Total posts: 3,471
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMSI guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆
Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.
It's a Pavlovian game played unconsciously, prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to meI was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.you can't prove or disprove anyone is truly conscious unless you are able to quantify consciousnessyou can't prove or disprove anything is "external" to youso, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
No, I'm actually pointing out the fact that the BOP game that you BOPers play is meaningless, pay attention.
Since you don't even claim to be conscious, why would I ask you anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I keep asking two questions:1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?2) Do you believe you are conscious?1. Yes, You see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.2. Yes, I am conscious of Self and others.
OK, and how would you go about achieving the burden of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to me
I was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.
If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.
I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.very good, just don't expect anyone else to believe you
My state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps
all others in the matter of epistemic authority, I know that I have faith, I really don't need anyone to believe what I say about it. On what basis would you challenge my belief that I have faith?
faith is personal
Yean, of course it is, the contents of our consciousness is personal, that's the only thing any of us knows directly, what you know as the external world is the "presumed" cause of your sensations. If you believe in the existence of anything outside of your own consciousness, then you have a belief with a burden of proof that you cannot provide.
This nonsense burden of proof game applies to anything whatsoever, that's why everyone that blathers on about it, won't admit to believing in anything.
I keep asking two questions:
1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?
2) Do you believe you are conscious?
None of the BOP crowd will anwer either question, they won't admit to having any belief in anything whatsoever. That's because you know the BOP game applies to anything and everything, you like to pitch it but you know you can't catch it, playing your BOP game might feel good, but it's meaningless and all of you BOPers know it.
You can say you think I'm wrong, but as you said above, "just don't expect anyone else to believe you",.
I will ask again, are you conscious? If you want to be taken seriously, if you want anyone to believe you are thinking, if you want anyone to believe anything you say, then you have to be contending that you are conscious, and then according to the BOP game you guys like to play, meet the burden of proof?
Prove to me that you are conscious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.i have faith in spacealiensand the burden of proof is on you to "prove me wrong"three two one go
Yep, I know that's the puerile burden of proof game you guys like to play here, i't not clever, and repetition does not make it valid.
Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,Agreed. However, it should be pointed out, faith is not a reasonable basis for justification as there is no position that cannot be held on faith. Faith is not a pathway to knowledge.
As you said, any position can be held of faith, Theism and Atheism are both matters of faith. To say you simply lack belief is to say you simply have no knowledge, its an assertion of total ignorance of the subject matter. I don't understand how asserting total ignorance of the subject being discussed is a debate tactic, what is the point?
I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.
Why do so many have trouble grasping that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist'If it is not your position that a gumball machine contains an even number of gumballs, then it is your position that the gumballs machine contains an odd number of gumballs.'This is absurd reasoning.
The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.
The three basic laws of thought are considered to be the basis of rational thought, they are 1) the law of identity, 2) the law of non-contradiction, and 3) the law of the excluded middle. The law of the excluded middle says for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.
You think that basic logic is absurd reasoning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Some may think it doesn’t matter if you believe Genesis 1-11 is literal or figurative. But as we saw in this article, many of Scripture’s foundational doctrines—such as the doctrines of sin, salvation, and marriage—are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
You are applying a very modern, and very western style of thinking
to a people who thought very differently, they would not have been able to even
comprehend that style of thinking.
The
Book of Genesis is a foundational narrative to half of the world’s people; this
would be completely unaccountable if it were merely a literal description of
very unusual events that occurred in our distant past. A literal translation of
Genesis makes it remote and irrelevant and quite frankly, doesn’t make sense. A
literal translation could never account for its historical status as the
western world’s foundational orienting myth for over three thousand years of
mankind’s development, and to treat it as merely an historical account alters
its original intent and completely obfuscates the profound truths which the
symbolic narrative imparts. Genesis was never intended to be an historical
description of events that actually happened; and the people who told it and
heard it knew that. It is a myth that symbolically expresses mankind's codified
subjective memory of real events that occurred in our distant past. It is not
literally true; it's more profound than that, rather it is the embodiment of a
deeper truth; it imparts important metaphysical postulates which have not lost
their relevance.
The narrative form tells a story, and in order to do so it must tell it from a subjective point of view, that of the narrator. It necessarily presupposes consciousness, the inner aspect of reality, and in so doing, it provides for an experiential point of view, placing the attributes of humanity back into the picture, the story becomes a human story with context, it relates to a coherent worldview and it is able to speak to values, meaning, and purpose.
In the narrative form consciousness is primary and an additional dimension of reality becomes available to the story teller, one that corresponds to an increase of depth that transcends science’s four dimensions of outer reality. The narrative adds a dimension that introduces to the element of perception the subjective connection to Man, it reintroduces consciousness into the world of objects. This is why it has always been historically used by people of faith to provide interior unity and wholeness, to integrate the subjective and experiential elements of humanity to include values, meaning, and purpose, and provide a coherent and integrated worldview consistent with what it means to be human. In the vehicle of the narrative form the linear, rational, and objective human mind of the left brain is balanced by the nonlinear, synthesizing, and subjective mind of the image processing right brain, the R-Complex, the emotional limbic system, and the prefrontal cortex come into play. In the narrative form the ability of language to convey concepts advances, it is not a primitive form of language use, it is an advancement of language, a breaking of structure providing a dramatic change in the frame of reference that completes knowledge and makes it relevant to a human being.
That said, we can’t understand Genesis unless we understand what it is, it is indeed a myth, a rich repository of wisdom that was an oral tradition handed down through the ages through narrative story telling. Consequently, Genesis was not originally linguistic in its true nature and it was never meant to be read in a left-brained, linear or analytical fashion, which is to say, literally, as story telling it is meant to convey images that take place in the inner world of a conscious being.
Genesis is narrative story telling through imagery, words are used to create the images, but the images are primary, not the words. If it is perceived initially by the image processing functions of the brain rather than the linguistic functions, it becomes an interactive story for the whole brain that reads it. Both hemispheres are engaged in processing the narrative, which gives it the potential of promoting personal growth and spiritual awakening. Our neural ability to process new ideas is dependent upon first being able to process new imagery, new ways of seeing precede new ways of thinking. It’s the vivid imagery of Genesis that makes it so captivating, by viewing it through its imagery, we open up our brain’s interpretive mechanisms and learn to see in new ways, which is what has made it such a profoundly influential and foundational myth for the last three thousand years. By understanding Genesis as mythology, we expand our awareness and enlarge our perception, activating generative forces at work in the brain and psyche.
So what is it about? It certainly isn’t about two individuals named Adam and Eve, it is about mankind, the Hebrew word “Adam” translates to the word “Mankind”, and this is explicitly confirmed in the first two verses of Genesis 5. The word "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates the true nature of mankind and poignantly addresses the subject of “knowledge”, particularly speaking to the development of the “reflective knowledge” that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it talks to the consequences of our having taken that humanizing step.
In so doing it establishes the basis for all that follows; it must be kept in mind that Genesis "prefaces" a book that quite explicitly states we are all "One" and consequently, we should not judge one another. Genesis teaches us to recognize the relationships inherent in wholeness, growth from incompleteness to wholeness is the real subject of Genesis. Genesis is an orienting myth that provides us with subjective meaning, it tells us why things are like they are and it positions us within the universe and speaks to our relevance in the grand scheme of things, relating our emotional reaction, establishing its significance, providing its meaning, and demanding a response. It conveys a deep understanding of the birth of consciousness and the subsequent transition from a life based on instinct to one involving self-awareness, explaining and relating the resultant requirements for conscious and moral decision-making, as well as responsible stewardship for Life and Earth, over which we have been "given dominion" because of the unique way we think.
The Genesis narrative is about the genesis of consciousness, the birth of something new, it is a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence. It is therefore a necessary preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of “free will” and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.
Insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a remote story about very unusual things that happened a very long time ago in a very strange place, it makes it completely irrelevant. It makes it about external reality and denies the inner reality which it is about. Its three-thousand-year prominence as the orienting cosmogonic myth for half of the world becomes completely inexplicable.
The narrative form tells a story, and in order to do so it must tell it from a subjective point of view, that of the narrator. It necessarily presupposes consciousness, the inner aspect of reality, and in so doing, it provides for an experiential point of view, placing the attributes of humanity back into the picture, the story becomes a human story with context, it relates to a coherent worldview and it is able to speak to values, meaning, and purpose.
In the narrative form consciousness is primary and an additional dimension of reality becomes available to the story teller, one that corresponds to an increase of depth that transcends science’s four dimensions of outer reality. The narrative adds a dimension that introduces to the element of perception the subjective connection to Man, it reintroduces consciousness into the world of objects. This is why it has always been historically used by people of faith to provide interior unity and wholeness, to integrate the subjective and experiential elements of humanity to include values, meaning, and purpose, and provide a coherent and integrated worldview consistent with what it means to be human. In the vehicle of the narrative form the linear, rational, and objective human mind of the left brain is balanced by the nonlinear, synthesizing, and subjective mind of the image processing right brain, the R-Complex, the emotional limbic system, and the prefrontal cortex come into play. In the narrative form the ability of language to convey concepts advances, it is not a primitive form of language use, it is an advancement of language, a breaking of structure providing a dramatic change in the frame of reference that completes knowledge and makes it relevant to a human being.
That said, we can’t understand Genesis unless we understand what it is, it is indeed a myth, a rich repository of wisdom that was an oral tradition handed down through the ages through narrative story telling. Consequently, Genesis was not originally linguistic in its true nature and it was never meant to be read in a left-brained, linear or analytical fashion, which is to say, literally, as story telling it is meant to convey images that take place in the inner world of a conscious being.
Genesis is narrative story telling through imagery, words are used to create the images, but the images are primary, not the words. If it is perceived initially by the image processing functions of the brain rather than the linguistic functions, it becomes an interactive story for the whole brain that reads it. Both hemispheres are engaged in processing the narrative, which gives it the potential of promoting personal growth and spiritual awakening. Our neural ability to process new ideas is dependent upon first being able to process new imagery, new ways of seeing precede new ways of thinking. It’s the vivid imagery of Genesis that makes it so captivating, by viewing it through its imagery, we open up our brain’s interpretive mechanisms and learn to see in new ways, which is what has made it such a profoundly influential and foundational myth for the last three thousand years. By understanding Genesis as mythology, we expand our awareness and enlarge our perception, activating generative forces at work in the brain and psyche.
So what is it about? It certainly isn’t about two individuals named Adam and Eve, it is about mankind, the Hebrew word “Adam” translates to the word “Mankind”, and this is explicitly confirmed in the first two verses of Genesis 5. The word "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates the true nature of mankind and poignantly addresses the subject of “knowledge”, particularly speaking to the development of the “reflective knowledge” that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it talks to the consequences of our having taken that humanizing step.
In so doing it establishes the basis for all that follows; it must be kept in mind that Genesis "prefaces" a book that quite explicitly states we are all "One" and consequently, we should not judge one another. Genesis teaches us to recognize the relationships inherent in wholeness, growth from incompleteness to wholeness is the real subject of Genesis. Genesis is an orienting myth that provides us with subjective meaning, it tells us why things are like they are and it positions us within the universe and speaks to our relevance in the grand scheme of things, relating our emotional reaction, establishing its significance, providing its meaning, and demanding a response. It conveys a deep understanding of the birth of consciousness and the subsequent transition from a life based on instinct to one involving self-awareness, explaining and relating the resultant requirements for conscious and moral decision-making, as well as responsible stewardship for Life and Earth, over which we have been "given dominion" because of the unique way we think.
The Genesis narrative is about the genesis of consciousness, the birth of something new, it is a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence. It is therefore a necessary preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of “free will” and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.
Insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a remote story about very unusual things that happened a very long time ago in a very strange place, it makes it completely irrelevant. It makes it about external reality and denies the inner reality which it is about. Its three-thousand-year prominence as the orienting cosmogonic myth for half of the world becomes completely inexplicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies)That’s not how logic works.You’re confusing the actual with the question of what one believes regarding the actual.An external realm either exists or it does not exist. There are no other options.I do not need to take a position on whether it does or does not exist. I can simply say “I don’t know”, and reject either claim as irresolvable since we have no access to such a realm or any product of it if something such as it were to exist.A simpler way to think of it; a man in Texas has been accused of beating his wife. Do you believe he did it, or do you believe he didn’t do it?If you are anything resembling a rational person, your response to this is something to the effect of ‘neither, because I do not have the information needed to make such an assessment’This is the same thing.
“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”, a belief is the
subjective requirement for knowledge. Your constant assertion that you have no
beliefs is in fact a statement that you do not have any knowledge whatsoever.
To profess complete ignorance about the subject matters you spend so much time
discussing just seems pointless. Do you
really think proclaiming absolute ignorance about the subject matter in some
way makes you more logical and rational? Is it your contention that logic and reason
are simply a matter of ignorance? Really?
I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;Faith:2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric HofferThis has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.
LOL, if your thought process is so incoherent that you
cannot connect the dots, then perhaps you should stop with the constantly
declaring yourself to be more logical and rational, it’s got to be embarrassing.
Let me try to dumb it down for you, try to follow along, you were blathering on and on about how anyone having faith carries a burden of proof, since it is clear that you don’t understand the definition of faith, I provided it for you.
Please try to understand that when you are discussing something with someone, you don’t just wait for your turn to talk, you read what they say and respond to it, and then they read what you said and they respond, it’s a process, there is a sequence to it. Now carefully try to comprehend this next thing because it’s important, maybe reading very slowly will help. Logic involves inference and grasping the interrelation or sequence of statements, if you can’t comprehend inference or how a sequence of staements are related to each other, then you just aren’t capable of being logical. You are asserting total ignorance of the subject matter, and demonstrating that you lack even the capacity for logic, to then proclaim yourself more rational and logical is ludicrous.
Now with that in mind, go back and read these conversations again, recognize the constant back and forth where I keep saying Theism is a matter of “faith” and you keep saying that faith carries a burden of proof, then try to grasp how the sentences are related to each other, then note that I provided the dictionary definition of faith; “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”, especially the last part about not being based on proof. Now try to do that logical inference thing, and try to follow along with the sequence of statements, see if you can grasp the connections and perhaps understand logic.
Or…you can just remain clueless and decide that now it’s your turn to talk and keep on repeating “logically incoherent” and “burden of proof”, and “I didn’t say that”, and then declare yourself more logical and rational than everyone else. Whatever floats your boat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, like I said, I disagree with it. The existence of a transcendent realm is a matter of faith, you have faith that it doesn’t exist, and I’ll add that you are very dogmatic about your faith.I never claimed an external realm doesn't exist nor is that my position. You made that up so that you could claim my beliefs are just as irrational as yours.
If you read carefully, you will note that it says "transcendent realm", but since you are on the subject, if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies), so with that assertion you have the burden of proof, and since you cannot prove it, your beliefs are irrational.
Yes, you did. That puerile burden of proof game you play isn’t valid, it demonstrates that you do not understand logic. “You have the burden of proof so I’m right” isn’t a logical argument.I never made that argument. You’re once again, having a conversation in your head.The burden of proof is a very basic philosophic principal rooted in skepticism. It’s not just a matter of external validation, far more importantly, it’s about internal validation. If you believe something you should have a good reason (aka evidence) for it. Without such reason, to continue to hold the belief is by definition irrational.External validation here is simply the test of whether you actually have good reason, which is why those who aren’t interested in filtering out irrational beliefs hate talking about it.So no, this has nothing to do with “winning” (a remarkably childish interpretation). Accepting the burden of proof as a valid principal governing acceptable thought is a prerequisite for having a rational dialog. So when you disregard it you show that you are not interested in that, at which point there is no reason to discuss anything with you.
I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;
Faith:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:
"To know a person's religion we need not listen
to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is really hard to believe is how our spiritual detractors can make claims to being more "intelligent" and "logical" while demanding literal translations of religious narratives, anyone with even a basic understanding of religious narratives, would not call this "intelligent" or "logical".Yes indeed. The whole New Testament is, as you suggest above, full of " illogical and unintelligent" ambiguous half stories told by men that didn't t even know him. This story of the son of god being lost by the god chosen mother of all mothers for 4 days in particular has to be among the most "unintelligent and illogical" (not to mention the silliest) in the bible.
Yes kiddies, the "I'm rubber, you're glue"philosophical argument is profoundly logical and a clear sign of superior intelligence.
You are very clever, your atheist religion is strong, and you are devout, your intellectual analysis of ancient scripture is very humbling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.
True that, and there are literally thousands of them, Chronicles is all geneologies.
Genealogy has always
been central to Jewish sacred history, lineage is an essential part of Judaism,
and understanding genealogical descent is an integral part of the Torah. Genesis
introduces the evolution of the physical universe with “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”, then on to
the generations of Adam, etc.
Judaism is a matter of lineage, descent is central to Jewish identity, genealogy determined your Israelite and tribal affiliation. The Biblical narrative revolves around the sequence of the generations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The gospels are eyewitness accounts about Jesus and what he taught. Jesus had 12 disciples and some wrote accounts of his life and words. Others like Paul experienced Jesus personally.
"Experienced Jesus
personally", that’s the key to understanding, they were writing about how
Jesus had been “experienced”, it was written decades after His death, and they
were writing "Sacred History" from the passionate perspective of
their own religious experience. Clearly, the things He did and said caused His
contemporaries to think of Him in completely new dimensions, there was something
to this man's life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion
that it was divine in nature.
Recognize that every word of the Bible was written by a Jew, either by birth or conversion and there was only one convert (Luke). It
was written by people who thought as Jews, embraced the world as Jews, and
understood reality as Jews. The Jewish
people did not relate to sacred history as if it were an objective description
of literal events, to the Jews the sacred texts of scripture were timeless, possessing no
before or after qualities.
The
Gospels are Jewish attempts to interpret in a Jewish way the life of a Jewish
man in whom the transcendence of God was believed to have been experienced.
The Jewish originators of the Gospel tradition wrapped around their
descriptions of Jesus’ words and deeds, the narratives of their own religious
past, which is the only way they could understand and process the God presence
they experienced in Jesus. Their written forms reflect the liturgical tradition
of the synagogues in which the Jesus story was being presented. The Gospels
were not chronological biographies describing literal events of history, they
were collections of expository teachings.
Initially, Christianity was not a western religion, if you try
to apply a western literalness to the gospel texts you are misinterpreting in a way that the Jewish
authors would never have understood or appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When those of us with intelligence read and reason with the Bible, we see a fable, a mere historical record to be read and treated as just that. A fable intertwined with human history and some actual events and places, but still a fable. A very long one at that.Yep. That's me. I take the bible OT to be a book of historical, never-ending wars and conquest.The bible NT a book of power struggles among the many Jewish factions.
Given the metaphorical nature of language and the history
of the Bible, I have to wonder where the idea that there could be any such thing as a
“literal translation” start anyway?
The Bible is a book that includes history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which is conducive to any kind of literal translation. The information in the Old Testament was passed down verbally through many generations before it was finally written down in Hebrew and Aramaic, not exactly the most precise way to transmit information. Then, four hundred years after the Old Testament the New Testament began and it was written is Koine Greek. Until the invention of the printing press, each written copy had to be transcribed by hand, which we all know is a very inaccurate process. For the oldest books of the Bible this went on for over 3,000 years, every single copy was transcribed by hand for generations and generations, and it started with information that had been handed down through the generations verbally. The language journey was roughly, verbal transmission in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, initially written down in Koine Greek and Aramaic, then translated into Latin, then German, and finally English.
As an originative religious text, the narrative is codified memory as opposed to historical record, its intent was to “image” reality, and “relate” the individual to the whole, to help the individual understand where they fit it. It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus spoke about god at a very young age. His views did not evolve over time. Jesus even believed This childish god was his father.The Boy Jesus at the TempleLuke 2:41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.This story has always amused me.Here we have a woman chosen by God himself above all other women on the planet to be birth mother of his son and not even noticing that their "treasured" holy charge was absent until after a whole day's travelling!? And they only recovered him after three whole days!!?Some "blessed among all women" she was, wasn't she? I am sure social services would have something to say about that if it were to happen today. 😂And why on earth were they "astonished"!? Had this "blessed among all women" forgotten that the child that she had given birth to was gods son?Why didn't "they understand what he was saying to them"!? He was the son of God!
What is really hard to believe is how our spiritual
detractors can make claims to being more "intelligent" and "logical" while
demanding literal translations of religious narratives, anyone with even a basic understanding of religious narratives, would not call this "intelligent" or "logical".
Religious narratives achieve greatness because of their power to generate meanings, not in their value as an historical record.
Originative religious texts are not historical records. The unexamined assumption that both sides of these debates adopt is that of historicism, the presumption that religious texts are historical records. Historicism attempts a reinterpretation of the transcendent dimension in the story that defines it as religious in the first place, it assumes that narrative, implies record, it doesn’t.
I believe that this innane literalism is contrived by people with ideological agendas that want science and faith to be at odds. These dogmatic fundamentalists, both Theists and Atheists alike, presume a referential interpretation of the religious narrative, and when they do they are overlaying an alien intentionality onto the story. Historicism negates the religious text by forcing a referential interpretation onto it, a purpose it was never designed to serve. Even among believers this mistaken analytic treatment of religious texts only sharpens doctrinal debate and results in divisiveness, it does not foster religious awareness, and again, the text is negated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think you would be hard pressed to find a grade schooler that doesn't know that belief in God is a matter of faith,Of course, it's a matter of faith and as you say; most 21st century grade school students understands this.
And
most of our most vocal atheists don’t.
how is it possible that so many Atheists can't grasp that concept?Atheist probably understand this more so than the theists.
Then
why do they blather on and on about evidence, burden of proof, and unicorns.
From the originating post: “It just seems that they are using the faith discussion to brag about how they are all grown up now and so they don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky anymore”. I suppose I should have mentioned that they brag that they know more than theists. Why is this asserted so desperately?
From the originating post: “It just seems that they are using the faith discussion to brag about how they are all grown up now and so they don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky anymore”. I suppose I should have mentioned that they brag that they know more than theists. Why is this asserted so desperately?
Are they really completely uninformed about the subject they are discussing?To my knowledge, it is the atheist that studies these ancient scriptures more deeply than the theist. The theist for the most part is happy to sit back and allow the pastor or the priest to read out the biblical stories and have them translated and explained to them. and the reason for this I found is obvious- it is time.
That’s
desperation, I almost forgot that atheists are the experts on theism, I guess
that’s why atheists feel they need to tell theists exactly how to be theists.
Oh great religious scholar, please tell me all about the invisible bearded man in the sky.
Oh great religious scholar, please tell me all about the invisible bearded man in the sky.
This mantra that if you have "faith" then you have a "burden of proof" so I win, is beyond childish.Well not quite. It is a case of belief and not necessarily faith. One may well have faith in what he believes, and I have no reason to disbelieve that devout theists have faith in what they believe in. But if one believes in something such as a god, then the burden of proof is most certainly on the believer when questioned about his beliefs - not to be confused with faith.
So you
also don’t grasp the concept of faith either. The theist professes faith in a transcendent reality, the assertion is
that they have faith, the atheists that claims there is a burden of proof that assigns
to faith doesn’t understand the word “faith”, and doesn’t understand the concept
of burden of proof.
But this forum has covered the burden of proof many times to the point where the believer will attempt to completely change the universally accepted fact that the burden of proof lays with he that makes the claim.
By “universally
accepted fact” I presume you are asserting that it is an article of faith
within your atheist fundamentalism, Mommy
Mommy, look at you, you’re swimming in the deep end LOL
Perhaps you could add a dictionary to all those ancient scriptures you study so deeply;
FAITH:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Perhaps you could add a dictionary to all those ancient scriptures you study so deeply;
FAITH:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Are they really completely uninformed about the subject they are discussing?And are you informed about the subject you are discussing?
Yes, I even
know how to use a dictionary.
But hey, you’re the expert, if I’m doing it wrong, please do teach me how to be a theist.
But hey, you’re the expert, if I’m doing it wrong, please do teach me how to be a theist.
so I win, is beyond childish.You are welcome to your opinion..... "tradey".
Do you believe you are conscious? Do you believe in the existence of a physical
universe?
If so, then you have the burden of proof, can you prove it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, he is not, this is an illusion his small cult have, wait for the next primaries, he will lose.
He knows how to make Republicans lose, his revenge tour has been very successful, but I think you are right, he doesn't know how to make them win.
He has made an utter fool if himself.
That he has, the problem is the more he makes a fool of himself, the more fanatically his base supports him, it seems that losing just energizes them. We can't just ignore how dangerous these people are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in the existence of an external reality, does the universe exist, if so, then the burden of proof is on you, and I win.
Do you believe you are conscious, if so, the burden of proof is on you, and I win.
Woo hoo, this debate thing is really kewl.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Atheists are very frustrated that some people could possibly disagree with them. It terrifies them that some people are capable of being fine with uncertainty.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a grade schooler that doesn't know that belief in God is a matter of faith, how is it possible that so many Atheists can't grasp that concept? Are they really completely uninformed about the subject they are discussing?
This mantra that if you have "faith" then you have a "burden of proof" so I win, is beyond childish.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it’s common for young children to see the Bible as a
story book and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in
the sky that grants wishes to those who pray. Of course, as children age and mature their conception of God and their
understanding of faith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of
understanding things.
But apparently, that isn’t always the case. There seems to be a group of very vocal Atheists whose conception of God and faith did not mature as they got older and who spend a lot of time ranting about how much more intelligent, rational, and mature they are than people of faith because they now reject this childish idea of God. They apparently don’t understand that no adult Theist believes in the God they don’t believe in and yet, they really seem thrilled with themselves for their intellectual achievement It just seems that they are using the faith discussion to brag about how they are all grown up now and so they don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky anymore, and when I read those posts I can’t help but recall the image of a little child I saw on vacation a few years back who was clinging to the wall of the hotel pool kicking his legs and yelling “Mommy, mommy, look at me, I’m swimming in the deep end just like a grown up”.
I’m sorry, but this type
of Atheism just doesn’t appear to be all that grown up to me, and clinging to
such childish ideas about God and faith isn’t what I’d call “deep”.
What do you think, does this explain a lot of the behavior we see on these boards?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, and I believe that Kurt Godel “proved” that the principles of logic cannot be clearly defined, at least not in a consistent and complete manner.
I don't know nor do I care to know who Kurt Godel is, but if you believe the principals of logic cannot be defined in a consistent manner then you don't know what logic is.
You are
saying you choose to be uninformed about the subject matter you are accusing me
of being uninformed about? Isn’t that precious.
That’s not a line I cross, don’t really give a crap in terms of expecting others to see as I do, or whether or not they even take my beliefs seriously.
Then why are we talking? What is your purpose here?
Discuss
and debate, see what other's have seen, what is your purpose here? Are you saying you are here to get others to see as you do, and you want
your belief’s taken seriously? Sounds
like you’re the one who’s got the burden of proof now.
Or maybe you think that anyone who comes to this site is obliged to make you see as they do? Do you really think this site is all about you?
Or maybe you think that anyone who comes to this site is obliged to make you see as they do? Do you really think this site is all about you?
There is no faith required to not believe something.I’m aware of the Atheist playbook, and that Pavlovian response is not rational, belief in the existence of a transcendent realm is clearly a matter of faith, you are passing judgement on whether or not you believe it its existence, your associated belief that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is a matter of faith.
You are now having a conversation with yourself.
All I said is "there is no faith required to not believe something". So you understand what this statement means? Do you disagree with it? Do you have a resonse to it that is based on the conversation we're actually having?
Yeah,
like I said, I disagree with it. The existence of a transcendent realm is a
matter of faith, you have faith that it doesn’t exist, and I’ll add that you
are very dogmatic about your faith.
LOL, Pavlov all the way, so help me understand, the basis of your beliefs, is that you believe that the beliefs that compete with yours, have a burden of proof they cannot meet, and that’s the basis of what you believe? That’s some circular logic you got there.
Never said any of this. Once again, having a conversation with yourself.
Yes, you did. That
puerile burden of proof game you play isn’t valid, it demonstrates that you do
not understand logic. “You have the
burden of proof so I’m right” isn’t a logical argument.
Yep, you either have faith there is a God, or you have faith there is not a God.
Or, you can look at the evidence and apply logic to arrive at a conclusion. I prefer the latter.
Yeah
yeah, that’s how you arrived at your dogmatic beliefs, got it.
OK, so I’ll ask, what God is it you don’t believe in, and please “clearly define”.
I don't believe in a god that is perfect and yet created us with the desire that we worship him, because a perfect being would have no deficiencies and therefore have no need for others to worship him.
There are plenty more, but we can start there.
Your “lack of faith” is very explicit, how about the invisible
bearded man in the sky, is that one of yours too?
I'll address this in a new thread titled "Childish God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.
please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"
please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"
and
please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science,
logic is defined as a sequence of CAUSAL relationships
science requires INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of results
neither science nor logic offer any support for the validity of free-will
Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
or present an alternative third optionOK, let’s go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is. The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and relativistic models of multidimensional space/time. But unless I missed a memo, the scientific world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
mixing "caused" and "uncaused" is NOT a "third option"
Oh, sorry, I'm just not that familiar with your magical world of fairy dust and incantations, so let me get this straight, a false dichotomy rules in your fantasy world?
please present your third option that does NOT contain (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused events
I don't know, if you don't accept the real world of logic and science, I'm sort of at a loss, but hey, your fantasy world with the fairy dust and unicorns does sound pretty cool, but without the requisite drugs, I'm afraid I'll just have to stick with the real world.
If I did decide to enter into your false dichotomy world, is there a magic word I say three times or what?
Oh, and mixing nouns and verbs is not an option, provide a response that does not contain (Either) nouns (OR) verbs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The most obvious argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.
ok, i'm willing to accept that free-will is an emotion (purely experiential, and NOT QUANTIFIABLE)
Experience
isn’t quantifiable? Did you just make
that up? In any event, you better let
science know that their “observations” thing isn’t valid.
Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence,
hold on,
empirical evidence is by definition QUANTIFIABLE
In
what Universe is that the case?
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation, it can be quantitative or qualitative.
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation, it can be quantitative or qualitative.
and you just acknowledged that free will is "experiential" (QUALITATIVE)
Yeah, and observations are
experiential too, are you working up another semantic false dichotomy?
and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid.
the claim "free-will is a real and valid concept" is the claim that requires empirical demonstration
It’s probably
the most empirically demonstrated thing ever, the fact that we all observe it
every waking moment empirically demonstrates it, the fact that you are making
an argument empirically demonstrates it.
in the same way that the claim "bigfoot is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
I don’t
know, maybe all you have to do take a definition of the word “big” and a
definition of the word “foot” and draw a conclusion that it means something
else, add fairy dust and unicorns, and repeat it three times, won’t that work?
in the same way that the claim "god is a real and valid concept" requires empirical demonstration
Which God are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
and then recognize that determinism is not a conclusion of science.
without cause and effect, there is no "science"
without cause and effect, engineering is invalidated
Yeah, I know, and without free will, there is no science and engineering.
Science, Logic, Philosophy,
Engineering, Arguments, and Debates only apply to volitional beings who are free to interpret, plan, make
choices about alternatives.
We are individuals, responsible for
our own actions and the judgments that motivate those actions.
Your denial of free will is self-referentially nonsensical, free will is axiomatic, to deny free will demands that you to select facts and arguments, and therefore is automatically self-refuting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random. It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will. Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises.
i am
extremely impressed with your analysis
Thanks, and I hope you also appreciate that I am defending you (see my final comment)
but you
missed one critical and tautological point
events
are (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused
No, as
I’ve already pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. It’s not a incantation that becomes true if
you repeat it.
you
have to choose one side or the other,
Nope, I
don’t.
or
present an alternative third option
OK, let’s
go with the real world, perhaps as science tells us it is. The deterministic laws of Newtonian mechanics
have been subsumed into stochastic laws of quantum and chaos theory, and
relativistic models of multidimensional space/time. But unless I missed a memo, the scientific
world did not conclude that therefore everything is random, cause and effect
are no longer valid, and there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
mixing
the two (caused and uncaused) together does not solve "free will"
because
(IFF) all
events are caused (THEN) free-will cannot
exist
but
also, shockingly
(IFF) all
events are uncaused (THEN) free-will cannot
exist
OK, so
this is like a Beetlejuice thing, you think if you repeat your false dichotomy incantation
three times that it will manifest itself as true.
no
clever mix of these can solve their fundamental incompatibility with free-will
You should probably let the world of science and engineering know they no
longer get to exist then, those guys are going to need to find a job now.
I can’t believe I have to argue with
you guys to try to convince you that you are sentient, rational, human
beings, it is just amazing to me how often I have to defend you from your own
self-directed ad Hominem attacks, I find that aspect of the free will debate to
be bizarre.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options. This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.
awesome, instead of simply "disagreeing"
please provide your personally preferred definition of "free"
and
please provide your personally preferred definition of "will"
Oh pulease, you can't reduce a discussion/debate about free will down to a semantic parlor game,it's more important than that. The reason that this concept has been so hotly debated for centuries is
that it is it is a matter
of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings., word games are not going to resolve anything.
The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, if
you want to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge
the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and
place where humans have existed, you have to do more than play word games. The existence of free will is implicit in your putting forth an argument, evaluating alternatives and making conclusions, in your ability to type it, in our having a conversation about it. The denial of
the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim
requires an extraordinary argument back up by extraordinary evidence. You need a lot more than taking the two words out of context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherentOh pulease, how about you explain this logically incoherent statement.
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL
The problem here is that this argument is simply a
contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the
problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy
logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive,
which is to say that they are not the only two options. This is compounded by the fact that both
arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.
Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random. It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will. Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking withI’d like to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” nonsense.
i hesitate to make broad statements here,
I’d have
to say, “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is
logically incoherent” was a very broad statement.
but
some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free
from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement.
Nope, that is not a fair statement, we don’t
have to be “free of all previous influences” to have free will. Free will is a matter
of whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of
action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our
actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the
presence of competing desires. If we can exercise these cognitive abilities to
act without our freedom to act being negated or unreasonably compromised by
deterministic external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are
morally responsible causal agents.
the
best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind
of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision
is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some
i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy
dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard
anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge
how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it,
and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an
ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's
opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing
up ignorance.
The
attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness
and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very
extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Magic fairy dust and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in
determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the
imagination.
the main
problems i see with this proposal are as follows:
1)
there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a
knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.
Or we could recognize
that this contrived I-Gap argument presupposes
determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, and then recognize that determinism is not
a conclusion of science. On the contrary, since Laplace developed the concept
in a thought experiment 200 years ago, there has been no actual scientific
evidence that reality is deterministic, and a boatload of evidence that it is
not. Determinism requires
the causal closure of the material world, science has not even come close to
establishing the causal closure of the material world and pretty much has
abandoned any further attempts to do so. The 200 year old idea that Newtonian physics translates into a
mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe was never demonstrated, and
that idea became even more unfounded when Newtoniam Mechanics was replaced by Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics, currently our two best scientific models..
The strictly philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an
archaic and failed concept that is in fact, unscientific.
2) even
if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply
increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap
possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition
non-influential.
3)
let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that
pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that
i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an
influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we
could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause,
or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated
by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is
defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or
action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be
responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything
emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and
randomness is incompatible with choice.
4) but
what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you
kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your
ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best
indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.
5) what
if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not
an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy
dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly
described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that
is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the
i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the
i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby
introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a
cute little puff of logic.
i think
it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap.
Actually,
not so much, it is a contrived concept that has no basis in logic, science, or
reason. All we really need to know about it is that
it obfuscates the issue by referring to some kind of gap between a presumed determinism
and free will. Presuming the truth of an
idea that has not been established is not a valid argument, and focusing on some contrived gap is nothing but a diversion.
imagine,
if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me
to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy
nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human
from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to
all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque,
air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of
some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now.
ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we
have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to
advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance.
well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so
since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and
seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty
much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an
intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound
moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well
this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof
capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my
handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the
known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental
decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait
for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting
desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right
direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the
i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a
problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts
and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george
has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive
anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the
influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an
uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had
both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george
is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and
luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for
guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say
something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking
box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a
kidder!
Better
yet, imagine, if you will, that you are constructing an argument against free will
in which logic and reason are backed up by evidence, which is to say, lets make
it about science, rather than fairy dust.
This is no small task because science provides
the strongest argument for free will. The most obvious argument for
the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious
moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at
all times, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the denial
of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical
evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without
“proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach
clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving
nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the
real world.
Philosophically, the very concepts of logic, reason, and the existence of arguments, presupposes conscious agents that posses free will.
Consequently the argument against
Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is
a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis
of logic, reason, and truth.
In the end, there is no valid
basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.
obviously
george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore
incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.
the
same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any
conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.
Nope it’s
still an incoherent argument, even if you include unicorns.
ipso-facto,
no free-will.
Ipso-fact, you have not presented a logical argument
against free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument).
nope, you forgot to rigorously define "intelligence"
The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence.
that's not the definition of "intelligence"
If intelligence
involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from
multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of
truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic
thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce
reality to only one of its modes, to know it exhaustively in only one of its forms, is an
unintelligent claim.
This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe.
hold on, why did you say "perfect" ?
and, you forgot to rigorously define "god"
You
spend a lot of time asking people to rigorously define “God”, is it possible
perhaps, that you do not understand what the word “transcendence” means?
The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing.
free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent
Oh pulease,
how about you explain this logically
incoherent statement.
The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole.
no "one true god" makes way more sense. but how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one ?
How
many do you think there are?
I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.
which god are you talking about again ?
If you
want us to choose among your various Gods, we are going to need you to list
them or something, describe them, and you know, tell us if you’ve given them names.
which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.
i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with
I’d like
to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity,
it is logically incoherent” nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfootwhich bigfoot are you even talking about ?the one you"lack belief" inWho said I don't believe in bigfoot, fact is, I'm pretty sure my neighbor three doors down is bigfoot.
what about the one roaming the woodlands in the Blue Mountains, Okanogan County ?
Probably a cousin or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfootwhich bigfoot are you even talking about ?
the one you"lack belief" in
Who said I don't believe in bigfoot, fact is, I'm pretty sure my neighbor three doors down is bigfoot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yep, you either have faith there is a God, or you have not seen one single bit of evidence that there is a God.
So you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absense?
What evidence do you have that "evidentialism" is valid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Belief
in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it
makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
So you believe in something you cannot clearly define.
Of course I do, and I’ll contend that there are plenty of things you believe in but cannot clearly define.
Not being facetious here, genuinely asking... Do you believe in the principals of logic?
Yes, and I believe that Kurt Godel “proved” that the principles of logic cannot be clearly defined, at least not in a consistent and complete manner.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”.
Anyone who makes a claim carries with it, a burden of proof. So technically, sure, merely believing in something does not obligate you to prove your beliefs to anyone else. But when you cross that line by expecting others to see as you do or to even take your beliefs seriously, you absolutely have a burden to prove it.
That’s not a line I cross, don’t really give a crap in terms of expecting others to see as I do, or whether or not they even take my beliefs seriously. How about you, is that a line you have crossed? I’ll be happy to volley your “burden of proof” over the net back to you.
Theism is a choice one makes, as is Atheism, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, neither is the Atheist conclusion, neither is a matter of proof, both are a matter of faith.
There is no faith required to not believe something.
I’m aware of the Atheist playbook, and that Pavlovian response is not rational, belief in the existence of a transcendent realm is clearly a matter of faith, you are passing judgement on whether or not you believe it its existence, your associated belief that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is a matter of faith.
To claim that theist and atheism are not logically coercive means that no position on this subject can be.
Yep, that’s how Metaphysics works, Metaphysical frameworks, are not constrained or verified by observation and measurement. Is it your contention that Atheism is logically coercive? If so, I’ll be happy to serve that burden of proof right back.
So on
what basis do you believe anything?
Right back at ya, on what basis do you believe that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, in fact, on what basis do you believe anything?
Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
Right back at ya, on what basis do you believe that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, in fact, on what basis do you believe anything?
Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
It's not atheists presenting atheism as a competing belief, that's a strawman theists invented in order to convince themselves that they are not the only ones who have a burden of proof they cannot meet.
LOL, Pavlov all the way, so help me understand, the basis of your beliefs, is that you believe that the beliefs that compete with yours, have a burden of proof they cannot meet, and that’s the basis of what you believe? That’s some circular logic you got there.
Are you telling me that you can meet the burden of proof for everything else that you believe?
The term atheist doesn't need to explain anything other than an individual's position on whether there is a god, just as the word theist tells us nothing other than an individual's position on whether there is a god.
Yep, you either have faith there is a God, or you have faith there is not a God.
These terms do not tell us what god, they don't tell us whether the individual is religious, they don't tell us how long they have believed nor how convinced they are. If you want to know more about an individual's position, just ask. Expecting a single word to convey all of this is just lazy and is not an argument against the notion that atheism is simply a lack of belief.
Man, you are really passionate about this "lack of belief" you have.
OK, so I’ll ask, what God is it you don’t believe in, and please “clearly define”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
both are a matter of faith
no "faith" is required to "lack belief" in bigfoot
which bigfoot are you
even talking about ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
not exactly
one is either convinced or not convinced
Are you saying you aren't the one responsible for what you believe? Who was responsible for convincing or not convincing you of what you believe then? And how did they choose what you believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
anyone
can believe anything they wish for any reason they wish
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe
It seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.
you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.
but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe
It seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.
you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.
The believer does not commit to an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that are devised for proving or disproving his likely existence. Faith does not move in the arena of historical or metaphysical probabilities, it moves in the arena of inwardness, of self-knowledge.
Faith is total commitment to a discernment, it brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.
To believe in God is primarily to believe in the objectivity the meaning, value and purpose found in the experiential reality of a human being. That view is not based on evidence but is an axiom that makes a life of faith – of seeing all experience in the light of such objective value and purpose – possible. Such a belief is confirmed primarily by the sense it enables people to make of their lives. It is also confirmed by the greater vitality, happiness, and moral dynamism that it reportedly brings to those who accept it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I did,
but then I went on to explain how this shows us that refuting god's existence
requires us to start with a clearly defined example, and since everyone will
define him differently there is no way any one person can conceive of let alone
take a position on the existence of every god proposed.
Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say God is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are.
Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”. Theism is a choice one makes, as is Atheism, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, neither is the Atheist conclusion, neither is a matter of proof, both are a matter of faith. To the believer that choice to have faith provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as having value, meaning, and purpose.
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
If Atheism is defined as “lack of belief” it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic. Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist, and practically speaking, Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
Belief in God is a matter of faith and it is about faith in a transcendent reality, it makes no sense to require a transcendent reality to be “clearly defined”.
The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say God is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are.
Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”. Theism is a choice one makes, as is Atheism, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, neither is the Atheist conclusion, neither is a matter of proof, both are a matter of faith. To the believer that choice to have faith provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as having value, meaning, and purpose.
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
If Atheism is defined as “lack of belief” it leaves no basis for distinguishing between Atheist and Agnostic. Most Atheists are explicit in their contention that God does not exist, and practically speaking, Theist and Atheist present themselves as competing beliefs, defining Atheism as simply a lack of belief obfuscates the issue and is not explanatory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
Of course the text and title are two different subjects, I'm thinking the real intent is to invite the typical on-line subject matter conflict, so I'll give my honest opinion about that.
Huston Smith was one of our foremost scholars and interpreters of
the world’s religions, he said that “There are really two dogmatic
fundamentalisms in America today. Dogmatic secular modernity came first and
produced conservative religious fundamentalism as a reaction to it.”
I find that more than just interesting as I do in fact see two groups of
extremist posters here that taken by themselves, are inexplicable within the
context of their respective positions and which do in fact represent these two
“polar opposites” categories of one and the same extremism that Huston Smith is
describing here. On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic
secular modernism that doesn’t appear to be true to science, and on the other
side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that
doesn’t appear to be true to Jesus.
Maybe Huston Smith was providing the key to understanding here, to say that
“opposites” are “polar” is to say much more than they are opposed or separated;
it is to say that they constitute a whole. There is a reciprocal, transactional
relationship being described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each
other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can’t have the one without
the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of
a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing. Such
extremists are closer together than either of them is with the reasonable,
middle view.
This would certainly explain why there are more similarities than differences between the online posts of Atheists and Believers, they only appear to be opposites but are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. Seen as mirror images of one and the same extremist, they are not mutually exclusive at all; in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature.
I think they are a lot like the dog barking at his inverted mirror
image.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Knowledge is "justified true belief". If someone can not show their belief is true, then it is not justified or knowledge.
Can you show that this belief is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You should have titled the thread "Trump Followers Hypocrisy"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Presumably if Trump did in fact wield his powers to declassify the materials in established procedure, such materials would no longer bear markings of classification.
Though more frankly, while you are correct, this is simply the court of public opinion. We cannot judge his guilt/justification of the raid on the basis of those laws if we don't know the relevance of those documents with respect to those laws. What we can judge, however, is his handling of classified material, as he once did with Hillary.
True, and so the approprite response is "Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Greyparrot's quote, and your article concern specifically the Presidential Records Act, and while that is what some of the media is raising a debacle about, the actual laws cited in the warrant however are
So the questions to me are quite simple:
1. Did Trump have the power to declassify the materials he took?
2. Did he wield those powers to declassify the materials he took in established procedure before leaving the presidency?
If you actually read the laws you posted, then you would know that they do not in any way raise the questions you raised, they are non-sequitors.
The laws mention nothing about the classification of the subject information, legally it just doesn't matter whether or not he declassified the documents. None of the three crimes depends on whether the documents are classified, that contention is just a typical Trumpist Pavlovian response.
The list of items that the search warrant approved F.B.I. agents to seize were:
1) “documents with classification markings”
2) “any government and/or presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021” — the dates of Mr. Trump’s presidency
3) “any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction or concealment of any government and/or presidential records, or of any documents with classification markings.”
Item 2 and a review of the three laws mentioned in the search warrant make it clear that all this whining about whether or not Trump declassified the documents is irrelevent. Even if he did mysteriously engage in some kind of secret declassification as is contended, the search warrant refers to “documents with classification markings”, if the mysterious declassification didn't remove the "classification markings", then again, the contention is irrelevent regarding the lawful seizure of the documents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If the list is retroactive, then WyIted's father should be on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm thinking you are some kind of superhero, who's superpower is patience.
Faced with impenetrable conspiracy armor you fight the good fight, reason and facts just bounce off of course, and yet, you are still right there, firing away. Impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Isn't this title insulting to Idiots?
LOL, well done FLRW
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oops, sorry about that, I've declassified it for you.
Trump claims he declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Even if that’s true, it probably doesn’t matter.
Aug. 12, 2022
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump claimed on Friday that before leaving office, he declassified all the documents the F.B.I. found in this week’s search of his Florida residence that agents described as classified in a list of what they seized — including several caches apparently marked as “top secret.”
“It was all declassified,” Mr. Trump asserted in a statement.
The claim echoed an assertion in May by Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official and a major supporter of Mr. Trump, after the National Archives found materials marked classified in boxes of documents it removed from Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and estate. He asserted that Mr. Trump had deemed those files declassified shortly before leaving office, but that the markings had not been removed from them.
Mr. Trump has offered no details, but if he is saying he made a blanket, oral invocation that all the files he took to Mar-a-Lago were unclassified, without making any formal, written record, that would be difficult to prove or disprove. Even if there is no evidence that Mr. Trump followed normal procedures for declassifying certain types of information, his lawyers could argue that he was not constitutionally bound to obey such rules.
But in any case, such a claim would not settle the matter. For one thing, two of the laws that a search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago this week referred to — Sections 1519 and 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code — make the taking or concealment of government records a crime regardless of whether they had anything to do with national security.
For another, laws against taking or hoarding material with restricted national-security information, which generally carry heavier penalties than theft of ordinary documents, do not always line up with whether the files are technically classified.
That is because some criminal laws enacted by Congress to protect certain national-security information operate separately from the executive branch’s system of classifying documents — created by presidents using executive orders — as “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret.”
In particular, a third law the warrant references was Section 793, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison per offense. Better known as the Espionage Act, it was enacted by Congress during World War I, decades before President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order creating the modern classification system for the executive branch.
As a result, the Espionage Act makes no reference to whether a document has been deemed classified. Instead, it makes it a crime to retain, without authorization, documents related to the national defense that could be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary.
Prosecutors could argue that a document meets that act’s standard regardless of whether Mr. Trump had pronounced it unclassified short before leaving office; by the same token, defense lawyers could argue that it fell short of that standard regardless of how it had been marked.
“Because the Espionage Act speaks in terms of national defense information, it leaves open the possibility that such information could be unclassified as long as an agency is still taking steps to protect it from disclosure,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington.
Created: