Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[Hedshaker]

Agreed. We handle the world with gloves, those gloves are that interface between our perception and the objective reality out there. Some people's gloves are very thick and lack various levels of sensitivity to what is really out there. The thickness of those gloves for each individual seems to be influenced, to a great degree, by certain chosen belief systems.

Yes :thumb:

We have no idea what form energy may have been pre Big Bang, or if time had meaning we could understand in our limited perception. But the notion of everything coming from nothing just doesn't compute for me.

Still, after all is said and done, we just don't know and probably never will. And I accept that.

 

[PureX]

Agreed. We handle the world with gloves, those gloves are that interface between our perception and the objective reality out there. Some people's gloves are very thick and lack various levels of sensitivity to what is really out there. The thickness of those gloves for each individual seems to be influenced, to a great degree, by certain chosen belief systems.

… And by their own courage and curiosity.

But that's very nicely articulated!

 

[PureX]

Yes :thumb:

We have no idea what form energy may have been pre Big Bang, or if time had meaning we could understand in our limited perception. But the notion of everything coming from nothing just doesn't compute for me.

Still, after all is said and done, we just don't know and probably never will. And I accept that.

We don't really even know what energy 'is'. I mean, it's the fundamental phenomena of the phenomena of existence, but beyond saying that (and we can't even be sure that's true), we really have no idea what it is, or why it's limited in the ways in which it's limited. Yet it's those limitations that dictate the nature and character of everything that exists. Because everything that exists is an expression of that energy.

When we get down to it, we really know very little about our own existence.

 

[Hedshaker]

We don't really even know what energy 'is'. I mean, it's the fundamental phenomena of the phenomena of existence, but beyond saying that (and we can't even be sure that's true), we really have no idea what it is, or why it's limited in the ways in which it's limited. Yet it's those limitations that dictate the nature and character of everything that exists. Because everything that exists is an expression of that energy.

When we get down to it, we really know very little about our own existence.

Agreed. But we do know that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created but can change form. It would be pure speculation to assume that has ever been any different.

But yeah, we have much to learn and, according to the scheme of things, limited time.

 

[PureX]

Agreed. But we do know that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created but can change form. It would be pure speculation to assume that has ever been any different.

But that's only true within the universe. Where time and causality also rule. Once we speculate about existence beyond the universe, all the "rules" become speculative as well.

But yeah, we have much to learn and, according to the scheme of things, limited time.

It's a daunting thought. But then again, it also gives us a 'higher' purpose. Which we seem to need.

 

[alwight]

What makes you think you have to convince yourself? I am not 'convinced'. I just choose to live according to my need and understanding of that which exceeds me. And barring any reasonable evidence to the contrary, I believe this is logical and reasonable to do. If you note my description, the "higher power" is simply that which fulfills and exceeds me. So it's to that which I turn when my own power is not enough.

"Convinced" doesn't imply an absolute, I only require that I am convinced enough to believe more than disbelieve.
For me the idea of "choosing" what is to be believed as a personal agenda is simply presupposing what is true and not the truth by discovery. Truth should perhaps emerge from the experience of it, be arrived at, unearthed, uncovered, doubted, probed, tested but is there really any point in presupposing what is true?

I learned this in AA. There were a lot of folks there who didn't believe in any gods. Yet one of the 12 steps requires that the alcoholic "turn himself over" to his "higher power". And it was explained that the higher power didn't have to be a religious "god", necessarily, it just had to be a power greater than themselves. For example, an alcoholic that can stay sober has a 'power' that an alcoholic that can't, lacks. So "turning one's self over" to that 'higher power' simply meant asking the sober alcoholic how they do it, and then following their directions. Perfectly sensible.

I can accept that some bad situations (say) addiction may well need something more than ordinary willpower to dig your way out of, that you may need a rigid methodology, because that is arguably better than staying where you are. It doesn't matter if it's actually true or not if it only needs to work. However if you are not in that situation then I personally would find what you're saying to be unsatisfactory and perhaps delusional, even if it continues to work for you.

In time I developed a conception of this "higher power" that embodied other aspects of my own limitations. Like the limits of my knowledge, the limits of my wisdom, and of my patience, and my forgiveness, and my self-sufficiency, and my courage, and so on. So it's to the embodiment of those "higher powers" that I turn when I find myself lacking. I call the embodiment of those powers, "God", simply because that's the traditional word for it in my language, and I have no animus against that word (as some people do). I even allow myself to conceive of this embodiment of the 'higher powers" as a being, sometimes, simply because it's conceptually easier and more convenient for me to do that. But it's not a requirement. And I often do not conceive of "God" as a 'being'.

That all seems a bit needy for me, but maybe I'll be surprised one day but I see no particular reason why I should believe that our worst fears are not justified. Just face it, we may be as high a power as it gets in a personal entity.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to point out the reality behind the religious mythologies and dogmas. And how they work for people. The human imagination is by far our greatest and most powerful tool. We would be fools not to use it to our best advantage simply because it transcends the limitations of physical reality. In fact, it's that very transcendence that, to my mind, makes it all the more "real", in that it is the engine that powers our whole concept of reality. What we call "reality" is an IMAGINED reality, created in our minds, based on our experience of actual reality.

Imagination is the heart and soul of our human experience and understanding. Yes, it needs to be tested against physical reality to keep it from running away with itself. But without it, we wouldn't really even be human, anymore. We'd just be some sort of biological automaton, living by instinct and blind habit.

This is why when atheists dismiss "God" as being 'imaginary', I think they're being very, very naive. Because everything we conceive of we human conceive of through our imagination. Imagination is how our minds function.

So what? We have an imagination and can imagine all kinds of stuff, we can imagine the opposite of what is true without it becoming true. Imagination is great for fiction or for working out the possibilities of a situation, how to trap prey perhaps, or defend ourselves, but until it actually happens then it is just not true.

 

[Hedshaker]

But that's only true within the universe. Where time and causality also rule. Once we speculate about existence beyond the universe, all the "rules" become speculative as well.

I guess we just can't help it being the curious species we are. I'm no scientist but I suspect many breakthroughs started off in someone's imagination. It's only when rigid dogmatism rears its ugly head I object. A little harmless speculation is probably unavoidable but we can only know what we do actually know for now, as mind blowing and frustrating as that is.

It's a daunting thought. But then again, it also gives us a 'higher' purpose. Which we seem to need.

This is what I find so exciting about science. It's messy, slow, open to abuse and imperfect but I can't think of a better method for chinking away at the deeper mysteries of reality while keeping both feet on the ground, so to speak.

I suppose it's understandable why so many people find comfort in a belief system though (not pointing any fingers). They're just not for me :think:

 

[PureX]

For me the idea of "choosing" what is to be believed as a personal agenda is simply presupposing what is true and not the truth by discovery. Truth should perhaps emerge from the experience of it, be arrived at, unearthed, uncovered, doubted, probed, tested but is there really any point in presupposing what is true?

We know that there are lots of 'powers' in this world that are greater than we can muster (abilities/possibilities/realizations/etc.). And we also know there are huge aspects of existence that we know little or nothing about, but that exist nevertheless. And together, these cause us to be confronted by our own significant limitations, like it or not. And often with some danger and suffering thrown in for good measure.

But what if there were a way to use this recognition of our own shortcomings, and this recognition of that which is greater than ourselves, to help us overcome some of those shortcomings? Wouldn't it be reasonable to try it? And once we've tried it, and found that it actually does help us to overcome some of our shortcomings, wouldn't we want to continue doing it, and perhaps recommend it to others?

And what does the "truth" have to do with any of this?

I, personally, have little interest in searching for "truth". We humans live in an illusion of our own making, and can "know the truth" only by relative and imaginary 'drips and drabs', anyway. So I'm interested in what works; for me and for humanity in general. To me, that's the only "truth" that matters. I have found that trusting in a "higher power", depending on how we imagine those powers to manifest, can work to help us overcome some of our own 'all-to-human' shortcomings. So I say, let's use it!

I can accept that some bad situations (say) addiction may well need something more than ordinary willpower to dig your way out of, that you may need a rigid methodology, because that is arguably better than staying where you are. It doesn't matter if it's actually true or not if it only needs to work. However if you are not in that situation then I personally would find what you're saying to be unsatisfactory and perhaps delusional, even if it continues to work for you.

But why would you say that if you have no evidence or proof that it's "untrue"?

I agree with you, when people begin to confuse their "higher power" with archaic mythological god-stories, or worse, with their own egos. Because that perverts the process and creates poor and sometimes absurd results. But the abuse of the process doesn't negate it's value, or it's function. Just it's purpose. Which seems to be what a lot of atheists think, and proclaim.

That all seems a bit needy for me, but maybe I'll be surprised one day but I see no particular reason why I should believe that our worst fears are not justified. Just face it, we may be as high a power as it gets in a personal entity.

I sincerely hope not! :shocked:

So what? We have an imagination and can imagine all kinds of stuff, we can imagine the opposite of what is true without it becoming true. Imagination is great for fiction or for working out the possibilities of a situation, how to trap prey perhaps, or defend ourselves, but until it actually happens then it is just not true.

When exactly do you think "trapping the prey" starts to "happen"? Doesn't it start with imagining the prey trapped, so we don't have to chase it down? And then imagining how that trap might look, and how it might perhaps function? We humans are not very effective at chasing after prey. We're awkward and clumsy, and slow. We have tiny teeth and no claws. Without our imagination we couldn't even survive as predators. We needed our imaginations to invent tools that could compensate for our shortcomings. Tools that could give is speed by confining the prey, and give us claws made out of sharpened sticks, and give us teeth that could easily tear flesh once it was cooked on a fire.

Imagination is EVERYTHING to us. We have always used it to make ourselves more and better than we are. The god-concept is just another tool we can use to do that. And millions of people do use it to do that. And that is the "truth" of it. The only truth of it that matters, really.

 

[PureX]

I guess we just can't help it being the curious species we are. I'm no scientist but I suspect many breakthroughs started off in someone's imagination. It's only when rigid dogmatism rears its ugly head I object. A little harmless speculation is probably unavoidable but we can only know what we do actually know for now, as mind blowing and frustrating as that is.



This is what I find so exciting about science. It's messy, slow, open to abuse and imperfect but I can't think of a better method for chinking away at the deeper mysteries of reality while keeping both feet on the ground, so to speak.

I suppose it's understandable why so many people find comfort in a belief system though (not pointing any fingers). They're just not for me :think:

Science is fascinating, to be sure. But for me, art is the more amazing human endeavor. Mostly because it's not constrained by reason, and can therefor explore avenues and produce results that science can't. But then I suppose that's it's "Achilles heel", too: it can't be quantified/commodified/and therefor "verified".

 

[noguru]

… And by their own courage and curiosity.

But that's very nicely articulated!

Courage and curiosity pretty much determines a person's belief system. The most cowardly feel they need to entrench themselves in a foxhole, clinging very tightly to only what others in that same foxhole tell them. Thereby minimizing their own sensitivity to reality. It is really just another form of isolating. The wealthy do it because they are protecting their financial interests. They have been told that they should only rub shoulders with other similarly wealthy folks, because people with less money will try to take it from them. Some on the religious right do it out of an irrational fear of going to hell. They have been told that those not like them might influence them away from their current beliefs.

 

[alwight]

For me the idea of "choosing" what is to be believed as a personal agenda is simply presupposing what is true and not the truth by discovery. Truth should perhaps emerge from the experience of it, be arrived at, unearthed, uncovered, doubted, probed, tested but is there really any point in presupposing what is true?

We know that there are lots of 'powers' in this world that are greater than we can muster (abilities/possibilities/realizations/etc.). And we also know there are huge aspects of existence that we know little or nothing about, but that exist nevertheless. And together, these cause us to be confronted by our own significant limitations, like it or not. And often with some danger and suffering thrown in for good measure.

But what if there were a way to use this recognition of our own shortcomings, and this recognition of that which is greater than ourselves, to help us overcome some of those shortcomings? Wouldn't it be reasonable to try it? And once we've tried it, and found that it actually does help us to overcome some of our shortcomings, wouldn't we want to continue doing it, and perhaps recommend it to others?

And what does the "truth" have to do with any of this?

Don't you care if what you believe or assume to be true actually is true?
I do btw.

I, personally, have little interest in searching for "truth". We humans live in an illusion of our own making, and can "know the truth" only by relative and imaginary 'drips and drabs', anyway. So I'm interested in what works; for me and for humanity in general. To me, that's the only "truth" that matters. I have found that trusting in a "higher power", depending on how we imagine those powers to manifest, can work to help us overcome some of our own 'all-to-human' shortcomings. So I say, let's use it!

It doesn't seem to me that you care too much about testing what is apparently believed true, it only has to have some kind of perceived beneficial utilitarian or remedial action, perhaps for something undesirable from the real world and which only has to work but doesn't actually need to be true, and a delusion will do...?

I can accept that some bad situations (say) addiction may well need something more than ordinary willpower to dig your way out of, that you may need a rigid methodology, because that is arguably better than staying where you are. It doesn't matter if it's actually true or not if it only needs to work. However if you are not in that situation then I personally would find what you're saying to be unsatisfactory and perhaps delusional, even if it continues to work for you.

But why would you say that if you have no evidence or proof that it's "untrue"?

Why on earth would the onus be on me to prove a negative? :liberals:
If you want to argue to me that it is true then the onus is yours, otherwise remain cocooned in something arguably delusional that has perhaps nevertheless helped you but not me.

I agree with you, when people begin to confuse their "higher power" with archaic mythological god-stories, or worse, with their own egos. Because that perverts the process and creates poor and sometimes absurd results. But the abuse of the process doesn't negate it's value, or it's function. Just it's purpose. Which seems to be what a lot of atheists think, and proclaim.

I suspect that you want to have your own spiritual "reality" unsullied by religious doctrine and dogma. I too have also experienced my own kind of spiritual "reality", but to rationally conclude that it is in fact real and not just the normal workings of one mind I remain firmly unconvinced. If we experienced a common spiritual "reality" perhaps not centred on ourselves then that might be different.

That all seems a bit needy for me, but maybe I'll be surprised one day but I see no particular reason why I should believe that our worst fears are not justified. Just face it, we may be as high a power as it gets in a personal entity.

I sincerely hope not! :shocked:

How do you know that it isn't true and there is no divine plan on account of there being no divine entity?

So what? We have an imagination and can imagine all kinds of stuff, we can imagine the opposite of what is true without it becoming true. Imagination is great for fiction or for working out the possibilities of a situation, how to trap prey perhaps, or defend ourselves, but until it actually happens then it is just not true.

When exactly do you think "trapping the prey" starts to "happen"? Doesn't it start with imagining the prey trapped, so we don't have to chase it down? And then imagining how that trap might look, and how it might perhaps function? We humans are not very effective at chasing after prey. We're awkward and clumsy, and slow. We have tiny teeth and no claws. Without our imagination we couldn't even survive as predators. We needed our imaginations to invent tools that could compensate for our shortcomings. Tools that could give is speed by confining the prey, and give us claws made out of sharpened sticks, and give us teeth that could easily tear flesh once it was cooked on a fire.

You have simply stolen my argument as your own, of course there are many uses for our imagination, we wouldn't be here without it, but all that only confirms its utter inseparability from the workings of the human brain, not an indication of some other metaphysical place or higher power.

Imagination is EVERYTHING to us. We have always used it to make ourselves more and better than we are. The god-concept is just another tool we can use to do that. And millions of people do use it to do that. And that is the "truth" of it. The only truth of it that matters, really.

The god idea within human cultures seems to work, which brings me back to what I said before, Darwinian evolution has produced people who tend to believe in spiritual entities, perhaps because of the resulting social cohesion, not because of any actual divine truth, it only need work, not be true.

 

[PureX]

Don't you care if what you believe or assume to be true actually is true?

You mean that it "actually" works? Sure. That's what I've been saying. I'm not particularly interested in theoretical truth because I assume most of what we humans think is true is untrue to one degree or another, anyway. But if I/we act on a supposed truth, and it works for us, then I think we should accept the supposition as being true until it's proven otherwise.

Don't you?

It doesn't seem to me that you care too much about testing what is apparently believed true, it only has to have some kind of perceived beneficial utilitarian or remedial action, perhaps for something undesirable from the real world and which only has to work but doesn't actually need to be true, and a delusion will do…?

The 'test' is does the theory actually work. If it doesn't, then it's just a theory that doesn't work. If it does, then it's true until it's proven otherwise.

Why on earth would the onus be on me to prove a negative?

Because proclaiming something to be untrue (or "probably untrue") is making a claim, which then puts the onus on the claimant to verify. If the claimant can't reasonably verify his claim of untruth, then he shouldn't be proclaiming it.

If you want to argue to me that it is true then the onus is yours, …

I am not arguing that anything is true. Only that it works, and as long as it works it makes sense to treat is as being true. I don't really care about truth as some absolute theoretical. I only care about it to the extent that it works for me. Because as a human being, I cannot ascertain absolute theoretical truth. All I can ascertain is what works, here and now.

I suspect that you want to have your own spiritual "reality" unsullied by religious doctrine and dogma. I too have also experienced my own kind of spiritual "reality", but to rationally conclude that it is in fact real and not just the normal workings of one mind I remain firmly unconvinced. If we experienced a common spiritual "reality" perhaps not centred on ourselves then that might be different.

I don't think we get to dictate the conditions and criteria of a "spiritual reality". I think it is what it is, and all we get to do is perceive it to the extent that we are willing and able.

How do you know that it isn't true and there is no divine plan on account of there being no divine entity?

I don't. And neither does anyone else. But assuming there isn't doesn't work very well for me, while assuming there is, does. So I'm assuming there is. It would be silly for me not to. But don't mistake my assuming there is for knowing there is, or even thinking I know there is. Because I don't know there is, and I know I don't know there is.

You have simply stolen my argument as your own, of course there are many uses for our imagination, we wouldn't be here without it, but all that only confirms its utter inseparability from the workings of the human brain, not an indication of some other metaphysical place or higher power.

I have tried to explain that transcendence does not depend on separability, but you continue to fail to grasp this. I don't know what more I can do. The physical brain manifests consciousness, which in turn manifests ideas and concepts, that we then assemble into a whole "conceptual reality" that IS reality to us. Thus, a new "realm of existence" that, because it is founded in imagination, and because it is NOT physical, transcends the limitations of actual, physical reality. Yet even as it transcends actual, physical reality, it is still manifesting from within it. This new, transcendent realm of existence is different from actual, physical reality, but it is not "separate from" it.

The god idea within human cultures seems to work, which brings me back to what I said before, Darwinian evolution has produced people who tend to believe in spiritual entities, perhaps because of the resulting social cohesion, not because of any actual divine truth, it only need work, not be true.

Truth that doesn't actually work is only a theoretical truth. And as we are humans, it's also likely to be only half true if it's true at all. So I don't see much reason to put much stock in it. Do you?

 

[alwight]

Don't you care if what you believe or assume to be true actually is true?

You mean that it "actually" works? Sure. That's what I've been saying. I'm not particularly interested in theoretical truth because I assume most of what we humans think is true is untrue to one degree or another, anyway. But if I/we act on a supposed truth, and it works for us, then I think we should accept the supposition as being true until it's proven otherwise.

Don't you?

I think that I tend to have more interest in what actually is true than in a comforting illusion.
Maybe you don't have that much intention of putting a perceived truth to the test if an illusion feels good enough...?

It doesn't seem to me that you care too much about testing what is apparently believed true, it only has to have some kind of perceived beneficial utilitarian or remedial action, perhaps for something undesirable from the real world and which only has to work but doesn't actually need to be true, and a delusion will do…?

The 'test' is does the theory actually work. If it doesn't, then it's just a theory that doesn't work. If it does, then it's true until it's proven otherwise.

It's your life, just do what seems to work then.

Why on earth would the onus be on me to prove a negative?

Because proclaiming something to be untrue (or "probably untrue") is making a claim, which then puts the onus on the claimant to verify. If the claimant can't reasonably verify his claim of untruth, then he shouldn't be proclaiming it.

Nonsense, you can't shift the burden of proof that way. If I claim that you owe me a million dollars then would it be your job to show me that you didn't or mine to show that you do?

If you want to argue to me that it is true then the onus is yours, …

I am not arguing that anything is true. Only that it works, and as long as it works it makes sense to treat is as being true. I don't really care about truth as some absolute theoretical. I only care about it to the extent that it works for me. Because as a human being, I cannot ascertain absolute theoretical truth. All I can ascertain is what works, here and now.

What if it works for you but not for me, are there two truths or is it that you just don't care what is true so long as it works well enough?

I suspect that you want to have your own spiritual "reality" unsullied by religious doctrine and dogma. I too have also experienced my own kind of spiritual "reality", but to rationally conclude that it is in fact real and not just the normal workings of one mind I remain firmly unconvinced. If we experienced a common spiritual "reality" perhaps not centred on ourselves then that might be different.

I don't think we get to dictate the conditions and criteria of a "spiritual reality". I think it is what it is, and all we get to do is perceive it to the extent that we are willing and able.

Well, if we both independently went to the Grand Canyon (say) then we can both experience it in a similar way, right?

How do you know that it isn't true and there is no divine plan on account of there being no divine entity?

I don't. And neither does anyone else. But assuming there isn't doesn't work very well for me, while assuming there is, does. So I'm assuming there is. It would be silly for me not to. But don't mistake my assuming there is for knowing there is, or even thinking I know there is. Because I don't know there is, and I know I don't know there is.

Assume away then but I simply assume something doesn't exist until I am reasonably convinced otherwise. There are just too many spurious and vacuous claims around for me to try to work them all out.

You have simply stolen my argument as your own, of course there are many uses for our imagination, we wouldn't be here without it, but all that only confirms its utter inseparability from the workings of the human brain, not an indication of some other metaphysical place or higher power.

I have tried to explain that transcendence does not depend on separability, but you continue to fail to grasp this. I don't know what more I can do. The physical brain manifests consciousness, which in turn manifests ideas and concepts, that we then assemble into a whole "conceptual reality" that IS reality to us. Thus, a new "realm of existence" that, because it is founded in imagination, and because it is NOT physical, transcends the limitations of actual, physical reality. Yet even as it transcends actual, physical reality, it is still manifesting from within it. This new, transcendent realm of existence is different from actual, physical reality, but it is not "separate from" it.

For me one of the apparent physical functions of the brain involves an otherwise metaphysical thought process. I see no reason why such imaginings should be going on somewhere else outside the brain, while you haven't even begun to show how it could be so, therefore I don't see that the onus is mine to show that it isn't, I just assume that it isn't.

The god idea within human cultures seems to work, which brings me back to what I said before, Darwinian evolution has produced people who tend to believe in spiritual entities, perhaps because of the resulting social cohesion, not because of any actual divine truth, it only need work, not be true.

Truth that doesn't actually work is only a theoretical truth. And as we are humans, it's also likely to be only half true if it's true at all. So I don't see much reason to put much stock in it. Do you?

Doesn't all that rather subjectively depend on what is deemed to "work" rather than what is true?
The real truth doesn't care about our faulty perceptions of it since it is surely independent of human subjectivity.
It will still be the truth regardless of what we might like to think it is, because it is.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think that I tend to have more interest in what actually is true than in a comforting illusion.

And that's part of the problem with your position. You don't know what's true, but you assume the de facto worse case context. lain:

Nonsense, you can't shift the burden of proof that way. If I claim that you owe me a million dollars then would it be your job to show me that you didn't or mine to show that you do?

But shouldn't it be your job to actively pursue an answer to the contextual truth of existence instead of passively allowing it to come to you?

When someone says, "I don't believe but I'm open to being convinced." I can't help thinking of someone who is open to being employed if someone shows up at his house with a job.

Assume away then but I simply assume something doesn't exist until I am reasonably convinced otherwise. There are just too many spurious and vacuous claims around for me to try to work them all out.

That's even worse. Can't be bothered to determine what the actual cornerstone of your being is or should be?

You might reconsider priorities. And there really aren't that many competing ideas about God, only competing particulars.

For me one of the apparent physical functions of the brain involves an otherwise metaphysical thought process.

One of the things I found curiously amusing was the assumption of some who could trigger, in essence, a religious experience that doing so was proof that the experience (and God) is an invention of our biology. I suppose everyone is trapped in their bias to one extent or another.

Sorry for stomping around in your conversation for a moment. :e4e:

 

[quip]

But shouldn't it be your job to actively pursue an answer to the contextual truth of existence instead of passively allowing it to come to you?

Well, in regard to ontological, empirical skepticism...exactly what do you objectively suggest?

When someone says, "I don't believe but I'm open to being convinced." I can't help thinking of someone who is open to being employed if someone shows up at his house with a job.

Which is analogous as long as player two doesn't believe employment (conceptually) exists. That seems rather odd though.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, in regard to ontological, empirical skepticism...exactly what do you objectively suggest?

A different approach. Empiricism can't approach the question, so leaning on it is on par with attempting to change a flat tire by reading poetry.

Which is analogous as long as player two doesn't believe employment (conceptually) exists. That seems rather odd though.

It's analogous so long as the man doesn't know if there's a job or not to be had and we understand that if there is the impact of it would be life and context changing.

 

[gcthomas]

A different approach. Empiricism can't approach the question, so leaning on it is on par with attempting to change a flat tire by reading poetry.

Without empiricism, opinions on the matter remain just hopeful opinions. A billion people will have a billion different opinions, so the chance of being right is solely small. How many versions of a truth can there be before you start to wonder?

Unless you are happy with your personal guesses. :up:

 

[alwight]

I think that I tend to have more interest in what actually is true than in a comforting illusion.

And that's part of the problem with your position. You don't know what's true, but you assume the de facto worse case context. lain:

Well, thank you for pointing out my problem TH and what I assume too.
However when dealing with this life I think that priority should mainly go to that which is in some way noticeable for having at least some evidence to it. But yes if all there is, is an otherwise empty assertion from someone who probably has no more clue than I do about what is true, then I don't go and assume it is true anyway, so shoot me. I can always come up with my own unsupported metaphysical notions if I need any (and I probably have below..).

Nonsense, you can't shift the burden of proof that way. If I claim that you owe me a million dollars then would it be your job to show me that you didn't or mine to show that you do?

But shouldn't it be your job to actively pursue an answer to the contextual truth of existence instead of passively allowing it to come to you?

When someone says, "I don't believe but I'm open to being convinced." I can't help thinking of someone who is open to being employed if someone shows up at his house with a job.

TH, unlike you my deductive and processing powers are very limited and need to be rationed out. If I prefer to investigate only that which seems to have some signs of substance then yes I'm guilty.

You owe me a million dollars too btw, will you be investigating that or just going to settle up? :readthis:

Assume away then but I simply assume something doesn't exist until I am reasonably convinced otherwise. There are just too many spurious and vacuous claims around for me to try to work them all out.

That's even worse. Can't be bothered to determine what the actual cornerstone of your being is or should be?

You might reconsider priorities. And there really aren't that many competing ideas about God, only competing particulars.

Again obviously I don't have your copious capacity for investigating all forms of gods, instead I tend to limit myself to only those gods who seem to be having some physical effect on life as I know it. lain:

For me one of the apparent physical functions of the brain involves an otherwise metaphysical thought process.

One of the things I found curiously amusing was the assumption of some who could trigger, in essence, a religious experience that doing so was proof that the experience (and God) is an invention of our biology. I suppose everyone is trapped in their bias to one extent or another.

Sorry for stomping around in your conversation for a moment. :e4e:

If as I do you accept Darwinian evolution as a fact of life then nothing is off-limits, provided it is possible and it works. If the human line survived better for having some innate mental traits and perhaps including a tendency to accept a hierarchy, real, supposed or supernatural, then why not?
Have you never considered yourself to be a victim of Darwinian evolution before TH?

 

[PureX]

Without empiricism, opinions on the matter remain just hopeful opinions. A billion people will have a billion different opinions, so the chance of being right is solely small. How many versions of a truth can there be before you start to wonder?

Unless you are happy with your personal guesses. :up:

Empiricism does not define truth. Empirically arrived at opinions are still opinions. Empirically arrived at beliefs are still beliefs. And both are subject to being wrong. It's a fundamental tenet of science.

So it's ALL opinion. Empiricism is just one of the tools we can use to try and improve our accuracy and effectiveness. It's not the only tool, and it's not the perfect tool. It's just another tool.

 

[gcthomas]

Empiricism does not define truth. Empirically arrived at opinions are still opinions. Empirically arrived at beliefs are still beliefs. And both are subject to being wrong. It's a fundamental tenet of science.

So it's ALL opinion. Empiricism is just one of the tools we can use to try and improve our accuracy and effectiveness. It's not the only tool, and it's not the perfect tool. It's just another tool.

You seem unaware of the shades of grey in your black and white truth or opinion binary choice. It ranges from figment of imagination or 'private revalation' through causal, repeatable observation, ending with rigorous repeated observations that are consistent with a comprehensive theory.

Yes, in a sense they are all just opinions. But then again, that would be giving unreasonable levels of equivalence to the private revelation end of the scale, wouldn't it?