EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I don’t know it. >>>[/quote]I believe you do[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But if there is no Logos, then there is no point beginning a sentence with “how do you know…”
actually, there is no point arguing, debating, discussing, speaking or even thinking.
At all.
Yet, we all do it. >>>[/quote]Yes, this is a VERY similar form of my own argument and it indicates to me that you DO know there is an infinite intellect as I said above.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Some of us believe in accordance with their actions. Others do not.
That’s all. >>>[/quote]Yes to this for now as well. You mean by it that everybody is unchangeably bound to that infinite intellect and those who recognize it live in accordance with their beliefs and skeptics live in accordance with your beliefs too while refusing to acknowledge that they are.

[quote]Tiribulus revises Bertrand Russell (author of “Why I am not a Christian”) like so:
“Skepticism, while emotionally soothing, is both psychologically and logically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincere timidity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it”[/quote][quote]kamui wrote:IIRC, I had some kind of “Descartesque” experience when i was 12 years old.
Radical scepticism. doubting the veracity of all my perceptions, ideas and beliefs. >>[/quote]I tell you no lie. I had a very similar experience at about that same age LOL!! I kid you not. I used to wonder if I or anything else REALLY existed.[quote]kamui wrote:

I didn’t “rediscovered” the “Cogito ergo sum” because all concepts, including the “I” concept, were doubtful for me at this point.

there was only one certainty : “something is thinking”.

That led me to the idea of an absolute intellect.

And actually, I never thought about equating that with the God of the catechism.
This God was way too human in my eyes. It sounded like another of those Gods i had read about in mythology books. A Zeus deprived of his family and pantheon. Nothing like an “absolute intellect”.

Blame it on Homer and Hesiod. [/quote] Which catechism? Wow. The similarity of our experiences ended with the same doubts then. I just pushed it outta my mind and concentrated on having fun. “Something is thinking”. You didn’t consider that “things” don’t think. An impersonal intellect? I’m not making fun. I’m honestly wondering. That is pretty eastern and arbitrary like I was telling Bodyguard. I also read the idea of being, will and action being the same aspects of somebody’s deity, but I cannot remember who’s. Maybe it was in Madame Blavatsky’s “secret doctrine”. Not sure though. Is this being conscious? Or is consciousness also melded into the will and being? I have a feeling you’ve spent a good deal of time thinkin about this.

142

550×661 51.7 KB

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<< How many converts have you won here? The “lord’s” work indeed. I think not. [/quote]None that I know of, but I’m pretty sure there will be at lest one and I may never find out about them in this life. Maybe there will never be any. Not my call. I would however not be shocked if you turned out to be one. Rohnyn struck me that way too. The God I know just loves to save fountains of vitriol like you.

One day it’s “RAWR RAWR SNAP SNARL SPIT N SNOT” at the mention of the Lord’s name and then Jesus comes along with the power of that blood and resurrection and they’re on their knees. Pitiful n sobbing. NOT fighting, but crying out in grateful, humble, willing repentant surrender. I know and know of people who hated God much more than you that this exact scenario was made reality for. That’s how He likes to work ya know. I’m actually being quite serious.

143

Interesting thread. A lot to pick up from here.

Honestly Trib, I’ve got respect for you, but there’s so much verbage in your post I get completely lost until kamui restates what you say in a succinct and concise form.

And I too kinda had that nothing is certain ‘belief system’ if you can call that. It was that atheism-o-phobia trilogy thread that I started that got me thinking that as Kamui put it, there is an ‘absolute intellect’. Whoever knew that people I’ve never seen in real life on the ‘interwebs’ could influence me so much. I’m a stronger person knowing that there is an absolute intellect from which an absolute morality is derived.

Maybe I’ll have something smart to say or questions to ask in this thread. Carry on.

144

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Honestly Trib, I’ve got respect for you, but there’s so much verbage in your post I get completely lost until kamui restates what you say in a succinct and concise form. >>>[/quote]Point taken, but he’s not exactly restating what I say. In any case I AM taking seriously these criticisms from people.

145

Stating that there is “an absolute intellect” is nonsense. Furthermore, the condition that without this Logos any kind of discussion of assertion of knowledge is pointless is equally nonsense.

Religion, God and Logos are substitutes for ignorance. A fire of the mind by which you warm the cold recesses of space.

“I am a wrong, dude?”,

“No Walter, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole”

146

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Stating that there is “an absolute intellect” is nonsense. Furthermore, the condition that without this Logos any kind of discussion of assertion of knowledge is pointless is equally nonsense.[/quote]

If you don’t acknowledge the existence of the Logos, why do you keep calling its name ?

[quote]
Religion, God and Logos are substitutes for ignorance. A fire of the mind by which you warm the cold recesses of space.[/quote]

what’s your actual experience of the “cold recesses of space” ? How exactly do you deal with that on a daily basis ?

147

Catholic cathechism.
My mother is a catholic and she wanted a religious education for her children.
My father, an atheist who was raised a protestant, didn’t object.
Btw, i kept attending catechism on my own will, a few years after i became an atheist myself.

[quote]
The similarity of our experiences ended with the same doubts then. I just pushed it outta my mind and concentrated on having fun.[/quote]

It was a fun experience until i tried to really act in accordance with it. At this point, the experience became pretty painful. Quite schizophrenic indeed.
I wanted to see if scepticism was “psychologically possible”, to re-use Russell’s words. And no, it’s definitely not.

Are you sure they don’t ?

[quote]
An impersonal intellect? I’m not making fun. I’m honestly wondering. That is pretty eastern and arbitrary like I was telling Bodyguard.[/quote]

Anyway, at this point of the experience, the word “I”, the concept of a person was still doubtful, and therefore forbidden. Too complex, too composite to be used.
There was some thought, and more importantly, some truth.
the subject and the object and all their dialectic, came after.

[quote]
I also read the idea of being, will and action being the same aspects of somebody’s deity, but I cannot remember who’s. Maybe it was in Madame Blavatsky’s “secret doctrine”. Not sure though.[/quote]

I don’t know enough about Blavatsky doctrine to answer this. .

[quote]
Is this being conscious? Or is consciousness also melded into the will and being? I have a feeling you’ve spent a good deal of time thinkin about this.[/quote]

Being conscious is perceiving a change. or a difference.
An eternal principle doesn’t change.

148

Ya know I gotta special place in my heart for ya don’t ya Ephrem? You ARE capable of better than this. I’ve seen it. You cling to your meaningless skepticism like an old worn out baby blanket. You KNOW you could not formulate one thought to type on your computer that also could never have been invented IF 2+2 did not equal 4 for absolutely certain. You KNOW this. Yes you do. Don’t ya? That being the case you also KNOW that that certainty runs your life and that it was here long before you were. You can’t even respond to this post without assuming that.

I hold with that very certainty itself that this is the image of God that remains in you answering to HIS created order. Kamui does not. He does however recognize that if there is no universally defining and yes determining “principle” entirely devoid of contingency on absolutely every level that dictates reality to us, then 2+2 might not actually equal 4 after all and everything we are and every we do descends into unintelligibility. Even your objections.

He won’t like this, but I believe that the almighty God who in the beginning commanded matter into existence from nothing has him by the shirt, feet dangling, staring Him right in the face, nose to nose, but he still won’t see Him for who He is. It disappoints me to see you get abusive like this Ephrem. You are simply wrong which has nothing whatever to do with intelligence.

149

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I don’t know it. >>>[/quote]I believe you do[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But if there is no Logos, then there is no point beginning a sentence with “how do you know…”
actually, there is no point arguing, debating, discussing, speaking or even thinking.
At all.
Yet, we all do it. >>>[/quote]Yes, this is a VERY similar form of my own argument and it indicates to me that you DO know there is an infinite intellect as I said above.
[/quote]

Yes. I do know it as a principle. At a “pre-axiomatic” level, so to speak.

But i don’t know it in the way Bodyguard intended it and asked me. By definition, deductive knowledge only works with/for derived truthes, not primary ones.

150

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Interesting thread. A lot to pick up from here.

Honestly Trib, I’ve got respect for you, but there’s so much verbage in your post I get completely lost until kamui restates what you say in a succinct and concise form.

And I too kinda had that nothing is certain ‘belief system’ if you can call that. It was that atheism-o-phobia trilogy thread that I started that got me thinking that as Kamui put it, there is an ‘absolute intellect’. Whoever knew that people I’ve never seen in real life on the ‘interwebs’ could influence me so much. I’m a stronger person knowing that there is an absolute intellect from which an absolute morality is derived.

Maybe I’ll have something smart to say or questions to ask in this thread. Carry on.[/quote]

I remember that, Fletch, and I watched with interest your transformation. A couple of times, later on, I found myself saying, “hey, didn’t he used to be an atheist or something?”

151

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Yes. I do know it as a principle. At a “pre-axiomatic” level, so to speak. >>>[/quote]Yes, the unprovable first principle that proves all others. I understand.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But i don’t know it in the way Bodyguard intended it and asked me. By definition, deductive knowledge only works with/for derived truthes, not primary ones.[/quote]I understand this too and agree. You KNOW your first unverifiable principle of necessity by a faith without which none of the “derived truthes”(everything else) could so much as even be conceived of. =] You are right there man.

152

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Stating that there is “an absolute intellect” is nonsense. Furthermore, the condition that without this Logos any kind of discussion of assertion of knowledge is pointless is equally nonsense.[/quote]

If you don’t acknowledge the existence of the Logos, why do you keep calling its name ?

What is Logos’ name I keep calling?

Loneliness, a lack of belonging, both of which can be cured by human interaction.

153

It’s easy to go on in circles like this T, but if you believe that 2+2=4 is enough reason to believe in the god of Abraham then by all means, be my guest.

154

695×231 35 KB

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< What is Logos’ name I keep calling? >>>[/quote]You’re calling the wrong number. He always answers the right number because you only got it by Him calling first.

155

It’s easy to go on in circles like this T, but if you believe that 2+2=4 is enough reason to believe in the god of Abraham then by all means, be my guest.[/quote]You do realize that you have not so much as even taken a stab at explaining where all this certainty you’re enslaved to comes from right? I’m enslaved to it too btw. So is everybody else. Groo ( http://tnation.T-Nation.com/hub/groo ) quite rightly told us that. So don’t take it the wrong way.

156

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s easy to go on in circles like this T, but if you believe that 2+2=4 is enough reason to believe in the god of Abraham then by all means, be my guest.

[/quote]

truth exists independent of someones opinion. Let me state right now, that the son of the God of Abraham came as proof. Jesus said “I AM” not “I think I am”. When people wanted proof he was God, he gave it to them [raising the dead, healing, his epic sermons etc]. However, he was was still rejected. Look, God came down as a sacrifice and as proof. If he did the same today [which he will] people still wont accept it. man is so proud, that he judges proof to his own accord. to put it simply, christ and faith are not opinions, they are higher forms of truth than scientific knowledge. Positivism and scientific knowledge are only a deductive means of validating truth. You cannot do a calculus problem using arithmetic. Likewise, you cannot solve or understand God exclusively with something like logic. To know God, you have to equip yourself with wisdom [which is not the same as secular reason or logic]. Seek and you’ll find. If you seek to not find God, then you will not find God.

157

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

It’s easy to go on in circles like this T, but if you believe that 2+2=4 is enough reason to believe in the god of Abraham then by all means, be my guest.[/quote]You do realize that you have not so much as even taken a stab at explaining where all this certainty you’re enslaved to comes from right? I’m enslaved to it too btw. So is everybody else. Groo ( http://tnation.T-Nation.com/hub/groo ) quite rightly told us that. So don’t take it the wrong way.
[/quote]

By logic you mean laws of physics? Why is the universe ordered the way it is?

Do you realise that the universe is in constant flux and that, over the eons, the universe will become uninhabitable to life as we know it?

In my view, the universe is not the way it is because god made it right for us; we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is.

We look for meaning and purpose and find nothing but indifference. You make it palatable by believing in a higher purpose and divine intervention.

This is your prerogative, but you base it on an unproven assumption: god.

This is where it breaks down for me. I simply cannot accept this one simple act: believing in that one unproven assumption.

We best leave it at this T, it simply can’t go any further.

158

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s easy to go on in circles like this T, but if you believe that 2+2=4 is enough reason to believe in the god of Abraham then by all means, be my guest.

[/quote]

truth exists independent of someones opinion. Let me state right now, that the son of the God of Abraham came as proof. Jesus said “I AM” not “I think I am”. When people wanted proof he was God, he gave it to them [raising the dead, healing, his epic sermons etc]. However, he was was still rejected. Look, God came down as a sacrifice and as proof. If he did the same today [which he will] people still wont accept it. man is so proud, that he judges proof to his own accord. to put it simply, christ and faith are not opinions, they are higher forms of truth than scientific knowledge. Positivism and scientific knowledge are only a deductive means of validating truth. You cannot do a calculus problem using arithmetic. Likewise, you cannot solve or understand God exclusively with something like logic. To know God, you have to equip yourself with wisdom [which is not the same as secular reason or logic]. Seek and you’ll find. If you seek to not find God, then you will not find God. [/quote]

Thank you for your time and effort to write this out, but as I said to Tiribulus, I’m unable to make that leap of faith.

159

[quote]By logic you mean laws of physics? Why is the universe ordered the way it is?

Do you realise that the universe is in constant flux and that, over the eons, the universe will become uninhabitable to life as we know it?[/quote]

I don’t see the counter-argument.

-No life doesn’t mean no order.
-An uninhabitable universe is not an unintelligible universe. Actually, the very fact we can scientifically predict its future inhabitability proves it is intelligible.
-A constant flux isn’t incompatible with a first principle.
Ask the taoists :wink:

[quote]
In my view, the universe is not the way it is because god made it right for us; we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is.[/quote]

I agree with this.

I do look for meaning but i don’t look for purpose. That’s not the same thing.
But in any way, i find nothing but differences. An endless, constant flux of differences.

Now, if you want to understand Tiribulus’s perspective, you should try to follow the same speculative path without supposing in advance that he was only seeking a superdaddy in the sky.

160

It’s the old “tree in the forest” problem. Is there order without someone to perceive order?

Tiribulus’ cultural imprint guided him to the god of Abraham, and in all honesty I can’t deny the possibility that a first cause exists. If this first cause exists it, by definition, is unknowable. It certainly isn’t a personal, antropomorphic, entity with a specific will and intent.

For me personally, this notion [the personal god] is devoid of impetus or motivation.