Beginnings (An open request)
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Drafterman
Jul 8, 2008, 8:23:04 AM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
Humans, innately, are curious creatures. We have this built-in desire
to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
desire to have a *right* answer. To add to this, once people have an
answer that resonates with them, and appeals to them emotionally, it
is hard for them to let go despite any evidence to the contrary.
This is why religious debates are so hard and heated. We are dealing
with an emotionally appealing belief that has been reinforced over
years and years. There is this impression of a statute of limitations
on scrutiny and since religions have coasted by, it should now be
accepted as the default and the burden of proof shifted.
The main problem I have when involved in a religious belief is the
immense size of the issue. It's hard to pick a place to start, and
once you do, whomever you are arguing with can simply go off on some
tangent and, on instinct, you follow, participating on a wild goose
chase where nothing gets accomplished. Should you eventually do get
something accomplished, you still have hundreds of other points to
make. Such that any success you do attain is lost and forgotten, the
debate doomed to be repeated.
That's not to say nothing can be learned, or at least put on the
record, and I don't intend to stop debating the various and myriad
religious issues. But something I have always wanted to do, and felt I
lacked the avenue in AvC is an open invitation such as the one here.
Going back to the beginning, I mention the problem of "an answer" vs
"a right answer". How do we combat this? The answer is healthy
skepticism and self-enforced honesty. There are literally an infinite
number of concepts that can be thought of. What, of those concepts, do
we accept as true, and which do we reject? We cannot, either logically
or practically, accept all, or even a lot of those possible concepts.
Logically, since we can always thing of contradictory concepts, and
practically since we can only physically think about a finite number
of things.
So the big question is, starting with a knowledge base of 0 items,
what is the measure by which we take items from the set of concepts
not yet accepted as true, and change their membership to the set of
concepts accepted as true? Some main methods are deductive, inductive,
and abductive logic, each with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately
they do not help in establishing a starting point. We must create a
foundation of axioms. While these are all interesting and worthy
issues to discuss I feel that I have digressed enough already. The
point of this post can be phrased simply:
Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
I think that all religious debates should start here, before moving
onto the minutia of which god, which religion, which denomination,
which sect, etc... and I extend this as an open question to members of
all religions
to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
desire to have a *right* answer. To add to this, once people have an
answer that resonates with them, and appeals to them emotionally, it
is hard for them to let go despite any evidence to the contrary.
This is why religious debates are so hard and heated. We are dealing
with an emotionally appealing belief that has been reinforced over
years and years. There is this impression of a statute of limitations
on scrutiny and since religions have coasted by, it should now be
accepted as the default and the burden of proof shifted.
The main problem I have when involved in a religious belief is the
immense size of the issue. It's hard to pick a place to start, and
once you do, whomever you are arguing with can simply go off on some
tangent and, on instinct, you follow, participating on a wild goose
chase where nothing gets accomplished. Should you eventually do get
something accomplished, you still have hundreds of other points to
make. Such that any success you do attain is lost and forgotten, the
debate doomed to be repeated.
That's not to say nothing can be learned, or at least put on the
record, and I don't intend to stop debating the various and myriad
religious issues. But something I have always wanted to do, and felt I
lacked the avenue in AvC is an open invitation such as the one here.
Going back to the beginning, I mention the problem of "an answer" vs
"a right answer". How do we combat this? The answer is healthy
skepticism and self-enforced honesty. There are literally an infinite
number of concepts that can be thought of. What, of those concepts, do
we accept as true, and which do we reject? We cannot, either logically
or practically, accept all, or even a lot of those possible concepts.
Logically, since we can always thing of contradictory concepts, and
practically since we can only physically think about a finite number
of things.
So the big question is, starting with a knowledge base of 0 items,
what is the measure by which we take items from the set of concepts
not yet accepted as true, and change their membership to the set of
concepts accepted as true? Some main methods are deductive, inductive,
and abductive logic, each with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately
they do not help in establishing a starting point. We must create a
foundation of axioms. While these are all interesting and worthy
issues to discuss I feel that I have digressed enough already. The
point of this post can be phrased simply:
Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
I think that all religious debates should start here, before moving
onto the minutia of which god, which religion, which denomination,
which sect, etc... and I extend this as an open question to members of
all religions
random
Jul 8, 2008, 8:58:29 AM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
religions, I think that question is almost guaranteed to start a
heated debate, and usually not a very productive one.
I also don't think it has to be the first question.
The first and most important question is not how a Theist should
convince me, but what can and cannot be done if I am not convinced.
In other words: "we're here, you're here, now what?"
Drafterman
Jul 8, 2008, 9:24:02 AM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
is, the longer they get away with allowing to spout off their theism
as true, then the more valid they think their theism is.
The question "What can and cannot be done if I am not convinced?" only
makes sense after an attempt at convincing has been made. During that
attempt, the question "Why should I be convinced" is in play. The
latter question does indeed proceed the former.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brock
Jul 8, 2008, 11:25:47 AM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 8, 8:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the big question is, starting with a knowledge base of 0 items,
> what is the measure by which we take items from the set of concepts
> not yet accepted as true, and change their membership to the set of
> concepts accepted as true?
> Some main methods are deductive, inductive,
> and abductive logic, each with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately
> they do not help in establishing a starting point. We must create a
> foundation of axioms. While these are all interesting and worthy
> issues to discuss I feel that I have digressed enough already. The
> point of this post can be phrased simply:
>
> Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
> from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
> concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
of 0 items (John Locke tried it and failed with his tabula rasa[1]),
you don't have an item with which to assert that one premise:
"Why should I believe that "God exists"?"
is any "better" of a question than:
"Why should I disbelieve that "God exists"?"
So, you'll need an epistemological starting point, a worldview or set
of axioms that you accept as true without proof. This was so famously
articulated by Aristotle as the philosophy of "first principles"[2]:
* "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
follows from them."[3]
I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
accurate[4] I believe would be:
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principles
[3] http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics
[4] though not Aristotle's position ...
Drafterman
Jul 8, 2008, 11:55:24 AM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
In the spirit of a new beginning, I'll attempt rational discourse.
On Jul 8, 11:25 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So the big question is, starting with a knowledge base of 0 items,
> > what is the measure by which we take items from the set of concepts
> > not yet accepted as true, and change their membership to the set of
> > concepts accepted as true?
>
> We'll make a presuppositionalist from you yet ... ;D
>
> > Some main methods are deductive, inductive,
> > and abductive logic, each with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately
> > they do not help in establishing a starting point. We must create a
> > foundation of axioms. While these are all interesting and worthy
> > issues to discuss I feel that I have digressed enough already. The
> > point of this post can be phrased simply:
>
> > Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
> > from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
> > concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
>
> Except that if you have really and truly started from a knowledge base
> of 0 items (John Locke tried it and failed with his tabula rasa[1]),
> you don't have an item with which to assert that one premise:
>
> "Why should I believe that "God exists"?"
>
> is any "better" of a question than:
>
> "Why should I disbelieve that "God exists"?"
This was answered in the part of my post you left out (a habit I would
recommend you drop as it is counterproductive).
"We cannot, either logically or practically, accept all, or even a lot
of those possible concepts."
Just because we start with a knowledge base of 0 does not mean we must
remain there. Obviously the above statement is an addtion to the
knowledge base: a need for some filtering method by which we accept
knowledge. If you disagree with the statement, I ask that you address
it, rather than cut it out.
There has to be a default starting place and there has to be a method
that we can use to move from that starting place. Based on my previous
statement, that starting place has to be "not yet accepted as true".
Thus all methodology will be determinations of how we move from "not
yet accepted as true" to "accepted as true". All questions pertaining
to knowledge will necessarily be in the form "Why should we believe in
X".
"Why should we believe in God" is merely an example of this. It is
better because it is the only valid choice.
To accept the existence of God without a reason raises the question as
to why you don't accept other things without reason. To avoid special
pleading you must present said reason which will only bring us back to
the question of "Why should we believe in God." It is unavoidable.
>
> So, you'll need an epistemological starting point, a worldview or set
> of axioms that you accept as true without proof.
That is a bit misleading, given the flexible nature in which the term
"proof" is colloqially used. To avoid equivocation I think
clarification is in order.
Axioms are accepted as true without having been logically proven. That
is not to say there needn't be evidence (proof) to support the axiom.
Nor does it mean there cannot be a reason why an axiom must be
accepted.
> This was so famously
> articulated by Aristotle as the philosophy of "first principles"[2]:
>
> * "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
> follows from them."[3]
>
> I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
> intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
> accurate[4] I believe would be:
>
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
I see no reason to accept your axiom. Do you have one?
On Jul 8, 11:25 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So the big question is, starting with a knowledge base of 0 items,
> > what is the measure by which we take items from the set of concepts
> > not yet accepted as true, and change their membership to the set of
> > concepts accepted as true?
>
> We'll make a presuppositionalist from you yet ... ;D
>
> > Some main methods are deductive, inductive,
> > and abductive logic, each with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately
> > they do not help in establishing a starting point. We must create a
> > foundation of axioms. While these are all interesting and worthy
> > issues to discuss I feel that I have digressed enough already. The
> > point of this post can be phrased simply:
>
> > Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
> > from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
> > concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
>
> Except that if you have really and truly started from a knowledge base
> of 0 items (John Locke tried it and failed with his tabula rasa[1]),
> you don't have an item with which to assert that one premise:
>
> "Why should I believe that "God exists"?"
>
> is any "better" of a question than:
>
> "Why should I disbelieve that "God exists"?"
recommend you drop as it is counterproductive).
"We cannot, either logically or practically, accept all, or even a lot
of those possible concepts."
remain there. Obviously the above statement is an addtion to the
knowledge base: a need for some filtering method by which we accept
knowledge. If you disagree with the statement, I ask that you address
it, rather than cut it out.
There has to be a default starting place and there has to be a method
that we can use to move from that starting place. Based on my previous
statement, that starting place has to be "not yet accepted as true".
Thus all methodology will be determinations of how we move from "not
yet accepted as true" to "accepted as true". All questions pertaining
to knowledge will necessarily be in the form "Why should we believe in
X".
"Why should we believe in God" is merely an example of this. It is
better because it is the only valid choice.
To accept the existence of God without a reason raises the question as
to why you don't accept other things without reason. To avoid special
pleading you must present said reason which will only bring us back to
the question of "Why should we believe in God." It is unavoidable.
>
> So, you'll need an epistemological starting point, a worldview or set
> of axioms that you accept as true without proof.
"proof" is colloqially used. To avoid equivocation I think
clarification is in order.
Axioms are accepted as true without having been logically proven. That
is not to say there needn't be evidence (proof) to support the axiom.
Nor does it mean there cannot be a reason why an axiom must be
accepted.
> This was so famously
> articulated by Aristotle as the philosophy of "first principles"[2]:
>
> * "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
> follows from them."[3]
>
> I would note a slight disagreement with that statement, namely, that
> intuitive knowledge, if existentially based, is not tenable. More
> accurate[4] I believe would be:
>
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
Brock Organ
Jul 8, 2008, 12:26:50 PM7/8/08
to debater...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
>> > from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
>> > concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
>>
>> Except that if you have really and truly started from a knowledge base
>> of 0 items (John Locke tried it and failed with his tabula rasa[1]),
>> you don't have an item with which to assert that one premise:
>>
>> "Why should I believe that "God exists"?"
>>
>> is any "better" of a question than:
>>
>> "Why should I disbelieve that "God exists"?"
>
> This was answered in the part of my post you left out
>> > Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
>> > from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
>> > concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
>>
>> Except that if you have really and truly started from a knowledge base
>> of 0 items (John Locke tried it and failed with his tabula rasa[1]),
>> you don't have an item with which to assert that one premise:
>>
>> "Why should I believe that "God exists"?"
>>
>> is any "better" of a question than:
>>
>> "Why should I disbelieve that "God exists"?"
>
> This was answered in the part of my post you left out
I show with this example question that it is an error to believe one
can make any evaluation of "goodness" from a tabula rasa, and the
method or algorithm to use to establish goodness itself is under
question. :)
> "We cannot, either logically or practically, accept all, or even a lot
> of those possible concepts."
>
> Just because we start with a knowledge base of 0 does not mean we must
> remain there. Obviously the above statement is an addtion to the
> knowledge base: a need for some filtering method by which we accept
> knowledge.
But it is precisely the objective force behind the filtering method
that is in question. It goes to the heart of measuring "goodness".
:)
> There has to be a default starting place and there has to be a method
> that we can use to move from that starting place.
I think the point of examining the standard that measures all other
standards hinges around this very point. So even your choice of
"default starting place" has profound implications for your
epistemology. And of course, you'll have to examine why your choice
of "default starting place" is "better" than a Christian default
starting place, for example. :)
> Thus all methodology will be determinations of how we move from "not
> yet accepted as true" to "accepted as true".
But as your standard you are simply articulating an individual
preference. Or, as Protagoras put it so famously:
"Man is the measure of all things"[1]
But on what basis should such a methodology be adequate for discerning
the objective truth of a proposition?
(And at a higher level, one questions the sufficiency of methodology
as a means for discerning objective truth :) )
Regards,
Brock
Drafterman
Jul 8, 2008, 12:33:40 PM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
Sorry Brock, but if you cannot refrain from cutting out parts of my
posts then I will refuse to converse with you. Good Day.
On Jul 8, 12:26 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras- Hide quoted text -
posts then I will refuse to converse with you. Good Day.
On Jul 8, 12:26 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
Jul 8, 2008, 12:43:14 PM7/8/08
to debater...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry Brock, but if you cannot refrain from cutting out parts of my
> posts then I will refuse to converse with you. Good Day.
>
> Sorry Brock, but if you cannot refrain from cutting out parts of my
> posts then I will refuse to converse with you. Good Day.
Protagoras will be disappointed. :)
Regards,
Brock
rappoccio
Jul 8, 2008, 3:56:26 PM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 8, 7:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans, innately, are curious creatures.
> We have this built-in desire
> to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
> always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
> sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
> desire to have a *right* answer.
think that if they pretend that they have a complete answer to the
questions, then it's better than admitting that they have some ideas,
but no concrete answer. That somehow a bunch of nonsense is preferable
to an honest reply.
> To add to this, once people have an
> answer that resonates with them, and appeals to them emotionally, it
> is hard for them to let go despite any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This is why religious debates are so hard and heated. We are dealing
> with an emotionally appealing belief that has been reinforced over
> years and years. There is this impression of a statute of limitations
> on scrutiny and since religions have coasted by, it should now be
> accepted as the default and the burden of proof shifted.
>
> The main problem I have when involved in a religious belief is the
> immense size of the issue. It's hard to pick a place to start, and
> once you do, whomever you are arguing with can simply go off on some
> tangent and, on instinct, you follow, participating on a wild goose
> chase where nothing gets accomplished. Should you eventually do get
> something accomplished, you still have hundreds of other points to
> make. Such that any success you do attain is lost and forgotten, the
> debate doomed to be repeated.
skepticism" aren't required classes in high school curricula. I think
they should be, actually. Alongside of world religions, we teach
people how absurd many of their claims are right off the bat. At least
then religionists will have a common basis for why we expect them to
have the burden of proof.
the dialog, it should be apparent that the religionist has made all
the assumptions that the atheist has done, and then added more.
Simon had a long stream of posts where he promised a quasi-
mathematical (or at least plausible) determination for whether or not
the probability that God exists could ever be shown to be greater than
50%. I showed him precisely what he needed to demonstrate for this to
be true, but ultimately there was no possible way to do this. Maybe I
should write that up and put it in the "Pages" section.
So if religionists are being honest, they will realize that the best
they could do is "agnosticism". And that's about it.
Great post, Dman ;)
Drafterman
Jul 8, 2008, 4:04:39 PM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 8, 3:56 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 7:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans, innately, are curious creatures.
>
> Some of us are, anyway ;)
>
> > We have this built-in desire
> > to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
> > always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
> > sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
> > desire to have a *right* answer.
>
> Excellent point. I see it all the time with religionists. Somehow they
> think that if they pretend that they have a complete answer to the
> questions, then it's better than admitting that they have some ideas,
> but no concrete answer. That somehow a bunch of nonsense is preferable
> to an honest reply.
It is the stigma of admitting ignorance. People feel stupid without
> On Jul 8, 7:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans, innately, are curious creatures.
>
> Some of us are, anyway ;)
>
> > We have this built-in desire
> > to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
> > always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
> > sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
> > desire to have a *right* answer.
>
> Excellent point. I see it all the time with religionists. Somehow they
> think that if they pretend that they have a complete answer to the
> questions, then it's better than admitting that they have some ideas,
> but no concrete answer. That somehow a bunch of nonsense is preferable
> to an honest reply.
answers and are highly motivated to present any response to a
question, even if that response does not answer the question. Then
pride and ego kick in, and then they adhere to that response.
"I don't know" is not a bad answer, nor is it an invitation for anyone
else to simply make up an answer.
>
>
>
>
>
> > To add to this, once people have an
> > answer that resonates with them, and appeals to them emotionally, it
> > is hard for them to let go despite any evidence to the contrary.
>
> > This is why religious debates are so hard and heated. We are dealing
> > with an emotionally appealing belief that has been reinforced over
> > years and years. There is this impression of a statute of limitations
> > on scrutiny and since religions have coasted by, it should now be
> > accepted as the default and the burden of proof shifted.
>
> > The main problem I have when involved in a religious belief is the
> > immense size of the issue. It's hard to pick a place to start, and
> > once you do, whomever you are arguing with can simply go off on some
> > tangent and, on instinct, you follow, participating on a wild goose
> > chase where nothing gets accomplished. Should you eventually do get
> > something accomplished, you still have hundreds of other points to
> > make. Such that any success you do attain is lost and forgotten, the
> > debate doomed to be repeated.
>
> Yes, it's unfortunate. Too bad "rational thinking" and "healthy
> skepticism" aren't required classes in high school curricula. I think
> they should be, actually. Alongside of world religions, we teach
> people how absurd many of their claims are right off the bat. At least
> then religionists will have a common basis for why we expect them to
> have the burden of proof.
skill and it seems that the trend is to move away from that. (For
example, Driver's ed is no longer taught in most schools).
>
> So if religionists are being honest, they will realize that the best
> they could do is "agnosticism". And that's about it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
rappoccio
Jul 8, 2008, 4:23:29 PM7/8/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 8, 3:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 3:56 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Humans, innately, are curious creatures.
>
> > Some of us are, anyway ;)
>
> > > We have this built-in desire
> > > to learn about our environment and to find answers to the questions we
> > > always seem to have on the tips of our tongues. Unfortunately,
> > > sometimes the desire to have an answer is impuslive and overwhelms the
> > > desire to have a *right* answer.
>
> > Excellent point. I see it all the time with religionists. Somehow they
> > think that if they pretend that they have a complete answer to the
> > questions, then it's better than admitting that they have some ideas,
> > but no concrete answer. That somehow a bunch of nonsense is preferable
> > to an honest reply.
>
> It is the stigma of admitting ignorance. People feel stupid without
> answers and are highly motivated to present any response to a
> question, even if that response does not answer the question. Then
> pride and ego kick in, and then they adhere to that response.
>
> "I don't know" is not a bad answer, nor is it an invitation for anyone
> else to simply make up an answer.
curriculum for my kids on my own ;)
Drafterman
Jul 22, 2008, 1:29:12 PM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
Could I get this topic stickied? I think it is an important issue to
try and get theists to articulate why we must accept the existence of
a god and am interested in discussing the issue (sans dishonest
manipulation of my replies).
try and get theists to articulate why we must accept the existence of
a god and am interested in discussing the issue (sans dishonest
manipulation of my replies).
Belly Bionic
Jul 22, 2008, 1:37:58 PM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
Done and done!
Drafterman
Jul 22, 2008, 1:44:30 PM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
Thanks!
> > manipulation of my replies).- Hide quoted text -
Alan Wostenberg
Jul 26, 2008, 1:13:56 PM7/26/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 8, 5:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should I take the concept "God exists" and change its membership
> from the set of concepts not yet accepted as true to the set of
> concepts accepted as true? Why should I believe that a god exists?
believe any other proposition: we think it's true. We should not
believe this or any other proposition for the sake of some reward, or
utility, or pleasant emotion. No instructed person believes in God,
heaven, or hell because of reward in the afterlife or pleasant
feelings in this life. Truth is it's own reward.
Drafterman
Jul 26, 2008, 1:55:36 PM7/26/08
to Debate.Religion
looking for something that can show, a priori, why I should come to
that conclusion.
Reuben
Aug 10, 2008, 6:22:42 AM8/10/08
to Debate.Religion
The mind is not a very useful instrument in approaching the matter of
God. Starting with mind is already making a presumption that Reality
can be apprehended with mind. If Reality cannot be apprehended with
the mind, then all of this discussion is futile. When we stop
thinking, what is revealed is much closer to Reality than all of this
debate. Seems to me rather presumptuous to think that a debate on a
blog is going to come up with Reality. Better to consider what those
who have actually gone through a process of Realization (or
Enlightenment) have to say, at least as a starting point.
Reuben
God. Starting with mind is already making a presumption that Reality
can be apprehended with mind. If Reality cannot be apprehended with
the mind, then all of this discussion is futile. When we stop
thinking, what is revealed is much closer to Reality than all of this
debate. Seems to me rather presumptuous to think that a debate on a
blog is going to come up with Reality. Better to consider what those
who have actually gone through a process of Realization (or
Enlightenment) have to say, at least as a starting point.
Reuben
Reuben
Aug 10, 2008, 6:32:10 AM8/10/08
to Debate.Religion
To speak in terms of God exists or God does not exist implies that you
have some idea of what God is? Do you really? Why not debate whether
Schloggs exists or not.
Actually it possible to know that God exists in one's direct
experience -- more real than the fingers I am typing with. But it is
not a Creator God, not the God of monotheistic religion, not the God
that is a separate other. God is not "a God". When one experiences
God, only God exists. Everything is being lived by God. Not
separately, like a puppet master and a puppet. But like the ocean and
its waves. Doing what is necessary to experience this and ultimately
to live in this Reality is much more interesting to me than debating
whether or not God exists.
Reuben
have some idea of what God is? Do you really? Why not debate whether
Schloggs exists or not.
Actually it possible to know that God exists in one's direct
experience -- more real than the fingers I am typing with. But it is
not a Creator God, not the God of monotheistic religion, not the God
that is a separate other. God is not "a God". When one experiences
God, only God exists. Everything is being lived by God. Not
separately, like a puppet master and a puppet. But like the ocean and
its waves. Doing what is necessary to experience this and ultimately
to live in this Reality is much more interesting to me than debating
whether or not God exists.
Reuben
Old-Fogey
Aug 18, 2008, 4:21:55 PM8/18/08
to Debate.Religion
I am new to this group and have been reading somewhat of the posts
here and this one got my interest. I am just an old man who has spent
some time asking questions like "Who am I? . Why am I here? " and now
especially "Where am I going?" and "How do I know what I know?"
The statement "Actually it possible to know that God exists in one's
direct
> experience..." rang a bell with me because the perspective of time and experience has led me to be able to say I know/believe? God exists and act on that knowledge/belief? in full confidence.
In my experience with logical thinking by itself, doing so has failed
me many times as one always seems to find a more logical argument. I
have had too may people say it can't be done or it is/isn't true and
over time it has been done or has been proven true/not true. I
believe trust in one's experience in certain things is more reliable
than logical arguments etc.
There very words we use are experiential in nature and mean different
things to different people because of the way thay have experience
life. We act or don't act upon our knowledge and we suffer the
consequences of the act which teaches us something - perhaps to act in
a different way and to feel in a different way. Your actions are
different frm my actions. Your knowledge is different from my
knowledge. Your word are not the same as my words. Your world is not
my world, Why is this so? is this reality?
Old-Fogey making just some thoughts'
here and this one got my interest. I am just an old man who has spent
some time asking questions like "Who am I? . Why am I here? " and now
especially "Where am I going?" and "How do I know what I know?"
The statement "Actually it possible to know that God exists in one's
direct
> experience..." rang a bell with me because the perspective of time and experience has led me to be able to say I know/believe? God exists and act on that knowledge/belief? in full confidence.
In my experience with logical thinking by itself, doing so has failed
me many times as one always seems to find a more logical argument. I
have had too may people say it can't be done or it is/isn't true and
over time it has been done or has been proven true/not true. I
believe trust in one's experience in certain things is more reliable
than logical arguments etc.
There very words we use are experiential in nature and mean different
things to different people because of the way thay have experience
life. We act or don't act upon our knowledge and we suffer the
consequences of the act which teaches us something - perhaps to act in
a different way and to feel in a different way. Your actions are
different frm my actions. Your knowledge is different from my
knowledge. Your word are not the same as my words. Your world is not
my world, Why is this so? is this reality?
Old-Fogey making just some thoughts'
Drafterman
Aug 18, 2008, 5:48:02 PM8/18/08
to Debate.Religion
On Aug 10, 6:32 am, Reuben <reube...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To speak in terms of God exists or God does not exist implies that you
> have some idea of what God is? Do you really? Why not debate whether
> Schloggs exists or not.
You are right, I can only debate the existence of things that have
> To speak in terms of God exists or God does not exist implies that you
> have some idea of what God is? Do you really? Why not debate whether
> Schloggs exists or not.
some sort of definition. But providing that definition is up to the
people suggesting its existence.
>
> Actually it possible to know that God exists in one's direct
> experience -- more real than the fingers I am typing with. But it is
> not a Creator God, not the God of monotheistic religion, not the God
> that is a separate other. God is not "a God". When one experiences
> God, only God exists. Everything is being lived by God. Not
> separately, like a puppet master and a puppet. But like the ocean and
> its waves. Doing what is necessary to experience this and ultimately
> to live in this Reality is much more interesting to me than debating
> whether or not God exists.
uninteresting to you. It is, however, interesting to me. Which is why
I presented this request.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages