-->
@Fallaneze
Fine tuning for life could be accidental, could be ID, could be creation, could be a computer simulation, etc... oh there are more. How in the world would that be compelling for anything?
Become a theist
Posts
Total:
496
-->
@Fallaneze
Knowledge is information that is verified to be certain dude. If information isn't verified to be certain, then it's not knowledge. It's speculation. Do you not understand that?
-->
@BrutalTruth
You said "nothing is verifiably certain" in post #88. So if knowledge is verifiably certain, but nothing is verifiably certain, you're saying nobody has knowledge of anything. Does that seem reasonable?
-->
@Fallaneze
Of course it's reasonable, because it's a fact. No human can ever actually know anything. However, since it's impossible for us to know whether or not what we perceive is real, the only choice we have is to live as if it is. Like I said, that is a paradox. I don't know if you know what a paradox is, but it's useless to discuss because it cannot be proven either way.
It's the same thing as the paradox of eternity. Humans literally cannot fathom infinity, because the human mind insists that everything must at least have a beginning, even if it has no end. So, in the human mind, a being having always existed, having no beginning, is impossible to fathom. Therefore, discussing it beyond mere fascination is futile. That why I will not discuss the issue of the verifiability of information with you in that context. It's a waste of time.
-->
@BrutalTruth
You don't know anything, so why should I bother to read any statement you make?
-->
@Fallaneze
Now you're just being ridiculous. Fine bro. You wanna use a paradoxial technicality as a scape goat so you don't actually have to use your brain and argue your point, that's fine by me. It displays your intellectual laziness, which says a lot about your entire way of thinking.
-->
@BrutalTruth
If knowledge is impossible then you're wasting your time making statements. The paradox isn't the problem. Your view that knowledge is impossible is wrong. A statement about something being a paradox is still universal, invariant, and abstract.
-->
@Fallaneze
Oh, so you can objectively verify that everything you think you know isn't just an illusion pulled over your eyes? Can you, for example, prove that we aren't living in a computerized dream world, hooked up to it at birth and used for energy by a race of machines? If you can, I'm all ears. You definitely can't, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the fact that that means you don't know anything. Any idiot can say someone is wrong. It requires intelligence to show it.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
-->
@BrutalTruth
If knowledge is impossible then we wouldn't be able to share any statements of knowledge, including what you're asking me to prove. But knowledge isn't impossible. We can be knowably certain that the three fundamental laws of logic are true.
@brutalblocker
You can't show anything to someone who has embraced epistemelogical nihilism.
-->
@3RU7AL
Quanta is quantifiable and empirically and scientifically verifiable and real and extant (and emotionally meaningless).What does it have to do with meaning?I am drawing a line between what is meaningful and what is meaningless.
How do you get meaning from the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative?
I'm not arguing for a dog or fish since they do not have the same reasoning power that we do. They can't meditate on meaning as we do. They can't reason with each other as we can, with abstract thoughts that we put into practice in subduing our world.A dog a fish and an ant have motives. For example they seek out particular foods and consume them. Their particular type of food is valuable to them. Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them. Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
Dogs and fishes don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature.
If there is no intrinsic value to being human then is it justifiable to eliminate all humans (you first)?I value myself and you value yourself in the same way a dog a fish and an ant values itself.
Not in the same way. Humans are the dominant species on the planet because of their reasoning ability to manipulate their environment like no animal.
I value my community because humans cannot exist in isolation. If you have an impulse to "kill all humans" you are basically suicidal.
More like genocidal.
You have a sense of value and meaningfulness for the exact same reasons the dog and the fish and the ant have a sense of value and meaningfulness.First, establish that a fish thinks of itself as valuable. Show me how it contemplates its meaning.A dog a fish and an ant have motives. For example they seek out particular foods and consume them. Their particular type of food is valuable to them. Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them. Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
A dog, a fish, and an ant can't manipulate the world to the same degree humans can. They do not have the same ability.
Your emotional queues and motives and desires are integral aspects of your survival instinct.Or my emotional queries and motives are from a meaningful mindful Being that has created us in His image and likeness. Like produces like. Thus, we are meaningful beings who can investigate our meaning. Show me how a rock dissolving and creating minerals that produce intelligent being over vast amounts of time, that leads to meaningful thought. It is YOUR presupposition that it does, not mine.I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence. Please explain.
Why is He hypothetical? That is your assumption, not mine.
How does meaning originate from inanimate, non-living matter? That again is your assumption, not mine.
You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/What does this link signify? It has nothing to do with the discussion.The link explains how you can increase your general sense of well being, scientifically. Sky daddy completely optional.
I don't buy it.
-->
@janesix
I am just a theist. I believe in a personal God of unknown qualities, or origin.
But I take it that the biblical God is not that God?
What do you mean by origin?
-->
@Fallaneze
You ignored my question, and so I'll be ignoring your responses until you answer it.
-->
@PGA2.0
But I take it that the biblical God is not that God?
No, although I am open to the possibility
What do you mean by origin?
I don't know where God came from, or if He has always existed, or anything about Him really
-->
@BrutalTruth
Knowledge of something isn't limited to what we can perceive. We also know of things we can only conceive of, like mathematical and logical truths. Even if our perceptions were illusory this wouldn't affirm that all knowledge is impossible. We cannot prove that the world isn't an illusion.
-->
@Fallaneze
You're referring to knowledge a priori, which is always verifiable by the parameters of knowledge a posteriori. An example: If someone is a bachelor, then I know they are unmarried. That is knowledge a priori. However, I can indeed verify that they are unmarried by looking into their marital status, and so it can also be knowledge a posteriori.
All mathematical(logical IS mathematical, and so I don't know why you felt the need to distinguish the two as if they're different things) truths are empirically verifiable. We simply don't need to verify them, because they are already verified by another thing that classifies as knowledge a posteriori. The knowledge that someone is a bachelor is obtained empirically(knowledge a posteriori), and that is what allows us to deduct the knowledge a priori(that they are unmarried). Without knowledge a posteriori, knowledge a priori cannot exist.
It was a nice try though.
-->
@BrutalTruth
The 3 fundamental laws of logic are a priori and require no posteriori verification. You're also making statements of knowledge while arguing from the position that knowledge is impossible.
-->
@Fallaneze
The 3 fundamental laws of logic are a priori and require no posteriori verification.
I literally just finished proving that wrong.... where's a face palm emoji when you need one.
You're also making statements of knowledge while arguing from the position that knowledge is impossible.
I'm human. I have no choice but to do that. Neither do you. Your rejection of a fact doesn't change the fact. That's the beauty of science: It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, because it's true regardless. Rejecting facts simply makes you delusional.
-->
@BrutalTruth
I don't think you understand. The laws themselves require no posteriori verification. You verifying whether someone is a bachelor or not has no relation to whether the law of identity is verifiably true.
I do have a choice. I reject the claim that all knowledge is impossible. It's a self-defeating position.
-->
@BrutalTruth
And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believeI seem to have to repeat this fact over and over again with you people: Without KNOWLEDGE, NO BELIEF is reasonable. So, the answer to your question is: None. No belief whatsoever until knowledge, one way or the other, is gained.
Are you under the assumption that the Bible does not reveal knowledge?
and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)?Lmao that is hilarious dude. Your god has no more proof or evidence than any other god ever claimed to exist, yet you say all other gods except yours is a delusion? I took you for a more reasonable person than that, but clearly I was wrong.
You deny it but there is evidence that is reasonable and logical and greater than any other supposed god. Many, over the centuries, have recognized the reasonableness of the biblical revelation. Some very brilliant people think other than you do. They see evidence in ways that you are not open to.
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
2: one who bears witness
***
1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
1.2 Signs or indications of something.
Btw, nice ad hominem (also known as a personal attack, against the person, against the man, name calling, etc) underlined! (^8
To answer your question: Same answer for your god.Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?Being philosopher doesn't give me some magical ability to divine information out of thin air. I don't claim to know how the universe came about, and I'm not stupid enough to blame something I can't explain on something equally unexplained (like theists do). See, I'm a sane person, so I only claim to know things that I actually know.
Actually, all worldviews that query existence attempt to answer basic yet ultimate questions such as, Who are we, where do we come from, how do we know, and what happens to us when we die. From my perception, your beliefs, based on facts obtained from a priori and posteriori knowledge seems devoid of meaning to me if you don't question why you are here and what significance there is in that thought. Philosophy is all about these questions.
Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
-->
@BrutalTruth
If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!
Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.
Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were thereDING DING DING!!!! EXACTLY!!!! And that little statement right there, my friend, defeats everything else you said. You CANNOT KNOW, so stop acting like you can.
That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths. To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.
As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?What the hell? No it wouldn't? Being an atheist means you don't claim to know where shit came from, not that it came from nothing. I don't try to answer things I can't answer dude. I go out and gather information so that I CAN answer it. Currently, humans have no ability to say where this universe came from, if it came from anywhere at all.
I'm not necessarily referring to you specifically, but your worldview. Atheism (antitheistic for whatever reasons) tends to look for answers solely from a materialistic perspective since it does not see evidence for God/gods.
Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any
gods :
one who subscribes to or advocates
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Once you deny God in whatever way you want to describe it you tend to find another reason for everything you look at that is materialistic or empirical in nature as the explanation. The Enlightenment and Age of Reason started shifting the paradigm away from the Bible in Western thought to a new secular view of humanity. Darwin added nails to the coffin of God as the answer, as did philosophers such as Kant and
Nietzsche.
Or as National Geographic put it: "The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion"
-->
@janesix
But I take it that the biblical God is not that God?No, although I am open to the possibility
Well, that is good news!
What do you mean by origin?I don't know where God came from, or if He has always existed, or anything about Him really
The biblical God is described as eternal, without beginning or end. The Bible also gives us insight into the mind of God, His thoughts and attributes, His love and how it is demonstrated, so He is knowable to an extent.
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't see how someone can come to know God through a book.
-->
@janesix
One way is by your thoughts, I am coming to know you better. I have learned a few things about you through your correspondence.I don't see how someone can come to know God through a book.
Through logic and reason is another.
Faith and trust are another.
Faith and trust are another.
-->
@Fallaneze
The laws themselves require no posteriori verification.
Tell me, how would you know a man is unmarried if you didn't know that they're a bachelor? Unless you empirically obtained the knowledge that they're unmarried, the only way to know it is to empirically obtain the knowledge that they're a bachelor. Knowledge a priori(knowing he's unmarried) is only possible through knowledge a posteriori(knowing he's a bachelor first). A priori is a logical deduction based on a posteriori. A priori cannot exist without a posteriori, and you can claim it can all you wish to, but if you expect your claims to be accepted as facts, then you need to show how an example of knowledge a priori can be obtained without an example of knowledge a posteriori having first been obtained. Your argument is factually incorrect.
I do have a choice. I reject the claim that all knowledge is impossible. It's a self-defeating position.
So then you claim to be able to objectively verify that we are not living in a computer generated dream world created by machines for the purpose of controlling us? If so, please, do show us all how you can verify that. If you can't verify it, then you can't know that we aren't. It's as simple as that.
-->
@PGA2.0
I haven't read the Bible for a while (I am currently rereading it), but I don't understand logic and reason from the Bible. It seems like a mash of stories/parables etc that were just kind of thrown together. But who knows, i am drawn to reading it, so there may be areason.
-->
@janesix
I haven't read the Bible for a while (I am currently rereading it), but I don't understand logic and reason from the Bible. It seems like a mash of stories/parables etc that were just kind of thrown together. But who knows,
When you read it may I recommend you pay attention to the audience of address and the timeline?
The OT is mainly about a covenant God made with Israel through Moses, hence, the Mosaic Covenant.
The OT is a typology and picture of Jesus Christ, page after page.
The NT speaks of a soon coming judgment by God on these OT people, through and through.
The NT presents many spiritual truths that have there start in the physical reality of the OT and point to Jesus. For instance, Moses foretold of a prophet like him that would come to the people (Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Acts 3:22-25).
Moses took the physical nation of Israel out of Egypt, the land of bondage, to the Promised Land.
Jesus takes His people out of spiritual bondage from sin and of this world into the New Promised Land, the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16).
Moses was the Mediator between God and the people.
Jesus is our Mediator between the Christian and God.
Moses is the one God uses to establish a covenant with Him and the people at Mount Sinai.
Jesus is the One God used to establish a new covenant with Him and His people on the mount, outside the city.
Moses was given manna from heaven.
Jesus is the manna from heaven.
Moses lifted up the snake in the desert that all those who looked upon it would live.
Jesus was lifted up on the cross and all those who look to the cross and believe find mercy with God and live, even though they die.
Most of the people did not trust in God's means and the generation Moses led died in the desert. Only a few entered the Promised land from that generation.
Jesus, as well as the author of Hebrews, warns His/that generation that those who did not believe in Him would also perish (Matthew 23:36; Hebrews 3:8-4:11).
The NT parables relate to Israel.
Are you under the assumption that the Bible does not reveal knowledge?
That's not an assumption. It's a fact. The bible is a book. Books are nothing but paper. Paper has no ability to verify the words that are written upon it. It's up to the scribe to provide proof of their claims, and none of those whom authored the bible provided anything more than unverifiable speculation that you people delusionally accept as actual proven knowledge. Well, maybe not proven knowledge, because right now you're claiming that knowledge doesn't need proof, which might be one of the most delusional things I've ever heard someone say.
You deny it but there is evidence that is reasonable and logical and greater than any other supposed god. Many, over the centuries, have recognized the reasonableness of the biblical revelation. Some very brilliant people think other than you do. They see evidence in ways that you are not open to.Definition of evidence(Entry 1 of 2)2: one who bears witness***1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.1.2 Signs or indications of something.
I have a question for you: You accept these things as evidence and proof, yet they are disputable. Tell me, what happens when your so called "known facts" are proven false? Are they still known facts?
Do you see how that makes no sense at all? How could something be a "known fact" if it is possible to prove it wrong? Facts are, by their very nature, correct. A fact cannot be incorrect, because it it were, it wouldn't be a fact. A fact is indisputable. Unable to be false. To claim one has knowledge, one has to claim this information to be factual. If the information is disputable, which your so called "evidence" in fact is, then it is not factual, thus it is not knowledge. Do you grasp this concept? You constantly make empty claims of knowledge, and you call anyone who rejects these empty claims unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to claim disputable information to be knowledge. It is, quite simply, a false claim.
Actually, all worldviews that query existence attempt to answer basic yet ultimate questions such as, Who are we, where do we come from, how do we know, and what happens to us when we die. From my perception, your beliefs, based on facts obtained from a priori and posteriori knowledge seems devoid of meaning to me if you don't question why you are here and what significance there is in that thought. Philosophy is all about these questions.Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
Actually my philosophy has nothing at all to do with answering some question about "why are we here" or "how did we get here." Completely irrelevant to my philosophy. You're wrong yet again.
So, I have another question for you: Why must there be a reason why we're here? Why must there be a purpose for our existence? Why do you seem to be unable to fathom a meaningless existence? Cockroaches have no known purpose for existing. How do you explain their existence?
An entity needs no purpose in order to exist. Your argument is utterly invalid and in fact quite irrelevant.
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.
Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.
de·lu·sion
noun
- an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
The idiosyncratic belief that is firmly maintained: God(s) exist(s).
The contradicting reality and rational argument: You don't know that.
I have indisputably proven you to be delusional.
That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God(here is where you created a hypothetical situation) we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths.(and there is where you spoke of it as if it were real, and not hypothetical) To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.
Notice the notes I made in your quote above. You began with a hypothetical proposition, and then claimed that hypothetical proposition to be a source of factual knowledge, as if it weren't hypothetical at all. "If god exists, then that's how earth was created. So, I know god exists because the earth exists." That is just plain nonsensical. It's as if you forgot that you used the word "granting."
As for your claims of ad hominems, and whatever other fallacies you accused me of, here's why you're wrong: I didn't use these insults, and appeals to the population, and everything else, to defeat your argument. I had already proven it false before I ever said you were delusional, and even delusional people can make valid arguments, so proving you to be delusional does nothing to defeat any argument you make, unless the argument is that you're not delusional.
-->
@PGA2.0
Who recorded the events and conversations in the Hebrew creation story?