable judgements about the likelyhood of that.
Saying that it had to be erosion only would be denying facts that we know.
In the kick starting the universe issue we have no facts to deny. We do however have a long historic record of false attributions of natural causes so it's a reasonable working hypothesis that, once again, natural causes is a good place to look for an explanation.
No one, that I recall, has claimed this is proof of only natural causes. In fact, I think that over and over they have stated it isn't proof. What we might say that the past history is some, strong or weak is a matter of opinion, evidence that there is now and will always be only material explanations for things. Perhaps only weak evidence to you but a hint at what is to come for some of us at least.
The nature of that question is, I think, such that it will never be answered with more than speculation.
And anytime someone points to a place where we don't have a very firmly supported answer to something and suggests that the skulker lies there is using a GotG argument. This has been decried for theological reasons as well as logical reasons for a long time.
Even if they are only weakly suggesting it it is still a very poor line of reasoning based on what we have seen today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 11:26 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 9:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 929 of 1324 (704666)
08-13-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 924 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2013 9:36 PM


But Dr Jones has told us hes not a real Dr
What does my lack of a doctorate have to do with the undeniable glory of Odin the Allfather?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 9:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 930 of 1324 (704672)
08-13-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 919 by Straggler
08-12-2013 6:00 AM


Re: Accepting Science Whilst Rejecting Science
Straggler writes:
With regard to human morality we will keep coming back to the same problem.
There is a scientific and wholly natural explanation for human moral behaviour as observed. This explanation does involve selfish genes and natural selection in the ancestral social environment but doesn’t involve Tom.
And then there is your take on human morality. An approach which considers the scientific view of morality to have been falsified by observed human behaviours (risking one’s life to save a puppy, sending money to people starving on the other side of the world, young men sacrificing themselves to save old women etc.) and which thus inserts Tom’s imperceptible influence as a necessary requirement to account for those moral behaviours which you personally have decided natural processes alone cannot account for.
You cannot maintain that the scientific conclusion regarding the origins of human morality has been falsified whilst also insisting that there is no conflict between your beliefs and the conclusions of science.
That doesn’t represent my view. I don’t say that the scientific conclusion has been falsified. Firstly, if Tom exists then what we can observe scientifically would be just part of the plan in the same way that evolution is part of the plan. Secondly, science does not and cannot rule out the possibility that in addition to what can be seen through natural selection etc is all that there is at play. It is my non-scientific opinion that the example you used should lead one to think that there is more at play. It is your non-scientific opinion that there are only the natural forces that we observe at play.
Interestingly enough here is an interesting example of how altruism is spread in the modern age by natural memes. My wife and I have a friend from our church who has a severe case of MS. We and others drive her around a lot in a special van to get her to appointments, shopping etc. She also is still able to get around on who motorized wheel chair. Recently she was off in her chair and she got off the sidewalk, (she is having increasing difficulty controlling her chair), and was stuck. A guy on his motor-bike saw her and went over and got her unstuck. The guy had a helmet camera and so it was all recorded. He decided that as an encouragement to others to commit as random acts of kindness that he would post it on the web. While the whole thing has gone viral and is on all the major news chains in Canada. Here is one example. Random act of kindness
So, the idea is that people will see that video and maybe next time they see someone who needs help they will be more likely to do it. Obviously that seems like a natural process using internet memes. What we can’t know though is that just maybe this is all part of a plan that we altruism and/or morality is something that is intended to spread by social memes. We also don’t know whether or not Tom caused the guy on the bike to notice her and then maybe sub-consciously tweaked his conscience. We have to come to what it is we believe about Tom from other means knowing that we aren’t going to have they type of evidence that we look for in science.
Straggler writes:
If Tom is literally imperceptible then how can you be doing anything other than inventing imperceptible Tom and his imperceptible influence?
GDR writes:
It isn’t a case of inventing Tom.
Straggler writes:
If something is imperceptible how can it not be a product of the human mind?
Maybe imperceptible is the wrong word. In a sense all our thoughts are perceived but we aren’t necessarily consciously aware of all of the influences that go into decisions we make. Just maybe Tom is one of those influences.
GDR writes:
It is simply a case of considering the basis for our existence and coming to our own conclusions.
Straggler writes:
Frankly that is just a posh way of saying that we can invent whatever answer we find subjectively appealing as long as we can justify it internally. This approach is utterly doomed to forego reliability and accuracy of conclusion in favour of wishful thinking and personal appeal.
It's a terrible approach to the question at hand.
Maybe, but we all do that. Your position seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong, although you probably don’t need encouragement in that department )is that as there is no scientific evidence for Tom then there is no need to even consider his existence.
I think that there are important philosophical questions to be answered that science doesn’t deal with. Things like is there an ultimate purpose for life and what is my part in that purpose if it exists, and other such questions. Yes, I agree that we in some way we forgo reliability and accuracy but that does not make us wrong. We all have a world view and our world view is formed by a myriad of influences. It is our world view that forms extremes from Hitler to the Dali Lama.
GDR writes:
If we decide to think about it we subjectively conclude that there is nothing but mindless processes responsible for our existence or we are the result of an intelligent first cause.
Straggler writes:
To "think about it subjectively" is the same as inventing an answer. I'm perplexed as to what you think the difference is?
I'd suggest we do the exact opposite and try to look at the question objectively.
That applies to both of us. As there isn’t scientifically evidenced you have subjectively come to the conclusion that we are the result of a mindless first cause. I subjectively have come to the other conclusion. If you want to call that an invention then fine.
GDR writes:
There is no empirical evidence so it boils down to being a philosophical question.
Straggler writes:
If there is "no empirical evidence" of Tom or his influence then how can he be anything other than something internal to the human mind?
I’ve already gone over this thread to show that information exists that is external to the human brain. Things such as information passing between entangled particles or the fact that we perceive the world outside of our bodies.
Straggler writes:
The problem is that having invented "Tom" people find Tom so personally appealing that they need him to be real and so that is the opinion (AKA belief) they come to regarding the nature of Tom.
Actually in many ways there is consistency amongst people about the nature of Tom until we start adding things on to suit ourselves, and creating Tom in our image. The Golden Rule is found in virtually all religions and is common to secular humanism as well. Essentially it requires figuring out how to put it into practice.
Edited by GDR, : missed out half the post

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 919 by Straggler, posted 08-12-2013 6:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 931 by onifre, posted 08-13-2013 2:01 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 939 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2013 8:19 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024