Why Did God Create......

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Your utter confidence in your god is unwarranted, because you do not and cannot know everything.[/quote]

It’s not unwarrented in the sense baseless. I, and I am sure tirib does too, base it on faith. But there is a relationship there, it’s not a one way street. God answers my prayers, shows me his wisdom sometimes and communicates with me. Not ever in a sense I could prove, but I just know it. It works, it just does.[/quote]

But that’s the point. You can’t “just know it”. According to the truth, you can’t “just know” anything with absolute certainty, unless you actually do know everything.

In order to know ANYTHING for certain, you would have to know EVERYTHING.

How is it possible to know one’s religion is the true one when there are in fact a number of competing ideologies all claiming the same thing? Simple. You were exposed to yours.

If you were brought up Islam those beliefs would be true for you at least for a time, because the mechanisms of the mind that dictate our social conformity are for the most part dominant over our reasoning capacity. The very act of “learning” is social conformity.

From the perspective of evolution it makes much more sense to go with the flow than to question it, and confirmation bias let’s you interpret anything as “evidence”. People change or abandon faith more often than not when they feel it facilitates an integration into a group which is more beneficial to survival. This notion usually comes from the broader suite of beliefs one can have outside of religion.

Where societies are allowed to cross pollinate people are exposed to a broader suite of memes where each is thrown into greater doubt and they are allowed to compete at least partially on the virtue of their merits.

However, many will continue to “defer” to their group’s narratives and beliefs and spend their mental energy on confirmation bias for as long as they perceive their group to be fit, rather than engage in and profit from doubt.

There is this tendency for people to adopt political and metaphysical narratives and ideas rather than to leave the slate blank. I think this is also an evolutionary adaption to enable “reactionary” thinking which triggers quick and unified group responses in times of danger, rather than bouts of deliberation.

However, the majority of our problem scenarios can’t be resolved by thinking from one’s “common sense” or list of things “known”. One first has to have the humility to say that they do not understand how policy will affect society simply because the data set is enormous. Then we can use a system of trial and error to discover what works rather than defering to the “god complex” right at the beginning. The same can be said of the Economy, Child development, the human body, and all of our knowledge gaps.

It is unnecessary to have proxies for the unknown. In fact it’s much more comfortable to simply not know. So much living can be done with so little belief. A lot of people have got it in their heads that stuff has to have meaning beyond their evolutionary drives, but meaning is something we have created and continually recreate. In the end that means a lot more variety for one thing.

I’ll concede that the universe is miraculous. What makes energy energetic for example? A: It does that from nothing. I will not claim to know the name of the person responsible because he will more than likely be made up.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Your utter confidence in your god is unwarranted, because you do not and cannot know everything.[/quote]

It’s not unwarrented in the sense baseless. I, and I am sure tirib does too, base it on faith. But there is a relationship there, it’s not a one way street. God answers my prayers, shows me his wisdom sometimes and communicates with me. Not ever in a sense I could prove, but I just know it. It works, it just does.[/quote]

But that’s the point. You can’t “just know it”. According to the truth, you can’t “just know” anything with absolute certainty, unless you actually do know everything.

In order to know ANYTHING for certain, you would have to know EVERYTHING.[/quote]

Like I said, technically this is correct. I don’t have an argument to stand on here. This is based on faith alone. I couldn’t prove it if I tried.

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
How is it possible to know one’s religion is the true one when there are in fact a number of competing ideologies all claiming the same thing? Simple. You were exposed to yours.

If you were brought up Islam those beliefs would be true for you at least for a time, because the mechanisms of the mind that dictate our social conformity are for the most part dominant over our reasoning capacity. The very act of “learning” is social conformity.

From the perspective of evolution it makes much more sense to go with the flow than to question it, and confirmation bias let’s you interpret anything as “evidence”. People change or abandon faith more often than not when they feel it facilitates an integration into a group which is more beneficial to survival. This notion usually comes from the broader suite of beliefs one can have outside of religion.

Where societies are allowed to cross pollinate people are exposed to a broader suite of memes where each is thrown into greater doubt and they are allowed to compete at least partially on the virtue of their merits.

However, many will continue to “defer” to their group’s narratives and beliefs and spend their mental energy on confirmation bias for as long as they perceive their group to be fit, rather than engage in and profit from doubt.

There is this tendency for people to adopt political and metaphysical narratives and ideas rather than to leave the slate blank. I think this is also an evolutionary adaption to enable “reactionary” thinking which triggers quick and unified group responses in times of danger, rather than bouts of deliberation.

However, the majority of our problem scenarios can’t be resolved by thinking from one’s “common sense” or list of things “known”. One first has to have the humility to say that they do not understand how policy will affect society simply because the data set is enormous. Then we can use a system of trial and error to discover what works rather than defering to the “god complex” right at the beginning. The same can be said of the Economy, Child development, the human body, and all of our knowledge gaps.

It is unnecessary to have proxies for the unknown. In fact it’s much more comfortable to simply not know. So much living can be done with so little belief. A lot of people have got it in their heads that stuff has to have meaning beyond their evolutionary drives, but meaning is something we have created and continually recreate. In the end that means a lot more variety for one thing.

I’ll concede that the universe is miraculous. What makes energy energetic for example? A: It does that from nothing. I will not claim to know the name of the person responsible because he will more than likely be made up.[/quote]

hmmm, which question do you want answered. There’s a lot of different things to address here. I tell you what, if you change that horrendous avatar, I all answer everything. If you keep it, pick the question you want answered the most. :slight_smile:

I don’t know why, but I find that avatar really horrible and annoying.

[quote]<<< Elder forlife wrote:<<< Since you don’t know everything, you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING WITH CERTAINTY.

It doesn’t matter if you BELIEVE someone exists who actually does know everything with certainty.

THAT BELIEF, AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER BELIEF, IS SUBJECT TO THIS PROFOUND TRUTH. YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT BELIEF, OR ANY OTHER BELIEF, IS TRUE.>>> [/quote]Ya know why I stick around here? One of the reasons anyway? Because there are very smart people here whose unbelieving posts are a constant diet of fuel for my faith. Faith Fuel (new Twinlab product?)

I have the one and only exception to that dead end intellectual and spiritual trap Elder Forlife. The new life in Jesus long promised by God the father since Abraham does not consist in the willful consent to a set of religious propositions as you are erroneously (but quite standardly) assuming. It is the supernatural regeneration of the seat of a man’s being from death in sin to life in the risen Christ. A resurrection just as truly such as the raising of Lazarus of Bethany as reported in the 11th of the gospel of John. I am no longer subject to the autonomous limitations passed to us by the first man Adam. I am indwelt with the glorious resurrection life of the last Adam Christ Jesus. I don’t in myself know what my Father knows, but I know that He knows it. If I could prove that to you on your terms it would no longer be the Gospel.

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
How is it possible to know one’s religion is the true one when there are in fact a number of competing ideologies all claiming the same thing? Simple. You were exposed to yours.

If you were brought up Islam those beliefs would be true for you at least for a time, because the mechanisms of the mind that dictate our social conformity are for the most part dominant over our reasoning capacity. The very act of “learning” is social conformity.

From the perspective of evolution it makes much more sense to go with the flow than to question it, and confirmation bias let’s you interpret anything as “evidence”. People change or abandon faith more often than not when they feel it facilitates an integration into a group which is more beneficial to survival. This notion usually comes from the broader suite of beliefs one can have outside of religion.

Where societies are allowed to cross pollinate people are exposed to a broader suite of memes where each is thrown into greater doubt and they are allowed to compete at least partially on the virtue of their merits.

However, many will continue to “defer” to their group’s narratives and beliefs and spend their mental energy on confirmation bias for as long as they perceive their group to be fit, rather than engage in and profit from doubt.

There is this tendency for people to adopt political and metaphysical narratives and ideas rather than to leave the slate blank. I think this is also an evolutionary adaption to enable “reactionary” thinking which triggers quick and unified group responses in times of danger, rather than bouts of deliberation.

However, the majority of our problem scenarios can’t be resolved by thinking from one’s “common sense” or list of things “known”. One first has to have the humility to say that they do not understand how policy will affect society simply because the data set is enormous. Then we can use a system of trial and error to discover what works rather than defering to the “god complex” right at the beginning. The same can be said of the Economy, Child development, the human body, and all of our knowledge gaps.

It is unnecessary to have proxies for the unknown. In fact it’s much more comfortable to simply not know. So much living can be done with so little belief. A lot of people have got it in their heads that stuff has to have meaning beyond their evolutionary drives, but meaning is something we have created and continually recreate. In the end that means a lot more variety for one thing.

I’ll concede that the universe is miraculous. What makes energy energetic for example? A: It does that from nothing. I will not claim to know the name of the person responsible because he will more than likely be made up.[/quote]

Good post. Even atheism/agnosticism can be a socially reinforced meme, subject to confirmatory bias like religion. I think the most honest approach is to recognize our ignorance, and recognize the predisposition to confirmatory bias not only in others (which is easy to do), but most importantly in ourselves (far harder to do).

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Your utter confidence in your god is unwarranted, because you do not and cannot know everything.[/quote]

It’s not unwarrented in the sense baseless. I, and I am sure tirib does too, base it on faith. But there is a relationship there, it’s not a one way street. God answers my prayers, shows me his wisdom sometimes and communicates with me. Not ever in a sense I could prove, but I just know it. It works, it just does.[/quote]

But that’s the point. You can’t “just know it”. According to the truth, you can’t “just know” anything with absolute certainty, unless you actually do know everything.

In order to know ANYTHING for certain, you would have to know EVERYTHING.[/quote]

Like I said, technically this is correct. I don’t have an argument to stand on here. This is based on faith alone. I couldn’t prove it if I tried.[/quote]

Given that it is based on a belief which you can’t know to be true with certainty, do you truly acknowledge that your beliefs may not reflect reality?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]<<< Elder forlife wrote:<<< Since you don’t know everything, you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING WITH CERTAINTY.

It doesn’t matter if you BELIEVE someone exists who actually does know everything with certainty.

THAT BELIEF, AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER BELIEF, IS SUBJECT TO THIS PROFOUND TRUTH. YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT BELIEF, OR ANY OTHER BELIEF, IS TRUE.>>> [/quote]Ya know why I stick around here? One of the reasons anyway? Because there are very smart people here whose unbelieving posts are a constant diet of fuel for my faith. Faith Fuel (new Twinlab product?)

I have the one and only exception to that dead end intellectual and spiritual trap Elder Forlife. The new life in Jesus long promised by God the father since Abraham does not consist in the willful consent to a set of religious propositions as you are erroneously (but quite standardly) assuming. It is the supernatural regeneration of the seat of a man’s being from death in sin to life in the risen Christ. A resurrection just as truly such as the raising of Lazarus of Bethany as reported in the 11th of the gospel of John. I am no longer subject to the autonomous limitations passed to us by the first man Adam. I am indwelt with the glorious resurrection life of the last Adam Christ Jesus. I don’t in myself know what my Father knows, but I know that He knows it. If I could prove that to you on your terms it would no longer be the Gospel.
[/quote]

I’m not asking you to prove it on my terms. I’m just pointing out the inevitable conclusion of this profound premise, which we earlier agreed was the truth.

Either you believe the premise to be true or you don’t. If it’s impossible to have certainty about anything unless you know everything, then you cannot know you have been raised from death to life through Christ. You can believe it, you can have faith in it, but you cannot know it with certainty. You cannot “know that he knows it”. You cannot know anything at all with complete certainty.

Once you allow an exception to the premise, you deny its essential truth and might as well openly admit you don’t believe it. Once you say, “The premise is true EXCEPT when it come to my beliefs about god”, you close your eyes to the brilliant, all-encompassing, inescapable power of its essence.

Admitting our ultimate ignorance of all things is so frightening that the majority of people live their entire lives with their backs turned to this truth. Honestly, I get it and I don’t blame people for it. But I can also tell you that when you summon the courage to turn around and look this truth in the face, unblinking, you are filled with an amazing sense of gratitude, humility, and awe at the mystery of the universe and of life. Astonishingly, life doesn’t lose its meaning at all like you feared. You become a little child again, and life itself becomes all the more abundant.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…Even atheism/agnosticism can be a socially reinforced meme, subject to confirmatory bias like religion.

[/quote]

Of course it can. It IS a belief system as I have stated many times.

You’re going to push and push and push for this “recognition of ignorance and the predisposition to confirmatory bias”, aren’t you? You have this “faith” that “it” is the answer and your preach it like an evangelist.

If all of us including you are so ignorant and we know sooooo little how much authority can you assign to this “temperate” modicum of practicality of yours? This ethos of “Shucks, we can’t know everything so let’s all believe in nothing?” Maybe in your ignorance YOU in fact are wrong about everyone being ignorant?

Your logic, FL, spins in circles and incessantly bumps its head into brick walls. Then again come to think of it that is consistent with the gospel that you preach.[/quote]

If you read the thread, I was responding to a brilliant premise offered by Pat, and with which both Tiribulus and I heartily agreed. I’m only pointing out the inevitable conclusion of that premise. If you must know everything to have certainty of anything, then none of us can have certainty of anything.

However, I’ve also readily acknowledged that certainty is a continuum. Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean some beliefs aren’t more likely to be true than others. To the extent that they can be reliably predicted and replicated, while controlling for alternate explanations, we can place more confidence in them actually being true.

In the end though, claiming that you KNOW your particular beliefs are true is a sure sign of confirmatory bias. Nobody knows that their beliefs are true, and people are only deluding themselves if they claim otherwise.

Pat,
LOVE your Avatar!!

Wish Jer was still here.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Pat,
LOVE your Avatar!!

Wish Jer was still here.[/quote]

Word, me too. That was more fun than humans should be allowed to have…I’ll never forget it.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…Even atheism/agnosticism can be a socially reinforced meme, subject to confirmatory bias like religion.

[/quote]

Of course it can. It IS a belief system as I have stated many times.

You’re going to push and push and push for this “recognition of ignorance and the predisposition to confirmatory bias”, aren’t you? You have this “faith” that “it” is the answer and your preach it like an evangelist.

If all of us including you are so ignorant and we know sooooo little how much authority can you assign to this “temperate” modicum of practicality of yours? This ethos of “Shucks, we can’t know everything so let’s all believe in nothing?” Maybe in your ignorance YOU in fact are wrong about everyone being ignorant?

Your logic, FL, spins in circles and incessantly bumps its head into brick walls. Then again come to think of it that is consistent with the gospel that you preach.[/quote]

If you read the thread, I was responding to a brilliant premise offered by Pat, and with which both Tiribulus and I heartily agreed. I’m only pointing out the inevitable conclusion of that premise. If you must know everything to have certainty of anything, then none of us can have certainty of anything.

However, I’ve also readily acknowledged that certainty is a continuum. Just because we can’t know anything with absolute certainty doesn’t mean some beliefs aren’t more likely to be true than others. To the extent that they can be reliably predicted and replicated, while controlling for alternate explanations, we can place more confidence in them actually being true.

In the end though, claiming that you KNOW your particular beliefs are true is a sure sign of confirmatory bias. Nobody knows that their beliefs are true, and people are only deluding themselves if they claim otherwise.[/quote]

Ahhh…so we’re back to that oft disparaged word, “faith,” huh?[/quote]

If by faith you mean a probabilistic belief based on what is likely to be true, while fully acknowledging that it is only a belief that could be wrong, sure.

If by faith you mean complete and utter certitude that a belief must be true, without fully acknowledging that it is only a belief that could be wrong, no.

[quote]forlife wrote:
If you read the thread, I was responding to a brilliant premise offered by Pat, and with which both Tiribulus and I heartily agreed. [/quote]

To what are you refering to…I made several regarding this?

“Do not search for the truth;
only cease to cherish opinions.”

Seng-ts’an - 3rd Zen Partriarch

“To free yourself from all the error’s inherent in the truths we snatch at…”

Carl Jung

It would probably be missing the point to argue for these words, so I won’t.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

If by faith you mean a probabilistic belief based on what is likely to be true, while fully acknowledging that it is only a belief that could be wrong, sure.

If by faith you mean complete and utter certitude that a belief must be true, without fully acknowledging that it is only a belief that could be wrong, no.[/quote]

Why should I accept your above premise? You yourself said we can sure of nothing. That “nothing” would include the above.[/quote]

You don’t have to accept even the premise itself with absolute certitude. Doing so would be self-contradictory, like…asserting that all things have a cause but then claiming god doesn’t have a cause.

I’m open to the premise being wrong. Are you open to the premise being right?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
With no fundamental foundation NOTHING you come up with as just a mere mortal evolved humanoid animal can be trusted. Even your premise that nothing can be trusted can be trusted.

You have boxed yourself in, FL.[/quote]

See my last post.

The best we can due is gauge our certainty in proportion to the reliable evidence, while always being ready to learn, grow, and admit we could be mistaken.