Total posts: 132
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thank you for your continued participation. I appreciate your detailed responses.
I think I'd like to focus on your observation of spirits as support for your belief. As you put it:
I have encountered spiritual beings myself and what people may refer to as ghosts or spirit bodies.
Two questions:
1) Is it possible for a person to be mistakenly convinced that they have observed a spirit?
2) Assuming you answer "yes" to Q1, what makes you confident that you are not mistaken about having observed a spirit that lends support to your belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Splendid!
Could you share your main reason(s) for such high confidence in this belief? To be clear, I am not requesting that you provide an in-depth justification for your belief. Because this is an interview, you really only need to outline the reason(s) for your belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Can you identify any other attributes of this spiritual being that sets it apart from other hypothetical spiritual beings? For example, how is this God different from ghosts?
I hope you don't mind me continuing to focus on the definition. I think a high degree of clarity is important before we proceed. I'd hate for misunderstandings to arise because you and I weren't on the same page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Would you mind providing a salient example in which observation/experience made an important contribution to your high confidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pendragon524
Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks for your response.
On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being "not at all" and 100 being "without a doubt"), how confident are you that your God belief is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Before we proceed further, can you provide a definition of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thank you for your detailed reply.
There was a lot in there that I don't feel equipped to discuss (string theory, for example). However, if you don't mind, I would like to focus on the following:
establishing how to prove it to myself and perhaps communicate with this entity in ways that would not be accidental patterns or sequences but direct things that only a being that powerful could make happen inside this simulation.
I think it's great that you are concerned with trying to distinguish between genuine evidence and "accidental patterns" (i.e. coincidences). Would you mind explaining this a bit more? How do you know when a pattern/sequence/etc is a genuine sign and not a coincidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your reply.
I don't want to go into details but let's keep it simple, I have had events and patterns that make me extremely sure this is true
Hmmmmmm.... it may be helpful if you could provide a solid anecdote. By 'solid,' I mean it can effectively stand-in for a good number of your experiences.
However, I don't want to push you past any red lines, so as an alternative, would you be willing to describe the experiences in a broader sense? For example, you could indicate whether they are dreams, feelings of certainty you've experienced, or other such things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I love your point about assault rifles vs handguns.
Let me take the question a step further, if I may.
Assuming that we're correct - that is to say, assuming that our policy process is guided to a great extent by emotion rather than by the logical assessment of threats, how should that affect our appraisal of various public policies?
Let's take gun control vs the obesity epidemic. Even though gun violence kills far less than obesity, we focus on the former to a greater degree. Does that make it wrong for people to push for gun control?
One could justify a "yes" response by arguing: it is wrong to focus on gun control when there are more serious issues (i.e. obesity epidemic) left unresolved.
One could justify a "no" response by arguing: we have to operate within the constraints of our policy system. So, if high-profile gun violence tragedies generate more political momentum than a slow-moving, partially invisible obesity epidemic, we should do the most good possible by capitalizing on gun violence's political momentum, rather than waste our efforts on an issue (obesity) that has no political traction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pendragon524
CLOSED FOR THE MOMENT. I'm already at 4 takers and do not want to overextend myself.
Exception: Pendragon, whom I previously invited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Very reasonable to leave wiggle room, if you don't mind my saying.
So, next question:
What is your main reason for holding such high confidence in this belief? Note that I encourage you to keep your answer concise. This is an interview and not a debate, so you do not need to go 'all-out' in supporting all your contentions. Ideally, just stick to summarizing the main reason(s) for your belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
For whatever it's worth, this is a FASCINATING conception of divine origin.
Next question:
On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being "not at all" and 100 "without a doubt"), how confident are you that this belief is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Great, thank you.
So, on a scale of 0-100 (with 0 meaning "not at all" and 100 meaning "without a doubt") how confident are you that this belief is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I want to make sure I'm understanding your claim before we proceed further, so I'm going to try to put what you've said into my own words. If I'm getting something wrong, please correct me. Here's what I think you're saying:
You believe God exists, with God defined as an omnipresent awareness (i.e. consciousness) from which all reality flows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks again for participating. Let's get started. First question:
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your God belief. I am merely asking you to describe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll do my best to give you a good interview. I'll set up a separate forum post for you and I shortly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well, let me be a little more clear.
Say the coronavirus presents X level of threat to each individual American. X represents the percentage chance coronavirus will kill you, or someone you know.
Now, for the purposes of this thought experiment, say terrorists operating in the US also pose X level of threat to each individual American. In other words, suppose that a group of terrorists poses the same threat to the safety of Americans as coronavirus does. Even under these conditions, we can expect that Americans would take the terrorists more seriously than the virus, even though the former is no more dangerous than the latter.
With these facts in mind, hopefully my point is clearer: the policy process does not evaluate risk in a consistent way. The source of the risk creates an emotional reaction which affects our response. We have a stronger emotional response to acts of violence and other high-profile tragedies, whereas we have a weaker emotional response to slow-moving causes of death, like viruses or heart disease.
Simply put, our policy process is guided to a significant extent by emotions rather than by cool-headed assessments of risk to our livelihoods.
Created:
Posted in:
If you believe in God, consider this an open invitation to participate in Street Epistemology (SE). Definition of SE:
While definitions vary, it's generally accepted that Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs.
Should you accept, I will politely question you about your God belief in a separate forum chat. It will be a one-on-one conversation. My questioning will be respectful and you will be free to end the conversation at any time. The goal is not to turn you into an atheist; rather, the goal is to explore the basis for your belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What are separate things? 100k dead by virus and 100k dead by terrorist?
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like I pointed a rocket in one direction, lit the fuse, and watched it veer off in an entirely different direction.
I'll answer my own question.
I think this thought experiment demonstrates that government and society do not process threats consistently. 3,000 dead due to terrorist attacks (9/11) seemingly justifies two wars and a complete overhaul of our homeland security apparatus, while the average American doesn't take coronavirus seriously and is willing to flout social distancing orders as they wish.
Another example: every time there's a school shooting, our political system renews its long-standing (and vicious) debate over gun control. Meanwhile, far more Americans die of obesity every year than from gun violence. Yet, because widespread public health problems rack up body counts slowly and quietly, they are overshadowed by the flashy, high-profile tragedies.
Basically, our policy process disproportionately focuses on acts of violence and other high-profile crises, neglecting more serious systemic threats to our collective well-being. Or to put it another way, our policy process is guided by emotions rather than a moral framework applied logically and consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
The coronavirus has killed over 100,000 Americans.
Imagine if instead those 100,000 had been gunned down by terrorists. It strikes me as indisputable that people would behave very differently if the 100,000 were killed by terrorists instead of by a virus. Just look how we reacted to 9/11.
So, what do we make of this?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I prefer categorical as well, because it reduces the arbitrariness of votes.
Created:
Would making Select Winner the default significantly change the proportion of debates that use Select Winner over the Four Point system?
Since the only effort needed to switch between one or the other is the click of a button, you'd think there wouldn't be much a change. Presumably, people's pre-existing preferences would be stronger than the 'cost' of taking a moment to click a button.
Created:
My thoughts:
1. I like protecting children
2. This one is alien to me
3. Holy hell I would love for this one to pass
Created:
-->
@Marko
Jeez, do we have to be so aggro, buddy? Wouldn't it be better if forums were a place for polite, Socratic discussion?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did hedge by saying "urgent threats to our species' well-being," which I think is qualitatively different from what you quoted me as saying.
I think of it as kind of like a Maslow's Heirarchy for the whole human race. Near-term threats to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions or billions of humans should receive more attention than long-term opportunities in space. This isn't to say that we have to choose between one or the other, but the former should receive more attention than the latter.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You and many others seem quite convinced that addressing these other issues and pursuing investment in space are mutually exclusive, or at the very least that pursuing one makes the other more difficult. I have never understood where this conclusion came from. Do you mind explaining that a bit?
I don't deny that there can be some overlap (i.e. spillover benefits from space exploration), but I think that in a world of limited financial, human, and especially political capital, priorities need to be set. I think it's good that space exploration receives attention from our governments, but it should not receive more than pressing issues like climate change. Nothing about space exploration itself makes addressing near-term threats more difficult, but our political systems can only make so many things top priorities at one time. If our systems could address all problems at all times with total commitment, then there wouldn't be any trade-offs inherent to putting a lot of energy into space exploration. But my intuition is that our systems are not capable of that kind of commitment, and thus priorities must be set.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It was nice of you to ask. This forum was intended for anyone who wanted to join in.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
you mentioned that your opinion on the topic has been enriched by certain things since your debate with user. Would you mind going into that a bit more
I recently spectated a Zoom call with NASA Administrator Bridenstine, hosted by CSIS. I thought he made a pretty cogent case for his agency's contribution to the national interest, and in the process, he made some points that related more directly to the key argument I made in the debate. He convinced me that there are significant commercial opportunities in space in the next couple decades. This is noteworthy to me, because in the debate I argued that space exploration is primarily a pure pursuit of knowledge, lacking in any immediate tangible value. If I had been facing off in a debate against Bridenstine, he would have demolished this claim of mine. Bridenstine also mentioned as an aside that NASA puts out an annual list of "spin-off technologies" that have been incidentally developed as NASA carried out its space exploration mission. I imagine User_2006 could have used said list to bolster his "sharpening the ax" argument.
Also, while listening to the Planetary Society's podcast, "Planetary Radio," a former NASA official made a good case for the logic of NASA partnership with commercial entities and the commercial opportunities in space more generally.
TL;DR Recently I've come to appreciate that space exploration yields more than just knowledge for its own sake.
Even with all this being said, I still think there are other issues more pressing and more demanding of our attention than space exploration. Humanity could have a really fantastic future in space, but we have to survive urgent threats to our species' well-being in order to keep that long-term possibility alive.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
tag
Created:
Discipulus_Didicit, prompted by my recent debate with User_2006, asked that we debate this or have a forum discussion about it. I prefer the latter, as my interest in a debate topic tends to fall off rapidly after I set up the debate. The consequence is that I often regret committing myself to a debate when my opponent and I are still working on final arguments a month later. That didn't happen this time, because my opponent conceded, but even so, I prefer not to have another debate on the subject.
While working on the debate, I coincidentally encountered some podcast content that informed my understanding of space exploration's value. I can share how said content enriched my beliefs, but I take it D_D has been politely holding back his opinions on the matter, so as to not contaminate my debate with outside influences. So, D_D, I'd be happy to let you go first. If you like, please share your thoughts.
(see debate that prompted all this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1944/space-exploration-ought-to-be-a-top-priority-in-the-near-term)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Thank you for all your hard work.
Created:
Posted in:
Less than 2 days left. 2,500 characters. 3 rounds - and my opponent forfeits final round! Zero votes as of posting.
"Is Extraterrestrial Intelligence More Likely Common than Uncommon?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sounds like a good debate. Maybe I'll get to vote on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Do you remember the name of the server? I'm very interested in this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
- Iran
- US
- Saudi Arabia
- European Union
- Russia: Dr. Franklin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There is a discord server for this specific game?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think this is a reasonable answer, and I can't ask for much more in the context of this thread. Thanks!It really comes down to whose perspective you are looking at this from. State A wants to improve the lives of its people, making it justifiable to them. State B just had its people killed, so they would think State B is in the wrong. From an outsider perspective, I would say that killing for economic reasons is wrong, but again, it is hard to fault people who want to improve their people's lives
Created: