[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You know this how? >>>[/quote]By faith. I do not have faith in myself like you do. I am fully persuaded that I am an entirely unreliable source of ultimate knowledge and that the God who commands the cosmos to exist from nothing and sustains it every second has every answer. He tells me whatever I need to know and what he doesn’t tell me is not mine TO know. BTW, he “tells” me stuff in every last object of knowledge I encounter. Whether it be a blowing leaf or your posts or anything else.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You know this how? >>>[/quote]By faith. I do not have faith in myself like you do. I am fully persuaded that I am an entirely unreliable source of ultimate knowledge and that the God who commands the cosmos to exist from nothing and sustains it every second has every answer. He tells me whatever I need to know and what he doesn’t tell me is not mine TO know. BTW, he “tells” me stuff in every last object of knowledge I encounter. Whether it be a blowing leaf or your posts or anything else.
[/quote]
You described an intense emotional experience that converted you to your current beliefs.
Your faith is no different than the faith of people whose beliefs fundamentally contradict your own.
You have faith, they have faith, and none of it says squat about what is actually real.
That’s the problem with faith over evidence; it can be used to justify any belief because there is no standard of proof to back it up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< God is nowhere to be found in reality. God is only found hidden in the wishes, fears and desires of those who believe. >>>[/quote]God is the ULTIMATE and only uncontingent reality and hence one cannot even discuss whether he is found or not without already assuming Him. The scorn of sinners praises His name.
I didn’t forget about your question from the previous page.
[/quote]
You know this how?
Emotion <> Evidence
Your emotional experience is no more a reflection of reality than the emotional experiences of others whose beliefs fundamentally contradict yours.
It’s nice that it provides you comfort, structure, and direction…but so do their beliefs, and it doesn’t mean it’s real.[/quote]
But all human investigation of the world reduces at some point to an acceptance on faith, or a belief in somethat that can not be explained by the human process of investigation.
We have to believe that our experience of the natural world are more or less similar. We have to assume that our logical constructs are valid, that our language has capacity to produce viable logical syllogisms, that our senses work, that the Universe is accessable. In a dream you may believe something to be true and internally consistent, and you may be unable in that dream state to show otherwise.
Our faith that scientific inquiry works reasonably well is faith in something that we can’t explain.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Our faith that scientific inquiry works reasonably well is faith in something that we can’t explain.[/quote]
What does this mean? The ‘scientific method’ is a clearly defined set of rules that leaves little to the imagination. What is taken on faith exactly?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You know this how? >>>[/quote]By faith. I do not have faith in myself like you do. I am fully persuaded that I am an entirely unreliable source of ultimate knowledge and that the God who commands the cosmos to exist from nothing and sustains it every second has every answer. He tells me whatever I need to know and what he doesn’t tell me is not mine TO know. BTW, he “tells” me stuff in every last object of knowledge I encounter. Whether it be a blowing leaf or your posts or anything else.
[/quote]
You described an intense emotional experience that converted you to your current beliefs.
Your faith is no different than the faith of people whose beliefs fundamentally contradict your own.
You have faith, they have faith, and none of it says squat about what is actually real.
That’s the problem with faith over evidence; it can be used to justify any belief because there is no standard of proof to back it up.[/quote]
Unless another emotion arises that is greater than the religious emotive experience, everything that happens fuels the religious emotive experience.
Not reason, nor facts, nor proof, not honesty even will ever sway Tiribulus from his beliefs, and altough there may be some benefit in doing this, we are only strengthening his beliefs and ideas.
And vice versa.
It’s also becoming tiresome.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Our faith that scientific inquiry works reasonably well is faith in something that we can’t explain.[/quote]
What does this mean? The ‘scientific method’ is a clearly defined set of rules that leaves little to the imagination. What is taken on faith exactly?[/quote]
I wrote already basically that we have faith that our brains are working! That our language is capable of describing nature precisely enough, that my experience of the world today is similar to yesterday and not just an illusion, AND also that we have the ability to design falsefiable experiments. If we don’t have free will then we can’t assume that our experiments are truly falsefiable because our conclusions would be predetermined.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Our faith that scientific inquiry works reasonably well is faith in something that we can’t explain.[/quote]
What does this mean? The ‘scientific method’ is a clearly defined set of rules that leaves little to the imagination. What is taken on faith exactly?[/quote]
I wrote already basically that we have faith that our brains are working! That our language is capable of describing nature precisely enough, that my experience of the world today is similar to yesterday and not just an illusion, AND also that we have the ability to design falsefiable experiments. If we don’t have free will then we can’t assume that our experiments are truly falsefiable because our conclusions would be predetermined. [/quote]
No, we don’t need faith for knowing our brains work. If our brains don’t work, we’d know [or not in case of death]. I think this notion that we need faith to experience everyday life is silly and a lame attempt to inject a religious idea into the mainstream in order to give it legitimacy. I dismiss this idea as invalid.
An experiment is designed to prove an idea. If that fails, the idea is rejected. If the experiment proves the idea, e.i. it works, and the experiment can be reproduced under the same circumstances, then lovely.
That’s it. Nothing more needed. Free will is a bullshit concept in regards to questioning the validity of science. You are intellectually dishonest. For shame.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< God is nowhere to be found in reality. God is only found hidden in the wishes, fears and desires of those who believe. >>>[/quote]God is the ULTIMATE and only uncontingent reality and hence one cannot even discuss whether he is found or not without already assuming Him. The scorn of sinners praises His name.
I didn’t forget about your question from the previous page.
[/quote]
You know this how?
Emotion <> Evidence
Your emotional experience is no more a reflection of reality than the emotional experiences of others whose beliefs fundamentally contradict yours.
It’s nice that it provides you comfort, structure, and direction…but so do their beliefs, and it doesn’t mean it’s real.[/quote]
But all human investigation of the world reduces at some point to an acceptance on faith, or a belief in somethat that can not be explained by the human process of investigation.
We have to believe that our experience of the natural world are more or less similar. We have to assume that our logical constructs are valid, that our language has capacity to produce viable logical syllogisms, that our senses work, that the Universe is accessable. In a dream you may believe something to be true and internally consistent, and you may be unable in that dream state to show otherwise.
Our faith that scientific inquiry works reasonably well is faith in something that we can’t explain.[/quote]
All of that said, when I flip the light switch, it turns on and the light is objectively measurable with a spectroscope. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can do exactly the same thing, and see exactly the same result. No faith required.
Beliefs based on faith alone are nothing more than wishful thinking based on emotional experiences and social programming. Without evidence to support the belief, it says nothing about reality, no matter how personally rewarding it is to the believer.
Of course forlife ignores the rich history of Christianity. Various archeological digs, the Dead Sea scrolls ancient writings, and many, many other finds that varify what we believe today about Christianity. He phrases his arguments in a way which are demeaning to Christianity. And he does this because he has an agenda.
Free will gets called a BS concept because there is no way to deal with it.
There is, you can deny free will-that’s fine too.
All I’m saying is that if you believe in free will, then you believe in something that can’t be circumscribed by scientific theory.
If you don’t then why ask any questions at all? Why try to convince others? I guess you are just observing your predetermined actions.
Quantum Mechanics says the universe is not deterministic, and even if thats on the micro scale, sensitive dependance on initial conditions (butterfly effect) says that the micro scale produces the macro scale. If its not deterministic, there are two possibilities. 1 Our consciousness can effect our actions, or 2 we just THINK that our consciousness has affected our actions, (it may still be non-deterministic but subject to mere probability). In the first case, we have a mechnism that is unbounded by science, and in the second case we admit that our perception is an illusion.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Free will gets called a BS concept because there is no way to deal with it.
There is, you can deny free will-that’s fine too.
All I’m saying is that if you believe in free will, then you believe in something that can’t be circumscribed by scientific theory.
If you don’t then why ask any questions at all? Why try to convince others? I guess you are just observing your predetermined actions.
Quantum Mechanics says the universe is not deterministic, and even if thats on the micro scale, sensitive dependance on initial conditions (butterfly effect) says that the micro scale produces the macro scale. If its not deterministic, there are two possibilities. 1 Our consciousness can effect our actions, or 2 we just THINK that our consciousness has affected our actions, (it may still be non-deterministic but subject to mere probability). In the first case, we have a mechnism that is unbounded by science, and in the second case we admit that our perception is an illusion.
[/quote]
Free will used as a concept to question science is bullshit. A strawman.
I don’t believe in free will, and i don’t see any reason why i couldn’t ask questions because of that. I ask questions because i want information. Where does free will come in?
I’d say perception is an illusion, and that reality exceeds our senses. But no matter how you want to slice this, if i jump off the roof of a 54 story building and hit the pavement at terminal velocity: i’m dead.
I don’t need faith to know that.
If you do, i’d say there’s something wrong with you.
What I described had nothing to do with emotions. I was there.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Free will gets called a BS concept because there is no way to deal with it.
There is, you can deny free will-that’s fine too.
All I’m saying is that if you believe in free will, then you believe in something that can’t be circumscribed by scientific theory.
If you don’t then why ask any questions at all? Why try to convince others? I guess you are just observing your predetermined actions.
Quantum Mechanics says the universe is not deterministic, and even if thats on the micro scale, sensitive dependance on initial conditions (butterfly effect) says that the micro scale produces the macro scale. If its not deterministic, there are two possibilities. 1 Our consciousness can effect our actions, or 2 we just THINK that our consciousness has affected our actions, (it may still be non-deterministic but subject to mere probability). In the first case, we have a mechnism that is unbounded by science, and in the second case we admit that our perception is an illusion.
[/quote]
Free will used as a concept to question science is bullshit. A strawman.
I don’t believe in free will, and i don’t see any reason why i couldn’t ask questions because of that. I ask questions because i want information. Where does free will come in?
I’d say perception is an illusion, and that reality exceeds our senses. But no matter how you want to slice this, if i jump off the roof of a 54 story building and hit the pavement at terminal velocity: i’m dead.
I don’t need faith to know that.
If you do, i’d say there’s something wrong with you.
[/quote]
I mean your responses come off as being purely emotional. Science can describe limitations on free will-do this and you will probably die. I can have free will, but my free will does not allow me to walk on the ceiling. It does let me decide what words to type on a page.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Free will used as a concept to question science is bullshit. A strawman.
I don’t believe in free will, and i don’t see any reason why i couldn’t ask questions because of that. I ask questions because i want information. Where does free will come in?
I’d say perception is an illusion, and that reality exceeds our senses. But no matter how you want to slice this, if i jump off the roof of a 54 story building and hit the pavement at terminal velocity: i’m dead.
I don’t need faith to know that.
If you do, i’d say there’s something wrong with you.
[/quote]
I mean your responses come off as being purely emotional. Science can describe limitations on free will-do this and you will probably die. I can have free will, but my free will does not allow me to walk on the ceiling. It does let me decide what words to type on a page.[/quote]
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Signing off.
E
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Credit goes to Pat for the idea of this thread in the Bible Contradictions 2.0 thread.
It has become evident that on a few of the discussions I have had with people on these forums and some people I have conversations with at college that the world views of scientism and skepticism philosophical speaking are far more prevalent that I would have thought them to be.
Now me rejecting scientism and skepticism as tenable worldviews doesn’t mean I hate science or claim that I have the ability to know everything. I am a senior getting his BSc in chemistry(might change it to biochemistry), and know(justified belief(I know how some people hate this word without cause.)) that certain things like the Truth is certain and knowable. Yet I know the limits of science and what it can tell me; and holding that nothing is certain leads one to the most irrational conclusions.
Anyways the dialog that will occur here will certainly be most entertaining to me and most likely use a lot of my time; I must return to my studies and do my differential equations homework.[/quote]
Grassy Ass!
Science is both fallible and limited. Science is reactionary not causal, it can only tell us about the state of things, not their meaning. Further, science even in it’s most careful execution can only infer causal relationships, which makes it correlation at best. Thirdly, you can never isolate all variables in an experiment or observation, so there is always a margin of error. That’s why statistical math is required to show that results are valid, because pure deduction is impossible.
Science is beautiful, but people put to much stake in it and draw to many conclusions from it’s results, that may or may not be true.
Science is a great tool for the physical world, but truth lies in deduction. Deduction deals with absolutes. Absolutes are elusive to science…
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Starting with an unproven assumption, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that the assumption is false, is not what I would call the relentless pursuit of knowledge.[/quote]So when are you gonna knock it off?
[/quote]
Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.
In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]
Oh FL…How do you know the light switch is real? How do you know anything is real?
If I hallucinated a light switch and turned it on and off with my hand felt it and observed it, would it be real? How do you know?
Perception is damning. We can all observe the something, use the same words to describe it, but we cannot know that the perception I have as the same as you…
It sounds childish, but it’s really a problem. You cannot know reality beyond your perception. You can only rely on deductive truths as absolutes, perception cannot change those.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.
Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]Autonomous man in all his glory =]
[/quote]
I thought you believed in predetermination? Freewill does not exist if true.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What I described had nothing to do with emotions. I was there.[/quote]
Imbuing your emotions and subconscious thoughts with another name (i.e., spiritual witness, voice of god, etc.) doesn’t change where they actually come from.
You keep dodging the point. How do you explain millions of others with equally powerful “spiritual” experiences, yet with core beliefs that fundamentally contradict your own?
How do you explain the Pats, Brother Chrises, etc. of the word? Are their spiritual experiences misguided? Are they from the devil? Why are their conclusions false, despite having deeply powerful spiritual experiences of their own?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Starting with an unproven assumption, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that the assumption is false, is not what I would call the relentless pursuit of knowledge.[/quote]So when are you gonna knock it off?
[/quote]
Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.
In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]
Oh FL…How do you know the light switch is real? How do you know anything is real?
If I hallucinated a light switch and turned it on and off with my hand felt it and observed it, would it be real? How do you know?
Perception is damning. We can all observe the something, use the same words to describe it, but we cannot know that the perception I have as the same as you…
It sounds childish, but it’s really a problem. You cannot know reality beyond your perception. You can only rely on deductive truths as absolutes, perception cannot change those.[/quote]
My problem with this line of reasoning is that it is based on the false premise that unless we know everything with absolute certainty, we know nothing, and might as well believe in whatever we want. Any child can see the flaw in that logic, but religionists use it all the time.
Tiribulus is 100% convinced that predeterminism is real. Is he correct, or does his belief fail to reflect reality?
Yes, we could all be ephemeral subjects in a pink unicorn’s eternal dream, but are you really going to argue that possibility is as likely as the possibility that electricity causes the light to turn on when I flip the switch?
Some ideas are more likely than others, and the best tools we have for judging those ideas are the tools of logic, reason, and hard empirical evidence. Everything else is fantasy, until proven otherwise.
A complete history of the universe, from the Big Bang to the Internet, in 18 minutes
