Total posts: 112
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).
And what ought to be is a subjective opinion. Objectively we have what is. You have no logical way to say what 'ought to be' since you have no way to demonstrate that your opinion is better than others. I can make sense of ought by admitting that it's meaningless to what is, irrelevant to reality. We can give reasons why we think we should change a thing, we can change things, but we can't say that these things should be changed because as of yet no standard by which we can judge such an assertion has been demonstrated to exist. As of yet you haven't shown that you can measure morality, we can assume A is better than B, but notice how you haven't presented once case where that can be shown to be true.
It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what.
Good and better are meaningless terms unless you have given specific criteria, unless that is you can finally demonstrate that objective morality exists.
Created:
It is an argument for common sense. If what you want has no bearing on what is true, the question still is what is true? You can't say. You have no idea. Yet you would prefer that others adopt your views that you like for no good reason.
Not really no. I don't care if people adopt my view. I question other views because in doing so maybe I'll find something valid. Unfortunately as of yet your view shows nothing conclusive.
I can demonstrate that without objective morality you can't determine good and evil, because anything goes, depending on what any particular people or cultures like. In Iran, the commonly heard moral outcry is "death to America." They think that is good. Do you? Is there anything you can give to show them they should not think this way? Since you don't know what is ACTUALLY good you don't have a voice of reason. You can't explain what is good.
You are correct. Without objective morality you can't determine what is good or evil. You haven't however shown that there is a good or evil or that we can determine one from the other. You aren't proving anything, you're simply stating things you don't like about the other position. To save some time now. I will point out that I will not state that I find any position you present to me as good or bad, there is no point in doing so, the terms are purely subjective and meaningless. Even you have pointed out that good is meaningless without a clear definition. Read the link I gave you, outside of specific context it is meaningless, in a moral sense it's meaningless until you can demonstrate A) there is an objective morality and B) we can demonstrate what it is. Since we can do neither good becomes meaningless within a moral context as does bad.
I look at The Ten Commandments as the moral standard and morality branches off from that standard. In most cultures, people recognize it is wrong to kill innocent people, and especially not for fun and pleasure. I believe every one of us has a moral compass built into us because we are made in the image and likeness of God. The further we get from recognizing God as that objective source of morality the more anything goes.
And yet we have people who do kill children and do it thinking they're righteous, they believe themselves moral. That flies in the face of your belief. Can you show that the belief is true? You certainly haven't done anything that does so yet.
Created:
The trouble is yours, not mine. Your worldview does not have the means to do so. Thus, if someone in a society that accepts torturing innocent children for fun enjoying this you can't say it is WRONG for them.
No, it's your problem, the difference is you're ignoring it while I acknowledge it. I wouldn't say they were wrong. I'd stop them from harming children.
If a society that kills Jews because it sees them as less human than non-Jews, you can't say it is wrong for them. If a moral reformer comes along and tries to change the views of that society because he does not see Jews as non-persons, or lesser persons, then they are wrong. How does that grab you?
Why would the social reformer be wrong? Unless he's presenting facts that are inaccurate why would wrong apply to him? I would support the reformer, I don't support the killing of jews, however that wouldn't be a moral choice in the way you seem to define morals, it would be me acting on my preferences, on values I have formed for myself.
Why SHOULD I trust your moral compass in determining right and wrong, especially when I believe the exact opposite? There is no reason I should accept your personal opinion, especially since it is relative.
You shouldn't, just like I shouldn't trust yours. Neither of us can show we know which way north is.
Within every culture/country/society, there are thousands of social groups that are opposed to the culture-at-large values.
So? I'm not saying that cultures form morality and so that is moral. I am stating we can't know what morality is (if there even is such a thing as morality beyond our imaginings).
Yes, the morality in any given culture has changed which begs the question of which is the actual correct view? There is no way of saying. Which again brings me to the point that you can't make sense of morality, yet you continually fight for your view being valid. If you did not think so, why would you hold it???
I can make sense of morality, you might not like the ramifications of my conclusion, but it makes sense of what we know. Morality is something we each conceptualise, if what we conceptualise is true or not is unknown (I hold this since you still haven't presented any reason to conclude any morality is objectively true, let alone that your moral values are). If we cannot know that what we conceptualize is accurate or not (or even if there is something for it to be accurate against) then our morality is a collection of preferences and opinions. So far nothing that has been said invalidates any of those points. You simply argue that you dislike them. My argument isn't based on moral principles, it's based on reason, logic and the evidence or lack thereof.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, you are confusing personal preference with right and wrong. Beauty is a subjective preference. Torturing innocent babies for fun is not for any person or any time.
Not at all. I am following what we know to where it concludes. We have no evidence of an objective morality, we have only our subjective preferences as to what is moral. Also your last sentence doesn't make sense. It is not what exactly? I'm sure it is the personal preference for some, is it moral? No, but then in a true sense what is? That is kind of my point.
Are you willing to say that torturing innocent babies for fun by some is okay, morally good? If you are then how could you be trusted in looking after such a helpless person? If not then you think it is objectively true since it applies to every person.
No. I would never call anything moral. That's kind of my point. If we cannot demonstrate there is an objective morality then we form morality, we make it up. We have our values and we either hold to them or we don't, but they're not real. They're made up either we make them up ourselves or others do. Nothing is moral nothing is immoral. You can agree with an act, you can disagree with it, but moral weight is moot. This is the case even if there is an objective morality that we cannot demonstrate as being true (since we've no way of knowing which set of moral values if any are accurate). Ultimately you shouldn't determine if someone is fit to look after a baby because they would be willing to say torture is bad, but because they would be willing to act to stop that torture from happening, if they deem morality to exist or not.
Created:
It makes sense that God would transcend what is made and has a beginning. It makes sense that we DISCOVER laws of how things work because there is meaning behind the universe that created and sustains it and everything in it. These laws point to that Lawgiver.
Newton wrote the law of gravity. This is fact. You argue that we 'discover' the laws of how things work. Yet can you show this is the case? It can be argued that we invent the laws based on observing how things work. Can you show these laws are prescriptive and not descriptive? It would make sense that intelligent beings in a consistent universe (regardless of if that universe was produced by an intelligence or not) would observe the consistency and find ways to describe that consistency.
You have a choice whether you want to believe that or that ultimately everything is meaningless and without purpose. It all means nothing in the long run with such a worldview.
What does that have to do with which position is actually true? Again what does what I would prefer matter to what is true? This does nothing to prove your point or disprove any other.
Created:
Truth is objective.
Truth as in something that is true? Sure, anything that is in accordance with reality is true. Laptops are definitely true, this post is evidence of that.
Listen to what you are saying. You personally find it reprehensible...but what about those who don't? If there is no objective best, no fixed and final reference point, then what makes your personal PREFERENCE any better than their personal PREFERENCE? Nothing. YET, you can't live by personal preferences consistently because once you become a moral RELATIVIST you can no more criticize their position than they can yours as better or worse. Your worldview cannot say it is wrong. All it can do is say, "I don't like it." And when a future Hitler calls you forth and leads you to the gas chambers all you can do is say "I don't like this," not that it is wrong. But I'm sure your inner being is SCREAMING this is definitely wrong - no doubts. Once it happens to you then you are no longer a moral relativist.
My personal preference isn't any better than anyone else's. I can very much criticize their position, just as they can mine, but it's simply opinion in both cases. My world view allows me to state 'this is wrong' in two ways, firstly if it's factually inaccurate and secondly if I'm stating an opinion.
After this you fall into speculation fear of consequence fallacies. I have had things done to me that I subjectively would call bad, I disapproved of them, they cost me and they hurt me. I don't however say they were wrong, because there is no objective standard by which we can conclude that.
When you use "social pressures" to determine right and wrong, good and evil, what happens if you live in a society that sees slavery as morally good, or killing Jews because they are not quite as superior or HUMAN as your "race" of people? ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAKES SLAVERY OR KILLING JEWS GOOD? It all depends on where you live?
No. I'm saying there is no good. We have our concepts of good, we imagine good, but as far as the evidence suggests it's something we make up. We've no evidence to suggest good or bad exist.
Anything can be deemed good, as long as those in control have the power to enforce their desires. That, however, does not make anything good, it just makes it permissible. To have a good you have to have a fixed best that you can compare goodness too. If you don't have that all you have is power and preference. My worldview has what is necessary and can make sense of goodness, yours cannot. THAT IS MY POINT. So, you can live inconsistently, always borrowing from my Christian worldview when it is convenient, but you can never reconcile from your own worldview its inconsistencies.
But can you show that we have good? This is the question I have posed to you several times. When I say we have subjective good and I can make sense of good. It's because good isn't a real thing, it's an idea, it's something we've thought up. If this position is correct then I don't need borrow from your worldview. I have only opinion I can express that opinion whenever I like and people can dismiss it when they like. I have my values, I hold to them.
I would note none of this has done anything to suggest that moral absolutes exist. It simply gives reasons for why you're uncomfortable with the lack of moral absolutes.
Created:
This is an argument from ignorance. The counter argument would be show a god creating anything. Again this proves nothing. You're shifting the burden of proof. You have the claim 'god exists' I ask you why does reason require an intelligence to have formed? We've already discussed this though it took a slightly different form. If the universe exists that contains consistent forces working in consistent ways then it stands that we would be able to observe these interactions and make sense of them. You make the claim reason requires an intelligence to form. Can you prove this claim or is it just supposition based on what you've observed? Again, I have never observed a god creating anything, that doesn't mean a god couldn't have.To a reasonable degree. First, show me how reason derives from something devoid of it. All I ever witness is reasoning beings giving life to other reasoning beings. Why would and do you expect to find reason in a chance happenstance universe? How can you make sense of the meaningless and purposeless, yet you continue to in most things you look at.
My worldview is logically consistent with itself - from reason Being comes other reasoning beings. From a Mindful and purposeful Creator comes mindful and purposeful creatures. Logical self-sufficient Being gives rise to more logical beings.
It is logically consistent, that is true. However, not all logically consistent arguments are true. For your position to warrant belief, you need to show that it is true, not simply logically sound can you do that. Can you show a single reason that it's not logical to conclude that we lack a means of knowing what caused the origins of reasoning beings? We lack evidence so a conclusion is unfounded.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I can to a reasonable and logical degree, but that does not mean you will accept it. Your worldview does not let you accept it because you have invested your life in believing as you do.
No, I believe as I do because reason led me there, you have invested yourself to the belief and constructed your reason afterwards (as you've already conceded).
I can give you evidence when you are ready to discuss what this thread is all about. I laid out factual claims in Post 182 and 191. I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the truthfulness of those claims. If the Bible is right on those prophecies it opens the door to be right/true on other issues.
As I said, we'll begin with the questions of how we verify the age of the text and the validity of the events the address and go from there.
Morality cannot be anything other than objective for it to be true. Is what you believe true? I ask you. You don't even know, yet you argue maybe even indignantly when I push a particular button, that morality is subjective.
I argue that we have no way of knowing if objective morality exists, if we can't demonstrate it does exist then how can we know /what/ it is if it exists. If we can't know that then all our morality is subjective. This is logical, it's actually the only logical conclusion we can come to. You want to prove otherwise then demonstrate objective morality and what it is.
Created:
Again, you are confusing personal preference with right and wrong. Beauty is a subjective preference. Torturing innocent babies for fun is not for any person or any time.
But everything we have suggests good is just as subjective. It exists as an idea no more no less.
Are you willing to say that torturing innocent babies for fun by some is okay, morally good? If you are then how could you be trusted in looking after such a helpless person? If not then you think it is objectively true since it applies to every person.
No, I am not willing to say anything is morally good. My whole position is that there is no way to call anything morally good, it's a subjective term it is meaningless. I have a concept of good that I have formed, I hold it dearly, but it is objectively meaningless same as everyone else's (unless someone can prove that moral objectivity is true and that their morals are in line with it). There is no circumstance where any deed can be shown to be moral because we have no way to demonstrate objective morality. You can spin this however you want, you can argue to consequence or appeal to emotions as much as you want, but until you can demonstrate a moral reality exists and that we can know what it is, you have nothing but subjective morality to rely on and as you have established, that is meaningless.
Created:
When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country.
This is again an argument to consequence. I don't have a choice in any of this, I can only logically and reasonably follow the evidence where it leads, so far it has all led to the conclusion that if there is an objective morality we have no evidence to show it or what it is. In short, reality is what it is. I can only conclude based on facts.
You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window.
I can be very objective when there is objective data to work with, same as you. The difference is that I don't assume that data when I don't have it. When I'm left without that data, I rather concede the fact that I can only be objective. I will ask again, can you demonstrate objective morality? So far you have argued:
that good cannot be made sense of without it, yet I can make sense of good. Your issue seems to be more with the idea that good is meaningless without it. Considering we have cases where 'good' is meaningless without objective morality and as of yet no one has shown objective morality exists what is the logical reason to conclude good isn't meaningless?
You don't want to live in a world where morality is subjective. This is moot since the reality is what it is regardless of what we want.
I objectively consider what is presented to me and then conclude what warrants belief based on that.
I don't claim that my worldview doesn't hold subjectives, it does it holds many of them, the difference is that I admit they're subjective, I hold them strongly, I will do a lot to support these values, but they are subjective and they are no better and no worse than your subjective values, which I suspect you hold just as strongly, just as dearly. Where in all this do I borrow from your worldview? Or do you mean in some hypothetical situation where you spin my actions or reactions to suit what you want?
Created:
Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address.
And that is evidence that god exists how? This again seems to be an argument from consequence, this doesn't show anything other than the fact that good may be meaningless (and that our opinion of what is good is meaningless until we can demonstrate that not only objective morality exists, but that we can and do know what it is). You're pointing out something you don't like and stating that because your world view allows you to view the world otherwise your worldview is valid, this isn't a case for your world view unless you can show that morality is objective.
It is COMMON SENSE.
No it isn't.
We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good.
This is because dog has a (reasonably) clear and defined meaning, it means a canid, especially the canis familiaris (it can also mean a worthless or contemptible person).
Notice this is a clear definition, the traits necessary to fit it are fairly small, a cat and a tree aren't canids, so they're not dogs.
Now look back at the link I presented for good, it lacks that same traits, if we were to write a definition for good that included the traits and criteria that made a thing good (there are several definitions for good that actually do this, but they're for very specific context), then we'd have a world that clearly meant one thing, it wouldn't however be anymore objectively 'moral' than it is now. The first definition presented for good is actually: of a favorable character or tendency.
That's subjective, that's dependent on circumstance. How about these:
b(1): SUITABLE, FITgood to eat
(2): free from injury or diseaseone good arm
(3): not depreciatedbad money drives out good
(4): commercially sounda good risk
(5): that can be relied ongood for another yeargood for a hundred dollarsalways good for a laugh
(6): PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUSmade a very good deal
(2): free from injury or diseaseone good arm
(3): not depreciatedbad money drives out good
(4): commercially sounda good risk
(5): that can be relied ongood for another yeargood for a hundred dollarsalways good for a laugh
(6): PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUSmade a very good deal
'something conforming to the moral order of the universe'
That's fine, show that this moral order exists and how we can demonstrate what it is and we may finally have a clear definition of good, but until then, we've nothing to give traits to good within a moral context. You can claim this is why your worldview is better, but what you actually mean is it's why you prefer it. You see I'm not debating what worldview is best, I'm debating which worldview is most accurate to what we can show to be true.
So who is actually right? Which is the true position, since logically they are not both good? You CAN'T answer that because you have no objective best.
It's entirely dependent on what you conclude the moral order of the universe is. I would personally say we've not got evidence that either is good. So I would answer neither.
Created:
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic.Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing?
Here you make to mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position). Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
No denying that, but we are all biased. I'm glad that you are looking for reasons! Doubt is a part of life. I'm asking you to find out which is more REASONABLE and LOGICAL by examining the evidence as best as I can present it. There are lots who are much more sophisticated and polished, yet in regards to prophecy, I have been examining the evidence for the Christian worldview for a long time. I've professed faith in Jesus Christ for almost 40 years now. Debating unbelievers for most of that time has helped me to look hard for the explanations that confirm God for others. That said, even if the evidence is most compelling, those who are rebelling will always find another excuse not to believe. That has been my witness. On these forums I find but a handful of people who are really willing to test what they believe. The rest are locked solidly in their position and do not budge, do not hear the message or evidence. They do the opposite. They deny it. The more you present the more they dig into their position. That is why you, me, or anyone else coming to faith depends on God and His word.
Let's begin the examination of the evidence with the most pertinent question. What methods have been used to date when the gospels were written? Internal prophecy is always hard to handle. The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims). Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).
Created:
So you start nowhere? (i.e., starting point) You have no starting point?
No, I start with a question. Why would I start with an answer when I have no means to support that answer.
I argue it does presuppose since you were not there, neither was any other human. Even if you don't know you still look at or start with the universe from God as Creator (or the greatest personal being), or you begin with a material origin alone and origins via a chance instead of by intent. You ASSUME that everything that exists came about by your presupposed method, even if you have no surety (ignorant).
No. You don't have to assume either. To assume is to believe. I don't believe the universe came to be without god, I don't believe the universe came to be with a god. The only belief I have in regards to the nature of the universe is that it appears to have had a beginning. No assumptions are made in that position at all and as such no presuppositions.
That is precisely the point, if you don't know but exclude God then you are taking a position. You are presupposing that the material worldview is the more evident worldview.
My only presupposition is that my senses are generally reasonably accurate and that I am able to make somewhat accurate deductions from the information I receive from these senses (the fact I survive and function suggests these assumptions are reasonable). I make these assumptions because they are necessary to function, without them I would literally be able to observe nothing and reason nothing. However, once we have these necessary assumptions, I see no reason to assume anything else, reason tells me assuming as few things as possible is more likely to produce accurate results. As for excluding god, I don't exclude god. I simply question the claims god exists, even in that statement you show your biased. You cannot objectively or reasonably address the existence of god because you have already concluded god exists before the
Even if you don't know whether God exists by looking at the world through " a naturalist's eyes" you see things through "atheistic eyes" - eyes that deny God. Jesus made this point:
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.
It's a false dichotomy. I am not 'against' Jesus, I care very little one way or the other. That that's a logically fallacious statement, it dismisses the possibility of questioning without presupposing one position or the other. It's easy to do, you simply ask 'is a god necessary to the existence of the universe' then you look at the universe and begin to consider and deduce. So far I have seen nothing conclusive either way. We have complexity and consistency, but none of these have been shown to require an intelligence, we have abstracts such as morality and logic, but in the first case we have no evidence that these exist as anything more than a construct of the human mind and in the second a system formed based on observation of the way the universe functions.
Created:
Sure it follows if best is derived from One who is the best, One who is objective in the sense that He knows all things, thus knows what is actually right and wrong.
And you can demonstrate that this is the case? If not you haven't demonstrated objective mortality.
What is necessary for objectivity in regards to morality? You would have to understand every position and you would have to know what is right and wrong, then your nature would have to be good to judge rightly. For a subjective being to know the difference, such a being (you) would have to have a revelation from an objective Being to guide your thinking (i.e., The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with both God and humanity).
Currently meaningless as you can't establish morality is objective, let alone that we can judge such an objective morality. I have no reason to conclude that there is an objective being to provide such a revelation or such an objective truth to be revealed.
He is that objective best, and since we are imperfect, we are with sin/wrong and limited in our nature, we cannot get to that best ideal on our own merits, but we can understand the One who has because we are created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).
You have a means of proving this statement?
Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”Our minds are made in the image and likeness of the Greatest Mind, our Maker, just not to the same extent.
Your proof of this?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense.
You're assuming good is a single thing with a clearly defined set of traits.
Now, most of these statements are highly subjective (or at least have criteria that are subjective towards a particular preference). You could point to ''something conforming to the moral order of the universe, but then I ask can you demonstrate such moral order in the universe?
If there is no objective morality or 'good' then there are many, many
By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.
No. You may infer that, but it isn't what I am implying at all. It is a subjective statement. That something is of a favourable character tendency. It is a subjective statement. I have decided what I consider to be correct behaviour, it is a statement of what I consider moral. I don't deny having a strong sense of morality, I always keep my promises, because my morality demands it of me, I help people where I can and try not to hurt them where I can't. These ideas and many more have formed over many years and drive many of my actions, yet I cannot with any honesty say I am objectively more or less moral than anyone else who follows their concept of what is moral. (My morality may drive me to stop them, but I can never judge them as immoral).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There must be an ultimate best to know good, just like without good we would not know evil. Evil is measured against good, just like good is measured against the best.
And you can demonstrate that we can know good? Or that we can know evil? How can we show any of these things to be objectively true?
Objective best is God. He has commanded humanity to not kill (murder, or take innocent human life), not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not covet something that is not ours, honor our parents, love Him, and do not defame Him.
Ok. I get that's your postion, but you still haven't answered my question. Can you show that best exists objectively?
You are saying you don't know best because your worldview does not have what is necessary for best.
No, I'm saying that we have no demonstrable example of good or best existing. We have no way of determining if they are anything more than ideas we made up. Until we can demonstrate that they exist let alone what they are how can anyone logically claim they know what good or best are?
You make sense of the concept because you understand that good and better are degrees that depend on the ultimate, best.
No. I make sense of them as because I understand when someone says 'X is good' they are basing that on a collection of criteria they determine to be good. Same when they say 'X is best'. This fits every example of best or good I have encountered. Please don't assume to know what I understand and don't, it's quite insulting.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You did not answer the question. Can you answer that question? It's easy to push it back to me, but how well does your worldview answer it?
I have answered the question several times (more accurately I have addressed the question as it's a nonsense question). If best is subjective (which all examples I'm aware of are), then best doesn't exist, we make it up. It's nothing more than an idea we have. This is why we can (and often do) disagree repeatedly over what is best.
My worldview has what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality.
No. My world view makes sense of morality just fine. It just accepts unpleasant conclusions in favour of what can be shown to be true. Rather than bowing to arguments of consequence and appeals to emotion. Humans are intelligent creatures capable of (varying degrees of) reasoning. Humans generally have similar priorities (safety, comfort, companionship). If we can agree on that, then wouldn't it follow that subjective morality would develop in such a way that many would share similar principles (don't steal, don't kill... In short don't do those things that might one day hurt me). It explains a somewhat consistent attitude in morality (especially when society teaches morality), it also explains why morality changes and is sometimes drastically different in different cultures. The only thing it doesn't make sense of is the existence of objective morality... Not an issue since if it's correct there is no objective morality to make sense of.
How do I know if there is no objective best? I don't. It becomes a game of power to enact your desires and preferences over those who think differently, but Hitler's Germany is no BETTER than your America, or Kim Jong-un's North Korea.
Appeal to consequence/emotion that does nothing to support the existence of objective morality. Can you show that one system of morality is objectively better than another? Or do you simply believe it to be so? How do you prove one moral code is better than another?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone else
Because what you think is best isn't what others think is best. To my knowledge there isn't one demonstrably objective example of best. You can state something is better than something else, you can even state why you think that, but you will always be stating criteria you (or someone else) as being better. I notice you still haven't demonstrated an example that best actually exists.
Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.
Now the trouble is how do we show this to be objectively true? I personally find it reprehensible, I believe anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from society for the safety of society, but that in no way suggests that morality is objective. I have created the criteria by which I determine what is moral and what isn't (largely due to the same social pressures and teachings others of my time have gone through). The objectivity of morality is thrown into question when you look at the world over a long enough timeframe what we view as moral has clearly changed over cultures and times.
If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?
This is an argument from consequence. It's also moot, since what I want has no bearing on what is true. Further it does nothing to show any way in which morality is objective. I don't push morality and beauty down the same path, I follow the path they both go down. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? You can certainly show that people have a sense of morality, but can you show it is consistent and reliable? Spartans used to consider it moral to throw babies off cliffs if deemed unfit (and immoral for parents to hide unfit babes), slavery was deemed moral for most of human history. Can you objectively demonstrate that they were wrong (you can give reasons you think they were wrong, but can you demonstrate it objectively)?
If you have no evidence of best actually existing then how do you gauge what is good? What do you have to gauge it against? If you say subjective preference then what makes your subjective preference better than mine? If nothing, then why is it wrong to torture little children for every person?
I don't that's my point. I have no reason to believe best exists as anything more than a concept, something we as humans dream up. We can imagine things that don't actually exist, in terms of somethinng as best we all imagine something slightly different, give it different traits, draw from our personal preferences. This makes sense of best and fits with what we see in the world. Can you show any way in which you can demonstrate anything is best? Your entire argument rests on your ability to demonstrate such a thing.
With subjective preferences as the norm for morality, you can't say something is any more desirable than anything else - each to his/her own.
Again an argument that has no bearing on what is true. Though your conclusion is false. I very well can say I will not accept X. I can do everything in my power to prevent X. I can even have reasons I state for that position, but I cannot claim the moral high ground.
Created:
How can best no be objective? If it is the best then there is no better. It must be objective.
This doesn't follow at all. If best is purely conceptual then of course it would be subjective, we each have our own subjective concept of best. If you want to show that best is objective (or exists as more than a concept) then demonstrate something that is objectively best and show why it is objectively best. As far as I know we've absolutely no way to show that best exists as anything other than a concept.
You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral. You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system.
My starting point doesn't presuppose. That would mean making an assumption. The only thing my position takes as true is that I don't know how the universe began (I have since concluded it is likely I never will) and that I don't know if a god exists. As for my taking on an 'atheistic' world view. That depends on your definition of atheism if you mean holding the negative belief that god doesn't exis, then you're wrong. To believe god cannot possibly exist would be an assumption and the bases for presupposition.
If however you mean I don't accept the positive claim that god exists, then you're correct. While considering the claim of gods existence, accepting god exists as true would only inevitably lead to bias. I am willing to pose hypotheticals based on the definate existence or non-existence of god, yet I will accept neither without reason. In short I don't assume, I have reason for my starting position of 'I don't know' and I'm still there where I will remain until such a time as god can be demonstrated to exist.
P.s. I will address your post 182 and 191 in my next set of posts.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do subjective, relative beings know best without a fixed, unchanging reference point?
Who said we do know best? Or that there is even a best to know? If best is simply a concept then we can make sense of it as a concept. Notice in this entire exchange you haven't once been able to demonstrate ovjective best.
[6] What you are doing is confusing a preference with a moral. It is not wrong to like ice-cream and like eating it; it's your choice that affects only you. If that is your preference, so be it, but it is wrong to like your neighbor to the point of eating him/her. It is wrong to force your neighbor, who doesn't like ice-cream to eat it just because you like it and think it is yummy. So, you confuse what is with what SHOULD be.
We're not talking morality. We're talking best, there is a difference.
[7] I can show you what is necessary for there to be an objective best, logically. Other than that, it is your choice on whether this leads you to that ultimate, objective best or not. Without such an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, eternal reference point you are left with anything masquerading in the place of God.
You can? How? So far you have simply shown that we can accurately measure and that we can point out criteria and state things that meet them are better. You also like to argue that we can only know what's best if there is an objective vest, which would be begging the question since it assumes there is an objective best in it's premise.
Ideas have consequences and without any final, fixed grounding everything is subject to change. Best becomes meaningless for the very reason that "good" can mean anything. If morality is subjective then anything is possible:
This is an argument from consequence and an appeal to emotion. Nothing in your statement or the video link show morality is objective. I don't believe based on what I want to be true. I don't assume my desires have an impact on fact or truth.
Created:
Good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same way/manner. It defies logic. So, either you or me or both of us are wrong, but we both can't be right when we state opposites. Thus, you need an objective best to make sense of good or better. There must be a fixed reference point or best continually shifts.
Unless 'good' is simply a concept. We both have concepts of good, they are different, neither however is objectively accurate. This makes sense of good and isn't a logical issue at all.
This video implies the laws of logic are prescriptive rather than descriptive. There is no evidence of thid. Again an unintelligent universe consisting of forces that act in a consistent manner would seem to be enough to produce logic. Why must it have been decreed that a cannot be not-a and then it became so, rather than it is true that a cannot be not-a and so we declared it?
[4] With whose reality? Is reality only what you SEE?
No, my eyesight isn't that good. Yet why assume anything we can't observe?
[5] So, if your idea of best is different from my idea of best what IS the actual best? Is it yours by default, just because you LIKE it like you like ice-cream? "I like ice-cream" is an expression of preference. You confuse preference with values. Preference is a subjective standard/like or dislike. Good or bad is a question of qualitative values.
You're assuming an 'actual best' why must there be an actual best at all? We can quantify, we can measure and judge and from that we can declare 'this is best' yet what we can actually show is 'this is furtherest' 'this is the heaviest', or 'this is the shortest time' we can then declare that 'better' than shorter, lighter or a longer time. Yet all we have done is give criteria to 'best' can you show that criteria is objectively better or best?
So, the laws of logic defy subjective morals.
The first point is an assumption. Even if it were true, why does it show anything more than that we're self serving hypocrites (we want what benefits us and care nothing for what benefits )? The second point also fails to land, we can all have our own concept of justice, yet we never seem to be able to agree what is just. They used to consider it just to burn people at the stake, personally I can think of no crime that warrants that. They used to think slavery was just. This fits with justice existing as a concept, yet in no way does it show that we know of an objective justice (the same can be used for 'fair' 'good' or 'best' we all seem to have our own version that we hold dear and yet to my knowledge none that is shown to be an objective fact).
Within the physical world, we can measure 'best.' The Olympics measures the speed of the fastest athletes and establishes the fastest times as best to date. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has a STANDARD that all other weights and measures are pitied against for accuracy.
Neither of those measures best. They measure fastest time and weight and length respectively. In the first case you're not showing that this 'best' is objective (only that people have decided faster is better) and in the second that we like to keep accurate standards on hand for comparison (unless you're asserting accurate and 'best' are the same. In which case I ask why would accuracy require an intelligent creator, why not just a consistent universe?
Created:
[1] No problemo with the delay.
[2] How can it be best if not objective? Best implies no better.
This doesn't mean there must exist an objective best. Beauty is defined as a combination of qualities such as shape, colour, or form that pleases aesthetic senses, especially sight. Yet beauty is purely subjective. I have no evidence of 'best' actually existing, I have no reason to think that it does beyond human opinion. You certainly haven't presented evidence of it.
[3] How do I show an objective best? By the impossibility of the contrary. If there is no objective best then which relative opinion is any BETTER than any other and why? Can you answer that? How would you know injustice unless you first knew what was just? So there has to be a standard above you.
So your argument is that we need an 'objective best' or else there is no objective justice? Fair enough, I'll pull that string, how do you know there is any justice beyond the systems we humans construct. I certainly haven't seen any sign of it elsewhere.
With any value, it has to be real, it has to be true to make sense of it. A = A. Good = Good. P = P is a logical law of identity. A thing is itself and not something else.
Yet some things are subjective, their meaning varies with each of us. Beauty is such a concept, ultimately the question becomes, can you demonstrate that good, best, or just exist as more than concepts formed by humans? I certainly haven't seen any sign of them being anything else.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Oh really now? so now the mind, which is created by the brain (according to you), is now able to travel freely outside a brain lol? wow, that is pretty incredible. Even after brain DEATH, somehow the mind can now have conscious experience. Why ASSUME that when there is a time-tested understanding of spirituality and the soul? this would be a good time to observe Occam's razor. The information is here and has been here, consciousness is an open question in science, it has been shown over countless testimonies and through religion that the soul exists as it is, independent of any brain, just like experiences and evidence show. So why take so many assumptions about the brain and mind when you don't really know? I also explained the nature of spirituality, and how it opposes the products of the mind and body, and you can observe your soul away from the body. Again, the mind is not an entity, it is a storage compartment......you've never even argued any of most of my responses!! if the materialists view were correct, then we wouldn't see what we do in fact see, that is the whole point.
Firstly, that's a strawman. I ask why you dismiss these positions, not once have I asserted them as true. Secondly, cite one case of brain death that someone have recovered from, not a vegetative state, a coma or lack of circulation, but actual brain death where the is no activity at all. Lastly, you've not presented anything at all that suggest that the consciousness does move outside of the body, only that some people perceive it as doing so. How can you be sure what they perceive is accurate? You keep stating that I haven't argued any of your points, but that's because A) I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm asking how you prove them (lack of counter argument doesn't make a claim true after all) and B) You haven't made any points that warrant an argument, you've presented assertions that the consciousness leaves the body never once presenting any evidence (remember we discussed evidence and how it must be shown to support the claim it is being used as evidence for) of this claim. You have presented evidence that people think they left their bodies and made assertions that their brains were dead, yet not once (after being asked more than once) have you shown a case where someone was confirmed brain dead and then came back. Got such a case? If not then have you got a case where someone can be demonstrated to have left their body and experienced something they had no way of experiencing otherwise (including relatives possibly discussing such things around their comatose/vegetative loved one?
Everything you know is a claim. However, my answers, I repeat answers aren't just empty claims. I can show you how it works with reason, common sense, evidence and arguments.....that is not just claims unjustified. At what point do you ever consider something an answer and not a claim? Now I can expand on those arguments but not until you concede or actually address my whole statements. Once you are satisfied or give me a good reason to reject a superior understanding we should move forward, I don't enjoy repeating myself unless you give me a good argument to what I supplied. Maybe you should go back and read the answers again or consider the fact that materialists don't know what consciousness is, and that would be due to the reality that the soul exists independent of the body.
True, everything I know is a claim, however it ceases to be an unfounded claim when a body of evidence exists to support it. You have no such body of evidence. You make assertions. Your claims aren't supported by anything you've presented (point out cases where people can be demonstrated to leave their bodies, rather than create situations in their mind). Your common sense only works if you dismiss the alternative explanations. You have a collection of assertions and claims and until you are willing to critically and reasonably walk through your own views, then you're just presenting hubris, conceit and empty assumptions. You may be right, but nothing you have presented suggests it.
Created:
I'm not asserting anything less than what you are. You ask me a question, you will get an answer (not assertion) from a Theistic point of view. Just like you will assert consciousness is a product of the brain, I'm not just asserting it I'm giving you explanations. I've explained what consciousness is, where it originated, how the soul operates through the body and brain and how the brain and body functions work with our soul inhabiting it. You've offered no argument that I am aware of, and if you did I answered it. I'm not asserting anything, and it's not something I make up, this knowledge has been around well before you and I and I have reasons and experience for my beliefs.
Firstly, I have never asserted consciousness is the product of the brain, I have questioned why you dismiss that position (you seem to be unclear in answering that), I ask why you dismiss the alternatives, your answers aren't very clear on how you're certain. I ask again, as I have before, what about these experiences couldn't be an inward journey rather than an outward one (you often state it is so, but you never explain why it must be so)?
I've given you several answers, that is why I'm getting bored at this point, you chop my full statements and explanations and then repeat the same thing I already answered. That is annoying, go back and read what I wrote about verifying.
The issue is that you're not answering what I'm asking. You keep saying that you corroborate your experiences with other sources such as religious texts and 'spiritual facts'. In the case of religious texts matching your experience I ask so what? Why does that make the conclusions true? We keep coming back to your dismissal of other possibilities and why you dismiss these (still never explained) experiences as a construct of the mind. You speak of going outwards rather than inwards, yet haven't presented any way you can verify that you're not simply going inwards. Also, what are these spiritual facts? You have thrown the word around yet never actually presented anything about spirituality that can be proven to be true. A hard case since you're trying to use 'spiritual facts' in an effort to prove spirituality.
I don't assert it, I've explained it and then asked you how it would be possible for someone to travel outside their own body and brain if consciousness was confined to brain activity. You have yet to give me a good reason or argument to accept your assertions. If a person is unconscious, brain dead and completely unaware of its surrounding, how can that persons soul travel outside the body and know exactly what everyone is doing? I say with common sense and common knowledge that it is only possible because of the soul, it exists independent of the human body, and the mind which you claim is generated by the brain. Did you not look at the link I supplied that has medical facts and testimonies about NDE's???
Never once made any claims about knowing where the consciousness comes from. I looked at the link and got a... Was it bing? search result for a TV show, of the episodes that I watched I heard nothing from anyone that no more supports consciousness leaving the body than it does hallucinations caused by massive amounts of DMT being released by brains going through such stressful situations. Notice not once have I heard reference to anyone having no brain activity. Can you point to any specific cases that couldn't have been hallucinations or restructuring of memory (a well studied and verified result of high stress situations)? I also ask again, can you present any case where someone was brain dead not in a vegetative state or that their heart has stopped, but that their brain is registering absolutely no activity, including in the brain stem? If you have such and it's verified by medical personnel then you've got a very interesting case, if not then how can you be sure how aware they are? They're non-responsive sure, but I doubt anyone can confirm exactly what's happening in the brain/body during this time (if they could this discussion wouldn't be happening).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
To begin, I would like to apologise for the delay in this reply, work has been exceptionally demanding of my time.
Another point I have been making all along -> you can't make sense of best. Without a necessary being, there is no sufficient reason for your view being any better than mine, speaking of qualitative values. The word "superior" or "best" becomes meaningless.A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.
I can very well make sense of best. I simply don't assume an objective best. Can you in any way show that an objective best must exist? As for your comments on a 'true belief' I have to disagree, a true belief would be a belief that was in accordance with reality, no other trait would be necessary for it to be true. It needn't answer questions, it needn't make one comfortable. There are many things I consider better than others, yet the criteria by which I decide which is best isn't objective, it's subjective. I can without a doubt say that ice cream is better than anchovies, but only in a subjective frame. I dislike anchovies and very much like ice cream. There is an example of a subjective best (and why it is best subjectively). Can you show an objective best and why it is best objectively?
I can show there must be an objective, true belief to make sense of belief. You are in a quandary as to which belief is true. You say you can't say one is superior to another because your worldview is based on subjective opinions. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the superior belief.
No, you can point out a belief you claim to be superior, but so far you haven't shown how we can confirm an objective 'best' or 'superior' You have stated certain traits necessary for a 'true belief' can you show any of those are objectively best in a belief? Just as importantly, can you show that your belief possesses all of them? Your belief asserts an intellect created the universe, can you show that this is accurate (my current belief asserts I don't know, considering I lack the means to verify anything about the possibility of there being anything or what traits it may possess if there is anything beyond this universe, that belief seems fairly accurate to me).
I can give you reasonable and logical evidence that God exists, but what kind of evidence would ever suffice for someone who does not believe in God? You will keep going to your default worldview presuppositions that any evidence I give can be dismissed via science. Science must have an explanation.
No. This is a strawman, it totally misrepresents me. My position has nothing to do with dismissing your claims of evidence on the grounds of science, but in confirming that they can be proven to support your case.
You have made claims that you cannot know which belief is superior or best. Why would I ever want to believe what you believed on those grounds? (the blind leading the blind) You have made claims that you of ignorant of one belief being better than another. It does not make me want to sign up for what you believe. And science is always on the verge of supplying the answers, yet never does.
There is one of the primary differences in our world view. My position isn't built on what I want, it's not a belief I possess because it makes me happy, comfortable or provides answers I like. My belief is held because as far as I am aware it is the only position I can take given the facts and not presupposing (and thus biasing) god or not-god. This again kind of verges off into the realms of science, which is odd, since I've not mentioned science.
It seems your position currently hinges on the ability to show that 'best' or 'superior' are objective. If you can then we have something very interesting, if not, then your position is just you throwing out a belief that supports your subjective best (it may still be that even if you can show that there is an objective best, but you'd be a step closer to making this whole 'making sense of best' argument meaningful.
No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too.
You seem to misunderstand the word presuppositional. I never began with the presupposition that there is no adequate reason for gods existence. I began with the position that it's unknown if there is adequate reason for gods existence. I haven't much left that position, my only real shift is that I don't have adequate reason for the existence of any god or creator entity. This isn't a presupposition, this is a conclusion made after much discussion and thought. I haven't been shown a single thing that would determine if a god does or must exist.
Two people are about to open a door, they've never seen the door before or been on the other side of it. When asked what's on the other side of the door one of them answers 'I don't know', the other answers 'A sofa and two chairs' which one of them holds a presupposition?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would you hold a belief in something if it was not superior to some other belief? (I have an answer to that question) Only because you don't know any better or because you don't like the consequences of believing the other (as you admit and I underlined).
Here you miss my point entirely. I am not stating that I would hold a belief knowing that there is a better belief, but that I don't assume my belief is the best (As I've said I'm not convinced there is a best). What would make a belief best? Some people want beliefs that provide answers, others want beliefs that are comforting or make them happy, some people want beliefs that are as accurate to reality as possible (I know I do). Which is objectively best and why?
You can't throw around terms like better unless there is a final, fixed measure of better - best. Do you have one? If not, then how do you know what you believe is right, or good, or ought to be the case? You plead ignorance.
I don't throw such terms around. I answered your question which references best. I haven't once claimed (nor will I) that one belief is better than another, I may say that something is better for me. I may give a subjective opinion that includes what I consider best, I won't claim it is objectively true. My question to you is can you show there is an objective 'best' in terms of beliefs? If a reason I should presuppose god is to have a way of identifying the objective 'best' or 'good' then can you demonstrate that such exists?
You have not demonstrated the ability to reason on why I SHOULD believe you.
What claims have I made? When have I suggested you should believe me? I am asking questions offering alternative views and asking how you can show them to be inaccurate.
You have many. Maybe you do not understand them. Many, many people do not realize their worldview bias. No one is neutral. If you don't presuppose God then you presuppose some other beginning. You build on those beginnings from a worldview that excludes God as the, or the likely, explanation.
This is a false dichotomy (and a fairly arrogant one at that). I know my world views, I don't presuppose anything. I haven't and don't, claim to know how the universe began, I don't claim a god is impossible or improbable, I don't claim that a god is necessary or likely. I haven't supposed what (if anything) was before this universe. I fail to see why I must presuppose any of these things rather than remaining with the default position of 'I don't know' it's an honest position that makes sense with the evidence available to us.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Does it begin with YOU? I know it does not begin with me. I see it did not begin with those who are born after me. People before me thought these meanings existed before I did.
Who said the universe has a single meaning? I don't assume an inherent meaning to the universe, nor do I see reason to. Without that assumption it becomes entirely possible we each impose our own meaning upon the universe. If this is the case then the first intelligent life would have been the first being to impose meaning upon the universe logically.
Which person did the laws of the universe begin with?
What an odd question. Why would you assume I think natural processes began with a person? The physical constants, the processes and interactions that cause the universe to behave as it does would have begun with the universe. Why do you think they need be started by a person?
If you make up qualitative meanings and I make up qualitative meanings, then why are your meanings any better than my meanings, or are they? If they are no better then why hold them?
The meaning I impose upon the world around me are personal and hold value to me, not because they are better than yours, not because they are more accurate than yours but because they aid me in viewing the world around me and placing value in it.
So, are these laws something we make up to explain the way the universe is governed orare they discovered and applied?9In other words, do they exist before we think of them?
The laws? No. The natural phenomena they observe and predict definately came before the law.
Yes, 'meaning' is a product of intelligence, but whose intelligence? In a qualitative system, there has to be a best to arrive at the good. Who establishes that 'best' and why is it best? Why do we continually see the meaning shift, depending on who is in power? It is because people can't identify a best. They do not have what is necessary to arrive at best. What is necessary is an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, benevolent being - God, the necessary Being. Otherwise, I challenge you to make sense of qualitative values.
Well it depends on the law in question. Newton produced a few. If you mean the processes that the laws were made to explain? How do you establish they need an intelligent origin?
Qualitative values are subjective good and best depend on cirumstance. It would be good if I had a couple of sausages and potatos for dinner tonight, it would be bad if I had the same and needed to feed the family. What evidence do you have that there is an objective 'good' or 'best'? Can you demonstrate an objective example of best?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why do we discover information in our DNA, the genetic code? From one end of the spectrum to the other we continually find meaning and purpose. How can something without personhood produce consciousness, intelligence, logic, truth, order? Secularists dogmatically assert that these things can happen without making sense of any of them.
Not meaning and purpose order. You may infer meaning and purpose from order, but as of yet no one has demonstrated to me any reason order requires an intelligence to form. As such I see no reason to assume order required a creator. Of course all of this is an argument from ignorance. The fact that proposition A doesn't have the answers doesn't mean proposition B is true (or even suggest it is likely to be true) since I am not proposing a non-god universe (I won't reject it as a possibility unt there is reason to do so, same as I won't reject the proposition god exists until there is reason to do so), so this could be seen as a straw man argument. It can certainly be seen as shifting the burden of proofm
So, of the two possibilities, God can and does make sense of the universe, of being, of life, of morality, of meaning. The universe does not, nor can it do so. You are welcome to such absurdity, but I believe you (generic) act on blind faith. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
As of yet I have no reason to believe either way. I believe the universe exists. I will say it seems likely it had a beginning, I lack the information necessary to determine either way. No I don't believe anyone is asserting the universe can make sense of anything, but perhaps we humans can. Accepting beliefs without reason certainly doesn't seem to be helpful to that though. Why does order require an intelligence to form?
Oh, just to add. We see information in everything. Anything we can receive knowledge from gives us information. People just tend to focus on DNA because it's complex and some assume complexity requires intelligence.
Created:
When you bring up the question of the variables at work you also bring up the question of whether the present is the key to the past. We look at data available today and assume that what we currently see is an indication of what was all those many years ago that we were not present to. Thus, we INTERPRET the data by what we presently know and what we presently suppose.
How can we know anything about what came before the universe (if anything)? If acannot know then can we accurately determine what is reasonable?
You also bring up the possibility of someTHING existing before the universe. You suppose something before the Big Bang, perhaps a multiverse. Energy is dissipating and the universe is supposedly dying a heat death. By positing "before this universe" you presuppose the universe is not the start of time. Are you proposing an infinite time frame?
Is it possible that there was something before this universe? I don't know. Is it possible there was some manner of multiverse? I don't know. Was there time before this universe? I don't know. That's my point. The question of what is more reasonable in a complete unknown is meaningless, we haven't the necessary information to form a reasonable answer.
You won't find a reason without intelligence. Why do we continue to find reasons, meaning, purpose in a supposedly meaningless universe? Why do we continually find order in a chaotic, mindless, random chance universe? You just ASSUME it is possible. Why would we see the uniformity of nature (laws that govern the universe and without which it would not exist)? How does random chance happenstance sustain anything (laws)? You just ASSUME it must because there is no view other than God that can account for it. You don't like that alternative. It means, if God exists, then you are ACCOUNTABLE to Him. You are not autonomous after all. That is a frightening thought to many, so they rationalize away God as they build their house of cards.
What meaning reason or purpose do we find inherent in the universe? Why do you assume that the only meaning, purpose and reason in the universe weren't a product of intelligence forming within the universe and imposing it? As for the rest. I don't assume anything, I don't claim to know if the universe is the product of a creator or not. There isn't the necessary information to determine. As for the physical laws, they simply require the forces that interacting with each other do so consistently. Any reason to assume (as you do) that this couldn't be the case without an intelligent creator?
Created:
Again, I'm NEVER assuming anything. These little word plays of yours are getting in the way and becoming a problem. I show you I'm not assuming things by giving you explanations and reasoning. But you have to consider my reasoning at face value if it makes sense and stop with the assumptions and ask anything you need to. My argument is that the spiritual would not exist if the Divine did not exist, you're not arguing the point you're just claiming it is an assertion
You assert the consciousness exists externally of the brain.
I ask how you can confirm this.
You assert that NDE's couldn't occur if the brain produced consciousness as NDE's occur outside of the brain (you also assert that these were brains in a state of brain death a state deemed irreversible to the point it's actually part of the definition unless I've missed it you haven't addressed my queries on this).
I ask how you can confirm that this isn't a product of the recorded surge of activity in the brain at the moment of death.
Now, you have made comments on experiences being the most real of your life I believe? Yet this doesn't dismiss the construct of the brain. If the materialists assertions were correct then we would expect experiences created by the mind to be potentially indestinguishable from reality. Can you show that isn't the case.
See where we hit a problem is that the answers you give to your claims tend to be more claims. It's starting to look like turtles all the way down. While I will honestly consider your claims, I will always question them. So far I'm not seeing anything that puts your claim ahead of the materialists.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
First lets get something straight because most atheists I've discussed with actually have no idea what evidence consists of because they are used to thinking that we have to observe a physical object to collect "evidence" for it.
Not my position at all, but the testimonial, fact or information must support the assertion (we'll see that in your definition below). If you were arguing that the spiritual may exist then what you present would be a body of evidence, however, you are asserting it is evidence that the spiritual does exist. This is why I repeatedy ask why it would only apply if your position is correct. So far you have only answered with assertions.
This is true only for physical objects but it is in no way the boundaries of what evidence consists of. Lets supply a definition and see if we can agree what we mean by "evidence".
Actually it's not we can have evidence for something physical based on testimony rather than physical evidence. The issue is that it must support an assertion.
Because your claim that you have yet to see any evidence of God is false, as testimonials is most certainly a part of evidence. So there is more evidence than you could ever know what to do with in the spiritual arena. Anyone who claims there is "no evidence" has no idea what they are saying. Examples of evidence would be the vast body of testimonial facts and experiences.
Only if the information can be showed to support the assertion as true. I have a lot of evidence that people believe in god. Reliability is also a factor as well as if the source is the same as that making the claim (is it evidence of dragons if I state there are dragons in my house? Does it become evidence of that assertion if I repeat it?)
This includes the whole of spirituality and all experiences associated with it. They may be "claims" because they are made by individuals but testimonials are a part of evidences and that is something you cannot deny.
They are claims because they are making a claim (I saw a dragon). They are then making statements to support that claim. Same as the dragon example above. It would be evidence if someone else went on to describe that dragon without knowing the description of the dragon being given to the claimant. Care to present some evidence and we can discuss if it supports the assertion.
Evidence-the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence.Not a single one of these definitions contradict or show there is no evidence for a Creator, quite the opposite if you know how to read.
Notice how the testimonial has to support the assertion (not that the person giving the testimonial believes the assertion). In this context I would say a testimonial is first hand authentication of a fact. Now I have seen many people that attribute things to god, for those to be testimonies I would say they need to authenticate the fact that it was god. I haven't seen that done.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
First, you have to believe He exists. That would be the first step. How would you either believe or trust God if you did not believe He existed (per Hebrews 11:6). Then, by trusting Him He would supply the confirmation as He promised.
I do not see belief as something you choose. I cannot accept the existence of god as true because I have no reason to conclude it is true. I could assume it and have done in the past, but that has never led to anything that can be used to conclude god exists.
Even without believing God there is a host of evidence for the reason that this is His universe. He created it and understands every aspect of it.
What evidences would they be? I have been presented with a lot of claims, but nothing that can be verified as supporting the existence of a god.
I continue to ask you what is more reasonable, chance happenstance or mindful being?
Impossible to know until we're aware of the conditions (if any) that preceeded this universe. You can no more honestly answer this question than I can, you just make an assumption, based on your admited earlier assumption that god exists.
I continue to ask you to make sense of the universe devoid of God. The questions are somewhat sidestepped. It is easier to avoid the difficult questions than to answer them.
Oh, I will make sense of the universe where I can. I will answer what questions I can, however I am willing to concede that I can't answer all questions, instead I seek answers. We could make sense of an ordered and consistent universe. In fact we do (though not as well as we might like), yet I've not once been shown that this universe necessitates god.
Make sense of your worldview. You are making as many claims as I am. AND, I offered you reasonable explanations and evidence via prophecy. I have yet to see anyone other than SkepticalOne address the heart of this thread. Stephen bowed out by stating that he wasn't interested in it.
Not at all. My world view as relevant to theology is that it's an unknown. We lack the means to confirm if the universe was created or not. We lack means of answering this question. We have many, many claims, yet none that are supported by evidence (evidence supports a claim when it can show the claim is true).
What would these 'reasonable explanations' be and what prophecies would you care to discuss? Wht are your standards for verifying a prophecy? How specific does it need to be? How obscure an event? What about timeframe?
I'm giving examples of how your worldview system of belief is incapable of answering the why questions by listing some of them that others have sidestepped.
As I said an argument from ignorance 'you can't answer the question so my answer must be right'
You claim it is an argument from ignorance, PROVIDED God does not exist and has not revealed Himself to His creatures - humanity
No, it's an argument from ignorance regardless. However, I don't accept the claim that a god has revealed himself. I see a lot of claims for this, but how do you substantiate those claims?
Created:
Posted in:
The Ultimate Reality is God. That is what it God means.
A semantic argument as I've already said. By that definition whatever is most real is god.
The Universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"
You can demonstrate there is something real other than the universe? If we can't observe it, can't demonstrate its existence, then how can we claim it is the ultimate reality. I would point out that if you determine God=Ultimate Reality, then you need to do two things. You need to prove that something is the 'most real' can you give a means by which we can grade reality? Then you can get to work of demonstrating that such a 'most real' thing exists. Until then you've simply got another claim (that there is one thing more real than any other) can you substatiate this?
Someone who takes the universe as being The Ultimate Reality is a pantheist. I am closer to a panentheist. Even if you take the universe as God, you still believe in God.
True, though that is at most a semantic victory. You can twist definitions until anything can fit the definition of god. I would still only believe in the universe. If you started defining god as:
an implement for writing, drawing, or marking consisting of or containing a slender cylinder or strip of a solid marking substance
I might start calling pencils God, they'd still just be pencils.
As far as me making claims of God being a creator or tgat there is a reality beyond what we observe, I don't see these as controversial. In fact, I find it puzzling that you would find this odd considering that things can be observed coming into being. There is clearly a reality beyond what we observe, as there are things we are not observing that exist.
What do you mean by things we observe coming into being?
Maybe you have a superstitious conception about what these things mean, because they very naturally come from what Ultimate Reality means.
As stated above, you still have to demonstrate that there is an 'ultimate reality' one single thing that is more real than anything else. You have supposed this, but can you prove it? Then you need to show a means we can verify what this ultimate reality is and what traits it possesses. Let's try and move passed supposition and semantics, they prove nothing I fear.
Created:
I can show the reasonableness of the belief in God, via the biblical documents (i.e., His word), especially via prophecy which is based in history. I can also point to the reasonableness of creation over chance. I can offer the case of making sense of ultimately anything without first presupposing God. I believe I can do this in a logical and rational manner. As for my own personal belief, I am certain of God's existence. I speak in terms of 'ifs' for those who doubt.As for the unknown, just like you, I am limited in my knowledge. Thus God's existence would provide certainty of what others view as unknown. If God did not exist or had not revealed Himself I would be in the same uncertain boat as everyone else. My understanding of origins relies on me correctly interpreting His Word. If I incorrectly interpret His word I'm in the same boat as an unbeliever. The point is that it is not what I say, but whether what I say conforms to His word.
This seems more a support for solipsism than theism. How exactly is it that you can know god exists? Rather than that we cannot know anything?
As for your degree of certainty outside of God, and His existence and revelation, how can you ever be sure of origins and meaning and all kinds of other factors? The question of why is void, outside of God.Why does something exist rather than nothing?Why is there meaning in a supposed meaningless universe?Why is there moral 'right' without an objective, universal, unchanging measure?Why is what you believe any BETTER than what anyone else believes?Why does life (supposedly) originate from non-living, non-conscious material?
This is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an appeal to emotion), you're not presenting reasons god must exist, simply stating solipsism must be true if god doesn't exist. Can you show that we can know anything? Can you disprove solipsism? If not then your argument doesn't prove god.
That said, I would say that meaning in the universe begins and ends with us, we give our lives and our world meaning, meaning is merely a product of intelligence.
As for why is what I believe better than what anyone else believes? Whatever makes you think that is the case? If I thought my beliefs were better than others then I wouldn't waste my time discussing their beliefs, it wouldn't be at all informative. I discuss because maybe people do have better beliefs than me or at least that their beliefs are different enough from my own to be informative. It seems somewhat arrogant to think that what you believe is better than what others believe.
Then the question is, HOW can it? You just presuppose it can because you construct a worldview on the house of cards of chance happenstance.
I don't have a presupposition. I simply don't accept as true the god claim. I don't claim to know how the universe or life began. I don't presuppose god because there's insufficient information to warrant god. I don't presuppose not-god for the same reason.
It is all meaningless in the greater outcome without first presupposing God. So, if you want to make sense of these whys then God is necessary.
Not quite true. If you want to think you've made sense of them, then god is helpful. However, if there is no god then you've in fact made sense of nothing. You give a lot of reasons why one might prefer that god exists, but not one reason that god does exist. It's a compelling argument on the surface I'll give you that. It tries to assert that by believing in god you can know, yet all you do is get to feel like you know. If god doesn't exist you'd be as devoid of knowledge as the rest of us and making an incorrect conclusion. It all comes down to if you can be sure god exists.
Created:
You would first have to consider the evidence available. Which is what I've been saying, you have an extraordinarily vast body of spiritual facts at your finger tips that correlate with the nature of God. It is not proof, but certainly we can VERIFY that a Creator exists by looking at the overwhelming evidence. From there, you can begin to ask for information and weigh it.
As of yet I've not got a single piece of evidence for a creator. I have a lot of claims, but no evidence. I'd be happy to take a look at your vast body of evidence for a creator. It would of course be circular reasoning to say 'we can verify spiritual evidence because it correlates with god's nature' and then also argue that spiritual evidence proves a god exists.
Created:
I mean precisely what you experience just through the physical body alone.....taste, tough, hear, smell ect ect….spirituality transcends that observation because it exists at a different frequency and vibration of what the body experiences. And so you to learn this and practice getting outside those limitations.
How can you be sure that it's not because it's simply a product of your mind?
Perhaps you are unable to accept my answer on verification on this because perhaps you just refuse to accept spirituality/religion as a means of verification or that it is possible? that would be the same as rejecting science as a means of verifying what we want to learn about the natural world....which would be silly, likewise it's silly to reject the study of the spiritual as a means to verify what facts or observations exist about God or spirituality.
No, it's because you move straight to verifying traits about them, without having ever addressed how you verify god exists. Or that any spiritual experience you have isn't the product of the brain. The trouble with looking to spiritual/religious texts to verify external consciousness/god is that they're the source of the claim. Not one thing you have discussed is able to dismiss the possibility that what you experience hasn't been the product of your brain, you haven't even managed to make points that show it must be less likely than your position.
I've answered this several times now, if the brain produced consciousness there would be no conscious experience away from the brain, no NDE's and no spiritual experiences. It's a no-brainer, all experience would be confined only to a brain and that is not the case in human experiences as a whole. NDE's are specifically the consciousness traveling OUTSIDE the body and brain after brain death, that is only possible due to the soul, and the fact it is not produced by the brain or mind.
Again, I shall ask. Can you show a case where someone was confirmed brain dead and came back? Where they had absolutely no brain function (not simply the lack of higher brain function) and then came back? To my knowledge there's no such case. If there were then the legal system would need to change drastically. As for the consciousness traveling outside the body, how do you know this isn't just an effect of higher brain function stopping? Studies have shown time and again that brain activity spikes at the moment of death, this would be more than capable of accounting for NDE's as would the cessation of higher brain function (not the same as the cessation of all brain function, which is considered irreversible). You keep saying it must be what you propose, but never address in any meaningful way why it can't be what other propose.
Created:
Experiences with the Divine take place on the inner level or the soul level itself and so these revelations are not something you perceive with any of the physical body, there is no object so we verify our own experiences by cross referencing with other sources that are congruent with the same nature of the experience as I said before. We actually do this with all our observations......hey, "I saw a tree" (personal observation)….now I want to learn about it, make sure I really saw it lol.....make sure other people see trees ect ect….so then we learn about the tree through what we collectively observe about trees, same thing with spirituality and God.....we say hey, I observed something or perceived something outside the normal perception....now I can take that observation to vast body of spiritual facts and correlate as well as learn about it thereby verifying it.
Again, why dismiss the possibility that the human brain is on some levels very similar and so it creates similar experiences under similar circumstances? Also, what about the vast variation within the different spiritual experiences people have (lets say NDE's)?
It would be commonsense that spirituality wouldn't exist if the Divine didn't exist, it reflects its own purpose…..just like science wouldn't exist if the physical world did not exist.
This isn't commonsense at all. To give an example of reasons spirituality could exist without an actual divine. We are story telling creatures, we experience things that we don't understand, so we frame them in terms we do understand, gods, spirituality. While I'm not going to assert that's what happens (I don't claim to know), it certainly isn't unreasonable, we don't like not knowing and experience has shown me time and again that people are good at tricking themselves.
Created:
I'm not running anywhere and I will answer your questions as we go and show you how they stand, but give me a chance to expand on some things if you need me to, these questions involve a lot of dynamics so I'm not going to write everything I could, it's already getting really long so I have to keep things short and simple yet precise. Spirituality is directly related to the Divine, this again is commonsense as the knowledge we have correlates with the nature of God and wouldn't be there without the Divine. The "spiritual" exists because first God exists, otherwise there is no experience beyond the physical world. In order to "verify" there must first be an application.....of types, or an observation or inquiry.
This assumes that there is a 'divine' with which these texts can correlate, how do you propose to confirm this is the case? This is actually what I mean when I say you're running before you can stand. What evidence is there that god exists? That the religious texts are at all accurate in their claims of whatever entity they claim to be god exists at all? If all spirituality rests upon the existence of god, then lets move to that discussion. Firstly how do you define god? 'first god exists, otherwise there is no experience beyond the physical world' how can you know there is experience beyond the physical world? How can you be sure that what you think you're observing beyond the physical world isn't just a product of your mind? That you're not creating the worlds and experiences you have?
Created:
"This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine."
Such as? Give me some examples. From my experience we have a vast bodies of claims and suppositions, but I've yet to see any evidence of a god entity existing. I'm quite happy to discuss claims of evidence if you'd like. This is circular reasoning. You're confirming the existence of divine by using the collection sources that correlates with the nature of the divine. Essentially the flaw is that if there is no divine then the texts correlate with nothing. You're missing the first step of verifying there is a divine.
Created:
Posted in:
I actually answered this when I mentioned cross referencing. It's also observation and experience, how does that NOT show the answers are correct. You seem to be under the impression this is all just an assumption and I've made it clear it is not.
The issue here is that cross referencing with others offers little verification in this case, it could just be showing a degree of uniformity in the brain. Certain parts of be brain activate we experience similar things. Two models, two explanations how do you determine which is accurate?
Well certainly not a science experiment in a lab that is for sure, so again this is personal observation and cross-referencing which gives it strength. Spirituality is repeatable as a practice, that's because it's an actual reality that exits and can be learned from. Personally, I verify my own experiences with other sources and references and this is about the extent of what can be done with the nature of it....being "outside" or away from the physical perception so you have to follow that fact all the way down to what would apply to us and how.
Why not scientific equipment in the lab? It can show what is happening in the brain, which is useful after all. Again, how do you verify these experiences aren't products of the brain? It is certainly interesting that our experiences match, but then NDE's also have a surprising amount of variation. Ultimately it could be argued that the similarities stem from the similarities in the form and function of the human brain, while the differences stem from those factors that make one a unique personality, why isn't this a valid argument?
This one I answered, it's commonsense. There would be no experience outside the physical brain and body, period.
But it could certainly seem like the was couldn't it? The brain could certainly send signals telling us that we're experiencing something outside the body/brain couldn't it? How can we verify that this isn't the case?
Many things because it's an incredibly diverse reality/realities. People, places, things or any facts pertaining to it....all the things you would observe or could observe in the physical only spirituality must be cultivated you just can't look around with your physical eyes and expect to manifest anything. You have to awaken that part of yourself through participation, nevertheless anything within the God-worlds or multiverse can be experienced, but this would be called soul travel and you have to learn how to operate outside the body. But other than that your soul will pull back to the very first reality that is beyond this one when you leave the physical body, that universe is called the astral plane. There are multiple planes or multiverses that can be experienced depending on the individual.
What are your means of being certain this isn't constructed by the brain?
It depends on what it is you want to observe or learn. There are spiritual principles that can be applied to the self, spiritual practices that you can do to help loosen the grip of your focus on squarely the physical perception. Basically you can move your attention or awareness away from your body and observe from another point of observation but the point is for you to get involved and learn from it. Since your soul has layers that cover it called subtle bodies or spirit body you are able to observe or experience through any one of those layers just like you observe through the physical layer currently.....these "layers" correlate with an existing plane or universe which exist parallel to this one. So as you leave each layer you experience with the correlating world and the first layer outside this one would be what most people pull back to which is the astral but this is only the first layer…..this is how people have spiritual experiences and why they have NDE's ect ect….because the soul can literally leave the body at any time either through death or through practice regardless of beliefs.
Not to flog a dead horse, but why couldn't any of this be simply a construct of the brain? You don't seem to offer any form of verification other than cross referencing with others experience, which doesn't seem to show the brain can't be responsible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You don't have to get me to consider I've already said I look at all sides, examine all claims. I'm presenting you with an extension, or an alternative, there is no alternative you can give me or present me I'm already aware of it and reject it based on many things. Now, It's up to you whether or not you think my explanations and answers are worth looking into....or not. But I challenge you to remain open about this alternative and just consider it like I consider all sides. I've given you enough information for you to consider and I believe I've answered that question above so I'll let you reply on it. On another note we don't need to assume anything, because I can show you the science behind this, this is not some assumption it's based on observation and experience and a time tested wealth of knowledge.
Now we get again to something that smacks of hubris. You claim to have considered all sides, yet you repeatedly discard alternative views without ever once explaining why you discard them. So I will ask again. If the brain produced the consciousness what different results could we expect to see and why? In short, what differences would occur if your position were true, to if the materialists position were true? This is an important question as it allows a means of verification.
The difference as I explained in the other post is that consciousness cannot be experienced away from the brain or the body if it were produced by the brain.That's pretty much commonsense, your experience would be confined to only your brain and there would be no conscious experience away from it....but human experience and as well as my own dictate that it is certainly true that consciousness is not produced by the brain OR the mind. There is no real reason for me to reject my own observations and logic when all things line up and fit together, that would be defeating the purpose of finding truth in all facets of it so there is nothing I'll present that is counter-productive.
When you say 'away from the body' what exactly do you mean? Where do these experiences take place and can you verify that they were actual places and not constructs of your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What it comes down to for me, is like I already said.....I'm looking at all sides of the equation and one theory is simply superior to the other and accounts for much more of what we can observe, so I'm not going to limit myself and believe something that is a misconception. Right now, there's nothing I can "prove" to you, you will have to listen and consider what I'm saying and if it makes sense to you, there's no way I can answer that question in a way that would change your mind I can only explain how consciousness operates and what the soul is at a much deeper level than the brain. As I said, the brain itself is no more than a component on a circuit board and the only real way I can get you to understand that the brain does not produce you as a conscious being is to articulate what it is and the nature of it and I compare it to energy and electricity and this is actually pretty accurate and just like both of those they can take form or enter form and they can both exit those forms, in other words they can exist independently of any form or machinery. Again, you have to have a starting point somewhere where you allow yourself to consider spiritual sources, until you begin to have your own experiences, like learning something new that makes more sense and has more knowledge and understanding. Don't forget that conscious and the nature of it are open questions in science but they are fully understood in spirituality. So there really is no need to hold onto a fractured idea that the brain creates what you actually are. I can explain how things work but at some point you will have to give the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm saying. You don't have to accept anything of course, but this should be about getting you to consider something and then you have something to work off of
Ok, the highlighted section is the crux here. You keep refusing to discuss this matter, but it really is the central point of this whole discussion, I fear we will get nowhere until you address it directly. Why is the consciousness existing independently of the brain more likely, or a better explanation of what we observe than the brain producing consciousness? I'm not debating if people have NDE's or OBE's I'm questioning their source. What makes the consciousness being separate from the brain more valid than the brain producing the consciousness?
For example, how do you show that your consciousness traveling to another realm is more valid than your brain simply creating the experience? This whole discussion is about getting the heart of that question. Once we can do that, then we'll begin to make headway, if you can't/haven't done that, then you're simply picking your position based on biased and I will remain unconvinced.
Created:
Posted in:
Spiritual type/based experiences......encounters with spiritual beings, spiritual visions and observation from applying spiritual principles and practices and what those results produce.
Care to elaborate? What were these experiences? How did you come to have them? How did you verify that they weren't the product of your brain?
Number one, consciousness (the soul) can be experienced outside the physical body literally, not figuratively....outside meaning outside the brain and away from the material body. You see this evidence with NDE's and spiritual experiences, it's the same every single time.....the soul is capable of leaving the body after brain death and there is a show series that has documented cases after case of NDE's with up to an hour or more after brain death. All these testimonies of people can tell you exactly what was happening and what people were saying while they are far away from their physical body and brain, physical eyes shut, no responses.
I take it you mean Persistent Vegetative States rather than brain death. There's a big difference for our purposes and to my knowledge no one has come back from brain death? The difference is that with brain death there is no brain activity at all. If there's any brain activity at all then it's not brain death. Can you point to any case of a brain being confirmed as having no activity and then regaining activity? I'm curious as to details on the testimonials and how close to the time of the event they were taken? I'm also curious as to how we go about verifying the integrity of these testimonials (I've read pyramid scheme websites after all)?
Your consciousness, if it were produced by the brain, would be impossible to be away and travel from the body. However the soul can travel freely outside the body and it has been shown for thousands of years and I can show you how this works and why people have spiritual encounters. There is a science to spirituality and the soul and it fits perfectly with what we see and the extent of human experiences so there is no real reason to keep opposing it for an inferior belief.
NDE's are argued to be a product of specific brain activity while it shuts down. I'm curious why you dismiss this as a valid explanation for the experience? As for OBE's can you point me to some that couldn't simply be the product of the brain (I'd say they'd need to be able to demonstrate real time knowledge of things happening beyond their sensory range to start)?
In spirituality it's much like a deep self reflection/evaluation and cultivation and often times more than not it does not reflect what the applicants mind and brain normally produce, part of the process of spirituality is learning and observing the difference between the actual conscious soul and the physical perceptions and material body and they produce different things entirely, and that is because a spiritual reality exists outside the physical perceptions and is not dependent on our human bodies, brains or mind. There are actual realities that exist at a different frequency and vibration of energies than we perceive in human form and the bodies that correlate with these realms are called subtle bodies or spirit body. They exist at a much higher and finer vibration than the sluggish, heavy physical body but your actual consciousness and where it originated is both formless and pure conscious awareness and so you have these coverings to confine your experience to any particular universe. You believe it's this universe and that brain of yours is why you exist as a conscious being, lol it's a dirty trick but it's like this for a reason so that you can experience life anew as many times as you wish.
How do you verify the highlighted?
But hen you die you're consciousness will pull away from the physical body like a suction and at that point you will know indefinitely but most people aren't aware that they don't have to wait to have experiences that transcend the body. This is what spirituality is for and why it exists.If the brain alone produced consciousness then I believe/know that it would then be impossible that a soul or our conscious being (I call observer) could travel outside the brain and see outside our material form. And I'm not talking about dreaming or anything like that, I mean more real than what you think is real when you look outside your physical eyes. In practice you can pull your consciousness back away from the mind, body or brain literally and observe from that point of view. This observation point is nothing like would you are limited to looking out of eyes or what you perceive by the brain, it's a much larger 360 degree view point and that is because the soul is formless, it's simply aware and has no extremities and likewise the same with the Creator who is omnipresent.
Can you present means of verifying any of this? You speak of 'more real than real' yet why does this preclude it being the product of the brain? If the brain creates our consciousness it would also determine how and what we perceive as reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet God is not simply the last, but The First, The Last, and The Inbetween. So no, I am giving you the proper definition, the realest reality.
So a trait of 'God' or the 'ultimate reality' is that it predates this universe? Or that it is this universe (and that this universe is the Ultimate Reality and the first reality to ever exist)? Either way can you in any way show that it's actually the 'ultimate reality'? Or is this just supposition on your part? A meaningless definition that gives no traits or meaningful definition to the term 'god'. Can you show any means by which we can determine anything is the 'ultimate reality'? If not then this definition is pointless, where as the definition I gave offers a list of traits possessed by any entity that would fit the definition of 'god'.
The Supreme Being, which by the way means the same as Ultimate Reality if understood correctly(thats a hint), certainly is the creater and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. The hardest one here to grasp might be moral authority, but that is because people don't see that moral authority comes from truth, not personal whim.
Then you can demonstrate the universe has or necessitates a creator? Or is this simply supposition?
And yes, this is how the monotheist God is understood. The Supreme Being, that is, The Ultimate Reality. Highest Existence.And every single one of your superstitions concerning God that you have expressed melts away in realizing the identity of God. That might also be a hard one to grasp where here in recent times self declaration is seen as proof of identity. God realliy Is what God Is. The Ultimate Reality.
What superstitions would they be? You are making assertions such as there being a reality beyond the reality we observe and that the universe was the product of an intelligent design, can you show either of these to be true. By your definition, pantheism is the most logical religious view, I see very few arguments against the existence of this universe, it is the only reality I'm aware of that has evidence for its existence, it is the best contender for 'God' by the definition of 'God'=Ultimate reality.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Scientific knowledge never accounts for all that exists it will always be an incomplete system because it only moves with our own inquiries, 200 years ago science doesn't say what it does now and 100 years from now it will be the same as it grows, that's why this is so important for people to understand this and not hang their hopes on it. Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe, that we are capable of. It has no knowledge in and of itself, it's simply a reflection of what we are happening to examine, it is just a method of study.
Scientific knowledge, science itself however isn't you are correct. However, it is a means of studying reality that seems to get pretty good results (I'm unaware of a better method though I'd be very interested in hearing suggestions).
This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine.
Here we are running before we've shown we can stand. How do we verify there is a divine for spirituality and religion to correlate with?
Science constantly changes, evolves as we continue to study the natural world and so no one should be putting their life and beliefs in something like this, it's a different study and incapable of currently answering questions about any Creator and doesn't even pretend to actually.
To begin I would like to know how we can verify there is a creator. Then I'll begin asking for information on said creator.
Science is a neutral study it has no ideologies or opinions so if you want to consider something beyond the laws of nature (meaning beyond our physical sense perception alone) then look at religion and spirituality as a whole, look at all the NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters, spiritual insights, soul travel that all point to the reality that we are leaving this body when it hits the dirt, IMO there is no doubt about it.
What exactly do you mean by 'our physical sense perceptions'? Also, we come back to the question of verification. As for NDE's we come back to my question on how we can know the difference we'd expect between a situation where the brain creates consciousness and the consciousness exists outside the brain. Considering the large spike of activity in an NDE, why would it not fit the brain creates consciousness position as well as your own?
I've seen and had many spiritual experiences and I study NDE's and spiritual based testimonies and there is no single other subject or topic that is as vast and numerous as the amount of evidence from so many sources as spirituality, it's actually stunning all the information and experiences that are available.
Care to share these spiritual experiences so we can discuss their means of how they are verified and how we can determine they fit your world view better than a materialists world view?
If you want to experience higher experiences you have to be willing to examine, and apply things and let go. Flexible but not dumb or naïve, allow yourself to be free to examine things outside your current beliefs.
It isn't about experiencing anything, it's about how we can determine our experiences are accurate with reality.
I don't have any thing against science BTW, I'm only against people using it as a means to answer questions where it certainly has no means of answering. We need science, we need spirituality because we need to understand both the physical world and the higher spiritual worlds. Both are realities and no need to reject one for the other, they are compatible if we don't try to use science to disclaim things it is not capable of and vise versa.
I must be honest in saying I've not seen anything that suggests spirituality verifies its claims. I don't discount it out of hand, but I have yet to see anything that verifies it. For me it all hinges on how we can determine that supposedly spiritual experiences aren't rooted in that very large area of human ignorance as to hpw the physical reality works.
Created:
What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)
What were the variables at work? What were the conditions and physical limitations (if there were any) before this universe? Without that information it's impossible to form an informed opinion on the likelihood of either.
As for the rest, you seem to be simply stating that order cannot exist without intelligence. I have yet to see any reason to assume this is the case. In an ordered universe with consistent and predictable forces at work it should be expected that we find constants from these we as intelligent beings find reason. The real question is does such a universe necessitate an intelligent creator. Having found no evidence to allow me to conclude either way it remains for me at least an unknown.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty.
Until such a time as you can show that god can be known to exist (something no one I'm aware of has done) rather than simpy believed to, then you have no more grounds for certainty than anyone else. You can either look for answers to the unknown, or pretend it isn't unknown. Once the necessity of the creator can be demonstrated then why assume one?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, we do not live in a world of "magic" but in case you haven't noticed Keither....we sure do live in a world where "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (supernatural) come into play. Our experience transcends the physical boundaries and has for as long as humans have existed. You can label whatever you like, but it's just an experience that reflects reality beyond that which you perceive with your eyeballs.
I agree that there are many things beyond our scientific knowledge. However, this is in a large part why I don't accept it as given that anything is beyond the laws of nature. Just because we can't see how it fits doesn't mean it doesn't, just that our understanding is incomplete (and possibly wrong).
Created:
-->
@linate
it all depends on the definition on what to call a newborn. but if we use common definitions in use, babies are better called agnostic.atheist means to reject god. agnostic means to be neutral about god. babies don't reject god, but can be said to be neutral.
I tend to use the Oxford dictionary, since that's what I've grown up with. Babies are atheists in that they don't believe in god(s). They're actually not agnostic since they also don't believe that god(s) is/are unknown/unknowable. But this is a semantic argument, the point made by anyone I know who takes the position that babies are atheists, is that they don't believe in god, that not believing in god is the default position. This is the point regardless of how you define atheism or agnosticism.
Created: