Underlying Philosophy

Why? If the evidence is entirely one sided. And so you you fall back on the inability to disprove the existence of god exactly as predicted. What can be proven? Why do we need to prove anything? Why, if the evidence strongly favours human invention over the actual existence of god, would we not legitimately draw that conclusion? How can you "know the truth"? If we only know what we can prove we know nothing at all.All you can do is seek the best, most objectively evidenced, answers and work on the basis that they are the closest approximation to reality available.Bertrand Russel Writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

quote:

---

Why? If the evidence is entirely one sided.

---

I wish that it could be. But we are discussing the origin of God on the lips of man. If you have a time machine I'd love to know. But how can we do anything but speculate such a question?To ask Whether or not God is from the current perspective is viable.

quote:

---

And so you you fall back on the inability to disprove the existence of god exactly as predicted. What can be proven? Why do we need to prove anything? Why, if the evidence strongly favours human invention over the actual existence of god, would we not legitimately draw that conclusion?

---

Because it does not strongly favor human invention. its a speculative question. Only by assumption can the start of how God became a word on the lips of man be proven or disproved. which means you can not prove or disprove that kind of assumption.a provable assumption is: I exist. why? because its verifiable.

quote:

---

How can you "know the truth"? If we only know what we can prove we know nothing at all.

​

All you can do is seek the best, most objectively evidenced, answers and work on the basis that they are the closest approximation to reality available.

​

Bertrand Russel Writes:

---

Not exactly true. Bertrand Russel either intentional or not, makes a statement here that can be a potential hazard to the growth of science. It is one thing to suggest that what we know now may change, but we must also accept what we know NOW; UNTIL sufficient evidence Say's otherwise.Today many scientists are teaching science and then teaching that none of it is definite. if none of it was definite why fund it, and where would any discovery be?Some things are just definite. you know the proof i have offered. its tangible stuff. It just hasn't reached the point of scrutiny necessary to prove or disprove what it Say's. its like America, where you have freedom of religion, yet that freedom is restricted by government separation. so on the one hand, you do have the freedom of religion, but not necessarily the freedom to exercise it.Scientists feel that way about God because they tie God only to religion. That doesn't mean that science cannot prove or disprove God exists, it just means it has been taught to ignore God as a variable to scrutinize. There is a barrier between the religious orders and science. i don't quite get why. because from a religious standpoint, God and science are not in conflict accept in the minds of men. because if God established all that is, then science and God fit perfectly and are not in conflict. yet religious orders refuse to accept science.It is my belief that my nation has taught wrong. They teach on the one hand, open your minds to science, and then teach close it to anything controversial to science. when it should be taught: open your minds to discover the truth, and ALWAYS scrutinize what is controversial to science.There are some things that are definite like i said. the vacuum of space and what it signifies is as definite as you "exist". and that signifies that space has a border or borders or an edge making it finite. And empirical data Say's our universe is expanding. That means we exist inside a larger body we have no clue about. That's definite. so what now, ignore the potential? NOT study the controversial? wait for someone else to answer the hard questions?These things are not speculative. its questions we can grab ahold of and feel. its evidence we need. so when we do find some, why ignore it? lets explore it. but don't take my word for it. i wouldn't. examine it. make a discovery. prove or disprove based on the evidence. that's science right? that's all i want to do. that's all i want others to do. and when enough people have debated the evidence maybe we'll find out more and actually have a tangible idea of God and man.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So evidence based enquiry can tell us nothing about the past? Anthropology, sociology, psychology, history - These areas of evidence based investigation can tell us nothing about the sort of questions mankind is prone to asking and the sort of answers mankind is prone to inventing? That is what he is saying.

quote:

---

So evidence based enquiry can tell us nothing about the past?

---

We do not think the same way as our ancestors did. If you say we do, its a terrible assumption. The pyramids are so perfect and done in such a short period of time, some propose aliens helped with their formation. Not that i agree, But it does lend some humility my way. It just is not pertinent to assume mankind today thinks the same as we used to, nor ignore the possibility that God may have been more communicative to early man.Its a futile argument. I could not win it. Its based on to much speculation.

quote:

---

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, history - These areas of evidence based investigation can tell us nothing about the sort of questions mankind is prone to asking and the sort of answers mankind is prone to inventing?

---

prone does not mean did. And modern man is prone to alot of things many ancient cultures would not dare think or do. Sociology , Psychology, These area's of science have alot of grey areas. So does anthropology. I believe their an important science, but no where near far enough along to answer such a question. perhaps one day they could. But definitely not now.

quote:

---

That is what he is saying.

---

concerning Bertrand Russel; If you interpret him to say : "accept What the data does say". Then i agree with him. But i read it that he almost seem to be putting a clause on the laws and nature of science. that those scientists who teach all science is tentative would favor him. that does an injustice to science. because some science is definite.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So you think we are psychologically incomparable to our ancestors? If you actually look at the evidence rather than just dismiss all relevant evidence on the baseless assumption that any question pertaining to god must be inherently unanswerable then you will see that anthropology, sociology, psychology and history can tell us a great deal about mankind’s need for explanation, meaning and purpose. Both past and present. They can also tell us a great deal about how mankind sets about meeting these needs, the mistakes we are prone to making and the premium placed on making ones beliefs immune from direct refutation at the expense of being accurate or reliable. So remind me what role does god play in your life and on what basis are you asserting that we are unable to question this belief in terms of evidence?Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Once again you fall back on demands for proof which are as pointless and futile as they are irrelevant. Lack of proof either way does nothing to stop us comparing the evidence that favours the conclusion that god was invented by humanity with the evidence that god actually exists. On this question the evidence is entirely one sided Can you give me an example of a scientific conclusion that is known with absolute 100% certainty to be true with no shred of tentativity, doubt or philosophical possibility of being incorrect in any way at all?

Yet again you have pulled what I had written out of context, so I must restore that context, yet again (the omitted portion in bold): So then, since there are serious problems with your "question", we can follow your advice and just discount it. Certainly, your "question" is much more deserving of dismissal than my story is.For one thing, my story is haggadah, whereas your "question" is a miserably failed attempt at khalakhah (if you don't understand those terms, ask your rabbi to explain it to you -- I wish him far better luck than we've been having with you). The problem with my story is that whereas it might be used to discount Christian doctrine, that is not what it does. Rather, that story shows what children get out of the religious instruction that they receive. And since most adults still have the childish ideas about God and religion that they had acquired in childhood, what children really get out of religious instruction is of importance. At the very least, it indicates a very real need to get adults to question their own childish beliefs so that they can develop a more mature understanding of such matters.There are two principal problems with your "question":1. It is not really a question, but rather an attempt to avoid and to draw attention away from the real question of "Why should an atheist be good?" We have answered that question honestly, cogently, and repeatedly -- and we have explained it to you, both thoroughly and repeatedly -- , but you do not want to recognize our answer, rooted in reality, because you cannot accept the fact that reality flies in the face of your faulty presuppositions. So you instead have been trying to draw out attention away with philosophical red herrings with which you intend to tie us up in the same philosophical knots that confuse and imprison your own mind. I have specifically witnessed you doing that exact thing with those who fell for your old philosophical canard of "what is real?".2. Your "question" is silly. Sorry, but we have far more important things to do than to play the silly mind games that you intend with such silly "questions"; eg, I had the Scottish Games to attend, needed to nail the Jump Charleston Break in the Big Apple so that I can help my friend with it, worked on emptying my DVR. Of course, it would have been different if you were to ask real questions about real issues, but you have chosen not to, since your holding to your faulty presuppositions would be endangered by real discussion.Here's your "question" again (having to state it again for you, since you tried to change it): That particular wording of your "question" had been preceded by such nonsensical blatherings as how good or bad natural vs unnatural death are and issues of good and bad in how we deal with a murderer's "society of one within himself". If you are trying to lead us astray with red herrings, then shame on you! If you really and truly believe that those are real question worthy of serious discussion, then how are we supposed to respond to a person whose mentality has been so confused and tied up in knots?Please, please, please, pull your head out of your cockpit and conduct a reality check! Then maybe you would be able to start to ask actual meaningful questions and to honestly engage in actual meaningful discussion, rather than trying desparately to protect and support faulty presuppositions.Edited by dwise1, : word choice

quote:

---

So remind me what role does god play in your life and on what basis are you asserting that we are unable to question this belief in terms of evidence?

---

God is existence, and Existence plays any role it wants.i am asserting that: to conclude that we can say "God was invented by mankind", is impossible to claim; accept only your chosen belief to accept it; based on no real evidence.

quote:

---

Once again you fall back on demands for proof which are as pointless and futile as they are irrelevant. Lack of proof either way does nothing to stop us comparing the evidence that favours the conclusion that god was invented by humanity with the evidence that god actually exists. On this question the evidence is entirely one sided

---

i disagree. "god was invented by humanity" is an opinion. and when it comes to scrutinizing the evidence you are looking at it with suspicion. now, since you'll quote the sources of proof having the base of psychology, That mankind has needs, Your own need is trying to rationalize the opposing position, because the data that Say's God IS, is insufficient. so which one is correct under suspicion?examine suspicion then:The was a man who hired a young man to help him cut wood. The next day the man awoke and went to cut more wood, but could not find his axe. he thought about yesterdays events and decided the young man had stolen the axe.
The young man did come over later that day and as he approached, he approached just like he had stolen the axe. when he spoke, he spoke exactly the way he would if he had stolen the axe. and when he left, the man knew he had stolen the axe by the very way he walked.
As the man headed back to his house fuming he tripped over something in the grass. It was his axe, and right then he remembered that he had dropped it there yesterday.You see, the boy did not change, the man's suspicion was all that changed._____________________You can only suggest mankind invented God, and Evidence of God is plentiful enough for those who know how to look. Where is the evidence accept by desire and suspicion, That mankind invented God? Your only evidence is that God does not obey men. But God does not obey men. Men can obey or disobey, and God decides in the end.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So basically you are now falling back on the "God is unknowable" and "There is necessarily an absence of evidence" blah blah routine.Mankind's belief in the "unknowable" is a fact. It is an observed fact that requires explanation. Just like any other observed phenomenon. It is an observed phenomenon that can be evidentially studied just like any other. For you to insist otherwise, for you to insist that your beliefs are immune from any form of investigation or skepticism, is just blatant protectionism of your deeply held convictions. Nothing more. It is expected. Indeed it is predicted by those very scientific disciplines which you assert can say nothing about the validity or nature of your beliefs.The supernatural explanation has been posited for a multitude of observed phenomenon throughout the ages. Never once in the entire history of mankind has the supernatural explanation been borne out. In every single case where the supernatural explanation has gone head to head with the natural explanation there has only ever been one victor.The supernatural hypothesis has been discredited, humiliated and beaten into retreat at every available opportunity. And yet here you are. Once again advocating the supernatural explanation from a position of deep personal conviction and nothing more. Exactly as so many before you have done. In the face of all the evidence from multiple disciplines you stand there and tell us that despite flying in the face of all of the available objective evidence your particular gap demands that the supernatural explanation be given at least equal credence.You are a living example of the fact that "Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It".

The implications of a statement are what follows from it if you apply logic, not what follows from it if you apply crazy backwards theist unlogic.For example: Now of course no materialist can possibly say "it's not me, it's just my brain", because a materialist thinks that he is his brain. It is precisely the immaterialist who is obliged to think that he and his brain are two different things, and who could therefore say "it's not me, it's just my brain".

quote:

---

The supernatural explanation has been posited for a multitude of observed phenomenon throughout the ages. Never once in the entire history of mankind has the supernatural explanation been borne out. In every single case where the supernatural explanation has gone head to head with the natural explanation there has only ever been one victor.

---

I agree natural explanations will always beat supernatural. because supernatural means : YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT.My position has always been that what you are calling supernatural today, will be considered natural one day. BUT: NOT if people don't open their minds and begin to explore "supernatural" things with a natural position.finally: We all would love to see our beliefs verified. regardless of what they are. So chase evidence. But do NOT ignore the findings.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So how do you explain your own belief in god? Good advice. And the psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical evidence says that the best explanation for your belief in god is - what?

quote:

---

So how do you explain your own belief in god?

---

that's what I'm doing here. My belief came from proof. you cannot have faith in something you do not know is. and to know you need proof. i found what i needed, and I'm debating it.

quote:

---

So chase evidence. But do NOT ignore the findings.

​

Good advice. And the psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical evidence says that the best explanation for your belief in god is - what?

---

well..you ask a tall order.psychology is interesting when we find people like Edgar cayce. there isn't any explanation for his minds abilities or its apparent weakness to suggestion. the subconscious mind works with what is definite. that says something in itself, but i haven't had time to really dig to analyze what. i could go real deep in the psychology department but the arguments from it would never end. so ill leave it at that for psychology.Sociology is also pretty difficult. because although human kind can all say that we interact with others to survive, the interactions can be so different from culture to culture. God is a recurring theme from every culture i have studied or seen. That has its own significance. The reason for that is open to debate and a very long argument. usually no winners, since socially, accepted faiths will not allow contradiction individually, which hinders collective acceptance.anthropological evidence that i have actually studied supports evolution. which is good for me because evolution is my very proof of God. Although i do not agree with the assessment that early man was an ape. But that early man was early man.Historical evidence is varied . varied topics. varied assessments. varied ideas. Our past is important. We can learn from it. But also lets observe that it is past. and not let it be the foundation for the knoledge of today, but a stepping stone, for the knoledge of tomorrow.The best explanation for my belief in God is my own personal observations of how beautiful and how varied and how perfect the natural order is.The best explanation for my faith in God is in Science and God. For in science i found the proof, after asking honestly from my heart for faith.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This is a field I have studied.Early man was early man, but what about a hundred years before that? And a thousand years before that? 100,000? 1,000,000? 5,000,000?There are a lot of fossil critters out there that anthropology suggests that are ancestral to "early man." You don't want to call them apes.What were they? And on what evidence do you base your opinion?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes, I am also curious as to where this arbitrary boundary can be drawn.Oh well, it is difficult for some people to understand the fundamental theory of calculus, namely that a whole lot of discrete points become, to all extents and purposes, a curve. Or that a series can sum to up, to all extents and purposes, a whole number.These limits to understanding can be overcome, but it takes time (hopefully not on the geologic scale), for some more than others.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Is that the same Edgar Cayce who predicted California would sink into the ocean in 1969 (contrary to the principle of isostasy)? I remember the jokes on Laugh-In.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen